Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Guest Guest_guest_

Global Warming

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I've heard Walter Block (Austrian economist) call them watermelons. Green on the outside, red on the inside.
:worry:

I think it would be good to keep in mind that many laymen consider themselves to be environmentalists and are no more socialistic than the average American. Both socialism and environmentalism are prevalent in today's culture. It may be beneficial to keep in mind that some "environmentalists" are open to rational dialog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK. Now, how do you decide whether someone is an environmentalist? On an ad hoc basis, simply because you don't like the data they've presented? :ninja:

At this point, the only way I would trust a so-called "scientist" would be if they declared openly that the environmental movement was evil/insane/badly mistaken.

NewYorkRoark, as I said, those links were only meant as examples, not as what I took to be the total proof. I am not interested in doing your research for you. You need to learn that all Environmentalists are not to be trusted. Period. I don't know how you have failed to grasp the degree of their malice toward mankind/civilization/happiness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The journal Science is a primary source. The journal of the Sierra Club is not. Neither is Scientific American.

Actually, not even all of "SCIENCE" is a primary source. Only the REPORTS are primary, not the REVIEWS or news or whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right!

Here is a link to factcheck.org's recent article on global warming..

So the majority of "respected scientific institutions" claim that global warming is happening and is man-made?

Meaningless!

The majority of "respected" climate-science institutions are hopelessly compromised by environmentalist ideology. They are unconcerned with facts, by their own admission.

Liro, why do you take these eco-freaks seriously?!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Science is a human enterprise, and as such, one's ideology pr religion or the desire for money, fame, recognition, etc. can get in the way of figuring out what the facts are. However, you can't just dismiss any scientific article as garbage simply because you don't like what it says. Primary literature is peer-reviewed by fellow scientists and editors, which means that other people in the field (often people who are rivals of sorts) have to approve of the paper before it can be published in a scientific journal. Primary literature is really the best that we have in terms of determining what the truth is. TommyEdison is right. Some junk gets through, but guess where the papers proving that it's junk are published? You guessed it - another primary source, usually the same journal so it can be read by everyone who read the junk paper.

The journal Science is a primary source. The journal of the Sierra Club is not. Neither is Scientific American. You don't have to have a PhD to publish scientific papers. As long as your data and reasoning are good, as deemed by others in the field, you can publish something. There are a lot of brilliant scientists who only have a bachelor's or master's degree.

Primary sources are not as reliable as many people think. My wife is a scientist and both publishes papers and reviews other papers. Her opinion is that many published papers, including in Science and Nature, get only cursory reviews and are of questionable validity. Nature in particular in known for publishing "cutting-edge" papers that later turn out to be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liro, why do you take these eco-freaks seriously?!?

First, Inspector, I do not assume that someone who publishes results in a peer-reviewed journal showing that the CO2 increases over the past two centuries is anthropogenic, or that global warming may be due to these increases, is an eco-freak. If I were writing a summary piece such as the factcheck.org article, I could also easily make a generalization that the 'majority of respected scientific insitutions' also believe evolution is true, and that would not be a meaningless statement.

Second, I resent your assumptions about my personal beliefs and attitudes, which probably stem more interactions we have had in former threads than from any evidence I have presented in this one. The factcheck.org article that I linked presented views from scientists on both sides who have conflicting ideas about whether global warming is anthropogenic, and if it is, what could be done about it.

Here was the main jist of that article:

1) There is a lot of alarmism about global warming from the same types of advertising groups that brought us "Smokey the Bear". (What we know about forest fires now is that they were due to the mismanagement of trying to prevent forest fires. Therefore, the implication is that we should be cautious about these people telling us we can avert global warming.)

2) There is new evidence to support the hypothesis that the 1C temperature increase is due to anthropogenic activity.

3) If #2 is true, it is still not certain what should be done about it, since only a 30% reduction to pre-1990 levels would avert further significant warming.

I don't know how anyone can assume that based on me linking this article, I "take eco-freaks seriously."

On any issue that has serious implications, people often believe what they want to believe because their ideology trumps facts. On evolution, the intelligent design folk will keep putting new obstacles in front of scientists. In fact, even if scientists were able to wind back the clock to 6 billion years ago and document step by step every mutation that led to the evolution of Homo sapiens, a hopelessly impossible task, they would still not believe, because they are ideologically opposed to evolution. Man evolved from animals, which means that man was not created in the image of God. That is the fact they must rail against. Their arguments are very similar to those being presented here in this thread: we can't be 100% sure that peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals aren't junk, and we don't like the implications of their research. Therefore, people who study evolution are a conspiratory group of God-hating atheists and communists who cook up bad science in order to further their evil agenda.

The science of climate change is younger and thus, the procurement of facts will be a long process, and one in which newer data and experiments will trump older ones. Why is anyone surprised by this? Our models of how evolution happens have also changed radically in the past 20 years. Anyone heard of gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium?

The similarities between the Intelligent Design folk are remarkable. No matter what new evidence accumulates showing that the 30% increase in CO2 levels is anthropogenic, and that global climate change might be due to said increase, it can all easily be dismissed for two reasons. First, we can't be 100% sure that what is published in peer-reviewed journals isn't junk. And secondly, we know that the people who study climate change are a conspiratorial group of capitalist-hating environmentalists who cook up bad science in order to spread their evil agenda.

I have been very clear about my beliefs on this issue, and how they have changed over time, as my previous posts in the thread have outlined. I actually change my opinions when presented with new facts that indicate that I am wrong. What a novel idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nature in particular in known for publishing "cutting-edge" papers that later turn out to be wrong.

Perhaps, but arent the papers demonstrating that they are wrong also often published in Nature? The peer-review process may not be perfect, and there are probably legitimate complaints against it, such as how it's claimed to be systematically biased towards conservatism and maintaining the status quo. But, for anyone who is unwilling/unable to put in countless weeks/months researching a subject for themselves, trusting peer-reviewed articles seems the most sensible option (and its infinitely superior to trusting whatever turns on up a google search, or the propaganda put out by organisations which are obviously ideologically biased, especially when these dont cite primary sources).

If you have no real knowledge about a subject and choose to believe fringe articles you find on the internet over respected scientific publications, then you might as well start believing the newsgroup cranks who claim to have refuted Einstein, and take 10 grammes of vitamin C every day. Pretty much every single widely accepted claim in science has dissenters, and some of these dissenters are intelligent and well-qualified. You can quite easily find scientists with relevant PhD's who reject evolution, relativity, global warming, the big bang theory, and pretty much anything else you could name. The question is who it is rational to believe, given that you are a layman without much knowledge on the subject - the scientific community as a whole, or the people on the fringes. While a dose of scepticism is always healthy, I'll generally tend to go with the former.

Edited by Hal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And secondly, we know that the people who study climate change are a conspiratorial group of capitalist-hating environmentalists who cook up bad science in order to spread their evil agenda.

That's precisely what I am critical of in your attitudes: that you would make a statement of that kind in sarcasm. The fact is that there IS a conspiratorial group of capitalist-hating environmentalists who cook up bad science in order to spread their evil agenda. It is also a fact that this group's influence is absolutely pervasive in the field of climate science.

What do you think of my last link, where "17,000 scientists declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever?"

The point is that you have put your trust in what the popular scientific institutions say. If something is said by a scientist, and peer-reviewed by scientists, then it must be true. You refuse to accept the well documented fact that those scientists and all of their peers who do the reviewing are hopelessly compromised, as are the major scientific journals.

Your comparison of me to the ID people is noted. I suppose everyone who doesn't buy into environmentalist propaganda is a religious fundamentalist, somehow. If the propaganda is in a major scientific journal, then anyone who doesn't accept it is an ID moonbat. I suppose you can include Ayn Rand, the ARI, and all of Objectivism in that category because all of them have clearly rejected it and environmentalism as evil lies.

(ARI articles on global warming:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5251

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5464

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7361

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7352

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7314

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5408

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7363)

I suppose we're all just religious dogmatists. :worry:

Edited by Inspector

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you think of my last link, where "17,000 scientists declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever?"

I think it stinks, and here's why. I have an advanced degree in fungal taxonomy and study biodiversity of fungal parasites of insects - this is part of the broader field of 'biology' that would apparently make me qualified to comment on this issue. I could sign that petition right now and be added to the list of "qualified scientists" who think global warming is fake. All I have to do is fill in my name, my degree, a one-liner about my "field of study" and my address, and send a card in. See the following sites for a breakdown of how many scientists have degrees in various fields that have signed the petition, and also to send in a copy of the petition card for yourself. Become a climate scientist today! I encourage everyone to click on these links to see just how easy it is.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

and

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm

You see, Inspector, I don't actually claim to be an authority on global warming, so I would never sign a petition saying that it is not real - or that it is real - until I had done a hell of a lot more reading - for instance, at least hundreds if not thousands of peer-reviewed papers on this issue. You can scorn peer-reviewed journals all you want, but published research, and our own abilities to evaluate that work, and publish that criticism (which happens all the time) are the best that we have.

I have been very clear as to what I think on this issue: that 30% of current CO2 levels are definitely due to anthropogenic activity and that it may be causing global warming. I'm sorry you find those statements threatening, but there we are.

For the record, I do believe there is a lot of dogmatism amongst people calling themselves Objectivists (with a capital or lowercase o). Ultimately, Objectivism is about encouraging active minds, not repeating everything that ARI has to say or that Ayn Rand said.

Have it your way. I don't believe that the last word means that someone is right, so feel free to have that last word.

Edited by Liriodendron Tulipifera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it stinks, and here's why.

The same can, and has (by me) been said of the petitions that say the opposite and which are taken as truth by you and our government. In fact, the above petition is far more stringent than the ones it is meant to counter, in which dentists are allowed to sign.

You can scorn peer-reviewed journals all you want, but published research, and our own abilities to evaluate that work, and publish that criticism (which happens all the time) are the best that we have.

What I am saying is not that the methods of peer-review are inherantly awful, only that they cannot be taken (as I see you taking them) to be automatically and unquestionably correct, and that the only valid counter-argument is another peer-reviewed article. If I could pull a single statement of affiliation with the Environmentalist movement/philosophy from a given author, I would need no peer review to discredit him. That philosophy is epistemologically anti-scientific.

I have been very clear as to what I think on this issue: that 30% of current CO2 levels are definitely due to anthropogenic activity and that it may be causing global warming. I'm sorry you find those statements threatening, but there we are.

I never said I found them "threatening." What I find them is "unsubstantiated." Evidence from Environmentalists is no evidence at all in my book, and you seem comfortable drawing at least some of your evidence from Environmentalists (so long as they are reviewed by their peers: fellow Environmentalists). Thus, what you say on the matter is, in my consideration, heresay.

Ultimately, Objectivism is about encouraging active minds, not repeating everything that ARI has to say or that Ayn Rand said.

Good for you. That doesn't mean you get to dodge the fact that you just called all Objectivism and Objectivists the epistemological equivalent of ID moonbats. If you intend to stand by that statement, then stand by it. If you intend to retract and apologize for it, then do that. But no more evasion.

Edit: also, the second statement of yours which you have not responded to is the sarcastic statement that "And secondly, we know that the people who study climate change are a conspiratorial group of capitalist-hating environmentalists who cook up bad science in order to spread their evil agenda." The only part of that I find untrue is that it is a "conspiracy." A conspiracy would require that they were trying to keep it a secret... in fact, they say as much out loud and quite often. The only reason they get away with it is because people like you give them credit and sanction, and refuse to take the evil of their ideas seriously.

Edited by Inspector

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps, but arent the papers demonstrating that they are wrong also often published in Nature? The peer-review process may not be perfect, and there are probably legitimate complaints against it, such as how it's claimed to be systematically biased towards conservatism and maintaining the status quo. But, for anyone who is unwilling/unable to put in countless weeks/months researching a subject for themselves, trusting peer-reviewed articles seems the most sensible option (and its infinitely superior to trusting whatever turns on up a google search, or the propaganda put out by organisations which are obviously ideologically biased, especially when these dont cite primary sources).

If you have no real knowledge about a subject and choose to believe fringe articles you find on the internet over respected scientific publications, then you might as well start believing the newsgroup cranks who claim to have refuted Einstein, and take 10 grammes of vitamin C every day. Pretty much every single widely accepted claim in science has dissenters, and some of these dissenters are intelligent and well-qualified. You can quite easily find scientists with relevant PhD's who reject evolution, relativity, global warming, the big bang theory, and pretty much anything else you could name. The question is who it is rational to believe, given that you are a layman without much knowledge on the subject - the scientific community as a whole, or the people on the fringes. While a dose of scepticism is always healthy, I'll generally tend to go with the former.

All good points. However:

-Often the original "cutting-edge" paper is the one that makes it onto the front page of the newspapers (often in oversimplified and even more sensationalist form), while the paper refuting it is buried on p. 47 or not reported on at all

-Most scientists would rather do their own researcch thaan double-check other peoples' work, so correction smay take a long time.

Overall I agree with you and with Monica. Global warming is a scientific question, and it is irrational to reject the idea outright for a priori ideological reasons. My own position is that we probably are experiencing some warming, and that it is partly anthropogenic, but that it would be easier and cheaper to adapt to it than to try to counteract it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All good points. However:

-Often the original "cutting-edge" paper is the one that makes it onto the front page of the newspapers (often in oversimplified and even more sensationalist form), while the paper refuting it is buried on p. 47 or not reported on at all

I very much agree. Take Time's cover page on global warming recently: "Be worried. Be very very worried." Or something like that. But all this shows is that it's a problem with the popular media's sensationalism of science, which is not that much different than any other issue. Take Vioxx, etc.

-Most scientists would rather do their own researcch thaan double-check other peoples' work, so correction smay take a long time.

Hmmm, I'm not so sure about this. It's always fun to prove someone wrong, and anyone can do provided their reasoning is good. We had a master's student at my university publish a paper in Nature a couple of years ago correcting a mistake in a previously published (recent) Nature paper.

My own position is that we probably are experiencing some warming, and that it is partly anthropogenic, but that it would be easier and cheaper to adapt to it than to try to counteract it.

It would be impossible to counteract it even if it is anthropogenic because it would require a return to pre-1990 levels of CO2 emission. That is impossible. Clearly Kyoto is useless. It's stalling the inevitable, which is worse. However, disregarding all government controls, I'm not sure I agree that it would be cheaper to adapt. Worst case scenario, half of Florida and Louisiana will be underwater and probably Manhattan. So you'd have to do a cost/benefit scenario to figure out whether that statement is true.

If people want to reduce their CO2 emissions, we have one answer already - biodiesel. My friend just converted his truck to run on frying oil which he gets for free from a local restaurant because they have to pay to have it disposed of. that is a very viable option and saves him over $1000 a year. Obviously it would not be as cheap if everyone started doing it because demand for the waste oil would go up. But this would just create a new market for something else, like a nuclear powered car (I'm talking about a theoretical world in which we could do anything we want.)

Edited by Liriodendron Tulipifera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^Good find, Tommy!

However, disregarding all government controls, I'm not sure I agree that it would be cheaper to adapt. Worst case scenario, half of Florida and Louisiana will be underwater and probably Manhattan.

Here is a typical article about the worst-case scenario:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...andicemelt.html

excerpts, followed by comments:

"Scientists have previously calculated that if the annual average temperature in Greenland increases by almost 3° Celsius (5.4° Fahrenheit), its ice sheet will begin to melt.

Many experts believe the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will have reached levels around the year 2100 that would cause the temperature to rise that much."

So the melting, and thus sea-level rise, is not even predicted to begin for 100 years. We have 100 yrs to figure out how to deal with this potential problem. Think about how much progress has occurred in the past 100 yrs and how much more could occur in the next 100.

"Even a partial melting of the ice sheet could have catastrophic consequences for low-lying countries like Bangladesh and the Maldives.

"A one-meter [three-foot] sea level rise would submerge a substantial amount of Bangladesh," Jonathan Gregory, the study's lead author and a climate scientist at the University of Reading in England, said in a telephone interview."

So the initial effects will be felt mostly in a few countries that are only marginally habitable anyway. (Bangladesh is regularly flooded by hurricanes.)

"Greenland's massive ice sheet could begin to melt this century and may disappear completely within the next thousand years if global warming continues at its present rate.

According to a new climate change study, the melting of Greenland's ice sheet would raise the oceans by seven meters (23 feet), threatening to submerge cities located at sea level, from London to Los Angeles."

So we would have up to 1000 yrs to adapt to the actual rise, if it occurred. 1000 yrs! Again, think about how much progress has occurred in the past 1000 yrs and how much more could occur in the next 1000. We could all be living on the moon by then!

Even assuming the predictions in this article are valid, it's not as if New York is suddenly going to be flooded tomorrow. Whatever changes occur will do so very gradually, with plenty of time to adapt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We could all be living on the moon by then!

The moon? Wow. Will that be a choice, do you think? Because unless it was exactly like Earth (which I seriously doubt will ever happen) you couldn't pay me to move there. I love organismal biology a little too much for that.

"I swear -- by my life and my love of it -- that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

Anyway, none of us will be around if it happens. So who cares.

Edited by Liriodendron Tulipifera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol The moon bit was a joke; I don't want to live there either. The point was just that our society will be quite different by then.

It also occurs to me that some countries have already developed methods of dealing with higher sea levels. 1/4 of the Netherlands is below sea level and protected by dikes; engineers from there are consulting on plans to protect New Orleans. Prosperous, technologically advanced countries should have no trouble dealing with gradual sea level rise.

(interesting country btw; only 16 million people, one of the world's most densely populated countries, but still the world’s eighth largest exporter of goods and capital and the world’s third largest exporter of food)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol The moon bit was a joke; I don't want to live there either.

It certainly would be a fun place to visit though.

(interesting country btw; only 16 million people, one of the world's most densely populated countries, but still the world’s eighth largest exporter of goods and capital and the world’s third largest exporter of food)

Third largest exporter of food!? Wow, I wouldn't have thought it possible. However, all their land is in use, as in most of Europe, so it's not that surprising. I'm thinking about jobs there. However, I'm not sure I can live in a country that flat and tree-less :( The landscape seems very boring.

As is my habit, I am wandering from the topic of the thread at hand....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That does seem strange, but perhaps they are also counting what goes through our harbors as export. No way that the Netherlands has enough agricultural land to supply that much food.

However, I'm not sure I can live in a country that flat and tree-less The landscape seems very boring.

Heh, the highest point is about 300m high, and that's somewhere in one end of the country, far away from where most of us live. When I take my daily train ride to my university most of what I see outside is either city or grass (with or without cows), so I would agree it is rather boring here.

It is interesting, though, to live about 5m below sea level without ever noticing it.

But let's get back on topic :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be the CCF's in the air :glare: or it might be a warming of the earth. Earth have certain periods to suddenly have climate changes that happen before the destruction of an ancient civilization. There had been proofs that people uses cars, these fumes which is also harmful to the ozone layer. As the oils run out, hopefully this will be solved. The real truth to this thing is that people do not realize the real carbon, that is, how the carbon cycle suppose to really work. Sure, they understand how coal is formed by compression. But when they are inventing something, they never thought about what would happen to the coal. When they burn the coal, they do not think the coal's gas state will harm the ozone layer or choke some sick old man. I think the solution to the CO2 is to quicken the compression of coal and other fossil fuels by expanding research in the science fields. For the rest, ban the use of CCF, I hope it's right. And invent a solar and electric powered car or increase the efficency by improving catalysts. You could try the combinations too. :huh: Of course, we also need new ways to power our lights. As I am currently not old enough, I hope the grown ups, and adults will do something before we get cancer from the sun or choke from too much fumes. This is likely to happen in the future's future. I'm not sure if it is CCF or CFC or CFF. Please correct the case. Thank you :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...