I need help in discussion about Global Warming.

[Juxtys]

My physics teacher asked me if I would like to participate in a project about Global Warming.

Three schools is said to participate - my school, one from Kaliningrad and one in Sweden.

It somehow comes that I might be the only one to call it more or less a political fraud(thanks to the sources listed in Objectivism Wiki) and it is the first time I participate in something like this.

So, I would like some help from the fellow Objectivists in this forum.

My teacher gave me a copy of 'Inconvenient Truth' as proof of Global Warming. Well that's a joke...

The help would include:

1.Any websites that disagree with Al Gore's statements - the more known and the more scientific the better(I feel uncomfortable with data what's like from some rumors).

2.Ways how to express my opinion without sparking big tensions( I find myself very bad at this one).

3.And any suggestions or questions you would find yourself interested in.

[KevinDW78]

the BEST counter argument to Al Gore's global warming theory is a documentary by the BBC called "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=43...indle&vt=lf

Also you can Google "The great global warming swindle" for more references on this documentary and the evidence it presents.

The wikipedia page on the documentary also contains a lot of the scientific arguments and evidence against man mande global warming:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Glo...Warming_Swindle

Edited September 26, 2008 by KevinDW78

[Grames]

Here's a website: Watt's Up With That. One of the projects linked to from there is surfacestations.org.

This project, started on June 4th 2007, is designed for the express purpose of photographically surveying every one of the 1221 USHCN weather stations in the USA which are used as a “high quality network” to determine near surface temperature trends in the USA. USHCN is a subset of the larger COOP network of stations in the USA, of which there are about 9000. The USHCN subset has been hand picked by the National Climatic Data Center to be more regionally representative due to their placement, length of service and minimum station moves. Unfortunately, the network has fallen into neglect, and the temperature data produced by it is suspect due to microsite biases. See what has been learned so far here in this slide show.

You can help in this project by signing up and doing site survey in your area. It’s free, and open to anyone with basic observational skills, a digital camera, GPS, and ability to follow written directions. Check the Master List of surveys to see locations and what is available.

The blogger of that site has a long term project to examine individually each weather station in the The United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) and to determine if each is properly setup to make accurate temperature measurements. Usually they aren't.

Edited September 26, 2008 by Grames

[Benpercent]

I have not yet taken the time to read this particular series of articles, and I will certainly, but over at Capitalism Magazine they're running pieces about the EPA power grab: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5267

The title of the third part in the series mentions that "There is No Natural Evidence for Man-Made Global Warming."

[Grames]

Here's another : Climate Skeptic links to a "Layman's Guide to Man-Made Global Warming"

[Thales]

Is this high school? I don't like this project, because it's politics, not science. Your teacher is spreading propaganda by giving you a book by a non-scientist and known propagandist.

But, if you want sources from real scientists, then Kevin has provided a great link. It is chock full of top flight experts in the field.

This may be the most effective layman's lecture that completely debunks the theory. Bob Carter is a geologist:

Here is another great documentary, also full of scientists. Doomsday Called Off:

Also, Google Richard Lindzen. He is probably the foremost atmospheric scientist in the U.S. and maybe the world. He has a lot to say on the matter.

You can find a great page on global warming here:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

That's a good page to study to get a basic grounding in the issue.

There are lots of sources out there, but those are some to get you started.

Remember, the first thing is to understand the issue by taking the time to learn it. If you want advice, that's my biggest bit of advice. Only once you understand can you engage in polemics one way or the other. Also, understanding is what gives you confidence. The sources above should help you do that.

Also, try to stay within your knowledge level.

Anyway, good luck with this.

[Grames]

Also interesting is this pdf by David Archibald: The Past and Future of Climate

It has a lot in it, so in an attempt to be helpful I direct your attention to page 17 (of 24) where it discusses the "Warming Effect of Carbon Dioxide"

Anthropogenic warming is real, it is also miniscule. Using the MODTRAN facility

maintained by the University of Chicago, the relationship between atmospheric carbon

dioxide content and increase in average global atmospheric temperature is shown in this

graph.

The effect of carbon dioxide on temperature is logarithmic and thus climate sensitivity

decreases with increasing concentration. The first 20 ppm of carbon dioxide has a greater

temperature effect than the next 400 ppm. The rate of annual increase in atmospheric

carbon dioxide over the last 30 years has averaged 1.7 ppm.

From the current level of 380 ppm, it is projected to rise to 420 ppm by 2030. The

projected 40 ppm increase reduces emission from the stratosphere to space from 279.6

watts/m2 to 279.2 watts/m2.

Using the temperature response demonstrated by Idso (1998) of 0.1°C per watt/m2, this

difference of 0.4 watts/m2 equates to an increase in atmospheric temperature of 0.04°C.

Increasing the carbon dioxide content by a further 200 ppm to 620 ppm, projected by 2150,

results in a further 0.16°C increase in atmospheric temperature.

Real and miniscule. All else is politics.

[John Donohue]

I am not a scientist, but I link to science on my site.

http://earthintime.com

At my personal site you can read my bio and my commentaries. I have been an Objectivist for 44 years.

http://jrdonohue.com

My position is that there is objective evidence that the North is warming some now. I am NOT convinced that science has established a causal relationship between CO2 emission and the warming. There is much more evidence that the majority of the warming is part of natural cycles; it is a rebound from the little ice age and this trend may last for several hundred years. We should enjoy it while it lasts. The ice is coming.

I do not rule out, however, that man's use of the earth is exacerbating the warming.

The reason I call my site "Earth In Time" is that the AGW advocates continue to stonewall the titanic forces and timeframes under which proportionally tiny changes are spun up as sure sign of catastrophe.

At Michael Mann's site, you will encounter people who claim utter certainty that man's activities alone have negated not only the typical sine wave cycles of the Holocene, not only the 8,000 year downward trend toward the next glaciation, but indeed the "Ice House" conditions that have persisted for 30 million years. This is absurd.

Do not quote any of my statements as facts from a scientist; but at least it will give you leads, show you where to look. I agree with the above that Richard Lindzen is the most credible, courageous and brilliant scientific mind not under sway by the AGW consensus.

Here are the lines of thought I belive you might find profitable.

1) this IceHouse has been here for 30 Million Years. How can the AGWers claim with certainty to know man has destroyed it?

2) many scientists have shown that CO2 uptrends FOLLOW warming, not the other way around.

3) we have a polar bear infestation now; populations higher than ever, arguably far more than nature needs to fill up the habitat. Also, since there is very strong evidence that the Arctic Ice melted for a period of 1000 years, between 8,000 and 7,000 years ago (roughly, during the Holocene Maximum), how did the bears manage to survive? And don't we think they'll manage again?

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Arti..._polarbears.pdf

John Donohue

Pasadena, CA

[Juxtys]

Thanks everybody

Yes Thales, I am at eleventh grade right now.

As far as I know about the project, it is funded by Sweden government. And that explains a lot about it.

Anyway, I will try my best at it.

[Michael McGuire]

Your first order of business will be to come with a vicious attack on Al Gore and use him as the avatar for man-induced GW theory. Keep the focus on him, as you will definitely want to avoid referring to the overwhelming number of scientists, those that actually do climate research, who subscribe to the theory more or less. Then you will be cornered into the inevitable conclusion GW skeptics must embrace, that there is a worldwide conspiracy to conceal and hide the "truth" on GW. If this happens you will look like a wackjob and your credibility is out the window.

It will be hard to explain how the evidence for a theory that is 40 years old has only gotten stronger and more conclusive. So you'll want to throw lots of arcane data, complete with graphs and charts, at your debate opponent. On a subject as massively complex as this, most likely your opponent will not not be able to competently wade through the reams of bogus, out of date and refuted analysis in your arsenal, which is a big plus for you. Bottom line, all you need to do is create enough confusion to cast doubt on the science behind the theory of anthropogenic GW, and you win. Isn't that great?

Hope that helps.

[KevinDW78]

Isn't that great?

Are you just a complete idiot?

EDIT: I have looked through your history of posts on the subject of global warming on this forum and answered my own question - Yes, you are a complete idiot.

Edited September 28, 2008 by KevinDW78

[Thales]

Are you just a complete idiot?

EDIT: I have looked through your history of posts on the subject of global warming on this forum and answered my own question - Yes, you are a complete idiot.

I have yet to see Michael come up with anything much substantive on this issue. His bark is bigger than his bite.

[Juxtys]

Your first order of business will be to come with a vicious attack on Al Gore and use him as the avatar for man-induced GW theory. Keep the focus on him, as you will definitely want to avoid referring to the overwhelming number of scientists, those that actually do climate research, who subscribe to the theory more or less. Then you will be cornered into the inevitable conclusion GW skeptics must embrace, that there is a worldwide conspiracy to conceal and hide the "truth" on GW. If this happens you will look like a wackjob and your credibility is out the window.

It will be hard to explain how the evidence for a theory that is 40 years old has only gotten stronger and more conclusive. So you'll want to throw lots of arcane data, complete with graphs and charts, at your debate opponent. On a subject as massively complex as this, most likely your opponent will not not be able to competently wade through the reams of bogus, out of date and refuted analysis in your arsenal, which is a big plus for you. Bottom line, all you need to do is create enough confusion to cast doubt on the science behind the theory of anthropogenic GW, and you win. Isn't that great?

Hope that helps.

I agree with Kevin about you. If I wanted to act like a propagandist preacher Al Gore is I wouldn't need the help of anybody. Confusion is not what Objectivist should make, is it?

[West]

Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT Richard S. Lindzen , a UN IPCC expert reviewer, has published a 35-page paper titled "Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?" It's of interest to those getting into the Global Warming debate.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf

[Juxtys]

I think I might sail to Karlscrone for this debate. And I want to make a nasty surprise for some Global Warming freaks out there. I received some information from my teacher: tabloid documents filled with thoughts and feelings - not clean facts. And A good arseanal of facts should help me. I just saw that graph on www.climate-skeptic.com indicating amounts of oil produced and quality of rock music. In fact, those two figures look so similar, but do they show any serious data?

[Jackethan]

Isn't that great?

Hope that helps.

Vast number of scientist paid by the UN to read a bunch of papers published by other scientists paid by the UN and come to a consensus (read a bunch of people agreeing on something which makes no sense ((religion))) that the Earth is getting a tad hotter, and it's definitely us. Let's listen to them, instead of the -larger- number of scientists, who actually studied this, as opposed to reading papers on it, and mostly agree that when you learned in Bio class that we all breathe out carbon dioxide, and it's really not that big of a deal.

Also, the argument of global warming has existed for 40 years, but 40 years ago we blamed chlorofluorocarbons, which we recently found to be erroneous. These people aren't trying to do science, they're just looking for ways to try and prove that Global Warming is our fault, despite any evidence to the contrary.

[Michael McGuire]

I think I might sail to Karlscrone for this debate. And I want to make a nasty surprise for some Global Warming freaks out there. I received some information from my teacher: tabloid documents filled with thoughts and feelings - not clean facts. And A good arseanal of facts should help me. I just saw that graph on www.climate-skeptic.com indicating amounts of oil produced and quality of rock music. In fact, those two figures look so similar, but do they show any serious data?

I applaud your interest in finding good data to support your argument. What I find troubling is that you have already made up your mind about GW, before you have even completed a comprehensive analysis of the topic. If you don't keep an open mind as you dig through the avalanche of data you will need to consume, you are only short-changing yourself. Getting to the truth is hard work, and you will find many false truths. Only by extensively questioning information from a variety of sources can you break through the fog. Never blindly accept information that you agree with without double and triple checking it against unbiased and unaffiliated sources.

What you should do is have an exhaustive chat with this teacher of yours to help you tease out erroneous ideas you have before you accept them as truth. He might not be right or even fully knowledgeable, but he might be able to point you in directions you hadn't thought of. You should always be willing to have a respectful engagement with people you disagree with; there is a lot to learn by doing so.

[KevinDW78]

Getting to the truth is hard work

You mean getting at YOUR "truth". I would bet anything that if he did ALL that and STILL concluded that global warming was not man-made that you would STILL tell him he is not concluding the actual truth until he agrees with YOU.

Edited September 30, 2008 by KevinDW78

[Haemp]

I thought this lecture spread some light on the subject.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/videos/bobcarter.html

[gags]

Your first order of business will be to come with a vicious attack on Al Gore and use him as the avatar for man-induced GW theory.

Speaking of your friend Al Gore, he's now advocating "civil disobedience" against coal fired power plants:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Nobel Peace Prize winner and environmental crusader Al Gore urged young people on Wednesday to engage in civil disobedience to stop the construction of coal plants without the ability to store carbon.

http://www.reuters.com/article/environment...ews&sp=true

By civil disobedience, do you think that Gore would like young people to vandalize the plants? Perhaps they should destroy private property or maybe even rough up the executives a little bit. Sound good to you?

Gore also thinks that the government should criminally prosecute executives who don't agree with his views on GW:

"I believe for a carbon company to spend money convincing the stock-buying public that the risk from the global climate crisis is not that great represents a form of stock fraud because they are misrepresenting a material fact," he said. "I hope these state attorney generals around the country will take some action on that."

That's quite a spokesman your movement has there Mike.

[Michael McGuire]

That's quite a spokesman your movement has there Mike.

Thanks for proving my point a little bit about Gore, gags. He is such an easy punching bag, so lets keep talking about him instead of the 84 percent of scientists who say human activity contributes to global warming.

And for anyone who thinks Bob Carter has any credibility, here is a fun link that shows a great many of his assertions and how they have been refuted. So when you've got a guy like this as a leading GW skeptic and the other skeptics don't denounce him, you've put together another piece of that truth puzzle.

[gags]

Thanks for proving my point a little bit about Gore, gags. He is such an easy punching bag, so lets keep talking about him instead of the 84 percent of scientists who say human activity contributes to global warming.

Hey, no problem Mike. Unfortunately the problem with your point is that Gore is the most widely recognized leader of your movement. On top of that, many of the people in your movement treat Gore as if he's the high priest of some religion. Your point reminds me of the Marxists who say that you can't judge communism by the actions of Stalin and Mao. Gore subscribes to a philosophy that is anti-man at its base and that's the philosophy behind modern environmentalism.

By the way, your link does little to prove your case. In fact, it makes clear that there is plenty of controversy over whether the current warming is within the range of natural temperature fluctuation and that there is further controversy over whether GW poses any danger. If good science were driven by concensus, we'd still think the world is flat. Given the level of uncertainty, I'd rather not destroy our standard of living based on Al Gore's vivid imagination and his questionable ethics.

[Jake]

... the 84 percent of scientists who say human activity contributes to global warming.

I noticed you didn't write: "84% of scientists who say human activity is the single largest contributor to global warming."

It's an important difference. Of course certain human activities release heat (so do certain cow activities), that doesn't mean we're the driving force behind the recent up-trend in temperature.

[Thales]

Thanks for proving my point a little bit about Gore, gags. He is such an easy punching bag, so lets keep talking about him instead of the 84 percent of scientists who say human activity contributes to global warming.

Notice that Al Gore is being used by Juxtys' teacher to promote the GW theory. It's the official line out of public education institutions.

I noticed you didn't write: "84% of scientists who say human activity is the single largest contributor to global warming."

It's an important difference. Of course certain human activities release heat (so do certain cow activities), that doesn't mean we're the driving force behind the recent up-trend in temperature.

Right, that's a nifty little trick they use. Lindzen himself believes that CO2 contributes to warming, but how much? Not much.

[Juxtys]

The teacher put me in a group that has to prepare a project about paper consumption and recycling. Something unrelated to Global Warming, I think. I could argue with her(about 98 percent of Lithuanian teachers are women) for whole lesson(45 minutes) and yet she still clung to her idea. That really makes me scared of her. She is Physics teacher after all...