Global Warming

[Rosmerta]

I know what you mean! You should have seen my friend when we were reading the answers to the questions!

Here is the main web page there are a lot of really interesting articles.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/HOMEPAGE5a.html

Edited July 19, 2005 by Rosmerta

[AisA]

Thanks for the link.

Have your friend read this article.

[JMeganSnow]

Thanks, Michael, I like how the "hockey stick" turned out to be reproducable by simply using random numbers via the same methodology. I don't know much about statistical analysis, though.

[Rosmerta]

[the tortured one]

It's funny, I am currently taking a biology class, and my professor confessed that most of all of the environmentalists he has ever known were in fact ex-communists. He's a terrific professor, the first day of class he masterfully shattered any evidence for the "Young Earth" theory that biblicists propose, and he even went so far as to completely disprove any semblance of an intelligent design theory, then went on to expose environmentalism as scare-tactics and political agendas. It's great having a professor so rooted in reason.

And in an even rarer situation, virtually every professor in the school of business is a proponent of free-market capitalism. It's a great feeling to see a professor use mathematical formulas to show the more liberal orientated members of the class that outsourcing is beneficial and necessary in a free economy.

Edited July 21, 2005 by the tortured one

[AisA]

What school are you in, Matt? Sounds like you are no longer "the tortured one".

[johny118]

Hey people,

What is the objectivist position on global warming?

I am assuming that objectivism says that global warming is either untrue, or if it is true the market will sort it out with higher oil prices, cleaner technology etc.

Environmental scientists repeatedly tell us that global warming is real and that man is not acting fast enough Globto halt carbon emissions. Their predictions for the world are very depressing if man continues with it carbon emissions at the current rate.

So my second question, (assuming that I am right about the objectivist position on global warming) is how can objectivism be so anti-science?

I used to think that mans role in global warming is negligible, that the warming we see is attributable to natural cycles. Yet in a recent conversation with a friend who studies environmental science, I was demolished in an argument. You see, scientists have looked at ice formed millions of years ago and can see what temperatures were like back then. They know that we are now in a warming period that is unprecedented and cannot possibly be attributed to a natural cycle.

I actually hope that you guys can prove me wrong, but I don't think you will be able to. The best I think you will be able to do is to say that the science done today is politically motivated.

From,

A rational person who is beginning to doubt that capitalism can save the world

(please prove me wrong!)

(Edited thread title to something less catchy but more descriptive of the topic . - softwareNerd)

Edited November 5, 2005 by softwareNerd

[Praxus]

I used to think that mans role in global warming is negligible, that the warming we see is attributable to natural cycles. Yet in a recent conversation with a friend who studies environmental science, I was demolished in an argument. You see, scientists have looked at ice formed millions of years ago and can see what temperatures were like back then. They know that we are now in a warming period that is unprecedented and cannot possibly be attributed to a natural cycle.

It what manner is it "unprecedented"?

[softwareNerd]

Please search for "Global" in post titles. You'll find a few long threads where this topic is discussed.

[Unconquered]

Objectivism is as pro-science as any philosophy can possibly be, since its metaphysics and epistemology provide the only foundation for rational science (upholding the law of identity, and logical reasoning as the only means to knowledge.)

It is the environmentalists who are, in fact, anti-science. What they do is not science, it's religion. They have *faith* that Man is inherently evil and should be hindered (i.e., destroyed), that nature has intrinsic value apart from a valuer.

You might be interested in www.environmentalism.com.

[johny118]

Ok, just read some of the previous threads. Am even more confused now!

The thing is though, the majority of scientists support the view that the Earth is warming and that man is a chief cause with horrible consequences to come. As we are not climate scientists we should listen to the majority of scientists, as we do not have the facts to make an informed judgement.

Now I am not saying that the majority is always right. If I were a climate scientist, I would listen to the consensus but if I found that the majority consensus was wrong, I would make it my mission in life to convince every scientist of their error. The truth cannot fail to come out.

But as a person with absolutely zero knowledge of climate science, how can I listen to the minority of scientists who say that man has not caused global warming, when the majority say that man has? If that minority cannot persuade their own peer group, how can they persuade me?

[Unconquered]

Oh - so even if mankind were responsible for "global warming", then it's so horrendously terrible that anything that could be done to stop messy humanity from emitting CO2 would be justifiable, including bombing the human race back to the stone age or spreading a nastier variant of 1918 flu virus? Is that about the "logical solution" coming from the environmentalists? Actually it is - see my website (environmentalism.com).

Here's a clue: If you think the earth being warmer is so awful, try an ice age on for size, and hope that you don't live anywhere north of the latitude of about Indianapolis, Indiana, otherwise what used to be your home (or your country, Canadians), will be buried under an ice sheet over 1 mile thick. Preferable?

[dondigitalia]

The thing is though, the majority of scientists support the view that the Earth is warming and that man is a chief cause with horrible consequences to come.

Well, of course the Earth is warming. So is the sun. Hot sun = hot Earth. Who woulda thunk it?

Other planets are warming, too. This article was linked to in the Current Events forum:

Click here.

We know the climate of Earth is changing, it's not some great new thing that the environmentalists make it out to be, though. Earth's climate has been constantly changing for the past 4.5 billion years. I don't find that particularly hard to believe. What I do find hard to believe is that human industrial gasses are responsible for it, considering they are a phenomena of the last 150 years, and the amount of "greenhouse" gasses we create is rather miniscule when compared to the amount of those same exact gasses that are put into nature by nature.

This is just a case of bad science, and whole slough of dropped context designed to advance a political agenda. If the Green Party was truly interested in man's long-term ecological well-being, they'd shut their traps, move out of the way and let real scientists do their job. Technology isn't the enemy, it's what will save us from the inevitable, not a return to the teepee, which is what their ideology ultimately requires.

[johny118]

Oh - so even if mankind were responsible for "global warming", then it's so horrendously terrible that anything that could be done to stop messy humanity from emitting CO2 would be justifiable, including bombing the human race back to the stone age or spreading a nastier variant of 1918 flu virus?

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. Why are we talking about bombs and flu viruses? If thats what wacky environmentalists are talking about can't we just ignore them?

[Unconquered]

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. Why are we talking about bombs and flu viruses? If thats what wacky environmentalists are talking about can't we just ignore them?

I'm asking you to think about the logical consequences of you seem to be scared of (man-made global warming.) If it's true that man-created CO2 emissions are causing this (fairly doubtful), then what exactly do you think could be done to stop it short of destroying humanity? The real answer is: Nothing. So what is the point of this supposed concern?

[Inspector]

The thing is though, the majority of scientists support the view that the Earth is warming and that man is a chief cause with horrible consequences to come.

No, the majority of climate scientists do NOT believe that. I know the environmentalists tell you that, but they're LYING. As I have said in other threads, their metaphysics and epistemology support the idea of LYING so they can never, never be trusted.

Here's just one example:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/071901A.html

Take for example, the common cries of "This petition has been signed by 2,000 scientists who think global warming is caused by man..."

Have you ever checked which "scientists" signed that thing? In fact, it was signed by dentists, english professors, sociologists, veterinarians.... anyone with an advanced degree in front of their name. Nobody ever checks too closely because the media is in love with scare scenarios in general and environmentalists in specific.

...and what about "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.""

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

You never hear about THAT one.

The point is that they are dirty liars and you simply shouldn't trust a word that comes out of their mouths. Even if one individual is honest, he will cite studies from the liars and is therefore simply a mouthpiece for their lies.

Here, take the Global Warming test:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html

More links:

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/...es_quote04.html

http://earth4man.com/

This one here has about 40 or so links and I want you to read every last one of them! http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...qw8lyrb1.app14b

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=New...ws_iv_ctrl=1084

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=New...ws_iv_ctrl=1084

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=New...ws_iv_ctrl=1084

So to answer your original question, NO: OBJECTIVISM IS NOT ANTI-SCIENCE. ENVIRONMENTALISM, however, is MOST DEFINITIVELY ANTI-SCIENCE!

Edited November 5, 2005 by Inspector

[Jrose]

Well done, Inspector. Thank you.

[softwareNerd]

...As we are not climate scientists we should listen to the majority of scientists, ... Now I am not saying that the majority is always right. If I were a climate scientist,.... But as a person with absolutely zero knowledge of climate science, how can I listen to the minority of scientists ...

This is a good question.Should a non-expert inform himself about things that are not in his area of expertise and where there appears to be significant debate among experts? One answer is: no, not unless it impacts him in some way; put another way: yes, to the extent that it impacts him. There are many, many areas where experts differ.

Suppose a person has severe back pain. A doctor recommends back surgery, and points out that it has some risks. Another doctor recommends physio-therapy. [This happen just last month to a colleague.] How should the non-expert decide? Should he get a third opinion and go with the majority? My answer would be: if this is something important to him, has to "peel back a layer". This means that he has to understand a little more about why each expert reached the decision they did. In the end, it is his back!

Similarly, when I invest money, there are so many voices saying this and that: invest in tech stocks, invest in bio-tech, invest in boring companies, and what not. To the extent that the investment decision is important, I have to at least educate myself enough to recognize who is speaking sense and who is a shyster. Being non-expert, could I make a mistake. Of course, but if I have to decide, I have to decide in the most rational way I can. There is no other way. There could be some cases where one simply ends up confused and goes with the majority; I cannot think off-hand of something like that in my life -- at least nothing important.

Now, there are a lot of kooky people out there. Fortunately, most of them fall into some broad categories. One generally investigates the category and can then safely ignore others in the category. If I had an illness and someone swore that sleeping with a rosary under my pillow would help, I wouldn't investigate it. I would categorize them with other super-natural kooks, and have investigated that general category sufficiently (for my needs).

On global warming: is this issue something that is important to you and impacts your life? It might impact it if the majority is right. It might impact it if the minority is right and the majority end up constraining your life, using a variant of Pascal's wager. If it is, then you need to spend at least the amount of time that makes sense to understand the next set of issues involved and judge for yourself which experts you believe.

Speaking for myself, I am disinclined to believe any prediction of doom. There's a category in my mind that I title "doom saying kooks". On the other hand, I realize that this time the "cry of wolf" might be true. Secondly, in my mind, there is a category of "politicized scientists" (pardon the expression). With what I know of the funding and politics of science, I realize the motivations of some scientists. I also understand how extremely wrong scientists can be. Not sure if you remember the paper written by someone as a spoof that was picked up and published by a scientific journal. On re-examination, it was such utter rot; but, the editors couldn't tell! I also have a category in my mind titled "environmentalists". I understand their anti-industrialization motivations. I also understand about "the madnesses and manias of crowds. There have been many over history. [bTW: There's a site called junkScience.com that used to be pretty good, though I have not read it recently]

So, putting all that together, I am skeptical of the so-called majority opinion regarding global warming. I'm not saying it is not true, nor that man isn't causing it. I wouldn't be able to argue. If I have to make a decision -- like a vote -- about it, I would probably read up a bit. However, as things stand, and given what I know, any decision I take will be in the belief that the environmentalists are wrong, just as they are on numerous other issues. If I'm wrong, may reality punish me!

You -- as a non-expert -- might decide differently. That's fine, as long you do not use the simple rule of "what does the majority say" and stopped there. If you use all the richness of context that you have about other things, other areas, funding, international organizations, political motivations, and after doing so you still find that you are left with only the question of majority vs. minority, then that's the best you can do.

[Thales]

But as a person with absolutely zero knowledge of climate science, how can I listen to the minority of scientists who say that man has not caused global warming, when the majority say that man has? If that minority cannot persuade their own peer group, how can they persuade me?

Two points:

1> The subject is catastrophic global warming, not global warming.

2> I highly doubt that the vast majority of scientists believe in catastrophic global warming.

The best atmospheric scientists don't at all buy into catastrophic global warming. Lindzen of MIT is a prime example. Find me a better scientist.

The people pushing the ridiculous "Now is the time for the end of the world" line have been proven wrong over, and over and over again.

Doug Hoyt is a seasoned atmospheric scientist. Check out the score card at the end of this link Hoyt's Page. He shows how wrong the modelers have been in predicting global warming.

Edited November 5, 2005 by Thales

[johny118]

Wow.

What can I say?

I’m shocked and amazed. I knew that you guys would probably argue that the scientists were politically motivated, but I never imagined to what extent.

The biggest shock for me I think is the bloody UN, with its stupid IPCC faking a consensus.

The next most irritating thing is the BBC and most of the media. They report as if man made global warming is fact. And the third most irritating thing is Tony Blair who seems to be jumping on the bandwagon in order to gain votes and keep petrol tax so high.

Thanks guys for a complete eye opener!

[gags]

A perfect example of the hysteria surrounding this subject is the rash of recent news stories tying the 2005 hurricane season to man-made global warming. The fact is that meteorologists say hurricanes occur in approximately 30 year cycles and we are currently in a busy cycle. This cycle is not the result of man-made global warming, but you'd never know that after listening to the network newscasts.

[Inspector]

Thanks guys for a complete eye opener!

You're welcome. I know how frustrating it can be to have people use a bunch of phony statistics and pseudoscience as intellectual cudgels against you.

Hopefully, I've provided not just facts to counter their case, but also compelling evidence for you to realize that environmentalists' arguments shouldn't be given any more consideration than those of fundamentalist Christians; in the same way and for the same reason.

[tnunamak]

I found this article to be quite an interesting read:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.02/ffsimon_pr.html

[softwareNerd]

A UPI newsreport says:

A Russian astronomer has predicted that Earth will experience a "mini Ice Age" in the middle of this century, caused by low solar activity.

[NewYorkRoark]

From a geological standpoint, global warming is a logical result of releasing extra CO2 into the atmosphere. This often occurs naturally and coincides with increased levels of volcanic activity and variety other factors ( The Carbon Cycle ). There was a much better description in my geological textbook, but this will suffice.

I was wondering, does anyone disagree (from a geological standpoint) that global warming, as a result of human industrialization, exists?

My motivation is this: I've read a lot of alarmist material about decreasing biodiversity and rising temperatures. Often, these articles come to the conclusion that "temperatures are rising to dangerous levels" or that "biodiversity is falling at a dangerous rate" without giving any reasons WHY a warmer climate might spell disaster or a less diverse world would place the balance of life in jeopardy. Maybe the Wyoming Toad is just too feeble to survive in the wild. Maybe it's a good thing that it's moving towards extinction. But before jumping into those questions, I'd just like to get a sense of whether or not individuals here agree that humans are affecting the carbon cycle.

Thanks,

Casey

Edited March 23, 2006 by NewYorkRoark