Idea: Earthlings for Global Warming

[DavidV]

Who would be interested in participating in a group dedicated to the advocacy of global warming? This is obviously an attempt at satire, but with a valid point: there are many benefits to a warmer climate. I think such a group could get good media attention. Your participation would consist of research and contributions to a mini-site and public awareness activism.

Can we think of some funny acronyms for the name?

Please respond if you're interested.

Edited March 23, 2007 by GreedyCapitalist

[Prometheus98876]

Who would be interested in participating in a group dedicated to the advocacy of global warming? This is obviously an attempt at satire, but with a valid point: there are many benefits to a warmer climate. I think such a group could get good media attention. Your participation would consist of research and contributions to a mini-site and public awareness activism.

Can we think of some funny acronyms for the name?

Please respond if you're interested.

I am interested in this as it is an issue I have been giving some thought to recently, and intend to research furtherin into in any case. I think I would like to contribute to a mini-site like this as a nice little bonus.

[bobsponge]

Who would be interested in participating in a group dedicated to the advocacy of global warming? This is obviously an attempt at satire, but with a valid point: there are many benefits to a warmer climate. I think such a group could get good media attention. Your participation would consist of research and contributions to a mini-site and public awareness activism.

Can we think of some funny acronyms for the name?

Please respond if you're interested.

I'm all for it! It will give us more coral, bring more coastline to the poorer inland states (HA!) and help all those subsidised farmers grow crops if they ever feel like getting off the dole and doing something! Bring on the global warming, cuz we sure as hell aren't causing it and we may as well revel in its greatness!

[softwareNerd]

You might consider not using satire at all.

[Prometheus98876]

I'm all for it! It will give us more coral, bring more coastline to the poorer inland states (HA!) and help all those subsidised farmers grow crops if they ever feel like getting off the dole and doing something! Bring on the global warming, cuz we sure as hell aren't causing it and we may as well revel in its greatness!

No, we are not, but apparently here in New Zealand, the cows burping methane a significiant source of greenhouse gases

[Nate]

International Pleasant Climate Committee

(IPCC)

[DragonMaci]

No, we are not, but apparently here in New Zealand, the cows burping methane a significiant source of greenhouse gases

Farting not burbing. That is why the now dumped proposal to tax farmers was called "the fart tax" by its ctirics.

I would be interested in such a site.

Oh, and I like Nate's name suggestion.

Edited March 24, 2007 by DragonMaci

[Prometheus98876]

Farting not burbing. That is why the now dumped proposal to tax farmers was called "the fart tax" by its ctirics.

I would be interested in such a site.

Oh, and I like Nate's name suggestion.

No, they originally said it was farting, then it was pointed out their burping releases more methane apparently...and at some later stage the whole thing was dropped.

[kingofthething]

NAKED

Nudists Advocating the Conservation of Earth's Deserts

any thoughts?

[softwareNerd]

NAKED

Ha! That's a good reason for wanting it warmer.

[Prometheus98876]

NAKED

Nudists Advocating the Conservation of Earth's Deserts

any thoughts?

Oh I like that one, in fact its better than the other one. I just hope the members all get handed out some SPF 50+ during the meetings .

[bobsponge]

Actually, for all your benefit-- The Great Global Warming Swindle is now available on Google Video.

And it is actually cow burps that push out the most methane.

[bobsponge]

International Pleasant Climate Committee

(IPCC)

Sorta like People for the Eating of Tasty Animals.

[DragonMaci]

I have an article about AGW here on my blog. The posts links here and to a documentary called The Great Global Warming Swindle. It also links to another blog post about it. I suggest people read both posts and watch the documentary.

[bobsponge]

I have an article about AGW here on my blog. The posts links here and to a documentary called The Great Global Warming Swindle. It also links to another blog post about it. I suggest people read both posts and watch the documentary.

One interesting thing that really caught me was toward the end when the founder of Greenpeace pointed out that the environmentalists are truly, simply, anti-man and anti-industrial, which is something Ayn Rand pointed out quite a while back in her tirades against hippies.

[DragonMaci]

One interesting thing that really caught me was toward the end when the founder of Greenpeace pointed out that the environmentalists are truly, simply, anti-man and anti-industrial, which is something Ayn Rand pointed out quite a while back in her tirades against hippies.

Yes, that is true. He was also on Penn and Teller's BS once saying similar things. He said in that episode of BS that he left Greenpeace because they were taking their envirometalism to the point of anti-man, which was against his reasons for founding the orginisation.

Oh, and if you go to the post please leave comments.

Edited March 24, 2007 by DragonMaci

[DragonMaci]

Make that here. I moved my blog to Word Press because it is superior to Blogger.

Edited March 25, 2007 by softwareNerd
Fixed URL

[aleph_0]

I think this is an important cause--we on land have an overabundance of carbon-dioxide producing materials, any number of which are harmful to our own lives. Oil, smoke, aerosol, all these things in large quantities pose an immanent danger to all human life! Scientists (my neighbor Bob) says that these materials, if left unchecked, will kill you within a week! We must re-organize these materials, quickly re-locating carbon-dioxide by means of burning off the oil--preferably by industry but, if necessary, by simply igniting oil resources--clear-cutting forests and processing the wood, and a litany of other measures that would pump CO2 into the atmosphere, to then be quickly absorbed by the oceans where it damn well belongs! Moreover, we need to begin rating politicians on their CO2 hostility and looking into measures to provoke sun-spots in order to increase the earth's temperature, thus causing the oceans to more readily accommodate the added supply of CO2.

[Wotan]

the Hot Air Healthy Alternative (HAHA)?

[Korthor]

I’ve never understood the hostility of Objectivists (and free marketers in general) to the theory of global warming. I’ve read science both supporting and attacking the theory, and honestly I just don’t have the scientific expertise to adjudicate between these conflicting claims. I’ve also read science both for and against evolution, and likewise I don’t have the expertise to conclude one way or the other purely based on my understanding of science. In fact, I doubt I have the expertise to even prove that the earth goes around the sun. While there are scientists on this board, most of us are probably in the position of having to believe what science tells us. I don’t think this is “faith,” since we have a rational basis for believing scientists: (Occham’s razor would militate against thinking science is just a global conspiracy and my computer is powered by invisible goblins).

While there may not be a “consensus,” most climate scientists tend to think there is warming and it is at least somewhat anthropogenic. Why is there such hostility to this theory? Are there others on this forum equally puzzled? At the risk of "psychologizing," perhaps people are reasoning

A. Many advocates the theory favor government regulation of the environment (and some are even “environmentalists”)

B. Such regulation and “environmentalism” is evil

Therefore

C. The theory is wrong and propagated for evil reasons.

One could also propose the following, more valid reasoning

A. Government regulation of the environment is wrong

B. Global warming is an “environmental” problem that will probably negatively effect humans

C. Premise B is irrelevant to political debates because government regulation of the environment is wrong.

D. Premise A is irrelevant to scientific debates about the existence of warming.

In conclusion, I have two questions:

1. Is there credible evidence that climatologists, on the whole, distort their science because of their political beliefs? If anything, I would think that many are brought to their political convictions because of their science. I’m sure there are isolated examples of such distortion, but I’m asking for evidence of such distortion across the field.

2. Are there any climatologists on this forum who disagree with the theory of anthropogenic climate change? Or are we all just adopting second-hand the theories of those who reinforce our political beliefs.

[DragonMaci]

I’ve never understood the hostility of Objectivists (and free marketers in general) to the theory of global warming. I’ve read science both supporting and attacking the theory, and honestly I just don’t have the scientific expertise to adjudicate between these conflicting claims. I’ve also read science both for and against evolution, and likewise I don’t have the expertise to conclude one way or the other purely based on my understanding of science.

Firstly, both sides of each argument can't have science supporting it. Science pertains to reality, therefore only one side can be correct. Secondly, reason can help you figure it out by observing reality. Lastly, global warming is happening. The question is whether or not it is bad and whether or not it is man made. As my blog post points out, no in both cases.

While there may not be a “consensus,” most climate scientists tend to think there is warming and it is at least somewhat anthropogenic. Why is there such hostility to this theory?

Because we don't like theories that ignore several facts of reality, i.e., anthropogenic global warming theories.

B. Global warming is an “environmental” problem that will probably negatively effect humans

Will it? Humans survived much warmer temperatures than today in the Medieval Warming Period and suffered no such ill effects. Why will the lesser temperatures of today and the next few decades be different?

1. Is there credible evidence that climatologists, on the whole, distort their science because of their political beliefs? If anything, I would think that many are brought to their political convictions because of their science. I’m sure there are isolated examples of such distortion, but I’m asking for evidence of such distortion across the field.

Go to my blog and read this post and watch the video it links to. As it demonstrates, it is the science that is a result of their political views not the other way around.

2. Are there any climatologists on this forum who disagree with the theory of anthropogenic climate change? Or are we all just adopting second-hand the theories of those who reinforce our political beliefs.

I don't know about others here, but I filter anything I hear through a filter of reason before I believe it, no matter how "qualified" the claimant is.

Finally, if you actually read the posts here you will see we are in support of global warming happening. It will benefit humans, through things like increased crops and grape yields. The Medieval Warming Period proves this.

Edited March 26, 2007 by DragonMaci

[Korthor]

I agree one side is ultimately correct, but sometimes scientists disagree--this doesn't imply some fissure in the nature of reality, but rather the perhaps radical notion that humans sometimes disagree about what they see. How would "reason" and "observing reality" help me out? I've done a significant amount of reading on the subject. Both sides offer statistics to support their posiiton (since I don't have access to a weather satellite, I'll have to believe what they say to me). In addition, the predictive side of climate science relies on incredibly complex models beyond the means of laypeople to really understand.

I went to your website; it was nothing I hadn't read before. If I wanted to, I could direct you to websites on the other side and maybe we could add up the total number of websites filled with rehashed facts on each side of the debate, and then we would know the truth!

About this "filter of reason" thing... I don't mean to be insulting, but how much training in climate science do you have? The whole proposiiton of laypeople even having an opinion on scientific questions seems dubious to me: it takes years of training to really "understand" the science behind science. Until then, one is just parroting the results without understanding the reasons. Moreover, contemporary science is often counter-intuitive... would non-Euclidian geometry pass the "filter of reason"... Filters are great for coffee and cigarettes, but bad for reason and the internet

I'm not really interested in debating warming science, but rather to question the line between reason and dogma for some on this forum... You know, the whole "Reality, to be commanded, must be obeyed" thing... if anthropogenic warming is happening, it is hardly rational to pretend it isn't just because your political opponents think it is.

Finally, I"m not really interested in debating the science, but the standard response to "the earth has been warmer before so why is this warming bad; doesn't that mean we can grow more crops?" is...

1. This warming is faster, so its effect will be more drastic and species won't adapt.

2. Even if we eventually return to some kind of warmer "equilibrium," we'll have some wild fluctuations and bad weather in the interim.

3. Even if rich countries can adapt to shifting of grain belts, it will be hell for the Third World.

4. The sea-level rise will suck; even if we can move our farms, we can't exactly move Manhatten a few miles inland.

5. Even if increased temperatures mean longer growing seasons, it will also be much dryer to agricultue will suffer.

I know you could probably produce counter-arguments and I could produce counter-arguments to your counter-arguments, but that's kind of the point. I'm not a scientist, much less a climatologist, so really I'm just whistling in the dark. If there was anyone here who could shed light (i.e., is a climatologists), I would be glad to listen...

[bobsponge]

Other items of real science to note, that were not mentioned in "Swindle" are:

Fact: each of the previous four interglacial periods was warmer than the one in which we are now living, even though CO2 levels were lower.

Fact: The natural upper limit of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, over the last 400,000 years, was about 300 ppm (.03%). That upper limit today averages about 370 ppm, (.037%) a 12% increase. Former geologic periods, such as the Ordovician Period, 460 million years ago, CO2 concentrations were 4400 ppm (.44%). Temperatures then were about the same as we experience now.

Global Warming alarmists believe that a doubling of pre-industrial CO 2 levels to 560 ppm (as plugged by Al Gore) will lower the pH of seawater (make it more acidic) so that the best areas for coral reef growth will disappear by 2050.

The facts, however, come out quite different-- As ocean temperatures and CO2 concentrations have increased, coral calcification rates have increased along with them. Meaning, the more CO2 present, the more coral thrives. Not surprising, since the reef-building corals evolved and thrived during the Mesozoic Period, when atmospheric CO 2 levels measured above 1,000 ppm for 150 million years and exceeded 2,000 ppm for several million years.

(edit) and more...

Hundreds of scientific articles speak of the benefits of higher CO2 levels, since it acts an an aerial fertilizer, helps plants fight disease, process water more efficiently, produce more fruit, and resist stresses from other aerial pollutants. The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change estimates that the 100-ppm increase in CO2 levels since pre-industrial times has increased average crop yields by 60% for wheat, 33% for fruits and melons, 62% for legumes, 67% for root and tuber crops, and 51% for vegetables.

Edited March 26, 2007 by bobsponge

[DragonMaci]

I have no interest in reading their side. I have had too much of their tripe.

So because I have no formal training I can't observe things around me such as weather, temperauture, and other things to see if they match the claims of the alarmists and the other side? The answer is, I can regardless of training. I can also attemp0t to integrate what they tell me with other things I know (while I am no expert I know more about science than most people). If no integration is possible I have good grounds to be skeptical or to at least wonder. Furthermore, as I have already said, the warmists ignore many simple fact, some of which I knew before hearing anything from either side. Such as the polar caps have always melted and always will. Their is large quantities of salt in the water. Basic chemistry teaches us that salt lowers the freezing temperature of water. This causes ice to melt. There are bigger facts that this that they omit.

I know of no one that "pretends it isn't just because their political opponents think it is". Some might, but I do not know of them.

Species survived the Medieval Warming Period, which was way hotter, so i doubt this wamring will kill them. We have yet to recover from the Little Ice Age that happened 200 years ago. This was right after the Medieval Warming Period, so MWP temperatures would be a recovery. Also many of today's species survived hottier even than the MWP.

As for the Thirld World, as that documentary said, it is trying to stop them from using carbon that will held them back more than warming. That is something I knew well before seeing the documentary. Human carbon emissions is a result of industrialism. When industrialism is held back humans are held back and as a result they suffer. I have known that for a long time. It is simple the nature of human survival. We need to go forward not backwards. Capping carbon is backwards movement and therefore anti-human survival. Therefore it is wrong.

Sea level rise? Where will a dangerous amount extra water come from? 90% of icebergs are underwater. So therefore little sea level rise will occur. We may not even notice it. Not in such a vast body of water (about 70+% of the planet's surface). Furthermore, rises in temperature means more water evaporates into the air. This means a slight lowering of sea level. This may balance out or exceed sea level rise from the 10% ice that isn't underwater.

Ever heard of irrigation? We could fix any dry spell problems with that.

[DragonMaci]

Good points bobsponge. Not to mention that England is now able to grow grapes more reliably. This helps the wine industry of England massively. So I'd say, bring on the warmer temperatures.