Global Warming Question

[Alceste]

I'm skeptical of global warming because many scientists refuse to post their data. Sure a graph is a handy tool, but without numbers its meaningless. We need hard data and we need it now to destroy skepticism once and for all.

If i were a scientist i would keep up the agenda simply because from a recourses and sustainability position we cannot maintain our current output levels. OIl, plastics, gas and every other luxery we take for granted are being raped. It takes a shock to the system for us pathetic human beings to get off our backsides and make a change. Its Americans, Chinese and Australians that are the worst offenders yet between us we have to most adept minds for change

Hi, Darkendless. There is a lot of data available, but if you are looking for one definitive study that proves once and for all that anthropogenic rapid climate change is occurring (and something easily perused on the internet in a lazy afternoon, on top of that!), you won't find it. Science doesn't work that way. The more complex the area of investigation, the greater the body of evidence that contributes to the consensus of the scientists in the relevant field. When they nearly ALL of them agree on a basic premise - this is certainly the case with global warming - it indicates there is a massive body of evidence to support that particular conclusion. You could spend your whole life reading about it and never get to the end.

The climate change consensus is based on the findings of scientists who climb up to the top of mountains to physically measure the amount of CO2 in the air at the same time every day for decades, scientists who track the rate and timing of polar ice cap break-ups, scientists who observe and report the behavior of ocean currents, scientists who study changes in wildlife populations and behavior, scientists who observe and analyze weather patterns from satellite imagery and rank the strength of hurricanes, scientists who bore into trees to scrutinize the information contained in their rings... it's endless. Mountains of data are involved, and most of it is available to the public in some form. Scientists are anything but reluctant to publish their findings. Their careers, for the most part, depend upon publishing their findings.

What we need to "destroy skepticism once and for all" is regulation of the PR industry - something that makes them financially liable for damages caused by intentional, widespread public misinformation campaigns.

Anyway, here is an excellent site where climate scientists respond in great detail to these and other similar issues raised by Exxon Mobil's ad-men.

RealClimate

 

[Reverend Rick]

Hi, Darkendless. There is a lot of data available, but if you are looking for one definitive study that proves once and for all that anthropogenic rapid climate change is occurring (and something easily perused on the internet in a lazy afternoon, on top of that!), you won't find it. Science doesn't work that way.

Science is politically motivated and therefore cannot be trusted.

Why do these groups not even entertain data or theories that contradict their own opinion?

If I really wanted to find the truth of the matter, I would love to evaluate the oppositions opinions and data.

 

[Magic Man]

Science is politically motivated and therefore cannot be trusted.

Why do these groups not even entertain data or theories that contradict their own opinion?

They do.

 

[Reverend Rick]

mball, we are complete polar opposites.

 

[Magic Man]

mball, we are complete polar opposites.

Great. And?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Great. And?

No matter what happens in this great country of ours, one of us is going to be disappointed.

 

[Magic Man]

No matter what happens in this great country of ours, one of us is going to be disappointed.

That's probably true. However, I just want what's best for the country, while in many cases you just want what's best for you.

 

[Alceste]

Science is politically motivated and therefore cannot be trusted.

Why do these groups not even entertain data or theories that contradict their own opinion?

If I really wanted to find the truth of the matter, I would love to evaluate the oppositions opinions and data.

Scientists are generally too busy studying facts to have time to evaluate opinions.

If they're not looking at the "data" produced by Exxon Mobil and published on Fox News, it's not for a lack of inquisitiveness, it's because they know ******** when they see it.

 

[Kurgan]

Global Warming

Someone mentioned there was a global warming during the medieval period. Well the was also the little ice age. During the last 1500 years. There also was a year with no summer and a very harsh winter in 1816 this was the direct result of a single volcanic eruption in the java .
This one incident (although a very big one) effected the atmosphere so drastically that it cooled the earths mean temperature about 10 degrees

The Little Ice Age (Wikipedia)

Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling occurring after a warmer North Atlantic era known as the Medieval Warm Period. While not a true ice age, the term was introduced into scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.

The findings do not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time-frame, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and Medieval Warm Period appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries.

All of this suggests is we do not have a clear picture of what is happening in the earths atmosphere even today.

Research shows that a general warming trend started in the mid nintenth cenruty. Well that is the exact time that we started belching the most vile smoke and pollution ever created by man into the atmosphere to the scale of tons per minute. In 1840 the groth of railroads to point of 4000 miles a year in America was started. By 1865 we were laying 6500 miles of track per year By 1870 there were more than 2000 steam locomotives in America.
By 1906 the US was producing 3,791,459 tons of steel rail per year and that was only part of the total steel production our atmospheric polution has increased steadly since those times.

The Al Gorriest say “Ahaa see there you have it”!! Over and done with and it is all settled

The truth is we still not know enough to say one way or another. Even today scientists do not know what caused the rise in global tempreatures in the last 1500 years preceeding the the second industrial revolution.

It is very true that we have seen a global warming trend since 1850 but how much is caused by man? Nobody knows, besides what caused the medevil warming trend (which was about the same in amplitude)?.

The bottom line is that we do not have a clue!!

The honest truth is my Republican friends are more ignorant than the environmentallist on this issue. I guess it is the virtual reading of the Bible that has caused brain leasions in the area of common sense.

The interesting fact is the winter of 1815-16 did not differ noticeably from any previous winter in southern Canada and the northeastern region of the United States. Spring began as usual, and the lengthening days of April brought the customary flowers and flocks of birds from the north. In May, the weather had not yet warmed appreciably,



People began to grumble about the necessity of keeping the fire going, of breaking ice daily in the water buckets, and of the frosts that kept them from having fresh greens and stunted their field crops. But they were patient and confident that the weather would soon right itself. Old-timers retold with relish their stories of years when it had snowed in May.

By June, it had become obvious that this summer was unlike that of any previous year. On June 5, cold winds swept out of Hudson Bay into New England and temperatures plummeted. A cold rain began and when it was over, New England was blanketed by up to a foot of new snow.
And it didn't get any better. Throughout July and August, early morning temperatures were in the 30s and 40s. Gardens and fields were devastated and the killing frosts came in September. People faced the coming winter fearfully, and with justification. Had there not been some supplies left over from a bountiful harvest the year before, they might not have made it through what turned out to be an exceptionally severe winter in 1816-17. Fortunately, there was a normal summer in 1817, and nothing as severe as the 1816 summer has occurred since.


What was it that caused that awful weather? We now know that Mt. Tambora, a tremendous volcano just east of Java, had exploded in 1815. This giant spewed an immense amount of dust into the sky, apparently casting a screening cloak over the northern hemisphere and causing that bizarre summer of 1816.
Since that time, scientists have gained a greater appreciation for the effects that volcanic eruptions can have on the weather. In recent years, we have heard of the effects that the 1982 eruption of the Mexican volcano El Chichon had on global climates (researchers at the Geophysical Institute calculate that the amount of direct sunlight reaching the ground on clear days in Alaska was reduced by almost 25%).

Few eruptions have so great an impact. The Mt. St. Helens eruption a year earlier had little effect on the climate, and a 1976 eruption of Mt. St. Augustine in Cook Inlet was not particularly disruptive, although a cloud of fine ash from that eruption caused spectacular sunsets in Arizona and was detected as far away as Virginia.




In modern history, the eruption of an Alaskan volcano that had the most far-reaching effects was probably that of Katmai in 1912. The ash fall arising from that eruption covered an area of more that 3,000 square miles to a depth of a foot or more. Traces were reported as far south as Puget Sound, and observations from Africa recorded a haze which spread throughout the upper atmosphere. Acid fumes were strong enough at Vancouver, B.C. to weaken threads in garments hung out to dry, leading housewives to accuse local merchants of selling faulty goods. The ash cloud, carried worldwide by winds of the stratosphere, caused another (if less severe) "year without summer," and the average annual temperature of the northern hemisphere was reduced by 1.8° F.

But for those (myself included) who insist that this summer is chillier and wetter than normal, it will be necessary to find something else on which to lay the blame. There just ain't no big ash cloud circling the earth at present.

However the so called chillier and wetter summer in Texas is hotter and dryer.????

This is also a pretty damn good clue we do not know anything about the global warming issue for sure.

For anyone to make a die hard stand at this point is ludicrous.

On the other hand to refuse to believe that the amount of pollution we are spewing into the earth’s atmosphere is not affecting the weather is just plain stupid. (Sorry Republicans)

What we do know from the volcanic data and other new scientific discoveries that the earths atmosphere is alarmingly fragile. As little as a three degree temperature rise can be disastrous. We are approaching that point and this is the scary part

I am not trying to offend anyone but people need to use more common sense and not listen to what the government or the media has to say. God gave you all a brain so use it.

 

[Alceste]

This is also a pretty damn good clue we do not know anything about the global warming issue for sure.
For anyone to make a die hard stand at this point is ludicrous.

Hi, Kurgan.

Many people in this thread make the observation that pollution causes many ill effects besides the possibility of catastrophic climate change, and that the type of innovation that would result from a substantial push toward clean and sustainable lifestyles would be good for us in the long run, regardless of whether or not such a push also happens to avert an impending mass extinction, famine and global climatic disaster.

So, considering that there might be some uncertainty in the public mind (if not the minds of climate scientists), and considering that the risk if we are wrong to accept drastic preventative measures is only that we will breathe cleaner, healthier air and eat healthier, locally grown produce based on a faulty premise, and finally considering that the risk if we are wrong to refuse drastic preventative measures is mass extinction, global famine and the breakdown of civil order...

What do you think of the suggestion we should just go ahead and do it, even though the public is confused?

 

[Kurgan]

DDT wasn't "fairly harmless." It was causing an ecological catastrophe that would eventually have had a much more serious effect on human society than the malaria &al it helped control.

That concept is a popular Urban Myth. DDT itself was not the cause of the problem it was the totally uncontroled and irresponsible way we used it. millions of gallons of the stuff was used every day in the United States starting about 1947. I remember when the pressurized bug bombs first came out. people used to close up the house and set two or three of these things off every week. The farmers used to spray their entire cotton fields about once a month. DDT was cheaper than gasoline used to fly the planes, Avgas was about 30 cents a gallon back then. when I was in junior high school and I walked home after a late movie I would often be burried in a DDT fog from a passing spray truck. I remember being at one of the EPNG pumping stations in Southern New Mexico and they sprayed from the air about three times a week. People sprayed this stuff in their houses all over their food they sprayed their pets and even each other with clouds of the stuff. The farmers became leary when they killed off all the honey bees and the cotton blooms did not get polinated.
It also p***** off the Bee Keepers and the price of honey went through the roof. it took 20 years for the FDA to realise we were killing off all of the Pelicans and Golden Eagles. the overreaction was to totally ban the stuff That was a big mistake because millions of people have died from mosquito borne infections since that time

Malaria is just one. Hundreds of tests have proven that limited use of DDT for mosquito control is harmless to the rest of the environment. The problem is nobody can get any because the UN has ban the production of DDT world wide and we signed the damn treaty. This is a case of pure mass stupidity caused by some over zelous environmentalist screaming that the sky was falling.

Your so called environmental disaster is a sham!!

In my lifetime, I probably inhaled about eight gallons of the stuff and I am only partilly mentally chalenged. And that is more likely caused by the battleship full of boose I have imbibed.


...said the frog in the pan.
At what point will you eventually cry havoc?[/quote]

 

[Alceste]

Wow, I've never seen a "risks-of-DDT denier" before! I didn't know there was any such thing. I'm going to do some digging to find out where that opinion originated. (I.e. which free market ad-man created your opinion for you).

Anyway, from wiki:

DDT, DDE, and DDD magnify through the food chain, with apex predators such as raptors having a higher concentration of the chemicals than other animals sharing the same environment. They are very lipophilic and are stored mainly in body fat. DDT and DDE very resistant to metabolism; in humans their half-lives are 6 and up to 10 years, respectively. In the United States, these chemicals were detected in almost all human blood samples tested by the Centers for Disease Control in 2005

DDT is toxic to a wide range of animals in addition to insects. It is highly toxic to aquatic life, including crayfish, daphnids, sea shrimp and many species of fish. It is less toxic to mammals but cats are very susceptible, and in several instances cat populations were significantly depleted in malaria control operations that used DDT, often leading to explosive growth in rodent populations.[35] DDT may be moderately toxic to some amphibian species, especially in the larval stages. Most famously, it is a reproductive toxicant for certain birds species, and it is a major reason for the decline of the bald eagle[7], brown pelican[36] peregrine falcon, and osprey.[1] Birds of prey, waterfowl, and song birds are more susceptible to eggshell thinning than chickens and related species, and DDE appears to be more potent than DDT.[1]

DDT and DDE, like other organochlorines, have been shown to have xenoestrogenic activity, meaning they are chemically similar enough to estrogens to trigger hormonal responses in animals. This endocrine disrupting activity has been observed toxicological studies involving mice and rats, and available epidemiological evidence indicates that these effects may be occurring in humans as a result of DDT exposure. There is therefore concern that DDT may cause developmental and reproductive toxicity.

Several recent studies demonstrate a link between in utero exposure to DDT or DDE and developmental neurotoxicity in humans. For example, a 2006 study conducted by the University of California, Berkeley suggests children who have been exposed to DDT while in the womb have a greater chance of experiencing development problems,[53] and other studies have found that even low levels of DDT or DDE in umbilical cord serum at birth are associated with decreased attention at infancy[54] and decreased cognitive skills at 4 years of age.[55] Similarly, Mexican researchers have demonstrated a link between DDE exposure in the first trimester of pregnancy and retarded psychomotor development.[56]

Occupational exposure to DDT (either as a farmer or a malaria control worker) has been linked to:

• Neurological problems[66]
• Asthma[67]

There is good epidemiological evidence (i.e. studies in humans) that DDT causes cancer of the:

• Liver[21][32]
• Pancreas[21][32]
• Breast[32] (see below)

There is mixed evidence that it contributes cancer of the:

• Blood (i.e. Leukemia)[32]
• Testis[21][32][68]
• Lymphatic system (i.e. non-Hodgkin Lymphoma)[32][69]

Aha - and I see I didn't have to look very far to find out where your opinion originated. From the same page:

Investigative journalist Adam Sarvana characterizes this notion as a "myth" promoted principally by Roger Bate of the pro-DDT advocacy group Africa Fighting Malaria (AFM) in service of his anti-regulatory, free market ideology.[105]

 

[Oberon]

Anyway, from wiki:

You can use wikipedia all you want. Or you could check out a more authoritative source. For example, in chapter 7 of Phantom Risk (MIT press 1993) Bruce Ames and Lois Gold (both from UC Berkeley) goes over the myths associated with pesticides in general and DDT in particular.
"Many people view DDT as a particularly dangerous synthetic pesticide because of its bioconcentration and its years-long persistence in the environment. However, DDT is remakably non-toxic to mammals, has saved millions of human lives,; it accuses no demonstrable harm to people. As the first major synthetic insecticide, DDT replaced lead arsenate, which before the modern era was a major pesticide, and is carcinogenic and even more persistent in the environment."

But by all means, keep using wiki.

 

[Alceste]

You can use wikipedia all you want. Or you could check out a more authoritative source. For example, in chapter 7 of Phantom Risk (MIT press 1993) Bruce Ames and Lois Gold (both from UC Berkeley) goes over the myths associated with pesticides in general and DDT in particular.
"Many people view DDT as a particularly dangerous synthetic pesticide because of its bioconcentration and its years-long persistence in the environment. However, DDT is remakably non-toxic to mammals, has saved millions of human lives,; it accuses no demonstrable harm to people. As the first major synthetic insecticide, DDT replaced lead arsenate, which before the modern era was a major pesticide, and is carcinogenic and even more persistent in the environment."

But by all means, keep using wiki.

Whatever. You go ahead and prefer your little book of opinions to the multitude of scientific studies positively linking DDT to cancer, birth problems, neurological disorders and the collapse of bird populations. Then keep on patting yourself on the back for preferring the opinions of free market propagandists* to facts, as long as they agree with your point of view.

*("Peter W. Huber is a Senior Fellow of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research and serves as Counsel to the law firm of Mayer, Brown & Platt.")

 

[Oberon]

*("Peter W. Huber is a Senior Fellow of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research and serves as Counsel to the law firm of Mayer, Brown & Platt.")

Considering that the book is on science and the law, I would hope that one of the three editors has a legal background. Moreover, it is published by an academic press, with contributions by leaders in various fields, and you have wikipedia. I have more sources, and we could go on (for example, a great source on this particular topic is Professor Aaron Wildavsky's But Is It True? A Citizen's Guide to Environmental Health and Saftey Issues Harvard University Press 1995), but I didn't feel it necessary to do better than quoting one of the leading cancer researchers in the field on the subject to combat claims in a wikipedia article.

 

[Alceste]

Considering that the book is on science and the law, I would hope that one of the three editors has a legal background. Moreover, it is published by an academic press, with contributions by leaders in various fields, and you have wikipedia. I have more sources, and we could go on (for example, I great source on this particular topic is Professor Aaron Wildavsky's But Is It True? A Citizen's Guide to Environmental Health and Saftey Issues Harvard University Press 1995), but I didn't feel it necessary to do better than quoting one of the leading cancer researchers in the field on the subject to combat claims in a wikipedia article.

Are you claiming all the studies listed in the wiki article references are fictional?

It appears to me the existence and conclusions of these studies (fact) is not contested by your free market propagandists, but they disagree (opinion) that the evidence is sufficient to warrant legislation to avert the risks the studies suggest.

I can make my own opinions, thanks. I don't need the Manhattan Institute to do it for me.

I can boil down the disparity between my opinion and that of your sources in a single sentence: Free market capitalists do not believe in the merit of the precautionary principle and I do. I look before I cross the street, I stick a toe in the water before I jump in, and I don't believe it's worth risking breast cancer, bird extinction and birth defects in order to combat malaria, especially when more effective, less dangerous pesticides are available and mosquitoes have evolved a resistance to DDT.

You don't believe in precautionary principle either. Fine. Just say so. There's no need to get all snooty and condescending on account of having read a book. Everybody reads books. I'm afraid it doesn't set you "a cut above" those of us who also research things online.

 

[Alceste]

Interesting factoid: it seems Aaron Wildavsky's opinion-for-hire was at one time purchased by the tobacco industry to help cast doubt on the link between smoking and cancer. And it also seems he died of lung cancer. Maybe he should have rethought his opinion on precautionary principle after all.

 

[Oberon]

I can make my own opinions, thanks. I don't need the Manhattan Institute to do it for me.

No just wikipedia.

Are you claiming all the studies listed in the wiki article references are fictional?

No, just flawed. Would you like to hear some other carcinogens which were proven to be so using similar test? Caffiec acid, d-Limonene, and Allyl isothiocyanate. Where are these carcinogens found? Lettuce, orange juice, and mustard, among other natural foods.

The problem is that almost any chemical is a carcinogen if you feed it to rats in incredibly large doses.

DDT was NOT the incredibly dangerous chemical it is made out to be. I can back up my claims with references to academic sources, and you can call it "snooty" if you want, but it is a heck of a lot better than relying on wikipedia.

 

[Alceste]

No just wikipedia.

Right, because everybody knows encyclopedias are all about propagating opinions rather than facts.

The problem is that almost any chemical is a carcinogen if you feed it to rats in incredibly large doses.

Hardly any of the studies referenced in the wiki have anything to do with rats, so your point is completely irrelevant.

DDT was NOT the incredibly dangerous chemical it is made out to be. I can back up my claims with references to academic sources, and you can call it "snooty" if you want, but it is a heck of a lot better than relying on wikipedia.

You haven't been backing it up with "academic sources" - you've been backing it up with free market propaganda that happens to have been written by credentialed academics. Despite their credentials, they are willing to align their "research" and "analysis" with the best interests of the highest bidder.

You are forming your opinions on the basis of a sophisticated ad campaign. You're no different than someone who forms an opinion of the quality of Ford automobiles on the basis of ads for Ford automobiles, then claims the resulting opinion is objective and factual.

Careful now - the Manhattan Institute, like any professional propaganda mill, is counting on your susceptibility to the "appeal to authority" logic fallacy. That's why they recruit people with academic credentials to re-frame their clients' advertising as something other than advertising.

 

[Oberon]

Right, because everybody knows encyclopedias are all about propagating opinions rather than facts.

An encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone and it is the policy of most universities not to let students use it as a source, because it is unreliable. But go ahead and use it if it makes you feel better. I'll stick to academic publishers when I want serious information.

Hardly any of the studies referenced in the wiki have anything to do with rats, so your point is completely irrelevant.

Really? You read the studies? Tell me, what methodology was used to determine the carcinogenic properties and effects of DDT in those studies?

You haven't been backing it up with "academic sources" - you've been backing it up with free market propaganda that happens to have been written by credentialed academics.

It isn't just a matter of who they were written by, but who published them. Any academic can write anything and get it published by some mainstream publishers. I listed sources not only written by top researchers but also published by academic presses. You have wikipedia, and a bunch of ideological drivel about free market propaganda.

Every study needs funding. Most environmental studies are funded by environmental groups or backed by political groups. Funny how only when it doesn't support your claims all the sudden "bias" creeps into science.

Scientists are generally too busy studying facts to have time to evaluate opinions.

Unless of course they disagree with you. Then they become free market propaganda promoters.

Despite their credentials, they are willing to align their "opinions" with those of the highest bidder.

You haven't read the authors, you haven't read the material, so far you have only listed an article that can be edited by anyone to support you, and Bruce Ames is one of THE top cancer researchers in this country. Yet you write him off as "free market propaganda" because he disagrees with you.

You are forming your opinions on the basis of a sophisticated ad campaign.

You might want to alert Harvard University Press and MIT press that they are just ad campaigns, not serious academic publishers who make sure that everything they published is reviewed. And all you have to back your opinion so far is a wiki article.