• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Global Warming Question

Alceste

Vagabond
Whatever, Oberon. I'm not particularly interested in explaining the difference between facts and opinions to you. If the "top cancer researcher" is of the opinion that precautionary principle is misguided, it's still just an opinion, and has no more value than mine, or yours, or that of the people who contribute to wikipedia. Your insistence that a molecular biologist's opinion vis a vis the precautionary principle (a philosophical / ethical issue, not a biological one) has more value than mine (and presumably your own) only demonstrates a major weakness in your capacity for critical thinking: appeal to authority.
 

Oberon

Well-Known Member
Whatever, Oberon. I'm not particularly interested in explaining the difference between facts and opinions to you. If the "top cancer researcher" is of the opinion that precautionary principle is misguided, it's still just an opinion, and has no more value than mine, or yours, or that of the people who contribute to wikipedia. Your insistence that a molecular biologist's opinion vis a vis the precautionary principle (a philosophical / ethical issue, not a biological one) has more value than mine (and presumably your own) only demonstrates a major weakness in your capacity for critical thinking: appeal to authority.

That's your problem. You talk about the "precautionary principle" but what you fail to realize is that actions have consequences, including the ones you support. That is why DDT is such a great example. Carson's book sparked a whole movement of people spouting "better safe than sorry" to ban the stuff. Well, great, except we didn't have anything nearly as good to replace it. And malaria, which had become a very minor global problem, came back in spades, killing MILLIONS.

So much for your precautionary principle. The same applies to global warming. Virtually all the experts agree that climate change is happening. But how humans are contributing, to what extent, and so forth, is hardly agreed upon, nor do we really know enough.

We know the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles. We know that our temperature data only goes back a century or so (and in many places on earth not even that far). We know that the climate system is incredibly complex, and that our computer models consistently fail to predict past weather.

You talk about "precautionary principle" but any number of other environmental regulations HAVE CONSEQUENCES of their own. Banning DDT showed the dangers of acting first and researching later.

We don't know enough about the climate system to know how much humans are contributing to the current warming cycle, yet nonetheless the so-called "precautionary principle" advocates also advocate spending billions of dollars and doing god knows what else without seeming to realize that their actions have consequences as well.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Science is politically motivated and therefore cannot be trusted.
Rick, you're wrong. This is a lie. That's NOT what science is.

Somehow I have a feeling that when your life depends on it, you rely on science, am I right?

Why do these groups not even entertain data or theories that contradict their own opinion?
They do. The entire theory has been through the most challenging possible questioning and challenging, and the result is now that human-caused climate change is real and is threatening.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
That's your problem. You talk about the "precautionary principle" but what you fail to realize is that actions have consequences, including the ones you support. That is why DDT is such a great example. Carson's book sparked a whole movement of people spouting "better safe than sorry" to ban the stuff. Well, great, except we didn't have anything nearly as good to replace it. And malaria, which had become a very minor global problem, came back in spades, killing MILLIONS.

So much for your precautionary principle.

This free market propagandist's obsession with malaria is part of another persuasion tactic based on a logical fallacy. A is used for B and C. The benefits outweigh the risks for application C, therefore the benefits must also outweigh the risks for application B.

The WHO recommends DDT for malaria prevention programs (where research indicates the benefits outweigh the risks), but not for crop spraying (where research indicates the risks outweigh the benefits). So what exactly is it about the current state of affairs vis a vis DDT that you object to? Do you think crop spraying with DDT in North America somehow prevents malaria in Burkina Faso?
 

Oberon

Well-Known Member
This free market propagandist's obsession with malaria is part of another persuasion tactic based on a logical fallacy. A is used for B and C. The benefits outweigh the risks for application C, therefore the benefits must also outweigh the risks for application B.

The WHO recommends DDT for malaria prevention programs (where research indicates the benefits outweigh the risks), but not for crop spraying (where research indicates the risks outweigh the benefits). So what exactly is it about the current state of affairs vis a vis DDT that you object to? Do you think crop spraying with DDT in North America somehow prevents malaria in Burkina Faso?

I'm not talking about the current state of affairs at all. I'm talking about why it was banned in the first place, the poor reasons for doing so, and the effects, nor whether or not and how we should use it now. The problem was banning it then without good cause based on the "precautionary principle" and the disastrous effects the ban had. We simply had no good substitutes for this pesticide, no good research that it was killing the birds as Carson said, and far less research that DDT was dangerous to humans.

But we banned it anyway because of the precautionry principle, and as a result malaria became a major problem and millions of people died.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
BTW, forgot to mention that IMO the only thing global warming and DDT have in common is that the same people who cobbled together your opinion for you regarding DDT have done the same for global warming.
 

twinmama

Member
I live 4 hours drive away south from arctic circle. I don't need any scientific data to tell me that we are in deep trouble - all I need to do is look out from my kitchen window.

Our climate and nature has changed dramatically in less than 10 years. Our native animals and plants are disappearing because new species are jumping in every year from central Europe. Our winters(that are very important to our many native species)used to last from November to Early april. Now we have rainy christmases and if we are lucky we have some snow in january-march.

There are allready more refugees in the world due to the climate change than due to wars.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
I'm not talking about the current state of affairs at all. I'm talking about why it was banned in the first place, the poor reasons for doing so, and the effects, nor whether or not and how we should use it now. The problem was banning it then without good cause based on the "precautionary principle" and the disastrous effects the ban had. We simply had no good substitutes for this pesticide, no good research that it was killing the birds as Carson said, and far less research that DDT was dangerous to humans.

But we banned it anyway because of the precautionry principle, and as a result malaria became a major problem and millions of people died.

Well, I'd go ahead and put the lie to all your false factual assumptions here (cherry-picked for you by people bespoke opinion tailors) but internet sources are not approved by your university and I haven't got time to go to the library. My hands are tied.
 

Oberon

Well-Known Member
BTW, forgot to mention that IMO the only thing global warming and DDT have in common is that the same people who cobbled together your opinion for you regarding DDT have done the same for global warming.

Really? What has Ames written on global warming?

And furthermore, as long as you want to take that route, the same people clamoring for "action now!" for all sorts of environmental issues are the same people who were clamoring for "action now!" when it came DDT.

The history of environmentalism is plagued with errors and bad calls, from trying to "preserve" yellowstone park to DDT. Scare tactics make people want to fix problems without knowing either what the solution is, or even what the problem is.

This is true with climate change. We do not have enough knowledge about how the climate works in order to know what sort of actions should be taken. The "precautionary principle" is a poor excuse for "act now ask questions later" and it is what killed millions when DDT was banned.

Yes, we are learning about the climate, and our knowledge continues to grow. But until our model can accurately predict the future, we don't know enough to institute major policies spending billions of dollars and doing goodness knows what else when we aren't even sure what good it will do.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
I live 4 hours drive away south from arctic circle. I don't need any scientific data to tell me that we are in deep trouble - all I need to do is look out from my kitchen window.

Our climate and nature has changed dramatically in less than 10 years. Our native animals and plants are disappearing because new species are jumping in every year from central Europe. Our winters(that are very important to our many native species)used to last from November to Early april. Now we have rainy christmases and if we are lucky we have some snow in january-march.

There are allready more refugees in the world due to the climate change than due to wars.

But these facts haven't been vetted by the Manhattan Institute to ensure they conform to free market ideology! Therefore they can't possibly be true! ;)
 

Oberon

Well-Known Member
Well, I'd go ahead and put the lie to all your false factual assumptions here (cherry-picked for you by people bespoke opinion tailors) but internet sources are not approved by your university and I haven't got time to go to the library. My hands are tied.


Maybe you should have done the research first, instead of running to wikipedia to support opinions you already had. Then you wouldn't be put in the awkward position of having only wikipedia to defend your claims, while I have actual academic sources.
 

Oberon

Well-Known Member
I live 4 hours drive away south from arctic circle. I don't need any scientific data to tell me that we are in deep trouble - all I need to do is look out from my kitchen window.

Our climate and nature has changed dramatically in less than 10 years. Our native animals and plants are disappearing because new species are jumping in every year from central Europe. Our winters(that are very important to our many native species)used to last from November to Early april. Now we have rainy christmases and if we are lucky we have some snow in january-march.

There are allready more refugees in the world due to the climate change than due to wars.

Another problem with too many environmentalists. The naive assumption that the planet is somehow a stable balanced system which humans are throwing off kilt.

THE WORLD WAS WARMER CENTURIES AGO!!!!

Yes, it is changing now. But it is constantly changing!

This planet is a dynamic system, with incredible complexity. Most of the species that have ever been on this planet are extinct. The planet has undergone radical changes, mass extinctions, and so forth, long before humans showed up. The vast majority of greenhouse gasses are NATURAL!

But by all means, lets do exactly what we did with DDT, implement policies based on too little knowledge and then ignore massive consequences.
 

themadhair

Well-Known Member
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.
Maybe you should have done the research first, instead of running to wikipedia to support opinions you already had. Then you wouldn't be put in the awkward position of having only wikipedia to defend your claims, while I have actual academic sources.
A wikipedia article is only as good as its sources. If you can’t find a problem with the sources used in that article then you have absolutely no argument whatsoever with the information that article contains. Some of the sources used for Alceste’s wiki section are:
DDT - toxicity, ecological toxicity and regulatory information
http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/pesticides_hazard_rev_3.pdf
Use of oral DDT in three human barbiturate intoxic...[Clin Toxicol. 1973] - PubMed Result (A pubmed paper)
Environmental pollution and diabetes: a neglected association (a study from the Lancet)
Organochlorine Exposure and Incidence of Diabetes in a Cohort of Great Lakes Sport Fish Consumers". (A study from the Environmental Health Perspectives)
Prevalence of Self-Reported Diabetes and Exposure to Organochlorine Pesticides among Mexican Americans: Hispanic Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1982–1984 (A study from the Environmental Health Perspectives)
Elsevier: Article Locator (a review from the Lancet)
CDC - Nonmalarial Infant Deaths and DDT Use for Malaria Control (Centre for Disease Control)
CDC - Malaria Control and Public Health (Centre for Disease Control and on pubmed)
CDC - Malaria Control and Public Health (Centre for Disease Control)
BBC NEWS | Health | DDT 'link' to slow child progress (The BBC article on a University of Berkeley study)
http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2008/10553/abstract.html (A study from the Environmental Health Perspectives)
In utero exposure to background concentrations of ...[Am J Epidemiol. 2006] - PubMed Result (pubmed)
In utero p,p'-DDE exposure and infant neurodevelop...[Environ Health Perspect. 2007] - PubMed Result (pubmed)
Impaired semen quality associated with environment...[J Androl. 2007 May-Jun] - PubMed Result (pubmed)
Reduced seminal parameters associated with environ...[J Androl. 2006 Jan-Feb] - PubMed Result (pubmed)
DDT exposure, work in agriculture, and time to pre...[J Occup Environ Med. 2008] - PubMed Result (pubmed)
DDT and DDE exposure in mothers and time to pregna...[Lancet. 2003] - PubMed Result (pubmed)
Preconception serum DDT and pregnancy loss: a pros...[Am J Epidemiol. 2005] - PubMed Result (pubmed)
Invited Commentary: Why DDT matters now. [Am J Epidemiol. 2005] - PubMed Result (pubmed)
Concentrations of organochlorine pollutants in mot...[Chemosphere. 2007] - PubMed Result (pubmed)
Effects of PCBs, p,p'-DDT, p,p'-DDE, HCB and beta-...[Occup Environ Med. 2008] - PubMed Result (pubmed)
Relationship of thyroid hormone levels to levels o...[Environ Health Perspect. 2008] - PubMed Result (pubmed)
Chronic nervous-system effects of long-term occupa...[Lancet. 2001] - PubMed Result (pubmed)
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?alias=pesticide-exposure-tied-t&chanId=sa003&modsrc=reuters (Scientific American)
ATSDR - Toxicological Profile: DDT, DDE, and DDD (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry)
Health risks and benefits of bis(4-chlorophenyl)-1...[Lancet. 2005 Aug 27-Sep 2] - PubMed Result (pubmed)
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2009/11748/11748.pdf (A study from the Environmental Health Perspectives)
Organochlorines and risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. [Int J Cancer. 2007] - PubMed Result (pubmed)
Environmental and occupational causes of cancer: n...[Rev Environ Health. 2008 Jan-Mar] - PubMed Result (pubmed)
Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling of ...[Environ Health Perspect. 2008] - PubMed Result (pubmed)
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2007/10260/10260.pdf (A study from the Environmental Health Perspectives)
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/6492/6492.html (A study from the Environmental Health Perspectives)

Look at all those academic sources. Makes you a bit of a hypocrite for dismissing that article out of hand now doesn’t it? Maybe Alceste isn’t the one who let their opinions run ahead of their research….

The same applies to global warming. Virtually all the experts agree that climate change is happening. But how humans are contributing, to what extent, and so forth, is hardly agreed upon, nor do we really know enough.

We know the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles. We know that our temperature data only goes back a century or so (and in many places on earth not even that far). We know that the climate system is incredibly complex, and that our computer models consistently fail to predict past weather.
More crap. I think Science said it best with this piece:

Science said:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Naomi Oreskes*
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements.

There is more in the full article:Science
It surprises me that one who claims to stick to academic sources could be so clueless on what the academic consensus is. Talking through you arse perhaps?
 

Oberon

Well-Known Member
A wikipedia article is only as good as its sources. If you can’t find a problem with the sources used in that article then you have absolutely no argument whatsoever with the information that article contains.
Look at all those academic sources. Makes you a bit of a hypocrite for dismissing that article out of hand now doesn’t it? Maybe Alceste isn’t the one who let their opinions run ahead of their research….

Wrong. Because the problem with the bulk of research into carcinogens is that so many chemicals ARE carcinogens. I have read through the research on DDT and on pesticides. When subjected to the same tests, apples and celery contain carcinogens.



http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686?paged=60
It surprises me that one who claims to stick to academic sources could be so clueless on what the academic consensus is. Talking through you arse perhaps?


Nope. Unlike those who simply read the summary for politicians, I actually do take the time to read through the long publications put out by the IPCC and other organizations. Yes, the consensus of scholarship is that humans have an effect on the environment. Yet it IS true that our models cannot accurately predict past changes or the future. It is also true that we do not know to what degree humans are affecting the climate, how much of the change is simply natural, or any number of important things.

Nor is Alceste's claim that science is not influenced by politics at all true. Like all disciplines, the more political the subject matter, the more politics is involved.

I happen to think that humans ARE contributing to the current warming cycle. I am not prepared to institute policies for change until the research is
1. able to accurately predict climate change in the years to come
2. able to better understand climate change itself so that we are able to differentiate natural change from the effects generated by humans
3. able to show that negative consequences can be avoided or reverse by the policies implemented.

So far, all we are at is a stage where most scientists in relevant fields are convinced that humans are contributing to climate change.
 

themadhair

Well-Known Member
Wrong. Because the problem with the bulk of research into carcinogens is that so many chemicals ARE carcinogens. I have read through the research on DDT and on pesticides. When subjected to the same tests, apples and celery contain carcinogens.
Such a sweeping generalised dismissal of so many peer-reviewed papers. More talking out of your arse? Or do you actually have some references for these methodological errors that, apparently, are unknown to may researchers in the field?

Unlike those who simply read the summary for politicians, I actually do take the time to read through the long publications put out by the IPCC and other organizations.
Really? Because it appears that your comments are indicating otherwise.

Yet it IS true that our models cannot accurately predict past changes or the future.
It really bugs me when people have this ‘know-it-all’ attitude while speaking crap like the above.
Ice Core Studies Confirm Accuracy Of Climate Models
Of course, since you keep up with the relevant studies you must be familiar with this research.

It is also true that we do not know to what degree humans are affecting the climate, how much of the change is simply natural, or any number of important things.
I love the way you weaseled this in so as to essentially reaffirm your mistaken opinion on this issue. I think I need to quote from that Science article again since you appear intent on missing the point:
Science said:
This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

I happen to think that humans ARE contributing to the current warming cycle. I am not prepared to institute policies for change until the research is
1. able to accurately predict climate change in the years to come
2. able to better understand climate change itself so that we are able to differentiate natural change from the effects generated by humans
3. able to show that negative consequences can be avoided or reverse by the policies implemented.
Goalposts appear to have moved. There is a significant body of research that goes someway to answering the unreasonable conditions you are attempting to impose. And I thought you claimed to have read the relevant publications on this issue. Obviously you are a ******** merchant.
 

twinmama

Member
Another problem with too many environmentalists. The naive assumption that the planet is somehow a stable balanced system which humans are throwing off kilt.

Who said that it was stable? Not me. FCOL I live in a country that is shaped by ice ages and is still rising few centimeters/year due to the last one.

So now Scandinavians are stupid environmentalists.

okay, then we are but it does not change the fact that our nature is disappearing in front of our eyes.

The keywords were "in less than 10 years" - and as far as we obviously stupid scandinavians know there has not been any massive meteorites exploading lately on earth surface. In fact there has not been happening anything that could explain this sudden, fast climate change.

And yes - lets just pollute more and wait data, who cares about those third world countries and savages in africa who were left without rains -again -this year.

Let's wait data, we still have that luxury.

(BTW - who remembers the news about a year ago when several USA scientists came out and told how BUSH's goverment has pressured them to stay quiet about their alarming study results regards global warming)
 
Last edited:

Oberon

Well-Known Member
Or do you actually have some references for these methodological errors that, apparently, are unknown to may researchers in the field?
The problems aren't unknown to researchers in the field. Ames is one of THE biggest names in carcinogenic recearch, and he is once my sources.

I think I need to quote from that Science article again since you appear intent on missing the point:

Thanks, because this quote confirms EXACTLY what I am talking about

"The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. "

Acting without knowing is exactly what happened with DDT. Is DDT the safest thing in the world? Of course not. But banning it wasn't necessary, and the results were disastrous.

Should research into climate change be funded and ongoing? Yes. But research and rushed policies are two different things. We already know what happens when we are too quick to rush in and try to fix what we don't understand.
 

themadhair

Well-Known Member
The problems aren't unknown to researchers in the field.
This is the dumbest comment on this thread. Seriously??? This is your argument??? No peer-reviewed papers that show otherwise??


Thanks, because this quote confirms EXACTLY what I am talking about
You do realise that it is pretty dense of your to try and quote-mine an article I posted? Or are you really that clueless about the science that you have to resort to this type of tactic?

Acting without knowing is exactly what happened with DDT. Is DDT the safest thing in the world? Of course not. But banning it wasn't necessary, and the results were disastrous.
When you make an argument as daft as this, in complete defiance of the current research on climate change, you are broadcasting your ignorance of the subject. Do you actually have any scientific evidence for the position you hold or is all arrogance and false analogy?
 
Top