Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic Weather Channel Founder Wants Al Gore Sued

Yes, we can affect our environment, but I doubt it is to the degree that is being claimed. Unless you also believe that we can cause other planets in our solar system to warm up, as well. We must have magic powers! We warmed up Mars! Yay!

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists


Mars and Pluto Climates Warming, Al Gore Scours for Extraterrestrial SUVs

Global Warming on Mars, Pluto, Triton and Jupiter

It's a cycle. Give it a little time and it'll most definitely swing the other way. Just as an example, have you noticed how many places are getting record rain and snowfall this winter? Have you read how many people have died from the unusually low temperatures? We even got snow here, in Ramona, trust me, snow here is weird!


Tara

It's interesting to read the differing views in this thread.

It's such a complex topic, so it's important to filter carefully all the information bombarding us. There's a lot of extremism on both sides. And each side has its hyocrites and its con-men. (don't be buying carbon credit certificates from Russians )

We can't control sunspot activity and other factors which have changed our climate since .... whenever. Records indicate that early Medieval England was warm enough to have a good wine industry. The mini-ice age (a hyperbolic term ) saw the canals of Holland freeze over quite regularly in the 17 the century. (look at all those wonderful paintings by Avercamp of people skating on the canals.)

Here in Canada our environmental agency (I've forgotten the proper title of the gov't dept!) has found that the polar ice cap has increased this winter and is now at 1996 levels.

But, no doubt that we humans can do a whole lot more to improve environmental conditions. (short of committing suicide in order to reduce our life-span carbon footprint )

Just look at how the quality of water in the Thames River has been improved from what it was decades ago. The air quality in London is better too (although it's still not a place a person with serious asthma wants to spend a summer) since the turn of the twentieth century.

So do what we can , both as individuals and communities, reject false and sensationalist science and the pompous gurus who sell that stuff, and nail those politicians on both sides of the debate whose solutions are self-serving and hypocritical.

Climate and environmental change have been a part of Earth's history. (just ask the dinosaurs ) But that doesn't give us an escape clause for not trying to be better conservators and for finding more carbon efficient ways of meeting our needs.

As the Ancient Greeks said: moderation in all things

(except for sex with the man you love. Although.... that might contribute to global warming - all that steam - so maybe cut that back to soulful glances)

anyway, my rambling thoughts

c.

Yes, some degree of climate change is natural. We're not the only influence. But we are a significant one. And we need to be aware of the effects our choices have on our planet. The consequences of those choices are going to come back to us in the end.

And yes, politicians make laws that restrict the way you do things. Did you know they also made theft and murder illegal? They've politicized the issues! And made it so much more inconvenient to deal with problems like poor neighbors and cash flow. Those darned politicians! What right do they have to impinge upon our freedom and way of life like that?

People, as individuals, in the absence of guidance/authority, tend to be selfish and irresponsible. I like to have faith in humanity as a whole, but sometimes people need rules. To make sure that we don't hurt each other (and ourselves), that we share in the work/responsibility, etc.

If you constantly choose expediency over foresight, it'll catch up with you.

As far as proof goes... How do we prove things scientifically? Through experimentation. You try something, and then you monitor the consequences/results. And then you repeat it to make sure your results are consistent.

Well... we can't do that this time. We're talking about catastrophic global climate change. We've only got one planet, and we live here. By the time you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that we're on a course to ruining the entire planet, it's too late.

We came a lot closer than I'd like to think with the ozone hole. Fortunately, we caught that one in time, slowed its progress, and have even slowly started to reverse our catastrophic mistake.

Now, a very significant number of people who are in position to make some pretty good educated guesses are telling us that we're on a path to an even bigger mistake, and that we're approaching the point of irreversability.

I'll say it yet again. We've got two options.

1. Believe the mob of professionals telling us that we need to clean up our act. We'd have fewer toxins to breathe, fewer long-term problems, and, quite possibly, we'd save ourselves from ruining the entire planet.

2. We ignore them because they can't prove it with 100% certainty. We continue to poison ourselves and make ourselves sick. And we play Russian Roulette with the entire world.

Even if there's a 50/50 chance that they're right... why take the risk when we know pretty much for sure that we'd be better off cleaning things up anyway?

Or, I guess, there is one more choice:

3. We ignore the scientists telling us that the world is going to be destroyed because we'd rather not hear it, continue scientific research into other fields, and then, just as the planet becomes uninhabitable to our species, launch our last baby into space and hope he finds a nice couple of aliens to raise him in an environment where he can develop super powers. Hey, it worked on that TV show we all know and love, right?

Paul, I didn't get the impression that most posters in this thread were denying the seriousness of the environmental issue or that the work of scientists in the relevant fields should be ignored or that politicians always make bad or immoral laws.

The impression I do have from these posts is that there is some disagreement over how to interpret the "science" (and even how data should be used to analyze and describe the situation) as well as the nature of the political choices that must now be made.

c.

My impression was that there was talk of doubting human impact on the environment and global climate change, and whether we needed to do anything about it. The thread started out with a post in favor (as far as I can tell) of a "disbeliever in global warming."

Back to an earlier post...

You know the problem with the "Venus is like that, too" argument? Venus is uninhabitable (by humans). Earth used to be like that, back before billions of single-celled organisms, each making an infinitesimal difference, changed the climate of the entire planet.

Venus has too many greenhouse gasses. Venus is too hot to support human life. We're producing greenhouse gasses, making the planet more like Venus. Now, maybe that'd happen by itself, maybe not. But helping to tip the balance, helping to hasten the process of making this planet uninhabitable by our species... not the smartest move ever, you know? And if we need regulation to make sure that people don't do that, well, it seems like a good idea to me.

Venus is also too close to the sun. Earth, on the other hand, has been placed in exactly the right position to support life(I wonder how a coincidence like that happened )

I just can't see how if the Earth has been around as long as "science" says it has, how a mere 150 years of industrial revolution is supposed to "play russian roulette" with the planet??? That's just a ridiculously extreme remark to make. Also, if the Earth were to be destroyed, then I guess that'll end war, death, famine, and hate, won't it? Isn't that what everybody wants?


TEEEEEEJ

Venus is too hot for its position relative to the Sun. Venus is actually slightly hotter than Mercury, even though Mercury is closer to the Sun than Venus. The reason for Venus's scorching temperatures is its thick atmosphere, full of greenhouse gases. The question is where Venus got all those greenhouse gases from. It could be that Venus had a lot of extremely violent volcanic eruptions which released huge amounts of noxious gases into the atmosphere.

Ann

Paul, you've made some very good points. And I think everyone on this thread would agree that a clean environment is much better than a poisoned one. There's the goal. The differences, I think, are in terms of strategy -- what can be done, what should be done. One extreme says, let's stop using fossil fuels, die by the millions and go back to living in caves. The other extreme says we can't do a darn thing about it so why kill ourselves trying? (this train of thought also says, we'll believe it's a crisis when global warmenists start *acting* like it's a crisis & give up their own consumption, which is where mockery of Al Gore's house, etc, comes in.) Most of us are somewhere in between.

So then the question is, what's the best, most efficient thing to do? Where do we get the most bang for our buck? Are solar cells going to produce enough clean power to make up for all the toxic chemical waste produced in building them? Would it be cheaper to retro-fit new pollution filters to old cars, or for the gov't to replace, free of charge, any car built before, say 1980? Do air-quality laws improve things globably, or do they push companies to other countries, where the standards are a lot lower, thereby increasing global emissions? Or, like LabRat said, does banning plastic bags make things better, or worse?

There are a lot of factors to consider.

And then there's the question of, do we pass punitive laws to try to force people to use longer-lasting yet more hazardous light bulbs, or do we try to figure out incentives for people and industries to make their own choices?

There's way too much emotion (not to say, hysteria) over the whole issue for much of a rational discussion over what incremental measures can be taken, and that's a shame.

Btw, anyone here ever read Fallen Angels? It's a book by Niven & Pournelle and some other guy whose name I don't remember, which came out in 1991. It's a near-future sci-fi adventure where sci-fi fans are the heroes (lots of fan in-jokes). The background to the story is a world where world goverments, convinced that global warming was imminent, took drastic steps to reduce emissions... which then triggered an ice age. Lots of interesting discussions in that book, and it's a fun read.

PJ

You know, Paul, I get the impression that you somehow believe that *any* action is better than none, but that if someone disagrees with you that we are apparently in favor of destroying the planet, and that simply isn't true. No one wants to ruin the planet, and none of us are evil simply because we don't happen to believe all the hysterical claims of the global warming adherents.

No, I don't believe all their wild claims. Over the 60 years of my life, I have seen far too many hysterical assertions in favor of (or against) various causes, all claiming that the cause, or the failure to support same cause, will result in the end of civilization as we know it. So far the world and our civilization are still ticking along.

You are a former MIT student and that, to me, means you are pretty bright. But the rest of us aren't stupid. I won't go into which claims I think are silly and which ones I think may have some merit, but the point is that just because I maintain a level of skepticism about much of what I am hearing doesn't make me evil. It means I am a thinking human being who takes time to evaluate the information I see and come to a reasoned conclusion. I would appreciate it if you would credit me with the ability to think, and stop implying that I am somehow against a clean planet just because I don't want to jump in without checking the water level, to use an L and C analogy.

The point of all this is that I truly think that there is a political agenda behind a great deal of the climate change claims and I think charging in too quickly with legislation to "fix" the problem may do more harm than good. If we are going to do something, we need to study climate change from all angles and include all the relevant information that we can gather before we start passing all kinds of ill-considered legislation to deal with it. As an example, I think the light bulb legislation is very bad. The new bulbs approved by our wise legislators have high contents of mercury that can cause serious brain damage and developmental problems, and possibly immune system problems, too, for children who happen to be exposed to it, and it isn't very good for adults either. What good is it to save the planet from global warming if we poison it in the process?

And the fact is that we *don't* have all the information we need to make wise decisions yet. Leaving out information in the computer models like the known warming and cooling cycles, the level of solar activity and things like the effects of clouds, simply because we don't know exactly how they work, skews those same computer models and gives us false results. When the computer models can't even predict *past* weather accurately, then I think it's safe to assume that their ability to predict future weather is somewhat in doubt. Just throwing anything and everything at a problem isn't the solution. We need to have some level of knowledge before we attack it, or we may wind up like the guy who put lead in gas to stop the knocking. Remember the law of unintended consequences. What looks good now may have the next generation swearing at us and calling us idiots.

What I am trying to say in my own bumbling way is that no, I don't advocate dirtying the planet indiscriminately. Yes, I do think we should be careful with what we do. And that doesn't mean I'm evil, selfish or indifferent. It just means that I try to make rational choices instead of jumping to conclusions with too little information. And that is exactly what I think a lot of the climate change hysteria is intended to make us do.

So please, try to avoid inferring that I and those who don't quite go along with you are bad people. We aren't, and I rather resent the implication that we are. When people bring personalities into a debate like this, that's when the shouting starts, and at that point any chance of having a civilized discussion is lost.

Nan

I'm not trying to imply that you're evil or bad or whatever. I do run into some trouble because I'm arguing on multiple fronts, with different people taking different stances.

When you and others tell me that you don't believe the science and you don't think we should be making policy about it, that sounds to me like you want to sit back and do nothing and argue about who's right...

And, frankly, I'm sick of what should be a simple scientific issue being turned into a political one. That "leftists" and "environmentalists" are horning in on people's lives and forcing them to make changes and are being evil and oppressive. And the sort of knee-jerk reaction I see (not necessarily in this thread) of "oh, it's a liberal idea, therefore it must be wrong."

Sorry if I offended you, misinterpreted you, or implied that you had an "evil" position on the issue.

Yes, the finer details of policy need to be worked out, in sensible ways that actually have a positive effect. But first we need to agree that we actually do need a policy and regulation and that what we do can affect the global environment and so on. Instead, we get complaints and feet dragging on the first step and now lawsuits... and little advancement on actually taking care of what should be perfectly obvious problems that need to be addressed (and the sooner the better for all of us).

The term "simple scientific issue" is an interesting one. Maybe it *should* be a simple scientific issue, but science is never simple, and climate science has millions of variables that we don't understand yet. Because of that, I'm not sure that there is a global warming problem, or if there is, how much. The Earth, as has been pointed out before, goes through warming and cooling cycles quite regularly. There was a time, about 1100 AD when the climate was considerably warmer than it is now, and I don't think anyone can seriously imply that that particular phase of global warming had anything to do with carbon emissions. There was a cooling trend that started in about 1350, it warmed briefly and dropped again around 1640 into the Maunder Minimum. Around 1715 it warmed again briefly and then we went into the Dalton Minimum which lasted from around 1740 to 1820. It's been warming since then but there have been dips in the curve even in recent times, and the current rise seems to have leveled off around 2001. This last winter for us has been one of the coldest in recent times, which interestingly coincides with a period of solar inactivity lasting since 2005 and still going. (Check out spaceweather.com to get a look at the current sun.) Just as a point of interest, since the beginning of the year there have been about four or five very tiny sunspots that vanished very quickly. One barely made it to the point where it could be called a sunspot and wasn't even assigned a number because it went away so fast.

The point of all this is that *we don't know enough*. Some scientists think we're in the middle of man made global warming caused by our carbon emissions but the fact is that the rise in CO2 *followed* the warming curve; it doesn't precede it. Other very well-respected scientists think that the current warming trend is part of a natural climactic cycle and that we may be near the end of it, which means we might soon be in the middle of 50 to 100 years of global cooling -- and this is as good a theory as the other one. It doesn't get as much play because the mainstream media have jumped on the global warming bandwagon. In the last year, more and more scientists have started to cast doubt on the global warming theories. They simply don't get the publicity the others get because it isn't nearly as exciting and doesn't fit the political template. With so much uncertainty going on, I think it's much too early to start doing drastic things, when we aren't sure there's even a real problem.

Does this make me a denier? Maybe. But sticking labels on people who advocate a more cautious approach to something this important doesn't necessarily invalidate our opinions, although that is the practical effect. I am one of the first to say that *we simply don't know*. We need to study the problem a bit more thoroughly, without hysterical (and often very silly) scientifically unvalidated claims being thrown around before we start doing things that can easily cause a lot more harm than good.

Nan

I don't even know what this means. I say that because chances are that even if the problem is studied more "thoroughly" (with respect to what, I wonder) there will ALWAYS be skeptics or charlatans crying out that there's something wrong or that the data is insufficient. An 100% consensus will NEVER be reached. It never is with things like this. The idea that there's some incontrovertible fact in the horizon that will put EVERYONE in the same page with something as complicated and agenda-laden as global warming is unrealistic.

You (general "you") can chose to disbelieve that the mass majority of scientists that believe that global warming is going on are led by political agendas that the media has spawned. That's certainly your prerogative. But personally, I think it's a bit unrealistic to say that the huge numbers on one side are due to corruption. That's when conspiracy theories go a bit too far I think.

Also, it's not like the other side is excempt from agendas either.

I'm not a scientist. I'm on the opposite side of campus actually, which means that by training I look critically past the glorification of "facts." I know science is just a constructed discourse as any other discipline and this is especially evident as the objects of study becomes more complex. That, however, doesn't mean that I dismiss the work of scientists, especially a large number of them. It's not responsible for me to do that--I don't know a thing about climate change and I wouldn't even begin to know how to interpret the data. I am very aware that I need someone else to mediate for me. So when I see that "an overwhelming majority" of scientists have agreed with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that really does sound like the people that I'd want to rely on for information. I really do disagree with the disrespect with which years of scientific training are dismissed by lay people who don't know a thing of the objects of study in question.

Is the IPCC perfect (because I already see some of you with "objective" links out to "educate" me)? NO--nothing is perfect. I know the criticisms, but until the other side can get a larger number of consensus, I'm afraid that's where I'm comfortable. True it's not a rock solid position, but I'm not sure if rigid, unchanging stances are always the best thing.

I find it interesting to look at the links people put up to back their claims. A lot of the time those links carry the same biases that the posters have, so I'm not sure how helpful they are in propping up a particular position as "correct."

alcyone

http://www.spaceweather.com/

This link has no agenda of any kind. It is simply a website that shows us what is going on in our solar system.

And as I said, I am not at this point saying that there isn't any global warming. I am simply advocating caution until we know a little bit more. Some of the solutions being touted can cause a great deal of harm and I don't want to see that harm done unless there is a real reason for it.

And since when am I promoting an agenda to say that we need to be a little careful? I look both ways before I cross the street, too. That doesn't mean I have an agenda. I just want to avoid an accident.

Nan

But that's exactly my point. At what point will we "know a little bit more"? And "know a little bit more" according to what? When will we all agree that we know enough to act or not to act?

I'm sorry, as I see it, it's just not going to happen. It's an unrealistic thing to hope for because someone will always disagree.

So in a sense, it is a lot like standing back and doing nothing. And there are implicit agendas that this position justifies (note I am speaking about a position not making a personal accusation or getting into a personality thing), as far as priorities go.

alcyone

Not at all. There was a time when people believed a lot of different things about the cause of disease that modern medical science disagrees with today. Those ideas haven't gone away (as an RN, I've run into quite a few people who still believe that diseases are an imbalance in the body's functions and that those imbalances allow germs to invade and multiply out of control, not the other way around) but the majority of evidence is on the side of the "germ theory" and that is what we operate on.

When science can show me a preponderance of evidence that the Earth's warming is due to man made causes, I'll go along with it. But first they're going to have to eliminate several other equally probable factors as the cause -- and so far they haven't. The IPCC "scientists" aren't all scientists by a long way, and quite a few of them have since come out and disavowed the report, saying that it is scientifically inaccurate and politically driven. Not having been there, I can't say whether it is or not. But I can say that enough well-respected scientists have cast doubt on the man-made global warming theory that I think it warrants some further study before we take it at face value. That is not doing nothing, and I don't think double checking our research is an unreasonable measure at all.

Nan

I've said what I have to say (I'm pretty sure). Obviously, you disagree. I understand that.

But...

Please stop putting words in my mouth. Not once have I said I thought you were "evil" or a "bad person." Not once have I tried to stick a label on you. I've argued generally, because there is a larger debate, both in this thread and beyond (you're not the only one speaking up for the doubter's side). But that is entirely different than throwing labels around or stamping them on you.

I've tried to represent my POV simply and clearly. And you're telling me that I'm quashing the discussion and making it personal?

And, yes, I think we need action. Not any action. But effective and sensible action to lower our emissions. It'll help for a whole host of reasons. Any action we take to slow global warming is going to have other positive effects. (I'd personally be in favor of it for those effects first and global warming as a happy side effect.) Making the changes will cost money now, but will ultimately be of benefit. The details will be hard to work out, yes, but the general idea seems very clear-cut.

And I'm getting a very mixed message from you on that. You don't want to act now because the science still isn't in. (That's something I've been hearing for at least 20 years. More than enough time to double- and triple-check the numbers and conclusions.) You don't want the government imposing regulations that could cost you money. But you're not against measures that would reduce emissions?

Now you're putting words in my mouth and taking me out of context. There is nothing that says we can't try to be good stewards of the planet. Keeping emissions low is a good idea. But I don't think that we should start legislating horrendous restrictions on our national economy until we at least have a good reason to think it will do some good.

Did you read *any* of the information I wrote about above? What I have tried to advocate is being careful and not jumping to a lot of conclusions not supported by the facts. The IPCC report is rife with errors and questionable data. I want to see that research double-checked by an organization less politically motivated than the UN -- one less interested in getting its hands into the pockets of US taxpayers.

For your information, Paul, I was recycling before you were born. Up until recently I've driven a compact or subcompact car. I do have an SUV now, for other, more overriding reasons, but even then I bought one of the smaller models that gets pretty good gas mileage. I try very hard not to pollute and to be a responsible citizen. I believe that taking care of the planet is a must.

*But* the science *isn't* in. There is a lot of evidence that the climate may be driven by solar activity. During those climactic minimums of which I spoke earlier the number of sunspots could be counted on the fingers of both hands. There are historical records, if you want to go to the trouble of looking them up. During the 1990s solar activity was way up, and the planet's temperature rose. But around 2001 it leveled off -- look it up. The records are there. The previous, older reports were based on flawed data that was later corrected by NASA. And then, around 2005 the next solar cycle was supposed to start and it didn't.

Forecasts for the new solar cycle were revised to start in 2006. Only it didn't. The winter that year was darned cold. Here in California we had several deep freezes that killed citrus crops all over the state. So again they revised the start date for 2007. And it didn't start. The summer in the southern hemisphere last year was so cold it's been referred to as the year without a summer. And this last winter the Earth's temperature averaged out as the coldest winter in several years. Snow packs covered huge amounts of the country, Britain froze, and in Southern China they got a cold wave that overwhelmed their emergency services -- especially since they don't *get* snow there. Or didn't. The new sunspot cycle was now predicted to start this year. So far they're still not sure it has.

Now I'm not saying that there is no other explanation for global warming and cooling than a solar one -- but it's at least one other viable theory that needs to be proven or disproven before we accept the man made cause unreservedly.

And one other thing that I respectfully take issue with you on. In the past, global warming has never hurt anyone. When the temperatures around the world rose, civilizations flourished. But when worldwide temperatures dropped, mankind was plagued with wars, starvation and disease. In this last century, the worldwide average temperature rose less than a full degree centigrade -- a rise that was virtually wiped out in this last year. The polar ice packs are growing again. I know, I know, the Antarctic peninsular ice is melting but that is believed to be due to shifts in ocean currents. The rest of the Antarctic ice pack is getting thicker. And, believe me, Antarctica is a very big place.

Now this could all be a temporary phenomenon. Maybe it is. But in my mind it is enough to raise some doubts. I didn't say I can't be convinced -- but I need something besides Al Gore's movie and the UN to convince me, because, as far as I'm concerned, their credibility is compromised by corruption and self-interest.

My position is perfectly consistent. I advocate caution and, as I said, caution is a pretty good way to go.

Nan

Clearly, we are not understanding each other's words and intentions. I respectfully withdraw from the discussion.

I've enjoyed our discussion, Paul, and I agree that now is a good time to stop.

Nan

I haven't had the time to jump in on this one, but I will honor both Paul's and Nan's request to stop. I'd just like to say this has been a great discussion.

Thanks to all who participated.

Awesome posts, Nan!