Global Warming

MM, aren't there better articles out there that support the non-warming stance? Ann Coulter just grates ever nerve in my body. Wasn't the world in a similar situation with the hole in the ozone layer? One side screaming how expensive switching to non-CFC producing aerosols and refrigerants would be, the other side saying it would pay for itself eventually and drastic action was needed. I think it is pretty obvious who won that argument. I tend to support the cautious side in situation such as global warming, that will effect the entire planet possibly for centuries. As the third world industrializes the problem will only continue to grow.

 

I'm not surprised with this post. Most of the responses to Lomborg have nothing to do with substance and have everything to do with ad hominem attacks. Comparing him to Rush Limbaugh? LOL. Very nice.

Here's another good quote-
"Take all the issues the critics did not even mention (about half my book). We have a world in which we live longer and are healthier, with more food, fewer starving, better education, higher standards of living, less poverty, less inequality, more leisure time and fewer risks. And this is true for both the developed and the developing world (although getting better, some regions start off with very little, and in my book I draw special attention to the relatively poorer situation in Africa). Moreover, the best models predict that trends will continue. "

 

I would say that 1200 Nobel Laureats agreed warming is happening.

 

I’ve reread the article several times, trying to filter out the ‘liberal baiting hyperbole’ and found little (nothing?) of substance left. I agree with UnderOver: There certainly are strong positions refuting some of the Global Warming contingent, but this article certainly wasn’t one. If only we had more aerosol cans, burned more fossil fuels, sprayed DDT and other chemicals all over, and expanded Nuclear energy…

I agree that environmental studies are often not subject to the same scrutiny as other studies, and are certainly subject to as much, or more philosophical bias, but common sense tells us that disregard for the environment must have some serious consequences. Just because we cannot precisely pin point the consequences and their timelines does not mean we should ignore them. Mrs JB summed it up quite well. We are pretty sure there is an impact, but not necessarily sure exactly what that impact is.

Industry is remarkably adaptable. The switch from aerosol spray, the introduction of airbags in cars (after years of resistance) the reduction in foam containers at fast food places (again, after much resistance) has showed us that over and over.

The key is balance. I’ve rarely heard people who argue against Kyoto, or against other environmental initiatives offer alternatives other than the status quo. But the goal of reducing our impact on the environment is an important one. Don’t you agree?

 

If 'eggs good/bad' means you don't trust scientists then that cuts your 'new study' out at the legs. The problem is that you've got the analogy backwards. Climatologists are pushing the envelope while non-scientists (journalists, conservative political commentators) and petroleum companies are denying it. The main argument conservatives push is that the economic price is too high to act, not that it simply isn't happening.

And I've already explained the ice age part. As the theories have evolved they've begun to understand that in a very real sense warming = cooling.

 

Actually I posted an alternative. We should spend that money on environmental causes that will actually save lives. I believe global warming is there, but you have to balance costs and benefits. The costs (hundreds of billions of dollars per year) of Kyoto far outweight the benefits (delaying warming for 6 years).

 

This statement shows johnheath is just technically speaking "gobbledygook propaganda" and doesn't have a handle on the issues (or does, and is being very disingenuous—which would be worse).

a) all legit scientists (geologists, meterologists, climatologists) on these matters regardless of their position on GW admit they really on big assumptions and would never use the words "disproves the Global Warming Theory convincingly" for any study or any set of data. Something as complex as global warming probably never will come down to simplified generalizations and easily proved theory.

b) I have looked at that study and all it really can be used for in making some assertions about wine production in Great Britain if I recall. It can't be used at all as a guide for the potential impact of global climate change regardless if it is due to primarily nature, man or a heavy dose of both.

The totally unsubstantive comments by Mr. Clutch, Trader-Junior and johnhealth (along with the likes of Coulter and Limbaugh) just makes it impossible to take them seriously. Its like the spend all day looking for some fringe psuedoscientists or one writer who agrees with their predetermined position so they can try to spin a web of “irrefutable arguments and facts” from it. We are not trying to win a court case where you look for whatever you can to support your case regardless of its merit—try to engage in some substantive dialogue.

I’ll give ya’ll a hint. The possible “reasonable” conservative point of view against global warming is that it is entirely possible that man has an impact on global climate—but 1) the effects are probably negligible relative to natures impact, 2) the effects have about as good a chance of improving conditions for some parts of the world as hurting others, 3) we need more data before acting. My bias is to error on the side of limiting mans impact as much as possible within reason—but if ya’ll start on one of these other paths at least you have some ground to stand on and won’t end up with statements like “case closed’, “irrefutable evidence”, “theory proved”, “unequivocal data” that makes ya’ll look like you don’t think deeply, don’t have a clue what you are talking about, or just being disingenuous. (BTW—the above holds true for macroeconomics—cough, cough, trader-junior, cough, cough--because there are some many unmeasured variables involved that impact the ultimate outcomes—all you can do is make some educated guesses and be open about your assumptions and recognize you may be wrong)

 

OK Mr. Clutch--I retract much of what I said before as this makes sense even if I disagree with your position on Kyoto--though your "case closed" response in response to Lomborg didn't help your cause.

 

And so you have

Are you really in favour of spending hundreds of billions for clean water etc as you proposed?

The US has opted out of Kyoto, yet hasn't used this to further efforts to expand support for foreign aid (Other than the GBII World Tour -- I'm allowed this dig -- it is the D&D Forum, afterall)

I'm agreeing with Hayes on this one. The argument seems to come down to some general agreement about impact with disagreements as to the extent and the costs to remedy. The environmental movement tends to exagerate to impact, and industry tends to underplay the impact while exaggerating the costs.

 

It's just a joke. I find it funny how people get mad when TJ says it.

 

Yeah, I would prefer doing that rather than slowing down our economy with Kyoto. I wouldn't necessarily mind spending more on environmental problems. It just seems to me that a lot of enviornmentalists see corporations and capitalism as the main problem, rather than as part of the solution (with the investment and technological advances they can provide). They seem to see Kyoto as a first step in a series of moves to regulate capitalism.

 

So, you think calling me a liar helps your case? Choke on this "gobbledygook".

btw, we know what the temperatures were during the Middle Ages- that is not "theory".

Morons like you and Algore who think we can spot a trend using the last 200 years of weather history make me laugh.
________________________________________

Middle Ages were warmer than today, say scientists
By Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent
(Filed: 06/04/2003)


Claims that man-made pollution is causing "unprecedented" global warming have been seriously undermined by new research which shows that the Earth was warmer during the Middle Ages.

From the outset of the global warming debate in the late 1980s, environmentalists have said that temperatures are rising higher and faster than ever before, leading some scientists to conclude that greenhouse gases from cars and power stations are causing these "record-breaking" global temperatures.

Last year, scientists working for the UK Climate Impacts Programme said that global temperatures were "the hottest since records began" and added: "We are pretty sure that climate change due to human activity is here and it's accelerating."

This announcement followed research published in 1998, when scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia declared that the 1990s had been hotter than any other period for 1,000 years.

Such claims have now been sharply contradicted by the most comprehensive study yet of global temperature over the past 1,000 years. A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.

The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University, examined the findings of studies of so-called "temperature proxies" such as tree rings, ice cores and historical accounts which allow scientists to estimate temperatures prevailing at sites around the world.

The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between the ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher even than today.

They also confirm claims that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300, during which the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up again - but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.

The timing of the end of the Little Ice Age is especially significant, as it implies that the records used by climate scientists date from a time when the Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today's temperature rise.

According to the researchers, the evidence confirms suspicions that today's "unprecedented" temperatures are simply the result of examining temperature change over too short a period of time.

The study, about to be published in the journal Energy and Environment, has been welcomed by sceptics of global warming, who say it puts the claims of environmentalists in proper context. Until now, suggestions that the Middle Ages were as warm as the 21st century had been largely anecdotal and were often challenged by believers in man-made global warming.

Dr Philip Stott, the professor emeritus of bio-geography at the University of London, told The Telegraph: "What has been forgotten in all the discussion about global warming is a proper sense of history."

According to Prof Stott, the evidence also undermines doom-laden predictions about the effect of higher global temperatures. "During the Medieval Warm Period, the world was warmer even than today, and history shows that it was a wonderful period of plenty for everyone."

In contrast, said Prof Stott, severe famines and economic collapse followed the onset of the Little Ice Age around 1300. He said: "When the temperature started to drop, harvests failed and England's vine industry died. It makes one wonder why there is so much fear of warmth."

The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the official voice of global warming research, has conceded the possibility that today's "record-breaking" temperatures may be at least partly caused by the Earth recovering from a relatively cold period in recent history. While the evidence for entirely natural changes in the Earth's temperature continues to grow, its causes still remain mysterious.

Dr Simon Brown, the climate extremes research manager at the Meteorological Office at Bracknell, said that the present consensus among scientists on the IPCC was that the Medieval Warm Period could not be used to judge the significance of existing warming.

Dr Brown said: "The conclusion that 20th century warming is not unusual relies on the assertion that the Medieval Warm Period was a global phenomenon. This is not the conclusion of IPCC."

He added that there were also doubts about the reliability of temperature proxies such as tree rings: "They are not able to capture the recent warming of the last 50 years," he said.

 

Agreed. And it hurts their cause and their credibility.

I'm not on board with Kyoto either, but mainly because there are far too many exemptions so that those who comply, will be burdened with too much of the cost without the accord having a meaningful impact. But that's a different thread.

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020214-5.html

Say what you want, but we know what President Bush has been saying.

 

I can't tell if you are a caricature like TJ or actually believe you have done a thoughtful and thorough analysis to arrive at “the truth” about global warming. I even gave you some arguments you could start with as a reasonable basis for policies against Kyoto and the like but you obviously didn't get that far.

 

Somebody school me if I'm wrong, but don't the same pollutents that cause/are just said to cause global warming as part of a unified huge liberal conpiracy. . . the same ones that cause health problems in human beings? You know, if being worried about kids developing asthma and other respiratory problems, or possibly getting cancer is what defines an environmental extremist, it's cool with me.

 

This right here says a lot. Point being, and similar what I said before about this study before you dug it up for this thread, you can't make generalizations about how climate change would impact current world populations based on how warming may have benefited Great Britain or W Europe in a period of the middle ages. Truth is smarter people than you and I don't know for certain the degree man is impacting global whether and the likely consequences (good or bad for some regions) and anyone using such assertive (“choke on this”—boy that is tough talk there) language about these matters pretty much exposes them for what they don’t know. Choke indeed.

 

The things that cause global warming and the things that cause asthma, cancer, respiratory problems, etc. are not the same things (someone correct me if I'm wrong here).

 

You are probably right, still if it's up to me, I'd rather not breathe that stuff in.