Global Warming

We're seeing the same tactics vis-a-vis global warming that the tobacco industry uses to muddy the intellectual/scientific waters regarding the dangers of smoking.

The tactic's goal is to lead sincerely well meaning people to question the validity of the scientific data and allow the status quo to continue.

This is often quite profitable for the entities using this tactic.

 

My own take from 2007:

In addition:

I would like to ask both those in denial and support of global warming whether or not they would prefer continual use of fossil fuel power or cleaner fuels, if the costs could be made comparable. How about it?

 

Totally agree with you and Rhad. The debate over global warming is something of scientific and intellectual interest but in terms of policy I don't see a rational argument for continuing with the status quo of continuing to rely upon fossil fuels.

 

There is no rational argument, just a lot of money.

It's ridiculous - you up the ante to the entire planet and still, nobody blinks.

The tragedy of the commons - super-sized.

 

Who cares if Global Warming is made up or not? I'm glad the GW perception exists, because it motivates the expansion of technology of various energy sources. This supposed GW problem (I'm on the non-believer side) is the whip needed to keep pushing for cleaner air and more efficient energy usage. This is good for the environment and for business.

This analogy is out of left field, but whether or not you believe in God, one can admit that the idea of God has changed the lives and motivated many believers to do good deeds. It doesn't matter to me what the truth is as far an existence of a supernatural power.

 

Edited to reflect ridiculousness.

 

That was some crazy snow last night! Oh yeah its not Global Warming anymore but its 'Climate Change'.

 

That's a big caveat.

It'd be like asking a fat person whether he wants to exercise at a fitness club or if costs could be made comparable, use a cutting edge diet pill.

Ultimately, it would be about how the fat guy lives and what he puts in his body.

 

Yes it is. And it will require a similar investment as that made with current fossil fuel power design.

Which is why I hope Obama can pull off his energy plan.

Of course, this means that, thanks to our pathetically foul version of "capitalism" , some private company will eventually make bajillions off of tax-payer funded research. But that is still preferable to the status quo. IMO.

 

I guess if they all fed from the taxpayer trough, they all would be equally competitive.

Nature of the beast....

 

Not ridiculous at all since Nitrogen, specifically nitrogen in fertilizer is a huge pollutant. That dead zone in the Gulf is largely caused by excess nitrogen fertilizer being washed down the Mississippi.

The point is that while CO2, nitrogen and sulfuric acid all occur naturally they are a pollutant when man made emmissions of them reach concentrations greater than what is to be expected or handled by natural systems. CO2 emmissions from human source is most definately a pollutant.

 

You are smarter than this. The data is not controversial, for anyone who can read data. One snowfall does not alter this an iota. The 'hockey stick' is real and verified.

The twin problems with these debates, all of them, boil down to this, if you ask me.

1. There is confusion, by the public, of what credentials to trust. On the one hand, the denialists exploit this to their advantage, cooking up long lists of "scientists." On the other hand, you have groups like the "Union of Concerned Scientists," who get very political, in a poorly conceived, counterproductive way, and they use credentials as a bludgeon, instead of just explaining the data carefully and respectfully.

2. Those who are confused by the controversy often fail to separate (a) global warming from (b) the idea of anthropogenic global warming.
Only those who cannot read data or are intentionally distorting the interpretation of data would really dispute (a) now. But then you have the much more difficult issue of proving or disproving (b). The climate is of such complexity that this may be impossible, if you ask me. We can't run a control experiment, with a parallel earth that never had an industrial revolution.* But we know we are "loading the dice" toward a warmer future.

We do know, precisely, what CO2 and other greenhouse gases do in the atmosphere. They gather more solar radiation than the average atmospheric component, and they can only contribute a heating effect to the atmosphere. I've made the analogy before that we know eating cholesterol is correlated to heart disease, and we understand that with less precision than we understand the physics and chemistry of CO2.

So here are two very good analogies. Those who say man-made global warming is a sham are like doctors who would tell you to keep eating double-cheeseburgers every day because nobody can prove you will have a heart attack as a result. Similarly, if you're going to play Russian roulette, do you want to put extra bullets in the chamber? Why? Maybe it's just two more bullets in a chamber with 700 slots, but you are increasing your odds of a horrible outcome.

* = I think some of the people signing these contrarian lists are taking issue with those who claim that (b) is an absolute fact. I think a whole lot of signers would support (a) and probably my analogies. Inhofe is different. He is either a complete idiot, which I doubt, or intellectually corrupt in the extreme.

 

Maybe. But he is never above doing it anyhow.

F.D. Kahn is a sad little man.

 

Great post B-bob.

 

I often like his posts on non-scientific topics. But that doesn't mean he is neither sad nor little, I guess.

And thanks, rocketsjudoka.

 

it kind of snowed in houston once! global warming must be a hoax.

are you kidding me? great sample size.

 

i don't know what's worse, xtians voting repub over abortion and gays or watching them bending over while big bidness gives them, the bidness.

 

yes, glad to hear it, it's the right thing, the christian thing, to do. kinda like addressing global warming regardless of whether we caused it or not. it is an extremely frustrating and useless argument with too much time and money spent for the sole purpose of politics. if we spent that energy collectively doing what we can to curb GW we might be on our way to a brighter tomorrow. instead things get worse, we bicker. dumb.

 

Max, did my post make sense? Does it seem fair?

My 2 cents for you. Admit you are a skeptic, which is fine. Embrace it, wear it, and lose the "golly, I'm just trying to figure this out." I kind of believe you, but it's simply not wearing well after all these threads.

But I suggest focusing skepticism on the man-made aspect, not the fact of warming. And finally, if you seek truth, distance yourself from Inhofe. Seriously. The guy is either suffering an analytical disability (which I doubt) or he is an intellectually dishonest grandstander.