Global Warming To Be Put On Trial? 1100
Mr_Blank writes to mention that the United States' largest business lobby is pushing for a public trial to examine the evidence of global warming and have a judge make a ruling on whether human beings are warming the planet to dangerous effect. "The goal of the chamber, which represents 3 million large and small businesses, is to fend off potential emissions regulations by undercutting the scientific consensus over climate change. If the EPA denies the request, as expected, the chamber plans to take the fight to federal court. The EPA is having none of it, calling a hearing a 'waste of time' and saying that a threatened lawsuit by the chamber would be 'frivolous.' [...] Environmentalists say the chamber's strategy is an attempt to sow political discord by challenging settled science — and note that in the famed 1925 Scopes trial, which pitted lawyers Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan in a courtroom battle over a Tennessee science teacher accused of teaching evolution illegally, the scientists won in the end."
Just what we need (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"Scientific Consensus Over Climate Change" ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Common typo, what they meant to type was "popular opinion over climate change".
The goal of the chamber (Score:5, Insightful)
Is to try to overrule the verdict of the scientific community because they don't like what it says. The climate change battle is over, and it is now a conclusive scientific consensus that it is happening and that human action is contributing to it. We need to slash our emissions dramatically, these guys just want other people to do it.
Judicial Activism (Score:5, Insightful)
And if they lose? (Score:5, Insightful)
The 'business community' wants to put Climate Change on trial to test the veracity of the data. However this really means that the don't believe the data is true and just want someone powerful to side with them
But if the trial goes through and the judge supports the climate change data, will this actually convince these people that the data is correct? I'm guessing not.
Oh for goodness sake (Score:2, Insightful)
Are they serious? A fucking *law court*?
What a wonderful idea, perhaps it can be extended to other areas. Perhaps I, as a scientist, could try criminal cases, I'm sure I'd be perfectly qualified since apparently science and law are the same thing now.
Re:Absurd (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, this trial idea is stupid and a judge who would take this case would be a fool.
Re:des (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, we HAVE been seeing this cooling trend for a few years now, which is why misanthropic environmental hate groups have been trying to scrub the phrase "Global Warming" from the public lexicon and replace it with "Global Climate Change." See how clever that is? It now covers BOTH warming and cooling.
Wrong question (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The goal of the chamber (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ah Good 'ol United States (Score:5, Insightful)
I fail to see how any action by the USA short of nuclear devastation of China will stop China from building a coal plant equivalent every week.
And I still fail to see how limiting CO2 emissions in SOME countries will actually solve the Climate Change problem....
Re:The goal of the chamber (Score:3, Insightful)
it is now a conclusive scientific consensus that it is happening and that human action is contributing to it
Science does not go hand-in-hand with majority opinion - neither does science require consensus, nor does consensus imply any connection to reality.
They are NOT Denying Global Warming (Score:5, Insightful)
EPA spokesman Brendan Gilfillan said the agency based its proposed finding that global warming is a danger to public health "on the soundest peer-reviewed science available, which overwhelmingly indicates that climate change presents a threat to human health and welfare."
The EPAâ(TM)s endangerment finding for greenhouse gases, as proposed in April, warned that warmer temperatures would lead to "the increased likelihood of more frequent and intense heat waves, more wildfires, degraded air quality, more heavy downpours and flooding, increased drought, greater sea level rise, more intense storms, harm to water resources, harm to agriculture, and harm to wildlife and ecosystems." Critics of the finding say it's far from certain that warming will cause any harm at all. The Chamber of Commerce cites studies that predict higher temperatures will reduce mortality rates in the United States.
What's basically happening here is that the EPA is trying to get "Greenhouse Gases" to be covered under the "Clean Air Act," which currently only regulates the amount of toxic emissions that industries and products are allowed to produce.
My question is this: What is the EPA _really_ trying to accomplish with this? Covering CO2 under the Clean Air Act would completely hamstring American businesses, forcing them to severely cut CO2 emissions. At this point, that is barely even technologically feasible, much less cost-effective, much less profit-producing. So what, are they _trying_ to bankrupt America businesses? Are they _trying_ to return us to the Stone Age? Are they _trying_ to give American companies as much of a handicap as possible in the global market, such that they will now have to compete with now even cheaper alternatives made in countries that don't have such off-the-wall regulations?
I hate to resort to calling the EPA malicious, because I want to believe that they think that what they are doing is right, but, seriously, that's the only alternative. They certainly aren't trying to _actually_ clean up the air, since worse offenders than the USA already exist and won't be affected by this law at all. In fact, I would speculate that these countries are simply going to grow and gobble up whatever materials we're no longer able to use under this law, and completely take over what little markets American products still have a place in.
This only effect of this law will be to hurt businesses, and they know it, and they're fighting back. And make no mistake, this isn't just Large Evil Corporations, either, this includes literally millions of "little guys."
Re:"Scientific Consensus Over Climate Change" ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly. There is still very little _EVIDENCE_ of mankind-created global warming.
You have Al Gore and his people making money by owning companies that sell exhaust rights.
You have oil companies making money out of ignoring or pushing the issue forward.
What we don't have is a consensus, as the OP points out.
For example, right now (since 2000) we have global cooling (around 0.5 degrees). We are also heading towards a small ice age, our eliptical orbiting around the sun is about to change as it does "frequently" leading to us being further away from the sun in the coming millennias.
The IPCC still refuses to provide either the data from which they created their apocalyptic graphs from, or the models they used to do the predictions. This goes massively against the scientific standpoint of providing an open view into research to allow valid verification or falsification.
And what most people are forgetting: There is a climate change going on, it has always been going on and it will always do so. The question is how we are to adopt to it, not if we are disillusioned enough to think we can stop the planets natural processes and freeze it in something that we right now think is a global optima.
Re:The goal of the chamber (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, here are the reasons why you are a retarded fuckwit:
1. You are engaging in a straw man fallacy, because no model of man made climate changes predicts an increase in global temperatures every single year; there will be fluctuations
2. You are opening your idiotic noise hole without citing any evidence of 'consistent temperature declines from 2002-2009'. You expect us to just take the word of some AC wanker.
3. You are in fact, plain wrong about there being a 'consistent temperature decline from 2002-2009' :
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080418112341.htm [sciencedaily.com] - 2008 was the second warmest year after 2002, meaning that it was hotter than 2003-2007 and thus there cannot possibly have been 'consistent temperature declines'
So you've opened your mouth, spouted off something factually incorrect, the admonished scientists for not predicting your factually incorrect information despite the fact that, even if it were true, it wouldn't actually impact on the correctness of their real life models.
You, sir, are a complete retard.
Re:"Scientific Consensus Over Climate Change" ? (Score:3, Insightful)
And I think you missed this one: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/10/un-s-ipcc-accused-possible-research-fraud [newsbusters.org]
The minutes of a meeting of scientists cherry-picked by the UN for their universal agreement with the man-made global warming hypothesis hardly counts as a credible source. "Everyone agrees with us" is not a scientific argument. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.
Re:The goal of the chamber (Score:4, Insightful)
As a follower of Objectivism (more properly called Opinionism, unless you can explain the method by which you guys are sure your view on the world corresponds directly to the reality of it...) you obviously think that a minority opinion is better than a majority opinion.
However, in the real world scientists require a basis of consensus to build the next level of research on. Physics would get nowhere if we constantly had to prove the laws of gravity to retarded cranks such as yourself in the name of inclusiveness.
Re:"Scientific Consensus Over Climate Change" ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Did I miss a meeting?
Do you subscribe to any general or climate related scientific journals? Because the consensus seems quite clear to me. Where we're lacking a consensus is in marketing material directed at the general public, but that will remain the case so long as there is money to be made. Don't mistake one for the other.
Re:Ah Good 'ol United States (Score:4, Insightful)
You're right. And if SOME people stop killing other people, what's the use? Others will just continuing killing people.
Back in the day, Iceland still practised blood feuds. With a limited population, this was a very very bad thing, as they were effectively endangering themselves as a species because they were killing each other faster than than they could reproduce. So the families got together and agreed to put an end to blood feuds. Obviously some families had to set the example, despite being the latest victims in the feuds, and yet they managed to put survival ahead of honour.
We have the same issue currently, just on a slower but much larger scale, and instead of honour it's money on the line.
Sometimes you need to set an example for others to follow. Once upon a time, this was what the United States purported to do. Now the US apparently refuses to set an example unless they can get a monetary advantage from it. And I suspect that even if they get a monetary advantage, they'll still refuse if they can get a larger monetary advantage by refusing to be an example.
I suspect that one of the best things that could happen for US politics would be to reform political fund raising laws slightly:
0) Make companies non-human entities
1) Make it illegal for companies to donate money to political parties and candidates
2) Make an upper limit of donations of $100 per year.
That way you'd end up with a system, where a political campaign doesn't end up costing hundreds of millions of dollars (since no political party could afford it). This would make the playing field a lot more even for outsider parties. It'd minimize the influence of huge conglomerates of companies, and improve the influence of individual citizens instead.
But who am I kidding? Why would the ruling parties (D and R) cut their own money trains and death grip on the political process?
Re:The goal of the chamber (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you mean the slight dip in average global temperatures [nasa.gov]? As you can clearly see in he graph, there have been several such "unexplained" declines in the last 100 years, but the overall trend is painfully obvious.
Sorry, but a court has no say here (Score:5, Insightful)
We're after all not sitting over man made laws. Then, by all means, the court would be the correct place to go.
We're sitting over nature's laws here. And as much as we deem ourselves important, nature doesn't care jack about our laws. She has her own set and they break ours any time. You can rule as much as you want that this hurricane can't go through your home town, if you put it to the test you'll notice that your law is ignored with impunity and ther's jack you can do about it. "I hereby fine the storm a fine of 20 million dollars..." is that what you want to say about it if it dares to ignore your law, little man?
Global warming is or is not. That's something scientists can find out, if anyone. No court can make a final decision on that.
Oh... OH! It's just about liability, we don't give a shit about whether or not the planet is doing the Dodo, what matters is whether we have to pay for it? Ok, my bad, carry on. Hope your money buys you another planet when you win this case and then mommy decides you weren't.
Answer me this: Can you risk being wrong? Do you have a spare planet, just in case? Personally, if there's even a small chance that we're going to heat up our blue marble beyond the point of what we commonly call "habitable", I would try to avoid it. Just in case. 'cause ... well, dunno about you, but I don't have a spare planet in my back yard where I can go when we trashed this one for good.
Re:They are NOT Denying Global Warming (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:They are NOT Denying Global Warming (Score:4, Insightful)
Come the fuck on. You cannot honestly believe that the US government, which depends on tax revenue from American businesses and their employees, would intentionally handicap said businesses? To what end? Stop trying to turn a legitimate difference of opinion into some sort of battle between good and evil.
As far as the "worse offenders" go, the EPA doesn't exactly have jurisdiction over other countries, so it's a moot point. You're presenting an imaginary alternative -- that the EPA could somehow regulate greenhouse gases in China, India, etc. -- as some sort of evidence that this is only intended to bankrupt the EPA's revenue stream? Get a grip.
Re:Just what we need (Score:4, Insightful)
We know there has been natural global cooling - ice ages and the like, so it would make complete sense for there to have been natural global warming at some point too.
We also know in the UK the romans (circa 100BC) grew grapes almost up to the scottish borders, something not possible today because it's too cold.
So, the climate has always been changing, and while it's almost certain that humans have made an impact on the environment, I find it very hard to believe that the results will be catastrophic.
Re:They are NOT Denying Global Warming (Score:5, Insightful)
They should say it in a language business people understand. I.e. Money. Any Global Warming regardless of the cause will give sea rise which in turn displaces millions of people living near the coasts (global cost will be many billions). Plus the loss of every beach on the planet wiping out all coastal businesses dependent on beach tourism (cost again in many billions). Plus crop yields affected world wide (cost again in many billions). (Thats just 3 examples off the top of my head). Also when I say billions thats the very low end of the cost range. For example, the global cost of wiping out (or protecting) every coastal city thats even just only 10 meters (or less) above sea level must be way off into the trillions range globally. They could probably equate just sea rise with a global cost in billions per extra meter of sea rise. Thats a graph business people would understand.
But I deeply suspect these business people are not looking for the truth (whatever it is), they are instead looking for an excuse to use, regardless of any truth. Because as always, they are focused on finding ways to increase their money. As they say, "Follow the money". What do business people have to gain from this legal action?
Re:The goal of the chamber (Score:4, Insightful)
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
-Upton Sinclair
Re:They are NOT Denying Global Warming (Score:2, Insightful)
And no one with two brain cells to rub together doubts that it will be harmful to many humans.
Trying to prevent harm to humans.
American businesses were able to severely cut acid-rain causing sulfur emissions, and CFC emissions, and still keep growing, but are too dumb to be able to severely cut CO2 emissions? Sorry you have such little faith in American ingenuity.
Non sequitur. The EPA can only affect American businesses. And of course the US cannot meaningfully influence other countries to clean up their act until it cleans up its own.
Re:"Scientific Consensus Over Climate Change" ? (Score:3, Insightful)
No... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the new step where a non trained and non qualified person gets to make a final determination on subject that previously could only be judged by waiting for the results of experimentation.
This replaces the previous doctrine of popular acclaim in the mainstream media.
("Did you know the average 50 year old man has 5 pounds of undigested red meat in his colon?")
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:They are NOT Denying Global Warming (Score:1, Insightful)
If America suddenly disassembled its Military, every other country would have to step up and pick up the slack to a have a force to send into every hotspot on the planet and to keep the other guys from attacking.
Some would argue that if the United States only used their military to defend their borders (and perhaps the borders of NATO allies) many of these "hotspots" might not exist today.
Re:They are NOT Denying Global Warming (Score:4, Insightful)
Man, that sure is a lot of defending we've been doing in Iraq for the last six goddamn years. People whine about Obama spending a trillion dollars to bail out the American economy, when we've spent three times that much bailing out Iraq socially, and it hasn't worked; it just makes no sense to me.
Hogan also argues that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hogan has written some entertaining science fiction, and he's got a fairly broad grasp of a lot of scientific fields, but he suffers badly from blind arrogance -- he decides what ought to be right, and then focuses in on evidence to support it, dismissing evidence that contradicts it. Not that this is particularly uncommon, of course, but since his successful fiction career has earned him a wide readership, he's in a better position than most to spread disinformation.
Just remember that he's no Clarke or Asimov when it comes to science writing.
Re:They are NOT Denying Global Warming (Score:5, Insightful)
The EPA's goal is to keep the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere below a certain level (probably 550 ppm). It's exactly analogous to their other regulatory activity, where they limit the levels of mercury in water or arsenic in playground soil.
Will it hamper American business? Sure. The same way the other regulations have hampered American business -- business would love to sell arsenic-laden playground soil, or pump mercury into rivers, if by doing either of those things they could increase their profits. We hamper business to prevent them from valuing money over people's lives, or over the health of the environment. It's sadly necessary to do so.
And yes, plenty of non-US businesses are spewing CO2 and pumping out mercury and feeding their children sweet, tasty arsenic. I'm sure the EPA would love to stop them but can't. They can only make sure the US is safe. When dealing with pollutants that cross borders -- like CO2 -- they're going to need help from international treaties. But that doesn't absolve them of trying to keep our own house in order in the meantime.
C02 is not a pollutant (Score:2, Insightful)
Now a group of people (they are just people after all, not gods) come along and literally say "We may not have all the data, we don't even know if the data we have is valid, in fact we know we don't have all the data, and what we do have is invalid or at the very best incomplete, and even if we did have all the data we haven't a clue how this "weather" thing works anyway, but we put this partial and incorrect data into this computer (apparently called deus ex machina) and it says that C02 is actually bad for the environment because we predict it will alter the weather! Even though our predictions thus far are incorrect, just take our word for it. And anyone who does not believe us or pokes holes in our data or logic is a stupid AGW denier that also believes the earth is flat."
Anyone want to explain why I should believe someone who would say such a thing? If that isn't the AGW argument, perhaps someone can explain what part is inconsistent with the AGW argument. And now the government and politicians wants to grab the helm of this out of control religion (after all it does require a degree of faith) and start telling people what they can and can't do "because of global warming" while they (the politicians) make millions of dollars by robbing us blind. This whole thing stinks! And if that really is the AGW argument, why on earth would anyone, without some ulterior motive, believe such a thing.
Re:They are NOT Denying Global Warming (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, they have a lot of money to devote to it since they don't have to spend ANY money on defense. If the USA took all of its money from defense and put it into Healthcare or "Green Tech," then yes, we'd be able to claim advances in those areas. But we can't, because we're the only Western World with a _real_ military and we use it to protect all of the other countries, and they know it. If America suddenly disassembled its Military, every other country would have to step up and pick up the slack to a have a force to send into every hotspot on the planet and to keep the other guys from attacking.
So you have already found the solution ! The only thing you didn't get right here ist that the rest of the world would actually do a LOT better without America's policy to play world-police. I don't say that a little intervention here and there wouldn't be bad, it's only that the foreign wars that the US is fighting right now (and in the past) didn't exactly help anyone besides maybe Haliburton etc. ;-)
Re:You find it hard to believe? (Score:3, Insightful)
ok let me rephrase because you clearly didn't understand.
If global temperatures are going to go up by 2 C, then it would be useful to find out when the last time in history the earth was 2 C warmer than it is now and what happened as a result, no?
Because of the constant change in global temperatures (I assume you're not going to argue against the fact that there have been ice ages) it is likely that this temperature has happened at some point in the past.
If it has happened in human history (and evidence suggests that it has) then any catastrophe that they are predicting would have happened already.
I'm not denying that the climate changes, and I'm not denying that humans have had an impact, I'm simply questioning the doomsday senarios that appear hyped up in the media and from politicians. It is you, by angrily dismissing this out of hand, that is showing religious fevour, not I.
Re:The goal of the chamber (Score:3, Insightful)
Not making the prediction you claim they do != not making any testable predictions.
You fail.
Re:No... (Score:4, Insightful)
[citation needed]
Re:They are NOT Denying Global Warming (Score:4, Insightful)
>They are also 50% larger by population. What's your point?
The point is they manage to emit far less CO2 than the USA so the USA is clearly doing something very wasteful when they really ought to leading by example.
Re:Absurd (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't care about what the planet can handle, I care about a comfortable environment for humans.
(and I don't think it is clear that anthropogenic contributions are leading us to a world of cataclysm, but given that there are lots of other reasons to reduce human emissions (I like forests, coal power puts more radioactive material into the environment than nuclear power, oil is economically and politically unstable, etc.), I don't mind there being a push to at least examine the costs of exchanging those emissions for something else; maybe it will even turn out like sulfur emissions)
Re:Ah Good 'ol United States (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll bite. What competitive advantage will we have, exactly?
And if using renewable power is so advantageous, why do we require legislation to make it happen? If it were profitable, wouldn't those people who are concerned solely with money be leaping in to reap the economic benefits?
Note, by the way, that I'm not arguing that fossil fuels are Good, and renewable power is Evil. But I am curious about how you solve a problem requiring that everyone be on board NOW without, well, everyone being on board now....
China has already said that it's not going to accept any binding limits on its pollution this next round of CO2 limiting. So has India. Which means that, whatever we do, CO2 levels are going to increase. Dramatically, since there are a lot of Chinese and Indians who are going to want a standard of living in the same timezone as our standard of living.
So, we set an example that China and India have already said they won't follow. Yah, it makes us less dependent on foreign oil, which is a good thing. But, no, it doesn't really do anything about Climate Change. Nor does it cause all those nations that aren't required to limit their CO2 emissions to suddenly say "Oh, noes! We must get with the program since the USA has joined in!!!".
Re:You find it hard to believe? (Score:3, Insightful)
In a word, yes. I find human causation of global warming to be unproven. What we have are a collection of climate models that only reflect the last 50 years or so and that show a correlation between increasing green house gases and increasing temperatures. Correlation is not causality.
What the parent poster and I both want to see is how well these models describe the past. That is, we want to see these climate models back tested over at least the several thousand years of history for which we have climate data. Using tree ring analysis and other methods, we have climate data going back tens of thousands of years including the last ice age. If the climate models are correct, they should also show, at a minimum, the gross climate swings that resulted in things like the "little ice age", the warm period the parent poster referred to, etc. If these models don't work when back tested then they are worthless.
I have yet to see a single result published in which a climate model being used to show humans are causing the current warming that also predicts any past climate changes. I'll *accept* that humans are causing global warming when such a result is published. Until then, we have a large segment of the scientific community who are doing a disservice to science and the rest of the population by jumping on the "humans cause global warming" bandwagon because it's a great way to get funding.
This isn't a question of belief. It's a question of when the folks who are blaming the current warming on human activities provide some reasonable proof that their models accurately predict previous, known, well-documented climate changes. Until they do, they and their followers are the ones who are following an unproven set of beliefs.
Cheers,
Dave
Re:They are NOT Denying Global Warming (Score:2, Insightful)
"Well, they have a lot of money to devote to it since they don't have to spend ANY money on defense. If the USA took all of its money from defense and put it into Healthcare or "Green Tech," then yes, we'd be able to claim advances in those areas. But we can't, because we're the only Western World with a _real_ military and we use it to protect all of the other countries, and they know it. If America suddenly disassembled its Military, every other country would have to step up and pick up the slack to a have a force to send into every hotspot on the planet and to keep the other guys from attacking."
Oh please.
For a start, nobody is asking America to totally disassemble its military. Stop watching Fox.
Second, the military might of other Western nations is very extensive and more than powerful enough to handle any possible conflict should it arise. The difference is, we don't plan on policing the entire world. Mkay. Maybe if you pulled your head out of your rectal cavity and read up on the armies of the European nations, you would be able to make an informed opinion. We have nuclear weapons, well developed training systems, highly advanced infantry weapons, tanks and aircraft which are approaching untouchable by anything else out there that we might face. AND we have public healthcare, AND we are trying to look after our environment, AND Europe has a smaller economy per population size.
I understand that the United States has a very powerful armed force. I don't dispute that it is the most potent on earth at this point. But when you have millions of people with no health care plan, rampant corruption in your government, and abysmal public education (intelligent design is an equal to evolution? what?!)... well I think your priorities are totally wrong. What this says is that you place your ability to kill over your ability to learn, to preserve your environment, to have a fair democratic government (hah like there ever was such a thing), and to have a healthy population.
Re:No... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Scientific Consensus Over Climate Change" ? (Score:2, Insightful)
It shouldn't be a "belief". That isn't science.
Science is testing, testing and more testing. You eliminate variables, then you test some more.
You can then say if your data fits with your hypothesis. Then you submit it to a journal and people pick it to pieces to find the mistakes. They retest, they tweak, they report.
No theory should ever be considered absolutely concrete, and to be honest from what I've read (and I have read) there are many, many unknowns going on in the climactic systems that we haven't even begun to quantify. I think its arrogance alone that leads to this apparently unquestionable theory of human caused climate change. And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying its not happening, I'm just saying we can't talk in absolutes. It's unscientific, and anyone who says it is absolute isn't a very good scientist.
To quote a sometimes controversial bloke from another time:
"I have steadily endeavored to keep my mind free so as to give up any hypothesis, however much beloved and I cannot resist forming one on every subject, as soon as the facts are shown to be opposed to it."
- Charles Darwin - Creator of the Darwin awards
Re:What happened as a result? (Score:3, Insightful)
Temperature changes of this size have already occured in the course of human history and were non-fatal.
If by 'non-fatal' you mean 'didn't kill all humans, then yes.
Likewise, why should we be worried about diseases that might kill 80% of the population? We've already had multiple ones of those, and we're still here!
I swear, it's like you think we're worried all people might cease to exist. Um, no. We could get hit by a damn dinosaur-killing asteroid and there would be people living through it!
However, unlike you, we have a problem with a huge amount of the population dying, and all of the civilization collapsing, even if humanity makes it through it.
Or, in short: Humans will exist in a post-apocalyptic world. That does not mean we shouldn't worry about the apocalypse.
Re:No... (Score:2, Insightful)
poetry aside, there's no doubt the climate is changing. It has changed where I live and apparently in a lot of other places too.
The disagreement is not whether the climate is changing. The disagreement is how much, how fast, and whether it is human-caused.
On the things that ARE human-caused (pollution of rivers/lakes/etc, erosion due to poor farming techniques) we should definitely be working to fix it. On the things that are natural (and Earth's temperature has more to do with irregularities in Earth's orbit and with the cycle of Solar activity than so-called "manmade greenhouse gases"), we can do little.
Yes, in centuries past, there were cold times. The 14-1500s were, according to what little records and the (incomplete) evidence we can gather, colder than we experience today as an average. At the same time, there are periods that were warmer. There is also the problem of having reliable measurements at all (we're talking about maybe 30 years of true recording with properly calibrated instruments, and "measured change" that falls off of most of the measurements if you pay attention to the known accuracy of the instruments and pay attention to your Significant Digits [uoguelph.ca]). And then there's the problem of paying attention to what you are measuring rather than cherry-picking your data for your expected result - for instance, if you compare this summer historically to the "average" of the past 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, etc... you will see the "answer" of "hotter" or "colder" fluctuate up and down based on the new data. It gets even worse when you do like the shysters do and compare to an unseasonably cold "reference year" rather than doing a proper analysis of what long-term data we do have.
The "climate change" crazies have one thing in common: they all know how to lie with statistics [amazon.com]. My clearest evidence against them is the fact that their "argument" relies more on the star/celebrity power of their spokespeople than on actual scientific evidence, just like the anti-vaccination crowd.
Re:"Scientific Consensus Over Climate Change" ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Disclaimer: I shop local, walk to the grocery store with my cloth shopping bag, I recycle, and keep driving to a minimum -- I fill up my tank maybe once or twice a month. My family's energy usage is very low. While I'm an advocate for a personally responsible lifestyle, I have many many reservations about the "Green" movement and the scientific rigor used to arrive at such a consensus, and especially many of the illogical financial programs derived so that people can profit from it ("cap and trade"? "carbon offsets"???)
"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."
That almost seems to be a call to scientific elitism. I.E. "You disagree, so you don't understand the nuances of climate change like I do, so you're out of the club." -- to my unlearned and cro-magnon mind it seems like Climate Change is an extremely inexact science. We don't have accurate test points, we don't understand all of the factors that go into this, we don't know the causes of previous cooling/warming cycles (even during human existence, much less before), nor can we isolate human factors in real-world experiments, nor do we have remotely representative simulations to perform isolated tests.
It seems that any climate scientist whose employment and financial well-being is tied to the results of his research is naturally suspect -- whether an oil company or an alternative energy company or a lobbyist group.
It feels like a bunch of self-congratulatory people who puff themselves up and call themselves experts in a field, where they have financial motivations for proving their case. Just as climatologists in the employ of oil companies are naturally suspect, it seems that political fat cats who work for environmental agencies are somehow immune to such criticism, because they're the ruling oligarchy. Al Gore isn't the only one who stands to get even richer from the "Green" movement, but somehow people view him flying-his-private-jet-to-collect-carbon-emissions-awards as somehow "altruistic". I call BS.
There are many groups of "experts" that I have innate distrust for, because their fields lack scientific rigor, and this fact is not acknowledged by its chief advocates. Psychiatrists and climate scientists would certainly be two of them.
Re:Absurd (Score:2, Insightful)
I say bring the trial on. lets get everyone cards on the table.
Where is the evidence that global warming is NOT caused by man? There is plenty of evidence that can back up the theory that man (i.e. gas emissions) most likely is the cause.
Show me the peer review studies that point to another cause. That does not mean studies that try to disprove anthropomorphic CC, but studies that actually have evidence that there is another cause.
Re:The goal of the chamber (Score:3, Insightful)
>Creationism is ok in the classroom, but not in a science class. It's not science, it's philosophy.
No, its not. Its religion, no philosophy. It should be taught in a world religions class along with:
1. Turtles holding up the world
2. Buddhist cosmology
3. Hindu cosmology
4. Muslim cosmology
5. Jewish cosmology
Something tells me that Joe and Jane Conservative dont want their kids exposed to any of this stuff and the "teach creationist" movement isnt a way to broaden our understanding of religion but a bald-face attack on evolution.
Re:No... (Score:1, Insightful)
Here's a thought: Maybe we can worry, in reasonable amounts, about both?
Re:No... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you haven't bothered to read any work on the subject, why are you bothering to have an opinion? This question has been answered. If you'd have done any digging you'd have known this.
Frankly, if you're connected to the internet, there's simply no excuse for this level of ignorance. It's willful.
Re:No... (Score:5, Insightful)
What would be better is if groups with actual political power in this area are forced to release their raw data and the method by which they arrive at their conclusions. It would be interesting to see if/how many/if any data points they reject to conform the results to their predetermined conclusions. If they were to release the raw data AND how they arrived at their conclusions and it shows they're not lying, then they would gain a lot more credibility outside of the hippie crowd.
I'm no treehugger. However I believe in personal responsibility so I do what I can to conserve, and when I can afford to build my dream home I plan to utilize both photovoltaic electricity and geothermal climate control.
However, I'm against the BANANA and NIMBY mentalities: whenever groups DO try to act upon green efforts (Cape Wind/Nantucket Sound Wind Farm, nuclear plants, new natural gas depots, fuel refineries using new "green" refining technologies and methods, etc.), self-proclaimed "green" politicians seek to oppose those efforts at every turn - most notably (the late) Ted Kennedy, the man who opposed the Nantucket Sound wind far, because it would be "unsightly" as he cruises in his yacht.
What we need is cooperation from all parties: unlike the Al Gore mentality, it does not have to be all-or-nothing. Because we are decades or centuries away from "Mr. Fusion" and "antimatter" generators, we need to make use of what we can today. Solar, water, and wind power will work only in certain locations of the globe, so we have no choice but to continue to use fossil fuels, nukes, and renewable sources like trees.
Also, electric cars aren't quite there yet (not until if you run out of a charge you can just walk a couple of miles to the nearest charging station and borrow a charged, lightweight ultracapacitor to get you there to recharge). The range just isn't there, current li-ion technologies don't handle deep cycling well, and the price needs to come WAY down before it makes good economic sense for the average driver to buy one. Right now, if you drive the average 12,000 miles per year, even a hybrid is a stupid economic choice based on the average cost premium over a conventional car. It makes sense if you drive 30,000+ miles (a hybrid would make economic sense for me) but such drivers are not the norm.
So there has to be a happy medium. I say build the nukes, but have a decent plan for recycling and/or storing the waste. Build new coal plants, or better yet, trash incinerators, but just make sure they have moden scrubbers in place, as well as a responsible ash disposal plan in place. That doesn't mean to stop investments in fusion resources, but since we don't have it yet, we can't just quit fossil fuels cold turkey.
Also, ethanol is not a good solution here in the US (corn is a poor choice), and I'm not too fond of the idea of soy-based biodiesels putting one of the 8 major allergens (soy proteins) in the air in heavy doses.
Re:No... (Score:2, Insightful)
>>>If you haven't bothered to read any work on the subject
Not only have I read the papers about the subject, but I have an Associates Degree in Environmental Science. Me - good. You - epic fail. The papers provide evidence that warming is happening but NONE of them have proven the cause. There's conjectures ranging from CO2 (manmade) to sunspots (natural) to earthmade (natural), but none have provided proof.
Re:Takesies Backsises? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not like climate science consist of two scientists who decided to agree that there's a global warming.
What do you think the word "consensus" means. Look it up in wikipedia if you have to. The entire "proof" of global warming is a consensus of a bunch of politions, actors, ace reporters, groopies, and some scientists. The rallying cry seems to be "but what if it is true?"
Re:No... (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's one anyway, regarding the banning of the film from viewing in British schools: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Liar.
Straight from the article:
In other words, the film must be taught as an educational resource, rather than as a political instrument. I've had plenty of math books (even at the college level) with more than 9 errors in them. Even the famously-inscrutable series of CS books by Donald Knuth has a lengthy list of errata [stanford.edu]. Given that we're talking about a popular film about a politically-sensitive issue, I feel that 9 errors is more than forgivable.
It also certainly wouldn't hurt for children to be taught how to analyze a controversial issue from a scientific and logical perspective -- although it's still somewhat rare, this sort of "Theory of Knowledge" curriculum is slowly making its way into High Schools in the US and Europe, which I feel is a Very Good Thing.
Also don't forget that scientific consensus can and does change.
Re:They are NOT Denying Global Warming (Score:2, Insightful)
"You cannot honestly believe that the US government, which depends on tax revenue from American businesses and their employees, would intentionally handicap said businesses?"
I believe some dead French guy said this:
"Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence".
So, no I personally do not believe that the folks at the EPA are exercising their extreme power grab with the intent of intentionally handicapping US businesses. I do believe that they are sufficiently myopic to gut the entire country and justify it as "saving the planet". Well maybe the EPA thinks that any regulations they enforce will somehow be global in scope. The effects of such regulations will only be local, but that does not mean that the bureaucrats at the EPA really understand that - or even care.
I'm not going to bother with the hypothetical examples of how that will result in the unintended consequences of higher unemployment in the US as business move anything that can be cost-effectively
moved to a country with a more business friendly "climate". Nor will I dwell on how that will setoff cascading failures throught the US economy. Y'all can surely make up your own examples of how that might play out and accept or debunk them according to your own beliefs.
I'm sticking with the point that a govenrment agency can indeed act in a way that is highly detrimental to the state it is a part of without requiring deliberate intent. The folks at the EPA know what their mission is, and they will state it in terms of "saving the planet", or at least "protecting the environment". Their mission is not to preserve the health of the US economy, the wellbeing of the citizenry, or even continued tax receipts from businesses. The actual mission of any bureaucracy is to increase its own size and power.
The important qustions to really be determined are:
Has the EPA slipped its leash and if so, can it be brought back under control?
What are the "checks and balances" on the power of the regulatory agencies?
If you are ok with the EPA defining CO2 as a toxic substance subject to EPA regulations, where do you stand on the FDA reclassifying nicotine as a controlled substance like heroin or cocaine? How about alcohol? refined carbohydrates? There are always bureaucrats looking for ways to build their own empires and just need to find the right "hook".
Re:They are NOT Denying Global Warming (Score:4, Insightful)
Trust a representative of a "'socialist' welfare state" (your words) to fail to understand the Broken Window fallacy.
When you impair efficient economic activity via aggression (e.g. by coercing others into reducing CO2 emissions without substantial evidence of harm) you inevitably create a wealth of opportunities for commerce related to working around or repairing the damage. At a naive first glance this looks like an improvement; visible activity exists as a direct result of your actions. The problem, of course, is that this activity is far from free. Had you just left things well enough alone the resources being spent on workarounds and repairs would have been available for more productive ends; because you could not resist the impulse to "help", however, all must bear the costs of first deliberately breaking a working system, and then fixing it (assuming it is even possible to do so in full), and the resources thus expended are gone forever.
Aggression can sometimes bring wealth to those who employ it, but only at an even greater expense to others. It can never result in a net improvement for all involved.
Re:No... (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, though: I agree with the EPA on this one. It's frivolous at best, and a huge waste of taxpayer money at worst. This is not a matter to be decided upon through litigation, it's a matter to be decided through careful and thoughtful scientific observation.
Re:No... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Re:They are NOT Denying Global Warming (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They are NOT Denying Global Warming (Score:3, Insightful)
This idea that "business" wants to kill everybody for money is an idea that has a ridiculous amount of traction. And staying power. Stop thinking like this, it leads you to faulty conclusions.
"Business" doesn't want anything. Sometimes decisions are made, by people running the business, without any malice at all. Sometimes changing an ingredient or process is difficult or impossible, and the people running the business (quite rightly) don't want to just say "fuck it" and quit. If you approach this problem with the assumption that one side is a slobbering monster, ravenous for the flesh and long bones of orphan children, you're going to make bad decisions.
Re:No... (Score:2, Insightful)
The first instance you cite discusses emphasis. That doesn't sound like "doctoring data." The second discusses the IPCC's projection methodology, not Hansen's personal "data doctoring." If anything, it sounds like slanting interpretation of data. Data doctoring seems to require more, in my opinion.
What you call "slanting interpretation of data", others may call "omitting data that may weaken your point".
Re:The goal of the chamber (Score:3, Insightful)
As long as the group of people comprising the consensus are following the scientific method, consensus does imply a connection to reality.
Unfortunately, because we don't know how reality works in advance, we cannot determine if a given group is accounting for every possible variable and source of uncertainty. So your statement is not necessarily true.
consensus does imply a connection to reality ... the current model fits the current data.
That a model "fits the data" does not imply a connection to reality. That is correlation vs. causation. A connection to reality would require predictive value, and for it to be considered science, would ultimately have to lead to the development of underlying concepts.
Re:They are NOT Denying Global Warming (Score:4, Insightful)
Trust a representative of a "'socialist' welfare state" (your words) to fail to understand the Broken Window fallacy.
You are missing the point that 'green' technologies are more efficient. How do you imagine US companies are going to compete when their European competitors are producing twice as much for the same energy investment?
The broken window fallacy makes a number of implicit assumptions. If you smash the window and then replace it with double glazing, for example, then it no longer becomes a falacy; the people installing the window benefit from the work, but the person having the window installed also benefits from the lower heating and cooling costs and after a while recoups the cost of having the new window installed. Their cost of doing business is then lower, and they can undercut the shop across the street that didn't have its window smashed and is paying twice as much to keep the shop warm.
Neither is crap. (Score:3, Insightful)
C02, something we exhale with every breath you take. Without this gas life on earth would not be possible. Plants require this gas to live, indeed when this gas is abundant plants thrive. This gas is given off by all animals. A gas that is turned back into O2 by the plants, plants which we require to survive. All these things are well established facts, as valid as the earth is round.
Oh, FFS. "Insightful"? Really?
Crap is also necessary to life. All animals crap. Plants need crap to live. So I'm sure you're ready to campaign against the health and safety regulations "the government and politicians" set up to prevent me from taking a big, smelly dump all over your restaurant table just as your main course is arriving. After all, it's necessary to life!
Or maybe, since water is also necessary to life, I should just pump a few thousand cubic meters of it into the basement from which you're posting. After all, it's necessary, so more must be better!
Re:They are NOT Denying Global Warming (Score:3, Insightful)
You did not address if those War Supplemental Bills were included in GWB's budget. They weren't.
The reason they all passed as war supplemental bills is because they weren't part of the standard budget. All you have done here is to validate that nearly a trillion dollars of Obama's budget are hold overs from the Iraq war.
So what you are saying is that all of the sites that I quoted are wrong, or at least omitting half the money because... well, for no good reason (remember, these were two anti-war sites and the LA Times), and $1 trillion out of the $1.6 trillion deficit that is being pegged on Obama is just left over war funding, and Obama, nor anyone else is saying a word about it? RRRRRight!
Actually, what wasn't included in the budget to pay for wars was simply added to the deficit year after year, but it was still accounted for. Sorry, but Obama's $1.6 trillion is all his own.\
Unless of course, you have a source to back that up. I gave you three, which you just said were wrong. Yeah, I'm gonna take your word over three sources that have everything to gain by inflating the numbers as much as possible.
Re:No... (Score:4, Insightful)
So looking at extreme scenarios and admitting that a model has some unknowns is equal to "doctoring his data"?
The data didn't change. His tone and presentation of it might have.
Re:They are NOT Denying Global Warming (Score:3, Insightful)
Man, that sure is a lot of defending we've been doing in Iraq for the last six goddamn years. People whine about Obama spending a trillion dollars to bail out the American economy, when we've spent three times that much bailing out Iraq socially, and it hasn't worked; it just makes no sense to me.
1. Your numbers are not even close to being correct.
2. Obama still has us mired in Iraq. He's sticking to Bush's time-table for the withdrawl. Furthermore, he's ramping up pointless "nation-building" efforts in Afghanistan.
If we wanted out of Iraq, we should have elected a REAL anti-war candidate, like Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul. A little late now. We settled on Yet Another Empty Shirt representing the powers that be. Only the rhetoric has changed.
Re:You find it hard to believe? (Score:3, Insightful)
Bingo!
I have no doubt that human activity has caused climate change in the past (can you say "dust bowl?") and is continuing to cause changes now (desertification, various climate changes in what used to be the Soviet Union due to massive river diversions, etc.). Human activity *may* even be causing global warming but we will only be able to prove that when we climate models that back test over some of the more significant climate changes of the past.
Existing climate models that only correlate an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases to increasing temperature don't prove a thing. As far as I'm concerned, the only way to show that greenhouse gases are causing global warming is to back test the climate models that purport to show this over as much of the climate record as possible. This would show that whatever mechanisms drove past climate change isn't responsible for the current warming. There have been much larger changes in the climate in the past than the current "global warming" that had nothing to do with human activity. Only a back test that models such changes shows that whatever drove these prior climate changes isn't also responsible for the current warming.
Cheers,
Dave
Re:No... (Score:4, Insightful)
That said, it makes complete sense to get the CO2 emissions under control
How do you purpose to do that without forcing China and India to halt their development at gunpoint? If global warming is primarily man made then we are already fucked. The West could cut our standard of living to a stone age level and it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference in the end.
About the only technology that could make a meaningful difference in the end is nuclear and we've largely abandoned it because of a vocal minority of people scared by anything with the word "nuclear" in the title. The renewables that are currently in production don't scale well and will never be able to displace coal and nuclear for the base load.
Re:They are NOT Denying Global Warming (Score:4, Insightful)
You are missing the point that 'green' technologies are more efficient.
I'm not missing the point, I'm saying that it's irrelevant. If the efficiency gains of "green" tech were sufficient to justify the costs (in the opinions of those paying for them) then there would be no need to encourage their adoption by force.
The same counter-argument applies to your broken-window scenario. The owner could have replaced his or her own window with a double-glazed variety at any time. That this was not done proves that the owner did not consider the replacement worthwhile--there was a benefit to be had, perhaps, but other things took priority. When you break the window the owner gets the benefit of the double-glazing, but is also forced to forgo these other goods which the owner considered more urgent, resulting in a net loss.
What it comes down to, really, is sheer arrogance. You're claiming that you know better than others how they should utilize their own property, that by forcing them to take actions they would not have chosen of their own free will you can improve their situation. Why? Because you're better than they are, of course. Because you know best.
Adult human beings are not game pieces to be manipulated for your own ends, or young children--or pets--requiring your governance "for their own good". They are free agents, self-owners, deserving of a chance to make their own choices, and mistakes, regarding both themselves and their property.
Re:They are NOT Denying Global Warming (Score:3, Insightful)
Not true because you are not taking into account the opportunity cost. There can never be a net benefit for all involved in this situation. The shopkeeper had the option of installing a double glazed window anyway. He doesn't gain anything by having his hand forced. He also had an option to make other investments with the same money. The only way he can even break even is the very unlikely situation where installing a new window is the most effective possible use of his money. As for other people, there is no net benefit either. Window repairman get new business but the local newspaper (where the shopkeeper might have otherwise used the money to advertise), or the machine shop (where he might have invested in new parts), or the signage shop (where he might have bought a better sign), or the bank (where he might have deposited that money) lose the same amount of business that he gains.
Re:Cimate change (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't see where that was claimed.
Are you seriously arguing that a judge (presumably someone who went to law school) would have no trouble with the statistics and models that trained scientists have spent years developing, after years of education in how to develop them? I mean, I have a degree in computer science and a solid background in computer engineering, but no way in hell would that qualify me to double-check Intel's engineers' work, and that's in a *related field*. It'd be ludicrous for me to think that I could, say, walk into Canon and tell them that they're building their camera lenses all wrong.
If it goes to trial, it will at best come down to which side's "expert witnesses" give the most convincing arguments, regardless of the correctness or honesty of the arguments.
--Jeremy
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not a denier. It's probable that man is having some sort of impact on the climate. How much of one I'm not smart enough to say but you can't say with creditability that the sheer scale of human civilization isn't having some sort of impact.
That said, what do you do about it? Most environmentalists refuse to consider nuclear as an option, though there are a few notable exceptions. Their solution seems to consist of throwing billions of dollars at "renewables" while advocating policies that will result in a reduced standard of living. This is completely unrealistic because people will never willingly accept a reduced standard of living nor will they long tolerate a Government that seeks to impose one.
My employer just paid big bucks for an "energy audit" to see what we could do to reduce our carbon footprint. It was a complete joke. Here a list of some of the "suggestions" that the auditors came up with:
1) Get rid of all the fish tanks throughout our building. Aquariums consume energy. The therapeutic value they provide for our clients was not considered, apparently.
2) Reduce the lighting in employee offices.
3) Get rid of the air conditioning in our server/telecom room. Yes they actually suggested this.
4) Put lockboxes on the thermostats in employee offices and lock them at 78 in the summer and 68 in the winter.
5) Install automatic faucets in employee bathrooms. Evidently we can't be trusted to turn the water off after washing our hands.
In conclusion, all we need to do to reduce our carbon footprint is work in the dark, ditch a part of our program that benefits our clients, sit in uncomfortably warm/cold offices and invent a way for computers to operate without generating heat.
And people wonder why the mainstream regards the green movement with skepticism. Sometimes I think the only way to appease the die hard greens would be for the bulk of humanity to die off and the remainder to go back to a hunter-gather lifestyle.
Re:They are NOT Denying Global Warming (Score:3, Insightful)
....except for all the European countries (like Norway) with lower population densities (less than half that of the U.S.) AND far lower pollution levels, making your talking point crap.
Re:They are NOT Denying Global Warming (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny how Bush got a pass for 9/11, despite having been in office longer than Obama, and despite having point-blank warnings from the intelligence community.
Now Obama comes in, and it's his fault that everything hasn't been put back in order after the clusterfuck of the Bush years.
Nice try.
Really? Bush got a pass? So, was that Micheal Moore movie about Clinton? I must have missed that.
Besides, how many security measures had Bush passed (or rejected) between Jan 01 and Sep 01? So if Bush didn't do anything with national security during that time, we were pretty much running on Clinton security. Oh, OK.
Now, how many spending bills has Obama passed since taking office? So now if the economy is recovering, who gets credit? The stock market was up today. It reached the 2009 high. Why are you not praising Bush for the recovery?
So um.... Nice try.
Re:The goal of the chamber (Score:3, Insightful)
but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument.
I'd say the AC being a moronic fuckwit is an important detail when considering the veracity of his claims.
'course, that's entirely beside the point, as the responder debunked the AC while *simultaneously* attacking his character. ie, his character attacks could be removed from his post, and the fundamental arguments would remain.
But, hey, if you can't win by argument, you might as well cry "ad hominem".