Global Warming: True or a Hoax?

[Rafael Rothschild]

Are you for real?
Are you questioning the 3 factors in the earth rotation and orbit around the sun, explained in thread#10?
Or, are you trying to get out of the question poorly?

I really, do not want to use offensive languange, but you are making it very difficult for me

[Keith R]

Originally Posted by Rafael Rothschild

Are you for real?
Are you questioning the 3 factors in the earth rotation and orbit around the sun, explained in thread#10?
Or, are you trying to get out of the question poorly?

Yes, I'm for real, and that's what you're having a hard time dealing with.

You in fact are trying to get of the question poorly by narrowing the focus from your long post to just a few points. Sorry, I do not fall for that debating technique.

You continue to try to treat post #10 as the cosmic bible that explains all. Where is cobraboy to decry your religious fervor?

I really, do not want to use offensive languange, but you are making it very difficult for me

Go ahead, make my day, but recall my prior warning to all participants in this thread. You were forewarned.

[Rafael Rothschild]

Have a good solar day Keith

[Rafael Rothschild]

And, by the way, yes, post#10 is the bible of solar radiation striking the earth.

[Keith R]

Originally Posted by Rafael Rothschild

And, by the way, yes, post#10 is the bible of solar radiation striking the earth.

and BTW, most scientists have concluded that solar radiation alone cannot explain current climate trends.

[Chirimoya]

Originally Posted by Rafael Rothschild

I'm a personal friend of Pedro Duque, the spanish astronaut; and I know, for a fact, that most scientist in NASA do not believe all the political bull @@@@ being said for the last 15 years regarding global warming.

Maybe it's just me, but I can't help to get that feeling of being right, when I hear such comments from people I respect a lot more than politicians or media employees.

I met this one, and didn't get the impression he was a maverick.

[Andy B]

Originally Posted by Keith R

Yes, I'm for real, and that's what you're having a hard time dealing with.

You in fact are trying to get of the question poorly by narrowing the focus from your long post to just a few points. Sorry, I do not fall for that debating technique.

You continue to try to treat post #10 as the cosmic bible that explains all. Where is cobraboy to decry your religious fervor?


Go ahead, make my day, but recall my prior warning to all participants in this thread. You were forewarned.

Kieth,
You're debating/arguing with a brick wall. There are those that will deny that GW's primary cause is man even when they are finally standing on a barren earth and suffering cosmic melt down because of no more ozone and too much CO2 in our atmosphere. GW is here, it's a fact and as you have pointed out, man is the primary cause of it. It is the greatest threat facing our earth, far beyond nuclear war. Period.

[Keith R]

Hi Andy. Actually, I'm not 100% certain

(a) that it's a irreversible warming trend so much as I am that we're seeing major climatic changes (not necessarily warming globally, although that appears more probable than not) that will be very disruptive on many levels -- economic, health, etc. Some of this we are already seeing initial signs of, so we don't need to wait in order to take precautionary actions.

(b) that man is the primary cause. I have come to believe (like many of the world's major corporations, not just scientists) that man contributes to it heavily and may be exacerbating/accelerating/worsening natural changes. But again, whether man is primary or secondary contributing matters less to me than this is the part we most definitely can do something about, and should do as much about as soon as we can while we still can. At the very least I think we owe that to our kids and grandkids.

(c) that it's as apocalyptic as some in the environmental community would have us believe. But I do believe it is very, very serious, so cannot sit on our hands and wait to see just how bad it may become before acting to mitigate and adapt.

But just because the science is not 100% certain or 100% accepted does not mean we should sit on our hands and pray it'll all turn out okay in the end. If the hurricane watch center tells you that a major force 5 hurricane is headed straight for your island, do you say I'll believe it when I see it with my own eyes and just sit drinking beer and ignore the warnings based on best available science and computer models? I suspect most of us (especially me, after having lived through Georges in the DR in 1998) would start preparations just in case. If it does not hit, or does not hit as hard as predicted, well then, no harm done. If it does, our preparations increase our chances of survival with minimal negative impact. I view taking mitigation and adaptation actions regarding global climate change in similar terms.

I've followed the international debate on this issue since the mid-1980s, and have read many of the scientific reports produced and debated in international forums over the years. I've watched as the weight of mounting evidence has slowly won over skeptics in governments and industry. I can even recall a senior VP in a major European chemical firm (a client) lecturing me (and anyone who would listen) in 1988 about the ice cores and ice age theory RR espouses, complete with charts. Today that guy is finally convinced that global climate change is real, man is a major contributing factor, and his industry needs to be part of the response, not the resistance. He's far from alone. In fact, these days, just the opposite.

As I said above, I refuse to accept that there is nothing we can do or that global climate change means the end to all economic growth (the economic apocalypse that some would have us believe will occur if we face the global climate change challenge). Serious retooling, redesign and rethinking, yes, but economies have undergone major paradigm shifts in history before and do so successfully again.

We may not be able to stop global climate change, but we might be able to slow it down, lessen its negative impacts and capitalize on its positive shifts (yes, there probably will be some). As I said before, many of the necessary responses are things we probably should be doing anyway, so why procrastinate?

[Manzana]

The hard left still exists but it's given up on it's 19th century social-economic arguments for why it should be given power. Marxist takes on everything have a very archaic feel. Instead of the dictatorship of the proletariat (through it's representative vangard the party and the farsighted intellectuals)there is the dictatorship of the environmentally enlightened.

Back in 1907 the left argued that there were critical problems with the exploitation of labor. Were they right? Sure.There were real problems and injustices and still are. Did that mean it was necessary to turn over power to the Left- not really. Most occasions it happened worked out rather poorly. There was also a much larger group of people just actively interested in the problems in a practical way, not as an excuse to take power. In many cases those people were manipulated or used by elements of the ideological, power seeking left.

I think "environmentalism" in general and "global warming" in particular serve the same function in modern politics. Most people are just practically interested in the problems. A comparatively small but quite influential collection of activists are focused on these issues as a road to power. One litmus test for me is: is the person or organization horrified by discussion of technical solutions? Technical solutions to environmental/climate issues are like Unions, Social Security, Unemployment pay, were in the early 20th century. The hard left was horrified because these practical "patchwork" measures reduced the intensity of the crisis and the chance for revolution and taking power.

What is the real agenda of an advocate of global warming? It depends on what policy they support. There are lots of good arguments that global climate is changing and lots of good counterarguments that that's what climate has always done for better or worse. There is a reasonable case that human activities have produced global warming. I just read an old piece by John Von Neumann from the 50's basically just incidentally tossing it off as though it was quite obvious even then. His mention of it is utterly politically neutral. The real issue is SO THEN WHAT? Suppose the rise in greenhouse gases has in fact produced warming. What policies does that suggest? It's like OK, so the proletariat is oppressed and impoverished, what should we do about it?

The arguments about the details and theories are so intense because they set the stage for this policy question.

You don't need really good climate modeling to show that there is some correlation between greenhouse gases and other human activities (like agriculture) and climate.

You do need really good climate modeling to predict with any confidence what the results of policy changes will be. That's the problem. There may well be a rough concensus that something is going on. There is also a rough concensus that we don't know enough to accurately calculate cost-benefit for most major expensive policy initiatives.

Does that leave room for discussion? Sure. There are lots of relatively cheap policy changes and many possible new techical fixes. As long as cost and uncertainty are given consideration there is a practical debate.

IS GLOBAL WARMING A HOAX? Is like IS THE OPPRESSION OF THE WORKING CLASS A HOAX? It's a straw man set up to attack anyone who questions the enlightened left. The use of "Denial" is a great bit of polemical wordsmithing. It evokes Holocaust denial (now associated with the islamic radicals) and addiction interventions. It's one of the best I've seen since the Right came up with calling "estate taxes" the "death tax". The change in one word totally distorted the public perception of the issue and almost single-handedly reversed the polling numbers.

There is the hint in this of someone in the background amusing himself laying out the re-education camps and figuring the budgets for barbed wire and guard dogs. You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs.

[Keith R]

Manzana, thanks for the very thoughtful response.

I tend to think that, as with so many policy issues these days, there are forces of polar extremes struggling to "win" the debate with a "take no prisoners" attitude that in the final analysis, serves no one well. I'd rather see more people worldwide in the "middle" (whether that may be in this ever-shifting debate) discussing, as reasonably possible given the state of current knowledge, practical steps. It will probably have to be adjusted as we go along and learn/understand more about the mechanisms and impacts of global climate change, but it does little good to stand around debating what makes a hurricane a hurricane until the winds around us reach hurricane force and your roof gets ripped off, to start thinking about preparing for a hurricane....