Another New Theory On Global Warming

[TheNiche]

You shouldn't be disappointed. There are some arguments that cannot be won. When a poster states that there is no evidence to support a theory, even though virtually the entire scientific community has reached a consensus on the matter, you realize that the poster is being intellectually dishonest. A debate waged on 2 different levels is not a debate. I'd rather move on to something more productive.

I'm disappointed because you resorted to the use of informal fallacies to support your argument. These are the last refuge of lawyers and scoundrels. It is disappointing because you're usually able to at least stick to the issue in your posts. To substantiate my assertion that you have used a circumstantial ad hominem, I point to your statement that:

"When the Republican led Congress holds a hearing to rebut Global Warming, and calls as it's lead witness a SCIENCE FICTION writer, I believe that pretty much speaks for itself."

On a side note, stating "virtually the entire scientific community has reached a consensus on the matter" is an example of an invincible authority fallacy, and "the poster is being intellectually dishonest" is just a regular run-of-the-mill ad hominem.

Someone's profession, reputation, or political affiliation is not reason, in and of itself, to dismiss their arguments. If you wish to counter what it is that they claim, it is far more useful to provide a premise and a conclusion that are relevent to the argument at hand. Otherwise, you're just going to become cannon fodder for Republicans that would call you "sheep" or some such thing. The best way to win a political argument, which you seem to be engaged in (even though you claim not to want to be), is by making a clear and concise argument relating to the issues. Divest yourself of affiliation and you may actually influence someone's opinions...otherwise, you're more likely to be labeled and not taken seriously.

By the way, I'm not saying that Highway 6, your opponent, is doing any better (given that "poo poo" comment), but I've read many more of your posts and expected more from you.

BTW, Hitler hyperbole seldom helps your argument. I learned that when comparing George Bush's popular style to Hitler's. People recoil so hard that they don't hear the argument.

I'm aware of that, but can't help except say what I think. My target has never been the masses, but rather well-educated intellectuals capable of discerning between rhetoric and true analytical thought. And I wouldn't call it a hyperbole...just an observation. If you would like to debate the validity of my observation, I'd welcome such feedback.

As to global warming, I would agree that there is some debate as to how much effect human activity has on the phenomenon. But, there is little rational debate that human activity does have some effect.

I don't think that anybody has ruled out the distinct likelihood that human activity has an effect on climate. The core of the issue, when you really get down to it is a matter of policy. Are we certain enough about our impacts to justify a BIG up-front economic cost by complying with Kyoto or some other set of emissions regulations? It could very easily be for nought...and even if we did let global warming occur, the other big question is whether it is actually a threat.

To the extent that people are fundamentally opposed to change without knowing whether it will be for better or worse, that is an example of classical conservatism. To the extent that there is a 'natural state' that is in some way perceived as being 'corrupted' by human activity, that is Romanticism, similar to that promoted by Rousseau. Many of Hitler's ideals are well-documented as being derived from such strains of philosophical thought, and it struck me as a fascinating comparison.

I hope that my clarifications have been sufficient to ensure a more thorough understanding of my key arguments. If there are any more criticisms, I'll be glad to field them.

[nmainguy]

"When the Republican led Congress holds a hearing to rebut Global Warming, and calls as it's lead witness a SCIENCE FICTION writer, I believe that pretty much speaks for itself."

You describe this as a circumstantial ad hominem. Many people-including myself-consider a circumstantial ad hominem to be a fallacy. Red's comments were not unfactual. They may reflect his philosophy [you'd really have to ask him that] but they are factual never the less. As with your repeatedly Hitler analogys, you open up yourself to a degree of suspicion as to your motives.

As far as Global Warming goes, wouldn't it be prudent to err on the side of caution? To encourage cleaner air for everyone's benefit?

To not make an excuse that it may cost too much?:

As far as I am concerned, the concept of human-induced climate change on a global scale is questionable enough to not really worry about it very much...sure as hell not worth investing several trillion dollars for the globe to meet CO2 reduction guidelines.

...and yet the countries of the globe-especially the US-can muster what is approaching one trillion dollars for a war-perhaps-that would not be my priority.

When we have leaders of all political stripes who are all talk and no walk on alternatives like hydrogen and hybrid technologies, don't expect not to hear some philiosophical statements you may not want to listen to.

[Heights2Bastrop]

Hitler was the exact same thing with an ethnic focus rather than environmental

Actually, the Hitler and the Nazis were quite the environmentalists. They were the first to associate smoking and asbestos with cancer. In fact, smoking was verboten among many factions of the party, and it nearly became illegal throughout the country.

Of course, those whose health they were concerned for was ethnic based, to say the least.

[RedScare]

Actually, the Hitler and the Nazis were quite the environmentalists. They were the first to associate smoking and asbestos with cancer. In fact, smoking was verboten among many factions of the party, and it nearly became illegal throughout the country.

Of course, those whose health they were concerned for was ethnic based, to say the least.

I must say, I learn something new on this forum every day.

[Heights2Bastrop]

Naturally, that came from the History Channel, Red.

[dbigtex56]

Polar ice cap studies refute global warming

Written By: James M. Taylor

Published In: Environment News

Publication Date: October 1, 2001

Publisher: The Heartland Institute

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A series of recent studies shows that the polar ice caps, which should be shrinking if dire global warming theories are correct, are maintaining their mass and in fact growing slightly.

bachanon, consider the source.

From their website:

"The Heartland Institute is devoted to discovering and promoting free-market solutions to social and economic problems."

They are not, however, devoted to the truth. The icecaps are shrinking. They're shrinking at an accelerating pace. This is the truth. This is irrefutable.

The Heartland Institute is devoted to distorting any facts which negatively impact those currently profiting from the free market.

[RedScare]

Naturally, that came from the History Channel, Red.

Natch...

[Highway6]

Niche.. Well put post.

"When the Republican led Congress holds a hearing to rebut Global Warming, and calls as it's lead witness a SCIENCE FICTION writer, I believe that pretty much speaks for itself."

These quotes were from a university lecture series at the California Institute of Technology. It was not a Congressional hearing.. so the fact that the Republicans lead Congress really has jack to do with this.

bachanon, consider the source.

From their website:

"The Heartland Institute is devoted to discovering and promoting free-market solutions to social and economic problems."

They are not, however, devoted to the truth. The icecaps are shrinking. They're shrinking at an accelerating pace. This is the truth. This is irrefutable.

The Heartland Institute is devoted to distorting any facts which negatively impact those currently profiting from the free market.

Everyone has an agenda. Who has the authority to pick and choose which scientist we think are telling the truth and which are lying. Those that finance the science have an agenda and are biased and find scientists to prove their side. .... and this happens on both sides.

[dbigtex56]

Editor... very interesting piece.. Thank you.

Since the other Global Warming forum is so much livelier, would you mind reposting your comment and link to there also.

Took the liberty of merging the other Global Warming thread with this one, as it's under a new catagory (The Weather)

[RedScare]

These quotes were from a university lecture series at the California Institute of Technology. It was not a Congressional hearing.. so the fact that the Republicans lead Congress really has jack to do with this.

Everyone has an agenda. Who has the authority to pick and choose which scientist we think are telling the truth and which are lying. Those that finance the science have an agenda and are biased and find scientists to prove their side. .... and this happens on both sides.

I beg to differ.

"In September 2005 Crichton testified at a Congressional hearing on climate change[6], having been called by Senator James Inhofe."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crighton

As to the role of 'agendas' in scientific research, you are correct that many researchers have an agenda, or at the least, are sponsored by organizations with an agenda. This common problem is addressed by peer review, the process of other scientists studying the research and critiqueing it, including replication of the research. That research that cannot be replicated, or is otherwise shown to be flawed, fails the peer review process. That research that passes is considered valid.

The invasion of the media into science also skews the research. How often have we seen that some food is bad for you, only to see a new study say it is not? In the competitive quest for research dollars, many studies are distributed to the press before peer review, giving the appearance that it is valid. Further study reveals it to be flawed. The politics involved in the Global Warming debate virtually guarantee that you will find studies on both sides of this issue that have not been peer reviewed. This only muddies the waters and confuses all of us non-scientists...but that's the way it is.

[Highway6]

I beg to differ.

"In September 2005 Crichton testified at a Congressional hearing on climate change[6], having been called by Senator James Inhofe."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crighton

Crichton has been speaking out on these topics for quite some time.

As your Wikipedia article points out... these two lectures were several years before the Congressional hearing.

Still.. I stand by the fact that you said that just to dismiss him as someone we didn't have to take seriously.

An anthropology and medical degree from Harvard... plus he taught at Cambridge... and yet... because he writes science fiction and the Republicans are in charge of Congress... we can't take serious anything that comes out of his mouth.

"Aliens Cause Global Warming"

A lecture by Michael Crichton

California Institute of Technology

Pasadena, CA

January 17, 2003

"Environmentalism as Religion"

by Michael Crichton

Commonwealth Club

San Francisco, CA

September 15, 2003

[TheNiche]

You describe this as a circumstantial ad hominem. Many people-including myself-consider a circumstantial ad hominem to be a fallacy. Red's comments were not unfactual. They may reflect his philosophy [you'd really have to ask him that] but they are factual never the less. As with your repeatedly Hitler analogys, you open up yourself to a degree of suspicion as to your motives.

As far as Global Warming goes, wouldn't it be prudent to err on the side of caution? To encourage cleaner air for everyone's benefit?

To not make an excuse that it may cost too much?:

...and yet the countries of the globe-especially the US-can muster what is approaching one trillion dollars for a war-perhaps-that would not be my priority.

When we have leaders of all political stripes who are all talk and no walk on alternatives like hydrogen and hybrid technologies, don't expect not to hear some philiosophical statements you may not want to listen to.

A circumstantial ad hominem is indeed a fallacy. Red's statement implied simply that the data could not be trusted because the people propogating it have something to gain. If an oil refining corporation makes the claim that its plants are the cleanest in the world, are they factually incorrect because they stand to gain from such a statement? No, of course not. They may very well be telling the truth...that's not ruling out the possibility of dishonesty, but one cannot just assume that the existence of potential alterior motives mean that the source is being dishonest. Red may have a philosophy on the matter, but I don't see that as relevent to my point. His comments may be factual, the only thing about which I can be certain is that the facts are ambiguous. I will not make poorly-informed assumptions (unless forced, and then my doubts will be explicitly stated).

Err on the side of caution...at what price? If the price is a single dollar paid today for the assurance of no impacts thirty years from now, then that is certainly an acceptable deal. If it is one trillion up front for the assurance of no effects from human impacts thirty years from now, I'm far less likely to take that deal. Again, it has to do with the notion that even IF change occurs as a result of human activity, we still cannot establish with any degree of certainty that the change will lead to a decline in economic output, much less some sort of doomsday scenario. Even the, if bad change happens, its so far off that I just care less. There are more important things to deal with at present.

As for your comments about spending on war...that is an unrelated issue and is not relevent to this discussion. If the war spending is unjustified in your view, then why create some system by which spending is dictated by relative priority? Why base a model on inherently flawed data?

And about that bit: "When we have leaders of all political stripes who are all talk and no walk on alternatives like hydrogen and hybrid technologies, don't expect not to hear some philiosophical statements you may not want to listen to." If I may paraphrase, you seem to think that as long as politicians aren't serious about tackling issues that you feel are important, I should expect to hear arguments that I would rather not hear.

Now where the heck did you get that from? I want to hear arguments if they're good well-thought-out arguments...and I could care less which political affiliation they come from if they make sense. If they don't, I'll shoot them down. If they do, I'll applaud and support them. That's that.

[RedScare]

Global warming might exist... but thats not the issue.

The issue is whether or not humans are causing it vs. how much is natural. And if humans are causing it, what of our actions are, and what of our actions aren't but people believe are... etc etc.

I personally believe there *could* be global warming, but that science hasn't proved anything conclusively and sure as heck hasn't convinced me that humans are the cause...

Perhaps it is because the Bush administration won't let you hear what it's own scientists have discovered.

"Employees and contractors working for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, along with a U.S. Geological Survey scientist working at an NOAA lab, said in interviews that over the past year administration officials have chastised them for speaking on policy questions; removed references to global warming from their reports, news releases and conference Web sites; investigated news leaks; and sometimes urged them to stop speaking to the media altogether. Their accounts indicate that the ideological battle over climate-change research, which first came to light at NASA, is being fought in other federal science agencies as well."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6040502150.html

Wouldn't want anyone leaking anything now, would we, Mr. President (other than you, of course)?

[TheNiche]

I don't doubt that they believe that they are correct or that they have good intentions...but this is something that happens to the rank and file career government employees in just about any given administration. If their research findings support a point the opposing political party, a little infighting occurs. It happened in the CIA, too, during Bush's first term in office.

I really don't see it as meaning much...just political firecrackers. Nothing new.

[RedScare]

I really don't see it as meaning much...just political firecrackers. Nothing new.

I agree that with this administration it is nothing new. And, I also agree that this is similar to the infighting at the CIA during Bush's first term, since the CIA was concerned about the administration cherry picking intelligence. I further agree that, just as the Bush administration ended up being WRONG about it's Iraqi intelligence, muzzling your scientists because their science conflicts with your ideology, is another recipe for disaster. But, somehow, I don't believe Bush fans find government silencing of it's critics to be troubling at all...as long as it's a Bush-led government doing the muzzling.

I wonder if they'll have a newfound respect for open government when a Democrat is in office. If so, I cannot think of a better reason to elect one.

[TheNiche]

I agree that with this administration it is nothing new. And, I also agree that this is similar to the infighting at the CIA during Bush's first term, since the CIA was concerned about the administration cherry picking intelligence. I further agree that, just as the Bush administration ended up being WRONG about it's Iraqi intelligence, muzzling your scientists because their science conflicts with your ideology, is another recipe for disaster. But, somehow, I don't believe Bush fans find government silencing of it's critics to be troubling at all...as long as it's a Bush-led government doing the muzzling.

I wonder if they'll have a newfound respect for open government when a Democrat is in office. If so, I cannot think of a better reason to elect one.

Nah, this kind of stuff happens with every administration. There's always some scandal out there, and there's always some government employee that pulls the trigger on it. Seems like that person usually gets characterized as belonging to whatever political affiliation is not in charge at the moment.

I'll give you this much: Clinton (and just about every other president of the 20th century) was a better politician; he knew how to deflect blame. But if you think that we'll ever actually have an open government, then I pity you...idealism has clouded your judgement.

[RedScare]

...idealism has clouded your judgement.

Clearly, you're talking about the wrong guy. I voted AGAINST Bush...twice.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

I heard from my German friend that the US gov. was behind global warming do to the HAARP project. How do ya like them apples

[TheNiche]

Clearly, you're talking about the wrong guy. I voted AGAINST Bush...twice.

I don't follow...my point was that no matter who is in office, there's corruption. And the whistleblowers tend to be rank and file government employees with beef against whoever is in charge at the moment. Sure, you voted against Bush, but you voted for Kerry (I'm guessing). In either case, and all the alternatives, you voted for someone who was either already a crook or on the path to becoming a crook. That's just a constant in American politics.

[desirous]

This "debate" seems silly. I don't see how releasing billions of tons of gases that trap warmth... wouldn't warm the planet. That is the logical relationship, none else. Whether there is "natural global warming" is an irrelevant topic. The question is not whether the sun is rising and warming the day, but rather whether you turned on the heater.

Turning on the heater tends to heat things up. Generally speaking, at least - plenty of conservatives out there enjoy saying it doesn't.

[editor]

Another log for the fire:

Should we condemn all science fiction writers as not credible witnesses to science? Consider the fact that Arthur C. Clarke invented the concept of the communications satellite in one of his books.

I'll take a science fiction writer's testimony over the Hollywood-types that tend to get listened to these days.

[midtown 4.2]

I think we can all agree on one thing: The earth's atmosphere goes through NATURAL warming AND cooling cycles.

Where we disagree is that global warming is necessarily a BAD thing. I, for one, would rather have warm weather than cold weather. Sure, I enjoy the occasional ski trip in the winter, but if I had to choose between living in Greenland or Tahiti, it going to be the beach all the way.

What would you Liberals prefer? Warming or cooling?

[TheNiche]

This "debate" seems silly. I don't see how releasing billions of tons of gases that trap warmth... wouldn't warm the planet. That is the logical relationship, none else. Whether there is "natural global warming" is an irrelevant topic. The question is not whether the sun is rising and warming the day, but rather whether you turned on the heater.

Turning on the heater tends to heat things up. Generally speaking, at least - plenty of conservatives out there enjoy saying it doesn't.

Is anyone here a climate scientist? If not, then I don't think that we are qualified to debate the scientific principles...but I don't think that anyone has really tried that. The debate isn't about whether humans releasue additional 'unnatural' greenhouse gasses into Earth's atmosphere: it is about the effect.

There are several important questions to which answers currently do not exist or are extremely questionable:

1) What aggregate amount of greenhouse gasses are humans contributing compared to those emitted by natural sources, and what is the marginal effect? That is to say, if temperatures are supposed to rise by X degrees over the next century, what fraction is humanity responsible for? For that matter, episodic events (like the eruption of Mount Pinetubo) spew masses of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere from time to time, and their effects massively skew the natural/unnatural ratio of greenhouse gasses.

2) Are the effects desirable or undesirable. Historically speaking, warmer periods in human history have led to technological and cultural advancement while colder periods have coincided with famine and pestilence. That isn't to say that the same effects would be seen in future shifts, but the question is worth asking.

3) If we are to assume that the forecasted climate change will lead to bad things, what is the quantifiable net present value of those bad things. Can the bad things be averted by investing some dollar amount that is equal to or less than the net present value of the bad things? That is to say, is the problem bad enough to warrant fixing?

4) How reliable are our estimates? If coinciding natural climate shifts skew our relatively small sample of data (about 100 years of complete input), our models could be way off, one way or the other. Are the risks sufficient to warrant additional investment, as sort of an insurance policy?

Each of these questions is completely valid. You can see why fiscal conservatives would be weary of investing trillions of dollars in trying to fix something that may or may not even be a bad thing. Some people may suggest that that's like trying to bury a head in the sand, but if the alternative is drastic action, its hard for me to see that as being much of a better solution...it could even backfire on us if it turns out that warmer would've been better.

[dbigtex56]

Is anyone here a climate scientist? If not, then I don't think that we are qualified to debate the scientific principles...but I don't think that anyone has really tried that. The debate isn't about whether humans releasue additional 'unnatural' greenhouse gasses into Earth's atmosphere: it is about the effect.

There are several important questions to which answers currently do not exist or are extremely questionable:

1) What aggregate amount of greenhouse gasses are humans contributing compared to those emitted by natural sources, and what is the marginal effect? That is to say, if temperatures are supposed to rise by X degrees over the next century, what fraction is humanity responsible for? For that matter, episodic events (like the eruption of Mount Pinetubo) spew masses of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere from time to time, and their effects massively skew the natural/unnatural ratio of greenhouse gasses.

2) Are the effects desirable or undesirable. Historically speaking, warmer periods in human history have led to technological and cultural advancement while colder periods have coincided with famine and pestilence. That isn't to say that the same effects would be seen in future shifts, but the question is worth asking.

3) If we are to assume that the forecasted climate change will lead to bad things, what is the quantifiable net present value of those bad things. Can the bad things be averted by investing some dollar amount that is equal to or less than the net present value of the bad things? That is to say, is the problem bad enough to warrant fixing?

4) How reliable are our estimates? If coinciding natural climate shifts skew our relatively small sample of data (about 100 years of complete input), our models could be way off, one way or the other. Are the risks sufficient to warrant additional investment, as sort of an insurance policy?

Each of these questions is completely valid. You can see why fiscal conservatives would be weary of investing trillions of dollars in trying to fix something that may or may not even be a bad thing. Some people may suggest that that's like trying to bury a head in the sand, but if the alternative is drastic action, its hard for me to see that as being much of a better solution...it could even backfire on us if it turns out that warmer would've been better.

Or, to boil it down:

We're idiots, and the data are overwhelming. Just don't mess with Big Business.

Disinformation campaigns work.

[TheNiche]

Or, to boil it down:

We're idiots, and the data are overwhelming. Just don't mess with Big Business.

Disinformation campaigns work.

"We're idiots, and the data are overwhelming"? On the contrary, the data is more likely underwhelming. That's really the problem. And people are only idiots if they take a stand on something and then become unwilling to change their opinion, regardless of how much new evidence/counterevidence is presented.

Big Business, in and of itself, has very little to do with the issue. In fact, if the expenditures that many companies (BP, Green Mountain Energy, Toyota, and Honda, for example) are willing to make to try and make money from environmentalists is evidence that the environmentalist movement has itself become a segment that can be targeted with marketing campaigns and exploited. On that note, I've never seen a commercial from any 'big business' that attempted to minimize global warming theory. I've only seen commercials aimed at exploiting the environmentalist consumer. To the extent that big business is willing to bend over and kiss environmentalist ass without also cultivating a public discussion of the issue, I would agree with you: there are in fact disinformation campaigns out there implemented by big business for self-serving and exploitative means.

I'd be much more concerned about the economy in general -- after all, if we're going to pay several trillions of dollars to essentially buy an insurance policy on ecological uncertainties related only to 'unnatural emissions', somebody's going to have to pay for it. Every bit of empirical evidence and economic theory suggests that increased costs from taxes and regulations on business ultimately get passed on to the consumer. So in the end, somebody will pay for these things, and that will be the American consumer -- that is you, I, and EVERYONE else.

[RedScare]

And people are only idiots if they take a stand on something and then become unwilling to change their opinion, regardless of how much new evidence/counterevidence is presented.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[dbigtex56]

On that note, I've never seen a commercial from any 'big business' that attempted to minimize global warming theory.

Well, of course not. That would be unseemly.

Instead, existing fossil-fuel based energy suppliers fund "studies" and "research" to flatly deny the existance of global warming. Thus, the consumer, can continue to consume massive quantities of fossil fuels with a clear conscience, and not demand that the status quo be changed. Or, they can opt for more expensive and (we hope) environmentally responsible energy practices. Under this system, only the consciencous suffer.

In some weird way, we're agreeing with one another. We the People want cheap energy, but some don't want to face up to the moral implications of our actions. We don't want to hear that it's causing grave problems. We don't want a Kyoto accord, if it means giving up our hulking cars.

"We have met the enemy and He is Us"

[TheNiche]

Well, of course not. That would be unseemly.

Instead, existing fossil-fuel based energy suppliers fund "studies" and "research" to flatly deny the existance of global warming. Thus, the consumer, can continue to consume massive quantities of fossil fuels with a clear conscience, and not demand that the status quo be changed. Or, they can opt for more expensive and (we hope) environmentally responsible energy practices. Under this system, only the consciencous suffer.

In some weird way, we're agreeing with one another. We the People want cheap energy, but some don't want to face up to the moral implications of our actions. We don't want to hear that it's causing grave problems. We don't want a Kyoto accord, if it means giving up our hulking cars.

"We have met the enemy and He is Us"

Do these "studies" mean anything if they aren't publicized? As you already noted, any such attempt would be unseemly. It's odd because, come to think of it, the only time that I've ever heard such studies cited as even existing is when someone is trying to make an argument FOR global warming by creating unseemliness. When it comes down to it, reaching the conclusion that the evidence in favor of global warming theory is stronger because energy companies fund studies for PR purposes (albeit unexploited ones) seems like a circumstantial ad hominem.

For that reason, I would still dispute whether there is an identifiable "enemy" in this matter.

When it comes down to it, Kyoto is simply a matter where everything can be summed up into two categories: costs and benefits. The costs are significant and the benefits are uncertain. Hence the lack of approval.

[dbigtex56]

Do these "studies" mean anything if they aren't publicized? As you already noted, any such attempt would be unseemly. It's odd because, come to think of it, the only time that I've ever heard such studies cited as even existing is when someone is trying to make an argument FOR global warming by creating unseemliness. When it comes down to it, reaching the conclusion that the evidence in favor of global warming theory is stronger because energy companies fund studies for PR purposes (albeit unexploited ones) seems like a circumstantial ad hominem.

For that reason, I would still dispute whether there is an identifiable "enemy" in this matter.

When it comes down to it, Kyoto is simply a matter where everything can be summed up into two categories: costs and benefits. The costs are significant and the benefits are uncertain. Hence the lack of approval.

So where do profits (and those who reap them) fit into the picture?

[TheNiche]

So where do profits (and those who reap them) fit into the picture?

Why must profit automatically be equated with social wrongdoing? Capitalism assures us that those who are able to provide the best products most inexpensively are rewarded...its all about the consumer. Its all about you.