Climate Change Deniers: Explain the Size of my Sheep

[The Naacal]

In order for any study of climate change to be considered scientifically as accurate as possible, it must naturally include as much relevant data as possible.

Now, even assuming the "True Believers" are right about man-caused global warming all it would take would be one Krakatoa/Penatubo level eruption to counteract a lot of it. The pyroclastic ash that would be blown into the upper atmosphere would produce more cooling on our planetary climate then a century of industry. The temperature levels after Krakatoa proves this.

Now if (when) Yellowstone goes off, I strongly suspect the global warming agenda will be erased.

Along with a significant part of human civilization.

[Desperate Measures]

In order for any study of climate change to be considered scientifically as accurate as possible, it must naturally include as much relevant data as possible.

Now, even assuming the "True Believers" are right about man-caused global warming all it would take would be one Krakatoa/Penatubo level eruption to counteract a lot of it. The pyroclastic ash that would be blown into the upper atmosphere would produce more cooling on our planetary climate then a century of industry. The temperature levels after Krakatoa proves this.

Now if (when) Yellowstone goes off, I strongly suspect the global warming agenda will be erased.

Along with a significant part of human civilization.

Lets fuck things up until the meteor comes to wipe us out?

[The Naacal]

In order for any study of climate change to be considered scientifically as accurate as possible, it must naturally include as much relevant data as possible.

Now, even assuming the "True Believers" are right about man-caused global warming all it would take would be one Krakatoa/Penatubo level eruption to counteract a lot of it. The pyroclastic ash that would be blown into the upper atmosphere would produce more cooling on our planetary climate then a century of industry. The temperature levels after Krakatoa proves this.

Now if (when) Yellowstone goes off, I strongly suspect the global warming agenda will be erased.

Along with a significant part of human civilization.

Lets fuck things up until the meteor comes to wipe us out?

All I am saying is vulcanism can, has, and will have a far more drastic effect on the climate then industry has.

Yellowstone I was just mentioning as the single greatest volcanic event that could happen. It is "overdue" to erupt based on it's history, but that of course is in geological scale. It may not go off for a thousand years. Or it could erupt next month.

[Farnhamia]

In order for any study of climate change to be considered scientifically as accurate as possible, it must naturally include as much relevant data as possible.

Now, even assuming the "True Believers" are right about man-caused global warming all it would take would be one Krakatoa/Penatubo level eruption to counteract a lot of it. The pyroclastic ash that would be blown into the upper atmosphere would produce more cooling on our planetary climate then a century of industry. The temperature levels after Krakatoa proves this.

Now if (when) Yellowstone goes off, I strongly suspect the global warming agenda will be erased.

Along with a significant part of human civilization.

Lets fuck things up until the meteor comes to wipe us out?

All I am saying is vulcanism can, has, and will have a far more drastic effect on the climate then industry has.

Yellowstone I was just mentioning as the single greatest volcanic event that could happen. It is "overdue" to erupt based on it's history, but that of course is in geological scale. It may not go off for a thousand years. Or it could erupt next month.

Okay, so "Let's go on fucking things up until the volcano comes to wipe us out?" Is that it? You do realize that by the time us "True Believers" have enough evidence to satisfy you, it'll be too late to do anything even remotely affordable about climate change, right?

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

We have a real denier! What fun.

I'll just comment on the OP story. Farmers whining about the farmer's lot is as old as agriculture itself. It does nothing to "raise consciousness" about climate change, but rather the opposite trivializes it.

Even long-term climatic records don't prove anthropogenic climate change. Adding carbon to the atmosphere should increase global temperatures, and scientists have said so for decades.

I think it is rash to test that by experiment. That's a mighty big experiment.

As to Yellowstone, why not cap it? Get a bloody big asteroid, and gently lower it into place. That will shut the silly thing up for a century at least.

[The Naacal]

I do not believe there is enough evidence from non-politcally biased sources available to determine if climate change is being caused my man's actions.

I was just trying to show that natural processes can affect the globe far more, and far dramatically, then mankind can.

Right now, the aledged threat of climate change is being used as a political bludgeon to basically gut what is left of the US economy. And quite frankly even if the climate change theory is correct, all the proposed Crap and Trade legislation will do is encourage corporations to go to nations like India or Red China.

There, they can have near-zero environmental regulations, and effectively slave labor in the case of China.

I question the valildity of a scientific theory. "Denier" implies a denial of a proven set of facts. Global Warming has not been proven. Currently it is still a theory and so should be challenged logically and not just accepted as fact. That is the only way to maintain a scientific approach to this.

[Farnhamia]

I do not believe there is enough evidence from non-politcally biased sources available to determine if climate change is being caused my man's actions.

I was just trying to show that natural processes can affect the globe far more, and far dramatically, then mankind can.

Right now, the aledged threat of climate change is being used as a political bludgeon to basically gut what is left of the US economy. And quite frankly even if the climate change theory is correct, all the proposed Crap and Trade legislation will do is encourage corporations to go to nations like India or Red China.

There, they can have near-zero environmental regulations, and effectively slave labor in the case of China.

I question the valildity of a scientific theory. "Denier" implies a denial of a proven set of facts. Global Warming has not been proven. Currently it is still a theory and so should be challenged logically and not just accepted as fact. That is the only way to maintain a scientific approach to this.

"Non-politically biased sources" ... nice, that pretty much allows you to claim any source come up with is unacceptable. Could you name a source that would be acceptable?

And why would anyone in the US want to actively gut the economy? Explain that, please.

[The Naacal]

How about Alan Carlin's report from the EPA, which was "apparently" supressed?

Or is that all just a Republican plot?

As far as who would want to gut the US Economy, I would say everyone who voted for Cap and Trade. It's a good guess that most companies will find places to move to that are more profitable. That's what corporations do after all. Now, if the Congress does not realise the economic and industrial damage Cap and Trade will do, then they are morons.

Or is it just a matter of we will have to make sacrifices for the sake of the planet?

[Farnhamia]

How about Alan Carlin's report from the EPA, which was "apparently" supressed?

Or is that all just a Republican plot?

As far as who would want to gut the US Economy, I would say everyone who voted for Cap and Trade. It's a good guess that most companies will find places to move to that are more profitable. That's what corporations do after all. Now, if the Congress does not realise the economic and industrial damage Cap and Trade will do, then they are morons.

Or is it just a matter of we will have to make sacrifices for the sake of the planet?

Why would Congress want to gut the economy? How does that benefit them?

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

My chosen argument is not Farnhamia's, "a stitch in time saves nine."

It's that the human race doesn't have a purpose. Even a quite unnecessary purpose, like reducing carbon emissions or building a colony on Mars, would unite the human race.

If we ever have to fight aliens, or divert asteroids, or any number of other crises which ARE actually critical to our survival, we better get in practice now with working as a global team.

Fighting global poverty or ending war have not been quite enough to eliminate the arbitrary and unjust distinction of "countries." But the pursuit of those worthy goals has helped a bit. Global regulation of emissions will help a bit too. A global government won't come about by any one global need, any more than national governments came about only because a big tax base makes a strong army. National governments are so overwhelmingly prevalent that it is foolish to suggest that they're a mistake. Undoing them would be enormously hard, the best way forward is to complete them into a world government.

Note that MY argument is neutral as regards anthropogenic climate change.

I'm actually a believer, but I make a case that there is a good reason to regulate emissions even if they are doing no harm. It's one of the arbitrary choices which pass for a "purpose" in a life (that of our species) which hasn't yet found a credible purpose. It helps to unite us, and complete the pattern of building representative governments to make collective decisions.

[The Naacal]

How about Alan Carlin's report from the EPA, which was "apparently" supressed?

Or is that all just a Republican plot?

As far as who would want to gut the US Economy, I would say everyone who voted for Cap and Trade. It's a good guess that most companies will find places to move to that are more profitable. That's what corporations do after all. Now, if the Congress does not realise the economic and industrial damage Cap and Trade will do, then they are morons.

Or is it just a matter of we will have to make sacrifices for the sake of the planet?

Why would Congress want to gut the economy? How does that benefit them?

Listen to what I am saying. It follows that the Congress is aware of the economic damage Cap and Trade will do. There are only several options assuming this statement is correct.

1: They do not give a damn.

2: Some (Republicans mostly...but by no means exclusively) may have investments in some companies which will get more profitable by having those companies move to China or India.

Or they just might not realise the damage this will cause.

Another potential is they view "Good for the Economy" as more corporate profit. If this is their definition of the situation then Cap and Trade will benefit the Economy (on the corporate level), the environment, and all will be wonderful.

Except the American worker will get screwed.

[Tubbsalot]

I question the valildity of a scientific theory. "Denier" implies a denial of a proven set of facts. Global Warming has not been proven. Currently it is still a theory and so should be challenged logically and not just accepted as fact. That is the only way to maintain a scientific approach to this.

You don't know what the term "theory" means, do you.

In any case, you're incorrect - you are denying a well-established set of facts. Anthropogenic global warming only requires that a) greenhouses gases increase the Earth's temperature, and that b) we are releasing greenhouse gases. Those two things combined equal global warming, and those two things cannot be denied (unless you've been utterly disconnected from the world for about the last two decades at least).

[The Naacal]

I bow to your infinite wisdom.

[Tubbsalot]

Excellent.

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

I question the valildity of a scientific theory. "Denier" implies a denial of a proven set of facts. Global Warming has not been proven. Currently it is still a theory and so should be challenged logically and not just accepted as fact. That is the only way to maintain a scientific approach to this.

You don't know what the term "theory" means, do you.

In any case, you're incorrect - you are denying a well-established set of facts. Anthropogenic global warming only requires that a) greenhouses gases increase the Earth's temperature, and that b) we are releasing greenhouse gases. Those two things combined equal global warming, and those two things cannot be denied (unless you've been utterly disconnected from the world for about the last two decades at least).

Yes, but the strength of the theory determines the strength of action taken on the basis of it.

It's not a purely scientific question, where the strongest available theory is accepted until a better one is proposed and tested. The strength of the theory does determine how much effort should go into action based on the assumption of its truth.

I think emissions should be limited somehow. I take that side. I just think we should be politically realistic. Because however scientific the information is, the response is political, there just isn't any other way I can see (bar some mad scientist with a mind-control ray.)

[Tubbsalot]

Sure, I'm not saying we should expect our parties to actually address any threats related to climate change. They certainly haven't tried very hard so far. I'm just saying that it's silly to deny the existence of that climate change.

[The Naacal]

Excellent.

Is you response as sarcastic as mine was? Sarcasm does not travel well as printed text.

[The Naacal]

Sure, I'm not saying we should expect our parties to actually address any threats related to climate change. They certainly haven't tried very hard so far. I'm just saying that it's silly to deny the existence of that climate change.

Climate change most certainly does exist, the argument becomes how much of it is natural/cyclical, and how much is caused by man.

And it's really academic. For one thing we agree that the political parties cannot be depended on, but what will it matter as long as nations like China continue to spew all sorts of pollution. Some of them far more hazordous to the environment then greenhouse gases. Nuclear waste for one, they just dump it...

If you want to make a case for cutting down all pollution, that I have no problem with. But again, not likely to happen for economic and political reasons.

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

Sure, I'm not saying we should expect our parties to actually address any threats related to climate change. They certainly haven't tried very hard so far. I'm just saying that it's silly to deny the existence of that climate change.

Climate change most certainly does exist, the argument becomes how much of it is natural/cyclical, and how much is caused by man.

Leading to the question "should we try to counter if it is natural?"

My answer to that is "probably yes." But I'm not certain, there's some fuzzy thinking involved about what is natural and what is human. They're overlapping sets really.

I could say with more certainty that we should not deliberately change global climate. But resisting change isn't quite the same thing.

And it's really academic. For one thing we agree that the political parties cannot be depended on, but what will it matter as long as nations like China continue to spew all sorts of pollution. Some of them far more hazordous to the environment then greenhouse gases. Nuclear waste for one, they just dump it...

If enough countries do their bit, and most particularly developed economies (where the biggest markets are) enforce emission limits within their own economies ... then an international system of tariffs becomes possible.

The economic argument against tariffs (that they make markets less efficient) is slightly different in this case. Emissions (and even more so, toxic air or water pollution) damage all economies. A tariff on products from non-complying economies is a legitimate recovery of some of the cost to the complying economies of not doing that.

Tariffs are discredited in national terms, because nations without tariffs prosper at the expense of those with them. But even that isn't clear-cut. There are still industry-specific tariffs in almost all countries.

If enough developed economies get together and apply tariffs collectively on polluting countries, I think it would have the desired punitive effect. Because there would be essentially only two competing economies (the cap-compliant, and the polluters) and as long as the biggest markets are concentrated in the cap-compliant ones, it won't go well for those countries which insist that their need for economic growth justifies injuring the citizens of other countries.

This doesn't even have to be particularly harsh. A small tariff would be a small incentive but be more widely observed. The idea is to build a majority (by GNP) before really bringing the hammer down.

China's pollution is egregious. As a citizen of a country which sells Chinese polluters a buttload of coal, I'm hardly one to criticize. We sell them uranium too.

But I really hate the "we shouldn't do anything, because China won't" argument. The developed economies have enormous power over what China does, it just requires co-operation between their national governments to influence China's domestic regulation.

If you want to make a case for cutting down all pollution, that I have no problem with. But again, not likely to happen for economic and political reasons.

But exactly that is what has happened within developed economies. A few developed economies are high polluters (embarassingly, my own country is one) but generally government regulation is effective within countries in limiting pollution.

It's collective self-interest. It's what governments DO!

So I repeat, a global government could fix this. And even if limiting emissions turns out to be a fool's errand, the fool gets some exercise and experience.

[The Naacal]

Yes, a single global government could likely deal with the problems of myriad kinds of pollution. The question that then jumps out is "Has humanity reached a sufficient level of societal development to allow for an effective one?"

Also, would the downsides of a global government counterbalance the beneficial effect of stopping/reducing pollution? And if so to what level?

[Desperate Measures]

"That’s why it is so frustrating when my fellow Republicans today play games around one of the most important environmental issues of our time.

Climate change is real, it’s caused by humans, and it will create serious risks for our nation’s security, economy and quality of life — and sooner than we think. That’s the unmistakable message from scientists who have devoted their professional lives to understanding how human activities affect climate. One of them is Dr. Katharine Hayhoe, a climate research scientist at Texas Tech and a devout evangelical Christian.

She is co-author of a forthcoming report that will document the stunning effects climate change will have throughout the United States — such as the climate of my own state of Michigan becoming like what North Texas experiences today. I’m not kidding — look at the report, from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, when it comes out shortly."

"So to my fellow Republicans, I say: Act like real conservatives. Be honest about the science and about the facts. Take responsibility for fixing a real problem. And let the world know that today’s Republicans want to be remembered the way we recall President Theodore Roosevelt — as people of honor who stood up to conserve the world we live in for our kids and grandkids."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/05 ... 22716.html

A few loud Republicans and it turns into Us vs Them.

[JarVik]

In order for any study of climate change to be considered scientifically as accurate as possible, it must naturally include as much relevant data as possible.

Now, even assuming the "True Believers" are right about man-caused global warming all it would take would be one Krakatoa/Penatubo level eruption to counteract a lot of it. The pyroclastic ash that would be blown into the upper atmosphere would produce more cooling on our planetary climate then a century of industry. The temperature levels after Krakatoa proves this.

Now if (when) Yellowstone goes off, I strongly suspect the global warming agenda will be erased.

Along with a significant part of human civilization.

Lets fuck things up until the meteor comes to wipe us out?

All I am saying is vulcanism can, has, and will have a far more drastic effect on the climate then industry has.

Yellowstone I was just mentioning as the single greatest volcanic event that could happen. It is "overdue" to erupt based on it's history, but that of course is in geological scale. It may not go off for a thousand years. Or it could erupt next month.

Well, strictly talking on the CO2 side of the equation humanity dwarfs the output of volcanoes on a longterm yearly average.

Volcanoes, particularily low latitude volcanoes are good at injecting sulphates into the stratosphere which make very good cloud/haze nuclei leading to less sun at the earths surface=cooling. However, the residence time of such sulphates in the strato is years to a decadish, CO2 however is much more persistent. Your going to need regular Krakatoes/ Tamboras every decade to cancel out the more persistent CO2 CH4 driven warming.

Penetubo was a barely noticable blip on the world climate, its not in our weight class.

[JarVik]

How about Alan Carlin's report from the EPA, which was "apparently" supressed?

Or is that all just a Republican plot?

As far as who would want to gut the US Economy, I would say everyone who voted for Cap and Trade. It's a good guess that most companies will find places to move to that are more profitable. That's what corporations do after all. Now, if the Congress does not realise the economic and industrial damage Cap and Trade will do, then they are morons.

Or is it just a matter of we will have to make sacrifices for the sake of the planet?

Written by an economist and some other hack, yep an Exon and friends plot to designed to give talking points to the usual mouth peaces while provideing negative science content.

[JarVik]

I do not believe there is enough evidence from non-politcally biased sources available to determine if climate change is being caused my man's actions.

I was just trying to show that natural processes can affect the globe far more, and far dramatically, then mankind can.

Right now, the aledged threat of climate change is being used as a political bludgeon to basically gut what is left of the US economy. And quite frankly even if the climate change theory is correct, all the proposed Crap and Trade legislation will do is encourage corporations to go to nations like India or Red China.

There, they can have near-zero environmental regulations, and effectively slave labor in the case of China.

I question the valildity of a scientific theory. "Denier" implies a denial of a proven set of facts. Global Warming has not been proven. Currently it is still a theory and so should be challenged logically and not just accepted as fact. That is the only way to maintain a scientific approach to this.

So out of curioustiy, if the cost of the Iraq war won't break the US treasury as the republicans say, you probably could have spent a similar sum of money instead on building new power plants, altering infrastructure etc.

God knows there is just no employment generated by large construction projects, no money circulating within the domestic economy from such projects. The shrubs plan of sending money by the skid load to Iraq and writing a blank cheque to haliburton to build infastructure in Iraq is how to make a strong US economy.

[Desperate Measures]

How about Alan Carlin's report from the EPA, which was "apparently" supressed?

Or is that all just a Republican plot?

As far as who would want to gut the US Economy, I would say everyone who voted for Cap and Trade. It's a good guess that most companies will find places to move to that are more profitable. That's what corporations do after all. Now, if the Congress does not realise the economic and industrial damage Cap and Trade will do, then they are morons.

Or is it just a matter of we will have to make sacrifices for the sake of the planet?

Written by an economist and some other hack, yep an Exon and friends plot to designed to give talking points to the usual mouth peaces while provideing negative science content.

9 times out of 10, an anti-climate change report can be traced back to Exxon or similar oil company. It's actually a fun game when people try to test it. Kind of like the 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon.