The Magic Caf
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Global Warming - What's the worst that could happen? (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [Next]
Steven Conner
View Profile
Inner circle
2676 Posts

Profile of Steven Conner
Quote:
As president of an international commission on sea-level changes and coastal evolution, I launched a Maldives research project. Observational data obtained by our international team of experts shows conclusively that the sea level is not rising, unlike fictions propagated by many who are not specialists.

Nils-Axel Morner, Stockholm University


To the best of my knowledge, no one at the Café has the expertise to agree with or refute this report. But, undoubtedly, several will try.

John
[/quote]

Contrary to popular belief, because Nils-Axel Morner, of Stockholm University says so does not make it so. Many scientists have laid claim to so called truths only to find they were wrong.
"The New York Papers," Mark Twain once said,"have long known that no large question is ever really settled until I have been consulted; it is the way they feel about it, and they show it by always sending to me when they get uneasy. "
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27242 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Kregg,

what is the source/date of that interview?

And what are all those concert promoters gonna do about the huge "green" project this summer?

Jon

And now back the hot air of the righteously concerned whose sincere bellowing is offering us both noise pollution and plenty of greenhouse gasses as they call forth plagues of taxation and fear.

Ya like that? Global warming as a self fulfilling prophesy as the hot air of ill informed argument steams up our greenhouse. Smile
...to all the coins I've dropped here
Andy the cardician
View Profile
Inner circle
A street named after my dad
3370 Posts

Profile of Andy the cardician
Quote:
On 2007-06-26 13:36, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:

To the best of my knowledge, no one at the Café has the expertise to agree with or refute this report. But, undoubtedly, several will try.

John


Well, we might have some devoted amateurs with us, who are climate scientist in their daily life.
Cards never lie
Doug Higley
View Profile
V.I.P.
1942 - 2022
7165 Posts

Profile of Doug Higley
In all the confusion, a 'back burner' seems about right...at least till after the Transformers movie comes out. There's only so much 'importance' I can handle. I think I'll just downplay my importance in the outcome.
Higley's Giant Flea Pocket Zibit
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27242 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Hey yeah, maybe one of those robots turns into a refrigerator. ]

eagerly awaiting wed morning showing here too. Smile
...to all the coins I've dropped here
Andy the cardician
View Profile
Inner circle
A street named after my dad
3370 Posts

Profile of Andy the cardician
I love this discussion - if very much reflects the dispute amongst the scientists. Truth is, nobody really can sure-fire predict the impact of global warming. Should we therefore ignore the possible risk?

I think not.
It might turn out that all the precautions that we are now taking were unnecessary. But it might also turn out that because we failed to do the things we should have done, we inflicted severe damage to the earth. My take - better be safe than sorry.

Andy
Cards never lie
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27242 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Quote:
On 2007-06-26 20:03, Andy the cardician wrote:
...

I think not.


It might turn out that all the precautions that we are now taking were unnecessary.

But it might also turn out that because we failed to do the things we should have done, we inflicted severe damage to the earth. My take - better be safe than sorry.


Basically you are saying, along with many others here, that you were successfully panicked into seeking large scale political action regarding an issue which you also know that the experts are not convinced is even an actual physical reality. Okay congrats you were fooled by a political trick. Did it feel good to get into a panic?

The "let's do something just in case" argument is about like deciding that if you think you might be allergic to milk you should get everyone to stop commerce in dairy.

Till we have a clue about the order of magnitude of our contributions to climate it's as bad as yelling fire in the theater. Calm down. Offer some useful suggestions if you have any as regards what YOU have found effective to live better. Let those who do the science do their measuring and analyzing. If you want to participate in some studies where you can help out... all the better.

In the mean time kindly quit bleating "four legs good, two legs bad" or whatever it is you heard on the mass media.

The large scale impact of a war to save our ecology is ... not going to be nice. Let's wait on nuking the developing nations till we need to okay? Till then feel free to read by candlelight, walk to work and save us all the hot air you feel like bellowing.

Waiting for pertinent data, cogent argument or mass hysteria. Your choice. How easily are you led into participating in a social agenda of questionable merit? Did we learn anything last century or do we get to have another round of it?

Yeah, all that from someone who also wants cleaner technology (total cost/total product cycle) and wonders why so many folks around here are driving SUVs.

We've been on this train before. First stop, "A Good Cause". Next stop, "It's for Your Own Good". Next stop, "It's for Their Own Good". Next stop, "We Will Fix It For Them". Next stop, "Our Best Will help Their Best Fix it Even Against Resistance".... Remember this ride? It's the DMDT train, Desperate Measures for Desperate Times. All aboard!
...to all the coins I've dropped here
kregg
View Profile
Inner circle
1958 Posts

Profile of kregg
Quote:
On 2007-06-26 14:22, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Kregg,
What is the source/date of that interview?


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19058588/
POOF!
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2007-06-26 20:25, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Quote:
On 2007-06-26 20:03, Andy the cardician wrote:
...

I think not.


It might turn out that all the precautions that we are now taking were unnecessary.

But it might also turn out that because we failed to do the things we should have done, we inflicted severe damage to the earth. My take - better be safe than sorry.


Basically you are saying, along with many others here, that you were successfully panicked into seeking large scale political action regarding an issue which you also know that the experts are not convinced is even an actual physical reality. Okay congrats you were fooled by a political trick. Did it feel good to get into a panic?

Now you are being offensive. People who disagree with you are not stupid and there is no evidence to suggest that "they were successfully panicked..." I think you owe several members of this Café an apology.

Quote:

The "let's do something just in case" argument is about like deciding that if you think you might be allergic to milk you should get everyone to stop commerce in dairy.


No, it is the reason we have insurance. It is the reason that countries have armies. Wise people plan for contingencies, basing their plans on the best evidence available.
Quote:
Till we have a clue about the order of magnitude of our contributions to climate it's as bad as yelling fire in the theater. Calm down. Offer some useful suggestions if you have any as regards what YOU have found effective to live better. Let those who do the science do their measuring and analyzing. If you want to participate in some studies where you can help out... all the better.


I hope you take this advice.

Quote:
In the mean time kindly quit bleating "four legs good, two legs bad" or whatever it is you heard on the mass media.


You are being most impolite. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a fool. Not everyone who voices an opinion contrary to yours is "bleating". I believe an apology is in order here, as well.

Quote:
The large scale impact of a war to save our ecology is ... not going to be nice. Let's wait on nuking the developing nations till we need to okay? Till then feel free to read by candlelight, walk to work and save us all the hot air you feel like bellowing.


Another apology owing.
Quote:
Waiting for pertinent data, cogent argument or mass hysteria. Your choice. How easily are you led into participating in a social agenda of questionable merit? Did we learn anything last century or do we get to have another round of it?


There are pertinent data, and there are cogent arguments. Much of the data and many of the arguments are contrary to your position.

Quote:
Yeah, all that from someone who also wants cleaner technology (total cost/total product cycle) and wonders why so many folks around here are driving SUVs.

We've been on this train before. First stop, "A Good Cause". Next stop, "It's for Your Own Good". Next stop, "It's for Their Own Good". Next stop, "We Will Fix It For Them". Next stop, "Our Best Will help Their Best Fix it Even Against Resistance".... Remember this ride? It's the DMDT train, Desperate Measures for Desperate Times. All aboard!


Once more, people who disagree with you are not fools. Nor do they deserve the brow-beating you are delivering.

If anything makes me leave the Café, it will be posts like yours.

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Bill Nuvo
View Profile
Inner circle
3094 Posts or
2747 Posts

Profile of Bill Nuvo
Jonathan, I have to agree with the Magnus that (even though I like your wit) you seem to be very condenscending to those with opposing views. This is no longer a debate but has turned into a flaming arguement.
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27242 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Jim, Bill, folks

My position is that we are being fooled in that some of what is being stated is very similar to the way muggles describe a magic trick they were told about by a friend who saw it on TV. Listen to how muggles describe a trick that fooled them. Notice the deletions and affirmations of beliefs which are not congruent to known facts. I feel some of us have been fooled into believing a thing which might not even exist. And yes I too have been listening and hope we are not in for a horrible drought and worse.

I love legend building and how stories evolve and that stuff. But in this case we are talking about our economy in the short term and worse not so far after. That is where I draw a line about things.

I hold to my position that:

1) panicking is very dangerous

2) This environmental show has huge political agendas attached which are not scientific.

3) Participating in this effort to panic our population into unwise actions against an unproved threat is very much similar to yelling fire in a crowded theater.

I will keep my eyes open for new findings which come with a large degree of significance and measures which come with a large degree of confidence. The words significance and confidence in that last sentence were used in scientific context.

I do not expect to have need to apologize to folks here for insisting that they stick to what is known and holding that contributions that offer options are more useful than asking others to panic.

The next couple of months look well scheduled for "global warming" themed events including rock concerts and celebrity speeches etc. Enjoy the show. IMHO it's one heck of a trick. Maybe a little nicer than those late night rallies last time around but I bet the results will be impressive.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
Andy the cardician
View Profile
Inner circle
A street named after my dad
3370 Posts

Profile of Andy the cardician
Jonathan,

your mail was rather disappointing, as I do respect your views very much - yet in your response you labeled some members and me as people who were succesfully fooled and went into a blind, irrational panik mode.

My argument is simple - we do not know for sure. For each research there is a counter research out there. And for your information - I have followed the CO2 discussion since the early 90s.

I do agree that the topic is the flavour of the month for both politician and the media. However, perhaps this is a good thing - as we do not know for sure the real impact.

Science will evolve - and we will understand one day whether there is really a danger or not. But until that day, I choose to be safe than sorry.
It would not be the first time in history - just recall the difficult discussions on the impact of smoking.


Andy

(And no, I do not expect and need an apology from you).
Cards never lie
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27242 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
To all:

I apologize for using so many words and such loaded language in my attempts to put across a concern that we seek more data before acting precipitously.

I don't have a grow-up scientific opinion about global warming.
I know that it's been a while since I've seen a white Christmas.

I suggest that folks act to seek alternatives and be wary of what could lead us down to some dark places.

On a lighter note, the mention of the smoking debate (legal not scientific) did remind me of that scene in Woody Allen's movie Sleeper where they talked about the reversals of some common beliefs of our time. That's the funny thing about science... there is no "final answer" but instead a process of experiment, measure and formulate "our best guess for today".
...to all the coins I've dropped here
Billgussen
View Profile
Elite user
Central Japan
498 Posts

Profile of Billgussen
Jonathan,

1. Not panicking when one should panic is also dangerous. In Japan they had a study on whether people panic when something is actually going wrong. The test ran like this: A person is called in for an interview and asked to wait in a waiting room, in some cases alone and in others, with other people. Then smoke is pumped into the room through a vent simulating a fire. Most people alone managed to become alarmed and thereby save themselves. But people in a crowded rooms tended to remain dead calm expecting somebody else to panic first. If it were a real fire, all people in the crowded room would have died. Civilization has taken some of the life-saving panic out of our lives.

2. Everything with a political aspect will have people with political agendas behind it. The George Wills of the world who advocate doing nothing also have political agendas. Don't dismiss an argument just because it has advocates that you don't like.

3. No threat is proved until the damage is done. Until then it is only a potential threat -- the risks must be assessed and action should be taken according to the risk. Do you lock your doors at night? How many houses in your neighborhood have been robbed? Even if no houses in your neighborhood have been robbed in the past 10 years, are you still going to lock your doors? You determine that it is better to lock your doors rather than have your things stolen despite the low probability that they actually will be stolen. Why not determine the best steps to avoid a disaster for the climate before it actually happens?

Finally, you seem to focus on the idea that people are panicking. They aren't. So far, the only proposals have been modest at best. Cutting greenhouse emmissions by a certain percent over the course of a decade or four from now. Nobody's coming to destroy your Hummer. Even the more radical proposals only call for more conservative driving and living habits. Everything up to now, now included, has simply been talk. If science is correct, the world is at stake, so it's reasonable for some of the talk to be heated, but it's still just talk.

Bill
Doug Higley
View Profile
V.I.P.
1942 - 2022
7165 Posts

Profile of Doug Higley
John (Magnus) If you leave the Café you will miss me.
Higley's Giant Flea Pocket Zibit
NJJ
View Profile
Inner circle
6439 Posts

Profile of NJJ
What a smouldering pile of silliness this thread is!

No one has provided any REAL sources for their opinions. It's just a bunch of misinformed, opinionated, biased comments.

Where is the EVIDENCE for YOUR point of view?
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27242 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Nicholas, folks can find some primary sources listed in the back of Michael Crichton's book State of Fear and pursue the matter of reading from there. That is the path I took on this about a year ago.

It would be very strange not to find all sorts of discussion of research work happening now and older works online via the usenet groups and also via google.com via keyword search.

James Burke, they guy who did the "Connections" shows offered an impressive program about a decade ago that had the format of a documentary done in the year 2200 as a retrospect on environmental issues faced and handled by earlier peoples.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
Steven Conner
View Profile
Inner circle
2676 Posts

Profile of Steven Conner
Let me share something from an old Friend.

"The New York Papers," Mark Twain once said,"have long known that no large question is ever really settled until I have been consulted; it is the way they feel about it, and they show it by always sending to me when they get uneasy."

Goodnight
"The New York Papers," Mark Twain once said,"have long known that no large question is ever really settled until I have been consulted; it is the way they feel about it, and they show it by always sending to me when they get uneasy. "
Andy the cardician
View Profile
Inner circle
A street named after my dad
3370 Posts

Profile of Andy the cardician
Nicholas,

here you go my friend . . .

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report 2007

Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate by William F. Ruddiman; Princeton University Press (2005);

Ancient Observations Link Changes in Sun's Brightness and Earth's Climate by Kevin D. Pang and Kevin K. Yao; EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, Volume 83, number 43, 22 October 2002, pages 481+.

Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media, by Patrick J. Michaels (2004).

The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air about Global Warming, by Patrick J. Michaels and Robert C. Balling, Jr. (2000).

Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn't Worry About Global Warming, by Thomas Gale Moore (1998).

Through Green-Colored Glasses: Environmentalism Reconsidered, by Wilfred Beckerman (1996).

Sound and Fury: The Science and Politics of Global Warming, by Patrick J. Michaels (1992).

Is the Sky Really Falling? A Review of Recent Global Warming Scare Stories, by Patrick J. Michaels, Policy Analysis no. 576, August 23, 2006.

Review of the 2001 U.S. Climate Action Report, by Patrick J. Michaels, White Paper, June 3, 2002.

Energy Efficiency: No Silver Bullet for Global Warming, by Jerry Taylor, Policy Analysis no. 356, October 20, 1999.

The Costs of Reducing Carbon Emissions: An Examination of Administration Forecasts, by Peter Van Doren, Briefing Paper no. 44, March 11, 1999.

Long Hot Year: Latest Science Debunks Global Warming Hysteria, by Patrick J. Michaels, Policy Analysis no. 329, December 31, 1998.

The Role of the Sun in Climate Change by Douglas V. Hoyt and Kenneth Schatten; Oxford University Press, 1997. ISBN: 0195094131
Cards never lie
kregg
View Profile
Inner circle
1958 Posts

Profile of kregg
I found this article interesting:

Gore's guru disagreed
by Lawrence Solomon
Financial Post
Saturday, April 28, 2007

In the history of the global-warming movement, no scientist is more revered than
Roger Revelle of Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Harvard University and
University of California San Diego. He was the co-author of the seminal 1957
paper that demonstrated that fossil fuels had increased carbon-dioxide levels in
the air. Under his leadership, the President's Science Advisory Committee Panel on
Environmental Pollution in 1965 published the first authoritative U.S. government
report in which carbon dioxide from fossil fuels was officially recognized as a
potential global problem. He was the author of the influential 1982 Scientific
American article that elevated global warming on to the public agenda. For being
"the grandfather of the greenhouse effect," as he put it, he was awarded the
National Medal of Science by the first President Bush.

Roger Revelle's most consequential act, however, may have come in his role as a
teacher, during the 1960s at Harvard. Dr. Revelle inspired a young student named
Al Gore.

Dr. Revelle would change Gore's life, particularly since the climate-change field
had become cutting edge, with Dr. Revelle adding to the excitement by giving his
students advance notice of the fruits of his research.
"It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of
those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates," Gore
later explained. "Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but
fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!"
Calling him "a wonderful, visionary professor" who was "one of the first people in
the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming," Gore thought of
Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences
as a student in his book Earth in the Balance, published in 1992. Gore's warmth for
Dr. Revelle cooled, however, when it became clear that he had misunderstood his
former professor: Although Dr. Revelle recognized potential harm from global
warming, he also saw potential benefits and was by no means alarmed, as seen in
this 1984 interview in Omni magazine: Omni: A problem that has occupied your
attention for many years is the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, which
could cause the earth's climate to become warmer. Is this actually happening?
Revelle: I estimate that the total increase [in CO2] over the past hundred years has
been about 21%. But whether the increase will lead to a significant rise in global
temperature, we can't absolutely say.
Omni: What will the warming of the earth mean to us?
Revelle: There may be lots of effects. Increased CO2 in the air acts
like a fertilizer for plants ... you get more plant growth. Increasing CO2 levels also
affect water transpiration, causing plants to close their pores and sweat less. That
means plants will be able to grow in drier climates.
Omni: Does the increase in CO2 have anything to do with people saying the weather is getting worse?
Revelle: People are always saying the weather's getting worse. Actually, the CO2 increase
is predicted to temper weather extremes ... .
While Gore in the late 1980s was becoming a prominent politician, loudly warning
of globalwarming dangers, Dr. Revelle was quietly warning against taking any
drastic action.

In a July 14, 1988, letter to Congressman Jim Bates, he wrote that: "Most
scientists familiar with the subject are not yet willing to bet that the climate this
year is the result of 'greenhouse warming.' As you very well know, climate is
highly variable from year to year, and the causes of these variations are not at all
well understood. My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20
years to really be convinced that the greenhouse is going to be important for
human beings, in both positive and negative ways." A few days later, he sent a
similar letter to Senator Tim Wirth, cautioning "... we should
be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming
becomes clearer."

Then in 1991, Dr. Revelle wrote an article for Cosmos, a scientific journal, with two
illustrious colleagues, Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power
Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite.
Entitled "What to do about greenhouse warming: Look before you leap," the article
argued that decades of research could be required for the consequences of
increased carbon dioxide to be understood, and laid out the harm that could come
of acting recklessly: "Drastic, precipitous and, especially, unilateral steps to delay
the putative greenhouse impacts can cost jobs and prosperity and increase the
human costs of global poverty, without being effective. Stringent controls enacted
now would be economically devastating, particularly for developing countries for
whom reduced energy consumption would mean slower rates of economic growth
without being able to delay greatly the growth of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere. Yale economist William Nordhaus, one of the few who have been
trying to deal quantitatively with the economics of the greenhouse effect, has
pointed out that '... those who argue for strong measures to slow greenhouse
warming have reached their conclusion without any discernible analysis of the costs
and benefits ... . ' It would be prudent to complete the ongoing and recently
expanded research so that we will know what we are doing before we act. 'Look
before you leap' may still be good advice."

Three months after the Cosmos article appeared, Dr. Revelle died of a heart
attack. One year later, with Al Gore running for vice-president in the 1992
presidential election, the inconsistency between Gore's pronouncements -- he
claimed that the "science was settled" then, too -- and those of his mentor
became national news. Gore responded with a withering attack, leading to claims
that Dr. Revelle had become senile before his death, that Dr. Singer had duped
Dr. Revelle into co-authoring the article, and that Dr. Singer had listed Dr. Revelle
as a co-author over his objections. The sordid accusations ended in a defamation
suit and an abject public apology in 1994 from Gore's academic hit man, a
prominent Harvard scientist, who revealed his unsavory role and that of Gore in
the fabrications against Dr. Singer and Dr. Revelle.

That was then. Would Dr. Revelle, if he were still alive, believe that global warming now demands urgent action? We can never know. We do know, however, that Dr. Revelle had no time for the alarmist views of
Al Gore in the 1980s. We also know that those whose views Dr. Revelle respected continue to caution us
against precipitous action: Dr. Revelle's colleague and friend, Fred Singer, is among the most prominent of Al Gore's critics, and economist William Nordhaus, generally considered the leading expert in the field, continue to warn of the economic danger of climate alarmism.
We also know that the science is still not settled, and that in the years since Dr.
Revelle's death, new research from many of the world's most respected scientists
bears out the cautions that Dr. Revelle bequeathed us.

LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com - Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban
Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute, divisions of Energy Probe
Research Foundation.
- - -
CV OF A DENIER
Roger Revelle was Professor of Oceanography at Scripps Institution of
Oceanography and became its director from 1950-64. After his successful efforts
to create the University of California San Diego, he went to Harvard University,
where he was Professor of Population Policy and director of the Center for
Population Studies until 1976. He was also founding chairman of the first
Committee on Climate Change and the Ocean under the Scientific Committee on
Ocean Research and the International Oceanic Commission. Dr. Revelle received a
PhD in oceanography from UC-Berkeley in 1936.
POOF!
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Global Warming - What's the worst that could happen? (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2022 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.11 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL