A Skeptic's Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism

Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:47 am

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=56dd129d-e40a-4bad-abd9-68c808e8809e

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

The jury is finally in. Like evolution global warming is now an accepted fact by the scientific community.

Here is this link from National Geographic.

Global Warming Fast Facts

And this.

The Latest Myths and Facts on Global Warming

It would be better to get this in PDF format.

PDF file

Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:57 am

Quote:

First, I would like to summarize some of the recent developments in the controversy over whether or not humans have created a climate catastrophe.

There is no "catastrophe" yet. If however, we continue down the same road of un-abandoned use of carbon-based fuels, there will, with a very high probability, be a climatic catastrophe. I guess the question is, will we ruin our climate or run out of viable fossil fuels first. I hope it’s the latter, because the companies that drive the energy industry are more concerned about short-term profits then they are about the health of humanity and its only home, and I’m not just speaking of climate change. I will predict that one day, when we’ve moved well beyond carbon fuels, it will be widely understood that using these fuels was a major contributor to the rash of cancers and lung diseases of the age.

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

MockingGods wrote:

There is no "catastrophe" yet. If however, we continue down the same road of un-abandoned use of carbon-based fuels, there will, with a very high probability, be a climatic catastrophe. I guess the question is, will we ruin our climate or run out of viable fossil fuels first. I hope it’s the latter, because the companies that drive the energy industry are more concerned about short-term profits then they are about the health of humanity and its only home, and I’m not just speaking of climate change. I will predict that one day, when we’ve moved well beyond carbon fuels, it will be widely understood that using these fuels was a major contributor to the rash of cancers and lung diseases of the age.

I totally agree.

There are some who would say that what you just said is blasphemy.

Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 3:06 pm

sjc wrote:

MockingGods wrote:

There is no "catastrophe" yet. If however, we continue down the same road of un-abandoned use of carbon-based fuels, there will, with a very high probability, be a climatic catastrophe. I guess the question is, will we ruin our climate or run out of viable fossil fuels first. I hope it’s the latter, because the companies that drive the energy industry are more concerned about short-term profits then they are about the health of humanity and its only home, and I’m not just speaking of climate change. I will predict that one day, when we’ve moved well beyond carbon fuels, it will be widely understood that using these fuels was a major contributor to the rash of cancers and lung diseases of the age.

I totally agree.

There are some who would say that what you just said is blasphemy.

Oddly, I don't understand why anyone would disagree with the basic facts about what CO2 does to atmospheres. It’s pretty much an undisputed fact that CO2 is a major cause of increasing climatic temperatures. It’s also an undisputed fact that humans have been pumping this gas into the atmosphere in extremely large amounts for over a century now and that this gas isn’t easily dissipated by natural atmospheric mechanisms. We also have the evidence that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have increased by many factors over the last century.

The only reason I can determine some people won’t admit to this is they’re either sentimentally attached to the internal combustion engine, or they’re simply afraid or unwilling to change. I’ve a feeling that an abrupt change would spell disaster for much of our current society, but change we must, and the sooner we start the better.

Perhaps Saitou would like to give us his opinion on why he’s committed to the notion that CO2 related emissions are basically benign? I’d love to hear that rather then the spin he normally posts on the subject.

Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:13 pm

MockingGods wrote:

I hope it’s the latter, because the companies that drive the energy industry are more concerned about short-term profits then they are about the health of humanity and its only home, and I’m not just speaking of climate change. I will predict that one day, when we’ve moved well beyond carbon fuels, it will be widely understood that using these fuels was a major contributor to the rash of cancers and lung diseases of the age.

Quote:

The only reason I can determine some people won’t admit to this is they’re either sentimentally attached to the internal combustion engine, or they’re simply afraid or unwilling to change. I’ve a feeling that an abrupt change would spell disaster for much of our current society, but change we must, and the sooner we start the better.

Can we make an agreement: I won't strawman you, if you won't strawman me?

Tell me, did people in the 1800's and early 1900's keep riding horses, instead of cars, because they felt attached to them, or was it because cars were expensive and inefficient?
The argument that we should go from fossil fuels to the alternatives as soon as possible is rather silly.
At the moment we don't know which technologies are dead-ends and which are worth researching further.
If you divert resources to either of them now, chances are you're going to make a mistake, so I don't think making such important decissions in a hurry is a good idea.

As for the greedy corporations looking at short term profits... you realise they are among the biggest investors in alternative energy sources research?

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:

The argument that we should go from fossil fuels to the alternatives as soon as possible is rather silly.
At the moment we don't know which technologies are dead-ends and which are worth researching further.
If you divert resources to either of them now, chances are you're going to make a mistake, so I don't think making such important decissions in a hurry is a good idea.

So you rather do nothing instead until it is too late? It is better to do something now while the costs are not as high as they would be if we waited until it is too late. There is still time to put in place a new infrastructure to lessen the blow then if we had to do it later.

Quote:

As for the greedy corporations looking at short term profits... you realise they are among the biggest investors in alternative energy sources research?

When you corner a market you can control it.

There is also this;

Who Misrepresented the Facts About the Electric Car?

Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:21 pm

Quote:

Can we make an agreement: I won't strawman you, if you won't strawman me?

To "straw man you" it would seem logical I'd have to be addressing you,
which I wasn't.

Quote:

The argument that we should go from fossil fuels to the alternatives as soon as possible is rather silly.
At the moment we don't know which technologies are dead-ends and which are worth researching further.

There is nothing silly about doing this ASAP. The only silly thing would be to do this at the expense of more human suffering and I don't advocate that. What is silly is allowing corporate profits to be the deciding factor rather then common sense and reason.

Quote:

As for the greedy corporations looking at short term profits... you
realise they are among the biggest investors in alternative energy sources research?

Of course I realize this. But again, it seems rather apparent most of their decisions are based upon profits and not what is in the best interest (relatively speaking) of humanity, unless of course you consider profits to be humanity’s best interest. Their research of alternative fuels seems much the same charade as the cigarette company’s recent advertising ploy about the health concerns of smoking. If they were really concerned about the health of the public they’d stop producing cigarettes, and they will not do this until their production is no longer profitable. This holds true to the production of carbon-based fuels as well.

Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:10 pm

MockingGods wrote:

To "straw man you" it would seem logical I'd have to be addressing you,
which I wasn't.

You made a strawman of a position, it just so happens it a position I hold.
Of course it doesn't mean you targetted me specifically, but the fact remains: you have made a strawman.

Quote:

There is nothing silly about doing this ASAP.

Imagine if back in the days when cars were steam powered, and had to move on rails, some smartass decided that this is THE FUTURE, and the sooner we develop this technology the better for mankind.
He got the government to agree with him and to sponsor research and building of infrastructure for such cars.

Some time later the cities are netted with rails, full of coal stations and steam cars. And somewhere around then, Diesel invents the internal combustion engine...

I'm not saying that current alternatives are dead-ends, some probably are, but diverting resources (which don't belong to you, by the way), until you find out which are feasable and which are not, may prove to be a very wasteful act.

Quote:

The only silly thing would be to do this at the expense of more human suffering and I don't advocate that.

I'm sorry, but this is awfully vague, can you give a specific example of what you're against?

Quote:

What is silly is allowing corporate profits to be the deciding factor rather then common sense and reason.

But profits represent what people think is common sense, reason amd other values, if they thought otherwise, they wouldn't buy a given corporation's services in the first place.
The fact that you disagree with them doesn't give you the right to divert their resources to where you think is necessary.

Quote:

Of course I realize this. But again, it seems rather apparent most of their decisions are based upon profits and not what is in the best interest (relatively speaking) of humanity, unless of course you consider profits to be humanity’s best interest.

In a way yes, it is.
I don't think you realise what a profit is. If something can't bring a profit, it means most people have no use for whatever thing you wish to sell, or think it's not efficient enough.

Quote:

Their research of alternative fuels seems much the same charade as the cigarette company’s recent advertising ploy about the health concerns of smoking.

Do you have any evidence for this, other then your apparent general dislike for corporations?

Quote:

If they were really concerned about the health of the public they’d stop producing cigarettes,

Why should they care for people's health any more then the people involved?

Quote:

and they will not do this until their production is no longer profitable. This holds true to the production of carbon-based fuels as well.

Why do you think production of these things is profitable?

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

MockingGods wrote:

There is nothing silly about doing this ASAP. The only silly thing would be to do this at the expense of more human suffering and I don't advocate that. What is silly is allowing corporate profits to be the deciding factor rather then common sense and reason.

Of course I realize this. But again, it seems rather apparent most of their decisions are based upon profits and not what is in the best interest (relatively speaking) of humanity, unless of course you consider profits to be humanity’s best interest. Their research of alternative fuels seems much the same charade as the cigarette company’s recent advertising ploy about the health concerns of smoking. If they were really concerned about the health of the public they’d stop producing cigarettes, and they will not do this until their production is no longer profitable. This holds true to the production of carbon-based fuels as well.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, the real costs to humanity is far outweighed by their own personal short term comfort. That things alone buy happiness. Corporations feed this addiction. Another reason why I don't take the fundies seriously.

BTW, aren't the majority of their profits, from the sale of tobacco, now in countries which have no regulations against the adverse health issues? In other words they found a way to side-step this in one area and are continuing on as before in another while preaching that they have reformed in their ways as well....

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:35 am

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:

Quote:

Their research of alternative fuels seems much the same charade as the cigarette company’s recent advertising ploy about the health concerns of smoking.

Do you have any evidence for this, other then your apparent general dislike for corporations?

I think he's making an absurd claim here. These energy companies sell energy and they will invest money into development of future products that provide energy. They're not determined that people buy oil now and forever--they're determined to offer the product people want and need at the best price and best profit they are capable of.

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 7:20 am

MockingGods wrote:

Perhaps Saitou would like to give us his opinion on why he’s committed to the notion that CO2 related emissions are basically benign? I’d love to hear that rather then the spin he normally posts on the subject.

My position that CO2 emissions present no significant danger is based on the following:
- CO2 is not the only contributor to the greenhouse effect. It is also not the greatest contributor.
- CO2 is a essential to life on the planet and is therefore consumed by living organisms and converted to oxygen and other forms.
- The climate is not a simple system where there is a direct relationship to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the resultant temperature.

Man is responsible for much of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and therefore likely contributed to the warming by a small amount but natural factors contributed to the warming much more.

The temperature increase since the industrial revolution (and the warming started before then) has not been as extreme as alarmists represent and since man is responsible for only a small fraction of it I'm not very concerned.

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 7:33 am

In fact, we've really only just come out of the "Little Ice Age" back around 1850. So there would be a warming trend anyway.

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

Saitou wrote:

My position that CO2 emissions present no significant danger is based on the following:
- CO2 is not the only contributor to the greenhouse effect. It is also not the greatest contributor.
- CO2 is a essential to life on the planet and is therefore consumed by living organisms and converted to oxygen and other forms.
- The climate is not a simple system where there is a direct relationship to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the resultant temperature.

Man is responsible for much of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and therefore likely contributed to the warming by a small amount but natural factors contributed to the warming much more.

The temperature increase since the industrial revolution (and the warming started before then) has not been as extreme as alarmists represent and since man is responsible for only a small fraction of it I'm not very concerned.

Read the links I provided that refute your myths. Like it or not global warning is a fact. It had the same resistance as evolution did and like evolution the studies are in and they say that it is in fact happening. Fundies always hate facts that contradict their beliefs.

Graduate Thinker Joined: May 18, 2006 Posts: 777

Saitou wrote:

MockingGods wrote:

Perhaps Saitou would like to give us his opinion on why he’s committed to the notion that CO2 related emissions are basically benign? I’d love to hear that rather then the spin he normally posts on the subject.

My position that CO2 emissions present no significant danger is based on the following:
- CO2 is not the only contributor to the greenhouse effect. It is also not the greatest contributor.
- CO2 is a essential to life on the planet and is therefore consumed by living organisms and converted to oxygen and other forms.
- The climate is not a simple system where there is a direct relationship to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the resultant temperature.

Man is responsible for much of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and therefore likely contributed to the warming by a small amount but natural factors contributed to the warming much more.

The temperature increase since the industrial revolution (and the warming started before then) has not been as extreme as alarmists represent and since man is responsible for only a small fraction of it I'm not very concerned.

We generate massive CO2 while we cut down on a massive scale the trees that other wise consume the CO2.

So not only do we make more of it, we remove the one of the systems that takes it away, duble wammy.

Knob look at the base lines. Sure they woble, but now zoom out past your nose, notice how it is sheering up, not just wobling? thats right thats Climate change. Look at the whole R-12 fiasko, here we are again, only it is climate change.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore