Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Now Playing at reason.tv: The Great Global Warming Debate featuring Ron Bailey, Fred Smith, and Lynne Kiesling!
Click
here to see video of one of the great panels from last fall's
Reason in DC conference: reason science
correspondent Ron Bailey, Competitive Enterprise Institute
president Fred L. Smith, Jr., and Knowledge Problem blogger and
Northwestern economist Lynne Kiesling duking it out over
free-market-friendly approaches to remediating the effects of
global warming.
|1.28.08 @ 3:27PM|#
That's a helluva striking photo -- very effectively conveys the
sense of polar bears as stranded on shrinking islands of ice.
Very powerful "propoganda" image.
Colonel_Angus|1.28.08 @ 3:35PM|#
Anthropogenic Global Warming is bullshit. The global climate has been changing naturally throughout earth's history and will continue to do so.
Taktix®|1.28.08 @ 3:41PM|#
Anthropogenic Global Warming is bullshit. The global climate
has been changing naturally throughout earth's history and will
continue to do so.
I, for one, am not surprised. If a mass of the population believes
the earth is only 6k-years-old, then AGW ins't that extreme...
Zeb|1.28.08 @ 3:47PM|#
While there may be legitimate questions as to the extent that
human actions contribute to global warming, there is no rational
basis to say that the idea it total bullshit. You are being as
idiotic as any climate alarmist is. Pointing out that ice caps have
melted before and that climate changes naturally in no way refutes
the idea that human activities are influencing the rate and extent
to which the climate is likely to change in the near future.
In any case, the question that needs to be asked is what are we
going to do about the consequences of changing climate and rising
sea levels, not whose fault it is or whether liberals want to
control your life.
squarooticus|1.28.08 @ 4:24PM|#
I have no first-hand basis for knowing whether AGW exists or
not. Given what I've read, I suspect not... but that's an opinion
based on others' opinions and research.
Regardless of whether AGW exists, I oppose all government efforts
to battle AGW, because they inevitably involve coercion of some
sort, and I reject any limitation on my freedom that doesn't
involve the person or persons wronged bringing a suit against me
for my negligence or malfeasance and proving to an independent
arbitrator that I am liable for damages.
In other words: just because you can't prove in court that my
actions are damaging your property doesn't mean you should be able
to unleash your thugs against me as an alternative. The acceptance
of coercion of this form makes a mockery of justice.
Government-controlled schemes to fight AGW are simply another power
grab and another form of robbery by the criminal gangs in charge of
the first world, and most everyone (including our supposed
libertarian columnist) is falling for it. I would honestly rather
let the tort lawyers take care of it.
|1.28.08 @ 4:27PM|#
While there may be legitimate questions as to the extent
that human actions contribute to global warming, there is no
rational basis to say that the idea it total bullshit.
Generally, the proponents of a hypothesis are required to adduce
some evidence to support it. Indeed, the rational response to any
hypothesis is to assume that its total bullshit until it proves
out.
|1.28.08 @ 5:09PM|#
My comment was in regard to the picture above...polar bears have
mounted small, melting blobs of ice every June since the end of the
last ice age. It's just a misleading photograph.
It's the same reaction as I had last January, when Brian Williams
was showing a clip of Antarctic glacier edges crumbling while
talking about how it highlighted the progression of global warming.
I wanted to grab him by the neck and say, "It's SUMMER there, you
retard!"
Zeb|1.28.08 @ 5:09PM|#
Now, you can't honestly say that there has been no evidence put
forward to support the idea of anthropogenic global warming. You
are just making yourself look like an ass.
It is pretty hard to deny that human activities produce more CO2,
methane and others than there would be without a very large
industrialized population. So, unless you are going to reject the
validity of the greenhouse effect, how can you deny that people are
very likely having a non-negligible effect on the climate.
What really annoys me about people taking this "it's all BS" line
is that two issues are conflated. It is a totally separate question
from the science of climate change as to whether the government
should be able to force one kind of reaction or another. It is
quite possible to accept the reality of AGW and still to reject the
proposition that the government needs lots of new power to fix it.
The science is there and it is ridiculous to deny that there is any
evidence at all for AGW. I am not about to believe that it is all
made up as a liberal communist conspiriacy to take away our gas
guzzlers and ruin the economy.
the innominate one|1.28.08 @ 5:26PM|#
zeb, thoughtful, well-reasoned comments on a anthropogenic
global-warming thread?
that'll never work. stick to ad hominem arguments.
|1.28.08 @ 5:33PM|#
I seemed to agree more with Fred Smith than the other
panelists.
Regardless of whether or not global climate change as started by
man is true or false (I happen to think it's a bit more
complicated), the real harm by internal combustion engines and
industrial pollution and alike are more down to earth than up in
the atmosphere. What I mean is; acid rain, mercury in water and
soil and whatever kind of poisons one puts in the atmosphere, all
effect someone (or some creature) in some indirect way. Does this
not go against my libertarian philosophy of do what you want as
long as you do not harm others? I mean, man made global warming is
REALISTICALLY just a theory. By the scientific method just that
(the same could be said for evolution, but short of hopping in a
delorian equipped with a flux capacitor, we'll never see evolution
actually happen. I still chose to believe it even though I can't
recreate evolution in a lab)What I'm saying is, man-made global
warming
is still not absolutely certain, but all these other nature-harming
effects of man that I mention have been proven! I'm not saying lock
everyone up who has harmed the environment by driving, nor do I
believe in any kind of planned economy. Just free up the energy
markets. The economy will naturally take care of itself. Look who
I'm telling THAT to...
Neu Mejican|1.28.08 @ 5:54PM|#
Zeb,
Your comments reflect the difference between a libertarian reaction
to scientific evidence of a problem that impacts in the public
sphere...(c.f., smoking, drunk driving) and the more common
reaction on these boards which is to deny, deny, deny that a
problem really exists because then you might have to talk about
government policy involving that problem.
Of course the libertarian argument should be: EVEN IF this is a
problem, THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE SOLUTION BECAUSE....
Much more productive.
Congrats.
|1.28.08 @ 6:00PM|#
So, unless you are going to reject the validity of the
greenhouse effect, how can you deny that people are very likely
having a non-negligible effect on the climate.
See, its when you slip in that "non-negligible" term that you get
yourself in trouble. I'd perfectly willing to say that human
activity may be having some kind of neglible effect on the
climate.
CO2 is a relatively minor greenhouse gas. The dominant one is water
vapor, followed by methane. Any number of natural events
(hurricanes, volcanos) can pump huge amounts of CO2 into the air.
The earth managed innumerable warming/cooling cycles before
industrial civilization, including one that was more "severe" than
anything seen to date or even projected by the less alarmist AGW
models.
These facts leave me pretty comfortable with my extreme skepticism
towards the AGW hypothesis.
AGW looks to me like a hypothesis built backwards, from the
conclusion that mankind must be impacting climate. The question
then becomes how? By emitting greenhouse gases, perhaps? What
greenhouse gas is a byproduct of industrial civilization? CO2!
voila!
When the paleoclimatologists can explain the underlying mechanism
for climate cycles, and the AGW modellers can come up with a model
that has some predictive power, then I will start taking it
seriously. Is that so much to ask?
|1.28.08 @ 6:02PM|#
Mr Darkly,
As if the ice caps never used to melt before the 20th
century.
Mr. Potter, I suspect you are unacquainted with Mr. Darkly's slyly
mocking style of humor.
|1.28.08 @ 6:06PM|#
This deserves to be in every climate arguement I think. I think
we're changing the Earth, I just don't think that it really matters
that much myself. We think us and our damage to the planet is so
important. Like something has never changed it before.
"George Carlin's "The Planet Is Fine"
We're so self-important. So self-important. Everybody's going to
save something now. "Save the trees, save the bees, save the
whales, save those snails." And the greatest arrogance of all: save
the planet. What? Are these fucking people kidding me? Save the
planet, we don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We
haven't learned how to care for one another, we're gonna save the
fucking planet?
I'm getting tired of that shit. Tired of that shit. I'm tired of
fucking Earth Day, I'm tired of these self-righteous
environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the
only thing wrong with this country is there aren't enough bicycle
paths. People trying to make the world save for their Volvos.
Besides, environmentalists don't give a shit about the planet. They
don't care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don't. Not in
the abstract they don't. You know what they're interested in? A
clean place to live. Their own habitat. They're worried that some
day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow,
unenlightened self-interest doesn't impress me.
Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with
the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are fucked. Difference.
Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet
is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you
ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and
a half billion years. We've been here, what, a hundred thousand?
Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy
industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years
versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think
that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in
jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just
a-floatin' around the sun?
The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all
kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes,
plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots,
magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles...hundreds of
thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and
meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion,
cosmic rays, recurring ice ages...And we think some plastic bags,
and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The
planet...the planet...the planet isn't going anywhere. WE
ARE!
We're going away. Pack your shit, folks. We're going away. And we
won't leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a
little styrofoam. Maybe. A little styrofoam. The planet'll be here
and we'll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another
closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The
planet'll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface
nuisance.
You wanna know how the planet's doing? Ask those people at Pompeii,
who are frozen into position from volcanic ash, how the planet's
doing. You wanna know if the planet's all right, ask those people
in Mexico City or Armenia or a hundred other places buried under
thousands of tons of earthquake rubble, if they feel like a threat
to the planet this week. Or how about those people in Kilowaia,
Hawaii, who built their homes right next to an active volcano, and
then wonder why they have lava in the living room.
The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we're
gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, 'cause
that's what it does. It's a self-correcting system. The air and the
water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it's true
that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply
incorporate plastic into a new pardigm: the earth plus plastic. The
earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out
of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one
of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to
be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for
itself. Didn't know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer
to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, "Why are we
here?" Plastic...asshole.
So, the plastic is here, our job is done, we can be phased out now.
And I think that's begun. Don't you think that's already started? I
think, to be fair, the planet sees us as a mild threat. Something
to be dealt with. And the planet can defend itself in an organized,
collective way, the way a beehive or an ant colony can. A
collective defense mechanism. The planet will think of something.
What would you do if you were the planet? How would you defend
yourself against this troublesome, pesky species? Let's see...
Viruses. Viruses might be good. They seem vulnerable to viruses.
And, uh...viruses are tricky, always mutating and forming new
strains whenever a vaccine is developed. Perhaps, this first virus
could be one that compromises the immune system of these creatures.
Perhaps a human immunodeficiency virus, making them vulnerable to
all sorts of other diseases and infections that might come along.
And maybe it could be spread sexually, making them a little
reluctant to engage in the act of reproduction.
Well, that's a poetic note. And it's a start. And I can dream,
can't I? See I don't worry about the little things: bees, trees,
whales, snails. I think we're part of a greater wisdom than we will
ever understand. A higher order. Call it what you want. Know what I
call it? The Big Electron. The Big Electron...whoooa. Whoooa.
Whoooa. It doesn't punish, it doesn't reward, it doesn't judge at
all. It just is. And so are we. For a little while."
Neu Mejican|1.28.08 @ 6:08PM|#
RC Dean,
I know you know this but...
(hurricanes, volcanos) can pump huge amounts of CO2 into the
air.
ignores scale.
Human CO2 production dwarfs that from these natural sources at
around 100 to 1.
If you are gonna use the "negligible" impact argument, it is
important to compare to sources with larger outputs rather than
much, much smaller outputs.
Neu Mejican|1.28.08 @ 6:14PM|#
RC Dean,
Not forgetting, of course, that volcanic activity has an overall
cooling effect...
For some reason I doubt you have the training to critique the
claims made by climate scientists in any serious way. But maybe I
am wrong.
Colonel_Angus|1.28.08 @ 6:29PM|#
Right now I am in an area of the midwest with land formations
from glaciers long ago (climate was fucking cold), as well as
deposits of fossil fuels indicating swamps and forests and wetlands
(fucking hot climate). All of this happened before the industrial
age, and even before humans. Greenland was warmer at one time, when
it was inhabited by the Vikings. There is geographical evidence
like this all over the world where the climate has changed
dramaticaly. You may find sea shells lying around in the middle of
Florida.
The atmosphere is made of "greenhouse gasses" that absorb heat.
Oxygen, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen, water vapor, as well as
dust particles. Carbon dioxide is released by a wide range of
natural occurrences such as volcanoes, forest fires, breathing, and
all dead rotting organisms. It also evaporates from bodies of water
as they warm. This can be caused by climates changing over long
periods of time, or more rapidly during storms.
So while I agree that human activity can contribute to slightly
higher amounts of carbon dioxide and such, it is extremely
miniscule compared to what happens naturally. So what is the point
of any effort to reduce it if the greatest effect on climate people
can have is probably less than two hundred years when climate
periods may last thousands of years? To me it makes more sense to
acknowledge the fact that the climate will change naturally no
matter what and prepare for the inevitable.
Neu Mejican|1.28.08 @ 6:35PM|#
Colonel Angus,
So what is the point of any effort to reduce it if the greatest
effect on climate people can have is probably less than two hundred
years when climate periods may last thousands of years? To me it
makes more sense to acknowledge the fact that the climate will
change naturally no matter what and prepare for the
inevitable.
The main problem presented by AGW is not so much the change, but
the rate of that change. Rapid climate changes are the
ones that wipe out species. Often large numbers of species.
There is lots of evidence for these mass die outs in earth's
history.
Large animals (like humans) tend to do poorly when these events
occur.
But I guess if we bring one upon ourselves we deserve what we
get.
Neu Mejican|1.28.08 @ 6:37PM|#
Colonel Angus,
it is extremely miniscule compared to what happens
naturally.
This is not factually accurate...the current rates of increase are
more rapid than those that occur naturally...much more rapid.
|1.28.08 @ 6:51PM|#
Human CO2 production dwarfs that from these natural sources
at around 100 to 1.
Bullshit. Complete, unadulterated bullshit.
Every single animal on earth, including those in the sea, is
emitting CO2. Even decaying organic matter gives off greenhouse
gases. There is absolutely no way that human burning of fossil
fuels emits even close to the amount of CO2 produced by natural
sources.
Colonel_Angus|1.28.08 @ 7:30PM|#
While a volcano may temporarily cause cooler weather, the gasses released from it will last much longer.
Neu Mejican|1.28.08 @ 7:49PM|#
Crimethink,
The word "these" in my sentence had specific referents...try
again.
The balance between industrial and natural c02 is a different
subject.
Colonel Angus,
I was, actually, referring to the overall effect of volcanic output
on the lower atmosphere...The C02 from volcanoes is a negligible
factor.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/11/011128035329.htm
Neu Mejican|1.28.08 @ 7:55PM|#
Crimethink,
FWIW,
I believe the conservative estimate of the ratio of human to
natural sources of c02 is something like 1:30
But, again, this is a red herring.
The issue of AGW is about what is driving the current change in co2
concentrations.
For that, the human factors are almost entirely responsible.
Neu Mejican|1.28.08 @ 8:04PM|#
Crimethink,
I find this tidbit interesting.
Maybe you will too...
Yet, the present day atmosphere contains less than 3x1018 g of
CO2, and compared to this number the total anthropogenic CO2
emission of 1x1018 g certainly is significant....[and latter a
comment] The real point is that most of the CO2 outgassed over
earth's history has been sequestered by natural processes. There is
currently about 3x10g^18 of CO2 in the atmosphere, and we have
pumped about 1x10g^18 of it out, or one third of the current level.
That is far from being insignificant.
http://science-community.sciam.com/blog-entry/Sciam-Observations/Anthropogenic-Climate-Change-Myth/300004210
I will note that the person making that comment seems to have
ignored absorbtion of c02 in the last two-hundred years, but I
think it makes the point...
Sam Grove|1.28.08 @ 8:14PM|#
For that, the human factors are almost entirely
responsible.
Not proven.
There is evidence that warming leads CO2.
There is evidence that solar magnetic cycles are a close match to
climate temperature variations.
Warming has been measured, thus the fact of warming is evident. But
the cause, there is reason for retaining a skeptical view.
There is also the possibility that our impact on the ocean may be
an unsuspected factor.
|1.28.08 @ 8:33PM|#
I will note that the person making that comment seems to
have ignored absorbtion of c02 in the last two-hundred years, but I
think it makes the point...
It's a pretty major defect in his argument. He's implying that 1/3
of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere originated from human
activity. The vast, vast majority of that CO2 has already been
absorbed along with the naturally-produced CO2 over the years, so
only a tiny fraction of currently existing CO2 originated from
human activity.
|1.28.08 @ 10:23PM|#
I am a bit surprised and very disappointed that Reason would use
the 'polar bears trapped on the melting ice' photo to advertise
their global warming debate. That photo was already debunked as
taken during Northern hemisphere summer, when ice floe melting is a
common, natural occurrence. It does NOT provide ANY evidence of
'global warming'.
(But then, there ain't much evidence for it anyway. I am not a
denier, but I am a skeptic, because I'm a scientist.)
waldo|1.28.08 @ 10:31PM|#
What an idiotic arguments put forward here, not in the least by
mr. windtell.
There have been major changes in climate in the past millions of
years, however, then humans didn't live so widespread and densely
populated around the earth. Seelevels have risen and icecaps have
moved over Europe because of climatechange millions of years ago.
But can we really allow that to happen again, today?
The people of Bangladesh, the Netherlands (which is 5 meters below
seelevel), manhattan and numerous other regions next to the see are
threatened by a rise in seelevel. This is not about polar bears but
about people. Now, as has been proven, humans are an important
reason in the current climate and as we cannot permit a major
climate change today to happen, we must act upon it and try to stop
it whether or not human activity is the most important or less
important reason.
The question is how, not if!
Externalities are a known market failure and that should be dealt
with. You Americans should take an example to Europe which does
take up it's Kyoto-responsibilities and will try to go well beyond
it trying to stop the climate from further deteriorating. I
somewhere read that some persons are against trying to battle
climatechange because it implies a breach on their freedom... Oh
please, how does selling emission rights (as is Kyoto's system)
infringe on your freedom?????
Externalities are a known market failure. So as thhe market can't
supply the answer here, society has to.
|1.28.08 @ 10:48PM|#
And for the sceptics and scientists here: I am not saying humans
are the only reason to climate change but I am saying humans play a
role in it. One cannot deny that humans aren't having impact on the
climate (be it sour rain or cutting of rainforests or destroying
seeanymones or CO2 gasses).
Trying to reduce this effect on our planet is the true libertarian
view of respecting the freedom of other's health (sour rain,
smog,...), place to live (bangladesh, Netherlands,...) or economic
activities (desertification, melting of glaciers of for example the
Himalayan glaciers providing the Indus, Ganges or Yantze of
water,...).
Respect of other's freedom should be at the very core of your
attitude!
|1.28.08 @ 10:53PM|#
(little point to the Himalayan glaciers before anyone objects:
yes there have been recent surges because of recent snowfall, the
total count however stays on the bad side)
oh, and could I ask why so many people in the US are so skeptic
about climate change but not in the least skeptic about GMO's?
penxv|1.28.08 @ 11:07PM|#
This whole thing about carbon is kind of sad.
Hydrogen power from tap water already appears to be viable and has
been for a while.
Daniel Dingel's water car:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVhXrvCCILw
(engine demo begins at 3:45 in)
and he isn't the first or the last guy to accomplish this.
TallDave|1.29.08 @ 12:06AM|#
We don't know for sure if CO2 is causing global warming, but
there are other reasons to get off fossil fuels.
Polywell fusion might -- might -- be the answer. It's clean and
could be an order of magnitude cheaper than current electricity
production.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell
The Navy has funded a team working on this now. There's a chance
they may be greenlighted to build what they hope would be a $200M,
100MW prototype plant.
It's far from a certainty, but there's a real chance it could
work.
Anyway the current team will report results by this summer.
Something to keep an eye on.
|1.29.08 @ 1:55AM|#
Pointing out that ice caps have melted before and that
climate changes naturally in no way refutes the idea that human
activities are influencing the rate and extent to which the climate
is likely to change in the near future.
No, it does not refute it, but it makes it more difficult to assert
the idea of AGW without violating Occam's Razor.
|1.29.08 @ 2:01AM|#
[Sea levels] have risen and icecaps have moved over Europe
because of climate[ ]change millions of years ago. But can we
really allow that to happen again, today?
What an extraordinary thing to ask. How can man allow or not allow
nature to change? At most, and if true (a long shot), man can only
affect a change in climate, but from that to say we can allow
something to happen is pure and unbridled conceit.
|1.29.08 @ 4:33AM|#
Burger reviews please? Too gamey? Lots of fish oil is good for you though. Babies bears better? Or just order seal burger? Come on guys, real reviews. What's with all this Sky if Falling politics, when I want non-CORN-FED (healthy) meat treats?
jimmy|1.29.08 @ 6:48PM|#
what would the polar bears do if the ice never melted? i mean, they eat fish, right? if the arctic ocean was permanently socked in by ice like the GW folks think it is supposed to be, what would they eat? the area wouldn't be able to sustain any animal life whatsoever. they show us these pics and we are supposed to leap to ridiculous conclusions like "open water will kill the polar bears!"
G L Lee|1.29.08 @ 8:48PM|#
Proof that man-made global warming does or does not exist?
That's so easily debunked that the government school system should
be sued for malpractice...
First, EVERY "model" that supports man-made global warming has
strangely excluded the single most largest factor in
temperatures... precipitation. Why? Because the alarmist
"scientific" community cannot get their models to back their
anti-capitalist agendas when rain/snow is added to the models.
Second, it's hardly warmed, the warmest year of the last century
being in 1938, the last (mini) ice age was in 1775, and no one in
the meteorological world disagrees that all global temperature
readings have been dipping since 2004. We're cooling AGAIN.
I'm old enough to remember the same (types of) voices screaming
about the next ice age back in the 1970's, too. The first
"scientist" to come out and proclaim a warming trend was the same
exact person who, a few years prior, was the main harper of global
cooling. the money ran out, so he created a new cash flow of tax
payer dollars.
In a nutshell, there's no global warming because there's no proof.
Simple as that.
Maybe if the government hadn't put the temperature gauges at the
end of commercial jet runways (jet wash is H-O-T) and tucked into
A/C unit housings, we'd get some accurate readings....
Oh, and while the North Pole "melts", the South Pole is having the
largest growth of sheet ice ever recorded. The media refuses to
relay that information on a daily basis... Why? Leftist conspiracy?
Maybe a loose one; one intended to bring about bigger and bigger
government. Why? Because they have some stupid idea that government
equals security, when in fact, more government means more
tyranny... much like the tyranny that will be brought upon us if we
allow the mentally ill, like Al gore, to prevail.
waldo|1.29.08 @ 9:57PM|#
a leftist conspiracy G L Lee? haha, you sound like in the
interbellum when they talked about "the jewish conspiracy" or
during the cold war the "communist conspiracy" or the more recent
"gay conspiracy" of former minister of education of Poland stating
it in European parliament (after being laughed at, he claimed there
was European-gay conspiracy) :) A little question: the economist
also believes in global warming, is the economist now also part of
the 'left wing conspiracy'?
And concerning your argument on the growing of sheet ice on the
south pole: http://www.countercurrents.org/burbeck100108.htm
I don't answer to the other arguments as they are only
populistic.
anyway, for each argument there is a counterargument and as we are
not scientists or climatologists, I'd refer to the precautionary
principle to say we'd better do something about it and discuss what
the best way is to combat it. Thousands of non-governmental ways
are possible, why not use those instead of getting stuck in total
opposition to measures while seeing the growth of governmental
measures you don't seem appropriate.
Fight the possible cause not the impossible.
Neu Mejican|1.30.08 @ 6:30PM|#
The vast, vast majority of that CO2 has already been
absorbed along with the naturally-produced CO2 over the years, so
only a tiny fraction of currently existing CO2 originated from
human activity.
That doesn't necessarily follow from the evidence presented.
Total amount in atmosphere = X
Total man has introduced into the atmosphere over last 200 years =
1/3X
Amount of man-made CO2 absorbed = ?
We don't have all the important parts of the equation to say how
much X would be different without human sources of co2.
Those who do have the information available, however, give credit
to the current increases in co2 concentrations to human sources
(c.f. the IPCC report on this exact issue).
st4rbux|1.30.08 @ 9:25PM|#
"Large animals (like humans) tend to do poorly when these events
occur. "
Not large animals with air-conditioning.
And did NeuMej assert a ratio of 100:1 (human to natural CO2), then
revert to 1:30 AND call it a red herring? and THEN try to argue
that natural and industrial CO2 is somehow different? If it's CO2,
it's CO2, right -- one carbon, two oxygen? am I missing something?
How does the source affect the impact it would have on the
environment?
|1.31.08 @ 11:42PM|#
Regarding the whole human output of CO2versus natural output.
One must first put this in the context of fossil CO2 emmissions, as
carbon from vegetation et al rots, releases, and reforms as
vegetation; these emissions don't count, as they are not new
sources of active carbon in the biosphere.
From the USGS:
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html
"Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human
activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about
130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the
atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes
both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts.
Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel
burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27
billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al.,
2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C),
rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than
130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of
more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits
about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al.,
2002)"
Apparently the USGS has been part of the Great Leftist Conspiracy
for a while now.
Christiaan|2.3.08 @ 11:38AM|#
My main problems with Man Caused Global Warming are these:
1. The earths climate is in constant flux. It has never been and
never will constant.
2. The earth has been warmer in recorded history (both the Roman
and Medieval warming periods).
3. Historically there doesn't seem to be a correlation between CO2
and temperature. When there is a relation it is in fact the
opposite of what you would think. ie The rise in CO2 follows a rise
in temperature.
4. The temperature has risen AND fallen in the last century alone
even as man caused CO2 output has increased.
5. There is a much stronger correlation between solar activity and
Temperature.
6. The man caused global warming theory tends to ignore any other
possible causes.
7. The percentage of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is so small
compared to the total amount of greenhouse gases as to not be able
to create the difference in temperature that we are supposedly
causing.
8. The earth is NOT warming up all over as one would expect if
greenhouse gases were the main cause. It is in fact warming more in
the Northern Hemisphere than in the south.
9. Oh, and there is NO consensus among scientists about the cause
of climate change.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245