The problem is that Earth and Mars are too different for us to be able to say something will affect both in the same way. Yes, they both share the Sun, albeit getting different amounts of heat and light. But Mars’ atmosphere is different enough that it’s going to change the effects.
Just as a theoretical situation, it might be that the global warming of Mars is due to the interactions of heat from the Sun with the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. On Earth, where we have less CO2, the warming is less… except that the increase from our man-made industry is making the warming look similar. I’m not saying this is the case, i’m just pointing out that we can’t say “Mars has global warming naturally, ipso facto the global warming on Earth is also natural”, as kanicbird did in her first post.
It is quite amusing that there are so many people around who seem to think that they understand the scientific method better than thousands of climate scientists, better than the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the analogous organizations in Britain, France, Russia, China, Italy, …
This major countercontention has absolutely no support. We have been at least for the last 20 years or so been measuring the solar luminosity quite precisely and have not seen any major trend needed to explain this. Even the observed oscillations in solar luminosity associated with the 11-year sunspot cycle oscillations equate to a forcing that is only a small fraction of the forcing due to the human-caused greenhouse gases. So, one would have to explain why a small perturbation that doesn’t even seem to have the right time-dependence is swamping a much larger perturbation that does have the correct time-dependence.
One of the other major sources of greenhouse gases is the capitalist countries of Western Europe, which have shown far more responsibility in dealing with the issue than the US. And as has been pointed out, environmentalists didn’t protest in the Soviet Union, and are unable to protest in crypto-capitalist China today, because the government has prevented it.
Frankly, the idea that the only people concerned with the problem of global warming are socialists and communists is utterly inconsistent with reality. Communist governments in the past have been highly environmentally destructive, exactly because they were able to suppress dissent.
Those are both non-peer-reivewed preliminary reports posted on websites. It is quite possible that the conclusions will be modified based on comments of reviewers if they are published.
It has already been pointed out why this proposed solution is not all that promising for carbon sequestration. First, it is unlikely it will have enough of an impact to solve the problem. Secondly, and more importantly, it may cause other ecological disruptions that we are unaware of. Relying on iron fertilization to solve the global warming problem in preference to reducing emissions is rather like becoming addicted to crystal meth to lose weight because you find diet and exercise too much trouble.
The contention that we are in “just another cycle of warming” has been rather conclusively refuted by the present report.
As I have already noted, much of the pressure on Washington is coming from other capitalist countries. Your contention that “socialist countries” are the main voice against the US is absurd on the face of it. And when a country such as China points to the US as a major source of the problem, it is more because they are interested in avoiding their responsibility to deal with their own emissions than a socialist/capitalist issue.
You could, of course, but since I have the conclusions of a large majority of climate scientists behind me, and your position has been demonstrated to be incorrect, it would be ridiculous.
Incidentally, I am a professional scientist who served on a US government committee on global change research in 1991-1992 under President George H. W. Bush. It has been very interesting to see how the scientific consensus on the issue - which was not all that solid at that time - has grown as more and more research has been done on the issue and the effects have become more and more unmistakeable.
“He” of course is that notorious commie-pinko Jacques Chirac, president of Communist France.
In fact, Chirac is regarded as right-wing, and the fact that he is proposing such a tax refutes very effectively your fantasy that reducing emissions is purely a “socialist” agenda.
jshore From that blog you cite about Global warming on mars, we get the typical politically correct message:
Question to Blog writer:
Answer from Blog writer:
Again it’s the same message, we don’t know, but we must stop driving SUV’s - why, because it’s science.
Actually it is quite amusing how all these ‘scientist’ are agreeing with a political side in lock step and ignoring obvious evidence to the contrary.
This is the big issue for those who don’t believe in man made global warming - the scientists have demonstrated their bias through their actions in ignoring relevant information which disagrees with their bias. You don’t have to understand scientific method to understand a flawed study, when the flaw is so obvious you can drive a Hummer through it.
I believe in fact what the og writer is saying is that even if one of the cause of global warming is not us, the fact that temperatures are going to increase is a good idea to try and stop adding to it. After all, if global warming is indeed totally natural, that still doesn’t stop us wanting to try and stop it, does it?
Now i’m confused. Haven’t you just now posted a blog writer who - when asked what would happen if global warming was natural - took that into account in his answer? He’s accepting that that may be the case! It’s quite amusing that you’re able to switch gears right in the middle of a post like that.
Ignoring, eh? Please, cite me a case where a scientist says “I do not need to look at these alternate theories to know they are wrong - I do not need to look at the evidence. I ignore it totally”. Just one. Impress me.
I just named one, one so big it has it’s own gravitational field about 1/4 or 1/3 that of earth.
His taking it into account amounted to, hey you may be right, but lets ignore that and do what I say anyway, because, you know, it’s science.
Which reinforces my point that it’s not science but a political motivation which is behind it. Not switching gears, but I suggest you bring that SUV to a full stop before shifting into reverse like that.
Though he failed to prove that we are adding to it. This is the same old PC story we have been hearing from the 70’s, hey we may be causing the next ice age unless we stop releasing GHG’s though we can’t prove it, we have to stop because it may be so terrible, though we can’t prove anything. Except it’s global warming now instead of cooling. We’ve been there, it’s the same story - change now because this alternative may or may not happen, we really don’t know if anything will happen.
It has reached a level comparable to religion, it just doesn’t have a god or a promise of eternal rewards, just eternal punishment for humanity.
I assume here you’re talking about Mars, with gravity a bit more than a third of Earth’s, which example has been fairly thoroughly discussed end debunked in this very thread.
Wrong. He was saying that either way, it is a good solution. Look at it like this;
Temperatures are rising. This is because of man-made global warming. We should therefore decrease this by cutting down on our use of problematic products.
Temperatures are rising. This is an entirely natural affair. Nevertheless, should we not want massive climate change, we should cut down on our use of problematic products.
Do you see what you’re failing to grasp? He’s not ignoring the alternate explanation. He’s saying that yes, it might be correct, but the steps to counteract it are the same. It’s a subtle but important difference.
Can we drop the analogies before you mutilate the language any further?
It does not reinforce your point. He’s not ignoring the data. He’s taking it into account. You’re the one ignoring facts. You are the one with a political motivation.
The proof we are adding to is is in pretty much any scientific journal on global climate. And, indeed, it is the opinion of many esteemed bodies listed upthread who, shockingly, would likely not have a political motivation.
I’d certainly say there are people using belief and not evidence here, but i’m afraid it is not the scientists.
Well, there is the fact that China and Russia aren’t really all that tolerant of protests, environmental or other.
That’s easy for you to say way out in flyover country. I guess you won’t be minding when the tens of millions of us who live near the coastline come over to visit?
Well…not EVERYONE survived.
You are, I assume, familiar with the concept that some actions might make a problem WORSE if not completely understood?
It seems to me that, if there’s a political bias evident in the global warming debate, then we can easily identify this bias simply by looking at the political leanings of the people on both sides of the debate. One side would be almost exclusively populated by people of the same political bent. The other side would represent a more balanced distribution of political views, including a number of apolitical voices. Of course, if there’s no politcal bias in the debate at all, you’d expect that both sides would include a roughly equal mix of political viewpoints.
So, we’ve already heard the following from jshore:
That’s a pretty good list of conservative politicians and energy companies who believe in man-made global warming. That strikes me as a pretty good argument that the “pro”-warming side is not politically motivated. I mean, it seems odd that Shell Oil would want to destroy capitalism in America, you know? So, to settle the question of political bias in the global warming debate, all we need is a list of liberals and enviromental organizations that have come out against the idea of man-made global warming. Oddly enough, I can’t think of any myself. All the opponents to the idea of man-made global warming seem to be coming from the far right of the political spectrum.
So, tell me again exactly where the political bias is in this debate?
Ah…kanicbird…you actually misread that blog post. What you post as the “Question” and the “Answer” were both from the layperson asking a question and then continuing on with her own opinion of what that study would imply for what we should do. By contrast, the answer to her from the scientists (which you can pick up because it is in square brackets, green font, and starts with the boldface word Response) actually sticks to discussing what they think are the scientific flaws of that study (which claimed that increase in solar irradiance could account for 10-30% of the warming seen during the past two decades, a claim that would not be in contradiction with the IPCC conclusion but which is believed by many other scientists to be wrong at any rate).
I never called them communist front organizations, but most environmentalists who have been leading the charge on global warming HAVE been leftists. If you can’t recognize that fact, then there is little use in debating someone who refuses to see things as the way they are. Corporations who sign unto the global warming hysteria are probably doing so for pragmatic reasons, to get involved into the carbon credit scheme in order to continue making money.
Politics IS a major component of this issue. Socialists genuinely hate free markets and capitalism, just listen to their rants or watch their protests. What better way to end capitalism than to blame it for the inevitable destruction of earth if we don’t change our political and economic structure.
Here is why my BS meter is pegged with the whole global warming issue:
the United Nations is behind the IPCC. The UN is a socialist organization with grand dreams of becoming a world government. Even though the UN is based in New York, they continually disparage the USA. Of course I will be labeled as a paranoid extremist for saying that, but that is how socialists operate: label their critics as insane or ignorant or evil in order to discredit them.
The climate has been through hundreds of cycles in the past. Humans didn’t influence those, but suddenly people are convinced we are causing this one.
3)There are still plenty of credentialled scientists who are skeptical of man influencing the climate. Just because the liberal mainstream media ignores them doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Here are 10 who think the IPCC is premature in declaring the issue being resolved: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0
The hysteria of the true belivers isn’t too different than any other faith based dogma. Here I am, surrounded by a bunch of fundamentalists who are denouncing me as a heretic because I dare to question the high priests of global warming.
5)The global warming proponents are beginning to use fascist tactics in stifling dissent. Heidi Cullen thinks dissenters should be stripped of their credentials. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/28/wclimate28.xml
6)There hasn’t been an honest representation in the media of people who are skeptical of human induced global warming, they just ignore them or dismiss them as being cranks. If the science is sound, let the critics speak. Since the critics are silenced, they know there must be something wrong with the human caused global warming theory.
If global warming is truly a problem, then why not face the reality of the situation: People will not give up using fossil fuels. There is still plenty of petroleum, coal, oil shale, tar sands and natural gas to last for centuries. If atmospheric CO2 is really a problem, then propose solutions to reduce it besides stopping the use of fossil fuels. The origin of this topic is about iron fertilization of the oceans and how it could reduce CO2. Look at the less than enthusiastic response from the global warming adherents. This proves to me, at least, that they aren’t committed to solving the problem; they want to use goverment to control our lives, which is what socialism is all about.
8)What about nuclear energy? Why aren’t they supporting that?
Actually, to save you the bother of searching for the citationI requested in post #54, there’s this.
So, it would appear that the planet hasn’t been through anything quite like this in the past, at least not while modern humans have existed, or for some time before that.
Well, politics enters into everything which is why it is important to try to look for respected organizations that are largely outside the partisan political process. And, to look at the extent to which one side has their findings endorsed by lots of scientific organizations and even accepted by quite a few politicians (John McCain, George Pataki, Arnold Schwarznegger) who are bucking their party and by even some corporations who had strong reasons to oppose this view and initially did but were eventually swayed. (BP and Ford, for example, were originally members of the Global Climate Coalition, an industry front group that fought against the growing scientific consensus on climate change until many of these corporations realized that they were fighting a losing battle.)
As interface2x, it is pretty hard to argue against logic like this. And, now it seems like the Bush Administration has been forced to accept the findings of the socialists, as have scientific academies in the major industrialized nations, etc., etc.
In fact, it is precisely from these past cycles that scientists can understand how sensitive the climate is to perturbations (such as changes in solar insolation because of variations in the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit, and precession and tilt of the earth’s axis). We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that we have already caused the levels of CO2 to rise from pre-industrial levels by ~35% (to its highest level in at least 650,000 years…which is far enough back to take you through several ice age - interglacial cycles…and likely in about 20 million years). We also know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and what its “radiative forcing” is. The lessons from past climate cycles, along with simulations from climate models, give us estimates of what this radiative forcing implies in terms of a temperature rise. We also know that the only way we have been able to successfully simulate the climate over the last 150 years of instrumental data using known forcings is to include this forcing due to greenhouse gases…and in fact that in its absence the dramatic rise in temperatures seen over the last ~35 years has not been able to be successfully reproduced. We can also compare the spatial pattern of warming observed (both across the globe and as you go up in the atmosphere) to that predicted from the models to occur from greenhouse gases. And, we can look at the pattern of warming in the various ocean basins and similarly compare them. It is through all of these methods (and others that I have no doubt missed) that scientists have concluded that the current warming is very likely to be mostly due to humans and that considerably more warming will occur if greenhouse gas levels continue to increase.
You will never have complete unanimity among scientists. Look, the creation science websites listed plenty of PhD biologists who are apparently creationists. Does that mean we should be teaching it alongside evolution in the science classrooms?
If you really want to get jumped on, I suggest you start a thread defending creationism. We are not jumping on you because we are fundamentalists but because we are tired of science being abused.
Well, what she seemed to be saying in fact was that a certification by a professional organization like the AMS ought to mean something. Intelligent people may differ on the details of this but I am sure that in some situations you would agree to ideas like this. For example, I doubt you object to such certification procedures involving doctors and dentists and such.
And, her point was not that some of these TV meteorologists were saying things that were skeptical of global warming but that they were saying things that were just factually wrong and showed that they were completely ignorant of the science. The public was being led to believe that they were hearing an informed opinion whereas what they were actually hearing was nothing of the sort.
The media, as I previously noted, has bent over backwards for the sake of balance to over-represent the views of the “skeptics” far out of proportion to their appearance in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. With all due respect, I don’t thin the most productive place to have debates about science is in the popular press. Most of the public and the press are simply not knowledgeable enough to be able to detect arguments that are fallacious. The debate belongs in the peer-reviewed scientific literature and then it is the role of scientific organizations like the IPCC and the National Academy of Sciences to present a synthesis of the science to policymakers and the public. (Of course, the peer-reviewed scientific literature is open to everyone, as are the reports of the IPCC and the NAS, so it is not like it is being hidden from the public.)
You claim to be against socialism which I assume means you believe in the market system. Surely, you understand the elementary fact that the market system does not handle externalities well, that is, the market works when the costs are internalized. When the costs are not, as when there is no cost to using the atmosphere as a free sewer to the detriment of all, the market mechanisms fail. The idea of imposing carbon taxes or a cap-and-trade emissions system is to internalize the costs of greenhouse gas emissions into the market so that the market can come up with the most cost effective solution for reducing or sequestering these emissions. If you consider that socialism, I guess I would classify you as a free-market-fundamentalist who has a religious belief in markets and capitalism rather than a scientific understanding of them.
Well, some environmentalists have in fact been saying that nuclear energy needs to be part of the solution. Others see too many other environmental or security issues with nuclear energy to endorse it. However, again, I don’t see why you want to impose a particular solution rather than to give the market the correct signals regarding the costs associated with greenhouse gas emissions and let the market then respond with the basket of solutions that seems most efficient. (Obviously, there is also some room for governmental research and subsidization of technologies…but it seems like one wouldn’t want to base an approach completely or primarily on that.)
Look, the vast majority of climate scientists thing global warming is real, and at least partially anthropogenic. I hear what you are saying–the critics are being silenced. But let me tell you a little fact about junk science. When you hear someone say, “Brilliant but unappreciated scientist X has a theory that totally explains Y, but the scientific establishment is conspiring against him to keep his theory from being accepted”, 99.9% of the time, scientist X is a nutbag who is totally full of shit, and scientific journals are refusing to publish his stuff b/c he doesn’t have the evidence (not because of any conspiracy).
Science works. And for that reason, the fact that the vast majority of scientists in a particular area believe X is a damn good reason for the layman to believe X, too. If you think your conspiracy theories, or a handful of dissenters, are a better guide to scientific truth than a scientific consensus which has built over the years in response to ever-increasing evidence of anthropogenic global warming, then you will find the SDMB a very inhospitable place. Not b/c we are assholes (although some of us are)–but because you are being irrational.
Do you recognize any distinctions between “leftists” and “socialists?” Or “socialists” and “communists?” Is it possible, in your worldview, for one to be both leftist and capitalist? I ask, because this part:
strikes me as an odd thing to say. I don’t know of anyone who would deny that the left champions enviromentalist causes more frequently than the right. In fact, I dare say most people on the left would consider that a point of pride. That’s what makes the growing list of conservative politicians and pundits who are speaking up about global warming significant.
Hang on a second. You’ve been saying that supporters of man-made global warming want to destroy the capitalist system. Why on Earth would any corporation sign on to that, no matter how many tax credits they were offered?
Also, what are John McCain, Arnold Schwartzenegger, and George Pataki going to do with all those carbon credits they’re getting for speaking up about global warming?
Do you have a cite for someone arguing that the only way to halt global warming is for the government to seize control of the means of production? Because mostly, I’m just hearing that we need to enforce tighter enviromental regulations and explore alternative energy sources.
It’s worth noting, I think, that the only person in this thread who has been painting his opposition as wild-eyed extremists… is you. The only one who has labeled their critics as insane, ignorant, or evil… is you. The only one who has steadfastly refused to address the scientific argument put against him… is you. You’ve practiced pretty much every single dirty tactic you’ve accused your enemies of engaging in. And your enemies haven’t used a single one.
You’re reasoning here is particularly faulty. Yes, the Earth goes through regular cycles of climate change. That doesn’t mean that it’s impossible to artificially accelerate, or even induce, the next round of changes. And even if this current cycle is completely natural, it will be no less catastrophic. We still need to do something, and our best option right now looks to be finding a way to drastically reduce ozone emissions as fast as possible.
That’s nice. Here’s almost five thousand who say it is. Now, if you want to talk bias, tell me what’s more likely. That you could convice 4,500 men and women with advanced science degrees to willfully ignore, misinterpret, or manufacture evidence of a global catastrophe… or that you could convince ten to do it?
In point of fact, no one has denounced you or called you a heretic. They’ve mostly been refuting your arguments with reason and links to scientific evidence. Once again, the only person who’s acting like that in this thread… is you.
Well, that’s pretty stupid of her. Unfortunetly, when you take 90% of the world’s scientists, you’re going to get a few jerks. I don’t see this idea getting any momentum. Regardless, that’s not evidence that they’re wrong, just that they’re assholes.
Again, that’s not really sound logic. It could be that their position is so weak that there’s no point mentioning it. However, that’s not really relevant, because as has been pointed out earlier, the anti-warming lobby gets press entirely out of proportion to their numbers.
Care to address any of the posts disputing the practicality and advisibility of iron fertilization in fighting global warming?
That’s a good point. Opposing nuclear energy at this point is terribly shortsighted. I think the opinion on this subject will turn around, I just hope it doesn’t take too long.
