# Somebody please try to sell me on Global "Warming" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 24, 2004, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-please-try-to-sell-me-on-global-warming/251919 "2004-06-24T00:58:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2004, 11:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-please-try-to-sell-me-on-global-warming/251919/21 "2004-06-24T11:08:02Z")
> [@sinical brit](#): > > Bjorn Lomborg’s site ([http://lomborg.com/index.html](http://lomborg.com/index.html)), > Waiting for Greenhouse ([http://www.john-daly.com/](http://www.john-daly.com/)), > NumberWatch ([http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/sir\_robert\_may\_annotated.htm](http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/sir_robert_may_annotated.htm)) > Junk Science.([http://www.junkscience.com/](http://www.junkscience.com/)) Precisely the type of people who I mean - persuing an unscientific approach outside the world of peer-review… > [@](#): > > As for Gorillaman’s quote - how does one publish therioes and ideas WITHOUT " the standard scrutiny of peer-reviewed articles and so on which define modern science" ? Isnt that what publishing your theories exposes you to? …which is a systematic process within the scientific community, where articles and theories are scrutinised _before_ publication, to maintain a consistent and reliable standard. > [@](#): > > SDMB is about fighting ignorance. I think that those who can dismiss alternate ideas about an unproven theory, should really be a bit more open minded. Once again, the word ‘theory’ is misused. There is _no such thing_ as a ‘proven scientific theory’. They can be confirmed by observation, or they can be disproved. If they are consistently disproven, then we have to modify the theory. That’s how science works. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2004, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-please-try-to-sell-me-on-global-warming/251919/22 "2004-06-24T11:30:43Z")
**sinical brit** , do you accept that CO[sub]2[/sub] levels are _way_ off the equilibrium they existed at until the start of the industrial revolution? ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2004, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-please-try-to-sell-me-on-global-warming/251919/23 "2004-06-24T12:23:13Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > With the exception of four small, oil-rich Arab states, the US produces more CO2 per capita than anywhere else. China is no. 79, and India doesn’t even make the top 100. And despite having a fifth of the world’s population, China still only emits two-thirds of the US in total. **(Number 1)** > > Hell, we were the ones who _started_ the industrial revolution (which was more like 250 years ago, btw).\*\*Number two \*\* However, as the richest, and (arguably) most advanced country today, the US is the _only_ one that can **effectively lead by example**. \*\*\*Number three \*\* \* 1. I’d love to see a cite on that. 2. Americans were polluting the environment in 1754? How? :eek: 3. We led by example by telling the signers of Kyoto that we (the US) couldn’t be responsible for all the world’s ills. ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2004, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-please-try-to-sell-me-on-global-warming/251919/24 "2004-06-24T12:26:47Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > **sinical brit** , do you accept that CO[sub]2[/sub] levels are _way_ off the equilibrium they existed at until the start of the industrial revolution? That’s carbon dioxide, man. The lifeblood of vegetation, and therefor the saving grace of the rain forest. Are you against saving the forests? Plant a tree! Almost every American company that forests plants at least 2 for every tree “killed”. It’s simply a formula for continued harvesting. For every tree forested, 2 are planted to keep the furniture coming! ---
**Author:** ![sinical\_brit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/48db29/32.png) [@sinical\_brit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sinical_brit)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2004, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-please-try-to-sell-me-on-global-warming/251919/25 "2004-06-24T12:27:10Z")
Sentient - um , what “equilibrium” ? This graph ( [http://www.niwa.cri.nz/pubs/wa/09-1/ice-graph.htm](http://www.niwa.cri.nz/pubs/wa/09-1/ice-graph.htm)) shows your equilibrium to be just silly. But how 'bout this ( its in the last para, [http://www.john-daly.com/bull-122.htm](http://www.john-daly.com/bull-122.htm) ): "1. Holocene carbon-cycle dynamics based on CO2 trapped in ice at Taylor Dome, Antarctica. by A. Indermühle, T.F. Stocker. F. Joos, H. Fischer, H.J. Smith, M. Wahlen, B. Deck, D. Mastrolanni, J. Tachumi. T. Blunier & B. Stauffer. 1999 Nature , 398, 121-126. 1. Restless carbon Pools. By Phillippe Ciais 1999. Nature , 398 111-112. These two papers have had much publicity from Fred Singer and others, but, essentially they merely reiterate and amplify what has already been published by Etheridge et al., 1996 J. Geophys Res 103 15,979-15,993, and already reported in Greenhouse Bulletin No 120 in February 1999. These conclusions are: That the concentration of carbon dioxide in the pre-industrial atmosphere was never in equilibrium, but fluctuated significantly. · That changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide in this period were probably caused by changes in the various carbon pools, brought on by changes in global temperature. It is unlikely that the temperature changes were a result of the changes in carbon dioxide concentration. · That current carbon cycle models do not explain several features of the past record, notably a very slow growth, or even decline, in carbon dioxide concentration between 1935 and 1945." So yes i agree that co2 levels are changing. You seem to put an emphasis and a covert causal link to the point. I dont. Mr Gorilla - i maybe misunderstanding something, but how do your peers scrutinise your work before it is published? Does one send it to ones mates first? Did the chappie who wrote the above paper not have it peer reviewed? How can one tell? sin ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2004, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-please-try-to-sell-me-on-global-warming/251919/26 "2004-06-24T12:36:55Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > That’s carbon dioxide, man. The lifeblood of vegetation, and therefor the saving grace of the rain forest. Are you against saving the forests? Plant a tree! Almost every American company that forests plants at least 2 for every tree “killed”. It’s simply a formula for continued harvesting. For every tree forested, 2 are planted to keep the furniture coming! I really hope you’re joking. Otherwise there’s a lot of ignorance to be faught. > [@sinical brit](#): > > Mr Gorilla - i maybe misunderstanding something, but how do your peers scrutinise your work before it is published? Does one send it to ones mates first? Did the chappie who wrote the above paper not have it peer reviewed? How can one tell? Generally, it will be submitted to an established journal, who will pass it to various selected scientists with appropriate knowledge to judge it worthy of publication. They don’t judge it on whether they agree with it or not, but on whether it’s been rigorous enough in its approach. Only then will the paper be published. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2004, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-please-try-to-sell-me-on-global-warming/251919/27 "2004-06-24T12:38:25Z")
Oh, and yes, there are unexplained aspects of the natural CO2 processes. But these are quite separate from the unnatural increase in CO2 being caused by modern industrial processes. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2004, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-please-try-to-sell-me-on-global-warming/251919/28 "2004-06-24T12:47:33Z")
Very well, I will restate my question: Do you accept that [anthropgenic forcing far outweighs natural forcing](http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/small/06.01.jpg) since 1750? I accept that levels fluctuate. The question is whether the currently fluctuations would simply not happen in nature, _ever_, since there is no natural mechanism whereby such forcing would remain _unchecked_, and whether this is cause for concern. After all, if one is dealing with an unknown and vastly complex _chemical_ reaction which _might_ become unstable, would it really be prudent to force one ingredient further and further off equilibrium just to see what happened? ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2004, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-please-try-to-sell-me-on-global-warming/251919/29 "2004-06-24T13:05:38Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > I really hope you’re joking. Otherwise there’s a lot of ignorance to be faught. If not faught, it’s for nought, right? I’m \*almost \* willing to consider your argument that CO2 is bad, though it’s been around since the first non-sea animal climbed up the shore and breathed air. Still waiting for the 250 year span of Industrial Revolution. In my little little world, it occured around the turn of the 20th century. Give or take 20 years. Not 130 years. So what constituted an industrial revolution in the mid-1700’s? Or were you mistaken in your timeline? (Go ahead, even I’ve conceded being wrong in threads) ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2004, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-please-try-to-sell-me-on-global-warming/251919/30 "2004-06-24T13:17:43Z")
A good starting point for the industrial revolution is James Watt’s steam engine, invented in 1763 - very quickly, steam- (and hence fossil fuel-) powered manufacture spread across Britain. By 1800 a majority of the population no longer worked in agriculture, a sure sign of an industrialised economy. And yes, naturally-occuring CO2 is part of our world. The problem is fossil fuels - what we’re doing is taking carbon which has built up in these underground deposits over millions of years, and releasing it all into the athmosphere as CO2 in one go. The greenhouse effect is also naturally-occuring, and its stability was the reason life could develop on earth. But adding to it, by an increase in CO2, is what is damaging this balance. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2004, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-please-try-to-sell-me-on-global-warming/251919/31 "2004-06-24T13:25:10Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > So what constituted an industrial revolution in the mid-1700’s? Or were you mistaken in your timeline? (Go ahead, even I’ve conceded being wrong in threads) A little shy on history as well as science, **duffer**? The history I can help with: “The term INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION originally referred to the developments that transformed Great Britain, between 1750 and 1830, from a largely rural population making a living almost entirely from agriculture to a town-centered society engaged increasingly in factory manufacture.” And if you’ll take a look at **GorillaMan** ’s location, you’ll note which “we” he was talking about. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2004, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-please-try-to-sell-me-on-global-warming/251919/32 "2004-06-24T13:25:15Z")
[Indicators during the Industrial Era](http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/small/02.01.jpg). ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2004, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-please-try-to-sell-me-on-global-warming/251919/33 "2004-06-24T13:30:43Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > A good starting point for the industrial revolution is James Watt’s steam engine, invented in 1763 - very quickly, steam- (and hence fossil fuel-) powered manufacture spread across Britain. By 1800 a majority of the population no longer worked in agriculture, a sure sign of an industrialised economy. > > And yes, naturally-occuring CO2 is part of our world. The problem is fossil fuels - what we’re doing is taking carbon which has built up in these underground deposits over millions of years, and releasing it all into the athmosphere as CO2 in one go. The greenhouse effect is also naturally-occuring, and its stability was the reason life could develop on earth. But adding to it, by an increase in CO2, is what is damaging this balance. Look, I’ll concede that CO2 will kill us all when I see factual evidence that it will. I, for one, refute the notion that man can kill off the planet. We can’t. At worst, we’ll fuck it up enough that man can’t survive. At some point. Many, many, many centuries from now. What the concern, today is “saving the earth”. To that I say bullshit. The earth will survive until the sun expands to engulf the planet. It’s going to happen no matter what we do. Nobody gives a shit about “saving Earth”. The impetus is “saving man”. Therein lies another reason Global Warming rubs me wrong. The chorus is to save “Mother Earth”, while the truth is to save mankind. A huge reason I hate this “movement” is the euphamism of protecting people and the children, when we know damn well future generations will adapt. Or is that whole evolution thing just hokum? If we fuck it up, nature will simply slough us off and start over. Any atheists would have to get behind this. I mean, there’s nothing to look forward to, right? ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2004, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-please-try-to-sell-me-on-global-warming/251919/34 "2004-06-24T13:33:21Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > A little shy on history as well as science, **duffer**? The history I can help with: “The term INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION originally referred to the developments that transformed Great Britain, between 1750 and 1830, from a largely rural population making a living almost entirely from agriculture to a town-centered society engaged increasingly in factory manufacture.” And if you’ll take a look at **GorillaMan** ’s location, you’ll note which “we” he was talking about. Yup, got me there. I didn’t notice the location **gorrilaman**. I was going by the US definition of coal-based power for the Ind Rev. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2004, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-please-try-to-sell-me-on-global-warming/251919/35 "2004-06-24T13:39:12Z")
> [@](#): > > At worst, we’ll fuck it up enough that man can’t survive. At some point. Many, many, many centuries from now. Not necessarily. We do not, for example, know how sensitive the [Gulf Stream](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_stream) is to fluctuations. Were that to radically shift or even turn off, Europe and the Eastern US might become more like Siberia within mere _years_. As for a possible impending worst case scenario, a temperature rise of a few degrees might release enormous quantities of methane from the ocean floor: Read [Permian Mass Extinction](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event#Methane_hydrate_gasification) ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2004, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-please-try-to-sell-me-on-global-warming/251919/36 "2004-06-24T13:40:51Z")
> [@](#): > > The chorus is to save “Mother Earth”, while the truth is to save mankind. Agreed. Why are we changing the subject? ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2004, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-please-try-to-sell-me-on-global-warming/251919/37 "2004-06-24T13:41:40Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Not necessarily. We do not, for example, know how sensitive the [Gulf Stream](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_stream) is to fluctuations. Were that to radically shift or even turn off, Europe and the Eastern US might become more like Siberia within mere _years_.] …and worse still. Like the monsoons across Asia disappearing. Forever. ---
**Author:** ![Xerxes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/d2c977/32.png) [@Xerxes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xerxes)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2004, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-please-try-to-sell-me-on-global-warming/251919/38 "2004-06-24T13:43:05Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > 1. I’d love to see a cite on that. [You’re more than welcome](http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/env_co2_emi_cap) ---
**Author:** ![Dog80](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6bbea6/32.png) [@Dog80](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dog80)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2004, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-please-try-to-sell-me-on-global-warming/251919/39 "2004-06-24T13:44:11Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > [Indicators during the Industrial Era](http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/small/02.01.jpg). What I see in those diagrams is that emissions start to increase since 1900, not earlier. Since the warming has started long before 1900, it is not safe to assume that warming is caused by increased emissions. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2004, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-please-try-to-sell-me-on-global-warming/251919/40 "2004-06-24T13:50:06Z")
> [@](#): > > Since the warming has started long before 1900 [No it hasn’t](http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/small/05.16.jpg). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-please-try-to-sell-me-on-global-warming/251919.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/somebody-please-try-to-sell-me-on-global-warming/251919.md?page=3)