Global warming denyers and... alarmism?! WTF?

[Formless]

I hate to have to come for help on a debate... but this one has me angered to the point of not thinking straight, so I'm coming here to help clear my head and stock ammo get help so my response can be something coherent. Who knows, maybe they aren't as stupid as my fire brimming brain wants to think right now... but more on that.

Okay, unless you can't read the title, you probably guessed that this is about global warming. I actually have two opponents here-- one is an admin, so I can't flame him (not that it will get me banned... immediately). The other is a whiny Irish dolt who seems to think that the movement to solve climate change has turned into some kind of witch hunt, "like the spanish inquisition" as he put it, and-- ohs noes!-- it actually effects his life. You can bet you know what he's accusing me of, the little fucking snot...

First of however, I want to deal with the admin, because he actually is putting up a source, and I have not enough experience analyzing sources on this subject:

On climate --
In the big picture, we live in an unusually cold epoch in the Earth's history, because there is currently a continent covering one of the poles. Within that epoch, we live in an unusually warm (interglacial) interval. Not that many years ago, the big climate scare was that that interglacial was soon going to end -- and leading the scare was James Hansen, the same guy who's done a complete about face and now leads the more unhinged fringe of the warmist-alarmist tendency.

On the quality of his predictions, I can but point you at his predicted vs the actual trend in world temperatures over the last 20 years to be found e.g. here. And I couldn't help but laugh at the guy who tried to kayak to the "ice free" North Pole last summer and hardly got anywhere before being stuck in ice.

It is a pity that what should have been a sensible measure of thrift with resources has been co-opted by a mix of hair-shirt puritans, communist-entryists and aristocrats who would be happy to see the hoi polloi back in their traditional place.

Now, since its a blog, I almost want to just say "bullshit, give me a scientific source." But I want to be sure that it is bullshit first.

Both of them are taking a rout I have never seen before: the are claiming that the movement is "alarmist", and in the case of the latter moron that it is an outright witchhunt on carbon. Now, if they were Americans, I almost wouldn't need any more evidence from either of them that they are right wing fucktards, because on this side of the ocean that's obvious bullshit to anyone with a passing knowledge of politics. But the two of them live in the UK. Is there some cultural disconnect I am not aware of? And has any one else seen this claim before? I'm confused, angry, and need some ammo.

Okay, so here's the former fucktards current argument. Now, he's in outright denial of global warming, spouting the usual wall of ignorance about water vapor being the biggest greenhouse gas even though that hardly effects the fact mankind tips the scale regardless, or that the world warms on its own anyway, never mind never at this rate. That stuff I can deal with.

The arguments of more interest are these:

Hydrocarbon fuels are one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas.
Within 50-70 years, hydrocarbon fuels will be on the wane, again maybe sooner.

Seems like we're going to stop this Co2 mallarky soon enough as it is.

Of course, as I told him the first time he said this (he just repeated himself, of course, as if the point hadn't been addressed), I told him

Naw, they'll just get more expensive, that's all. In the meantime, I don't know about you, but that is a ton of gas to put into the air. It doesn't take that much to do permanent damage.

does that argument hold water? And does anyone have a number/source that says how much carbon we are talking here, or how much it will take before the Earth is FUBAR? I want to be sure that I don't have to say this three times for the idiot.

The following are probably his strongest arguments, and I may just sidestep them for convenience, and because it seems this one has struck a chord with the rest of the posters, some of whom say they recognize global warming as a legit problem. However for posterity:

Formless One:
You're certainly carrying your torch and pitchfork.What's that I see behind you, you hold a carbon-neutral stake?

Now then, Here's something:

A little idealistic African country (Randomtania) wants to develop. They start building more power generation for industry. Solar Panels, the west wants to sell them. Green Solar Panels. Expensive Solar panels. Green Wind Turbines Expensive Wind turbines too.

But why can't you sell us an oil fired plant? The ask.

Because it's not environmentally friendly, say the big countries. We have to be green you know... save the planet.

But you have oil?

Yes but.... you know.... We'll give you money! Money to buy our green-stuff that you can pack back with interest....

Fuckit... lets go back to starving.... less bullshit. Hello Concern...

------
Nothing beats using starving Africans as a poster boy for random causes. Global warming causes starving Africans. so does environmentalism. But well, that's just a widening social inequality. I saw it somewhere on the web... I think from a video somewhere.... I'm trying to find it again.

But, that's just the way the world is. No matter what, it won't change. So I'm nopt going to bitch about it.
------

Okay, to go back to resource usage -v- Carbon emissions.

There's only so much hydrocarbon fuels (oil, coal, gas), right? Only so much. Eventually we'll peter out to a trickle. That's a given. When that happens, anthropogenic carbon emissions will hit a brick wall. Again, they won't stop, but with hydrocarbon fuels being the largest source, they'll certainly slow a good deal. Depending on how alarmist the scientist behind the report is being, that point will come in either 10 years, or sometime near the end of the century.

There's about 100 years left of our carbon habit. 100 years on an environmental/climatological scale is nothing. 300 years since the industrial revolution is nothing. The Earth has been far hotter with far more carbon in the atmosphere (see note1 below), and even far cooler than it is to day. If we were to dissapear tomorrow, just poof gone, it would continue fluctuating and wavering around. The Earth does not tend towards a single point and stay there. It's chaotic.

But anyway, in 100 years time either we'll have found a new energy source, or we'll be collectively starving beneath a holocaust of resource wars as the junkie struggles for the last few drops of the black gold. I'm pitting my hopes on a new energy source. The point is, even if we do nothing today, absolutely nothing.... Carbon emmissions will stop soon enough. The Earth's climate will keep wobbling around, things will happen, the world will keep turning and doing it's thing whether we're here to see it or not.

But here's the thing. Every human activity requires Resources. Food, water, electricity, heat, transport. At the heart of it, these require resources. Oil, coal, Iron, Aluminium, Wood, Arable landmass, a million other requirements that are in finite supply. The extraction of resources, requires resources. So then, unnecessary extraction of resources, breeds more unnecessary resource usage.

Which, if you're Carbon inclined, also leeds to unnecessary carbon emissions.

Lets take the little plastic kettle you have in your kitchen. One morning, you get up, same as always, and go downstairs for your morning cup of tea. You flip the switch for the kettle, and it doesn't turn on. Of course, something has broken.

Now then, do you:
A: Take the kettle apart, to see if the problem is fixable. All it might need is a new switch, 50c at an alectronics shope. Kettle's working. Net cost to the planets resources... 1 switch... a few grams of steel and plastic. Extraction, processing and shipping of this one single part is not much... relatively.

B: Just go buy a newer, more efficient 'green' kettle. Net cost to you, between 10 and 50 euro. (anybody who spends more than 50 on a kettle is an idiot.) Net cost to the planet. About a Kilo and a half of plastic, depending. The metal for the element. Copper cabling in the electric lead. Processing, extraction and shipping of all these to the factory. Manufacture, and shipping to your home. And of course, one little switch in the handle, the exact same as the old Kettle, because in all honesty, how different are two switches? And all this before the kettle ever boils a single cup of tea. (see note2)

From a Resource usage standpoint, action A is obviously the best. Even from a carbon standpoint, it can be difficult to argue against it. (Unless you pay an extra 50 quid and pl;ant a tree) And yet, action B is what the vast majority of the developed world will take. It's this throwaway culture that's causing us to burn through the planets resources. When the oil runs low, so will carbon emissions, but we're still going to need Resources. It doesnt matter how the hell we generate electricity for industry if we don't have the raw materials to actually process.

Recycling helps. Recycling the old kettle will certainly offset some (A good fraction) of the resource cost of producing the new kettle. You can get a good deal of the material back, but you still need to clean, refine it and process it into it's new form. Recycling merely reduces the initial extraction and processing costs. There is still some. You recycle an aluminium can, it still needs to be melted down into a fresh aluminium ingot. You do also loose a bit of material in the process, so there will always be some resource extraction required. 1 recycled can /= 1 new can.

To take another example I'm going to compare my 7 year old Renault Laguna, with maybe 40k miles on it, to a brand new 2009 Prius. I'm going to say that my car has taken an NCT(Like a smog test/MOT)today, and failed due to a defect in the emissions control system. A fault that will cost more than the car is worth to fix. This technically renders the car illegal to drive, though it is otherwise safe and roadworthy..

Now then I can:

A: Carry on regardless, emitting as I go. Technically illegal, but unless your car is literally falling apart, only an arsehole of a copper will care. (At least here) Net cost to the planet: The fuel my car uses. The pollution it emits. It may need an overhaul in the next few years, but otherwise it's fine.

B: Replace the damaged pollution control system. Expensive, and certainly a cost more than the car's worth. The car would keep emitting, but at a lower level. Net cost to the planet: Production of one exhaust system, including a catalytic converter. Fuel usage and slightly lower emissions.

c: Scrap the car (No chance of resale due to technically being unroadworthy) and pony up the cash for a New Car. I'll take a Toyota Prius (Actually, I'd buy a BMW 320D but that's a different argument) because I'm feeling green. Whirr out the dealership in a brand new car, and be confident that I'm not pollutting the planet. Then I get bored.
Net cost to the planet... whatever resources are required to build the Prius. Metal bodyshell and engine. Chassis parts. The generator. The battery (big resource hog) . The plastic/fabric interior. All have to be extracted, processed, shipped to Japan, processed and constructed in a factory. Shipped halfway around the world to my local Toyota dealer... all before I drive it.
And my perfectly good car is melted down into scrap.
And a Prius is dull as fuck to drive.

D: Take the bus.
Problem with public transport is:
It's unreliable.
It doesnt go exactly where I want.
It's Public and I hate the fucking Public.

Now then, looking up at that. What is the best answer? From a resource standpoint, it's obviously D. From a personal standpoint, I would be an A (being a cheap git) A lot of Irish people would take that option too... (Being cheap gits too). Maybe if I wanted to be actively green and reduce carbon, I would take option B. A blithering idiot would take Option C. Celebrities do it. Carbon-ninnies insist on it being the best option (Why not a diesel then?... but that's another debate)

What I don't understand though is how taking option C is possibly green. Even from a Carbon standpoint. Sure, over the next ten years, my Renault will emit maybe double what a new Prius does per Km... probably more. But before that Prius ever turns a wheel, there is still the great glut of carbon emissions that come from the construction of the new car, before you ever drive it. They may not be local Carbon emissions, or local resource usage, but they still exist, they're still happening somewhere in the world. It's almost like the problem is being shuffled away around the world somewhere.

Now then, my Renault might fall apart completely in three years. Then, I buy my new car. Personally I wouldn't buy a Prius, I prefer a Diesel...BMW 320D maybe. Roughly the same emissions and fuel economy as a Prius, but more fun to drive and a better bloody car.

We see a larger expansion of this as the 'Replace everything with the Green! Green! Green! Green!. Build new Green stuff! who cares why it's green and makes us look good'. It feels to me as if this whole Carbon movement is nothing more than a feel-good extension of the consumer culture of the last few decades. The throwaway buy a new one craze. Everything in passing, and less pass it quickly because it's out of fasion. It really does. Just look how hard things are being sold based on their 'carbon credentials'. It seems to me, that people are junking perfectly functional and capable objects, for the mere surface appearance of being environmental. While behind them, the landfills are overflowing with their trash of the old, the oil wells are running dry, and money and resources have been diverted away from new energy projects that might actually be feasible to folly's like Wind and Solar power (long story), or the downright daft like covering glaciers in blankets.

We may be (theoretically) reducing our carbon emmissions, but we're swallowing planetary resources at a faster rate than ever. We might stop emitting carbon, but we might also find we dont have enough land to feed ourselves, enough wood/steel for our homes, enough heat, light, water... we might drive ourselves out of the raw materials of life.

Formless one says we're not doing enough. I say, we may be doing the wrong thing entirely.

My problem with straight Carbon reduction, is that , as it is today inefficient with regards to the use of planetary resources. I also beleive that if we find away to improve the efficiency of our use of planetary resources, our carbon use should fall as a secondary bonus, as the innefficiency's in the system, such as unnecessary transportation/refining/processing as a whole work out.

And of course, the Africans will continue to starve.... but some things never change.

Now then, what do we spend our resources on?

-------

Note1 -> Please don't take this as some sort of tacit admission that Co2 is the cause of high temperatures. I am merely stating that both Co2 levels and global temperature have been much higher in the past than they are to day.

Note2 -> Yes you can recycle, but... honestly... most people just fuck the bloody thing out in the trash.

Note3 -> It took me two bloody hours to write this.... Jesus christ. That's it, back to spamming, this thinkin' stuff is too hard.

You can see at the top where he re-posted the bullshit about fossil fuels running out somehow negating global warming. But if I do attack these arguments, would it be correct to say that each of these decisions he so desperately wants to avoid for his own convenience are an investment that helps out the whole? Really so much of it is whining... and yet, which parts? That's why I don't want to attack these arguments, but if someone can show me the way, many thanks.

---

Okay, so can anyone help me here? I need ammo, and I haven't replied for a while. i want to make it as clear as possible for all the me-too idiots he's attracting to the thread get the message, because this kind of retarded shit is fucking viral.

[Samuel]

Sleep... screen dancing...

On the quality of his predictions, I can but point you at his predicted vs the actual trend in world temperatures over the last 20 years to be found e.g. here. And I couldn't help but laugh at the guy who tried to kayak to the "ice free" North Pole last summer and hardly got anywhere before being stuck in ice.

Wow, scientists have been wrong. Surprise, surprise. I have a book from a man about the same fear... from the 19th century.

Also, the Artic isn't ice free yet. Smell the straw?

the are claiming that the movement is "alarmist",

It is rhetorical BS. For it to be alarmist, first they have to show that the threat isn't real- simply declaring it alarmist ignores that requirement.

Hydrocarbon fuels are one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas.
Within 50-70 years, hydrocarbon fuels will be on the wane, again maybe sooner.

Coal is estimated to last for 200 years.

does that argument hold water? And does anyone have a number/source that says how much carbon we are talking here, or how much it will take before the Earth is FUBAR? I want to be sure that I don't have to say this three times for the idiot.

The argument is inherently ludicrous. If we are going to run out so quickly, we need to switch over to other power sources immediately anyways.

But why can't you sell us an oil fired plant? The ask.

Because it's not environmentally friendly, say the big countries. We have to be green you know... save the planet.

But you have oil?

Yes but.... you know.... We'll give you money! Money to buy our green-stuff that you can pack back with interest....

Fuckit... lets go back to starving.... less bullshit. Hello Concern...

Yeah, and they can't get air conditioners because we banned CFCs. Environmental regulations almost always have a cost- the solution is to cover them by making up the difference not ignoring regulations totally.

Nothing beats using starving Africans as a poster boy for random causes. Global warming causes starving Africans. so does environmentalism. But well, that's just a widening social inequality. I saw it somewhere on the web... I think from a video somewhere.... I'm trying to find it again.

Which is incredible given the Kyoto Treaty doesn't cover the third world. The subject you are probably looking for is DDT, not global warming.

100 years on an environmental/climatological scale is nothing.

You are saying we have released all the CO2 ever storied in our planets history. That is a problem. You also have forgotten exponential growth and feedback loops.

The Earth does not tend towards a single point and stay there. It's chaotic.

Natural is good fallacy.

The Earth's climate will keep wobbling around, things will happen, the world will keep turning and doing it's thing whether we're here to see it or not.

Either or fallacy.

The extraction of resources, requires resources. So then, unnecessary extraction of resources, breeds more unnecessary resource usage.

Which is why greens are anti-consumerism.

D: Take the bus.
Problem with public transport is:
It's unreliable.
It doesnt go exactly where I want.
It's Public and I hate the fucking Public.

Sorry- I use the bus. Have you considered using your powers of citizenship to change that?

Maybe if I wanted to be actively green and reduce carbon, I would take option B. A blithering idiot would take Option C. Celebrities do it. Carbon-ninnies insist on it being the best option (Why not a diesel then?... but that's another debate)

Except not all resurces are of equal worth. In this case, CO2 reduction and TIME are the most valuable. The others are shortages which can always be dealt with by scavaning resources. CO2 doesn't have such an easy answer.

We see a larger expansion of this as the 'Replace everything with the Green! Green! Green! Green!. Build new Green stuff! who cares why it's green and makes us look good'. It feels to me as if this whole Carbon movement is nothing more than a feel-good extension of the consumer culture of the last few decades. The throwaway buy a new one craze. Everything in passing, and less pass it quickly because it's out of fasion. It really does. Just look how hard things are being sold based on their 'carbon credentials'. It seems to me, that people are junking perfectly functional and capable objects, for the mere surface appearance of being environmental.

The west is addicted to its appliances. No surprise there. Of course, it could be this avenue is being used because it is the most effective way to cause change, not because it is just another trend.

feasible to folly's like Wind and Solar power (long story),

They work- they just aren't economical.

We might stop emitting carbon, but we might also find we dont have enough land to feed ourselves, enough wood/steel for our homes, enough heat, light, water... we might drive ourselves out of the raw materials of life.

You do realize that isn't going to happen? Wood is renewable, the population is peaking and food production is 2500 calories per person, heat, water and light can be provided by the power of the atom- worse comes to worse, things get expensive. A collapse is nearly impossible.

And of course, the Africans will continue to starve.... but some things never change.

Actually, outside the war-zones and Zimbabwe, things are okay there. Except for AIDS.

Note2 -> Yes you can recycle, but... honestly... most people just fuck the bloody thing out in the trash.

Yes, everyone on the planet acts the same as you. Except in Japan and other countries where people DO recycle. Recycling rates can be changed with education, government programs and streamlining.

Note3 -> It took me two bloody hours to write this.... Jesus christ. That's it, back to spamming, this thinkin' stuff is too hard.

Words cannot express the irony of this statement.

[Formless]

Does anyone have a source that says how much carbon dioxide is released by coal worldwide as compared to gas and oil? I want to dispel the myth that global warming is all about oil, but I don't want to make some vague statement about coal contributing more gas to the atmosphere than gas without having a source to back me up. Google is failing me.

[Samuel]

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c01.html

Coal generates 54% of our electricity, and is the single biggest air polluter in the U.S.

Other countries have different rates (although China is building a coal plant a day- at least until the depression), but coal is mostly tied to power generation.

[Formless]

That's a good source, but I want some number on oil for comparison. I want to leave as little doubt as possible that coal is the major problem fuel rather than oil as so many wankers like to think. It might also help if you can find something that isn't U.S. centric. These guys aren't Americans, and I think that a number representing as much of the world as possible would help hit the point home for them.

[Formless]

Oh this is just hilarious. The admin saw my argument and to refute all of it, he linked me to the following page FROM HIS OWN WEBSITE.

@Formless

A little something I prepared earlier

http://www.ravnaandtines.com/hart_greenhouse.html

The greatest part is this:

Based on Hart's 1977 paper (Icarus, 33, 23-29 (1978)) on the
Evolution of the atmosphere of the Earth, the one that puts the continuously
habitable zone around the sun from about 0.95AU to 1.01AU.

(emphasis added)

Yeah, that's not old data. He he also apparently fails at statistics, since that seems to me to be using the outliers at the end of the bottom graph to disprove the trend line.

[Formless]

Er... I must be getting tired, turns out I misinterpreted that page... would it be fair to say that since it still doesn't actually disprove global warming that he has no actual point other than to distract from the problem?

[Samuel]

Nothing he is saying disproves Global Warming- his stance is

But wait! Warming will melt ice (ice cover going as (328-T)5), but more water vapour will mean more cloud, going as QH2O. Both ice and cloud reflect heat, reducing Tbase. Figure those in, and we get the green line, where the cloud compensates for some of the CO2 warming, and all the extra water vapour.

Or, in short that the feedback loop will take care of it.

Two problems. First, predicting cloud formation rates is heavily disputed because, unlike CO2 emissions, it is alot harder to calculate.
Secondly, this didn't occur previous times the Earth was warming- why should now be different?

The graph at the end is slightly ridiculous though. Sure, we aren't in the range now at this very moment- we just spent the last several years there!

[Formless]

And a third moron joins the pack!:

A movement can only be alarmist if the basic problem they are sounding the alarms to is not a true problem.

...which is exactly what many of us feel to be the case. All these claim are based on the assumption that the temp will just keep going up in direct contradiction to the VERY old pattern contained within ice core data. If anything, historical data shows the temp should begin falling off any time now. Most likely, the realization that the current 'warming' period might end soon is the reason for the recent switch to the now preferred (and extremely vague) term "global climate change".

And since we also understand the mechanisms by which warming can happen,

That's just it, we don't know for sure. The models are based on prior assumptions and guesswork that leave out any inconvenient alternative influences on the temperate such as sunspots, cloud formations, and who knows what else? Good science never assumes it has all the answers, always leaves the open possibility that their are other factors at work or that the accuracy of the model looks right for the wrong reasons.

a clear correlation to carbon dioxide levels and warmth?

Yes... CO2 levels tend to rise AFTER temperature does, not before, which makes the argument that it is the cause rather suspicious at best. Sunspot activity has a far closer correlation to temperature variations. Is it really a surprise that global temps might be most heavily influenced by the GIGANTIC NUCLEAR FURNACE that ultimately is the source of all energy we use?

Keep in mind that CO2 levels determine crop growth, so deliberately cutting them back will result in increased food scarcity. I'm sure the world's starving people will be glad to shrivel up and die in slightly cooler deserts though, thanks.

Besides, CO2 is a pathetically small percentage of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, so even a huge increase as calculated as a percentage of the previous CO2 levels is almost laughably insignificant. If you want to make a real dent you'll have to cut down on water vapor (which also may act to cool the earth due to reflectivity of clouds) and methane (which means cutting back on cows, the chief producer... again, I'm sure the starving people will be grateful.)

Lets suppose that mankind was not the cause of global warming, but it was still happening anyway at an accelerated rate.

In which case, what the hell do you propose we do about it... build a big sunshade like Mr. Burns did in the Simpsons? Planetary and Solar processes are just a bit outside of our ability to tinker with.

We are going to run out of fossil fuels sooner or later

technically yes, but that doesn't mean we have to stop using oil. There's a guy in Missouri with a plant that produces usable fuel oils from trash (mostly assorted bits of bioscrap from a nearby Butterball Turkey processing plant) currently it takes more power to operate than it creates, but it definately shows promise.

Oh, and coal can be processed into a liquid fuel as well, in the meantime.

where do you think the carbon dioxide trapped within that fuel goes?

It is absorbed by green plants in the process of photosynthesis, creating both the Oxygen and biomatter that fuel the rest of the biosphere.

ALTERNATIVE FUEL SOURCES.

Sure, as soon as a viable one is found, I'm all for it. In the meantime, this is a non-answer.

If we must do the UNECONOMIC thing and invest in wind and solar power (...), so be it.

[NemZ, the insults. I mean seriously.]

EDIT: It was a direct response, intentionally phrased in parallel form, to a similar line FO dropped on [name deleted] in the post I've been quoting from. I set it apart as a stand-alone paragraph to emphasize this; "good for the gander" and all that. "2 wrongs" though... fair enough, my bad.

Some of us are really struggling economically right now, and for you to suggest we should all join your bandwagon even if it makes things even worse is about as helpful as the astonishingly wasteful bailout, stimulus, and omnibus bills. All this idealism in the name of potentially bettering humanity is blind to the harm it actually causes a whole lot of humans right now.

People don't like people that screw them.

[This doesn't seem like a good time for Team America references.]

EDIT: It was meant in jest, hence the smiley and brief explanation... I was making an honest attempt to end on a lighter note, in poor taste though it may have been.

(note, the red is where another admin decided to edit out flames. I have also removed names from the post except my own)

[Samuel]

That's just it, we don't know for sure. The models are based on prior assumptions and guesswork that leave out any inconvenient alternative influences on the temperate such as sunspots, cloud formations, and who knows what else? Good science never assumes it has all the answers, always leaves the open possibility that their are other factors at work or that the accuracy of the model looks right for the wrong reasons.

The models do leave that open- they just assert the primary reason.

Note that sunspots don't cause an effect because they follow a cycle.
Cloud formation should not be showing major variation either.

Yes... CO2 levels tend to rise AFTER temperature does, not before, which makes the argument that it is the cause rather suspicious at best.

I've heard that before- can you provide a source?

Sunspot activity has a far closer correlation to temperature variations. Is it really a surprise that global temps might be most heavily influenced by the GIGANTIC NUCLEAR FURNACE that ultimately is the source of all energy we use?

I didn't know that world temperature followed an 11 year cycle.

Keep in mind that CO2 levels determine crop growth, so deliberately cutting them back will result in increased food scarcity. I'm sure the world's starving people will be glad to shrivel up and die in slightly cooler deserts though, thanks.

And increasing it will make weeds grow better. Not to mention that it will speed up desertification- the people of the Sahel are getting a little screwed.

and methane (which means cutting back on cows, the chief producer... again, I'm sure the starving people will be grateful.)

Beef is traditionally food for the rich and middle class- poor people rarely get meat, with most of their food being comprised of staple crops. Eliminating meat animals would result in more calories available... although we already have enough to feed everyone.

It is absorbed by green plants in the process of photosynthesis, creating both the Oxygen and biomatter that fuel the rest of the biosphere.

Exception that the amount of biomass on the planet isn't increasing. In fact a bigger limiting factor than CO2 for plants is minerals.

Some of us are really struggling economically right now, and for you to suggest we should all join your bandwagon even if it makes things even worse is about as helpful as the astonishingly wasteful bailout, stimulus, and omnibus bills. All this idealism in the name of potentially bettering humanity is blind to the harm it actually causes a whole lot of humans right now.

Always tommorrow, right? I like how you consider this idealism (hint- doesn't fit the definition).

Anyways, the fact we have problems now does not change the situation- the world does not wait for when things are convenient for us.

[Formless]

Hey, Samuel, I really gotta thank you for all the help. I really need more experience with this kind of debate, I usually end up making arguments more from logic than anything else, and I'm glad to have some help countering their "evidence"-- I'm not that good at it when debating in a hurry.

[Formless]

Well, it seems a mod decided to kill the debate. And delete my rebuttle. Apparently it constituted flames. Here is what I posted:

A movement can only be alarmist if the basic problem they are sounding the alarms to is not a true problem.

...which is exactly what many of us feel to be the case. All these claim are based on the assumption that the temp will just keep going up in direct contradiction to the VERY old pattern contained within ice core data. If anything, historical data shows the temp should begin falling off any time now. Most likely, the realization that the current 'warming' period might end soon is the reason for the recent switch to the now preferred (and extremely vague) term "global climate change".

WRONG. The ice cores establish a very clear correlation between the rise in carbon dioxide and the rise in temperatures. Neither of them rose at the rate they do now. Even Wiki agrees that you should know this. Why would the past be any different from today? Only the fact that human civilization exists now and not then. Of course, that is why the warming is at the rate it is at right now.

Further, did I ever use the word "global climate change?" NO. I used the words "Global warming." I do not mince words. Ever. Global warming is what is happening, and global warming is what I call it. So should you. There is nothing vague about those terms.

The reason for the switch is the fact that global warming could paradoxically cause an ice age in the northern hemisphere. The Atlantic gulf stream keeps Europe from freezing over, and if it were disrupted by fresh water coming in from the melting ice caps, it would cause a local ice age. However, that is only a local effect, and the global average temperature would still be higher than before. The term "global climate change" is actually supposed to be less confusing for the average person who only cares about local conditions. However, when talking about conditions world wide, Global Warming is more appropriate.

And since we also understand the mechanisms by which warming can happen,

That's just it, we don't know for sure. The models are based on prior assumptions and guesswork that leave out any inconvenient alternative influences on the temperate such as sunspots, cloud formations, and who knows what else? Good science never assumes it has all the answers, always leaves the open possibility that their are other factors at work or that the accuracy of the model looks right for the wrong reasons.

Good science also doesn't ignore or misrepresent evidence (see above).

You do know I was referring to the greenhouse effect, right? The science on that one is quite well established. And we can look at Venus (a planet with 100% cloud cover) as proof of concept on a planet wide scale. Sounds like the mechanism works.

Now, the models leave some variables open to interpretation, but they are just that-- variables. Mankind is still the main cause of warming. Like I told [name deleted], assuming that natural causes of global warming are mutually exclusive with man made causes is a black and white fallacy-- there probably is some impact from natural causes, but that doesn't disprove the man made one's.

But lets think critically about these variables. Cloud cover, for example, is highly debatable. Its just not that easy to calculate the rate of cloud formation, whereas CO2 is relatively easy. Solar variation theory has its own problems, but I'll cover that in more detail in a second. Its main one, however, is that solar brightness is cyclical, every eleven years, and the data does not support a major eleven yer variation on climate. Something else is responsible for the major part of the warming that isn't the sun.

a clear correlation to carbon dioxide levels and warmth?

Yes... CO2 levels tend to rise AFTER temperature does, not before, which makes the argument that it is the cause rather suspicious at best.

No, this is highly suspicious at best. Do you have a source I can tear int-- I mean, look at?

Sunspot activity has a far closer correlation to temperature variations. Is it really a surprise that global temps might be most heavily influenced by the GIGANTIC NUCLEAR FURNACE that ultimately is the source of all energy we use?

Perhaps you should look at the actual data before making vacuous claims:

Solar Irradiance Estimated From Sunspot Numbers

Although the correspondance with sunspot numbers is good, the relationship between sunspot numbers and solar irradiance is not straightforward. Several methods exist to calculate solar irradiance from sunspot numbers. One of the most recent is that of Solanki & Fligge (1999). When estimated irradiance is used instead of straight sunspot numbers, the correspondance with global temperatures, but it still cannot explain the increase in temperatures over the past 30 years.

Sunspot data are provided by NOAA. Surface temperature data are provided by CRU. The formula used to convert sunspot data to estimated solar irradiance was Equation 1 in Solanki & Fligge (Geophys Res Lett 1999;26:2465).

(Emphasis added).

Hmmm, it looks like the mighty sun isn't to blame after all. It can have an effect, and has had one in the past, for sure. But the data says that it isn't the main cause.

Why do you care so much about the cause anyway? I said it before, natural disasters happen all the time, but that does NOT absolve us from responsibility to act to prevent harm.

Keep in mind that CO2 levels determine crop growth, so deliberately cutting them back will result in increased food scarcity. I'm sure the world's starving people will be glad to shrivel up and die in slightly cooler deserts though, thanks.

Now you are being deliberately obtuse. Do you really think our ancestors were starving because they didn't have a post-industrial CO2 surplus in the atmosphere to help their crops grow? No? I didn't think so. Because the real limiting factor on crops is minerals and nutrients. Anyone who has worked with plants seriously knows this.

Hey, lets use your own logic and assume this is true. Increasing the amount of CO2 will also increase the number of weeds grown. Thanks for that.

You want to use starving Africans as your poster child? Two can play at that game: I'm sure the starving Africans will love to add desertification and drought to their list of problems. Huh... crops don't do so well in those conditions, do they?

Besides, CO2 is a pathetically small percentage of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, so even a huge increase as calculated as a percentage of the previous CO2 levels is almost laughably insignificant. If you want to make a real dent you'll have to cut down on water vapor (which also may act to cool the earth due to reflectivity of clouds) and methane

How many times do I have to say that its a matter of equilibrium before it'll sink in that this is a Strawman fallacy? If you don't understand the other side of the issue, why debate it at all?

(which means cutting back on cows, the chief producer... again, I'm sure the starving people will be grateful.)

Uh, you know that beef is rich people food, right? The starving Africans don't have McDonalds every day like some Americans do. Its a luxury, and we can always do without luxuries. I know that's hard for some people to accept, but then, we are spoiled rich people. (as opposed to the starving Africans)

Lets suppose that mankind was not the cause of global warming, but it was still happening anyway at an accelerated rate.

In which case, what the hell do you propose we do about it... build a big sunshade like Mr. Burns did in the Simpsons? Planetary and Solar processes are just a bit outside of our ability to tinker with.

Doesn't mean we don't have an obligation to try. [name deleted] brought up the plan to put thermal blankets over glaciers: believe it or not, its actually being tried, and its working. Planetary engineering seems outrageous, but only because its an engineering hurdle that people can't seem to grasp might not be within our ability. Hell, even the sunshade idea has been seriously proposed as a measure we might take. No, really. Saying a priori that it cannot be done is defeatist: you would be surprised what humanity can do when it sets its mind to it.

We are going to run out of fossil fuels sooner or later

technically yes, but that doesn't mean we have to stop using oil. There's a guy in Missouri with a plant that produces usable fuel oils from trash (mostly assorted bits of bioscrap from a nearby Butterball Turkey processing plant) currently it takes more power to operate than it creates, but it definately shows promise.

Oh, and coal can be processed into a liquid fuel as well, in the meantime.

Quite true. I never said that we should give up on oil, and I even said it myself that the resource will only become ungodly expensive rather than vanish completely. Hell, that guy making his own biofuels should be lauded for his efforts. We need more people like that.

where do you think the carbon dioxide trapped within that fuel goes?

It is absorbed by green plants in the process of photosynthesis, creating both the Oxygen and biomatter that fuel the rest of the biosphere.

If it were soaking up everything we put into the air as some people have gotten into their heads, then the amount of biomass on the earth would be measurably increasing. Its not. Also, you are again obsessed with the cause of warming, rather than the effect. The evidence still says that the earth is warming. Deal with it.

ALTERNATIVE FUEL SOURCES.

Sure, as soon as a viable one is found, I'm all for it. In the meantime, this is a non-answer.

Didn't you mention a guy making his own biofuels? What you fail to realize is that it is an answer, its just that no one is taking it seriously enough. You saying its not doesn't make it true.

If we must do the UNECONOMIC thing and invest in wind and solar power (...), so be it.

[[name deleted], the insults. I mean seriously.]

EDIT: It was a direct response, intentionally phrased in parallel form, to a similar line FO dropped on [name deleted] in the post I've been quoting from. I set it apart as a stand-alone paragraph to emphasize this; "good for the gander" and all that. "2 wrongs" though... fair enough, my bad.

Hey, I have a thick skin. Its no problem.

Some of us are really struggling economically right now, and for you to suggest we should all join your bandwagon even if it makes things even worse is about as helpful as the astonishingly wasteful bailout, stimulus, and omnibus bills. All this idealism in the name of potentially bettering humanity is blind to the harm it actually causes a whole lot of humans right now.

Oh, boo-hoo. Idealism doesn't mean what you think it means.

You are like a guy in a burning house: he can hear the fire alarms blaring, he can smell a hint of smoke--- but he has taxes to do, bills to pay, money to make! So he denies his own senses and stays in the building even though it is burning down around him.

Let me use another analogy. A good student knows that you can only put off your assignments for only so long. If you keep saying "I'll do it tomorrow," tomorrow will come and pass, and eventually you will forget to do it at all.Well, as the guy who is screwed by all this inaction, you bet I'm going to tell you to do something, because no one can solve this problem on their own!

This is a fact of life, [name deleted]. Face it, you are trying to make life fair by saying that the problem doesn't exist without any rational reason to think so. Life. Isn't. FAIR. Stop arguing from your feelings, and try using your logic for once.

People don't like people that screw them.

[This doesn't seem like a good time for Team America references.]

EDIT: It was meant in jest, hence the smiley and brief explanation... I was making an honest attempt to end on a lighter note, in poor taste though it may have been.

Again with the assumption I can't take a good ribbing...

Anyway, I'm sorry to say it, but its true. People DON'T like people who screw up their future. And, really, that is what you are advocating, from my perspective. You want to act like the only things that matter are the short term gains, but the long term problems will bite you in the ass if you ignore them. Or rather, bite ME in the ass.

Names of course have been deleted, word in red are the mod that stopped the debate.

Can anyone give me some help here? Just tell me any mistakes I made, how I might have done better. And really, is that so bad, flame wise? I know its fine for SDN (I don't use the word fuck even once, and I never came out and insulted him except, ironically, where it was actually relevant to the argument), but then, a lot of shit goes by here that would never fly elsewhere. Is that really so bad, by the standards of most places people here have experience with? I'm thinking the mod was full of shit.

[Samuel]

Mankind is still the main cause of warming. Like I told [name deleted], assuming that natural causes of global warming are mutually exclusive with man made causes is a black and white fallacy-- there probably is some impact from natural causes, but that doesn't disprove the man made one's.

I believe the exact situation was that half the CO2 was man-made, with the other half being natural sources. Of course the problem is that the world has the capacity to absorb slightly more than half of the CO2. It is an equilibrium problem.

How many times do I have to say that its a matter of equilibrium before it'll sink in that this is a Strawman fallacy? If you don't understand the other side of the issue, why debate it at all?

I think you named the wrong fallacy. Here he is claiming that CO2 is not a large portion of greenhouse gases. This isn't a logical fallacy, but a factual issue. Here:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissi ... alghg.html

Of course, the other gases are alot more influencing, but CO2 makes up for this in part by bulk and its other effects.

I can't tell you how bad it was flame wise- I have been banned from 2 blogs so I am not a good source. It doesn't seem to have much rancor... you see, this is why I hang out here.