Global Warming Question

[Oberon]

This is the dumbest comment on this thread. Seriously??? This is your argument??? No peer-reviewed papers that show otherwise??

I gave two books by academic presses, MIT and Harvard University Press. Feel free to check them out.

You do realise that it is pretty dense of your to try and quote-mine an article I posted?

Why? If your sources support my view, it seems best to use those.

When you make an argument as daft as this, in complete defiance of the current research on climate change, you are broadcasting your ignorance of the subject. Do you actually have any scientific evidence for the position you hold or is all arrogance and false analogy?

Evidence that we don't understand the climate you already kindly provided. I will provide more if that is needed, but as you did my work for me it seems unnecessary. As for the effects of acting without knowing, how does one need proof to show that problems with that? History is littered with examples of acting first before knowing, and DDT is a great example of this.

The effects of global warming policies on global economics alone is extreme. Are you familar with Bjorn Lomborg?

 

[Alceste]

Oh, for the love of god. Are you going to give us a tour of your entire roster of professional global warming deniers?

Bjorn Lomborg is a statistician. What would he know about climate science?

 

[themadhair]

I gave two books by academic presses, MIT and Harvard University Press. Feel free to check them out.

Let me see now. You cite two books from 1993 and 1995 respectively and apparently have a bee in you bonnet about citing a wiki article that culled information from studies mostly dating to after 2000, and eight of those studies dated to 2009. Free to enter this millennium mate.

Just to clarify how far off the wall you are on this, the two studies primarily used by wikipedia to evidence carcinogenicity (which you took exception to methodologically) are from 2005 (Lancet) and 2009 (Environmental Health Perspectives). Any yet you have the sheer audacity to proclaim adherence to solely academic sources??? While holding to research sources that are a decade out of date?? You must realise just how ridiculous you look right about now.

Why? If your sources support my view, it seems best to use those.

If you quote-mine stuff it can be used to support almost anything. When you actually go so far as to blatantly quote mine material present in opposition to your crap then it is borderline pathetic. To paraphrase the very last line of that Science article:
“But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for Oberon to listen.”

I had a little trawl back through the thread and it appears you very fond of regurgitating crap on this issue:

Personally, I think we just don't know enough. Consistent temperature readings only go back a century, and in most places on earth not even that far. The earth warmed slightly during the seventies, despite an increase in CO2. CO2 also isn't a very powerful greenhouse gas, in that thermodynamically it doesn't have the anywhere near the effect of, say, water vapor. We are fairly sure that the earth goes through warming and cooling periods. Given how small our data sample of temperatures is, combined with the urban heat island effect, it is tough to say that we have the facts to posit that humans are contributing to a current warming trend.

Urban heat island effect debunked -> YouTube - Climate Denial Crock of the Week - The "Urban Heat Island" Crock
And for someone who claims to keep up with the relevant publications to insinuate insufficient evidence for anthropogenic climate change is simply mind boggling (unless you are liar of course). It reminds me of this paper:

Abstract Eminent climate scientists have come to consensus that human influences are significant contributors to modern global climate change. This study examines coverage of anthropogenic climate change in United States (U.S.) network television news – ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News – and focuses on the application of the journalistic norm of ‘balance’ in coverage from 1995 through 2004. This study also examines CNN WorldView, CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports and CNN NewsNight as illustrations of cable news coverage. Through quantitative content analysis, results show that 70% of U.S. television news segments have provided ‘balanced’ coverage regarding anthropogenic contributions to climate change vis-à-vis natural radiative forcing, and there has been a significant difference between this television coverage and scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change from 1996 through 2004. Thus, by way of the institutionalized journalistic norm of balanced reporting, United States television news coverage has perpetrated an informational bias by significantly diverging from the consensus view in climate science that humans contribute to climate change. Troubles in translating this consensus in climate science have led to the appearance of amplified uncertainty and debate, also then permeating public and policy discourse.

We know that our temperature data only goes back a century or so (and in many places on earth not even that far).

Didn’t congress ask the NAS to weigh on this? And didn’t they release a report on surface temperature reconstructions going back two millennia? I though you said you kept up with these publications? You weren’t telling porkies were you?

Maybe you should have done the research first, instead of running to wikipedia to support opinions you already had. Then you wouldn't be put in the awkward position of having only wikipedia to defend your claims, while I have actual academic sources.

Maybe you should have gone to wikipedia first instead of pretending to have done some research. Then you wouldn’t have been put in the awkward position of only having to cling to research a decade old in order to defend your claims. For someone who has a low opinion of wiki I think it is had pretty much hammered you on this issue.

THE WORLD WAS WARMER CENTURIES AGO!!!!

If you had really been keeping up with the publications, and had read that NAS publication I mentioned above, you would know this claim is false. Are you sure you weren’t telling porkies when you said you kept up with this stuff?

It is not that I am picking on you Oberon. It is that you are saying things that fly in the face of current scientific research, and you are stupidly insisting on trying to argue on a topic that you seem to know next-to-nothing about.

 

[Alceste]

It is not that I am picking on you Oberon. It is that you are saying things that fly in the face of current scientific research, and you are stupidly insisting on trying to argue on a topic that you seem to know next-to-nothing about.

I'm not picking on you either - I think we're all allowed one or two things that send us over the moon with irritation from word one. Mine is a lack of integrity. The whole PR industry - where Oberon goes to find other opinions to reinforce his opinions - is stinking to high heaven with dishonesty. Repeating free market think tank talking points (not to mention imitating free market think tank arrogance and condescension, and duplicating free market think tank logic fallacies) is the intellectual equivalent of nails on a chalkboard to me.

 

[themadhair]

I'm not picking on you either - I think we're all allowed one or two things that send us over the moon with irritation from word one. Mine is a lack of integrity. The whole PR industry - where Oberon goes to find other opinions to reinforce his opinions - is stinking to high heaven with dishonesty. Repeating free market think tank talking points (not to mention imitating free market think tank arrogance and condescension, and duplicating free market think tank logic fallacies) is the intellectual equivalent of nails on a chalkboard to me.

In my case it was the arrogant dismissal of what was a well written well sourced wiki article without even bothering to pretend look at it. Gets my goat when people do that.

 

[Oberon]

Let me see now. You cite two books from 1993 and 1995 respectively and apparently have a bee in you bonnet about citing a wiki article that culled information from studies mostly dating to after 2000, and eight of those studies dated to 2009. Free to enter this millennium mate.

This is why one doesn't use wiki.

Let's look at these sources for the moment. The Lancet article cited states:

"Although DDT is generally not toxic to human beings and was banned mainly for ecological reasons, subsequent research has shown that exposure to DDT at amounts that would be needed in malaria control might cause preterm birth and early weaning, abrogating the benefit of reducing infant mortality from malaria. Historically, DDT has had mixed success in Africa; only the countries that are able to find and devote substantial resources towards malaria control have made major advances. DDT might be useful in controlling malaria, but the evidence of its adverse effects on human health needs appropriate research on whether it achieves a favourable balance of risk versus benefit."

The authors then review all of this, yet a reply within the same journal and issue states this:​

Bis(4-chlorophenyl)-1,1,1-trichloroethane (DDT) has been shown, over the past 60 years, to be one of the few affordable and effective tools against malarial vector mosquitoes, which account for more than 300 million cases of disease and more than 1 million
deaths every year. However, the Review by Walter Rogan and Aimin Chen
(Aug 27, p 763),1 which aims to balance the risks and benefits of DDT, consists
mainly of hypothetical concerns while the reality of human suffering gets
short shrift. Rogan and Chen discuss several possible toxic endpoints, including those
involving neurobehaviour, cancer, and reproductive health. Yet they point to
no evidence that DDT, used as a malaria preventive, causes actual harm to
human beings. For each category of illness or dysfunction offered as support
for their precautionary approach, there is either no or at best weak data to support
a connection to DDT. Rogan and Chen concede that even the few studies
that seem to point to a possible adverse effect—shortened gestation and
decreased time until weaning—havenot been associated with actual adverse
health outcomes.They call for data from trials. But what sort of trials would suit them when 5000 die every day, and the weapon to prevent these needless deaths has been
known to be effective since the 1940s? Rogan and Chen’s only evidence of
harm comes from animal experiments, yet they state that “Various reproductive
and hormonal endpoints have been examined . . . and although associations
have been recorded, causal links have not been confirmed”, and “In people,
DDT use is generally safe”. Should our concerns not be, mainly,
with people? Especially when the people being discussed are dying on
such a scale from a preventable disease? If this were a laboratory experiment,
some debate on the issue might be tolerated. But when on one side of the
scales are studies that are “not so flawed that the findings can be dismissed”,
while on the other side are millions of sick and dead African children,
this academic discussion is unacceptable"

In my case it was the arrogant dismissal of what was a well written well sourced wiki article without even bothering to pretend look at it. Gets my goat when people do that.

Did you read the sources? Obviously not. I find the reply in Lancet to the cited article very apt.

You clearly know nothing about DDT. However, you do know quite a bit about Climate Research, so I will respond more in depth to your replies tomorrow when I have the time to give you the detail you deserve.

 

[Oberon]

Urban heat island effect debunked ->

YouTube - Climate Denial Crock of the Week - The "Urban Heat Island" Crock

And for someone who claims to keep up with the relevant publications to insinuate insufficient evidence for anthropogenic climate change is simply mind boggling (unless you are liar of course).

Lets start with this. First, not only am I not denying anthropogenic climate change, I am saying we don't know enough yet to institute drastic policy changes which may or may not help and will certainly have effects of their own. Hence the pointing to DDT as an example where the so-called precautionary principle failed simply because the advocates did not take into account that their actions had consequences of their own.

But lets start with the UHI, and not point to a video on Youtube.

My favorite RECENT article on the subject comes from the Journal of Applied Meteorology & Climatology; Apr2008, Vol. 47 Issue 4, p1038-1060

An Urban Parameterization for a Global Climate Model. Part I: Formulation and Evaluation for Two Cities (part 2 is concerned with sensitivity to input parameters)

Feel free to check out the article in its entirety, I will paste only the abstract here:

ABSTRACT
Urbanization, the expansion of built-up areas, is an important yet less-studied aspect of land use/land cover change in climate science. To date, most global climate models used to evaluate effects of land use/land cover change on climate do not include an urban parameterization. Here, the authors describe the formulation and evaluation of a parameterization of urban areas that is incorporated into the Community Land Model, the land surface component of the Community Climate System Model. The model is designed to be simple enough to be compatible with structural and computational constraints of a land surface model coupled to a global climate model yet complex enough to explore physically based processes known to be important in determining urban climatology. The city representation is based upon the “urban canyon” concept, which consists of roofs, sunlit and shaded walls, and canyon floor. The canyon floor is divided into pervious (e.g., residential lawns, parks) and impervious (e.g., roads, parking lots, sidewalks) fractions. Trapping of longwave radiation by canyon surfaces and solar radiation absorption and reflection is determined by accounting for multiple reflections. Separate energy balances and surface temperatures are determined for each canyon facet. A one-dimensional heat conduction equation is solved numerically for a 10-layer column to determine conduction fluxes into and out of canyon surfaces. Model performance is evaluated against measured fluxes and temperatures from two urban sites. Results indicate the model does a reasonable job of simulating the energy balance of cities.


The important point of this and the follow-up article is again the difficulty of incorporating UHI effect into climate models. It is just one aspect of a vastly complex system. Lest I be accused again of using out of data sources, this was published in 2008, and is an attempt to better take into account in global climate models the UHI effect.

The video you posted is a straw-man argument (at least as far as my argument is concerned). I never claimed that NASA or the IPCC did not take into account the UHI. I simply claimed that it was one of MANY complex variables in climatology that require further research.

Now, several studies have attempted to show that UHI, when taken into account, does not account for warming in the regions studied (e.g. Q. Li1, H. Zhang, X. Liu, and J. Huang “Urban heat island effect on annual mean temperature during the last 50 years in China” Theoretical and Applied Climatolology 79, 165–174 (2004))

 

[Oberon]

But one problem is that there are various models used in order to try to incorporate and estimate UHI effects, and “a need to validate further the different urban models available” (“Urban surface modeling and the meso-scale impact of cities” Theoretical and Applied Climatolology 84, 35–45 (2006)). We are attempting to incorporate UHI effect into climate models, when there isn’t even an agreement on how to assess or accurately model this effect. Rather like putting the cart before the horse.

For example, from McKendry, Ian G. “Applied climatology” Progress in Physical Geography 27,4 (2003) p. 598

UHIs continue to present a problem for the detection of changes in the global surface temperature record (the so-called ‘greenhouse effect&#8217. Typically the urban bias is removed from climate records on the basis of relatively simple regression models that utilize population size as an indicator of the urban excess (see Brazel et al., 2000). Several studies have recently exploited long historic records to illustrate that such methods may not be sufficient to adequately correct for the ‘urban bias’. Changnon (1999) utilizes a rare high-quality 64-year deep-soil temperature record beginning in 1889 from rural Illinois to explore natural shifts in temperatures in the absence of urban or instrument bias. The increase in temperature over the period was 0.4°C, this is 0.2°C less than from two high-quality surface temperature stations nearby that are supposedly without urban influence or instrument/site effects. Collectively the results suggest that current recommended population-based adjustments for the UHI in the USA may be underestimating the urban effect. The wisdom of population-based adjustments is also questioned by Böhm (1998). In Vienna, population has remained stagnant from 1951 to 1995 although energy consumption has increased 2.5-fold, rural land use has changed, and living floor space has increased markedly. Consequently, despite zero-population growth the UHI has continued to increase in intensity in Vienna over the period. Furthermore, this example illustrates that the UHI is spatially complex with different parts of the city showing different trends over time. Clearly, the two-station approach (typically airport versus downtown) to define the UHI, together with the use of population-based correction factors is highly questionable. Similar conclusions can be drawn from analysis of the long temperature record available from central Prague in the Czech republic (Brázdil and Budiková, 1999). As an alternative to population-based corrections, Gallo and Owen (1999) suggest that satellite-based adjustments (AVHRR) for the UHI bias may be possible by consideration of the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) and surface radiant temperature. Other studies examining the historical evolution of the UHI include those by Magee et al. (1999) for Fairbanks, Alaska, Tereshchenko and Filonov (2001) for Guadalajara, Mexico and Montavéz et al. (2000) for Granada, Spain. Recognition of the importance of such long-term measurements in the urban context has resulted in an important initiative in the USA associated with the Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) network. The cities of Baltimore and Phoenix have established long-term urban monitoring sites (Brazel et al., 2000) providing a comprehensive climatological background at these two sites.

Now, all of this research is dedicated to just ONE of the many factors going into an overall model of climate change. And looking at recent research reveals that not only are various models applied, and not only is there a lack of agreement upon which models to use, but it is quite possible that such models are not adequate.

This is not to say that climate change is not occurring and it is merely the UHI being recorded, or that anthropogenic climate change is not occurring. It is merely to point out what I have said from the beginning:

We are dealing with a vastly complex system not fully understood at all. Yet we want to jump to actions which have wide ranging consequences without this understanding. I will, in following posts, continue to respond to the comments made by themadhair.

This post only deals with the quotation from themadhair above.

 

[themadhair]

This is why one doesn't use wiki.

I find this quite funny given your latest reply which completely misrepresents that wiki article. Is this deliberate on your part or can you simply not help yourself?

Let me spell it out for you. The wiki sections is entitled: Effects on human health. The subsection was entitled Carcinogenicity. The wiki article then sited two studies as evidence for DDT’s carcinogenicity in humans. For some reason, that is unfathomable to me, you choose to interpreted this section beyond what it actually said.

Since you seem unwilling to accurately review the section I post here for reference, and highlight some relevant bits:

DDT is suspected to cause cancer. The NTP classifies it as "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen", and the EPA classifies DDT, DDE, and DDD as a class B2 "probable" human carcinogens. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies it is as a "possible" human carcinogen. These evaluations are based mainly on the results for animal studies.[1]

There is good epidemiological evidence (i.e. studies in humans) that DDT causes cancer of the:
* Liver[21][32]
* Pancreas[21][32]
* Breast[32] (see below)

There is mixed evidence that it contributes cancer of the:
* Blood (i.e. Leukemia)[32]
* Testis[21][32][68]
* Lymphatic system (i.e. non-Hodgkin Lymphoma)[32][69]

In contrast, epidemiological studies suggest that DDT/DDE does not cause cancers of the:
* plasma, (i.e. multiple myeloma)[21]
* prostate[21]
* endometrium[32][21]
* rectum[32][21]
* lung[32]
* bladder[32]
* stomach[32]

The Lancet study is reference [21] in the above. Given what the study says, and given your comment above that “This is why one doesn't use wiki”, can you explain to me how the above section misrepresented the findings of that study?

It didn’t misrepresent it in any way, shape or form. But of course, since you never bothered your arse to even look at the wiki article, you missed that rather important point. And because you never bothered to look at the wiki article, due to what looks like sheer unadulterated arrogance on your part, you ended up launching a criticism that was in no way relevant to what the article actually said. What is the ******* point of your posting completely irrelevant information when two ******* minutes reading the article would have set you straight and saved you the trouble??

For all your revilement of wiki it really has hammered you on this issue.

Did you read the sources?

I did actually. But you see I also read the article itself so I could see that it was correct and accurate reflection of what the study showed.

I find the reply in Lancet to the cited article very apt.

You may well do. It has absolutely no bearing on what the wiki article contained.

However, you do know quite a bit about Climate Research, so I will respond more in depth to your replies tomorrow when I have the time to give you the detail you deserve.

Why do I suspect that “give you the detail you deserve” is a euphemism for “I’m out of my depth and I need to find some websites that agree with me”?

 

[Oberon]

I find this quite funny given your latest reply which completely misrepresents that wiki article. Is this deliberate on your part or can you simply not help yourself?

Why would I use wiki rather than the articles itself? I am aware of the various articles recently on DDT and how it may be harmful and in what way, and as I posted from the same journal "But what sort of trials would suit them when 5000 die every day, and the weapon to prevent these needless deaths has been known to be effective since the 1940s?"

The idea that banning DDT was at all defensible because of possible carcinogenic factors when millions have died as a result of the ban is completely ridiculous. The citing of the Lancet article is exactly the sort of stupidity I can bypass by reading the journals themselves rather than wikipedia.

 

[themadhair]

First, not only am I not denying anthropogenic climate change,

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

I am saying we don't know enough yet to institute drastic policy changes which may or may not help and will certainly have effects of their own.

If anthropogenic climate change is indeed the case, and given that we have technologies that can drastically reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, I have to shake my head at a comment like this one.

Hence the pointing to DDT as an example where the so-called precautionary principle failed simply because the advocates did not take into account that their actions had consequences of their own.

You keep beating that false analogy. Not as if you have the science on your side is it?

My favorite RECENT article on the subject comes from the Journal of Applied Meteorology & Climatology; Apr2008, Vol. 47 Issue 4, p1038-1060

…
The important point of this and the follow-up article is again the difficulty of incorporating UHI effect into climate models. It is just one aspect of a vastly complex system. Lest I be accused again of using out of data sources, this was published in 2008, and is an attempt to better take into account in global climate models the UHI effect.

The video you posted is a straw-man argument (at least as far as my argument is concerned). I never claimed that NASA or the IPCC did not take into account the UHI. I simply claimed that it was one of MANY complex variables in climatology that require further research.

So your argument is essentially “climate is complex”. Whoop – de – ******* – do. I think both we and the climatologists knew that. What you are trying to do is ignore the actual evidence for anthropogenic climate change by screaming ‘it’s too complex’.

And ffs the Li et al paper you cited as evidence for the effect of UHI even disagrees with you:

The average UHI effect for the entire country, during the last 50 years is less than 0.06°C, which agrees well with the IPCC (2001). This suggests that we cannot conclude that urbanization during the last 50 years has had much obvious effect on the observed warming in China.

The problem with UHI is that when you compare urban areas to non-urban areas you don’t find the difference predicted by UHI. The same evidence for anthropogenic climate change is found in the natural world where UHI doesn’t even exist. This paper from Nature:

Significant changes in physical and biological systems are occurring on all continents and in most oceans, with a concentration of available data in Europe and North America. Most of these changes are in the direction expected with warming temperature. Here we show that these changes in natural systems since at least 1970 are occurring in regions of observed temperature increases, and that these temperature increases at continental scales cannot be explained by natural climate variations alone. Given the conclusions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely to be due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, and furthermore that it is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent except Antarctica, we conclude that anthropogenic climate change is having a significant impact on physical and biological systems globally and in some continents.

Incidentally, the use of biological systems as a means for detecting global trends totally and completely obliterates the UHI difficulties you are trying to use to discredit temperature collection.

We are dealing with a vastly complex system not fully understood at all.

But what you are doing is burying your head in the sand in the face of what we DO understand. Good luck with that. And I seem to remember getting lambasted by you for having the cheek to challenge what is a near unanimous consensus in the relevant scholarship. Hypocrite much?

 

[themadhair]

Why would I use wiki rather than the articles itself?

Someone looks determined to perpetually miss the point.

The idea that banning DDT was at all defensible because of possible carcinogenic factors when millions have died as a result of the ban is completely ridiculous. The citing of the Lancet article is exactly the sort of stupidity I can bypass by reading the journals themselves rather than wikipedia.

Why are you still misrepresenting the wiki article? Are you really that moronically stubborn that you cannot retract what has been shown to be a false and inaccurate criticism of that wiki article? Or will continue not to actually read it and continue arguing against an opinion that article never put forth?

 

[Oberon]

And ffs the Li et al paper you cited as evidence for the effect of UHI even disagrees with you:

That is exactly what I said. In fact, I even said that it was one of several studies done showing that the UHI does not account for warming in a particular region.

THe "however" part was what was important.

 

[Oberon]

Why are you still misrepresenting the wiki article? Are you really that moronically stubborn that you cannot retract what has been shown to be a false and inaccurate criticism of that wiki article? Or will continue not to actually read it and continue arguing against an opinion that article never put forth?

I read it ages ago. None of it is new. It does not adequately represent the facts. The truth is that, despite the articles claim, DDT is a relatively harmless pesticide that was cheap and effective against pests carrying malaria. Banning it was unnecessary and resulted in millions of deaths.

The same kind of reasoning is used in climate policy. We do not possess enough knowledge about the climate, and yet we are confident that various extraordinarily expensive and often drastic policies will help.

 

[Oberon]

But what you are doing is burying your head in the sand in the face of what we DO understand. Good luck with that. And I seem to remember getting lambasted by you for having the cheek to challenge what is a near unanimous consensus in the relevant scholarship. Hypocrite much?

I am not challenging the consensus, as there are constantly articles put out on what we do not know. The artices I cited on the problems posed by UHI are as recent as last year, and are from peer-reviewed journals. Even your source agreed that there is a great deal we do not know.

My position is simply that we do not know enough to claim that we will fully understand the effects of the policies often looking to be implemented by various governments. Plenty of research indirectly supports this view, although the authors do not say it, because they are all about the factors we do not understand, and problems with past positions and models.

 

[Kurgan]

Hi Alcest

I was addressing the issue of global warming. The idea of cleaning up man's pollution is a whole different issue. I am for the clean environment movements, one of the best examples I know of is Pittsburgh, during and after WWII the air and polution was so thick you could cut it with a knife.
It is one of the cleanest cities in America today It cost the city the steel industry ( which I hated to see go by the wayside) but the results are better for everybody.

What I have a problem with is the way the envirionmental whacos are screaming do it now!!

We need nuclear energy that is the best and most economical way and it is safe. France gets
80 % of their power from nuclear. If we had that and we could have there would be no problem in America. Geothermal has not been developed because it is expensive to start up long, term it is very efficient . Solar and wind are also expensive to set up and that does not include the tremendous construction of the grid (tax payers are going to have to do that) Why wind and solar is being pushed so hard is because there is billions of dollars to be made on the backs of the taxpayers. General Electric has paid millions for lobbist in Washington they have paid tens of millions to get their people elected to congress. general electric is going to make the wind turbines and the blades. Nancy Palosi has bought thousands of acres of wind farm land and invested even more into energy companies. She bought hundreds of thousands in T Boone Pickens Stock. I think that is conflict of interest but it seems that only applies to Republicans.

The bottom line is we are not ready to develop wind power and solar power without tremendous expense. The carbon tax is going to raise all energy bills by 10 - 20 % that will cost me an extra 1500.00 a year for electric, I have no idea how much the price of natural gas is going to go up but you can bet it will. Energy price will cause the price of gasilione to go up and every other comodity that has to be stored processed and transported and that means every thing you buy will go up 15- 20 % do you think you can stand that much??? And we have to do all of this now, why? BECAUSE WE WANT TO BE FAIR TO THE REST OF THE WORLD!!!. NOBODY CAN PROVE ONE LITTLE BIT IF GLOBAL WARMING IS BEING CAUSED BY MAN. IT FLIES IN THE FACE OF COMMON SENSE TO SAY WE AREN'T CONTRIBUTING AND SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE. But why the confounded hurry? There is no reason! The only reasonable way to fix this energy problem is to open up all US to gas and oil development, start an immediate nuclear power plant construction and develop clean coal technology. Force the oil companies to build more refineries, and force the energy companies to build more infastructure with Government help. And if it is handled properly it will not cost you and I one damn red cent.

 

[Oberon]

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Yes, you gave me this link in response to "first, not only am I not denying anthropogenic climate change." Are you trying to say that the IPCC DOES deny anthropogenic climate change? Or did you simply not read my post?

 

[Oberon]

You keep beating that false analogy. Not as if you have the science on your side is it?

It isn't false, and the science IS on my side.

Let's take for granted for a moment that not only is climate change occuring, but humans have A LOT to do with it.

Now, the reason I have continually referred back to DDT is that it is an example of a bad solution that actually made things worse based on the "let's act now before its too late" reasoning.

The same thing is currently happening with climate policies.

Take Kyoto. Here is an INCREDIBLY expensive treaty, and what is the effect? Even if it was signed by all countries, it would hardly do anything to fix the problem. At best it would put back the increase in temperature by a few years. In return, trillions are spent.

THIS is why I keep harping back to DDT. Not because I don't think that climate change in particular or environmental issues in general are not real, valid, and serious concerns. Rather, because there is too much of "lets do something quick" and not enough of "what good will it do, and is this the best solution?"

 

[themadhair]

I read it ages ago. None of it is new. It does not adequately represent the facts.

Would this be why you seem completely unable to find any fault with the article?

The truth is that, despite the articles claim, DDT is a relatively harmless pesticide that was cheap and effective against pests carrying malaria. Banning it was unnecessary and resulted in millions of deaths.

And yet you still seem completely unable to find fault with the article. It is well written and sources material from recent relevant research. But, since you have a both a bee in your bonnet regarding wikipedia and the gravest case of arrogance and stubbornness I’ve seen in a long time, you won’t admit to be completely mistaken on this. Pathetic.

The same kind of reasoning is used in climate policy.

Why present an evidence based argument when you can batter an irrelevant false analogy?

It isn't false, and the science IS on my side.

That would be why you seem to rely on a false analogy rather than the science then.

Now, the reason I have continually referred back to DDT is that it is an example of a bad solution that actually made things worse based on the "let's act now before its too late" reasoning.

Which of the following technologies, which would greatly aid in reducing CO2 output if implemented on a wide scale, would make things worse?:
Wind power, solar power, developing more fuel efficient engines, tapping into geothermal energy, wave power, tidal power, etc. etc. ?

Take Kyoto. Here is an INCREDIBLY expensive treaty, and what is the effect? Even if it was signed by all countries, it would hardly do anything to fix the problem. At best it would put back the increase in temperature by a few years. In return, trillions are spent.

Every bit helps. Is it expensive? You betcha. But given that such treaties lead to research which in turn leads to better technology they are certainly steps in the right direction. As it stands, the IPCC reports reflect the current scientific understand and the consensus of researchers, and its mitigation report is pretty much where it is at.

THIS is why I keep harping back to DDT. Not because I don't think that climate change in particular or environmental issues in general are not real, valid, and serious concerns. Rather, because there is too much of "lets do something quick" and not enough of "what good will it do, and is this the best solution?"

Bollox. If you were really concerned about the economic argument then ending the dependence on middle eastern oil would have been your top concern? Because, as seems to be clear, your concern certainly isn’t the science.

 

[Oberon]

Would this be why you seem completely unable to find any fault with the article?

The article is wrong. It places too much emphasis on the possible harm, largely ignores the massive problems with the ban, and ignores a great deal of evidence as to the relative safety of the pesticide. I already quoted a response (which is missing in the wiki article) to the article in Lancet cited. The article cited, while better written than the wiki article, contains the same problems. Possible carcinogenic risks which MAY affect this or that are not to be weighed against millions of people dying now.

Which of the following technologies, which would greatly aid in reducing CO2 output if implemented on a wide scale, would make things worse?:
Wind power, solar power, developing more fuel efficient engines, tapping into geothermal energy, wave power, tidal power, etc. etc. ?

I notice you fail to list nuclear power. The best current course of action would be to invest a good deal of money in nuclear power, particularly in the US, where most of the facilites are age old.

Every bit helps.

What an idiotic statement, and patently false. If kyoto is signed, and all it does is put of the same affect for 5 years, this is NOT helping, particularly if it means spending trillions. The idea is not to throw money at a problem but to find solutions that work.

But given that such treaties lead to research which in turn leads to better technology they are certainly steps in the right direction.

Why not skip the spending trillions on a plan which won't do anything, and instead put milllions into R&D in the first place? This is exactly the kind of thinking I am addressing with the ddt analogy. "Every little bit helps" except that while all you have accomplished is to put off the same warming conditions for a few years, you have spent trillions which not only is taking money a way from people, economies, businesses, etc, it is also taking it away from research for better ideas.

Bollox. If you were really concerned about the economic argument then ending the dependence on middle eastern oil would have been your top concern? Because, as seems to be clear, your concern certainly isn’t the science.

My main concern? My main concern is whether there is any point to life at all. Limited to public policy, my central concern is massive amounts of people dying from diseases, genocide, and other problems. As far as depending on foreign oil, I would like to be drilling in alaska, but more importantly investing in nuclear energy (which would drastically reduce carbon emissions, but which is prevented by the same environmentalists crying for America to sign the kyoto treaty). As far as the climate is concerned, I would rather see more money put into research for the technologies you listed above, but most of all nuclear energy, rather than fitter it away on plans that we don't even expect to do anything.