|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
 Posted - 07/02/2001 : 13:00:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I can admit that some folks on the left are taking money from industry. That much is obvious. This does not make "The Leipzig Declaration" any easier to swallow considering that it appears to be signed by a bunch of self-proclaimed scientists. I have no problem with examining the findings of of studies financed from environmental groups. Of course that should be done. They should be real scientists, too.
I think we can agree on this. I don't put tons of stock in the Leipzig Declaration, either. But I do put stock in the Petition Project of the Oregon Institute of Sciece and Medicine (hereafter called the Oregon Petition). Over 17,000 signers, all with some technical background. 2,660 eminently qualified scientists from diverse fields relating to global warming. 5,107 scientists in other fields not directly related (biochemistry, biolgy, etc.). Why is this document of less importance than the environmentally-supported letter signed by fewer than 3,000 in total?
But separate from reviewing who supports which argument, we should be looking at the arguments themselves and how they are constructed.
My recommendation is to look at the General Circulation Models used by the U.S. National Assessment (USNA) for their study "The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change", and relied on by the National Academy of Science (in addition to the IPCC report) for their recent findings. The two GMC models used were developed by the Candian Climate Center and the Hadley Center (UK). They are fine, but they are extremely limited, as the developers openly admit, but which the policy makers obscure. The two models have proven unreliable in predicting past weather developments (by loading in a set of known factors and then seeing if the model's prediction matches the observed developments), yet they are used to predict weather patterns for 100 years down the road.
The IPCC models are similar.
Of course, we then have to add the fact that the variables themselves are not understood.
What we have is a prediction based on imprecise models with uncertain input. Run it 100 times, making the variables progressively more dire, find the worst possible output, and voila!, there's your conclusion and your scare.
Global warming may be true. Human factors may be the cause. I simply don't see it as anywhere near certain or even probable. I see it as needing better study.
In the meantime, if there are measures without terrible consequences we can take to be on the safe side, so be it. But let's not risk another disaster to avoid this uncertain one.
By the way: How many countries have ratified Kyoto? Please include all of those wonderful European countries that have been lambasting Bush for discarding it (though it was actually discarded in 1977 under the Clinton Administration).
My kids still love me. |
 |
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2001 : 15:13:14 [Permalink]
|
I have no idea why my previous answer posted twice.
Tokyodreamer pointed out an error for me. The Senate rejected Kyoto in 1997, not 1977.
Thanks.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2001 : 15:25:40 [Permalink]
|
And now I've learned how to delete! Tomorrow I'll try tying my shoelaces.
Thanks, Tokyo.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2001 : 16:03:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
By the way: How many countries have ratified Kyoto?
Just one....let's hear it for Romania!!!! Yayyyyy!!!!
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2001 : 18:35:08 [Permalink]
|
Has anyone here actually read the Oregon Petition?
IMHO, it's not up to par with most scientific literature. Even the opening letter is confusing, it states that carbon dioxide is a hydrocarbon when it's obviously not.
The document makes the claim that global warming isn't happening but if it was, it would be a good thing. This argument parallels that of Fred Singer in his polemic in ‘Science” in regard to Donald Kennedy's summary of the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Singer states that “economists suggest that a moderate warming trend would produce net benefits” including a higher GNP and higher wages! He brings up discrepancies between modes of measurement which are dealt with in the National Research Council (NRC) report (see press release, “New Evidence Helps Reconcile Global Warming Discrepancies; Confirms that Earths Surface Temperature is Rising” on the National Academy of Sciences webpage).
Personally, I couldn't care less if 2 million scientists signed a sloppy petition stating the above argument. The fact of the matter is that the NRC report was drawn up after a meticulous literature review and open discussion unlike the pass-it-along signing of the Oregon Petition.
MODELS ARE NOT REAL !!! Nuff said there.
The problem with the appeal to authority fallacy is - Which Authority?
I'll take data any day.
Regards,
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2001 : 18:45:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The problem with the appeal to authority fallacy is - Which Authority?
I'll take data any day.
Absolutely. That's the point Tokyo and I were trying to make. So throw out the letter from some time back signed by about 2000 scientists supporting global warming, and throw out the Oregon Petition.
quote:
MODELS ARE NOT REAL !!! Nuff said there
Absolutely, again, but not quite enough said.
Models are not real, but bad models can be dangerous. Check the GCM models used by the IPCC and the NAS. They're not real; they're bad; and the scientists themselves say that they indicate nothing conclusive about global warming. Only the politicians writing the reports say otherwise, and that's what the media trumpets.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2001 : 18:48:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the way: How many countries have ratified Kyoto?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just one....let's hear it for Romania!!!! Yayyyyy!!!!
That's right!! One!! Just one!! And yet they are all screaming at Bush for withdrawing support. The treaty/accord/agreement/piece-of-paper is over three years old, and yet only Romania has signed it. Doesn't that indicate what kind of political football it is, and science be damned?
(Minor correction to previous post: I said check the models used by the NAS; I should have said USNA).
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2001 : 19:12:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
IMHO, it's not up to par with most scientific literature.
Over 17,000 scientists disagree. Including a past predident of the National Academy of Sciences.
quote:
Even the opening letter is confusing, it states that carbon dioxide is a hydrocarbon when it's obviously not.
Hmm... This is the statement in question:
quote:
This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.
It seems to me that you're making a bit of a stretch (on purpose?) to make this statement say something it doesn't, in order to discredit it. Cheap tactic.
You really think 17,000 scientists would have signed that without pointing out your imagined error?
"My scientists can beat up your scientists!"
------------
Gambatte kudasai! |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2001 : 19:16:59 [Permalink]
|
If they think that more carbon dioxide is beneficial, I say let them find their own planet to experiment on!
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2001 : 19:23:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If they think that more carbon dioxide is beneficial, I say let them find their own planet to experiment on!
Ah, yes. I keep forgetting that the 'anti-environmentalists' have no stake and no rights here.
Let me turn that comment back on you. For those who believe that forcibly reducing CO2 emissions by drastic amounts in industrialized nations only and the US primarily, let them find their own economy to experiment on.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2001 : 20:16:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It seems to me that you're making a bit of a stretch (on purpose?) to make this statement say something it doesn't, in order to discredit it. Cheap tactic.
I'll admit that I made that statement from memory of the sentences. I must have linked them in my mind when in fact they are two.
Garrett, I have not mocked the political positions of anyone on this board. You don't even know where I stand politically. I agree, both Clinton and Bush have fumbled this issue. They both serve corporate masters.
The Kyoto agreement is not perfect, but at least it shows the nations of the world are serious about global warming. The problem with the new administration is actually the energy policy that urges more fossil fuel production and therefore use. This is in direct opposition to the findings of science that fossil fuel use leads to global temperature rise.
The US has about 5% of the world population and uses how much of the worlds energy? I can't remember the actual number so I won't make one up but as I recall it's quite disproportionate. The US needs to take a leadership role. The other nations are looking to the US for leadership on this issue and haven't received it from this administration or the last. In fact, the current administration has proposed an energy policy that says 'more use'. Other nations are concerned with this.
As for the motivations of the 17,000 scientists who signed a petition, I could only speculate - so I won't. In my experience as a scientist (BA in Chemistry, some graduate work, & 17 years), the opinions of scientists are as diverse as most other folks. One thing is for certain though. No one wants to feel that their work is resulting in something that will harm humanity. Different people deal with this in different ways.
Regards,
Greg.
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2001 : 20:18:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Let me turn that comment back on you. For those who believe that forcibly reducing CO2 emissions by drastic amounts in industrialized nations only and the US primarily, let them find their own economy to experiment on.
In the US primarily because the US releases(by far) the most CO2. In that context, of course the US should be the country most effected.
CO2 Emissions from fuel combustion
More CO2 Emission charts
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2001 : 20:20:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The Kyoto agreement is not perfect, but at least it shows the nations of the world are serious about global warming.
How can you say this when no country has signed it (except Romania, of course)?
------------
Gambatte kudasai! |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2001 : 21:36:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Garrett, I have not mocked the political positions of anyone on this board. You don't even know where I stand politically.
True and true. If it seems I was mocking you or anyone else, I apologize because it was not my intent. I get involved in debates and enjoy them, even when I lose. I think Slater said something on another post about getting adrenaline up similar to sporting events.
Political leanings really don't bear on the issues of this debate, so I haven't sought to discern anyone's. But some have made it clear, and one or two of those have made it an issue. Not a big deal; adds flavor to the proceedings.
And if it matters, I've followed your posts on other threads and find them quite thoughtful and educational. In this particular thread, you have me outclassed regarding personal qualifications because I am not a scientist.
quote:
Has anyone here actually read the Oregon Petition?
Yes. I have a hard copy, too. But since I'm only an educated layman and not a scientist, I'll admit it's possible I've let technical issues slide past me.
quote:
The problem with the new administration is actually the energy policy that urges more fossil fuel production and therefore use. This is in direct opposition to the findings of science that fossil fuel use leads to global temperature rise.
Isn't that the question here? I'm not really into defending Bush (though I'm obviously more of a supporter than most on this board), but can't the same argument be used against Gray Davis in California? Freezing energy prices does not encourage conservation.
quote:
In my experience as a scientist (BA in Chemistry, some graduate work, & 17 years), the opinions of scientists are as diverse as most other folks. One thing is for certain though. No one wants to feel that their work is resulting in something that will harm humanity
Absolutely correct. This applies to those who support and those who oppose the global warming theory and those who oppose/support the theory of humans as the cause. And since the positions are diverse, the science is uncertain. As I've said in other threads, I'm not saying global warming is not occurring; I'm saying we don't know enough to implement the rather drastic measures of Kyoto.
quote:
The US has about 5% of the world population and uses how much of the worlds energy? I can't remember the actual number so I won't make one up but as I recall it's quite disproportionate. The US needs to take a leadership role. The other nations are looking to the US for leadership on this issue and haven't received it from this administration or the last.
I think it's 25% of the energy which is very disproportionate if population density is the only factor. What about manufacturing percentages? (I don't know what they are)
More to the selfish point: what about quality of life? Are we suggesting that we must use only the amount of energy that is proportionate to our population? If that is the case, then we must accept a greatly reduced standard of living--loss of products, loss of mobility, loss of services, loss of scientific research, loss of lots of things. That 25% energy use does not benefit the U.S. alone; the things it creates and the ideas it allows to be researched lead to advancements for everyone. Yes, yes, it's not totally equal in that much of the third world gets a filtered version--if anything--of what we produce, and yes there is bad with the good, but those who imply that we are not entitled to 25% of the world's energy simply because we have only 5% of the population are being simplistic.
quote:
In the US primarily because the US releases(by far) the most CO2. In that context, of course the US should be the country most effected.
And if the U.S. is also a CO2 sink? Does that exempt us? Clinton argued that the fact that we're a sink means we've already met have the Kyoto goals.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Kyoto agreement is not perfect, but at least it shows the nations of the world are serious about global warming.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How can you say this when no country has signed it (except Romania, of course)?
I'm with Tokyo. I don't think most countries are serious about it in a practical sense. I think they're cashing in politically with a bunch of grandstanding, and I think Europe in particular is privately quite relieved that Bush is killing it; now they get to act morally outraged but will never have to do the politically hard stuff at home to meet the emissions reductions. Frankly, if they're serious about it, why wait for a treaty?
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2001 : 21:50:27 [Permalink]
|
Forgot to extend this invitation:
Greg, in case you haven't been following it, we're having a similar discussion in another thread. Some of it restates what is here, but it's still fun. Go to the Astrology/Ufology folder and the Bad Astronomy Bitch Board topic.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
