What About Global Warming?

deep wrote, "Mere claim" and "serfdom" are characterizations of your making..."

Yeah? They are. What of it?

deep wrote, "You can't learn what you don't want to know."

I do not feel obligated to be very afraid of the monsters under the global warming bed.

If we are fortunate the warming tend we have experienced will continue throughout my lifetime, holding at bay the start of the next ice age. That is good enough for me.

....that doubt should trumped by suspicion.

.....that man-caused global warming is a forgone conclusion?

FESS UP - YES OR NO?

deep wrote, "sn53: It is quite obvious that you neither a mathematician, ...
nor one schooled in any of the hard sciences. "

True. I have had my share, both in school and out, but I am not a mathematician nor am I a scientist. Nevertheless, the engineering skills that I have are very highly compensated. That is sufficient for me.

Disregard. My post doubled.

[i]?They?re pretty young for this kind of thinking. They did great,? paleontology teacher Ken Poppe said after the 40-minute ?trial? in his classroom.[/i]

Take your low expectations, and shove them Ken Poppe. Your low standards and willingness to accept less than excellence from your students are the reason that so many children have been left behind by the "education system" of this country. [b]STOP BEING SURPRISED THAT CHILDREN ARE SMART.[/b] Be surprised when they aren't.

X-(

Sorry, maxwell, off-topic rant concluded.

You're making the claim (accusation).
I am not making a competing claim, I am only saying "you don't have enough evidence to convict".

51% is only a little better than "might be", and is not enough to sentence the "perpetrators" to life in prison.

in large doses, is fundamentally incompatible with almost everything.

The same can be said for those who dismiss out of hand the possiblity that there may be a problem.

.

I am [b]not[/b] proposing that policy issues should be decided on the [i]assumption[/i] that global warming both is extant and affectable by mankind.

Rather, I am arguing that policy should not be determined on the [i]assumption[/i] that the [b]converse[/b] is true.

With any right comes a commensurate responsibilty. To hold that you've the right to act in manner that causes future harm to others is the height of hubris.

I reserve that term for those who, out of hand, dismiss that it is possible that global warming and/or man's ability to affect climate is extant.

Those who simply question whether or not such is the case are deemed to be skeptics.

processes.

Take a black body, at thermal equilibrium, and irradiate it; its temperature will increase, whereupon it will re-radiate energy until it again reaches equilibrium, at a higher temperature than before.

Now, enclose said body in a shell of matter that is not completely transparent to IR. Now, some of the energy that would otherwise have been shed by said body will be confined to that body and any matter between it and said shell. The new equilibrium temperature of said body will now be higher than that in the absence of said shell.

It is when trying to judge matters involving said disciplines.

Take, for example, the variable describing the level of atmospheric CO2; one can describe its effect on the system comprised of Earth and its atmosphere [b]in isolation[/b] of any and all other variables.

With CO2 serving as the described "shell" in the referenced post, please see
https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=213262&messageID=2198077

Be that as it may, such is [b]not sufficient[/b] for adequately understanding all that involved in the subject at hand. This subject requires, at the least, an understanding of both chemistry and physics.

maxwell and others [b]claim[/b] that [b]science[/b] supports their position.

I am presently a member of a perspective pool of jurors who will be hearing a civil case involving claims that a gas station's leaking tank(s) contaminated local well waters, with all parties being required to provide factual evidence to support their respective positions.

The verdict will be decided on the preponderance of the evidence, with any judgement being [i]separately[/i] decided. That there may or may not be a judgement, and what such, if any, might be, is [b]legally not relevant[/b] to a finding of fact, i.e. the verdict.

So too with the matter of "global warming." Whether or not a change in policy should or will result from the finding of facts is irrelevant to such finding.

Anyone who wishes that policy either be allowed as "evidence," or grounds for not being required to produce supporting scientific facts, will "debate" the matter without my participation.

I could, of course, have easily excised the references to Spencer from my post, but chose not to for 2 reasons; 1) to see if anyone else would notice it, and 2) to demonstrate to maxwell and others that not all of us who believe that there is sufficient scientific evidence for giving serious consideration to global warming are lacking in objectivity.

As for "Maybe government power, and objective scientific inquiry are fundamentally incompatible," unless government's role is to merely fund research, with no control over such, those in power will always be tempted to move so as to have their desired policy supported by the results of such research.

in large doses, is fundamentally incompatible with almost everything.

Particularly when it's spending what it perceives to be "its" money; then, it expects to get its desired results.

This is [b]data[/b] deserving of review and consideration.

deepsand said, [i]"Take a black body, at thermal equilibrium, and irradiate it; its temperature will increase, whereupon it will re-radiate energy until it again reaches equilibrium, at a higher temperature than before.[/i]

You're an idiot, deepsand. To even spew such nonsense proves an imbalanced mind. You're an absolute fool.

deep wrote, "sn53: Re. "That is sufficient for me."

"Be that as it may, such is not sufficient for adequately understanding all that involved in the subject at hand. This subject requires, at the least, an understanding of both chemistry and physics."

Uh-huh. Nazism required knowledgeable National Socialists. Communism requires a knowledge of warped economic theory. But this is not about science. It has not been about science for quite some time. It is about politics. What I know is sufficient for me to suspect a giant con.

deepsand said, [i]"Take a black body, at thermal equilibrium, and irradiate it; its temperature will increase, whereupon it will re-radiate energy until it again reaches equilibrium, at a higher temperature than before."[/i]

That's laughable. If you really take yourself seriously, you're deranged.

....who believes in man-caused global warming. He says it all! This is the kind of person you global warming advocates are aligned with! YOU're ALL IDIOTS!!!!!!!

deepsand said, [i]"Take a black body, at thermal equilibrium, and irradiate it; its temperature will increase, whereupon it will re-radiate energy until it again reaches equilibrium, at a higher temperature than before."[/i]

I'm not dismissing at all, I'm waiting for the proof.

The reason they're the ones who are suspect is that they are demanding that I hand over MY money and MY rights to their cause, all the while wasting more resources and causing more pollution in a month than I will in 10 years! You'd have to be stupid not to be suspect.

I wonder how much the CO2 level would drop if these people would just shut the hell up.

There are threee types:

People who deny that global warming is happenning.

People who deny that humans are responsible.

People who deny that there is enough evidence to make a definitive conclusion.

deep wrote, "That, sn53, is both shortsighted and selfish."

I want it to be warm for you too, deep.

"With any right comes a commensurate responsibility."

Really? Is that in the Green handbook? Must my right to be left alone be paid for by taxes to the United Nations and a tithe to Al Gore?

"To hold that you've the right to act in manner that causes future harm to others is the height of hubris."

That is your claim. You (and those like you) make the claim that my being left alone will cause you harm. I think the onus is on you to show how leaving me alone hurts anyone.

What do you think?

deep wrote, "Selective use of "naysayers" was not subjective.
I reserve that term for those who, out of hand, dismiss that it is possible that global warming and/or man's ability to affect climate is extant."

Uh-huh. Aren't you the same person who objects to me using one simple, easily understood umbrella term, Islamofascist, to describe radical Islamic leaders?

Are you doomed then to being an amateur ecofascist since you are clearly unable to use nuance to describe each of our individual differences?

Which is worse...worship of the earth...or the worship of money?

If you're any kind of a Christian, go read your bible about greed. It's the root of all evil you know.

And if you're not Christian...well...good luck.

Let me just modify your diatribe to substitute a different scenario.

[b][i]They worship at the alter of money. It's tantamount to a religious movement. Big oil and Bush are the God, anyone against them is the Devil, and they attempt to place the fear of God ... I mean the fear of doom delivered by the hands of the devil. And lack of democracy is evil. But there's hope, for one can be converted; they use guilt to convert; they use fear to convert, especially the fear of the unknown; and they use force and manipulation to convert. And all those who don't convert are evil sinners.[/i][/b]

[i]Foolish is the man who gains his wisdom from a muppet.[/i] - jck

If you can't keep them honest, at least keep them consistent!

We're leaving sn53 alone, and [b]IT HURTS US![/b]

Well said.

If there is really a [b]scientific[/b] case that CO2 is a 'weapon of mass destruction', please, by all means, assemble your coalition [b]of the willing[/b] to spend their [b]earnings[/b] on zero-emissions vehicles. Do that for 150 years, then compare weather patterns. Oh, how about for 15 years, then? Really, go spend your own money on your own zero emissions vehicles, lower global emissions of CO2, then you'll have [b]scientific evidence[/b] that reduced CO2 emissions are responsible for reducing warming. Until then, you have mainly fear & some plausibility arguments, of questionable & varying plausibility.

Until then, you seem to have nothing to offer with regards to matters of Science.

Like maxwell, you know naught of the sciences involved, and are therefore perforce reduced to trying to counter facts with beliefs.

You can delude yourself all you like; just don't expect others to join in.

So, you refuse to even examine the data; no surprise there.

Did you even examine it?

deep wrote, "Like maxwell, you know naught of the sciences involved, and are therefore perforce reduced to trying to counter facts with beliefs."

Fascinating. I bet you keep a white lab coat in your closet.

"You can delude yourself all you like; just don't expect others to join in."

Dittos for you. You have already deluded yourself all that you like. And we are not joining in your delusions either.

Great. I am asking to be left alone to enjoy my life, my liberty and my pursuit of happiness. That is all I am asking of you and of everybody. Oh, did I mention, it is my right to be left alone.

You'd also have to be stupid not to examine the data, but choose instead to simply reject it.

will not examine the data with an open mind.

If you don't understand & accept the concept, then you are a sorry case indeed, far beyond hope of my imparting any understanding on you.

If you wish to compare apples and oranges, you'll need to find a different player.

I prefer to let the policy [i]succeed[/i] the facts, [b]not [i]precede[/i][/b] them.

To whom are you attributing inconsistence?

.

and examining it. I have a problem accepting analysis that claims to be definitive when it is clearly not!

Have you heard the latest?

"Some climates may disappear from Earth entirely, not just from their current locations, while new climates could develop if the planet continues to warm, a study says. Such changes would endanger some plants and animals while providing new opportunities for others, said John W. Williams, an assistant professor of geography at the University of Wisconsin, Madison."

Seems like it is as it's always been... the strong will adapt and survive and the weak will perish. Just as it should be.

?

But, emissions data are available in the form of oil refinery output. I'd say we're close to a conclusive answer. Tony, max, sn53, are you ready to address the data on its own merits? Fraudulent data would be a career-ending move for a scientist. Just ask the Korean who recently claimed a breakthrough in cloning that he didn't actually achieve. You have already claimed that many scientists are lying. Can you prove that claim, in even one case?

Do we decide [b]solely[/b] based on our wish to not pay taxes? If so, we can take comfort in holding the moral high ground, while Bush is swayed to Al Gore's camp, and we pay higher taxes.

that nobody has been judged to have scored a single 'point'?

:D

Judging from his output, I'd say it's more likely he's formalizing a scoring system.

Dear Dad,

Can you help me find a job over there?

I've tried...no luck...want out of egomaniaclandia.

thanks

sonny boy

You made my point for me nicely -- I was (tongue firmly in cheek) attempting to apply brief, common terms, pejorative to be sure, to both sides equally. The point was basically to achieve a balance of biases rather than a (highly improbable) complete lack of biases, and to interject a little subtle humor while I was at it.

By the way, you've hit my level of motivation pretty squarely, I think. I'm willing, and probably quite able, but that doesn't mean I don't expect it to be a mostly thankless task fraught with pitfalls and hairpin turns (to mix a metaphor). I'm also pleased to see your faith in my abilities in that regard.

Actually, I've been out of town for about six days. I meant to say something about that here, but I think TR got lost in the shuffle of dozens of people/places/blah that needed to be informed. It was frankly kinda low on my list of priorities (sorry), after stuff like the guy that would be taking care of the animals and the guy that would be taking over updating a website of mine while I'm away.

Here's my thought on the whole trial format thing, re whether it should be handled as a civil or criminal proceeding:

What do we consider a "win"?

Is "winning" some kind of debate win with regard to whether or not anthropogenic global warming is a "real" threat?

Is "winning" a debate win with regard to whether Something Should Be Done?

Is "winning" a debate win with regard to a general class of policy decision (e.g., impose further governmental controls on the economy to impact global warming trends)?

Until we have a clear-cut goal in mind for the debate, we can't really define the conditions of a win. For instance, if you expect that anyone recognizing a "win" would then go vote for Al Gore, we would definitely need a more criminal proceeding version of a trial format. If, on the other hand, you just want someone that accepts the "win" to say "Why, yes, your position makes sense, there is indeed (not) enough evidence to claim that anthropogenic global warming is a very real and imminent concern!" without any admission that one's policies should actually change any[1], a civil trial is probably more appropriate than a criminal trial as the model.

[1](a): e.g., "Yes, you're right, anthropogenic global warming is real and likely to be dangerous if trends don't change -- and evidence suggests they will not change unless we Do Something. On the other hand, I don't think we should Do Something at all along the lines of fixing the problem, because our real focus should be on colonizing Mars anyway. Just leave the problem behind."

[1](b): e.g., "Yes, you're right, there just isn't nearly enough evidence to support these theories of anthropogenic global warming with catastrophic consequences. On the other hand, I'd rather be safe than sorry, so I still want all of Al Gore's suggested governmental policies implemented as law, just in case."

jck said, "Q: Can you guess who still holds tens of millions in stock in Halliburton?

A: Vice President Dick Cheney."

Really? Can you prove this? It seems very unlikely. Usually upon attaining any high office all of one's stocks go into a blind trust. I would be very surprised if Mr. Cheney knows what stocks are held in his name until he leaves office.

any and all particular changes are.

That one's body changes with age may be unavoidable; [b]but[/b], what those changes are [b]can be influenced by us[/b]. As individuals, we cannot wholly escape our genetic backgrounds, but we are not necessarily bound to any particular life styles such as affect our health.

So too with other kinds of changes.

.

No surprise there.

I have no problem with being more efficient, using less energy, etc. either. But I'm not into shoving it down others' throats.

It's ironic that most of the same people who are against requiring others to pull their own weight in society are all for requiring those who do pull their own weight to accept even greater burdens. Adding this to the fact that the most vocal proponents are the some of the biggest wasters of resources, and the political side of this issue is just [b]OOZING[/b] disingenuousness.

It's not terribly unlike the father waving a lit cigar around while telling his kids they shouldn't smoke.

.

To the contrary, the more politicized an issue is, the more important it is that there are those who insist on an examination of the [b]facts[/b] in the clear light of reason.

Your point is certainly valid without the assertion 'exponentially'. I'm not so sure, though, that each new conspirator is really twice as likely as the previous one to reveal the conspiracy. Hyperbole?

Either way, I certainly agree that 'conspiracy' tends to be a less believable 'explanation' as the number of conspirators increases.

[i]Q. So...why is it so different you don't go haywire about us doing it to them?

A. Cause you're the typical, pious American who thinks we do no wrong. That's why.[/i]

Heh-heh, you should see some of what I've posted about Iraq. You assume too much.

[i]What the Bush administration has done has nothing to do with doing what makes the Iraqi people happy and everything to do with funnelling off money to give to their buddies in big business at the expense of the American taxpayer.

Facts are that "ecochondriacs" want more taxes to pay to correct the environmental hazards, the majority of which are caused by large corporations who have no commitment other than to padding their own pockets. Absolutely true.[/i]

Most people, including me, go to work 5 days a week, with no "no commitment other than to padding their own pockets". Pursuit of happiness is a right, not an assumption of guilt.

[i]And what has big business done? Over the last decade, lined the pockets of the Republican party mostly. Go check out campaign finance for the past decade.[/i]

You seem to be interested in convincing me of something, why don't you post the data? Which reminds me, the topic here is global warming, not 'Republican vs Democrat'.

[i]What has that done? The Republican controlled congress and White House through 2006 wrote tax changes that mostly benefitted, tax wise, the upper 3 percent of wage earning Americans.

Q. And can you guess who runs all those big corporations that line their pockets?

A. Members of the top 3 percent of wage earners.[/i]

The wealthiest 3 percent of Americans do not work for a 'wage'.

[i]Good ole boy politics at its finest.

Oh...one last thing:

Real Christians, unlike Bush, won't stab others in the back to fulfill their own desires and wants.

Christian = being like Christ. Remember that, oh great soothsayer.

Christ died for his cause...he didn't send over 2000 people to die for him.[/i]

That's nice. Back to the subject of global warming?

[i]To the contrary, the more politicized an issue is, the more important it is that there are those who insist on an examination of the facts in the clear light of reason.[/i]

Now all we have to do is get the politicizers to shut the hell up!

1) The Bush Administration awarded to Halliburton a $5,000,000,000 no-bid contract in 2005 on the basis of "having the necessary assets in the region" and called the work "logistics support".

No other companies were in all of Europe and the Middle East that could have competitively bid for that?

sure.

2) As of assuming office, Dick Cheney still holds in stock options alone over 50,000 of Halliburton , then valued at near $4M alone as of 2006. These are options that still, within his "blind trust", earn him dividends.

This does not include the value of standard shares he owns, nor shares he has put into his family members' names.

Yes, politicians hide assets under their spouse and other family members' names.

Oh yes...perhaps you didn't know as well. Let me explain how a blind trust works to you, since you seem not to understand.

Blind trusts don't keep elected officials from earning returns on investments they held when taking office, nor does it prevent them from influencing decisions to get those stakeholdings work that gives them extra dividends.

Blind trusts are a front that is a kind of damage control for politicians and other crooked people who would manipulate them to attempt to keep them from looking like they are dealing in impropriety. Keywords here: [b]looking like[/b].

As Senator Bill Frist said in a 2005 column he wrote:

[i]A blind trust is a special something that's designed to prevent what we in Congress like to call a "conflict of interest"; or, to be more accurate, to prevent something else we in Congress like to call "the appearance of a conflict of interest", which is just a whole lot more important. [/i]

A guy like Cheney, whose buddy Bush is President, is in a position to move things along to get companies like Halliburton work that directly benefits him and pays him a reward, rather than letting business bid for work.

So....where's that freedom again? Cheney and Bush and their administration strapping the hands of free-enterprise from bidding for work is freedom?

Give me a break.

Your elected officials are still raking in investment dividends from their holdings in "blind trusts", for which they influence (and in some cases, vote upon) and gain financial reward.

And now...back to global warming, as you've requested:

3) Scientists have already established that different factors such as atmospheric contaminants, chemicals, erratic oxygen levels and abnormal ocean salinity level changes which contribute to global warming and ecological climate shifting are at a level which are abnormal according to historical data.

What historical data, you ask? Scientists are able to take ice samples from ancient glaciers which hold records of 10,000s of years of ice which stores these conditions like an archive. So, you can take these samples, dissect them, and analyse what chemicals, gases, etc., are in the atmosphere at any point in the history of the planet and establish what the normal cycle is for the planet for millenia.

They have concluded: Since the advent of the use of fossil fuels and the industrial revolution, mankind has been affecting the environment in a negative fashion and contributing contaminents to the atmosphere which scientifically are proven to lead to the condition called "global warming".

This global warming is now contributing to glacial melting which is affecting the ocean salinity, which will in-turn affect ocean sea convection of water which affects meterological conditions and ecological conditions as well.

I thought I'd give you a synopsis and save you the headache, but I will go find you the scientific papers if you want specific reading to prove the facts to you.

But, don't say I don't know facts just because I don't agree with you.

I didn't see anybody successfully sue anybody else for "causing global warming".

the freedom to acquire and use one's wealth (whether it be great or small) as one wishes as long as one does not infringe on the freedoms of another.

If you (personally) can prove that I (personally) am infringing on your rights, then society can rightfully exact an equitable penalty from me (personally) for doing so. Any other taking of my property is theft.

Pretty soon, many people are going to begin earnestly defending their property from such theft.

You just don't get it do you?

Never mind. You never will get it.

[i]solely[/i] one of policy.

which was that the political issues that you raise have no more bearing on the issue at hand than do those raised by, for example maxwell, sn53 or Tony.

As for the facts of the issue, if you do some background reading of his many posts on this subject you will find that he is well versed in such.

Do not assume him to be your adversary simply because he is willing to entertain all reasonable viewpoints.

You did not ask if anyone had succeeded in such a suit.

And, you seem to have overlooked or avoided the issue that a suit brought against Sovereign can only be tried if the Sovereign so agrees.

Did you determine the status of any of the cases sited by Google, or any other SE? Did you try any other search terms?

Or, did you just blow off the matter?

Since information re. your question is as easily available to you as it is to me, why did you not first research the question yourself?

The difference between you and sn53 is that you have allowed that one's right to freedom is not exclusive to that of others, that it brings with it the responsibilty to not use it to the detriment of others.

Not only has sn53 yet to do the same, but he has even gone so far as to deny that rights bear commensurate duties.

I "get" far more than you imagine.

If you'd bothered to do some background reading of my many posts here at TR, you'd know better than to assume that, just because I take issue with a particulare statement made by you, I necessarily take issue with all that you believe.

To repeat, "[i]you can't learn what you don't want to know.[/i]"

Have you never seen a LED tail light with one or more dead element?

How often do I have to suggest that it's not possible for us to "prove" any such claims among us? Neither you (Absolutely), or I, or deepsand, or Tony, or SN53, or anyone around here is QUALIFIED to prove or disprove anything that supports or debunks the notion of man-caused global warming. At best, all we can do is provide sources to people who ARE qualified to agree or disagree with the notion.

Even if you THINK you're somehow qualified, perhaps even as an interested hobbyist, unless ALL parties are, in the very least, equally "interested", it's an effort in futility. Go ahead and try to discuss the nuances of playing chess and the various playing strategies all you'd like, but if the person with whom you're conversing doesn't know the difference between a rook and a knight, what's the point? There simply aren't any "scientists" hanging around this water cooler!

And quite frankly, I believe I've provided MORE real and qualified sources to dispute the notion that those who've tried to support it. I've provided names and links to real people, while my opposition has provided more general sources, lacking specifics, or ones that (who) aren't, themselves, qualified. Al Gore is leading the global warming charge! Give me a break!

Nonetheless, it's silly to think we can "interpret the data" and form an accurate "conclusion". Deepsand's insistence on doing just that is only a smokescreen for his inability to debate me on the REAL issue, which is the politicization of unproven and unsubstantiated "science", based on "claims" that are, at best, unproven theories (ones that other qualified people have debunked), and how the socialist left has hijacked the issue to advance their political agenda.

The "issue" is not whether or not mankind is, in some way, affecting the global temperature and/or climate, because it's not conclusive; there is no consensus; there's plenty of disagreement; there's no proof. The "issue" is whether or not people's liberty will be denied because of questionable claims by unqualified people.

The issue (or better stated, the question) belongs in science, not in politics. Not only am I -- not only are we -- unqualified to discuss the science, but I have absolutely no interest in doing so. Until the question is answered in the affirmative, beyond any doubt whatsoever, and until it's as clear and obvious as the moon is round, then keep your science out of my politics.

You keep the science out of the politics, and I'll keep the politics out of the science. How's that for a deal? Discuss your "science" all you want, but don't include others in your "therefore what" conclusion. And until you can do that, until everyone can do that, it's simply not possible to discuss one without discussing both -- and that's why deepsand is the biggest global warming blowhard in the history of earth -- a warming one or otherwise. He refuses to acknowledge that simple and very obvious FACT. But then again, he [i]can't learn what he doesn't want to know[/i], right deepsand?

And here's something interesting to consider on the "global warming" question. Which came first, the science or the politics? And a second question. Who butted their noses into the other's business first, the scientists or the politicians? You honestly answer those two questions, and it'll be obvious what kind of issue this is, one of science or one of politics. And "politics", by the way, takes on many meanings here. Consider ALL meanings of the word.