Does it matter if global warming is a fraud?

[stereologist]

based on the premise that there were no tests conducted that proved that adding significant amounts of stored CO2 gas into the atmosphere wouldn't cause undesirable climate change.

 

Reason are you referring to computer modeling here. It's not clear to me that you are referring to anything in particular.

[REASON]

Reason are you referring to computer modeling here. It's not clear to me that you are referring to anything in particular.

 

Essentially, I'm not referring to anything in particular because as far as I know there was never any testing done prior to the abundant use of fossil fuels for energy production that proved that the subsequent build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere over the following decades wouldn't cause undesirable climate change.

 

This is in response to BrianG's argument that we should conduct scientific testing to confirm there will be no undesirable effects from climate change mitigation efforts, which, as I stated above, I think is a canard.

[stereologist]

Thanks reason. I believe that the main reason CO2 is seen as a culprit in all of this is computer modeling of GCM, the global circulation model. The model suggests that a small amount of CO2 changes the amount of water in the atmosphere which leads to climate change. I guess my question would be whether CO2 is causative or correlated. The data I have seen has shown that CO2 is at least correlated.

[BrianG]

...This is in response to BrianG's argument that we should conduct scientific testing to confirm there will be no undesirable effects from climate change mitigation efforts, which, as I stated above, I think is a canard.

 

You misunderstand my argument, it has nothing to do with "undesirable effects from climate change mitigation efforts". My objection is there's no measure of efficacy or efficiency for reducing carbon dioxide emissions for climate change mitigation.

[REASON]

I guess my question would be whether CO2 is causative or correlated. The data I have seen has shown that CO2 is at least correlated.

 

I agree, and I don't know if it is causative or not either. But as of yet, there has been no altenative explanation for the warming trends we've been experiencing other than that warming is a natural process that has obviously occurred in the past, which in-and-of itself, is not a scientific explanation. It's like asking why we have hurricanes, and the answer is because hurricanes are natural and have occurred in the past. It's not a very satisfying explanation for those interested in causation.

 

Ultimately, my point here is that no matter what, it is always better if we do whatever we can to minimize any adverse impacts we may be having on the enviroment. Whether the correlation of CO2 and warming is actually cause and effect is inconsequential to that value, in my opinion. And I don't see it as risky business to undertake efforts to curtail or improve potentially destructive practices.

 

I think it's risky busines not to.

[REASON]

You misunderstand my argument, it has nothing to do with "undesirable effects from climate change mitigation efforts". My objection is there's no measure of efficacy or efficiency for reducing carbon dioxide emissions for climate change mitigation.

 

Well if you're not worried about undesirable effects, what is your concern regarding efficiency, the potential monetary costs? And I assume you're specifically referring to artificial sequestration efforts as opposed to reduced consumption or the development of cleaner output.

 

As I see it, costs are unavoidable. If we maintain the status quo, the cost of fossil fuels will increase as their supplies are depleted, and we will still be confronted with the costs to develop new energy technology. There is a higher risk of more global conflict as nations scramble to secure and control the remaining resources, including water. What do you think Iraq is all about, an evil dictator with WMD's? This doesn't even take into consideration the potential costs associated with continued warming if AGW is occurring. Why not invest NOW? Why wait? Why argue in behalf of the status quo? Could it simply be nothing more than resistance to, or fear of.....change?

[BrianG]

... What do you think Iraq is all about, an evil dictator with WMD's?

 

fulltext: President Bush's Speech On The Beginning Of War With Iraq (Gotham Gazette, Mar 20, 2003)

"My fellow citizens, at this hour American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger... We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people...Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly, yet our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.

 

We will meet that threat now with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of firefighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.

 

Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures and we will accept no outcome but victory..."

 

Please note, December 2009, the first month since the invasion of Iraq, without American casualties. Bravo President Obama!

 

... Why not invest NOW? Why wait? Why argue in behalf of the status quo? Could it simply be nothing more than resistance to, or fear of.....change?

 

You say you don't know it will work, but you still want to give it a go? Why? The status quo is, we adapt to climate change, we always have. We've never mitigated climate change before. Without evidence to the contrary, I do fear change for the worse.

[REASON]

... What do you think Iraq is all about, an evil dictator with WMD's?

 

fulltext: President Bush's Speech On The Beginning Of War With Iraq (Gotham Gazette, Mar 20, 2003)

"My fellow citizens, ......

 

:phones:

 

Well I guess if GWB says it, it must be the truth. :naughty:

 

 

You say you don't know it will work, but you still want to give it a go? Why? The status quo is, we adapt to climate change, we always have.

 

I say I don't know if what will work; reducing pollution or mitigating negative impacts on the environment by reducing wastful consumption, developing alternative clean energy, and raising environmental consciousness? Of course I want to give that a go. You don't? Why don't you just recommend abolishing the EPA and we'll just adapt to the filth and destructiveness of unbridled industry.

 

Been to China lately?

 

Pollution facts suppressed by China - World - smh.com.au

The World Bank reluctantly censored a report revealing that 750,000 people died prematurely every year in China from pollution-related disease because Beijing officials feared it would provoke "social unrest".

 

Almost a third of the report, Cost of Pollution in China, produced in co-operation with several Chinese Government ministries, was cut, including a detailed map showing where the deaths were concentrated.....

 

 

You misunderstand my argument, it has nothing to do with "undesirable effects from climate change mitigation efforts". My objection is there's no measure of efficacy or efficiency for reducing carbon dioxide emissions for climate change mitigation.

We've never mitigated climate change before. Without evidence to the contrary, I do fear change for the worse.

 

So I didn't misunderstand your argument. Apparently you don't understand your own argument. Maybe you are simply a parrot of right wing talking points.

 

I fear change for the worse as well. It seems the difference between us is that you fear things will get worse if we stop polluting, and I fear things will get worse if we don't. Which of those seems to be a more rational fear in your mind?

[BrianG]

:phones:

 

Well I guess if GWB says it, it must be the truth. :naughty:...

 

When looking for truth, I always like to go to original sources. When I look for truth for the cause of war, I go to the statements from the aggressor executive.

 

...I've never been to China. I don't let fear rule my decisions, fear is not rational.

[REASON]

When looking for truth, I always like to go to original sources. When I look for truth for the cause of war, I go to the statements from the aggressor executive.

 

Huh?

 

 

...I've never been to China. I don't let fear rule my decisions, fear is not rational.

 

:naughty: But you just said..........never mind.

 

Okay, thanks for playing.

[stereologist]

Reason I don't buy the Iraq invasion as an oil grab since we have paid out nearly 3X in war costs for the value of the oil obtained. That's just bad economics. The numbers don't add up. On the other hand, I don't discount that oil was a part of the decision making process.

[REASON]

Reason I don't buy the Iraq invasion as an oil grab since we have paid out nearly 3X in war costs for the value of the oil obtained. That's just bad economics. The numbers don't add up. On the other hand, I don't discount that oil was a part of the decision making process.

 

With some additional information, you may think otherwise. Iraq has the third largest proven oil reserves in the world as well as much unexplored territory to the west and south. Over time, the revenues generated will far surpass the cost of invasion and occupation. WMD didn't exist, but the oil was always there and we definitely knew that.

 

Oil reserves in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Iraq/Oil.html

[Eclipse Now]

Reason, why do you think there's any question of Co2 being a causal factor when the physicists tell us what Co2 does, and the maths in the Radiative Forcing Equation tell us how much it does it?

 

Now, onto Iraq & oil.

 

Reason I don't buy the Iraq invasion as an oil grab since we have paid out nearly 3X in war costs for the value of the oil obtained. That's just bad economics. The numbers don't add up. On the other hand, I don't discount that oil was a part of the decision making process.

 

It's not about just grabbing the oil in Iraq, but setting up Iraq as a "Police Station" watching what's happening in the Middle-East.

 

Also, making money for various corporations granted rights to repair & rebuild? Some choice quotes from the Sydney Peace Prize winner, Arundhati Roy.

 

The original lecture was amazing and funny, but here is some in transcript.

So, all you young management graduates don't bother with Harvard and Wharton - here's the Lazy Manager's Guide to Corporate Success: First, stock your Board with senior government servants. Next, stock the government with members of your board. Add oil and stir. When no one can tell where the government ends and your company begins, collude with your government to equip and arm a cold-blooded dictator in an oil-rich country. Look away while he kills his own people. Simmer gently. Use the time collect to collect a few billion dollars in government contracts. Then collude with your government once again while it topples the dictator and bombs his subjects, taking to specifically target essential infrastructure, killing a hundred thousand people on the side. Pick up another billion dollars or so worth of contracts to 'reconstruct' the infrastructure. To cover travel and incidentals, sue for reparations for lost profits from the devastated country. Finally, diversify. Buy a TV station, so that next war around you can showcase your hardware and weapons technology masquerading as coverage of the war. And finally finally, institute a Human Rights Prize in your company's name. You could give the first one posthumously to Mother Teresa. She won't be able to turn it down or argue back.

 

Invaded and occupied Iraq has been made to pay out 200 million dollars in "reparations" for lost profits to corporations like Halliburton, Shell, Mobil, Nestle, Pepsi, Kentucky Fried Chicken and Toys R Us. That's apart from its 125 billion dollar sovereign debt forcing it to turn to the IMF, waiting in the wings like the angel of death, with its Structural Adjustment program. (Though in Iraq there don't seem to be many structures left to adjust. Except the shadowy Al Qaeda.)

 

In New Iraq, privatization has broken new ground. The US Army is increasingly recruiting private mercenaries to help in the occupation. The advantage with mercenaries is that when they're killed they're not included in the US soldiers' body count. It helps to manage public opinion, which is particularly important in an election year. Prisons have been privatized. Torture has been privatized. We have seen what that leads to. Other attractions in New Iraq include newspapers being shut down. Television stations bombed. Reporters killed. US soldiers have opened fire on crowds of unarmed protestors killing scores of people. The only kind of resistance that has managed to survive is as crazed and brutal as the occupation itself. Is there space for a secular, democratic, feminist, non-violent resistance in Iraq? There isn't really.

 

That is why it falls to those of us living outside Iraq to create that mass-based, secular and non-violent resistance to the US occupation. If we fail to do that, then we run the risk of allowing the idea of resistance to be hi-jacked and conflated with terrorism and that will be a pity because they are not the same thing.

 

ZNet - Peace?...

[REASON]

Reason, why do you think there's any question of Co2 being a causal factor when the physicists tell us what Co2 does, and the maths in the Radiative Forcing Equation tell us how much it does it?

 

I suppose you're referring to my reply to stereo where I said, "I agree, and I don't know if it [CO2] is causitive or not either." I should clarify by saying that while I do think CO2 is a cause of warming for the reasons you mention above, I don't know that it is the cause. I think it is a primary cause but I also consider other factors such as methane from livestock, deforestation, and reduced albedo, as other important contributing factors within the highly complex climatic system.

 

My main point as it relates to this thread is that from the standpoint of our affect on the environment, it doesn't matter how much of a factor CO2 is to the current warming trend. Just knowing that CO2 is a greenhouse gas should be enough for us to act responsibly with emissions, and that responsibility extends to the many ways in which we can and should avoid causing harm to the environment. The Earth is our sanctuary, and to destroy our environment is to destroy ourselves. But it is not outward destructiveness that should be our concern as much as willful neglect and avoidance.

[modest]

A single atmospheric experimental test on climate change mitigation might suffice, I'd draw the line somewhere above zero. I don't see any irony, nor any humor in the principle of experimental verification. Without proof, or any experimental testing of climate change mitigation, waiting is an excellent strategy.

 

Yes I did, but I don't assume you agree with me on the importance of experimental tests for climate change mitigation. Am I wrong?

 

...I think this entire argument about "testing for climate change mitigation" is a canard. To me it's like saying we shouldn't mitigate the dumping of waste chemicals upriver until we conduct experiments which can prove that the river ecology and the downstream population will not be harmed by removing the chemicals..

 

:Glasses:

 

I personally don't care for the video, but it speaks to this issue,

 

YouTube - How It All Ends http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg

 

The idea that we can't prove with 100% certainty the consequences of stopping a potentially harmful thing, and therefore we should do the potentially harmful thing is... well... it's quite an obvious fallacy.

 

~modest

[BrianG]

The idea that we can't prove with 100% certainty the consequences of stopping a potentially harmful thing, and therefore we should do the potentially harmful thing is... well... it's quite an obvious fallacy.

 

~modest

 

There are two major errors in the Precautionary Principle fallacy. The most serious, it tell you nothing of how to fix the "problem". Emission controls? Sequestration? CO2 Capture projects like reforestation? The Precautionary Principle argument tells us nothing about fixing a problem, that's the argument for experimental tests, to find out what works.

 

I've never said "we can't prove with 100% certainty the consequences of stopping a potentially harmful thing", I've said we need experimental tests to find the best way to stop a potentially harmful thing or if the potentially harmful thing needs to be stopped. It's not about 100% certainty, where are the tests with 95% certainty, or 90% or 75%? Where are any experimental tests on climate change mitigation?

 

The second problem is, in day to day life we mitigate against probable risks, not the most extreme serious risks. You have lightning rods on your house because a fire caused by lightning strikes is a probable risk, you don't have meteorite shielding on your roof, because even though that worst case risk would be disastrous, it's not a probable event.

 

Those are my two problems with your video.

[Eclipse Now]

I suppose you're referring to my reply to stereo where I said, "I agree, and I don't know if it [CO2] is causitive or not either." I should clarify by saying that while I do think CO2 is a cause of warming for the reasons you mention above, I don't know that it is the cause. I think it is a primary cause but I also consider other factors such as methane from livestock, deforestation, and reduced albedo, as other important contributing factors within the highly complex climatic system.

 

My main point as it relates to this thread is that from the standpoint of our affect on the environment, it doesn't matter how much of a factor CO2 is to the current warming trend. Just knowing that CO2 is a greenhouse gas should be enough for us to act responsibly with emissions, and that responsibility extends to the many ways in which we can and should avoid causing harm to the environment. The Earth is our sanctuary, and to destroy our environment is to destroy ourselves. But it is not outward destructiveness that should be our concern as much as willful neglect and avoidance.

 

OK, phew, thanks for that, agreed! :Glasses: