An Inconvenient Truth

[rangepig]

We should stop trying to place blame and parse the syntax and put our combined energies together to devise solutions.

Hear hear!!

 

[USERNAME]

Motor31,

i'm digging this discussion. thanks for taking the time to thoughtfully and civilly reply to all the conversations going on, this is nice.

i snipped bits and pieces of your reply to get clarification. we agree on most of this, and i find you eminently reasonable. in fact, i think you and i have the same basic opinion of global warming.

Secondly I do not think that 100% proof exists, nor did I state in any of my posts that I required or asked for 100% proof.

i would argue that if something happens, 100% proof for it exists. we may not comprehend it, but it exists. the earth is definitely heating up, and there is definitely a good explanation for why.

i'm trying to get an idea what % it would take. as an example, pretend i am an atheist. i have a friend who wants me to believe in the catholic version of a god. i tell him i'm not buying it. he says, "what would it take?" and i think that's a valid question. so i think about it. basically, his god would need to appear in front of me and perform a series of tasks that demonstrate my understanding of omniscience and omnipotence. make ten coffee tables materialize in the living room. i will shoot one of the squirrels outside and kill it - resurrect it. read my mind. fly around a little bit, maybe do a barrell roll. then look me in the eye and say, "i'm the catholic god, you better join that religion." boom, i'd be reciting the rosary in seconds. (i realize that the catholic god requires faith, and that's part of the package, and all that stuff, blah blah blah.)

so when someone tells me they doubt something, or that they dont believe it, i always want to know, "what will it take for you to believe it?"

so that's what i'm really asking you.

Thirdly I do not believe that humans are required in any way for global climate change to occur. There is ample evidence that the earth has gone through more than one of each cycle prior to human industrial society development.

this is fallacious - it does not disprove human cause for global warming.

banana peels are not required to make me lose my footing and slip on the floor. i could slip on soap, i could slip on plain old water, all manner of things. if i were to slip and fall, and you and i needed to determine why i fell, and i said, "i might have slipped on a banana" would you say, "no, it was not a banana, because there are other things to slip and fall on, therefore it was not a banana."

(i don't think you would.)

I do have to state that I do not believe you will find any post I made that said I didn’t believe that humans could not exacerbate a naturally occurring climate change.

good point, and i totally agree with you.

It’s not my job to present a definition to a proof.

ahhhh, the old "it's not my job" excuse. it's not your job to ride BMW bikes, it's not your job to post on this forum, it's not your job to have breakfast - the list of things that you do that are not your job is endless. so you can do one more thing - envision the proof you require. humor me.

What I object to is a simplification that man is the only cause of global climate change, of either direction. Contributor, quite probably, possibly definitely, but sole cause, nope. That type of theory totally denies that there is any planetary dynamic at all outside of human presence. That theory is baseless just on the face of it since there were climate changes before humans even arrived on the planet. I don’t have that high of an opinion of mans capabilities that at this level of development he can disrupt a planets heat cycle short of widespread nuclear exchange.

this is also fallacious. here is another analogy:

millions of species have gone extinct over time. all of the sudden there are very few whooping cranes/buffalo/wolves/whatever. it is reported to people in a part of america where everyone is really ignorant. they have never seen a whooping crane, and they do not understand the concept of hunting an animal, nor of destroying its habitat and preventing it from easily reproducing in numbers sufficient to maintain the population. they just have no concept. some guy goes to this town and says, "man is the reason all the whooping cranes are gone." and some townsperson says, "ahhh, shaddup. millions of species have gone extinct before man EVER EVEN EXISTED! so man did not cause the whooping cranes to disappear." the visitor says, "the wetlands have been drained, and they hunted them all." the townsperson says, "whats a wetland? huh? and what is this hunting? is that like when you cant find what you want at the bodega, and you gotta go across the street?"

now obviously if these people were smart and had access to the data/information, they'd easily understand that the key thing causing the demise of whooping cranes is man. and in real life, we did figure that out, we modified our behavior, we protected their bodies and their homes, and they have recovered. we understood the cause and effect. but dismissing the causality because we lack the ability to comprehend the causality is not how you disprove a theory.

i agree that the earth has gone through bazillions of climate changes in the past - but that fact does not disprove the theory that man is causing the current one.

While I appreciate your statement of opinion of my intelligence or even educational background, your opinion of my opinion is yours to deal with. It’s not my responsibility to influence it. I do have to tell you that numerous folks have said I was not reasonable simply because I didn’t see things their way. You may weight it any way you want. You will anyhow particularly if it doesn’t fit your opinion of the subject.

i think you are very intelligent, but ignorant on this issue. this is NOT an insult. i am really ignorant too. i think i know just enough to tell when someone else doesnt know anything either, but not nearly enough to figure out what is going on. so i cannot place emphasis on the conclusions you have drawn. and i totally agree with you that this is MY thing to deal with, and because you are patient, thoughtful, and kind, i was able to do so. i'm serious, i have a lot of respect for you taking the time to discuss this like this.

As far as doing something to reduce my impact on the planet, that’s been done. I live on far less ground, less housing square footage, use 50 amps or less draw of electricity maximum and far less in the way of fossil fuels to maintain my home in the comfort level. Heck I even walk to the corner store for things like bread and milk.

Until self avowed tree huggers limit themselves to a 400 Sq. Ft or less home like I do they will have a hard time stating they are living in a more ecologically friendly.

keep setting that good example, and keep being so cool that you discuss things with people like this. we need more of you in this country/world.

 

[MOTOR31]

Username,

Thanks for the compliment and I mean it sincerely. This is a volatile subject and there is already enough "heat" in most of the debates about it already.

To answer your main remaining question, what kind of proof would I require? I really can't give you an answer. That is exactly the type of question a saleman asks their next victim (customer ) to allow a narrowing of the negotiation and bring both sides to a closer agreement. The best response is to say..... basically nothing. Narrowing the negotiation is an invitation to closing the deal. In discussing this you are trying to bring me to your way of thinking or in other words closing the deal. No deal.

I'll know convicing evidence when I see it. Right now, to date, I have not seen evidence that people are the root cause of this global climate change. I have seen allegations, opinions and outright claims, but no evidence. There has been no indication that al other variables have been excluded to determine that people are the definitive cause.

Frankly given that there is only one ecosystem and the observers cannot run a controlled test on another (time might also be a restrictive factor) ecosystem without also being in the system (contamination vs objectivity) it's going to be hard to eliminate all of the variables. I'm also not really sure they can explain what caused the other climate changes. There certainly is a shortage of data from first hand observations and I mean actual observation not extrapolation.

While I am not from Missouri I am of the show me persuation. I am a skeptic and not a trusting person. I want to see the evidence. Show me the data, how it was obtained, process of analysis, correlations, exclusions and so on. I have had enough experiance with statistics that I am no longer impressed by them. I don't want opinions, I definitely do not want political posturing and election shenanigans, I want data. It will also have to be rather convincing to make me believe that this global warming is the sole responsibility of people. Let me state definitively that my major problem with the global warming controversy is not that there has been global climate change, it is with the premise that it is all because of people.

 

[ian408]

I for one am glad there is a civil discussion going on. I've learned from it and also
been able to look at the situation from a fresh viewpoint.

 

[callmethebreeze]

Influencing with Integrity, a novel concept........

Breeze

 

[USERNAME]

Username,

Thanks for the compliment and I mean it sincerely. This is a volatile subject and there is already enough "heat" in most of the debates about it already.

To answer your main remaining question, what kind of proof would I require? I really can't give you an answer. That is exactly the type of question a saleman asks their next victim (customer ) to allow a narrowing of the negotiation and bring both sides to a closer agreement. The best response is to say..... basically nothing. Narrowing the negotiation is an invitation to closing the deal. In discussing this you are trying to bring me to your way of thinking or in other words closing the deal. No deal.

i hear what youre saying. i wish i knew the answer and was trying to ensnare you with poorly disguised vacuum claner salesman techniques! my problem is that i don't have a way of thinking or position to lure you into. my thoughts are nearly identical to yours - i have seen no concrete proof that *my* brain can grok and call "right." but i worry that's more a limitation of my brain, and seek truth in other ways. i'm still searching for the skeptic who can tell me what they need for proof (on a range of topics, not just global warming. i find i have more questions than answers to just about everything.)

i think i'm doing what you are doing - waiting for something concrete, and in the meantime, doing things to reduce my own impact on the planet. compared to you, i've done nothing, but relative to where i was a few years ago, i'm improving.

i find that i like people who are for whatever reason trying to reduce their impact on the planet and move towards a sustainable way of life, and i suspect people who "know" the answers to these sorts of things, despite lacking the credentials and mental horsepower to truly develop a comprehensive problem statement, let alone posit a solution.

this has been a fun discussion, thanks. if we ever meet, i'll buy you a beer, and as an added bonus, i won't make you drink it with me.

 

[darrylri]

Once again you are missing the point. You clamor that since the term "contribute" was used it means a definitive causative situation.

I don't believe I am missing the point. You claim that the meaning of "contribute" doesn't necessarily imply a causative link, and, in this context, I believe it does. I've cited a dictionary entry before, and I just looked in my Websters, which says that it means:

"to play a significant part in bringing about an end or result"

To me it couldn't be clearer what "contribute" means, that the actor is a causative agent, at least in part, to bringing about a result. I just don't see how you can twist a different meaning out of that. And it also means that the actor is a significant part, a substantial part of bringing about the result, a large enough part that one would notice the absence of the actor. If you want to continue to imitate Humpty Dumpty from Alice in Wonderland ("A word means what I want it to mean, nothing more, nothing less"), I'm afraid you'll have to get a different correspondant.

The fact that neither NOAA nor I can give you a precise percentage contribution of man's activities to global temperature rise doesn't mean that they are insignificant; it only means that the data are imprecise. NOAA wouldn't issue a statement linking them if it weren't beyond the 95% confidence level that is usually applied in statistics. And especially not the NOAA in this adminstration.

"Contribute", without further definition such as percentage covers a spectrum that is rather vast. If the scientists that draft the report are either unwilling or (possibly / probably ?) unable to determine HOW MUCH the factor is contributing to the situation then you cannot claim that that factor is the root cause of the global climate change. The term "contributing" does not quantify the contribution and it's direct relational effect.

Perhaps this is the crux of the matter. I am not claiming that humanity's activity is THE root cause of global warming; I am saying that it is A cause, possibly one of several. NOAA says that it is a "significant" cause.

If I could show you that humanity's actions are absolutely providing between 20% and 80% of global warming, would you still want to ignore the contribution? Tell me that I'm not understanding you, because this is what I think you're saying.

Just because science can't give you an exact, 3 significant digit figure, doesn't mean that it can't say that it's happening. Weather and climate have occuppied the fastest computers we can build for more than half a century, and will likely continue to do so. But we can see from the direct data we collect, and indirect data we find in the historical record (tree rings, ice cores, fossil data and so on) that industrialization has had a big effect on climate and it is accelerating.

 

[darrylri]

Just to continue the discussion, the following article is over on MSNBC:

Exxon cuts ties to global warming skeptics
Oil giant also in talks to look at curbing greenhouse gases

MSNBC staff and news service reports
Updated: 6:43 a.m. PT Jan 12, 2007
NEW YORK - Oil major Exxon Mobil Corp. is engaging in industry talks on possible U.S. greenhouse gas emissions regulations and has stopped funding groups skeptical of global warming claims — moves that some say could indicate a change in stance from the long-time foe of limits on heat-trapping gases.

Exxon, along with representatives from about 20 other companies, is participating in talks sponsored by Resources for the Future, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit. The think tank said it expected the talks would generate a report in the fall with recommendations to legislators on how to regulate greenhouse emissions.​

It seems that Exxon Mobil is conceding that their own products are contributing to global warming and they have decided it's better to get in on drafting what regulations are going to be coming down the line. This is a pragmatic action by a company that is conerned about its future profits, and it would seem that they can see the writing on the wall.

 

[MOTOR31]

This is one of the problems in dealing with ill defined terminology to try and define a finite situation. Your connotation is that contribute = causing. My connotation is that contribute = assisting not necessarily causing or even the majority of the input. That does not mean they are unrelated but I will not accept that contribute = majority of the input. Like I said before without quantification of the contribution to fully define the verbage used you cannot asign the responsibility for the action.

Last example. I contributed to and voted for say..... Bush (heck pick the President you want it's all the same for this example) so therefore that is a significant part, a substantial part of bringing about his taking office. Now it follows that my contribution, financially and vote wise, was he was elected. I contributed right?

If you don't want to agree, fine, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Semantics is a very slipery subject. I won't accept a dictionary definition for a scientific issue that requires quantification to establish the actual meaning. Connotations aside. To paraphrase one of my favorite sci fi authors if it's science it is quantifiable. If it cannot be explained in mathematics it is not science. If the scientists are unwilling to assign a specific number to the percentage, I won't assign one for them and I don't accept one assigned for them.

Now please do not think that I am saying there is no global warming going on. There is. I am not convinced that humans are the reason the globe is warming. Possibly helping it, yep but I'm unconvinced that humans are to blame that the globe is in a warming cycle, I'm more likely to agree that the globe entered a warming cycle and humans are having an impact to assist it.

I don't believe I am missing the point. You claim that the meaning of "contribute" doesn't necessarily imply a causative link, and, in this context, I believe it does. I've cited a dictionary entry before, and I just looked in my Websters, which says that it means:

To me it couldn't be clearer what "contribute" means, that the actor is a causative agent, at least in part, to bringing about a result. I just don't see how you can twist a different meaning out of that. And it also means that the actor is a significant part, a substantial part of bringing about the result, a large enough part that one would notice the absence of the actor. If you want to continue to imitate Humpty Dumpty from Alice in Wonderland ("A word means what I want it to mean, nothing more, nothing less"), I'm afraid you'll have to get a different correspondant.

The fact that neither NOAA nor I can give you a precise percentage contribution of man's activities to global temperature rise doesn't mean that they are insignificant; it only means that the data are imprecise. NOAA wouldn't issue a statement linking them if it weren't beyond the 95% confidence level that is usually applied in statistics. And especially not the NOAA in this adminstration.


Perhaps this is the crux of the matter. I am not claiming that humanity's activity is THE root cause of global warming; I am saying that it is A cause, possibly one of several. NOAA says that it is a "significant" cause.

If I could show you that humanity's actions are absolutely providing between 20% and 80% of global warming, would you still want to ignore the contribution? Tell me that I'm not understanding you, because this is what I think you're saying.

Just because science can't give you an exact, 3 significant digit figure, doesn't mean that it can't say that it's happening. Weather and climate have occuppied the fastest computers we can build for more than half a century, and will likely continue to do so. But we can see from the direct data we collect, and indirect data we find in the historical record (tree rings, ice cores, fossil data and so on) that industrialization has had a big effect on climate and it is accelerating.

 

[RavenGS]

Global warming

Darn, sure wish that warming would get a little stronger here in Minnesota. Can't quite solve the GS fever at 9 degrees (high today).

Seriously. What if we are causing it? What to do? Is everyone going to give up their homes, autos, jobs, businesses, hospitals, etc.. etc. and go back to life on the prarie? It seems that those that seem in such a fuss would indicate it.... But wait doesn't Al Gore make these 'fact finding' trips in the ole jet? Doesn't the very scientists making the claims also get a lot of research money they'd lose if they stated it was 'just natural cycles'?

Reminds me of the time I saw a concert to 'save the trees' in the rainforest.. I counted.. the entertainer had over 18 guitars on stage made out of exotic woods.... hmmmm.

Look, I think we all need to work towards conserving while preserving our way of life as best as possible; and I think the United States is leading the way (anybody remember Pittsburgh and Cleveland say 30 years ago; when everyone stated an ice age was coming lol?) regardless of how everyone seems to think we're evil incarnate.

Meanwhile I'm dreaming of enough warming (say 25 degrees) so I can hit the road!

 

[darrylri]

For the money we have flushed down the Iraq toilet, we could have built enough solar power (the most expensive renewable, btw) to split water to make enough hydrogen (also not very efficient) to use as fuel and meet ALL of our transportation needs that currently rely on oil.

I realize that this is a total strawman, but it gives you an idea of what we could be doing instead of throwing money (and lives) away trying to hang on to oil reserves that will also contribute to global warming.

And we don't necessarily need improvements in fuel cell technology to make this go. BMW, for example, has demonstrated a hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engine that is a modification of their current designs.

If we could wean ourselves from oil, we'd stop being interested in what happens in the mid east; we'd be in much less competition for oil with China and, soon, India; we'd cut our CO2 emissions by half; we'd control our own future; and we could probably sell the technology to China and India, among others, who don't really want to be tied to the mid east, either. (Oh, btw, there would then be a glut of oil product on the market, and gas would get cheaper.)

This is obviously something that can only happen in the long term, but you only get to the future by starting now.

 

[callmethebreeze]

I have no dog in this fight. I can use a thesaurus. I prefer to speak plainly. I'm not sucking up to nor provoking anyone. My training is in Human Behavior vs. Earth Science. I possess a restless and curious intellect. I am concerned when I read about the rapid melting of polar icecaps. I worry about the implications of fouling the oceans with waste. I believe that humankind and our behavior is having a direct impact on our home (earth). Whether that impact is causative, correlative or contributory is frankly irrelevant. Dramatic events are occurring across the planet. Simply because the impact of these events may not be appreciably felt for decades doesn't mean that they should be ignored.
We all contribute to the production of greenhouse gasses by our use of internal combustion engines of many types (cars, boilers, furnaces etc). Our coal fired electrical generation plants do their part. The list of contributions is endless.
We can do something. Change personal habits, Conserve, go solar, bug BMW about fuel cell powered bikes, call politicians about funding "green" efforts and most of all just do, vs. deny or whine.
This is a great planet. I hope future generations get to experience the beauty of it. It starts with us, here and now.

Breeze

 

[darrylri]

We all contribute to the production of greenhouse gasses by our use of internal combustion engines of many types (cars, boilers, furnaces etc). Our coal fired electrical generation plants do their part. The list of contributions is endless.
We can do something. Change personal habits, Conserve, go solar, bug BMW about fuel cell powered bikes, call politicians about funding "green" efforts and most of all just do, vs. deny or whine.
This is a great planet. I hope future generations get to experience the beauty of it. It starts with us, here and now.

We can all do our part.

 

[OfficerImpersonator]

What does Bush have to do with this?? Please explain.
The oil industries were in place before he was born. If Americans feel the need to do something, they should get off their oversized lard-asses and quit driving big vehicles. Buying oversized crap from Detroit simply because it gets crammed down our throats is dumb. Consumers can demand smaller, less poluting cars for starters. But they don't, as it isn't 'cool'. The Jones's have the xxxxx , now we must keep up and get xxyz...
If you have a big gas guzzler is it because you NEED it or just WANT it?? Americans think they have the right to buy whatever and that is fine, but don't blame Bush for moronic choices in vehicles and other overpoluting consumer products.
I.E Sweden by 2020 is no longer going to import oil and is going totally green. It means making sacrifices that this country no doubt will refuse to make as we are too spoiled to do what is needed. Want to blame Bush for that too??

Florida will only flood if ALL the ice melts from both poles and Greenland. Since the ice on the north pole already floats in the Arctic ocean it's melting by itself is NOT gonna flood the planet. Take a glass, fill with ice, add water to the rim and let ice melt, see if it runs over the rim....... physics 101

What does Bush have to do with it? Aside from being the Oil Industry Lobbyist and Benefactor in Chief? Aside from refusing to acknowledge that the science is in and that human economic activity is the cause? Need I go on, or do you see my point now?

 

[NGAK12]

Hey Al. I've got an inconvenient truth for you. Bout that election thing..YOU LOST. Get over it.

 

[Panhead_Jim]

Hey Al. I've got an inconvenient truth for you. Bout that election thing..YOU LOST. Get over it.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with politics. It is simply a fact that we can and do have an impact of the planet. We used not to think so. We used to think the planet's resources, as far as we were concerned, were inexhaustible. We now, suddenly so it seems, know better. Look, there are undeniably only so many whales. There are undeniablly so many fish. There is, lamentably, only so much much oil. It only takes a few million years to make it (oil that is), and we have only been using it for the last (gulp) 100 years. Wake up. Smell the roses. Part of the outreach I do for a living has to do with choices each one of us makes every single day. I am a marine biologist by training and trade. The ocean is without a doubt dying fairly quickly. It covers 2/3s of our beloved and trusted planet. Do the math. I love all ya'll (redneck plural for ya'll), but I don't see where there's any real controversy here. Neither does the Ocean Commisssion.

 

[bob_m]

Oh No!

Hey Al. I've got an inconvenient truth for you. Bout that election thing..YOU LOST. Get over it.

He's cracked our code. Now the truth is out. Al Gore, stewing in his sour grapes of defeat, took over the leadership of the top secret liberal project "Operation Drown Bangladesh". With the support of evil "scientists" Gore became the mastermind of the diabolical weather changing machine. With more savage storms, higher floods and deeper snows Gore and his liberal conspiracy were ultimately planning to collapse the economy and exhaust humanity's faith in a benevolent creator. But in the near term, out of mean spirited vengeance, Gore had wanted to expose Bush as an incompetent boob. As disaster after catastrophe wracked the planet and the leader of the free world failed to act, Gore would have been vindicated, but at a terrible cost.

Well now that the secret is out that plan is undone and we can go back to life as usual.

 

[USERNAME]

Hey Al. I've got an inconvenient truth for you. Bout that election thing..YOU LOST. Get over it.

errrr, even when he and clinton won, twice, he was still all crazy and environmental and stuff.

 

[SGTBORING]

Errr. Snow in LA????

Its getting warmer and warmer is it not?

 

[EastTNBeemer]

He's cracked our code. Now the truth is out. Al Gore, stewing in his sour grapes of defeat, took over the leadership of the top secret liberal project "Operation Drown Bangladesh". With the support of evil "scientists" Gore became the mastermind of the diabolical weather changing machine. With more savage storms, higher floods and deeper snows Gore and his liberal conspiracy were ultimately planning to collapse the economy and exhaust humanity's faith in a benevolent creator. But in the near term, out of mean spirited vengeance, Gore had wanted to expose Bush as an incompetent boob. As disaster after catastrophe wracked the planet and the leader of the free world failed to act, Gore would have been vindicated, but at a terrible cost.

Well now that the secret is out that plan is undone and we can go back to life as usual.

Now there's an inconvenient truth, if I ever heard one!