Anyone doing earth hour? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

multilis

2010-03-27, 06:31 PM

IMO earth hour with nothing real else is a feel good but do nothing activity.

Average compact florescent light bulb burns perhaps 14 watts of power. Your fridge averages many times more. 1 hour of saving 14 watts of power when you as person average 300+ watts for the other 719 hours of the month... (Average household uses 1000+ watts average)

If you *honestly* want to reduce your consumption then actually do so year round, in meaningful ways, eg small car is really more than enough for average of 1.4 people per car on roads today. An electric assist bicycle/scooter is more than enough for many trips.

A laptop computer uses a small fraction of what high end desktop uses, eg $200+ used ibm centrino thinkpad with windows xp, older versions of software takes 30 seconds to start up, and does most non 3d game tasks snappy, while a modern super computer with windows 7 may take 2 minutes to start up and not really any faster for everyday stuff, but it needs 10x the power or more. (Eg ms office 97 on such a computer runs circles around office 2003-2007 on a modern computer and isn't really missing anything, in many ways is actually *easier* to use)

[Lots of easy stuff could be done if people really wanted, eg a fridge with thicker insulation and with door on top rather than front would use 1/10 the power of normal fridge, cold stays down when door on top is openned]

The Vorpal Tribble

2010-03-27, 06:53 PM

My succinct reply:
PFTTTTTT

*turns on everything in house*

OverdrivePrime

2010-03-27, 07:11 PM

Most nights of the week you don't turn lights on or use electricity of any kind?

My computer is usually on and my music is often on, but no, I tend not to turn lights on unless I want to read. Otherwise I can usually see just fine with all the ambient light from the city. I probably use a fair bit of electricity, just not on light.

Serpentine

2010-03-27, 10:43 PM

Nameless

2010-03-27, 10:47 PM

Serpentine

2010-03-27, 10:56 PM

skywalker

2010-03-27, 10:56 PM

Methinks a lot of people are missing the entire point of the Earth Hour thing... From the website, it's "a global call to action to every individual, every business and every community throughout the world. It is a call to stand up, to take responsibility, to get involved and lead the way towards a sustainable future." It's symbolic, and a message to the Powers That Be that we actually do care about this issue. Would you people saying there's no point to it say the same thing about public protests? It's the exact same thing.
Also, it was fun. I'm thinking of using candles more often.
You people going on about how the excessive use of electricity and natural resources is symbolic of humanity's greatness or somesuch, I really hope you're kidding :smallannoyed: Don't participate if you don't think it helps the issue, but don't belittle the issue itself.

Last year, I went to an Earth Hour dress-up party as a rainforest fairy. 'twas fun =3 No party this year v.v

People don't really care right now, tho, I think is the message you're getting. The environment, climate change, etc, are all post-materialist values. As a global culture, we've had a nice good shock to throw us back into materialism and worrying about how we're going to pay the mortgage and clothe the kids. If we have to feed them cheap, factory farmed meat and give them non-sustainable clothes, we'll do so.

Not to say that this is right, just commenting. I was honestly surprised at the amount of "meh" going on in this thread, but I think you'll find it quite in line with current global attitudes as a whole. The joke "I wish global warming would hurry up, it would sure help with my heat bill" might be in bad taste, but it's a reflection of the times.

Nameless

2010-03-27, 11:05 PM

That is, unfortunately, a possibility. Happens in other places, too: apparently people with eco-friendly houses, insulation and solar power and the like, tend to be a bit freer about the way they use it - turning up the heat a bit, leaving lights on more, that sort of thing. But that doesn't negate the value of the whole thing. I mean, in that example, it negates up to 50% of the potential savings from having such things (according to this article). But that still means they're saving the other 50%.

I just think that if you’re into this "planet-saving-we're-all-doomed-and-it's-all-YOUR-FAULT" thingy, at least have the decency to do properly. You have people who do these earth hours or earth days once a year, feel as if they’ve made some sort of difference and go back to being like everyone else the rest of the year, yet feel so highly of themselves that they can lecture me on how evil I am because I didn’t switch my light off for an hour.
And if it’s some sort of protest like you said, then I still think that it’s a little silly. Because, to be frank, the big powerful companies and what not don’t care. Heck, if you can’t get me to care about this little protest, how are you gonna get someone who makes money off electricity to care? Certainly not by turning off your lights for an hour.

Serpentine

2010-03-27, 11:19 PM

chiasaur11

2010-03-27, 11:26 PM

No.

Really, the whole thing smells off.

I mean, sure, I want a good working planet with all the animals intact.

But...

This sort of thing seems less tied to the kind of thinking that gives better tech that messes with other stuff less, and more the kind of thinking that loses all the good we've got over the centuries, acts smugly superior...

And doesn't even do much good in exchange.

Probably a wrong impression, but there you go.

Trog

2010-03-27, 11:35 PM

Yup. Every night, for like 6 hours. :smalltongue: Only things using power are the refrigerator and the furnace, when it kicks in. Otherwise I have a house full of CFLs which largely stay off during the daylight hours when an open curtain will provide plenty of light. A sustained effort and gradual lifestyle and habit changes bring more results though, I think, than a single, symbolic hour.

Thajocoth

2010-03-28, 12:47 AM

It's not really a visible sort of thing to the people you want to see how much others care about the issue. Protests work much better, and those barely work. Really, if you want to fix the issues at hand, you need to either: Raise enough money to pay more than the difference in cost for the people in question, [Borderline Political - Self Removed, but involved raising money], or find an alternative way of doing things that's cheaper for the people in question.

I understand the symbolism, but the people who don't care about the issue aren't going to care about symbolism either.

Kneenibble

2010-03-28, 01:27 AM

I just think that if you’re into this "planet-saving-we're-all-doomed-and-it's-all-YOUR-FAULT" thingy, at least have the decency to do properly. You have people who do these earth hours or earth days once a year, feel as if they’ve made some sort of difference and go back to being like everyone else the rest of the year, yet feel so highly of themselves that they can lecture me on how evil I am because I didn’t switch my light off for an hour.
And if it’s some sort of protest like you said, then I still think that it’s a little silly. Because, to be frank, the big powerful companies and what not don’t care. Heck, if you can’t get me to care about this little protest, how are you gonna get someone who makes money off electricity to care? Certainly not by turning off your lights for an hour.

The power company in this province co-operates with the government to refund almost 100% of costs to put in insulation, that's parts and labour; they also give rebates on installing high-efficiency appliances (furnaces, water heaters, fridges, dryers, &c). There's several other programs they have, the details of which I cannot remember, for example refunding some portion of compact flourescent bulbs. The big companies do, in fact, often bother. While I agree with you that the earth hour is a largely useless gesture, they wouldn't bother unless there were public demand.

Please note, my dear bristled-up cat, the lack of anybody lecturing you except in your mind. :smallwink:

By the by, I hate flourescent lights. The compact flourescent bulbs don't hum, fine, but they just can't match the warm, inviting quality of incandescent light, they mess up colour perception, and no matter how well they are coated with a diffusing layer, they still fatigue the eyes.

Serpentine

2010-03-28, 01:43 AM

Please note, my dear bristled-up cat, the lack of anybody lecturing you except in your mind. :smallwink:In his defense, I am/was at least as bristled as him, and bracing myself for lecture mode :smallredface:

Thajocoth

2010-03-28, 01:45 AM

The power company in this province co-operates with the government to refund almost 100% of costs to put in insulation, that's parts and labour; they also give rebates on installing high-efficiency appliances (furnaces, water heaters, fridges, dryers, &c). There's several other programs they have, the details of which I cannot remember, for example refunding some portion of compact flourescent bulbs. The big companies do, in fact, often bother. While I agree with you that the earth hour is a largely useless gesture, they wouldn't bother unless there were public demand.

Yeah, I've noticed some of this sort of thing too. Around here it amounts to more billboard ads saying "please use efficient stuff - your power company" though, which is less effective than helping cull the costs of it like yours. When I was in the city, it was more ads that are like: "Yeah, we get power outtages sometimes in he summer. Can you all use fans instead of air conditioning?" "umm... absolutely not!"* So they all at least seem to try to give the impression of caring about this stuff, even if not all of them are as cool as Kneenibble's power company.

*My air conditioner is energy star compliant and stuff, and I did keep the filter clean while I used it. The air conditioner that came with the apartment might not've been compliant, but I kept that one's filter clean too, which did help.

Maximum Zersk

2010-03-28, 01:57 AM

To be honest, I'd consider that more civilized. Read any Youtube comments lately? :smalltongue:

True dat.

Considering I have an Enviromental Studies major in the family, yes, I'll be doing Earth Hour. After all, how much light do you REALLY need to read a book?

As much as you need to see the back of your hand possibly. I can read fine in the dark. Plus, it doesn't really damage your eyes. Only if the book is moving a lot, or something.

[hr]

While I believe that it seems interesting in a symbolic way, I can understand that it won't physically help. The way I see it, there would have to be a gradual change in electricity use. Not all at once. But maybe, gradually, people use less lights over time. Also, buying energy-saving electronics (As said above, a laptop, or netbook instead of a Desktop computer), cutting off on the overuse of lights, use a candle once in a while. Little things, not all at once, but over the course of a year, maybe.

It may not seem like much, but every person makes a difference, I guess. I'm not one to tell people, really, since I'm FAR away from cutting back a lot, but still, we, as as humans, could try.

Also, damn, you people are cynical. :smalltongue:

Innis Cabal

2010-03-28, 04:15 AM

Also, damn, you people are cynical. :smalltongue:

We prefer the term pragmatist.

Surfing HalfOrc

2010-03-28, 04:22 AM

Well, the original plan was to, but we were out of the house, except my 17 year old daughter... Who promptly left the house to go babysit, and left the kitchen light on. :smallamused:

Anyways, I'm sitting here with the lights off, resting from a 15 mile bike ride up to the Camp Casey area. I joined a Korean bicycle club, and they took an "easy" ride up the road a ways. Maybe after I drop 20+ pounds and do this for more than once or twice it will be easy, but for now my quads ACHE!

But hey, I saved energy, so hurray for me. Now where's my cookie? I'm self-important! Nah, not really.

LOVE the Avatar Serpentine BTW! :smallsmile:

Serpentine

2010-03-28, 04:36 AM

I tried using a candle by the computer (apparently I looked very creepy from the outside), but it makes my eyes hurt to use the computer in the dark :smallfrown: Trying to make sure there's only 1 light on at a time, though.
Also, thanks :smallsmile:

Also: Nothin' pragmatic about not giving a damn about the planet upon which we live.

Nameless

2010-03-28, 05:42 AM

It's governments and people as a whole that it's aimed at, not companies particularly.

Alright then, how would you bring attention to this international crisis? What outlet would you give people to publically demonstrate their concern about this issue?

And by the way, I'm not exactly pro-"those people". But there's only so much any individual can do (especially a student) without government action.

To be honest, seeing as I don’t care or believe in more then half of the theory, I’ve never really given it much thought. However, what I am saying is that if you really want to actually make some change (or at least set a good example, instead of being a hypocrite about it all. (Not you specifically, Serp, I don‘t really know what you do), cut down on your carbon footprint properly, not just for one hour a year. I would also say go and try and get everyone else to join you, although to be fair, most people have enough of that shoved down your throat on a daily basis anyway. Although maybe seeing a friend do it might convince them.
But as I’ve said, I’ve never given it any thought before like, now.

The power company in this province co-operates with the government to refund almost 100% of costs to put in insulation, that's parts and labour; they also give rebates on installing high-efficiency appliances (furnaces, water heaters, fridges, dryers, &c). There's several other programs they have, the details of which I cannot remember, for example refunding some portion of compact flourescent bulbs. The big companies do, in fact, often bother. While I agree with you that the earth hour is a largely useless gesture, they wouldn't bother unless there were public demand.

Please note, my dear bristled-up cat, the lack of anybody lecturing you except in your mind. :smallwink:

By the by, I hate flourescent lights. The compact flourescent bulbs don't hum, fine, but they just can't match the warm, inviting quality of incandescent light, they mess up colour perception, and no matter how well they are coated with a diffusing layer, they still fatigue the eyes.

I'm a cat?
Anyway, I was sort of feeling lectured by the hypocritical SaveTehPlanetLul hippies who actually have no idea what they're talking about yet have decided to invaded Camden in their flocks to shove their near-religion austere like beliefs up my ass and took it out on Serp.
Sorry Serp. v.v

Yay e-debates.

Innis Cabal

2010-03-28, 05:45 AM

Also: Nothin' pragmatic about not giving a damn about the planet upon which we live.

Your right. Hell of a lot of pragmatism doing more then a token hour of certified B.S though. In fact, I'd say its the action that defines the word. One hour a year isn't going to save the world, taking steps to fix the problems is what we should be doing. Not holding hands, singing songs and hoping it all gets better because we just feel oh so warm and connected to one another for flicking the light switchs off for what ammounts to not even a second of global time.

Yora

2010-03-28, 05:52 AM

I have all electronics shut off for 9 hours every night (except for the fridge, of course), and it's all off for additional 6 to 8 hours on four days a week when I'm at university.
I don't see how turning of the music for one hours per year while I'm reading on the couch would make any difference. And our city is enforcing two two three hours of complete shut down per year anyway. :smallwink:
Yes, it's probably about awarenes of energy waste, but no thank you.

Nameless

2010-03-28, 06:00 AM

Innis Cabal

2010-03-28, 06:25 AM

The views posted in the quote above may not be my own personal views.

Nature harms itself. Have you ever seen a lion eat a zebra? The pessemistic ones (And egotistcal might I postulate) are the ones who think humans have any significant impact on a world thats done just fun on emiting green house gases in quantities that would make our cars blush for longer then we've been a cognizant race. I don't think so.

This might be closer to my views. It may not. Who knows.

Emperor Ing

2010-03-28, 06:28 AM

As a symbolic gesture for Earth Hour, I played Mass Effect 2 on my big screen TV through the duration and a bit further into the night.

Honestly, I think this is just part of the Going Green fad making it's last attempt to crawl back into our lifestyle in newer and more arrogant ways. Everyone turning off their lights for an hour does next to nothing against what they do throughout the other 8759 hours of the year while some electronics are still on. I believe the head of my electrical grid came out and said that the surge of everyone turning everything on and things being plugged in at around the same time not only counteracts the hour, but actually leaves a larger carbon footprint than if everyone had just left everything on.

Yora

2010-03-28, 06:28 AM

The world can't be harmed. It can only be altered in ways that might no longer support human life. But the world has been like that before and will be like that again, with or without our doing.
Mother Nature doesn't care. :smallbiggrin:

Nameless

2010-03-28, 06:31 AM

Besides, after going to America and seeing how much “evil” CO2 they produce, me turning off my lights and TV is like turning up after an earthquake with a dustpan and brush.

Emperor Ing

2010-03-28, 06:35 AM

Besides, after going to America and seeing how much “evil” CO2 they produce, me turning off my lights and TV is like turning up after an earthquake with a dustpan and brush.

:smallconfused:
...wut?

Eldan

2010-03-28, 06:35 AM

We prefer the term pragmatist.

I prefer the term cynic. I call things by it's name, and I know I am one.

Doesn't mean I don't care about the planet: I'm writing a master's thesis in Ecology and Environmental studies after all. It just means that I also know just how useless most of these so called environmentally friendly things really are. Or counterproductive, in many cases.

Nameless

2010-03-28, 06:43 AM

:smallconfused:
...wut?

I was comparing turning off my lights for an hour once a year to turning up in a city after an earthquake to clean it up with a tiny little dustpan and brush.

Man, having to explain your jokes is depressing.

Kneenibble

2010-03-28, 06:47 AM

In his defense, I am/was at least as bristled as him, and bracing myself for lecture mode :smallredface:

Ah, but a lecture from Serpentine is like a gentle breeze from a rooftop garden.

Nameless

2010-03-28, 06:51 AM

Ah, but a lecture from Serpentine is like a gentle breeze from a rooftop garden.

Stop comparing people to cats and flowing oxygen. :smalltongue:

Kneenibble

2010-03-28, 07:00 AM

Stop comparing people to cats and flowing oxygen. :smalltongue:

Well strictly speaking, since it's nighttime in Australia, I'm comparing her to flowing evil CO2. :smalltongue:

Emperor Ing

2010-03-28, 07:03 AM

I was comparing turning off my lights for an hour once a year to turning up in a city after an earthquake to clean it up with a tiny little dustpan and brush.

Well what Earth Hour seems to do is the equivalent of you cleaning up after an earthquake with a sledge hammer.

Asta Kask

2010-03-28, 07:04 AM

To get the amount of light produced by a single incandescent lightbulb, you need a hundred candles. Compare the CO2 produced by a) producing 60 kWh, and b) burning down a hundred candles, and I think you'll find that a better idea for Earth hour is to take all your candles and replace them with the equivalent amount of light produced by lightbulbs.

Amiel

2010-03-28, 07:09 AM

Crap, I wasn't even aware this was on.

Sorry, Earth :smallsigh:

Nameless

2010-03-28, 07:10 AM

Well strictly speaking, since it's nighttime in Australia, I'm comparing her to flowing evil CO2. :smalltongue:

Serp is killing teh planet? onoze! D:

Well what Earth Hour seems to do is the equivalent of you cleaning up after an earthquake with a sledge hammer.

I like my one better. :smalltongue:

@^: You know, you could just do it now. It's not like You can only prettend to save the planet in that specific hour. :smalltongue: You can prettent to save the planet every hour if you want. :smallbiggrin:

Innis Cabal

2010-03-28, 07:11 AM

Sorry, Earth :smallsigh:

It forgives you.

Serpentine

2010-03-28, 07:19 AM

Your right. Hell of a lot of pragmatism doing more then a token hour of certified B.S though. In fact, I'd say its the action that defines the word. One hour a year isn't going to save the world, taking steps to fix the problems is what we should be doing. Not holding hands, singing songs and hoping it all gets better because we just feel oh so warm and connected to one another for flicking the light switchs off for what ammounts to not even a second of global time.While I consider "it's not doing a very good job of fixing a very large problem" a poor reason to not do something (as opposed to, say, drawing people's attention to something you do consider useful, or starting your own), this:
Nature harms itself. Have you ever seen a lion eat a zebra? The pessemistic ones (And egotistcal might I postulate) are the ones who think humans have any significant impact on a world thats done just fun on emiting green house gases in quantities that would make our cars blush for longer then we've been a cognizant race.is utterly absurd. It's wrong and/or irrelevant on a ridiculous number of levels - a lion eating a zebra isn't "nature harming itself", it's nature's natural processes of selection and the like; the lion isn't slaughtering zebras on a mass scale; the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence indicates undeniably that we do have an incredibly significant impact on the world, etc etc - but I think that summary will do.

The utter disregard of this planet shown by so many people makes me go all Lrrr of Omicron Persei 8.

Nameless: If I recall correctly, oxygen is produced during the day, CO2 at night - not the same amount, mind, but some. Same with corals (except with calcium carbonate, I believe).

Emperor Ing

2010-03-28, 07:28 AM

Erts

2010-03-28, 07:29 AM

Rather than taking either side (if there are indeed sides) of whether or not I'm doing Earth Hour, may I bring up that this is swiftly turning political?

Innis Cabal

2010-03-28, 07:31 AM

I think the late Mr. Carlin summed it up well. The Earth isn't going anywhere. We are. I certainly won't be alive to see the end of it, and neither will anyone here on these boards. Does that mean we shouldn't care? Certainly not. But a piddling little hour...nonsense. More so then anything you can refute in any of my admittidly nonserious post could ammount to.

Ashen Lilies

2010-03-28, 07:32 AM

Serp is killing teh planet? onoze! D:

Okay, now I'm imagining Serp as Galactus. Or maybe the Death Star.

Amiel

2010-03-28, 07:32 AM

Well...I could...but I'm just too damn lazy ._. plus these forums, they are important as well :smallbiggrin: (although I already do much for the earth, like recycling, saving on water, but I'm only one man :P)

It would have been the time to do something unselfishly indulgent for the earth; pity that on the news, fewer and fewer people did it this time around.
What would happen if they turn every light off in the cities around the world? Total chaos, total panic, or total freedom from chaos? At least the thieves and burglars will be happy.

I shall take your advice and pretend to save the earth by stealing ants to fashion a raft out of.
Also, give me all of your hair spray, deodorant and other such canisters, I need to conduct an experiment FOR SCIENCE AND FOR THE EARTH!

Yora

2010-03-28, 07:32 AM

I'd say if you are really concerned about polution and want to make a difference, you get rid of air conditioning, stop using your car for distances under 500m, and switch of the light if you leave the room for more than 15 minutes.
But these eco events only have purely educational purposes and don't do anything to reduce polution. Not that I want to stop people from doing it, but I see no purpose in it if I'm actually aware that energy waste causes polution and act do reduce it.

Serpentine

2010-03-28, 07:33 AM

I guarantee you that 100% of all Zebra AND Lion populatons across the planet won't be alive in 50 years. If that's not slaughter on a mass scale, I don't know what is. Note that this is done naturally.So what? Unless something incredibly drastic happens, there will still be zebras and lions. One will feed on the other, other things will feed on them, their activities will aid the continuation of various plant and other species, etc etc so on and so forth. This whole argument is utterly meaningless. Seriously, what's your point? "All individual animals eventually die anyway, so where's the harm in wiping out an entire ecosystem"?

edit @ ^: No car, no air conditioning (although in some places it really is necessary, but it could be largely eliminated by building houses better and things like that. Seriously, Dad. Black blinds on the Gold Coast? :smallannoyed:), no lights unless necessary.
I'm not exactly saying that Earth Hour is "gonna saev teh wurld!" or somesuch. But sometimes, symbolic gestures go a long way toward making real progress.

Asta Kask

2010-03-28, 07:33 AM

it's nature's natural processes of selection and the like; the lion isn't slaughtering zebras on a mass scale; the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence indicates undeniably that we do have an incredibly significant impact on the world, etc etc - but I think that summary will do.

Our impact on the world is just another form of selection. Can you thrive in the environment created by man? Yes or no? Since we are part of nature, this selection is neither more or less "natural" than any other.

Amiel

2010-03-28, 07:34 AM

I would go further and advise that people actually walk everywhere (like I do), it's better for you and the environment.

Also, people have become totally lame and so dependent that removal of any technology of beneficence will be met with extreme protestation :smallfrown:

Our earth is going to become extinct anyway when our sun engulfs it as it expands.

Erts

2010-03-28, 07:39 AM

Our earth is going to become extinct anyway when our sun engulfs it as it expands.

I like to think that by that time humanity will have advanced to the point that we can somehow do something about that, so....

Serpentine

2010-03-28, 07:39 AM

Our impact on the world is just another form of selection. Can you thrive in the environment created by man? Yes or no? Since we are part of nature, this selection is neither more or less "natural" than any other.Unlike the rest of the world, we're not only clever enough to have a massive impact, we're also clever enough to realise that and change it. That, too, is a matter of natural selection: can we change enough to stop wrecking up the place? If not, we're screwed too. Sure, humans are opportunistic enough that we'll almost certainly survive as a species, but as a civilisation? Less likely.

Innis Cabal

2010-03-28, 07:40 AM

So what? Unless something incredibly drastic happens, there will still be zebras and lions. One will feed on the other, other things will feed on them, their activities will aid the continuation of various plant and other species, etc etc so on and so forth. This whole argument is utterly meaningless. Seriously, what's your point? "All individual animals eventually die anyway, so where's the harm in wiping out an entire ecosystem"?

The argument isn't "Whats the harm". Its "Who the hell are we to dictate how nature should be run when it does bloody damn well fine on its own without us, and has so for longer then we've been alive."

Serpentine

2010-03-28, 07:41 AM

The argument isn't "Whats the harm". Its "Who the hell are we to dictate how nature should be run when it does bloody damn well fine on its own without us."And how does that have anything to do with the things we do to it? Aside from, well, it certainly would be fine without us...

Innis Cabal

2010-03-28, 07:46 AM

Because Earth Hour is just another egotistical symbolic gesture that dosn't account for anything in the grand scheme of anything. It only gives us comfort of mind. You can be dang sure people who have -never- had electricty, modern conviences, or substantial shelter are looking at the countries that are doing this contrived show and thinking. "Damn, what fine people they are giving up all their luxuries. We should be more like them." In fact, I'm willing to bet if they even knew that we were doing it they'd think "How...what jerks."

And they'd be right in the assesment. Thats what it brings to the argument. Earth Hour is a single gesture done by people who can afford to switch the lights back on at the end of the same said hour. Its piece of mind. It dosn't change anything. Want to change something, leave your bloody lights off for good. That'll send a message. Loud and clear.

Amiel

2010-03-28, 07:46 AM

I like to think that by that time humanity will have advanced to the point that we can somehow do something about that, so....

There is always hope (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlfKdbWwruY) :smallbiggrin:

Kneenibble

2010-03-28, 07:59 AM

*stands up at the mike, takes a sip of water*

Dammit, Innis, I took a chunk out of my carbon footprint during Earth Hour, and you just went and filled it with hot air!

I'm on a low-carb(on) diet, but it's not doing any good -- I keep getting greenhouse gas.

"Hey, is that an icecap melting in your pocket, or are you just nervous?"

I'm here all week, folks!

*bows for applause and laughter, exits stage left*

KnightDisciple

2010-03-28, 08:02 AM

May I break in?

Perhaps I can propose a middle ground.

For both those who think Earth Hour is great, and those who think it's useless...

Perhaps next year, instead of turning off all electronics for a mere hour, this group and website can encourage people to use that time.

How?

By writing letters. Well, emails, but still.

Letter to your Senator. Letter to your Representative. Letter to the President. Letter to the Governor. Letter to the State Legislative House Member(s) for your area. Letter to your Mayor/Chamber of Commerce. Letter to your Electric Company. Letter to...whoever else you think of.

Before you write, take another couple of Earth Hours and read. Research actual data on things like power generation (and all the methods therein); don't just rely on scare-tactic commercials for one side or the other.

In other words, write an informed set of letters.

And if that's too hard for the masses, maybe those dudes who spent hours making the pretty "Earth Hour" website could just generate a series of "form letters", covering as many possible recipients as possible across the globe.

Few million people write in like that, and someone's actually bound to care and listen. Do it with intelligence and factual data, it might actually help.

Serpentine

2010-03-28, 08:06 AM

Thats what it brings to the argument.No it doesn't :smallconfused: "Who the hell are we to dictate how nature should be run when it does bloody damn well fine on its own without us, and has so for longer then we've been alive." doesn't have anything at all to do with "Earth Hour is just another egotistical symbolic gesture that dosn't account for anything in the grand scheme of anything" :confused:

If you think that Earth Hour doesn't achieve anything, fair enough. Personally, I find it to be a reasonably powerful symbolic gesture, but not much, if anything, more. Although it was kinda fun. But attacking the entirety of the substantial environmentally-concerned international community - or worse, the environment itself - based on that one, very teensy-tiny, attempt at raising awareness? That's just... ugh.

Not a bad idea, KnightDisciple.

Amiel

2010-03-28, 08:12 AM

Ashen Lilies

2010-03-28, 08:15 AM

I dunno Amiel... I'm thinking my bed, what with its synthetic mattress and straight lines, is looking pretty beautiful right now... .-.

Innis Cabal

2010-03-28, 08:19 AM

If you think that Earth Hour doesn't achieve anything, fair enough. Personally, I find it to be a reasonably powerful symbolic gesture, but not much, if anything, more. Although it was kinda fun. But attacking the entirety of the substantial environmentally-concerned international community - or worse, the environment itself - based on that one, very teensy-tiny, attempt at raising awareness? That's just... ugh.

A view counter to your own isn't an attack. As pretty as you can doll it up, there will always be people who don't agree with a message, no matter how valid it is. On the flip side, there will always be people to support the most insane and inane ideals, no matter how wrong they are.

Which one Earth Hour is is fully up to the individual to decide. But those who think its a waste shouldn't be demonized for their lack of "awareness". Nor should they be looked down on with scorn or derision for what you might precive as not following a good cause.

Amiel

2010-03-28, 08:21 AM

I'm thinking a woman will always look more beautiful than anything that's what you need to say if you cherish your continued existence :smallbiggrin:

Ashen Lilies

2010-03-28, 08:22 AM

What about a robot woman? :smalltongue:
*Flees from angry female hordes*

KnightDisciple

2010-03-28, 08:24 AM

"Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realise we cannot eat money."

This is (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRWh8uTZYes) really relevant (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGuDO7FfDWQ). Play that everywhere and people will bound to notice, and actually start doing something worthwhile.

The earth is essentially nature; it should be the most important subject taught in schools and should be at the center of every discourse and discussion. It should be cherished, adored, loved; not just for ourselves but for future generations as well.
For nature is unequaled in its beauty, unmatched in its power and violence, unflinching in its neglect, unrivaled in its splendor and serenity, unsurpassed in its abundance.
I don't know if I'd go that far.

I think lots of subjects are "the most important subject taught in schools". I think there's plenty of good discourse and discussion that doesn't involve the earth.

I think the Earth (as in, natural resources, natural balance, etc) should be protected, carefully cultivated, and basically treated like the vital residence and resource it is.

But I also think there's plenty beyond just the beauty of "the earth" that has a lot of those things you're talking about. Can't really fully talk about it due to forum rules, though. :smallwink:

I'm of the mindset that says "The world is important, and we need to work not to harm it. We live here, our kids live here, and their kids will live here. We should make sure things are less messed when we leave, not more.". But I also think there's more to life than just nature.

Serpentine

2010-03-28, 08:28 AM

Two for two from KnightDisciple, here.

Amiel

2010-03-28, 08:53 AM

Robot women are always superior
Please don't hurt me

I don't know if I'd go that far.

I think lots of subjects are "the most important subject taught in schools". I think there's plenty of good discourse and discussion that doesn't involve the earth.

I think the Earth (as in, natural resources, natural balance, etc) should be protected, carefully cultivated, and basically treated like the vital residence and resource it is.

But I also think there's plenty beyond just the beauty of "the earth" that has a lot of those things you're talking about. Can't really fully talk about it due to forum rules, though. :smallwink:

I'm of the mindset that says "The world is important, and we need to work not to harm it. We live here, our kids live here, and their kids will live here. We should make sure things are less messed when we leave, not more.". But I also think there's more to life than just nature.

It's probably why the earth is in such dire straits. Oh, we are certainly happy to care, cherish and love the earth for what it is, but there needs to be a worldwide cognitive overhaul to ensure that we humans do not continue to look upon the earth as something to exploit and dominate.
As the wise adage goes, it is better late than never.

So to do that and to ensure that we leave it less messed up not more, we must first educate, at the grass roots level; our entire history has primarily been one of dominance over nature. From domestication, to farming, to felling of trees to make paper, to clearing of land to build dwellings, nature has ever known our "sophistication."

I actually believe the world and nature is much more important than anyone has ever given it credit for; when everything is pollution and poison, what happens to (y)our concepts now? What happens to the life you and your loved ones lead?
By being blasé and nonchalant risks damning ourselves to an ignominious future.
The very real concern is that we are heading to precisely such a future; even now, people consider profit to be more important than nature.
What the world is currently experiencing now is just the tip of the iceberg.

Ashen Lilies

2010-03-28, 08:57 AM

What iceberg? :smallwink:

Amiel

2010-03-28, 09:00 AM

The one that hit the Titanic bet you didn't see that one coming :smalltongue:

Ashen Lilies

2010-03-28, 09:07 AM

Awww, man! I was just trying to lighten things up! :smallfrown:
...
Oh wait.

Trog

2010-03-28, 09:24 AM

thread: tl;dr ... but I skimmed it. Thought I'd add one more thing to this discussion since I didn't see anything of the sort thus far.

Imagine the earth and it's atmosphere as a bathtub. The earth creates its own carbon emissions, naturally and it also, naturally, has its own carbon sinks. In the same way the tub has a faucet and a drain. Imagine the balance between the two this way: The faucet is running, but the drain is draining away at the same rate. Thus, the water in the tub stays at the same level. Now the earth has cycles that vary this a little here and there I'd bet so sometimes there is more "water" coming in and sometimes there is less. The drain might vary only a little as well.

Anyway, enter mankind, with its ability to produce carbon into the atmosphere. In this illustration this is the equivalent of mankind turning up the faucet a notch or two. The obvious result here is that the water level begins to rise.

Now, of course, the real question is how high of a water level is too high? This is sort of where the disputes come in. Fatalists will say we will all die when the tub overflows and others believe that the water level has so far to go before it reaches the lip of the tub that we need not worry about it in their lifetimes.

Whatever you believe, the tub IS filling up through human activity such as burning coal, gasoline, etc. If your local power plant burns coal to create electricity then whatever kilowatt/hours you use contributes to that. On top of that, using electricity costs money. Long before there was a green movement parents have been lecturing kids (and themselves) about turning off what you do not use because it wastes electricity.

If one million people turned off their lights and such for one hour when they normally would have been on it -does- reduce the electricity used. And if that electricity is created by a coal-fired power plant it -does- reduce carbon emissions and (incrementally) reduce the electricity that was used for that (fill in the time period here - year, month, day, etc.).

Again, I'm in the camp of making more day-to-day incremental changes to reduce electricity as, over the course of a year, this reduces more than one can do in a total shut-down in one hour.

So earth hour is symbolic and temporary, sure... but it worked. Now if they made it one day a month that might speed things up a bit. Then one day a week. The more often people get in the habit of turning off (or better yet, unplugging altogether) a lot of things they use they will not only save money but help reduce the flow of the tap in whatever way they themselves are capable of doing.

Remember: just because you doing one small thing doesn't bring big spectacular results doesn't mean it's not contributing to the overall whole... which, collectively, may.

Plus, did I mention you save money regardless? Hard to find a more immediate result than that, really.

Klose_the_Sith

2010-03-28, 10:02 AM

I did it purely unintentionally - I was at my girlfriends and she was doing it. Plus I wasn't at home, so only fridge and laptop would have had power (and laptop was off, but charging).

Sure I'm all about saving whatever planet it is that we're on, but my current lifestyle is too cramped too enable much power cutting (sure there are cuts to be made but they're so damn inconvenient and year 12 is already uber stressful >.>).

Really I'm a pretty bad person, but I'll probably look for some power cuts when I stop having essays due tomorrow morning and thus need to type Lord of the Rings character analysis all night. That is all.

/Kloseaway

Thajocoth

2010-03-28, 10:30 AM

I did not sleep last night. Then, I read through a lot of posts. The result is in the spoiler below. I spoilered it because it may seem slightly like the incoherent babbling of an insane man. My points ping-pong wildly from one end to the other and at some points go off into nowhere (not to be confused with Nowhere). I think at least some of it must've been on topic, but it's mostly all responses to other posts in some bizarre twisted way.

Everything mankind has done will clean itself up if we stop doing it. The water cycle pulls greenhouse gasses out of the air. (Heck, one time we had enough greenhouse gasses to melt an ice age so major that the Earth was white, reflecting a lot of the Sun's energy.) The radiation from the ozone hole creates more ozone. Everything rots, erodes or adapts. We're adapting too. Slowly making usage of the increase of metals in our environment. The threat is not the change itself, but the speed of the change. Scientists are worried we'll cause the Earth's weather to become similar to Venus's (Venus is known for it's storms. All hurricanes, all the time.)

There are still glaciers that aren't melting (4, if I remember correctly). This means we're still in an ice age, so the Earth warming up isn't all that bad for the Earth... But mammals do better during ice ages. And we're mammals. Most of the animals we eat/use/play with are mammals. It's ideal for us if the Earth's in a bit of an ice age. They say the warming could result in an extreme ice age... And more rain in Europe. More rain = more air filtration, and we humans know how to heat things up anyway. Wasn't fire one of our first achievements? Maybe they call that fact the Sahara now, who knows?

I mean, I don't think fixing a lot of stuff is bad. It's the right direction... But it needs to be fixed on the corporate level... And the corporate level IS money. Humans can't eat money... But it's what corporations feed on. (Have too much anything and something will evolve that feeds on it.)

I like to think that by that time humanity will have advanced to the point that we can somehow do something about that, so....

This. This is why mankind evolved. This is why the planet needs us. The stage we're going through now, to become more planet-minded, is a necessary step towards dealing with cosmic threats like the Sun's expansion. It's going to take a very very long time though... Many generations. Society is it's own organism and is a lot slower of a learner than any of it's cells (us).

The way we're [society] going to learn this is by having our smartest understand this. It is our smartest that bring forth the new innovations that are in use next, and when they've got ideals it works out great. If you've ever seen the movie Temple Grandin, which is a true story, you'll notice that while her motive is more humane ways to treat animals we're going to eat, she's able to sell it to the businessmen because she always points at the money when she talks to them and shows that her more humane systems also happen to save them money. That's why most cattle farmers today use her more humane systems.

The same goes for "saving the planet". The way to fix these sorts of problems is to invent with all your goals in mind. If the consumer is going to use it, it has to be easy. If the businessmen will use it, it has to save or make money. And then add your own ideals into the mix... And come up with a resulting idea that can compete with what's out there, on it's level, while being superior in every way. One tiny flaw at a time.

Asta Kask

2010-03-28, 11:58 AM

Unlike the rest of the world, we're not only clever enough to have a massive impact, we're also clever enough to realise that and change it. That, too, is a matter of natural selection: can we change enough to stop wrecking up the place? If not, we're screwed too. Sure, humans are opportunistic enough that we'll almost certainly survive as a species, but as a civilisation? Less likely.

Agreed, but the only way through is forward. Technology brought us here, technology will have to bring us out. If we try to rectify this by going the flagellation and tech-denial route, billions of people will die. So instead of doing the Earth Hour thing, you'd be doing infinitely more good by donating $10 to research on solar panels (or carbon sequestration, or...)

Yes, we had a civilization before we had electricity. The average lifespan was - what - 50? Let's play a game, it's called "Thanks to Modernity". Everyone whose life has been saved by modern technology (somewhat arbitrarily defined as 1900 and forward), raise a hand. And then the people here who decry technology while using its fruits can decide if life was really better if all these posters were dead. While it is undoubtedly true that you can't enjoy life without a planet, you also cannot enjoy it if you're dead from pneumonia.

*raises hand*

KnightDisciple

2010-03-28, 12:27 PM

Robot women are always superior
Please don't hurt me

It's probably why the earth is in such dire straits. Oh, we are certainly happy to care, cherish and love the earth for what it is, but there needs to be a worldwide cognitive overhaul to ensure that we humans do not continue to look upon the earth as something to exploit and dominate.
As the wise adage goes, it is better late than never.

So to do that and to ensure that we leave it less messed up not more, we must first educate, at the grass roots level; our entire history has primarily been one of dominance over nature. From domestication, to farming, to felling of trees to make paper, to clearing of land to build dwellings, nature has ever known our "sophistication."

I actually believe the world and nature is much more important than anyone has ever given it credit for; when everything is pollution and poison, what happens to (y)our concepts now? What happens to the life you and your loved ones lead?
By being blasé and nonchalant risks damning ourselves to an ignominious future.
The very real concern is that we are heading to precisely such a future; even now, people consider profit to be more important than nature.
What the world is currently experiencing now is just the tip of the iceberg.

Congratulations on completely misunderstanding me.

I never said I want the Earth "exploited".

Didn't I even use the word "protect"?

I'm all for working towards cleaning the planet. But the key word is "work".That work will require skilled humans of every stripe. And if we suddenly start shoving "yay the earth! worship the earth! nothing is more important than the earth!" down our kids' throats, they'll have even more trouble than they do right now actually learning.

But I'm not "blase" about pollution. I want it to stop.

I'm also intelligent and realistic enough to realize it won't happen in the next 10 years. I'm looking at the long haul. The next century.

So please don't patronize me about how I don't care about the planet, when that's exactly the opposite of what I've said.:smallannoyed:

Closak

2010-03-28, 12:45 PM

Due to a lack of my own words i am simply going to quote a certain story.

"Oh sure, you don't give a damn about what happens to the planet as long as you can fill your pockets, but let me ask you a question, if by some miracle you survive the end of the world, what are you going to spend the money on?"

Most people seem to think that earning money at any cost is more important than the environment.
This leads to massive pollution.
That in turn leads to a massive increase in natural disasters, both in number and strenght.
And that in turn leads to A LOT of dead people.
Which leads to panic, riots, war and heavens know what.
Which then ultimately leads to the end of human civilization.

Oops. (Of course, this is a worst case scenario, but do you seriously want to take the risk?)

Asta Kask

2010-03-28, 01:34 PM

"Oh sure, you don't give a damn about what happens to the planet as long as you can fill your pockets, but let me ask you a question, if by some miracle you survive the end of the world, what are you going to spend the money on?"

What good is a planet if you're dead from an illness that would have been easily preventable in a high-tech society?

waterpenguin43

2010-03-28, 01:37 PM

Due to a lack of my own words i am simply going to quote a certain story.

Most people seem to think that earning money at any cost is more important than the environment.
This leads to massive pollution.
That in turn leads to a massive increase in natural disasters, both in number and strenght.
And that in turn leads to A LOT of dead people.
Which leads to panic, riots, war and heavens know what.
Which then ultimately leads to the end of human civilization.

Oops. (Of course, this is a worst case scenario, but do you seriously want to take the risk?)

I agree with a passion. I hate how people care so much about the economic "crash" and don't about the environment.

KnightDisciple

2010-03-28, 01:40 PM

I agree with a passion. I hate how people care so much about the economic "crash" and don't about the environment.

Yeah. I mean, heaven forbid people worry about having a home or food for themselves and their children for the next year! They should worry about the planet! Those selfish people! /sarcasm

Closak

2010-03-28, 01:42 PM

waterpenguin43

2010-03-28, 01:48 PM

Yeah. I mean, heaven forbid people worry about having a home or food for themselves and their children for the next year! They should worry about the planet! Those selfish people! /sarcasm

I didn't mean it that way! I just meant that people should probably focus a little bit more on the environment than the economy. Because, it's not like everything is at stake if the environment is put in danger, is it?[/retributivesarcasm]

KnightDisciple

2010-03-28, 01:51 PM

How about worrying about being able to breathe?

Good luck living in a world where the atmosphere is so polluted that breathing will kill you.

Toxic atmosphere, it's going to be the end of us all i say.

Yeah, but, to be blunt, that's still a few years off. People are in danger of losing homes and jobs and not having food right this instant.

People can only be concerned about so much at once. It's a blunt fact.

And frankly, there's a limited amount the average person can do to help the environment, if they're not a CEO, genius scientist, or higher-level government official (which, surprise, most people aren't). Recycling isn't bad, if you can find it. Certainly, trying to use more efficient cars is good...if you can afford to buy them.

But you know what one of our top priorities should be? Replacing the coal-burning power plants with a combination of (in the short term) cleaner coal plants, geothermals where you can, hydro where you can, some solar (putting aside the likely very large cost to get a really good solar plant up, not to mention potentially hazardous materials required to make them), and, yes, nuclear energy.

Meanwhile, write your government official, after doing some research, to try finding ways to efficiently, reasonably, and sustainably clean things up. Oh, maybe ask them to sanction places that allow massive clear-cutting.

Support paper and wood companies who actually try to minimize their impact to forests.

In other words, rather than ranting about "how dare people worry abut the economy" and "we're all gonna choke!", let's be rational thinking adults, do some research, and maybe write some letters. That way, you can feel morally superior without looking down your nose at people who have it harder than you.

Asta Kask

2010-03-28, 01:58 PM

I think you missed his point. He hates the fact that other people have other priorities than him. There's really not much point in discussing with a person who thinks like that. Therefore I say

Adieu

waterpenguin43

2010-03-28, 02:03 PM

In other words, rather than ranting about "how dare people worry abut the economy" and "we're all gonna choke!", let's be rational thinking adults, do some research, and maybe write some letters. That way, you can feel morally superior without looking down your nose at people who have it harder than you.

I'm not just saying "blah-blah-blah the economy doesn't matter", I'm saying that the environment is a valid concern as well.

I think you missed her point. He hates the fact that other people have other priorities than her. There's really not much point in discussing with a person who thinks like that. Therefore I say

Adieu

By the way, I'm a he.

KnightDisciple

2010-03-28, 02:17 PM

I've never said it isn't a valid concern, ultimately. But you have to take into account the fact that the economic issues affect people immediately. Misguided or not, someone's going to worry more about getting a steady job in the next month, than they are counting cans to be recycled.

Whatever your particular view on the base state of humanity, give your fellow man some credit.

And remember that, again, there's only so much the "average" person can do. Try to respect that fact.

And Asta Kask may have been thrown by your avatar.

Eldan

2010-03-28, 03:09 PM

Welll...

Toxic atmosphere isn't our problem.

Our problems are that the efficiency of farming in Africa will go down up to 50%. That the sea level will rise 50 to 70 meters. That the tropical rainforests are dying off. That there will be heat waves like the one 2003 in Europe every second year by 2100. That there will be just about no rain in the tropics. That deserts will grow enormously. That the tundras will thaw, exposing all the carbon stored in dead plant matter to the oxygen of the atmosphere and eventual degradation. That alpine glaciers will melt, leaving certain countries without drinking water. And a few dozen other reasons.

Closak

2010-03-28, 03:34 PM

Yeah, that too.

But the toxic atmosphere thing is what worries me the most.

Not only would it kill all humans, it would kill every single living thing that is dependant on being able to breathe.

Scientists think that the largest mass-extinction in the history of the world was caused by toxic atmosphere.
That event supposedly killed 98% of all life on the planet.

Afterwards the dinosaurs came and took over, until good old giant space rock nuked them that is.

Now enter humanity, also known as "Those people who keep screwing up everything they touch and could very possibly end up causing a repeat performance of the biggest natural disaster ever"

KuReshtin

2010-03-28, 03:57 PM

The hotel I'm staying at at the moment participated in Earth Hour by shutting off all the lights in the hallways and stuff.

They did, however, keep the lights on that lit up all the art in the alcoves and stuff, and the facade spotlights outside. They also kept the TV running in the lobby area.
I'd call that a partial fail.

Nameless

2010-03-28, 06:26 PM

Serpentine

2010-03-28, 08:23 PM

Agreed, but the only way through is forward. Technology brought us here, technology will have to bring us out. If we try to rectify this by going the flagellation and tech-denial route, billions of people will die. So instead of doing the Earth Hour thing, you'd be doing infinitely more good by donating $10 to research on solar panels (or carbon sequestration, or...)

Yes, we had a civilization before we had electricity. The average lifespan was - what - 50? Let's play a game, it's called "Thanks to Modernity". Everyone whose life has been saved by modern technology (somewhat arbitrarily defined as 1900 and forward), raise a hand. And then the people here who decry technology while using its fruits can decide if life was really better if all these posters were dead. While it is undoubtedly true that you can't enjoy life without a planet, you also cannot enjoy it if you're dead from pneumonia.

*raises hand*I don't believe I've ever suggested that I was the slightest bit anti-progress or anti-technology. Considering the fact that if my baby nephew had been born 50 years ago, he wouldn't have made it past a couple of weeks old, I think modern technology is amazing.
The point of Earth Hour isn't "DENY YOURSELF EVERYTHING BECAUSE EVERY TIME YOU USE SOMETHING AN ENTIRE SPECIES IS EXTINCT YOU HORRIBLE HUMAN YOU", it's "think about the amount of resources, in this case electricity, you use, and how you can reduce that amount, thereby reducing your impact on the planet". There is a rather large difference between "technology is great no matter what humans rule use as many resources as you possibly can!" and "everything humanity does is destructive we must stop using everything ever and go back to the stone age or better yet everyone just stop eating or farting or breathing or anything!" Contrary to apparently popular belief, "try to use fewer resources while encouraging environmentally-friendly technological developments" is a valid option. Why not do Earth Hour and donate that $10?

skywalker

2010-03-28, 11:08 PM

I didn't mean it that way! I just meant that people should probably focus a little bit more on the environment than the economy. Because, it's not like everything is at stake if the environment is put in danger, is it?[/retributivesarcasm]

Hi. Between "everything" at stake in 20 years, and my kids eating at stake tomorrow (or in 2) I think I know which one matters more to me.

Again, the environment, by and large, is a post-materialist value. Consider yourself lucky that you still get to worry about it. Most of us (that is people in general) have kids, mortgages, car payments, etc. to worry about.

To answer you bluntly: you are wrong to say that we should focus more on the environment than on the economy, even a little bit. If we're going to take care of the planet, there has to be a "we" around. "We" are in far more immediate danger (on an individual scale, but pennies make dollars. Humans make populations) from economic issues than "we" are from environmental disaster.

Kyouhen

2010-03-28, 11:29 PM

I'd just like to point out that it doesn't have to be a case of environment vs economy. Any government officials/scientists/etc saying that are having their pockets lined by oil companies and whatnot who would see their entire empire crumble if the green movement gains speed.

You put more funding into researching green technology and you get more jobs. More jobs are then needed to produce the new technology. Even more jobs are needed to clean up the old technology. It's entirely possible to help the economy and the environment at the same time.

Serpentine

2010-03-29, 02:43 AM

Eldan

2010-03-29, 05:22 AM

Especially since, in most cases, environmentally friendly stuff doesn't really cost more money, you know.

Serpentine

2010-03-29, 05:48 AM

In fact, things like, say, turning off unnecessary electrical appliances - what Earth Hour is specifically about - saves you money.

Kumo

2010-03-29, 06:02 AM

Leon

2010-03-29, 06:09 AM

Nuts i missed it, was out anyway so.

Its a small step towards a larger problem, the next step is get it happening as a regular occurrence rather than a "special event"

Asta Kask

2010-03-29, 06:46 AM

Why not do Earth Hour and donate that $10?

Because Earth Hour is a useless exercise. It has no impact on politicians - besides them joining in because it's an easy and cheap way to get some press (it certainly couldn't save the Copenhagen Meeting). It has no long-term impact on peoples' behavior, at least that I have been able to see (how long does it take for energy consumption to be back to normal). It has no effect on research, which is the only thing that can save us now, unless we want to go back to a pre-industrial era.

I am very far from agreeing with everything the Ayn Rand Institute says, but in this case they were spot on:

[Earth Hour] sends the comforting-but-false message: Cutting off fossil fuels would be easy and even fun! People spend the hour stargazing and holding torch-lit beach parties; restaurants offer special candle-lit dinners. Earth Hour makes the renunciation of energy seem like a big party.

Participants spend an enjoyable sixty minutes in the dark, safe in the knowledge that the life-saving benefits of industrial civilization are just a light switch away.

If the WWF wants to save the planet - and I want to stress that I am not opposed to that - they would do a lot better by asking everyone to SMS $10 to a scientific research foundation dedicated to energy research. They could have a list of such foundations on their homepage, or they could set up a foundation themselves. Why don't they? Because it's easier to ask people to do a cost-them-nothing campaign that achieves nothing but looks good and gets press.

To sum up: I'm all for activities to save the climate, provided said activities actually achieves something. Earth Hour does not.

dogmac

2010-03-29, 07:01 AM

I dunno.

Earth hour started as a very minor thing in Australia about 6 (??) years ago and now it has extended to the world.

It shows that symbollism CAN show.

Plus, it is a very good way of letting you know how many things you DO leave on that you dont think about.

For the record, I take public transport everywhere, am a vegetarian, have double glazing and very very very rarely use my aircon.

Asta Kask

2010-03-29, 07:38 AM

So, it has been going on in Australia for the last 6 years. How has it affected energy use there? How long does the drop in power consumption last?

If Earth Hour increases awareness about unnecessary power use, the reasonable measurement for efficacy is long-term power use (say after 30 days). I couldn't find any data about this on the WWF home page. There are two possible reasons - either they haven't thought about evaluating this (which is bad) or they have, the results were negative and so were never published (which is worse). I think it's the first.

Serpentine

2010-03-29, 07:40 AM

Assuming the climate 'crisis' isn't total bull.1. Extremely unlikely.
2. That's not the only environmental problem.

Nameless

2010-03-29, 08:00 AM

Assuming the climate 'crisis' isn't total bull.

It's not total bull, it's just mostly bull. :smallbiggrin:

THAC0

2010-03-29, 01:03 PM

Especially since, in most cases, environmentally friendly stuff doesn't really cost more money, you know.

Not on the individual scale. But when governments get involved, it sure does. Maybe that's just because they do it stupidly, but still.

skywalker

2010-03-29, 02:16 PM

Skywalker: So, if it's between eating a steak and having a grand house on the beach now, and international food crises and your house falling into the sea in 20 years, or having a more environmentally-friendly meal and low-impact house now, and a stable environment in the future, you'll go with the former, is that right? Short-term security over long-term survival?

This is the point I've been trying to make, my dear. That it used to be this sort of question. Which is why people used to care more about the environment. But it's not this type of question for most people anymore. It's not a question of tofu vs. steak, it's a question of "what's the cheapest way I can get protein." Stop characterizing the people who say "our current economic climate doesn't engender much love for 'the planet'" as saying "we're all greedy and we ought to be, the planet sucks." What we're saying is that you can't expect someone to spend too much time worrying about the endangered blue-footed booby population (note that blue footed boobys are not actually endangered) when they're worried about their own endangered retirement, or their kids' endangered college funds, etc.

It's a fact that people care about money to buy themselves things (even just essentials) first. How much do they talk about the Environment in the less wealthy parts of the world? Very little. There has been very little change in the amount Ethiopians care about their environmental impact, because they cared very little to begin with. There has been a change in the developed world, however, and that is because of the tremendous loss of wealth that has occurred. On top of that, not only have people become less wealthy, they have become less wealthy than they planned on being, which has left many of us with debts, obligations, etc, that we are struggling to fulfill.

When times are good, you talk about getting better schools, you talk about polluting less, you talk about going to the moon, etc. When times are bad you just make sure there's something on the table.

You put more funding into researching green technology and you get more jobs. More jobs are then needed to produce the new technology. Even more jobs are needed to clean up the old technology. It's entirely possible to help the economy and the environment at the same time.

You're talking about something that is unproven. You will definitely get the research jobs, but these are white collar, and there are actually a fairly low number of them. The rest of the jobs you're talking about will not necessarily ever come to fruition. If they do, it is likely to be a very long time (10-15 years) before they actually mature into providing a major source of jobs. I know green jobs initiatives have been implemented here in the US but they've not been very successful at all.

Kumo

2010-03-29, 03:29 PM

It's not total bull, it's just mostly bull. :smallbiggrin:

I've never felt such a strange combination of mirth, disagreement, and agreement. No, i don't know how i'm feeling both at once.

1. Extremely unlikely.
2. That's not the only environmental problem.

1. I disagree in large part because 9/10 environmental arguments i have had cite 'An Inconvenient Truth'
2. 'That's' implies that i referenced any one particular part of the climate 'crisis', which i never did

Serpentine

2010-03-29, 09:57 PM

1. I disagree in large part because 9/10 environmental arguments i have had cite 'An Inconvenient Truth'I cite the vast majority of scientific evidence from a large variety of areas.
I've heard a reasonably apt analogy: Your brain surgeon tells you that there's this thing wrong in your brain, it's having these effects, and it can be fixed by doing this, this and this with these probably outcomes. Would you second-guess everything he says and deny it as some brain surgeon conspiracy? Or would you presume that his many years of education and experience and the support of his hospital, medicine and wider scientific background gives him the qualification to have a pretty good idea what he's talking about? Say you decide to do some background research and get second opinions - a perfectly reasonable thing to do; every surgeon and medical professional you talk to agrees with his diagnosis and approach, possibly with some variations in predicted outcomes or best treatments. Everyone except for a gynochologist with substantial links with homeopathy, who is totally certain that your brain is completely fine and rejects the entire field of brain surgery as a rort and by the way would like to sell you these brilliant brain-pills.
If you trust that brain surgeons know what they're talking about, why do you assume that thousands of climatologists all over the world don't?
I've got a book that goes through all the questions, confusions and attacks on evolution and addresses them, clarifying why they're wrong or irrelevant or whatever. I'd really like to see one of these done for climate change...

2. 'That's' implies that i referenced any one particular part of the climate 'crisis', which i never didThe "climate crisis" is not the only environmental concern. Most of the recommended changes and developments for dealing with climate change are also necessary for various other problems - not only environmental ones, for that matter.
Ocean (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7059/abs/nature04095.html) acidification (http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/65/3/414) is probably the best example of this, because it's also caused by increased carbon dioxide, can be solved by the same solutions as climate change, is demonstrably occurring right now, and has substantial impacts on by the environment and humanity.

Innis Cabal

2010-03-29, 10:07 PM

I cite the vast majority of scientific evidence from a large variety of areas.
I've heard a reasonably apt analogy: Your brain surgeon tells you that there's this thing wrong in your brain, it's having these effects, and it can be fixed by doing this, this and this with these probably outcomes. Would you second-guess everything he says and deny it as some brain surgeon conspiracy? Or would you presume that his many years of education and experience and the support of his hospital, medicine and wider scientific background gives him the qualification to have a pretty good idea what he's talking about? Say you decide to do some background research and get second opinions - a perfectly reasonable thing to do; every surgeon and medical professional you talk to agrees with his diagnosis and approach, possibly with some variations in predicted outcomes or best treatments. Everyone except for a gynochologist with substantial links with homeopathy, who is totally certain that your brain is completely fine and rejects the entire field of brain surgery as a rort and by the way would like to sell you these brilliant brain-pills.
If you trust that brain surgeons know what they're talking about, why do you assume that thousands of climatologists all over the world don't?

Its a nice analogy, it actually made me chuckle. But the thing here is, its not some other type of scientist that's going against the climatologists. Their own peer's can't come to a univeral agreement.

Some say yes, there is a problem, others say no there isn't. Now, who to believe? Well popular opinion is the Yea cataogry, and it certainly is being taken up by a whole lot of countries. But the Nay group are saying thats the only reason its even being so widely spread.

You and I arn't climatologists. So we can only go on what we're given from the media. Which, isn't a great area to get your information from concerning truely vital issues.

Serpentine

2010-03-29, 10:15 PM

It's not exactly reliable statistics, but a Morning Show in Australia was criticised for only ever interviewing pro-climate change scientists and never showing a point of view from an anti-climate change scientist. The host said they'd tried very hard to find an anti-CC scientist, but the only such experts in Australia a geologists and similar in the employ of oil and other businesses.
Also, every science lecturer I've ever talked to or been taught by at my university have accepted anthropogenic climate change as a scientific fact.
Mostly, though, I just don't think it really matters *shrug* There are too many other reasons, just as good, to take the exact same steps. The only way it really matters is if the extreme "climate skeptics" are right, and there is some "green conspiracy". Because if they're right, that has such dire implications for the entire scientific field that "dire" just doesn't cut it.

Wikipedia page "Scientific opinion on climate change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by _dissenting_organizations)" for a somewhat less mediary source of concensus information.

waterpenguin43

2010-03-29, 10:17 PM

My Earth Hour was awesome fun! I ran around my house shining a flashlight at people while singing the Ghostbusters theme song! (I am SO mature. :smallamused:)

skywalker

2010-03-30, 02:54 AM

I cite the vast majority of scientific evidence from a large variety of areas.
I've heard a reasonably apt analogy: Your brain surgeon tells you that there's this thing wrong in your brain, it's having these effects, and it can be fixed by doing this, this and this with these probably outcomes. Would you second-guess everything he says and deny it as some brain surgeon conspiracy? Or would you presume that his many years of education and experience and the support of his hospital, medicine and wider scientific background gives him the qualification to have a pretty good idea what he's talking about? Say you decide to do some background research and get second opinions - a perfectly reasonable thing to do; every surgeon and medical professional you talk to agrees with his diagnosis and approach, possibly with some variations in predicted outcomes or best treatments. Everyone except for a gynochologist with substantial links with homeopathy, who is totally certain that your brain is completely fine and rejects the entire field of brain surgery as a rort and by the way would like to sell you these brilliant brain-pills.
If you trust that brain surgeons know what they're talking about, why do you assume that thousands of climatologists all over the world don't?
I've got a book that goes through all the questions, confusions and attacks on evolution and addresses them, clarifying why they're wrong or irrelevant or whatever. I'd really like to see one of these done for climate change...

The analogy works better when there are e-mails between brain surgeons talking about how they're going to make sure the pesky data shows you exactly what they say is wrong with your brain.

Eldan

2010-03-30, 03:53 AM

I've never felt such a strange combination of mirth, disagreement, and agreement. No, i don't know how i'm feeling both at once.

1. I disagree in large part because 9/10 environmental arguments i have had cite 'An Inconvenient Truth'
2. 'That's' implies that i referenced any one particular part of the climate 'crisis', which i never did

To make the answer short: if any environmentalist ever cites "An Inconvenient Truth" at you, laugh at them. Then tell them to go read an IPCC report for some real scientific background.

And indeed, climate change can more or less be taken as fact.. To quote a thing our professor, who's one of the lead authors for the IPCC told us: there's a so called counter study (I don't know the name at the moment, I can look it up in the scripts back home) done by a different group of scientists. They quote literally hundreds of scientists. The problem? They used quotes they found via google, not asking a single scientist what he actually thought about the subject. Allmost all of the quotes were from people critizing particular studies, often during peer review. In the end, they got maybe two dozen people worldwide to sign it, including their secretaries.

Most of the scientists you will find denying that anthropogenic climate change happens will not be climatologists. They could be from fields connected to climate, like geologists, botanists and similar fields, but most of them are not even that: I know of opinions popularized as denying climate change originating from lawyers, doctors, economists and so on. So, really, the consensus in the field is overwhelming.

Serpentine

2010-03-30, 04:15 AM

The analogy works better when there are e-mails between brain surgeons talking about how they're going to make sure the pesky data shows you exactly what they say is wrong with your brain.You're going to bring that up? Did you get any information (http://news.mongabay.com/2009/1206-hance_email.html) on that after (http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/11/the_hacked_climate_science_ema.php) the so-called (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/) "scandal (http://lippard.blogspot.com/2009/11/climate-research-unit-email-scandal.html)"? Personally, I'd feel much better knowing that brain surgeons around the world are exchanging information on brain surgery.
In any case, even if that "scandal" was exactly as bad as reported, it largely involved only 4 scientists, out of thousands around the world, and no more than a tiny fraction of all the data and papers that support climate change. It has little or no impact on the overwhelming evidence from qualified people all over the world.

On the IPCC: I just read an article in the Australian New Scientist criticising the IPCC report. It picks out various bits and pieces that are poorly phrased, poorly researched, or otherwise flawed. But it's all just nitpicking, really - overall, they found most of their conclusions to be well-founded. I'll see if I can find it online, if anyone's interested.
edit: Here it is (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527493.700-can-we-trust-the-ipcc-on-the-big-stuff.html).

Kumo

2010-03-30, 05:28 AM

I'm still waiting for new york to freeze over per what was promised in the seventies.

I was just thinking about this. :smalltongue:

... Should that concern me? Cuz it does :smalleek:

Nameless

2010-03-30, 05:29 AM

Nameless: If I recall correctly, oxygen is produced during the day, CO2 at night - not the same amount, mind, but some. Same with corals (except with calcium carbonate, I believe).

Yup. Which means that Serp is actually evil. D:

I'm still waiting for new york to freeze over per what was promised in the seventies.

I was just thinking about this. :smalltongue:

Serpentine

2010-03-30, 05:44 AM

I'm still waiting for new york to freeze over per what was promised in the seventies.Not familiar with that theory, but I would hazard a guess that it was predicted, not promised, no doubt in just one of various possible models.

Nameless

2010-03-30, 05:57 AM

Not familiar with that theory, but I would hazard a guess that it was predicted, not promised, no doubt in just one of various possible models.

There was a big hype in the 70's, much like the one we have today. Only they were worried the world was going to freeze over now.
I'm pretty sure there was also a big freeze in the dark ages(?) where the river Themes was frozen over to the point where markets were opened on the ice all year round.

EDIT: I think there was also a warm period during the middle ages where it was so hot, here in Britain we could grow grape vines and olive trees.
Anyway, the point is, what we’re experiencing now seems to be quite natural and there isn't really anything extreme about it like it's been made out.

raitalin

2010-03-30, 06:02 AM

I'm still waiting for new york to freeze over per what was promised in the seventies:

I'm really tired of people that don't understand the issue throwing this into the ring every time there's a discussion. Here's the whole story:

What scientist in the seventies were talking about is the inevitable next Ice Age. The Earth naturally undergoes a cycle of heating and cooling, as well as having cycles within cycles; i.e. there have been centuries in recorded history that were either significantly warmer or cooler than average since the last Ice Age. On a geological time scale these things happen at fairly regular intervals and the Earth is a few millennia overdue for one.

We can be both warming the planet with human activity and be headed for a geological Ice Age, and no, they won't balance out, just make the weather more chaotic.

And I'm all for putting faith in Science to solve the problem, but a reduction in consumption of resources is a necessity if we want everyone in the world to have the opportunity to live like the First World.

Kumo

2010-03-30, 06:27 AM

I'm really tired of people that don't understand the issue throwing this into the ring every time there's a discussion. Here's the whole story:

What scientist in the seventies were talking about is the inevitable next Ice Age. The Earth naturally undergoes a cycle of heating and cooling, as well as having cycles within cycles; i.e. there have been centuries in recorded history that were either significantly warmer or cooler than average since the last Ice Age. On a geological time scale these things happen at fairly regular intervals and the Earth is a few millennia overdue for one.

We can be both warming the planet with human activity and be headed for a geological Ice Age, and no, they won't balance out, just make the weather more chaotic.

And I'm all for putting faith in Science to solve the problem, but a reduction in consumption of resources is a necessity if we want everyone in the world to have the opportunity to live like the First World.And i'm really tired of people acting like it's not a big deal.

As i recall this 'inevitable ice age' was such a big deal because it was coming in the next 30 years. Ie, TEN YEARS AGO.

It's sort of like now when Global Warming causes little snow in the north, and then it ALSO causes massive snowstorms in early spring.

I'd explain but dad's yelling to leave,

Not familiar with that theory, but I would hazard a guess that it was predicted, not promised, no doubt in just one of various possible models.

No, it was promised.

raitalin

2010-03-30, 06:31 AM

As i recall this 'inevitable ice age' was such a big deal because it was coming in the next 30 years. Ie, TEN YEARS AGO.

Anyone claiming to be able to put a date on changes in global climate that precise is either a fool or a charlatan. No credible scientist I've heard of made that claim.

Did maybe someone say that it *could* happen in 30 years? Because that was possible, just didn't happen.

Astrella

2010-03-30, 06:51 AM

Technically we are in an Ice Age, it's just that the interglacial we're experiencing now is taking a bit longer then expected.

Edit: On that matter, it's amusing how relatively fast we could end up in an ice age again; less then a generation I think was the time it would take. All that's needed is a summer in which more snow than usual stays around. (Since the snow reflects a large percentage of incoming light, you get an repeating process.)

About the climate crisis, I always say: Whether it's true of not true, the measure we can take to combat it wouldn't do any harm even if it wasn't true. Reducing energy expenditure and such is never a bad thing after all.

Serpentine

2010-03-30, 07:16 AM

It's sort of like now when Global Warming causes little snow in the north, and then it ALSO causes massive snowstorms in early spring.Which is exactly the sort of thing climate change models predict - more extreme weather. Stuff like this the "climate skeptics" use to attack anthropogenic climate change is the sort of thing that supports it. And no, every model isn't going to be right, because there's many different models. That's the beauty of science: it is allowed to be wrong. With every wrong, it's closer to the right. But the overwhelming majority of evidence indicates that the overarching concept of anthropogenic climate change is almost definitely true, regardless of debate over details. It's like evolution: the Theory of Evolution is scientific fact. It's the details of that theory, of the mechanisms of speciation and the like, that are still being worked out.

No, it was promised.Source, please?

In any case, this is pretty much the scope of our options:

{table]|Scientific consensus is wrong|Scientific consensus is right
We do something|There is something drastically wrong with the scientific community that needs to be addressed ASAP. But, on the other hand, we've solved various other issues such as ocean acidification, some mining, dependence on fossil fuels, deforestation and the destruction of habitat, general pollution and so on. The world economy staggers, then recovers, as it is prone to do.|The human-caused effects of global warming are reduced and hopefully reversed, saving millions of species and preventing the upheaval or death of a substantial portion of humanity. The world economy staggers, then recovers, as it is prone to do.
We don't do something|There is something drastically wrong with the scientific community that needs to be addressed ASAP. Furthermore, ocean acidification continues until most of its wildlife - and the communities that depend on them - is dead, most of the world continues to be dependent on fossil fuels, millions of species - many of which are potentially beneficial to humanity (did you know a chemical from salmon semen is used in heart surgery?) - are doomed to extinction at human hands, and so on. But on the other hand, it's business as usual for economies and resource consumption.|To quote Spaceballs, "Well shoot. There goes the planet."[/table]
I don't really understand how people can think inaction is even an option...

Closak

2010-03-30, 07:24 AM

That's because not doing anything about it will earn them more money.
If they do something about the problem then they lose money, so they won't do anything, and they won't care if the planet goes to hell because of it, because they have their money and that's all they need.

Basically, people think that they can eat money and that money will solve everything so it doesn't matter what happens to the rest of the world as long as they have money.
Nevermind the fact that money is something invented by humans :smallannoyed:

Oh look, cutting down that rainforest and killing millions of animals will earn me extra money, CUT THAT FOREST DOWN! No i don't give a damn about anything else, the money is all that matters.

And there you have the root of the problem, it's all about the money.
It's always money money money! :smallmad:
They weren't kidding when they said that money is the root of all evil.

Nameless

2010-03-30, 07:34 AM

Anyone claiming to be able to put a date on changes in global climate that precise is either a fool or a charlatan. No credible scientist I've heard of made that claim.

Yup, just like a lot of the scientists that claim we're all doomed by 2030. And the scientists who claim we're all doomed by 2050. And the scientists who claim we're all doomed by 2020.
Yup.

Astrella

2010-03-30, 07:39 AM

Yup, just like a lot of the scientists that claim we're all doomed by 2030. And the scientists who claim we're all doomed by 2050. And the scientists who claim we're all doomed by 2020.
Yup.

Those are the results of different studies. Those dates are accurate according to the kind of model used. That doesn't mean the models perfectly match reality. They're models.

Nameless

2010-03-30, 07:51 AM

Those are the results of different studies. Those dates are accurate according to the kind of model used. That doesn't mean the models perfectly match reality. They're models.

Oh please, if you're trying to predict that we're all doomed and it's all our fault (dundundunnnn), at least have the decency to come up with one rough date. At least that way it'll be slightly more believable.

Astrella

2010-03-30, 07:53 AM

Oh please, if you're trying to predict that we're all doomed and it's all our fault (dundundunnnn), at least have the decency to come up with one rough date. At least that way it'll be slightly more believable.

Because that's not how science works? :smallconfused:

Serpentine

2010-03-30, 07:54 AM

Also, none of them say, as far as I'm aware, "we're all doomed by 20XX". They say, perhaps, "if we continue on as usual, then we estimate that the ocean will rise X amount, displacing Y number of people. Z species will probably be extinct in A number of years. Our models predict that B amount of damage will be done by about year C."
Scientists rarely deal in absolutes. If they do, you can bet they'll be leapt upon by other experts, or rendered redundant by new evidence, neither of which will necessary refute the overall significance of their data, only the specific absolutes they came to.

edit: Too quick. Yeah, that's not how science works. In fact, if you get that, it's almost certainly not good science. Science relies on probabilities. If you want statements of absolute certainty... well, you'll have to look elsewhere.

Emperor Ing

2010-03-30, 07:55 AM

It's pretty much common knowledge among climate people that there was a huge warming period in the middle ages. Now i'm no climatologist, historian, or time traveler and nor will I ever claim to be, but i'm pretty sure there wasn't a lot of huge factories and power plants letting out all these greenhouse gasses back then. I actually wouldn't be suprised if the sun got a little hyper during this time. For this reason I believe that any impact we have on climate would be neglegible at best. The only way I can see us having any impact is with machines that manipulate the tectonic plates and the commercialization of weather control devices.

Serpentine

2010-03-30, 07:57 AM

I find it a little distressing that extremely unqualified people bring up that sort of thing all the time, apparently with the assumption that the qualified people who have devoted their lives to this sort of thing have somehow missed those "common knowledge" facts :smallconfused: Do you really assume they haven't taken that into account in their models?

With the way such people talk, I'm surprised that you have any faith at all in the medical profession. Although, on the other hand...

Nameless

2010-03-30, 08:00 AM

Because that's not how science works? :smallconfused:

Then don't give us a date at all. For something that might kill us all, there seems to be far too much BS involved.

Also, none of them say, as far as I'm aware, "we're all doomed by 20XX". They say, perhaps, "if we continue on as usual, then we estimate that the ocean will rise X amount, displacing Y number of people. Z species will probably be extinct in A number of years. Our models predict that B amount of damage will be done by about year C."
Scientists rarely deal in absolutes. If they do, you can bet they'll be leapt upon by other experts, or rendered redundant by new evidence, neither of which will necessary refute the overall significance of their data, only the specific absolutes they came to.

edit: Too quick. Yeah, that's not how science works. In fact, if you get that, it's almost certainly not good science. Science relies on probabilities. If you want statements of absolute certainty... well, you'll have to look elsewhere.

How many times have I heard, "If we carry on as we are, we're doomed 30 years from now." or "Scientists predict that the world will be flooded by the year 2050!"

Yeah, science doesn't work that way, I know, that's the problem. This theory has far too many "professionals" involved that don't seem to be very professional.

Emperor Ing

2010-03-30, 08:03 AM

I find it a little distressing that extremely unqualified people bring up that sort of thing all the time, apparently with the assumption that the qualified people who have devoted their lives to this sort of thing have somehow missed those "common knowledge" facts :smallconfused: Do you really assume they haven't taken that into account in their models?

You'd be suprised what these "qualified" people do. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy)

Serpentine

2010-03-30, 08:32 AM

How many times have I heard, "If we carry on as we are, we're doomed 30 years from now."Sauce plz. For me, the answer is approximately "zero". Dunno what scientists you've been talking to. They sound quite shady.
"Scientists predict that the world will be flooded by the year 2050!"That would be what is known as an estimate, probably filtered through mass media to make it more absolute than the original paper actually stated. Find me a primary source example of that statement, or at least a direct quote, and we'll have something to talk about.
You'd be suprised what these "qualified" people do. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy)As I said above:
You're going to bring that up? Did you get any information (http://news.mongabay.com/2009/1206-hance_email.html) on that after (http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/11/the_hacked_climate_science_ema.php) the so-called (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/) "scandal (http://lippard.blogspot.com/2009/11/climate-research-unit-email-scandal.html)"? Personally, I'd feel much better knowing that brain surgeons around the world are exchanging information on brain surgery.
In any case, even if that "scandal" was exactly as bad as reported, it largely involved only 4 scientists, out of thousands around the world, and no more than a tiny fraction of all the data and papers that support climate change. It has little or no impact on the overwhelming evidence from qualified people all over the world.That so-called "scandal" has little or no significance to the wider issue.
Tell me, upon what basis do you entirely disregard the work, testimony and evidence of thousands of highly qualified specialists all over the world? A lot of what I've said here has been passed over, but this is something I'd really like an answer to. What makes you trust a fringe, often partisan, minority with a minimum of evidence for their view over an overwhelming majority of qualified, mostly impartial, specialists with hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed papers and supporting data from a variety of fields?
Personally, as I've said before, it doesn't really matter to me whether anthropogenic climate change is really happening. There's too many other reasons to make the exact same changes. I do find it extremely unlikely that there's some international conspiracy to save the world :smallconfused: If you're going to make accusations like that - and they are big, BIG accusations - you've got to produce a lot more evidence than a few ambiguously-worded private emails between half a dozen frustrated academics.

waterpenguin43

2010-03-30, 08:47 AM

That the sea level will rise 50 to 70 meters.

And the sea itself will be horrific and polluted. Fun Fact: You need a special suit to go diving in the Mexico river, it's so polluted. This river waters the farms in Mexico.

xelliea

2010-03-30, 09:33 AM

Is earth hour just on the 27th or is happening again this year.

Nameless

2010-03-30, 12:00 PM

Sauce plz. For me, the answer is approximately "zero". Dunno what scientists you've been talking to. They sound quite shady.

That would be what is known as an estimate, probably filtered through mass media to make it more absolute than the original paper actually stated. Find me a primary source example of that statement, or at least a direct quote, and we'll have something to talk about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cs8-zZCEVk I’m pretty sure this “documentary” is full of so called “professionals” discussing how we’re all doomed and how it's all our fault.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/01/0107_040107_extinction.html

Now, if you want a real primary source, one that we both know hasn't been altered in any way by the media, one of us would have to get it ourselves. But I'm not going to go through all the trouble just for an online debate. :smalltongue:

And to be fair, I think we both know what these documentaries are like. For all we know they just hired some actors to speak.
Which is part of the issue with this global warming thing. Half of it is just made-up nonsense mixed in with a couple of theories which they make out to be true. For all we know, half of the actual professionals (no, not Al Gore) could be saying something totally different that we just don't know about.

Asta Kask

2010-03-30, 12:53 PM

And i'm really tired of people acting like it's not a big deal.

As i recall this 'inevitable ice age' was such a big deal because it was coming in the next 30 years. Ie, TEN YEARS AGO.

None of this was in peer-reviewed journals, however. It was all in the popular press, and there was a relatively small number of scientists making this claim. The claims of AGW are in the peer-reviewed journals and the vast majority of climatologists (>90%) agree that AGW is real and that something needs to be done.

THAC0

2010-03-30, 12:55 PM

None of this was in peer-reviewed journals, however. It was all in the popular press, and there was a relatively small number of scientists making this claim. The claims of AGW are in the peer-reviewed journals and the vast majority of climatologists (>90%) agree that AGW is real and that something needs to be done.

The problem is that Joe-schmo isn't going to be reading peer-reviewed journals. So the information from those journals has to reach the popular media, and in a consumable form, otherwise all that Joe-schmo is going to hear are the crazypeople and will be turned off of the idea in its entirety.

Nameless

2010-03-30, 12:59 PM

None of this was in peer-reviewed journals, however. It was all in the popular press, and there was a relatively small number of scientists making this claim. The claims of AGW are in the peer-reviewed journals and the vast majority of climatologists (>90%) agree that AGW is real and that something needs to be done.

I don't think that was the point he was trying to make. The point is, if a small amount of scientist who make that claim can cause such a big hype, it can happen again. Don't forget that this hype started much like the one in the 70's. Only now, it full of people who claim to be professionals jumping the band wagon. And yes, there is more to support the theory this time, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been blown way out of proportion and hasn't been pumped with lies.

Asta Kask

2010-03-30, 01:24 PM

I don't think that was the point he was trying to make. The point is, if a small amount of scientist who make that claim can cause such a big hype, it can happen again.

But there never was a hype in the peer-reviewed journals.

Don't forget that this hype started much like the one in the 70's. Only now, it full of people who claim to be professionals jumping the band wagon.

Well, if by 'professional' you mean 'working in the field' then it's not just that they claim to be professional. And why are they jumping the band wagon, if not because that's where the data leads them?

Remember, in science you get fame and fortune by proving others wrong.

And yes, there is more to support the theory this time, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been blown way out of proportion and hasn't been pumped with lies.

*shrug*

If you have evidence to support this, or evidence to say that AGW is not true, you are free to write an article and submit to a peer-reviewed journal.

Nameless

2010-03-30, 01:44 PM

But there never was a hype in the peer-reviewed journals.

Well, if by 'professional' you mean 'working in the field' then it's not just that they claim to be professional. And why are they jumping the band wagon, if not because that's where the data leads them?

Remember, in science you get fame and fortune by proving others wrong.

*shrug*

If you have evidence to support this, or evidence to say that AGW is not true, you are free to write an article and submit to a peer-reviewed journal.

That's because up until recently, anyone who disagreed with it was practically shunned.
There's also a lot of evidence suggesting that it's quite natural and there's been a number of explanations mostly involving the sun and other stars and their solar activities, cloud formations, the fact that earth goes through global warming and global cooling quite naturally etc. (which all makes a lot more sense to me. A lot of graphs to support the man made global warming theories have also been shown to be in-accurate, such as the infamous hockey-stick diagram. I dunno, for something that should have so much impact on our lives, has so many scientists working, has billions spent on and is one of the biggest political hotspots, there sure are a lot of problems with it.
And we can't forget when 30,000 scientists wanted to sue Al Gore for his claims. (not sure if it actually went through though) and this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BZrTEvw73Q) has already been mentioned, it doesn't exactly help either.

It just seems a kind of week to me. I tend not to believe things unless they can actually be proven.

EDIT: On a side note, I just found this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6S1unDve-M&feature=related) debate on CNN. It's actually quite nice to see one where it's remained quite calm through out and both sides have an equal say.

Kumo

2010-03-30, 03:35 PM

Anyone claiming to be able to put a date on changes in global climate that precise is either a fool or a charlatan. No credible scientist I've heard of made that claim.

Did maybe someone say that it *could* happen in 30 years? Because that was possible, just didn't happen.

Technically they said 'within' thirty years.

In any case, this is pretty much the scope of our options:

I don't really understand how people can think inaction is even an option...

Because if it IS fake, then the only choices are economic ruin with a balanced climate that nobody either nobody will care about anymore (they'll be too busy trying to survive) or will be claimed to be 'fixed' because of all the climate stuff

or

the same crappy world as before.

Granted, i probably blew the first out of proportion a bit, but it comes down to the same thing.

Let me make this clear: i am NOT against helping the enviornment. i am NOT for harming it just for an extra buck. and i am NOT, by any means, a professional, expert, or even particularly smart.

But climatologists have moved from being 'scientists' to being a religious sect - relying utterly on faith in what they think they know. Science is NOT about faith, it's about cause and effect.

Why do i think it's religious?

Because a lot of the things i have heard said are caused by global warming are either ridiculous or contradict each other.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2008/02/13/veteran-loch-ness-monster-hunter-gives-up-86908-20317853/

Despite having hundreds of sonar contacts over the years, the trail has since gone cold and Rines believes that Nessie may be dead, a victim of global warming.
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/14/weekinreview/ideas-trends-blame-global-warming-for-the-blizzard.html?pagewanted=1

But not only are blizzards and global warming compatible, some experts cite evidence suggesting that climatic changes associated with global warming are actually creating more severe snowstorms.

Nameless

2010-03-30, 03:48 PM

But climatologists have moved from being 'scientists' to being a religious sect - relying utterly on faith in what they think they know. Science is NOT about faith, it's about cause and effect.

Why do i think it's religious?

Because a lot of the things i have heard said are caused by global warming are either ridiculous or contradict each other.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2008/02/13/veteran-loch-ness-monster-hunter-gives-up-86908-20317853/

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/14/weekinreview/ideas-trends-blame-global-warming-for-the-blizzard.html?pagewanted=1

Which relates to another irritating thing. If we do nothing, once we reach that (almost) inevitable stage of extreme heat and eventually the next ice age, the human race will blame it on themselves for doing nothing. If we do something about it, when we reach that stage we won’t blame it on ourselves with the thought “well, we prevented it for a few years”. And if nothing happens, (which is possible, though highly unlikely) people will think that they “saved the planet”. Really, the only way out will be if we do nothing and somehow nothing happens, though by that stage we’ll either forget all about this, just like a lot of people forgot about the hype in the 70’s, or we’ll look back and think; “hey, remember when we though that we could actually kill the planet? Wow, people back then were so primitive, I can’t believe they thought they could actually harm the planet.”

In other words, chances are even if the man-made global warming thing isn't real, we'll still believe it is and live with that guilt.

My thoughts; You can't prevent global warming from happening, so stop wasting time and money on trying to prevent it and start spending that time and money on preparing for it.

raitalin

2010-03-30, 03:53 PM

How global warming can cause more severe snowstorms. (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1962294,00.html)

Kumo

2010-03-30, 04:01 PM

How global warming can cause more severe snowstorms. (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1962294,00.html)

I didn't bother to look. The point was that a few months before the recent huge snowfall in the north it was cited that there hadn't been snowfall in a long period (i think it was a decade) and that THAT proved global warming.

KnightDisciple

2010-03-30, 04:08 PM

I think Serpentine raised an extremely valid point: There are plenty of other reasons to stop polluting besides just "global climate change".

Why can't we try to use more eco-friendly power, no matter what our view? I don't know about you, but less smog seems good, no matter the impact on global weather. I like my air cleaner.

And so on, and so forth.

Mauther

2010-03-30, 04:20 PM

All of this is academic anyways. Until you have an economicly viable alternative, carbon restrictions are a bust. I know some people think its all about greed, but money does make the world go round. Its not just about putting another mansion in some billionair's holdings, its about increasing employment and the standard of living for workers. Its possible, if every nation collaborated, that you could switch to an alternative energy market that would reduce carbon emissions with only minor retardation in econ efficiency. But since all current "green" power sources are markedly inefficient, anyone who adopts them is putting their economy at a severe disadvantage. Some in the west are willing to make that sacrifice for the good of the planet, but all of the emerging economies are saying not just no but hell no. And while some people may be willing to see a 7% reduction in thheir GDP for the greater good, what level of unemployment will they accept? A couple of years ago, the US had restricted oil production, exploration, and refinement becaue of environental. Gas hit $5 a gallon, and the popular refrain became "drill everywhere". Switch to a green system that jacks unemployment up to 15% in the US and within 6 months you'll see cars being run on baby seal blood.

Nameless

2010-03-30, 04:29 PM

raitalin

2010-03-30, 05:22 PM

I didn't bother to look. The point was that a few months before the recent huge snowfall in the north it was cited that there hadn't been snowfall in a long period (i think it was a decade) and that THAT proved global warming.

And some sources would tell you that the snow storms were proof that AGW doesn't exist. There's a lot of noise on both sides of the issue.

Eldan

2010-03-30, 05:58 PM

I move about a hundred kilometers to university and back every day, and I haven't sat in a car for about 3 years. Just saying. I use a train which is entirely powered by hydroelectricity and live in a house heated by a combination of solar collectors and burning wood.

Also, remember the famous quote by George Carlin:
"The Planet isn't going anywhere. We are."

Yes, there are natural cycles of cooling and heating. We are currently in the interglacial of an ice age, since there are glaciers. However, that doesn't mean that at least part of the change isn't man made:
"See this? It rained in the pool naturally, and the water level increased. Me standing here with this fire hose won't change the water level."

And finally: using this winter as a case against global climate change doesn't work. Why? Because, on average, it was much too hot. Only the eastern united states and parts of Europa were colder than normal. Everywhere else? Up to 6 or 7 degrees above long term averages. Part of climate change is more extreme weather, people. It's getting warmer on average, not warmer in every single spot.

Kumo

2010-03-30, 06:00 PM

And some sources would tell you that the snow storms were proof that AGW doesn't exist. There's a lot of noise on both sides of the issue.

I'd respond but it doesn't actually adress the point i was trying to make at all.

Hell, i think you actually explained my point >.>

Serpentine

2010-03-30, 09:24 PM

I didn't bother to look. The point was that a few months before the recent huge snowfall in the north it was cited that there hadn't been snowfall in a long period (i think it was a decade) and that THAT proved global warming.And the real point is, that is entirely possible. Climate change predicts more extreme weather. Is unusual snowful more extreme than usual? It is?! Well fancy that, it supports various climate change models! Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean the thousand of qualified professionals are wrong.
Because if it IS fake, then the only choices are economic ruin with a balanced climate that nobody either nobody will care about anymore (they'll be too busy trying to survive) or will be claimed to be 'fixed' because of all the climate stuff

or

the same crappy world as before.

Granted, i probably blew the first out of proportion a bit, but it comes down to the same thing.I refer you to the options I posted before:

In any case, this is pretty much the scope of our options:

{table]|Scientific consensus is wrong|Scientific consensus is right
We do something|There is something drastically wrong with the scientific community that needs to be addressed ASAP. But, on the other hand, we've solved various other issues such as ocean acidification, some mining, dependence on fossil fuels, deforestation and the destruction of habitat, general pollution and so on. The world economy staggers, then recovers, as it is prone to do.|The human-caused effects of global warming are reduced and hopefully reversed, saving millions of species and preventing the upheaval or death of a substantial portion of humanity. The world economy staggers, then recovers, as it is prone to do.
We don't do something|There is something drastically wrong with the scientific community that needs to be addressed ASAP. Furthermore, ocean acidification continues until most of its wildlife - and the communities that depend on them - is dead, most of the world continues to be dependent on fossil fuels, millions of species - many of which are potentially beneficial to humanity (did you know a chemical from salmon semen is used in heart surgery?) - are doomed to extinction at human hands, and so on. But on the other hand, it's business as usual for economies and resource consumption.|To quote Spaceballs, "Well shoot. There goes the planet."[/table]You really think short-term "financial ruin" with significant environmental benefits is a worse option than short-term financial stability with long-term financial ruin of millions (at least) of displaced persons seeking somewhere to live?
There's also a lot of evidence suggesting that it's quite natural and there's been a number of explanations mostly involving the sun and other stars and their solar activities, cloud formations, the fact that earth goes through global warming and global cooling quite naturally etc. (which all makes a lot more sense to me.Again, I ask you: upon what basis do you assume that all these thousands of climate specialists wouldn't take this into account? If you know this, do you seriously think they don't know this?

A lot of graphs to support the man made global warming theories have also been shown to be in-accurate, such as the infamous hockey-stick diagram. I dunno, for something that should have so much impact on our lives, has so many scientists working, has billions spent on and is one of the biggest political hotspots, there sure are a lot of problems with it.The problems - which are a normal part of science being done by mere nonomnipotent humans, and are the whole reason peer-review exists - are vastly outweighed by the data.

It just seems a kind of week to me. I tend not to believe things unless they can actually be proven.Really? Cuz it seems to me you're ignoring a truckload of evidence in favour of a Tonka truckload.

Nameless

2010-03-31, 03:31 AM

Again, I ask you: upon what basis do you assume that all these thousands of climate specialists wouldn't take this into account? If you know this, do you seriously think they don't know this?

The problems - which are a normal part of science being done by mere nonomnipotent humans, and are the whole reason peer-review exists - are vastly outweighed by the data.

Really? Cuz it seems to me you're ignoring a truckload of evidence in favour of a Tonka truckload.

Of course they know it. Just as scientists who are sceptic know the evidence that suggest humans are causing all the problems. But some agree, and some disagree, some think it's enough and some don't think it's enough. For example, the person in the link I just gave, I believe he was saying there isn't nearly enough in his opinion. Which is why we have two different sides to the argument. Why do you think thirty thousand scientists tried to sue Al Gore, for fun? And I'm not ignoring it, I just don't think it's strong enough. In fact, I think it's quite a week theory in comparrison to how much of an impact it's made/making.

Asta Kask

2010-03-31, 05:40 AM

That's because up until recently, anyone who disagreed with it was practically shunned.

Source? Evidence?

And we can't forget when 30,000 scientists wanted to sue Al Gore for his claims. (not sure if it actually went through though) and this has already been mentioned, it doesn't exactly help either.

And a whopping .1% of them actually had expertise relevant to the subject. 99.9% of them weren't climatologists. Why couldn't they get more climatologists to sign?

Nameless

2010-03-31, 06:03 AM

Source? Evidence?

This isn't the best example, but it was mentioned a few times in this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpWa7VW-OME) documentary and briefly mentioned here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ). A couple of articas here (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1781478/posts) and here (http://www.skepticsglobalwarming.com/?p=2505) too. (I also read another better article about it, I'll try and find it again.)
And from personal experience. It's only recently when the subject gets bought up, that people don't treat me like a mad man. Out of everything I said there, I don't see why you wanted evidence for this though, it wasn't exactly my main point.

And a whopping .1% of them actually had expertise relevant to the subject. 99.9% of them weren't climatologists. Why couldn't they get more climatologists to sign?

I think it's time I used the "evidence pl0x" response for once.

Eldan

2010-03-31, 06:27 AM

Hmm. The anything I can find at all on this "30'000 scientists" thing is the same youtube video again and again posted on hundreds of sites and a few blog posts. Not even Wikipedia seems to mention it, in neither Coleman's nor Gore's article.

So no, I can't help there.

Asta Kask

2010-03-31, 07:39 AM

I think it's time I used the "evidence pl0x" response for once.

I'm guessing it's this? (http://www.desmogblog.com/30000-global-warming-petition-easily-debunked-propaganda)

It's all but impossible to find data except the same Youtube video over and over again.

This isn't the best example, but it was mentioned a few times in this documentary and briefly mentioned here. A couple of articas here and here too. (I also read another better article about it, I'll try and find it again.)
And from personal experience. It's only recently when the subject gets bought up, that people don't treat me like a mad man. Out of everything I said there, I don't see why you wanted evidence for this though, it wasn't exactly my main point.

Either way it's beside the point. Science isn't a democracy. All opinions are not equally valid. What matters isn't if they were shunned, but if they were shunned for good reasons, and what they chose to do about it.

People like Prusiner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_B._Prusiner), Lynn Margulis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis), Barry Marshall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall), and Robin Warren (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Warren) were all heavily criticized when they put forth their theories. They stayed in the laboratory and did the work. What they didn't do was run to the press crying about discrimination. If these people can put forward data to show their theories correct, why don't they?

Serpentine

2010-03-31, 07:48 AM

Mmhmm. Right, next piece of ground-breaking climate change-shattering evidence! Cuz so far all we've had is a miniscule, misinterpreted series of private emails, and an extremely dodgy petition.

Nameless

2010-03-31, 08:14 AM

I'm guessing it's this? (http://www.desmogblog.com/30000-global-warming-petition-easily-debunked-propaganda)

It's all but impossible to find data except the same Youtube video over and over again.

Didn't they say it was because no other news feed would give them a platform?

Either way it's beside the point. Science isn't a democracy. All opinions are not equally valid. What matters isn't if they were shunned, but if they were shunned for good reasons, and what they chose to do about it.

People like Prusiner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_B._Prusiner), Lynn Margulis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis), Barry Marshall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall), and Robin Warren (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Warren) were all heavily criticized when they put forth their theories. They stayed in the laboratory and did the work. What they didn't do was run to the press crying about discrimination. If these people can put forward data to show their theories correct, why don't they?

If it's besides the point, then why on earth did you pick that one section of my comment out, and ask evidence for it? And of course they were heavily criticised, I'm not surprised. Being a Global Warming sceptic isn't exactly politically correct.
And even if there are only 38 or so climatologists, why did they sign a petition against something that would probably make them money? And why did other scientists disagree with it and sign it? Clearly something isn’t adding up for there to be so many debates. The point is, man-made global warming is being made out to be a fact, when it’s a theory. That’s a big issue. And that’s not what science is about.

Asta Kask

2010-03-31, 08:22 AM

And even if there are only 38 or so climatologists, why did they sign a petition against something that would probably make them money? And why did other scientists disagree with it and sign it?

Oh, I don't doub their honesty. But honesty does not mean you're right. You can be absolutely convinced of something that's dead wrong. It happens even to scientists. But it's far more probable that the consensus opinion is right than that it is wrong. This is not an absolute - the three examples I gave (prions, endosymbiosis, stomach ulcers) are all examples of where the consensus was wrong. But in the long run, you're better of betting on the consensus.

Now, I assume that all the 30 000 scientists can give reasons for their beliefs. But I also assume that these reasons are well-known to the climatological community and are rejected as insufficient. And as the climatologists know more about this than I, I trust them.

The point is, man-made global warming is being made out to be a fact, when it’s a theory. That’s a big issue. And that’s not what science is about.

I'm sorry, but you need to read up on scientific terminology. Those words don't mean what you think they mean. Theory... - ever heard of the theory of gravity? They'll never change that to the fact of gravity. Germ Theory of Disease? Theory of Evolution? Quantum Theory? Atomic Theory?

Nameless

2010-03-31, 08:38 AM

Oh, I don't doub their honesty. But honesty does not mean you're right. You can be absolutely convinced of something that's dead wrong. It happens even to scientists. But it's far more probable that the consensus opinion is right than that it is wrong. This is not an absolute - the three examples I gave (prions, endosymbiosis, stomach ulcers) are all examples of where the consensus was wrong. But in the long run, you're better of betting on the consensus.

Now, I assume that all the 30 000 scientists can give reasons for their beliefs. But I also assume that these reasons are well-known to the climatological community and are rejected as insufficient. And as the climatologists know more about this than I, I trust them.

Funny how the leading figure in all this isn't an actual professional. Kind of makes me think, if he isn't, how do we know the others are? How do we even know that their "degrees" are worth anything? But that’s silly.
And much as you trust the climatologists, I trust the scientists who are sceptics. Of course, there are far more climatologists who agree with the theory then ones who don‘t, but that isn't really a valid reason. I believe one man once proved the entire scientific community wrong about how light works. I think his name was Einstein... or something like that.

One thing everyone needs to understand is that this is a theory, not fact. Once people begin to understand that, maybe new and more realistic ideas and theories can flourish.

EDIT:

I'm sorry, but you need to read up on scientific terminology. Those words don't mean what you think they mean. Theory... - ever heard of the theory of gravity? They'll never change that to the fact of gravity. Germ Theory of Disease? Theory of Evolution? Quantum Theory? Atomic Theory?

Oh yes, I'm fully aware, however most of those "theories" have so much evidence to support them, that they might as well be fact.
Much more then our Global Warming theory anyhow. At least Gravity can actually be shown to work.

Caewil

2010-03-31, 08:41 AM

From my POV, whether global warming it true or false isn't important either way for public policy. I think it's probably true, given the balance of current evidence, but that it's likely effects have been exaggerated. Since no tests can be run, the only means of falsifying any specific theory's predictions is to wait for it to happen. Anything else is an extrapolation of current events, and extrapolating specific complex phenomenon from the currently limited data set is very bad science. (predicting rising sea levels is okay, predicting other stuff about weather phenomenon is risky)

In any case, if it is true, the best way to deal with it is to convince people to do something about it through their own self interest; nobody likes local pollution, poisoned seafood and water sources. If false, we've done something about those problems we don't like anyway. Trying to sell global warming as something everyone has to do something about isn't going to work, ever.

Serpentine's options should be reversed, because it is very likely that the scientific consensus on global warming is wrong in the specifics, whereas the specific effects of local issues are known and have far less nebulous benefits when solved. Convincing the public of the need for such legislation will be easier and the legislation necessary will be less complex and expensive to the public.

It is sheer irresponsibility for scientists to advise spending a nation's wealth on the principle that something very bad may happen if their (currently unfalsifiable) predictions are right, rather than on addressing issues in which there is far less doubt of the benefit of the expense to the nation's citizens. Especially when they attempt to convince the public that said unproven predictions are true; doing so does the profession as a whole a disservice by decreasing the public's trust in the results of the scientific method. In any case, the nett effect of rising sea levels is an increased ratio of people to arable land; exactly the same effect as that of population growth. (the other effects, as complex weather phenomenon, are largely guesswork)

The best way of improving green technology isn't a carbon tax but to stop nationalizing the cost of oil through government funded drilling, invading people &c. Over here, $5/gallon is considered cheap for gas, so I can't imagine how distorted the American fuel market is. Given free competition between the two, green energy will win out eventually as the cost of extraction rises relative to the cost of investing in green sources.

EDIT: Perhaps nameless meant to imply that scientific theories are never beyond question; they are always being open to being disproved by new evidence. They are thus never "fact", though we may act on the most reliable ones as though they are.

Eldan

2010-03-31, 08:52 AM

Let's just say that in Switzerland, the price of gas is currently at around 6.5$/gallon. And it has been higher in the past.

As for rising water levels: get a world map and just check how much land is below 50m above sea level. Especially how many large cities. The problem is not even the amount of land, it's relocating these millions and millions of people and the property damage caused.

Serpentine

2010-03-31, 09:24 AM

Funny how the leading figure in all this isn't an actual professional.You're basing your rejection of an entire scientific community based on a single self-appointed figurehead? And you're okay with that?

Kind of makes me think, if he isn't, how do we know the others are? How do we even know that their "degrees" are worth anything? But that’s silly.Oh, I dunno. Maybe because that's their field of specialisation in which they were trained and have years of experience in? And what about the "skeptics"? Why are their - largely irrelevant - qualifications so much more reliable? You've ignored these questions of mine a lot. Please answer at least one of them.

And much as you trust the climatologists, I trust the scientists who are sceptics.Why? Why trust a gynochologist's opinion on your brain surgery over a brain surgeon?

Of course, there are far more climatologists who agree with the theory then ones who don‘t, but that isn't really a valid reason. I believe one man once proved the entire scientific community wrong about how light works. I think his name was Einstein... or something like that.It requires a lot of hard evidence to overthrow scientific consensus. Einstein had that. The climate "skeptics" simply do not.

evidence to support them, that they might as well be fact.
Much more then our Global Warming theory anyhow. At least Gravity can actually be shown to work.Climate change has. You've just chosen to ignore every single piece of evidence, and flat out refused to offer any opposing evidence worth a dime.

I ask again: Why do you consider a few unqualified scientists, many of whom have close ties with very interested organisations, so much more reliable than thousands of qualified specialists from all over the world, with all different backgrounds, few, if any, being associated with interested organisations?
By the by, I find the idea that these people are intending to make money from climate change hilarious and baffling. Seriously? You think climatologists are out to make money from solar panels and windfarms, but you have no problem with swallowing every word geologists hired by oil companies say?

Asta Kask

2010-03-31, 09:46 AM

Funny how the leading figure in all this isn't an actual professional. Kind of makes me think, if he isn't, how do we know the others are? How do we even know that their "degrees" are worth anything? But that’s silly.

It is indeed silly. I'm glad you realize this.

And much as you trust the climatologists, I trust the scientists who are sceptics. Of course, there are far more climatologists who agree with the theory then ones who don‘t, but that isn't really a valid reason. I believe one man once proved the entire scientific community wrong about how light works. I think his name was Einstein... or something like that.

You are wrong historically. Einstein's theory of special relativity was accepted very quickly by the scientific community. The general theory was accepted as well. His beef with the scientific consensus was that he rejected quantum theory. And in doing so he was wrong. Let that be a lesson to you.

Oh yes, I'm fully aware, however most of those "theories" have so much evidence to support them, that they might as well be fact. Much more then our Global Warming theory anyhow. At least Gravity can actually be shown to work.

Again, you don't know scientific terminology. "Theory" is not the same as "guess". A theory is a system of thought that explains a lot of facts.

Eldan

2010-03-31, 10:45 AM

Furthermore, Einstein's theory was based on a mountain of evidence gathered by others. Magnetism, gravity, the speed of light, those were all not new concepts before him.

And, to use your words: the definition of theory in science is pretty much "has so much evidence to support it, that it might as well be fact." That is what theory means.

Nameless

2010-03-31, 10:54 AM

You're basing your rejection of an entire scientific community based on a single self-appointed figurehead? And you're okay with that?

No, I'm not.

Oh, I dunno. Maybe because that's their field of specialisation in which they were trained and have years of experience in? And what about the "skeptics"? Why are their - largely irrelevant - qualifications so much more reliable? You've ignored these questions of mine a lot. Please answer at least one of them.

Why? Why trust a gynochologist's opinion on your brain surgery over a brain surgeon?
It requires a lot of hard evidence to overthrow scientific consensus. Einstein had that. The climate "skeptics" simply do not.
Climate change has. You've just chosen to ignore every single piece of evidence, and flat out refused to offer any opposing evidence worth a dime.

There's a lot of sceptics who have, much like the climatologists, given information that is either bias or just wrong. So much like my views on most climatologists, there are sceptics who I don't really agree with.
The reason I trust more sceptics then climatologists is because most climatologists seem to be bound in some way with being politically correct or following Al Gore's ideas. Now, this isn't true with all, I know. And there's a lot about man-made global warming which is very hard to argue with. But why would something which is supposedly fact need to give false and bias information? How am I supposed to trust a science if it can't even be honest with me? While sceptics have done the same in the past, I'm not following their science, I'm agreeing with what they have to say about rejecting the climatologists science.
In other words, there’s a lot of corruption on both sides of the argument. A lot of money to be made on both sides and a lot of hidden agendas. But I’ve made my own decision, and that decision is that we being the main cause for something which hasn’t happened yet simply doesn’t have enough evidence to make me believe it.

And I could repeat your last point to Asta Kast, who has ignored a lot of my responces. But that's not you.

I ask again: Why do you consider a few unqualified scientists, many of whom have close ties with very interested organisations, so much more reliable than thousands of qualified specialists from all over the world, with all different backgrounds, few, if any, being associated with interested organisations?
By the by, I find the idea that these people are intending to make money from climate change hilarious and baffling. Seriously? You think climatologists are out to make money from solar panels and windfarms, but you have no problem with swallowing every word geologists hired by oil companies say?

How many jobs do you think this theory has provided? How many organisations has it created? How much money is being passed around for people to work on this project? How much money do you think people get taxed on or products which have had their prices go up have used the global warming excuse? How many people have made a name for themselves out of all this? How many books have been sold, documentaries been filmed, news articles been published? Al Gore alone has probably made millions on this alone.

But really, no, I’m not saying it’s all just for the money at all, I know it cuts much deeper then that and I know that there are plenty of scientists who genuinely believe in this and people who genuinely care. I'm am not saying that it's all some sort of money-making conspiracy. but it is something to think about. What would happen to all these people, jobs and organisations if this turned out to not be true? And yes, I am aware that there is corruption on the other side of the argument. But like I've said, it just doesn't convince me. And really, it's the people who support the theory who should be giving evidence, not the other way around.

EDIT:

It is indeed silly. I'm glad you realize this.

You are wrong historically. Einstein's theory of special relativity was accepted very quickly by the scientific community. The general theory was accepted as well. His beef with the scientific consensus was that he rejected quantum theory. And in doing so he was wrong. Let that be a lesson to you.

Again, you don't know scientific terminology. "Theory" is not the same as "guess". A theory is a system of thought that explains a lot of facts.

As far as I'm aware, his views about the way light can travel were pretty controversial at the time.

And I know what a theory is, and I know it's not a guess. I don't see how this relates to my anything I said.

Asta Kask

2010-03-31, 10:55 AM

And, to use your words: the definition of theory in science is pretty much "has so much evidence to support it, that it might as well be fact." That is what theory means.

Not really. A theory is a conceptual framework that explains a mountain of facts and makes predictions about the future. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity explained Mercury's precession and made predictions about a wide variety of phenomena. Note, however, that either the GTR or Quantum Theory (or both) are incomplete, since they cannot be united. They are still fantastically successful theories, even though we know they're wrong.

Asta Kask

2010-03-31, 10:57 AM

And really, it's the people who support the theory who should be giving evidence, not the other way around.

Absolutely. Here we go. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/) That website has a lot of information about AGW, collected by researchers who support the theory.

Nameless

2010-03-31, 11:04 AM

Absolutely. Here we go. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/) That website has a lot of information about AGW, collected by researchers who support the theory.

Yes, I've read a lot of this before, had it shoved down my throat in physics, debated it several times and bam, we're back to where we are now, talking more opinions and... er... Einstein instead of using all the figures properly because all of those were used up in a several other never ending online debates which 99.9% of the time doesn't change anyone’s opinions and either die out or get locked, and we don’t want to repeat ourselves.

Starting to get a little tedious actually, and my fingers are staring to hurt.

EDIT: To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure why, or how I got involved in this.

Eldan

2010-03-31, 11:09 AM

How many jobs do you think this theory has provided? How many organisations has it created? How much money is being passed around for people to work on this project? How much money do you think people get taxed on or products which have had their prices go up have used the global warming excuse? How many people have made a name for themselves out of all this? How many books have been sold, documentaries been filmed, news articles been published? Al Gore alone has probably made millions on this alone.

Now go ahead and compare it to how much money, say, the oil, gas and automobile industry make.

. But like I've said, it just doesn't convince me. And really, it's the people who support the theory who should be giving evidence, not the other way around..
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.htm

There you go. It's only a few thousand pages, so you should be through pretty soon.

Nameless

2010-03-31, 11:13 AM

Now go ahead and compare it to how much money, say, the oil, gas and automobile industry make.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.htm

There you go. It's only a few thousand pages, so you should be through pretty soon.

Please read everything I type before you respond with a witty comment.

Kyouhen

2010-03-31, 11:29 AM

Because if it IS fake, then the only choices are economic ruin with a balanced climate that nobody either nobody will care about anymore (they'll be too busy trying to survive) or will be claimed to be 'fixed' because of all the climate stuff

or

the same crappy world as before.

Granted, i probably blew the first out of proportion a bit, but it comes down to the same thing.

Yes, because following our current strategy of building a society that lives and dies at the hands of a non-renewable resource is a great way to avoid economic ruin.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure a lot of the measures the Green Movement in general is pushing for would result in a decreased reliance on fossil fuels. I fail to see how this can possibly be a bad thing.

Asta Kask

2010-03-31, 01:36 PM

Yes, I've read a lot of this before, had it shoved down my throat in physics, debated it several times and bam, we're back to where we are now, talking more opinions and... er... Einstein instead of using all the figures properly because all of those were used up in a several other never ending online debates which 99.9% of the time doesn't change anyone’s opinions and either die out or get locked, and we don’t want to repeat ourselves.

So what kind of evidence would convince you?

Nameless

2010-03-31, 01:56 PM

So what kind of evidence would convince you?

If they are able to actually show that our CO2 is having devastating effects on the environment and that cutting down on it will “make the world a far better place for our children” then I will believe it. For now, I see it as an interesting theory that may or may not be true but is way to hyped up.
Though if it is true, we might want to do something about those pesky termites as well. :smallwink:

Not only is carbon dioxide's total greenhouse effect puny, mankind's contribution to it is minuscule. The overwhelming majority (97%) of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere comes from nature, not from man. Volcanoes, swamps, rice paddies, fallen leaves, and even insects and bacteria produce carbon dioxide, as well as methane. According to the journal Science (Nov. 5, 1982), termites alone emit ten times more carbon dioxide than all the factories and automobiles in the world. Natural wetlands emit more greenhouse gases than all human activities combined.
http://www.iloveco2.org/2009/04/termites-emit-ten-times-more-co2-than.html

Eldan

2010-03-31, 01:59 PM

Nameless

2010-03-31, 02:08 PM

That is true, for the moment. However, the CO2 produced by "nature" (and note that rice paddies are not really natural) is also absorbed. It does not need much to shift the balance: add a little extra to what nature produces and you can get uncontrolled effects.
Especially the part mentioned by wetlands is important: peat lands and permafrost store enormous quantities of carbon. However, this carbon is waterlogged or frozen. If temperatures increase, however, they thaw. It is "natural" CO2, sure. It can still kill us.

Eh, I vote we just kill lets say, half of the termite population? Then keep the population of termites down. That way everything will be at a balance. :smallbiggrin:

...

What?

EDIT: ... Wait, no. Then there won't be enough CO2. We'll have to produce even more then...

Okay, once I've figured this out, I think I would of have solved our climate problem.

Eldan

2010-03-31, 02:59 PM

I like how you think. Let's go get some flame-throwers, that way we solve both sides of that problem :smallbiggrin:

Nameless

2010-03-31, 03:05 PM

I like how you think. Let's go get some flame-throwers, that way we solve both sides of that problem :smallbiggrin:

Wouldn't that run the rist of like... forest fires? :smalltongue:

Eldan

2010-03-31, 03:15 PM

Nah... not too many trees where most termites live. The african savanna does burn, but who cares. :smalltongue:

Mauther

2010-03-31, 03:17 PM

Yes, because following our current strategy of building a society that lives and dies at the hands of a non-renewable resource is a great way to avoid economic ruin.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure a lot of the measures the Green Movement in general is pushing for would result in a decreased reliance on fossil fuels. I fail to see how this can possibly be a bad thing.

Because the market has proven to be a harsh labratory. Good ideas get crushed all the time because they are launched either too early or fail to provide the complete benefit they make. The electric car and solar power are prime examples of this. Solar has been around in one sort or another since the 1880's. Every coulple of decades someone pushes it forward as the new mega power source. When it fails to live up to those expectations in comparisson to coal, oil, gas or nuke, the business behind it go belly up and it makes it that much more difficult for the next wave. Your finally starting to see mature solar, but the solar bust from the early 80's is hurting the movement.

The problem with the “Green Movement” being involved in energy production is that you have a philosophical agenda dictating market and industrial forces. Under current technical ability, none of the green methods are as efficient as the fossil methods. While long term that may change, for the foreseeable future its not going to happen. China is a perfect example of this. They are currently building the biggest solar plant in Inner Mongolia (something like a 1000 MW) to be finished in about 10 years. In the meantime they are bringing a new coal plant on line every week. The real impact is many economies in the “West” are pushing green power, which because its inefficient is also more expensive, resulting in a higher cost of living and higher cost of doing business. Meanwhile the growing “Eastern” powers are supporting green innovation, but not at the expense of productivity. It’s the main reason the last big environmental conference went off the rails. The west wanted to force more energy efficiency, even at the expense GDP and BRIC countries told them to take a flying leap.

For what its worth, while I’m not a Green, I am an ardent nationalist. While I don’t really give a flip about the fate of the polar bear, I’d love to see an energy system that didn’t support massive capital transfers to some of the most corrupt governments on earth. I’d love to see more of my nation’s energy market be located domestically instead of pouring funds into hostile regimes. I’d love it if less of my countries foreign policy was dictated on securing steady access to energy by dealing with those same juntas. I can’t wait till the day any nation that chooses can be essentially energy independent. I hope I live to see the implementation of orbital solar arrays, tidal hydroelectric, and clean nuclear/cold fusion. But all of these call for level headed realist innovation, not planning through dogma.

Nameless

2010-03-31, 03:18 PM

Nah... not too many trees where most termites live. The african savanna does burn, but who cares. :smalltongue:

The come in forests too.
http://images.travelpod.com/users/lraleigh/youarehere..1160574900.termites.jpg

Yeah, who cares about Africa? :smalltongue:

Eldan

2010-03-31, 03:32 PM

Yes, I know that there are forest termites. But the savannah ones are easier to find.

Nameless

2010-03-31, 03:35 PM

Yes, I know that there are forest termites. But the savannah ones are easier to find.

Plus, when they all come out we could see them run around on fire better then in the forest. If you do it at night, it's quite beautiful. :smalltongue:

Kumo

2010-03-31, 04:22 PM

Yes, because following our current strategy of building a society that lives and dies at the hands of a non-renewable resource is a great way to avoid economic ruin.

Until you come to me up with a viable solution to this admittedly very real problem there's not much else to do except destroy society altogether.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure a lot of the measures the Green Movement in general is pushing for would result in a decreased reliance on fossil fuels. I fail to see how this can possibly be a bad thing.

Because none of these 'solutions' are viable so far, either due to impracticality of design or due to what is needed to make them.

Hydrogen would be our best option: it's renewable, it's only by product is water (which could be used to make more), and it produces a lot of energy. The problem?

It violently explodes when it comes into contact with... just about everything.

Eldan

2010-03-31, 04:56 PM

Also to actually get it, most easily from water, you generally need a lot of energy.

Kumo

2010-03-31, 05:01 PM

Also to actually get it, most easily from water, you generally need a lot of energy.

Doesn't the reaction itself make enough energy to make up for it? :smallconfused: or am i wrong (which is very very possible)?

Eldan

2010-03-31, 05:06 PM

Directions have the same reaction energy in both directions. So

2H20 -> 2H2 + O2 needs as much energy as 2H2 +02 -> H20 releases.

It's the reason why these hydrogen cell plans usually include parts like "and then we build a few hundred square kilometers of solar cells in the Sahara desert to get enough hydrogen from sea water to power the cars needed in that small country over there..."

Kumo

2010-03-31, 05:09 PM

Eldan

2010-03-31, 05:11 PM

Nope. That's why I posted it above. It's mostly considered as a fuel in cars, since it's easier to transport hydrogen than to put gigantic copper cables from the Sahara desert, where the solar cells used to produce the hydrogen would be, to europe.

Of course, since solar cells aren't actually energy efficient to produce either, that plan still doesn't work. There's also the inefficiency, which means that the hydrogen actually requires more energy to produce than is in the end used in the motor.

Fusion, on the other hand...

Thursday

2010-03-31, 05:14 PM

In any case, this is pretty much the scope of our options:

{table]|Scientific consensus is wrong|Scientific consensus is right
We do something|There is something drastically wrong with the scientific community that needs to be addressed ASAP. But, on the other hand, we've solved various other issues such as ocean acidification, some mining, dependence on fossil fuels, deforestation and the destruction of habitat, general pollution and so on. The world economy staggers, then recovers, as it is prone to do.|The human-caused effects of global warming are reduced and hopefully reversed, saving millions of species and preventing the upheaval or death of a substantial portion of humanity. The world economy staggers, then recovers, as it is prone to do.
We don't do something|There is something drastically wrong with the scientific community that needs to be addressed ASAP. Furthermore, ocean acidification continues until most of its wildlife - and the communities that depend on them - is dead, most of the world continues to be dependent on fossil fuels, millions of species - many of which are potentially beneficial to humanity (did you know a chemical from salmon semen is used in heart surgery?) - are doomed to extinction at human hands, and so on. But on the other hand, it's business as usual for economies and resource consumption.|To quote Spaceballs, "Well shoot. There goes the planet."[/table]

Serp, (may I call you Serp?) This is awesome, may I 'borrow' the idea?

I'm trying to keep my head down on this debate right now... (I'm writing a PhD thesis part time involving aspects of Climate change and biology.. so sort of almost a climate scientist, I've grown stuff in controlled environment chambers under various climate scenarios anyway, I'll say that much, and I'm finding I need to be careful who I tralk to about my work these days, because its starting to get more extreme reactions, in both directions, and its actually a bit scary..

EDIT: as a scientist (who has worked for a bit in the climate change centre in a major UK university), I find some of the conspiracy theories really worrying.. What exactly is in it for scientists, (some of whom I have met) to be faking this stuff?
Do people really think they can point out something really obvious and assume it just hadn't occurred to us? Nobody seems to get how science works, and that if it does turn out to be wrong, then we'll accept this on the evidence, (we really will!) Science does not produce absolute facts right off the bat... I know most of you know this! Sorry, going back to my fun now after venting a little..

Kumo

2010-03-31, 05:32 PM

One thing that bothers me about the chart serpentine uses is that in the two cases I have seen it, it doesn't take into account the very real prospects of the solutions failing or being ineffective.

Or that 'ineffective' is extremely likely.

Thursday

2010-03-31, 05:38 PM

^^^ True. Its more the arrangement I like, but it does need some tampering.

I like the way it sort of highlights (without meaning to) the way climate change has completely taken over ahead of some of the other stuff we were trying to get people to do (reduce oil dependancy, reduce air pollution etc).

In some cases it is turning some people off of those things, as they can use not believing in Anthromorphic climate change (I really don't want to get into what side I'm on, see above) to dismiss all that as well. It certainly diverts cash, at any rate.

EDIT: Scratch that poorly reasoned tosh. What I mean.. (and someone prob already said so.. its late here and I'm sleepy..) is that the relentless pushing of ACC may put people off other 'green' projects, because of all the time given to it, -if you don't believe it, then you will probably now be more likely to dismiss other initiatives along with it as they've all been subsumed into this morass.
I don't want to wade into who's right at this stage, as I'm too sleepy. Night!

Trog

2010-03-31, 07:39 PM

I'm writing a PhD thesis part time involving aspects of Climate change and biology.. so sort of almost a climate scientist
:O *gasp!* *points* A climatologist!

:mad: Let's all lynch him! He made us...

choose one:
A.) Believe in his global warming lies for his own nefarious money-grubbing ends
B.) Feel guilty for pointing out man's role in messing up the earth even though he's right.

We'll burn him at the stake! :smallmad:

Er... wait... will that release too much carbon into the atmosphere if we do that, do you think? Should we maybe buy some carbon offsets to... you know...sort of make up for... wait. GAH! He made the guilt happen again! Get him!!! :furious:

*leads angry mob armed with pitchforks and those battery-free shake-and-charge flashlights*

Kneenibble

2010-03-31, 09:26 PM

http://www.iloveco2.org/2009/04/termites-emit-ten-times-more-co2-than.html

I realize you are referencing it facetiously, but please be aware this article is of dubious value. It is obviously not a peer-reviewed journal, it turns up on no academic resources at my disposal, and the author does not properly cite any of his sources. In fact the quote you reproduced is one of the very few (and still improperly cited: article title and page number are missing) concrete references beyond "X has said..." or "X says..." without a source. (edit: fyi I followed the "read the rest here" link to the full article at its publisher's website, a "journal" called Liberty)

At the best, it is poor scholarship. At the worst, it is outright deception.

Visiting the article about termites in Science, for example, you can see clearly that the author has misrepresented the article's purport. The article's published abstract is thus:

Termites may emit large quantities of methane, carbon dioxide, and molecular hydrogen into the atmosphere. Global annual emissions calculated from laboratory measurements could reach 1.5 x 1014 grams of methane and 5 x 1016 grams of carbon dioxide. As much as 2 x 1014 grams of molecular hydrogen may also be produced. Field measurements of methane emissions from two termite nests in Guatemala corroborated the laboratory results. The largest emissions should occur in tropical areas disturbed by human activities.

Termites: A Potentially Large Source of Atmospheric Methane, Carbon Dioxide, and Molecular Hydrogen

P. R. Zimmerman, J. P. Greenberg, S. O. Wandiga and P. J. Crutzen

Science, New Series, Vol. 218, No. 4572 (Nov. 5, 1982), pp. 563-565

Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science

Retrieved on JSTOR at the time of posting this message.

The comparison of termite carbon output to industrial carbon output that the author makes appears nowhere in the termite article. Where does he get his figures for the output of all factories and automobiles in the world? Also, notice that the article indicates correlation between the effect of human activities and the release of the termites' carbon: another point the author in Liberty conveniently chooses to ignore.

I only dig into these details, Nameless, because you are so vocal about what you perceive as shaky science in the global warming research.

This thread has been really interesting reading so far, and I have to say that I agree with pretty much all of what Serpentine writes.

Nameless

2010-04-01, 02:19 AM

I realize you are referencing it facetiously, but please be aware this article is of dubious value. It is obviously not a peer-reviewed journal, it turns up on no academic resources at my disposal, and the author does not properly cite any of his sources. In fact the quote you reproduced is one of the very few (and still improperly cited: article title and page number are missing) concrete references beyond "X has said..." or "X says..." without a source. (edit: fyi I followed the "read the rest here" link to the full article at its publisher's website, a "journal" called Liberty)

At the best, it is poor scholarship. At the worst, it is outright deception.

Visiting the article about termites in Science, for example, you can see clearly that the author has misrepresented the article's purport. The article's published abstract is thus:

Termites: A Potentially Large Source of Atmospheric Methane, Carbon Dioxide, and Molecular Hydrogen

P. R. Zimmerman, J. P. Greenberg, S. O. Wandiga and P. J. Crutzen

Science, New Series, Vol. 218, No. 4572 (Nov. 5, 1982), pp. 563-565

Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science

Retrieved on JSTOR at the time of posting this message.

The comparison of termite carbon output to industrial carbon output that the author makes appears nowhere in the termite article. Where does he get his figures for the output of all factories and automobiles in the world? Also, notice that the article indicates correlation between the effect of human activities and the release of the termites' carbon: another point the author in Liberty conveniently chooses to ignore.

I only dig into these details, Nameless, because you are so vocal about what you perceive as shaky science in the global warming research.

This thread has been really interesting reading so far, and I have to say that I agree with pretty much all of what Serpentine writes.

I have to say, that after I read that article I did realise that there was a lot of shady stuff about it, which is why I haven’t used it up until now for a slightly, more relaxed humorous reason.
However, I have come across this subject (more specifically, the methane part) on a few occasions.
There's a slightly more honest papers about it here (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch14/final/c14s02.pdf) and here (http://www.harunyahya.com/books/science/termites/termites_08.php) though.

Either way, I stand by my proposal to go on a mass genocide of termites. That way we'll be able to take their place... Until we run out of fossil fuels, then we're all screwed.

Caewil

2010-04-01, 02:47 AM

Serpentine

2010-04-01, 03:14 AM

I realize you are referencing it facetiously, but please be aware this article is of dubious value. It is obviously not a peer-reviewed journal, it turns up on no academic resources at my disposal, and the author does not properly cite any of his sources. In fact the quote you reproduced is one of the very few (and still improperly cited: article title and page number are missing) concrete references beyond "X has said..." or "X says..." without a source. (edit: fyi I followed the "read the rest here" link to the full article at its publisher's website, a "journal" called Liberty)

At the best, it is poor scholarship. At the worst, it is outright deception.Also, it uses the fact that CO2 is used by plants as a major argument for it not being a pollutant. Fun fact: Phosphorous and Nitrogen are also natural elements that are used by plants. Get too much of those in the waterways, and you've got algal blooms, nasty stinking water, dead fish, deoxygenated water...
NATURAL != GOOD IN ANY CONCENTRATION, so's y'all know.
And, again, climatologists are perfectly aware of the termite effect. By the way, I recently read an article about someone who made a climate model that tested what would happen if the much-touted sunspot activity ceased. It predicted that, if the activity ceased, global warming would decrease by something like 1%. But, that would leave something like 3% still going on.

Caewil: How about... Indonesia? Hawaii? All the island nations in the world? People everywhere are complaining about being invaded by refugees now... They'll be having coniptions in a few decades at this rate.
Moreover, rising water levels are not the only nor the main predicted outcome of climate change, nor of rising CO2 levels.

Remember how I said I wish there was climate change version of my evolution book? I think I've just found it (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html). Specifically on things that have been discussed here:
Sun dunnit. (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650-climate-myths-global-warming-is-down-to-the-sun-not-humans.html)
Boooo hockeystick graph! (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong.html)
England had vinyards once! (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11644-climate-myths-it-was-warmer-during-the-medieval-period-with-vineyards-in-england.html)
We're just leaving an ice age is all. (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11645-climate-myths-we-are-simply-recovering-from-the-little-ice-age.html)
Hardly any climatologists agree! (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11654-climate-myths-many-leading-scientists-question-climate-change.html)
TEH EEMALEZ! (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18238-why-theres-no-sign-of-a-climate-conspiracy-in-hacked-emails.html)
In the '70s they promised cold. (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643-climate-myths-they-predicted-global-cooling-in-the-1970s.html)

Nameless

2010-04-01, 04:00 AM

May I take the relative lack of response to my previous post as evidence that most of what I said was far too sensible to argue with?

With regard to cities and rising water levels, neither property damage nor mass relocations are unavoidable. Given that such changes will be gradual rather than immediate, (on a human timescale, please don't argue about the changes being geologically rapid &c.) there will always be sufficient time to react through the construction of breakwaters/levees or a gradual movement of people away from waterside locations. Unless a nation consists of low islands and atolls (eg. Maldives), such predictions of catastrophe are ridiculous. There may be breaches on a local scale, but as long as governments do not mismanage the resulting disaster, little harm on a national scale should come of them.

I did agree with a lot of what you said there.

The idea that the world is about to end and it’s all our fault still sounds absurd to me. What does make sense is if what we’re doing is part of a much larger issue that is unavoidable. What we’re doing may on some level be warming up the planet, but I don’t think that simply stopping our burning of fossil fuels will magically save the planet. The planet does naturally go through changes in climate all the time due to a variety of reasons and not all of it’s effects are bad. We’ve seen it happen time and time again. If we are contributing to the environmental changes, then it’s not necessarily a bad thing or something which is unnatural, many plants and animals do it. We’re not outside of nature and neither are our actions. Simply cutting down on our own CO2 isn’t going to stop it, which is why I think it’s more important for scientists to help us prepare for that time, rather then trying to prevent it. And while saying that “Animals are dieing because they are unable to adapt” may be true, animals have always been dying out due to climate change. Take the mammoth for example. The speed in which the climate changed after the last ice age was so fast, it whipped out all, if not most of the mammoths and most likely many other species. Species of animals are dying all the time. And in the words of George Carline, “We didn’t kill them all”.

Like you said, the changes won't just happen over night, so if we focus on adapting rather then avoiding, we can be prepared.

Thursday

2010-04-01, 04:37 AM

:O *gasp!* *points* [COLOR="Sienna"]A climatologist!

:mad: Let's all lynch him!

Heh, -Mwahahahaha! You'll never stop me.. mere ill informed plebians incapable of understanding the higher concepts passing through my brain.

*runs away anyway, just in case* (Spare me, I'm only a mere innocent entomologist really... Its them you want, look, over there with the barometers and white coats...)

Sadly thats sometimes the state of the debate, -from both sides.
And why I'm in hiding.

Caewil

2010-04-01, 04:53 AM

Caewil: How about... Indonesia? Hawaii? All the island nations in the world? People everywhere are complaining about being invaded by refugees now... They'll be having coniptions in a few decades at this rate.
Moreover, rising water levels are not the only nor the main predicted outcome of climate change, nor of rising CO2 levels.

I said low-lying islands, to be specific - and these are almost universally sparsely populated due to the lack of fresh water for agriculture and small-size. Regarding your two examples: Indonesia isn't one and in terms of landmass is practically a small continent. Hawaii is not particularly low-lying either and has the added advantage of continually renewing it's land through lava-flow.

There is no evidence for the prediction that rising sea levels would occasion such an "invasion" of refugees. Furthermore, no refugees would flee seeking more land, given that it must be decreasing in nearly equal proportion everywhere and that the cost of land in any undeveloped country is by far cheaper than in a developed one. (and in Indonesia, much land remains to be utilized)

The main factors which make the risk of emigration worthwhile are political strife and corruption, war and poor economic prospects in the homeland. If global warming does have such effects, it will be nearly even everywhere and the proportion of migrants will be in relation to the presence of these other factors in the nation, rather than in proportion to decreased land. It can neither increase nor decrease the likelihood of these factors being present except in relation to the policy of a nation's government.

Yet again, the gradualness of the rise in water levels will grant sufficient time for preventative actions to be taken in the case of larger nations and even for smaller but more developed ones. (eg. Singapore)

As for rising CO2 levels, isn't that one of the causes? There was a hypothesis that above a certain level of acidity, the sea would begin to re-release the CO2 it had absorbed, but it was rather poorly supported by the evidence. (and killed dead by Occam's razor) From what I have seen, one can come up with a post-hoc justification for just about any phenomenon being the effect of global warming. There are so many variant hypotheses that at least one of them will make specific predictions which turn out to be true by chance even if it has nothing to do with Global Warming at all. Very few of these predictions are well-backed up by the evidence; if you give me specific examples of which you believe to be true, I will be glad to examine them.

Eldan

2010-04-01, 04:55 AM

Woo! Entomology-high-five!

Also, for the effects of global warming on emigration: you have to remember that current models actually predict that the tropics will be hit hardest, by desertification, change of precipitation patterns and massive decreases in the efficiency of farming as a result of these factors. So the already poorest countries, Africa especially, will be hit hardest.

Serpentine

2010-04-01, 05:11 AM

As for rising CO2 levels, isn't that one of the causes? There was a hypothesis that above a certain level of acidity, the sea would begin to re-release the CO2 it had absorbed, but it was rather poorly supported by the evidence. (and killed dead by Occam's razor) From what I have seen, one can come up with a post-hoc justification for just about any phenomenon being the effect of global warming. There are so many variant hypotheses that at least one of them will make specific predictions which turn out to be true by chance even if it has nothing to do with Global Warming at all. Very few of these predictions are well-backed up by the evidence; if you give me specific examples of which you believe to be true, I will be glad to examine them.I've heard the idea that the ocean may belch out CO2 at some point, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about ocean acidification, which is caused by the exact same thing as climate change (anthropogenic rises in CO2 levels), and is demonstrably happening right now.
I think it's important to stress this for the "climate skeptics": ocean acidification is not caused by climate changed, it is a separate phenomenon caused by the same thing as climate change.
Basically, what happens is this: more CO2 in the atmosphere means more CO2being dissolved in the oceans. More CO2 in the oceans disrupts the processes by which various organisms build their calciferous skeletons. In most cases, it results in significantly weaker skeletons. Probably the most important impact of this is weaker, less healthy coral, and eventually most likely the destruction of coral reefs.
"Oh noes!" you may cry sarcastically, "Not teh coral reefs!" Millions and millions of people depend directly on coral reef habitats for their livelihoods and even basic sustainence - a large proportion of whom are 3rd World people already at risk from climate change-induced rising sea levels. Millions more rely on them less directly, through industries such as tourism and tropical aquarium trade; Queensland alone earns billions of dollars through the Great Barrier Reef.
These effects are just from the loss of the reefs themselves. But that's not all: reefs are a incredibly important for a huge number, possibly even most, of marine organisms, as a source of food, shelter and as nurseries. Leaving aside the significance of the ecologies themselves (which I personally find humongously important, but I'm focussing on the human impacts here), the loss of these reefs will probably result in the crash of thousands of important food and money species, such as fish stocks, as well as whales and dolphins and sharks, and so on. The people who rely on these animals for their income will also be in dire straits.
"Lookit teh liddle greeny, blowing things all out of proportion. How typical", you may jibe. Maybe so. But, well, there's this: when my lecturer in marine biology was talking about these and other concerns, I asked him, because it all seemed so dire, "is there no hope at all, then?" He responded, "Well... put it this way. Go out and enjoy the reef now, because your children probably won't be able to."

So, whether climate change is "real" or not, there's plenty of other reasons to take the exact same steps. Perhaps the focus should be taken of climate change and onto the environment in general. Somehow I doubt it would help.

Evidence (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119880047/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0) evidence (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7059/abs/nature04095.html) evidence (http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/65/3/414) evidence (http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163834).

Thursday

2010-04-01, 06:16 AM

So, whether climate change is "real" or not, there's plenty of other reasons to take the exact same steps. Perhaps the focus should be taken of climate change and onto the environment in general. Somehow I doubt it would help.

Right bang on. (I also agree with the rest of what you say there, but this is important..) People have said to me, 'but I don't believe in climte change, so I can't be bothered recycling any more. This is the level we are dealing with in some cases..
I don't know what to do, exactly, but I do think some of the extreme doom saying on CC is counterproductive at best, and not always justified.
I'm angry with the media, mostly, on both sides in this one. My msc in ecology featured a course on dealing with presenting science to the media, and how they sensationalise it.. very enlightening, but also depressing.

Woo! Entomology-high-five!

Follow the six legged path my friend!

Eldan

2010-04-01, 06:23 AM

And how I follow that path!

Well, I would, if it wasn't snowing today and all the bees were inside being sensible.

Nameless

2010-04-01, 06:37 AM

By the way, I recently read an article about someone who made a climate model that tested what would happen if the much-touted sunspot activity ceased. It predicted that, if the activity ceased, global warming would decrease by something like 1%. But, that would leave something like 3% still going on.

And I recently watched an debate where it was admitted that climate models weren't mathematically correct.

Caewil

2010-04-01, 06:51 AM

Yes, the coral reef one is also true. However, the tests justifying it were performed in a pool and immediately introduced creatures/corals with calciferous exoskeletons adapted to an environment with less acidity than that in the pool. However in nature the change would be far more gradual and more importantly, on a much larger scale.

There is always some variation in individual traits within a population of organisms. Out of the organisms adversely affected by the change, there will be those who are better and worse able to deal with it. Since those which are better in this regard will be more likely to survive and reproduce, those traits will come to predominate within the gene pool. In a gene pool as large as an entire coral reef, those corals best able to adapt to the increased acidity will come to predominate by definition as will those of every other creature affected by the change; there being enough natural variation in the population to adapt.

A fair test would use an extremely large population and then gradually increase the acidity of the water over several generations. Even this would underestimate nature's powers of adaptation, given that to be accomplished within a reasonable timeframe, the rate at which acidity was increased would have to be very much higher than in nature.

While increased acidity may perhaps decrease slightly the overall average fitness of the organisms or the total quantity of biomass by a small amount, it cannot do so in the long term. The natural response would be to cut back on consumption of seafood in a like quantity; but this would be opposed by commercial fishing interests who blame any diminution in the ocean's stocks on something other than their own rapacity.

The point of this is that the predictions of doom and gloom are rarely justified by any study of nature herself or in the same conditions which they are likely to occur because any test must be conducted on a much smaller timeframe than the change will actually occur. Those based not on tests but on observational evidence can also prove little. Global warming is not a theory in itself and does not make a precise set of predictions except that of a rise in sea levels and that some part of it is caused by human industry.

The other predictions, as I said earlier, depend on the model one uses &c. They have also been tacked on after the fact. A clustering of natural disasters cannot be used as evidence for that being the effect of global warming because that clustering is what brought our attention to them in the first place. Neither can we make a comparison with other eras as the records then are so scarce and diverse as to record only the most severe of phenomenon and then not in very much detail. If we know the baseline frequency at which storms occur (questionable), we can make the prediction that from this period onward, the frequency will tend to return to normal.

Thursday

2010-04-01, 06:58 AM

And I recently watched an debate where it was admitted that climate models weren't mathematically correct.

Right, yeah.. because there's a clear cut answer on that...
Mathmatical modelling is imprescise, REALLY imprescise, it just is.
The current Climate atlas of european birds, for example, has the current range of many species predicted to be in places that don't overlap at all with the actual range. (It also has gaps caused by culls in the distribution of some british birds of prey, with the gaps moving north in a suspicious way..) The butterfly book is better.. but that one considers so many climate scenarios that you can get anything out of it. The point is that there are as many opinions on mathematical modeling as there are scientists, and no decent scientist has ever tried to hide this.. Mathematical models are hugely inexact by their very nature, but this doesn't mean they aren't useful.. There I highlight some problems, but there is also a remarkable degree of consensus between a lot of the models from a lot of different labs. Most of which have never been used by the IPCC... (who have a lot to answer for in my book for undermining their own case)

All predicting the future has flaws.. Doesn't mean we aren't aware of these problems..

Eldan: Bees eh? Cool. I have a hive, but no bees as yet due to concerned neighbours. grr. Discovered anything good?

On Adapting to conditions like sea acidity.. Plants adapt to elevated CO2 conditions too.. but as far as I'm aware thats been taken into account. I had too, anyway. Coral is bleaching right.. I'm not halucinating that.

This is so Off Topic now. go us!

Eldan

2010-04-01, 07:05 AM

Just started the project, really. Solitary bees, by the way, not honey bees. I managed to open up a single Osmia cornuta nest yesterday before it started raining. Damn this weather.

Trog

2010-04-01, 07:07 AM

speaking of low lying islands... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8584665.stm)

Caewil

2010-04-01, 07:12 AM

Right, yeah.. because there's a clear cut answer on that...
Mathmatical modelling is imprescise, REALLY imprescise, it just is.
The current Climate atlas of european birds, for example, has the current range of many species predicted to be in places that don't overlap at all with the actual range. (It also has gaps caused by culls in the distribution of some british birds of prey, with the gaps moving north in a suspicious way..) The butterfly book is better.. but that one considers so many climate scenarios that you can get anything out of it. The point is that there are as many opinions on mathematical modeling as there are scientists, and no decent scientist has ever tried to hide this.. Mathematical models are hugely inexact by their very nature, but this doesn't mean they aren't useful.. There I highlight some problems, butthere is also a remarkable degree of consensus between a lot of the models from a lot of different labs. Most of which have never been used by the IPCC... (who have a lot to answer for in my book for undermining their own case)

All predicting the future has flaws.. Doesn't mean Scientists aren't aware of these problems.. we really are.

Eldan: Bees eh? Cool. I have a hive, but no bees as yet due to concerned neighbours. grr. Discovered anything good?

On Adapting to conditoins like sea acidity.. Plants adapt to elevated CO2 conditions too.. but as far as I'm aware thats been taken into account.

This is so Off Topic now. go us!
If the study I recall is the same as the one I assume Serpentine refers to; if it did take into account the capability of those organisms to adapt it severely underestimated them for the reasons I stated above. As I recall it did not consider the possibility of their adapting to the change. However, the article itself did not claim anything so sensational as a destruction of entire coral reefs, merely a possible diminution in plankton and from there a decrease in the abundance of the entire ecosystem which is based on them. (good scientific articles rarely claim something unknown as a certain)

I found even this questionable as, again, the number of plankton in the ocean are so vast that some of them will adapt. As gradual and insensible as the changes are, so too will be the adaptations to them.

Thursday

2010-04-01, 07:14 AM

Just started the project, really. Solitary bees, by the way, not honey bees. I managed to open up a single Osmia cornuta nest yesterday before it started raining. Damn this weather.

Cool. Heh, you must get that a lot, sorry! Is that Mason Bees? I know less about those, but Hymenoptera are all good fun if you ask me.
Good luck with it all..

Its sleeting here in SW England, if that helps.. Thankfully my butterflies don't go out in the rain either.

EDIT to avoid double post:

If the study I recall is the same as the one I assume Serpentine refers to; if it did take into account the capability of those organisms to adapt it severely underestimated them for the reasons I stated above. As I recall it did not consider the possibility of their adapting to the change. However, the article itself did not claim anything so sensational as a destruction of entire coral reefs, merely a possible diminution in plankton and from there a decrease in the abundance of the entire ecosystem which is based on them. (good scientific articles rarely claim something unknown as a certain)

I found even this questionable as, again, the number of plankton in the ocean are so vast that some of them will adapt. As gradual and insensible as the changes are, so too will be the adaptations to them.

Guess I need to read it.. You are right, in the sense that I've found myself reading these sorts of articles before and thinking, "but they'll ajust to that"

Adapt was probably the wrong word, I don't mean adapt in the evolutionary sense.. not sure the timescale is long enough for evolutionary change. Plants grown under elevated CO2 show increased growth and photosynthesis (and are much poorer quality as food) for a time, (around 2-3 months) but eventually adjust to levels not much above where they were before.. and this is in a CO2 chamber, in the wild there will be time for this to happen naturally.

You're right on good science articles too, most of my beef is with the sensationalists, who cause more than half this mess. My own opinion is coalescing around 'the extremiest doomsayers are out... but we do need to do something. Also there are many other issues that deserve not to be swamped in all this, Like Serp was saying.

Eldan

2010-04-01, 07:20 AM

Uhm... let me go check the english names of those first. The german name could be translated as mason bees, at least.

*a minute later*

Yup. Mason bees.

Serpentine

2010-04-01, 07:25 AM

If the study I recall is the same as the one I assume Serpentine refers to; if it did take into account the capability of those organisms to adapt it severely underestimated them for the reasons I stated above. As I recall it did not consider the possibility of their adapting to the change. However, the article itself did not claim anything so sensational as a destruction of entire coral reefs, merely a possible diminution in plankton and from there a decrease in the abundance of the entire ecosystem which is based on them. (good scientific articles rarely claim something unknown as a certain)

I found even this questionable as, again, the number of plankton in the ocean are so vast that some of them will adapt. As gradual and insensible as the changes are, so too will be the adaptations to them.First of all, I believe they're talking about something else.
Secondly, did you, in fact, not look at the links I posted at all? There isn't "one study", there are heaps of them. They're using an entire reef on the Great Barrier Reef as a laboratory. There is not only one article claiming this. The studies I posted, from several different journals, are just a fraction of the evidence out there.

Nameless

2010-04-01, 07:26 AM

Right, yeah.. because there's a clear cut answer on that...
Mathmatical modelling is imprescise, REALLY imprescise, it just is.

This is so Off Topic now. go us!

Indeed. :smalltongue:

Anyway, while what you said may be true. The fact that the models aren't mathematically aren't the only issues. Firstly, what the computers are actually able to simulate is limited. And also. (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba396) That's to save me typing it all out and then having to give the link out anyway. Yes, they do have an important part in climate science, but they can't always be relied on.

And, yes, I am aware that I'm arguing with someone who probably knows more about this then I do, but damn it, I'm stubborn. :smalltongue:

Eldan

2010-04-01, 07:33 AM

Screw the topic, I have brown hair!

Thursday

2010-04-01, 07:33 AM

Indeed. :smalltongue:

Anyway, while what you said may be true. The fact that the models aren't mathematically aren't the only issues. Firstly, what the computers are actually able to simulate is limited. And also. (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba396) That's to save me typing it all out and then having to give the link out anyway. Yes, they do have an important part in climate science, but they can't always be relied on.

And, yes, I am aware that I'm arguing with someone who probably knows more about this then I do, but damn it, I'm stubborn. :smalltongue:

Heh, I don't know about that.

Everything in that is about right, I can't refute any of it.. my only point is that we do Know this.. and bear it in mind. Every conference I ever went to had at least one 'bear pit' session of people tearing each others models apart.
Personally I don't like 'em much.

See post above for other stuff, I didn't want to double post, but looks like I needn't have worried...

Also have brown hair. but beard is blonde.

Serpentine

2010-04-01, 07:40 AM

Indeed. :smalltongue:

Anyway, while what you said may be true. The fact that the models aren't mathematically aren't the only issues. Firstly, what the computers are actually able to simulate is limited. And also. (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba396) That's to save me typing it all out and then having to give the link out anyway. Yes, they do have an important part in climate science, but they can't always be relied on.

And, yes, I am aware that I'm arguing with someone who probably knows more about this then I do, but damn it, I'm stubborn. :smalltongue:Nothing here is new, it's all taken into account, that's the whole point of peer review and replicability, do you think climatologists are so stupid they wouldn't be aware of these problems and consider them, the exact same problems exist for every other field of science are you going to deem them useless as well, etc etc.

Thursday

2010-04-01, 07:42 AM

Nothing here is new, it's all taken into account, that's the whole point of peer review and replicability, do you think climatologists are so stupid they wouldn't be aware of these problems and consider them, the exact same problems exist for every other field of science are you going to deem them useless as well, etc etc.

Which is also what I mean.. only more forcefully. There ARE issues, but they are, in the decent scientific press (a key issue for me), Honestly reported, and accounted for.

Edit: been reading back through thread.. whoa.

Caewil

2010-04-01, 08:30 AM

First of all, I believe they're talking about something else.
Secondly, did you, in fact, not look at the links I posted at all? There isn't "one study", there are heaps of them. They're using an entire reef on the Great Barrier Reef as a laboratory. There is not only one article claiming this. The studies I posted, from several different journals, are just a fraction of the evidence out there.
Having read the evidence you posted, I find none of it exempt from the criticism I levied earlier. None of them performed experiments in the manner I suggested, which is the only manner in which specific and valuable conclusions can be drawn about what may occur in a state of nature. Other experiments, by using a shorter time period and a smaller number of organisms do not closely mimic nature's reactions at all.

I'll use just one of your evidences as an example:

Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), primarily from human fossil fuel combustion, reduces ocean pH and causes wholesale shifts in seawater carbonate chemistry. The process of ocean acidification is well documented in field data, and the rate will accelerate over this century unless future CO2 emissions are curbed dramatically. Acidification alters seawater chemical speciation and biogeochemical cycles of many elements and compounds. One well-known effect is the lowering of calcium carbonate saturation states, which impacts shell-forming marine organisms from plankton to benthic molluscs, echinoderms, and corals. Many calcifying species exhibit reduced calcification and growth rates in laboratory experiments under high-CO2 conditions. Ocean acidification also causes an increase in carbon fixation rates in some photosynthetic organisms (both calcifying and noncalcifying). The potential for marine organisms to adapt to increasing CO2 and broader implications for ocean ecosystems are not well known; both are high priorities for future research. Although ocean pH has varied in the geological past, paleo-events may be only imperfect analogs to current conditions.

Again, real scientists don't play scaremonger. These guys have all sorts of qualifications, "if this and this hold true then this" or "effects may possibly be" which essentially equate to: "more data required, all of this is speculation". Potentially fruitful speculation which may lead further investigations, but speculation nonetheless. None of them are evidence for what you claim them to be. The most they come up with is that it will be harder for marine organisms to form skeletons and that this should be an avenue for future research.

Your claim is invalid without evidence. Evidence which I believe is in principle impossible to obtain within a short timeframe and would require a massive laboratory (sufficient in size to hold an entire ecosystem). I have left the precise time and size unstated because they are directly related to the reliability of the experiments with regard to their approximating nature.

Of course, the point of view which says "we could lose it all!" is inimical to the long-term testing I propose here. Just remember that the soothsayers of global doom and armageddon have always proven wrong so far and just because they couch their words in that of scientific jargon does not make them right. (because their claims are unscientific)