The New Global Warming Thread

[Nikolas]

I didn't know that the Easter Islanders were capitalists way back in 1200AD.



Edit: Well, after consulting the Wiki, it looks like the inhabitans of Rapa Nui weren't economic pioneers after all:

The first swimmer to return with an egg and successfully climb back up the cliff to Orongo would be named "Birdman of the year" and secure control over distribution of the island's resources for his clan for the year. The tradition was still in existence at the time of first contact by Europeans. It ended in 1867. The militant birdman cult was largely to blame for the island's misery of the late 18th and 19th centuries. Each year's winner and his supporters short-sightedly pillaged the island after the victory. With the island's ecosystem fading, destruction of crops quickly resulted in famine, sickness and death.

[leejo]

I don't see how not cutting down trees, and not building boats, would have helped them. Seems they would have simply starved off sooner, albeit in the shade.

This logic seems to capture perfectly why the world doesn't buy what the global warming scare-mongers are selling.

[CingularDuality]

Are you saying that you believe that human emissions - namely CO2, CH4, N20 and other halocarbons - could have zero impact on atmospheric conditions, which in turn impact the climate?

I never said that. I said that there could be zero risk. The impact that humans have on our climate could be insignificant in light of the naturally occurring warming cycle. I have no idea, personally. What I do know is that the IPCC, other scientists and mass media have all jumped on a bandwagon that completely includes this huge assumption that I'm not willing to make.

Sure, we could make the global warming version of Pascal's Wager, but we all know that is illogical. I'm all for living cleaner, I just want a little bit of honesty on this topic.

[AMosely]

I never said that. I said that there could be zero risk.

You are right, you were talking about the risk of effect.

I both agree and disagree with you. I agree that global-warming is overhyped, but I disagree in that the only argument against it is simply that - a flat argument against the hype. This runs contrary to basic scientific and environmental logic. I find it very hard to believe that there is zero risk of human pollution have any noticeable effect on the atmosphere, and therefore the climate. To me, it seems akin to saying global nuclear war is survivable - sure, you could theoretically survive, but if the planet does not survive the near term effects, how could anything else truly survive?

[Kerostasis]

Of course, the question of whether human activity has any "noticeable" effect on the climate is really of very little importance anyway. What we should be asking is whether human activity has "significant detrimental" impact on the climate. And while I'll readily agree the risk of that is "greater than zero", I have not yet been convinced that the risk is high enough to justify drastic action. I'm sure you can think of plenty of small numbers that are still "greater than zero".

[BigGaayAl]

I don't see how not cutting down trees, and not building boats, would have helped them. Seems they would have simply starved off sooner, albeit in the shade.

This logic seems to capture perfectly why the world doesn't buy what the global warming scare-mongers are selling.

I don't get this. Sorry for the language if this is offending, but how hard-headed can you be? It's been proven so many times that man will exhaust his environment until he dies or has to move.

The reason people don't buy into the "scare-mongers" which I will conveniently call "scientists" has nothing to do with the mysterious logic you suggest.

-conserving those trees might not have saved them from population pressure in those islands, it would certainly have prolonged their survival
-the reason people "aren't buying" is simply because .....-here it comes- THEY ARE SELFISH!

It's the same reason Africa is being plundered for the last hundreds of years, even by it's own populace. You can ALWAYS find someone to sell the last gorilla, pollute the last stream for mining, sell Alaska to the oil companies.

We can discuss numbers about global warming all day. But I have different angle. I don't know the exact rate, but it IS certain that more species are going extinct in the last hundreds of years, then ever before (not counting things like meteors wiping out dino's and similar events). Does anyone REALLY think this isn't a problem, caused by man? Does anyone really think we can survive without a myriad of animals and plants around us?

It sores me realize that fox's follies are able to infiltrate many minds.

In the end I am very much a pessimist on this area of human nature. Therefore I am convinced mankind's only chance of not exhausting it's environment, is expanding it. I may sound a bit nuts, but man's destiny is to conquer the stars, or die.

[leejo]

I find it very hard to believe that there is zero risk of human pollution have any noticeable effect on the atmosphere, and therefore the climate. To me, it seems akin to saying global nuclear war is survivable - sure, you could theoretically survive, but if the planet does not survive the near term effects, how could anything else truly survive?

This seems dramatic. To me, this is akin to saying a tricycle is like a Porsche. Are you seriously suggesting that discussing whether or not we can continue to drive SUVs for the foreseeable future is like discussing whether or not it's a good idea to be in Hiroshima on August 6, 1945?

The planet will most certainly survive any effects of global warming, or nuclear war for that matter. Many species will not. Many icebergs may melt. This will certainly be the case and humans have been and will continue to be the cause of some of those changes. But even to conclude from the fact that a species has become extinct or an iceberg melts because of human action that we ought to alter our behavior is begging the question.

[leejo]

I don't get this. Sorry for the language if this is offending, but how hard-headed can you be? It's been proven so many times that man will exhaust his environment until he dies or has to move.

No sir. It has been proven several times that some men will exhaust their environments until they die or have to move, but the world is chock full of civilizations who have done neither.

The reason people don't buy into the "scare-mongers" which I will conveniently call "scientists" has nothing to do with the mysterious logic you suggest.

That's exactly the problem. You "conveniently" call these people "scientists", but I submit you're actually being intellectually lazy. In fact, people parrot what a POLITICIAN or an ACTOR has said and prance around as if they know what they're talking about. Hey everyone who fears global warming - name 3 prominent "global warming" scientists off the top of your head without using the internet. Can you? Have you read their work or just seen their names in a press release?

When scientists discuss data, I pay attention. When UN Bureaucrats and failed politicians release propaganda, I roll my eyes. When college students and wannabe intellectuals try to act smart, I chuckle.

-conserving those trees might not have saved them from population pressure in those islands, it would certainly have prolonged their survival

It would have? Certainly? How so?

[leejo]

I don't get this. Sorry for the language if this is offending, but how hard-headed can you be? It's been proven so many times that man will exhaust his environment until he dies or has to move.

No sir. It has been proven several times that some men will exhaust their environments until they die or have to move, but the world is chock full of civilizations who have done neither, and to conclude that migrations or extinctions say more about human nature than the fact that it's a bad idea to start a civilization on a small island or in the desert is a leap I'm not prepared to make.

The reason people don't buy into the "scare-mongers" which I will conveniently call "scientists" has nothing to do with the mysterious logic you suggest.

That's exactly the problem. You "conveniently" call these people scientists, but I submit that you're being intellectually lazy, and that the vast majority of these people are not scientists. People parrot what a POLITICIAN or an ACTOR has said and prance around as if they know what they're talking about. Hey everyone who fears global warming - name 3 "global warming" scientists off the top of your head without using the internet. Can you? Have you read their work or just seen their names in a press release?

When scientists discuss data, I pay attention (while understanding that just because a "scientist" says it is so does not make it so). When UN Bureaucrats and failed politicians release propaganda, I roll my eyes. When college students and wannabe intellectuals try to act smart, I chuckle, having been there and done that.

-conserving those trees might not have saved them from population pressure in those islands, it would certainly have prolonged their survival

It would have? Certainly? How so?

[BigGaayAl]

That's exactly the problem. You "conveniently" call these people "scientists", but I submit you're actually being intellectually lazy. In fact, people parrot what a POLITICIAN or an ACTOR has said and prance around as if they know what they're talking about. Hey everyone who fears global warming - name 3 prominent "global warming" scientists off the top of your head without using the internet. Can you? Have you read their work or just seen their names in a press release?

Actually I, as many of those scientists I indeed do not read myself, am NOT convinced that man is causing global warming. That is mainly because I understand science, and the limits to its validity. I don't need to read all those article to know that their is never an easily digestible (=newsready) answer in science.

My point is the finer points don't matter, because in my opinion you are wrong on the following quote.

No sir. It has been proven several times that some men will exhaust their environments until they die or have to move, but the world is chock full of civilizations who have done neither.

Humor me and name me only 1 that hasn't solved the problem of exhausting the environment by expansion? Really, I'd like to debunk the example.

The only civilizations that qualify as not exhausting their environments are those that are hidden in the most remote and barren areas, like some tribes in the Amazone forest.
I have a nice example too. In Mali, there was a tribe called the "Telem". They were hunter gatherers, not exhausting their environment, and open to dangers like wild animals, that among other factors kept there numbers low. Then the Dogon tribes migrated to their area. They were an agricultural tribe, working the land for foods, and possibly keeping animals. As a Dogon told me. They burned the trees for land, thus chased the wildlife, making the Telem unable to continue their way of life. The "Telem" either went extinct, or became the later Pygmies.

This nice example shows nicely how a population that is living in harmony with the environment are ALWAYS be pushed away or killed off by the society that is rapidly exhausting resources. This is inherent to human progress, and hardly something one can regret, just something that can be noticed.

I really would like to see that example. You can chuckle and not let my reasoning sink in. I won't chuckle, I'll be sad.

Man IS destined to exhaust his own environment. It won't be the four horsemen that kill us, because all the horses will be dead. Killing off Kyoto was just what I described earlier. The society that exhausts the environment faster is the "decider" (copyrighted g.w.Bush).

PS: Too off topic? If so I will cease this particular argument.

[Kerostasis]

Humor me and name me only 1 that hasn't solved the problem of exhausting the environment by expansion? Really, I'd like to debunk the example.

Europe, circa 500 AD -- 1400 AD. They made no significant expansion during that time, and didn't exhaust their environment either. They solved the problem of "increased population" with increased agricultural technology.

[leejo]

Yeah I'm sorry if I caused some confusion or misinterpreted your remarks. I am aware that many civilizations encourage their teenagers to beat it at a certain age, and this results in expansion, assuming that more people are born than die in a given time period. I thought you meant that man is destined to scrape the earth bare then move on in order to avoid immediate starvation, like locusts or the entire Serengeti plain every year.

My background is physics and I can name a zillion physicists off the top of my head. Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen, Bohr, Planck, Bell, Heisenberg, Born, de Broglie, Schrodinger, Dirac, Hawking....I've read books or papers by each. Is this a trick question? Why not rattle off a few names? It's not important to understand their works in order to understand the underlying theory? That's bunk!

And the finer points of science DO matter! It's ignoring the finer points, or forcing them into the prevailing politically correct ideas of the day, that leads to the sorts of environments in which people like Copernicus and Galileo have their work dismissed and their careers ruined because some know-it-alls don't need to bother with the details. Ignoring details is the enemy of science, and all critical thinking. We may think in generalities, but we live in details.

[BigGaayAl]

I thought you meant that man is destined to scrape the earth bare then move on in order to avoid immediate starvation, like locusts or the entire Serengeti plain every year.

That is actually quite close to what I am saying. Only unlike the locusts we can keep living in places that are mostly dead(e.g.) cities, and bring resources from elsewhere. Technology cannot save us imo, that will only heighten the critical population level. I don't think people are able to act unselfishly enough as a group. The only option imo is to expand, as we have been doing since the first plants were farmed.

And the finer points of science DO matter! It's ignoring the finer points, or forcing them into the prevailing politically correct ideas of the day, that leads to the sorts of environments in which people like Copernicus and Galileo have their work dismissed and their careers ruined because some know-it-alls don't need to bother with the details. Ignoring details is the enemy of science, and all critical thinking. We may think in generalities, but we live in details.

My argument was not -I may have been vague- that finer points don't matter in science. I meant it doesn't matter when you are asking the question "should man try to be more then an animal, and make efforts to preserve his environment". That is why I added the off-topic "PS"


-The example I was asking for, again I may have been not very clear in formulation, was of a society that did/does not depend on expansion to survive. Man simply left that stage when he became a farmer was my point. I have no idea why you said the whole bit with the list of names

Leejo, do you think man can survive on the earth only until the sun eats us, or a comet or what not kills us all? With a physics background, you perhaps hope for technology to help us keep the earth living?

[BigGaayAl]

Europe, circa 500 AD -- 1400 AD. They made no significant expansion during that time, and didn't exhaust their environment either. They solved the problem of "increased population" with increased agricultural technology.

This isn't an adequate example. If a comet hits Europe today and halves it population, will it be a good example of a society that doesn't exhaust their environment? If a population stays stable because of a mix of external (plague) factors and human factors (e.g. agricultural advances) that doesn't been the basic tendency is gone. Just before the period you mention was a HUGE Roman expansion, then Africa and America were colonized. I'd hardly call that not expanding. I wasn't asking for an example of a population staying stable for some arbitrary period. There may be periods when the environment isn't exhausted, but soon the population rises and again exhausts the environment. Then the expansion starts again.

[marstein]

I don't see how not cutting down trees, and not building boats, would have helped them. Seems they would have simply starved off sooner, albeit in the shade.

Well, they were cutting down ALL the trees and subsequently died out (actually not quite). They could have left some trees and survived. Lesson learned is that you should be careful about destroying your environment.

There is a nice talk that sums up the book here

It's actually a video, wow.