My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[InfiniteNow]

Not a bad argument:

 

 

 

YouTube - Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI

 

 

 

 

And another which speaks to the "row" question:

 

 

YouTube - 'Revolutionary' CO2 maps zoom in on greenhouse gas sources http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJpj8UUMTaI

 

 

PURDUE UNIVERSITY: A new, high resolution, interactive map of United States carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels has found that the emissions aren't all where we thought. The maps and system, called Vulcan, show CO2 emissions at more than 100 times more detail than was available before. Until now, data on carbon dioxide emissions were reported, in the best cases, monthly at the level of an entire state grid. The Vulcan model examines CO2 emissions at local levels on an hourly basis. Purdue researchers say the maps are also more accurate than previous data because they are based on greenhouse gas emissions instead of estimates based on population in areas of the United States.

'Revolutionary' CO2 maps zoom in on greenhouse gas sources

[Essay]

Great Find, on that CO2 video, etc.

 

It's like watching the US breathe.

Neat to see the I-70 corridor in Colorado.

 

I'm amazed to see those huge wisps trail off toward the Arctic, every once and a while.

 

Also amazing how little California is producing, compared to the Eastern half. :D

[InfiniteNow]

Not too many factories in Cali... whereas the east coast makes steel and **** like that.

[freeztar]

We can't pave the planet in solar panels.

 

Don't be so sure. :doh:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/news-brief/12612-solar-powered-roads.html

[InfiniteNow]

That highway idea was also referenced in the link that Craig shared above.

 

 

A Solar Grand Plan: Scientific American

 

:doh:

[freeztar]

I listen to talk radio from time to time when on a field excursion with a colleague. We often end up listening to Neil Boortz. While I do like some of his ideas, I get my panties in a wad when he starts railing on climate change. It would be one thing if he was presenting sound scientific evidence, but he doesn't. Of course, the callers that call in to protest are quickly shut down and dismissed. Boortz is a clever debater and he can turn your arguments around on you quickly.

 

So, the last time I listened, he touted his main reason that climate change (he still refers to it as GW) is bogus. He asked, "Where is the ideal climate? Is it warmer than now, cooler than now? No scientist can answer this and until they can, it is absolutely silly to say that temperatures are rising and that it is bad. Bad relative to what?".

 

Needless to say, I was sitting in the car laughing. What a ridiculous argument!

 

I'm considering writing Mr. Boortz a detailed letter explaining why climate change is valid and why we need to study it. If anyone would like to help, or has pertinent tidbits to add, please let me know. I don't want it to be as long-winded as this thread, but I want it to be something where he will have no retort (if that's even possible). At least if he can acknowledge that his arguments are silly, then perhaps he'll rail against GW by using science, rather than rhetoric. Here's hoping anyways...

 

Unfortunately, I can't link to his site from here because of Corporate policies (internet radio) so I'll try to add some links later. Most of the arguments are the standard skeptic ones we've all heard before. :doh:

[Essay]

Needless to say, I was sitting in the car laughing. What a ridiculous argument!

I'm considering writing Mr. Boortz a detailed letter explaining why climate change is valid and why we need to study it. If anyone would like to help, or has pertinent tidbits to add, please let me know. I don't want it to be as long-winded as this thread, but I want it to be something where he will have no retort (if that's even possible). At least if he can acknowledge that his arguments are silly, then perhaps he'll rail against GW by using science, rather than rhetoric. Here's hoping anyways...

:doh:

 

THANK YOU!

 

Focus not on "global average temp," but on increase in variability and decrease in stability (as regional systems adjust and jockey for new stabilities) overall.

I wouldn't lead with the parenthetical explanation, but ffr....

Global Avg.Temp. may stay the same or even lower as the poles increasingly easily, melt.

 

...any chance of bringing up global land/ocean use patterns as more closely linked to CC than actual GHG emissions?

 

 

...but speaking of increased variability, Josette, below, spoke about the increase in weather related events that the UN must cope with:

Now, 4-5 hundred/yr.;

Then, 125/yr. in the 1980's.

 

http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_events/progj_sort,904/task,archive/

 

Smart Power Speaker Series: "A Perfect Storm: The New Humanitarian Challenges of the 21st Century"

Video (01:30 wmv) | Audio (01:30 mp3) CSIS is hosted Josette Sheeran, executive director of the UN World Food Programme (WFP), for a discussion on the new humanitarian challenges in the 21st century. Johanna Nesseth Tuttle, vice president for Strategic Planning at CSIS, chaired the session. The UN WFP is the world's largest humanitarian organization. Climate change, natural disasters, demographic trends, and soaring food prices all underpin mounting global food insecurity challenges. Ms. Sheeran will discuss the "new face of hunger," its root causes, implications for malnutrition and stability, and the way forward.

...pointing out that this first Millennium Development Goal is a lynchpin to the others; this is not the time to be falling behind (after decreasing world hunger from 37% in 1969 down to 13% in 2007).

 

p.s. I bet I can guess Neil's opinion of the UN, without ever having heard the show.

[freeztar]

Thanks for the good post Essay.

 

Boortz is an interesting character (indeed we could have a social science thread on the guy). He has one foot in libertarianism and the other in tha far right. I like a lot of his views, so you can imagine how it grates me to hear him rail on science (he's not a scientist btw in case you were wondering :) ).

 

I suppose the best way to do this is to draft a letter and post it here for others to critique, add to, edit, recommend, etc. That way, it's a group effort and will be much more solid a document than if I wrote it alone. :doh:

One problem I see is making it readable by the layman (which he is), but still scientific enough to be as valid as the science it is attempting to explain.

 

I'll try to draft up a quick letter sometime this week and post it for comments.

And to maintain thread integrity, I will start a new thread on this subject when the time comes.

[Zythryn]

One idea may be to stick to real effects he can see today.

For example, get stats on the SW US and how much of their water comes from glacial runoff.

Then documentation about how much smaller those glaciers are now than they were 10 years ago.

Then ask what will be done when there is no more (or much less) water available from that source.

Or, if you think a more theoretical argument will work at a basic level.

As temperatures rise more energy is held in the atmosphere. As more energy is held in the atmosphere the weather gets more variable. Droughts get longer and/or more severe, swings in temperatures greater, etc.

My guess is the second argument gives him too much wiggle room.

[InfiniteNow]

This quantity includes enough to supply all the electricity consumed by 344 million plug-in hybrid vehicles, which would displace their gasoline counterparts, key to reducing dependence on foreign oil and to mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. Some three million new domestic jobs—notably in manufacturing solar components—would be created, which is several times the number of U.S. jobs that would be lost in the then dwindling fossil-fuel industries.

 

The huge reduction in imported oil would lower trade balance payments by $300 billion a year, assuming a crude oil price of $60 a barrel (average prices were higher in 2007).

Since the price per barrel of crude oil hit $114 last week, and all indicators suggest prices will continue on their climb, this will save more than just the environment, but a metric assload of money as well. :)

 

Well, today a barrel of sweet crude hit $120. This means that we've already doubled the conservative estimate of the article. This suggests to me that we can already lower trade balance payments by $600 billion per year. It's time to get this done, people.

 

:)

[Little Bang]

We have 600 million years of data that shows a direct relationship between temperature rise and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

[freeztar]

I looked up some Boortz links and this one is...er...pertinent?

 

But the biggest bombshell here is this one: no matter what we do, global warming will not be reversed. It will go on for centuries, according to this report. The sea levels will continue to rise as polar ice caps melt. So I guess if Al Gore wins his Nobel Peace Prize, we'll still experience global warming. So much for riding to work everyday in your hybrid car...it's not doing a thing. The situation is futile, according to this report.

 

But really, it makes sense that the global warming crowd would come to this conclusion. After all, global warming is a religion. The anti-capitalist enviro-nazis don't ever want the problem to be solved. After all, if global warming were to be solved tomorrow, what would they blame the United States for? They'd have to find some other reason.

boortz.com: Nealz Nuze February 02, 2007

 

So, without being immediately labeled a liberal anti-capitalist democrat (or an enviro-nazi), I see no way of constructing a letter to appeal to this attitude. Debating science with this political advocate is seemingly, and practically, fruitless it seems. :)

[Essay]

I looked up some Boortz links and this one is...er...pertinent?

 

:hihi: "no matter what we do, ...the situation is futile...."

 

boortz.com: Nealz Nuze February 02, 2007

 

So, without being immediately labeled a liberal anti-capitalist democrat (or an enviro-nazi), I see no way of constructing a letter to appeal to this attitude. Debating science with this political advocate is seemingly, and practically, fruitless it seems. :shrug:

 

Take hope!

This reasoning is the last hurdle in the "belief/acceptance" scale.

[1.real? 2.serious? 3.certain? 4.responsible? 5.fixable?]

 

#5.) People will not really acknowledge a problem if they don't believe it is fixable.

 

Now, if we define fixable as restoration within our lifetime, then no, it's not completely fixable.

 

But if we can get the myopically inclined to view success as restoration within our grandchildren's time, then maybe there is still a shot.

But deferring certainty is not a strong suit in those so inclined.

There are some quicker alternatives, but it requires more global cooperation (and I think that is also a nono).

;)

[REASON]

So, without being immediately labeled a liberal anti-capitalist democrat (or an enviro-nazi), I see no way of constructing a letter to appeal to this attitude. Debating science with this political advocate is seemingly, and practically, fruitless it seems. :shrug:

 

The only way you will be able to win over boring Boortz will be to out bid his lobbyists.

 

This situation is very similar to what is happening with evolution and ID. The goal of the conservative radio "entertainers" with regard to climate change is to control belief. Their daily unsubstantiated assassinations of climate science has been fairly successful in this endeavor. They have managed to frame the issue as a political one, for which their people had better be on the "right" side.

 

These media hacks speak in simple, understandable terms that the average person can understand, while information contained in the IPCC report, for example, is way over most people's heads. They can't make sense of it. But they can surely relate to the emotional appeals made by sharp tongued debators with phone call kill switches like Boortz and his ilk.

 

Again, people of science are going to have to find better ways of communicating climate change information to counter these daily diatribes, and recognize the importance of garnering belief if we are to get people on board with changing their behavior, and our country on track toward clean, renewable, energy independence.

[Biochemist]

These media hacks speak in simple, understandable terms that the average person can understand, while information contained in the IPCC report, for example, is way over most people's heads.

I am really disappointed when we air discussion in this fashion. There are legitimate discussion points on the "other side" of this debate.

 

The Wall Street Journal published on 4/18 (in the editorial section- sorry no link) a credible view that 1) questions the nature of the recurring revisions to the same source data and 2) wonders about the real impact of a 0.5 degree increase in temperature (since we have been well above that before).

 

These are not "media hack" positions. Nor are they simplistic. It does not improve our discourse to characterize those who disagree as unintelligent.

[freeztar]

I am really disappointed when we air discussion in this fashion. There are legitimate discussion points on the "other side" of this debate.

 

The Wall Street Journal published on 4/18 (in the editorial section- sorry no link) a credible view...

 

A "credible view" in the editorial section of a newspaper?

Was this contributor a climate scientist? I doubt it.

...that 1) questions the nature of the recurring revisions to the same source data

 

You'll have to be more specific. Are you talking about the IPCC?

and 2) wonders about the real impact of a 0.5 degree increase in temperature (since we have been well above that before).

This is one of the most common denialist arguments. The irony is that asking this question removes the denial.

Yes, the Earth has been both colder and warmer in the past. The point that people continually miss is that it's the *rate* of temperature increase that is alarming. All arrows point to anthropogenic emissions as the reason for this rapid increase.

 

It's also important to remember that when we talk about a 0.5 degree increase, it is a *global average*. The artic may stay cool while the tropics heat up several degrees, or vice versa.

 

These are not "media hack" positions.

Well, they're certainly not scientific positions.

 

Nor are they simplistic.

I'll have to disagree with you there.

 

It does not improve our discourse to characterize those who disagree as unintelligent.

 

I agree.

[REASON]

I am really disappointed when we air discussion in this fashion. There are legitimate discussion points on the "other side" of this debate...

 

...These are not "media hack" positions. Nor are they simplistic. It does not improve our discourse to characterize those who disagree as unintelligent.

 

I looked up some Boortz links and this one is...er...pertinent?

 

But the biggest bombshell here is this one: no matter what we do, global warming will not be reversed. It will go on for centuries, according to this report. The sea levels will continue to rise as polar ice caps melt. So I guess if Al Gore wins his Nobel Peace Prize, we'll still experience global warming. So much for riding to work everyday in your hybrid car...it's not doing a thing. The situation is futile, according to this report.

 

But really, it makes sense that the global warming crowd would come to this conclusion. After all, global warming is a religion. The anti-capitalist enviro-nazis don't ever want the problem to be solved. After all, if global warming were to be solved tomorrow, what would they blame the United States for? They'd have to find some other reason.

 

boortz.com: Nealz Nuze February 02, 2007

 

So are Neal Boortz's comments above an example of the "legitimate discussion points" you are referring to? Are they not simplistic? Do they not appeal to an emotional political response? Are they directed toward the intelligence of the listener?

 

 

Has his message, which parallels virtually every other conservative talk show "entertainer's" opinion on climate change, been effective in casting doubt upon legitimate climate science? Considering the higher percentage of Americans who reject climate science compared to other advanced nations I would say yes.

 

 

It is not me who is attacking the intelligence of the general population. I am pointing out an obvious tactic used by media hacks for the manipulation of public sentiment regarding climate science. I think it is important to remain realistic about the motivations of these unscientific "entertainers" by identifying them for what they are on this issue.....shills for the energy establishment.

 

If it is your desire to improve the level of the discourse on this subject than you should not be "disappointed" by my criticism of the type of discourse coming from the denialists, for which Neal Boortz has exemplified so well in his comments above.