For Carl
This is why we shouldn't always trust 'science' as fact just because an '-ist' says so....
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/steigerwald/s_513013.html
Also, can anyone tell me why the temperature on Mars is rising?
posted by Nym Pseudo @ 12:50 PM
12 Comments
12 Comments:
Hmmm... Okay. So, I'm supposed to stop listening to an overwhelming consensus of the world's scientists, and instead pay attention to a columnist from PITTSBURGH? Think about the constituency this guy is pandering to for goodness sake.
This guy talks the same old used up bullshit that the rest of you ostriches spout... The Earth's temperature is always rising or falling... How can we know humans are causing this... The scientists are exaggerating... Blah, blah, blah...
The simple fact is that all of those excuses are TRUE, but it does not change the fact that we all KNOW we are not helping anyone with our pollution. Hell, to hear you ostriches talk, we should bring back the bellowing smokestacks and let companies dump PCB's in landfills. The world is a shit hole, but the only thing I can do is help my small part of it.
No Carl you are not...
And we are not ostriches. We just don't want to be legislated by these same scientists who 40 years ago were talking about an impending ICE AGE. I mean, has the thermometer technology changed that much in that timeframe? So why have the conclusions? And how much of this is our doing versus a natural fluctuation?
There was nothing that we could do about an impending ice age except buy warm clothes and invest in Gortex. There is something we can do about soccer mom's driving Suburbans to pick up groceries.
Besides, all of this is not an altruistic exercise. We are going to improve on helping the environment whether the government legislates or not. In fact, I am not in favor of much government regulation in this area. However, we certainly should not do things to continue to make it harder for the market to correct the situation. (Tax breaks for oil exploration, opening new areas for oil drilling such as natural preserve areas.)
The U.S. has a chance to get in front of a huge economic opportunity here. If the government just stays out of the way, we'll do fine. If the government does their job, and pushes for reform throughout the world, then we'll do better than fine.
I apologize for joining this conversation late. I went ahead and followed the link contained in the write up….. and, lo and behold, someone has taken it upon himself to follow up as to how many of the NOAA’s weather measurement stations are actually compliant with the NOAA’s guidelines for weather stations in the context of their location.
I find it unfathomable to think that we could find any stations not in compliance but, when I stuck my head out of the sand to look at the PICTURES at surfacestations.org., I found that the average temperature had increased significantly at a station that got surrounded by asphalt, a building, some A/C compressors and other human activity, whereas another one, in the same state, which was in compliance with the original guidelines, maintained a steady temperature over the last 100 years. A coincidence, indubitably.
One would think that, before we take 1.5% off GDP per year over the next 10 years to unilaterally comply with Kyoto, we might want to check the source of our data. I mean, it’s dark here under the sand, but I still think that $1.4 trillion here, $1.4 trillion there you may be able to get someone to check. Obviously not the NOAA, which cannot comply with its own guidelines.
As to the so-called pollution, I would have to pull my head out of the sand and continue backwards in a circle, sticking it in a darker, more foul-smelling place, not to conclude that:
1. Developing societies pollute more, not less. Wealthier people have the awareness, the means and the desire to live in cleaner places. This is a fact in any scale – from the continent and nation-state to the neighborhood and individual homes or caves. Underdeveloped societies pollute the most. As an ostrich, I would much rather stick my head in the sand at my local playground than I would near the refugee camps at Darfur (call me crazy). Or, for that matter, near the Amazon basin where the locals burn through the rainforest to grow crops for a few years and then leave.
2. CO2 is a by-product of breathing air, and a requirement for plants to undergo their photosynthetic processes. Real pollutants, such as sulfuric acid, arsenic, lead, mercury, etc. have declined steadily since the early 70’s both in the air and the waterways.
Pittsburgh, as luck would have it, is one of those areas that presents a nice contrast for those who insist that we live in a more, not less, polluted environment. Here are some national level statistics that clearly demonstrate that the six air pollutants the EPA tracks have DECREASED steadily in the U.S…. you can do further digging for the rest of them at your local level.
http://www.epa.gov/air/airtrends/aqtrnd95/report/files/appenda.pdf
Do you think government regulation had anything to do with those decreasing emissions in the Pittsburgh area? Personally, I think they helped some, but the bigger reason was the departure of most of the industry that was producing them.
What amazes me about the arguments you ostriches put forward is that it always goes back to questioning the validity of the temperature data. You happily spin yarns about granny taking the temperature in Maine using a 300 year old thermometer.
This is a tried and true approach of ostriches. When confronted with an unpleasant, and yes, expensive problem that you do not want to face, you question the growing consensus of opinion by questioning the validity of the "test". One stellar example of this in our lifetime is the "science" behind the cigarette companies claiming that smoking does not cause cancer. Now, those of you that know me, know that I am a violent proponent of people being able to smoke much more freely than they can today. However, claiming that sticking a cigarette in your mouth and inhaling was not dangerous was solely the province of cigarette ostriches for years.
Let me see if I can remember the arguments... We don't have enough historical data... How come every smoker doesn't get cancer... We have not eliminated the many other possible causes... and more, and more...
Hmmm... Some of those arguments sound strangely familiar...
Mr. Spackler, I take it the bottom line of your first statement is an agreement with the ostrich-camp when some of us assert that we live in a less, not more, polluted environment. Also, I do not see any debate on CO2 being a pollutant. Am I missing something?
Now, as to questioning the validity of the data, why isn’t that valid and appropriate? Can anyone think of any situation where NOT questioning the validity of the data may have led to the wrong conclusions [hint below]? Most especially when the pictures show that at least some of the weather stations have had heat producing outlets built next to them?
We
May
Discover
Soon
Increased
Research
Answers
Questions
I don't have any problem with you questionning the science behind the studies and assumptions that have led people to conclude that humans are causing global climate change. My point is that selecting a few isolated locations where there may be local factors increasing the temperature is not valid.
Additionally, I would like for you to address the fundamental question. Do you or do you not believe humans are causing global climate change? If you do not, then we can focus on that misconception. If you do, but you think that there is nothing we can do about it, then we can focus on that issue.
I'll go with the easy one. There is nothing substantive we can do about it, even if we stipulate that humans are causing global climate change - which I do not, but reserve the right to discuss separately.
I'm just curious and amused to hear how the consumption growth of a continent of Africans, a sub-continent of Indians, 450 million Latin Americans and 1.2 billion Chinese, who are progressing towards enlightened Europeans standards of consumption (and please notice that only 6 of 19 European countries have met Kyoto protocol mandates http://opencrs.cdt.org/rpts/RL33826_20070124.pdf ) is going to be offset even if we unplug 100% of the “Barbaric Americains” cars and appliances. After all, there are only 300 MM Barbarians.
In fact, assume that we abide by Kyoto protocols (we Barbarians have grown CO2 emissions by 9% between 2000 and 2005 http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads/ch5.pdf, which places us squarely in the top 25% of compliers out of the enlightened European and Canadians who actually signed the treaty). The very verbiage of the protocol states that FULL compliance will not result in any meaningful reduction of the so-called threat.
What do we do next?
We have finally found this blog's elitist leftist telling us how we should run our life.
Congrats Spackler....
Oh by the way, go read this when you have a chance.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/10/dutch-journalism-award-kyoto-is-junk_06.html
Those martians are really fucking that place up. They should be added to Kyoto.
Centerline... The first rule of thumb is when you are in a hole, stop digging. Just because we have not figured out how to stop, let alone reverse the affects of global climate change, does not mean that we should continue to stick our head in the sand and say, "Not my problem". I agree that the Africans, Chinese, and Indians will continue to cause a more significant part of the problem in the future. However, as long as we as a U.S. society continue to make decisions that exascerbate the problem, we can't focus on developing solutions. If the richest society on Earth cannot reduce the GROWTH of C02 emissions, then how can we expect any other country to do anything.
Nym, in terms of the Martians, once again, I'm not going to wade into the debate of a bunch of Phd's. My view on this is a follows:
- There are a lot more Phd's that subscribe to global warming than those that do not. That, in an of itself, does not prove anything, but it tells me that their are good arguments against the problems with the data and the statistics that you keep harping on.
- Even if the entire solar system is warming up, there is no doubt in my mind that we are not helping matters by pumping more and more crap into the atmosphere. You guys think I want to pass some kind of law that prevents you from doing this that or the other. To the contrary, I just want the government to stop facilitating the pollution with tax breaks and other incentives. If the government is going to spend taxpayer money on transportation alternatives, let's make mass transit a higher priority.
We're finally in agreement, Spackler.... if all we have to do is say that it is a problem AND THEN DO NOTHING, like the overwhelming majority of Kyoto countries, then I am all for it. In fact, while we're at it, I am also for ending world hunger, liberating Tibet and stopping human cells from growing old. Where are those all important agreements and declarations?
It's too bad Shane is not a participant on this board, because he would have a real laugh at your Kyoto comment. I argued with him at the time that it was correct for us not to sign Kyoto. However, what I do not think was correct was our withdrawal from the process altogether. Although, I disagree with many aspects of Kyoto, there were some components of it, like the international carbon credits market that I liked immensely. By withdrawing completely from the dialogue, the U.S. has damaged our ability to steer the discussion.
There is no doubt that the rest of the world talks a lot and does very little. I would rather that we did a lot, and talked about it less as individuals and as a country. We are the largest market in the world, if we make green a profitable business to sell, we will be world leaders in the growing green economy. That will help our wallets, and still allow everyone to breathe a little easier.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home