 |
Comments |
|
 | Tuesday, August 12, 2008 at 20:12:51 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: Abie Philbin Bowman
E-mail: AbieLaughs(at)gmail.com
URL: http://www.abielaughs.com
You're absolutely right. There is a looming real-life issue which underpins this show - and which - in part, motivated me to write it.
Climate change is happening. We will soon experience 1° of global warming and we are already on course for 2°. If we keep polluting, past 3°, the Amazon rainforest will start burning â€" releasing billions of extra tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere. At that point, climate change becomes unstoppable. The scientific consensus is that we can only save the Amazon if we reduce emissions by 90%. No government in the world is facing up to that. The longer we do nothing, the more radical the action we will ultimately have to take.
If democratic governments don't act quickly to address the threat of global warming, then some day soon, environmentalists will have to choose between preserving democracy and protecting the planet. That's a pretty horrific choice.
Part of my purpose in writing this show was to wake people up to that looming reality, before it's too late. |
|
| Tuesday, August 12, 2008 at 20:15:56 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Adam Buker
E-mail: adam(at)adambuker.com
URL: http://www.adambuker.com
oy vey... |
|
| Tuesday, August 12, 2008 at 20:44:01 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Paul Hsieh
E-mail: paul(at)geekpress(dot)com
URL: http://www.geekpress.com
There are a number of recent articles questioning whether there's really a "consensus" on global warming.
Here are a few examples:
"Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming"
Wall Street Journal, Sunday, July 2, 2006
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
"They call this a consensus?"
Financial Post, June 02, 2007
Lawrence Solomon
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1- ...
"Global Warming's Senseless Consensus"
Steven Milloy, November 09, 2007
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,309919,00.html
And a couple of articles on the recent sub-debates on whether the American Physical Society physicists have achieved a "consensus" or not:
http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Globa ...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/21/monckton_aps/
Rule of thumb: If people don't agree whether there's a consensus or not, then there's no consensus. |
|
| Tuesday, August 12, 2008 at 22:11:49 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
Paul, Paul, Paul...
Don't you know that those who disagree don't actually count? The fact that they disagree simply indicates their OBVIOUS lack of intelligence. And one doesn't seek a consensus on matters of intellect with idiots. So of course there is a consensus - among those who are smart enough to agree. Anyone else's conclusions are simply not worth considering. |
|
| Tuesday, August 12, 2008 at 22:41:43 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
Oh - and here is an interesting historical document, published in Massachusetts in 1692:
"Witchcraft exists. We will soon experience the horror of its spells and we are already on course for its terrible curses. If we allow vile creatures to roam free, they will cause our crops to die and infest us with unspeakable diseases. At that point, our damnation becomes unstoppable. The consensus of the wise among us is that we can only save the innocent by excising the demons among us. But our government is not willing to face up to that. The longer we do nothing, the more radical the action we will ultimately have to take.
If our fellow citizens don't act quickly to address the desperate threat of witchcraft, they will be consumed by it. Then we (those who recognize evil when we see it) will have to choose between killing our possessed neighbors and protecting ourselves and the rest of humanity.
Please don't make us kill *you*. BURN THE WITCHES NOW!" |
|
| Tuesday, August 12, 2008 at 23:51:12 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: Jeff Montgomery
E-mail: jamontgom(at)hotmail.com
Abie Philbin Bowman said:
>If democratic governments don't act quickly to address the threat of global warming, then some day soon environmentalists will have to choose between preserving democracy and protecting the planet
It's not the environmentalists' (or anyone's) moral right to make that choice for us.
Even if the planet were ready to burst into flames tomorrow, it would not morally justify taking measures that violate individual rights. Such as: forcibly limiting emissions, forcing people to buy certain lights, outlawing cars and gas (there is rhetoric in this direction already), taxing people to fund alternative energy research, etc. All such measures are violations of individual rights, and humanity without individual rights is nothing but a pack of slaves. Nobody has the right to bring about that in the name of anything.
As with criminal law, the only things that warrant punishment are *specific* violations by *specific* parties. If someone can prove they have been harmed by warming that was caused by one or more parties, there should be laws available allowing them to be compensated. How that would work on a global scale, and what would actually constitute proof, is something that actually warrants discussion, instead of whether I should be able to drive an SUV without being spit on.
It is also a mistake to think that environmentalism cares about our lives on earth. If it did, it would not be advocating a wholesale rollback of the Industrial Revolution, forcibly abnegating people's voluntary lifestyle and consumer purchase decisions, and the rights of frogs over humans. On the contrary, environmentalism's goal is a planet without any trace of mankind whatsoever. |
|
| Wednesday, August 13, 2008 at 5:02:02 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net
Abie Bowman: You're not seriously suggesting that a 3 degree increase in global temperatures will make the Amazonian Rainforest start *burning*, are you? That makes no sense. Who told you that, and why did you believe them?
One of the unfortunate consequences of the dumbing down of modern education is the corresponding rise in scientific illiteracy, and the credulity with regard to nutty scientific claims that seems to go with it. Unfortunately, I've seen all too much of this kind of thing in the last couple of decades. |
|
| Wednesday, August 13, 2008 at 14:44:02 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Valda Redfern
E-mail: valda.redfern(at)gmail.com
URL: http://valzhalla.blogspot.com
"Climate change is happening." So it is. Was there ever a time when the climate was not changing? If so, was the prevailing climate at that time (before it changed) the optimum one? |
|
| Wednesday, August 13, 2008 at 17:36:43 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: Abie Philbin Bowman
E-mail: Abielaughs(at)gmail.com
Hey guys,
can I recommend you read 'Heat' by George Monbiot?
It documents far more thoroughly than I can here:
1. The concerted efforts of the oil industry (Exxon Mobil in particular) to promote doubt about the 'concensus' on climate change. A survey of scientific papers dealing with this subject revealed that of 928 different peer-reviewed scientific papers on the subject, not a single one disagreed with the concensus position that climate change and man-made global warming are a serious threat to the planet. However, reports in the popular press - like those cited above - frequently give the impression of that there is doubt about this concensus.
Monbiot draws a clear parallel between the oil industry's attempts to spread doubt about global warming the tobacco industry's long term denial of the link between lung cancer and smoking.
But perhaps you guys believe that the poor little oil companies are being bullied by those bastards in big wind, flying the earth in their fancy private hang-gliders...
2. According to a series of climate models conducted by University College London and the British Met Office, a three degree increase in average global temperatures will critically destabilies the Amazon region - causing the elimination of glaciers (which currently melt every Spring, feeding the Amazon) and changing rainfall paterns (warm air carries more water vapour). The net result is that forrest fires will become far more commonplace and "the interior of the Amazon rainforest becomes essentially void of vegetation".
It's horrible, depressing and deeply unfortunate. But that doesn't make it untrue. Sorry.
APB |
|
| Wednesday, August 13, 2008 at 18:24:57 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: Jim May
E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com
"One of the unfortunate consequences of the dumbing down of modern education is the corresponding rise in scientific illiteracy, and the credulity with regard to nutty scientific claims that seems to go with it. Unfortunately, I've seen all too much of this kind of thing in the last couple of decades."
Not just you, Tony.
http://science.slashdot.org/science/08/08/13/0222255.shtml
"For decades, educators and employers have worried that too few Americans are preparing for careers in science. But there's evidence to support a new, broader concern in this election year: Ordinary Americans may not know enough about science to make informed decisions on key questions."
article link from slashdot: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2008-08-11-science-savvy-ameri ... |
|
| Wednesday, August 13, 2008 at 18:46:56 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
Jim - indeed. And I would say the source of the problem is modern education's failure to teach even the basics of logic. One sees clear evidence of this 'logic illiteracy' when appeals to emotions, appeals to force, ad homs, resorts to ridicule, and outright arbitrary assertions, are all put forth as supposedly 'valid' arguments.
This failure of education certainly helps explain the rise in the acceptance of irrational beliefs - like environmentalism. |
|
| Wednesday, August 13, 2008 at 23:57:24 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: Valda Redfern
E-mail: valda.redfern(at)gmail.com
URL: http://valzhalla.blogspot.com
"A survey of scientific papers dealing with this subject revealed that of 928 different peer-reviewed scientific papers on the subject, not a single one disagreed with the concensus position that climate change and man-made global warming are a serious threat to the planet". As someone else remarked, the people who actually do disagree obviously don't count, eminent climate scientists though some of them may be.
What's George Monbiot's position on the Ice Ages - did human activity cause them too? And who was responsible for the warm periods when dinosaurs thrived, or the more recent ones when hippos waded through English rivers, or the still more recent ones recorded in history? Environmentalism appears to operate on the same premise as Tertullian is supposed to have done: "I believe it _because_ it is absurd". |
|
| Thursday, August 14, 2008 at 5:15:11 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net
Abie Bowman Wrote: "A survey of scientific papers dealing with this subject revealed that of 928 different peer-reviewed scientific papers on the subject, not a single one disagreed with the concensus position that climate change and man-made global warming are a serious threat to the planet."
Oh, please. A claim of unanimity like that is easy to refute with a single counter-example. Here's one, including the author's take on Oreskes' claim (see point 2):
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/weekwas/2005/Feb.%2012.htm
"Oreskes' claim to have found 100 percent orthodoxy in the scientific literature seemed unbelievable... Personally, I had cause to scratch my head. In 1995, I had published a paper in Science where I... concluded that there was no way to determine if the warming was due to human activity or natural climatic variation...
"Upon closer examination, it appears as if professor Oreskes has answered a question no one is asking. Her definition of the "consensus position" on global warming essentially amounts to affirming the validity of the greenhouse effect itself, a physical phenomenon that can be demonstrated in the laboratory."
Accepting the validity of the greenhouse effect one the one hand, and a *scientific endorsement* of the theory of anthropocentric global warming as conclusively demonstrated on the other, are entirely different issues. Anyone with the basic scientific literacy to understand these concepts should -- and should be able to -- know better. And that comes back to my original point, about the astonishing gullibility of the scientifically illiterate in today's society.
This is a point that applies in spades to the "burning Amazon" theory that you cite. Even leaving aside the unreliability of GW computer models (and I'm a computational scientist by profession, so I do know a little something about that subject), that is a perfect example of the kind of thing that a scientifically literate person would exercise a huge dose of healthy scientific skepticism about. Do those changing weather patterns, for example, admit to no other areas of *growth* in vegetation to compensate for the alleged loss of the Amazon? What about the associated increase in atmospheric CO2 that goes with claims of such warming, and certainly would go with that burning? Increased levels of atmospheric CO2 are already demonstrated to cause increases in plant growth worldwide. And what about the study's assumptions and parameter settings -- how realistic are they, and how well are they reproduced by other models? Have you evaluated this study, and does it answer these common-sense scientific questions? And if not, then aren't you just proving my point?
My "skepticism" about global warming isn't a result of not liking the conclusions of the theory. Given our likely proximity to the onset of another Ice Age, given the geological record, I frankly think it would be wonderful if it were true. What I object to are obvious cases of apocalyptic catastrophizing masquerading as science. And the inability of a scientifically dumbed-down public to recognize the signs of this kind of thing is precisely what I was talking about in my comments. |
|
| Thursday, August 14, 2008 at 5:30:32 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: Steve D'Ippolito
Brian S said:
"This failure of education certainly helps explain the rise in the acceptance of irrational beliefs - like environmentalism. "
That's not a failure, that was the plan. The "public" education system was designed from the ground up to create a large pool of pliable people for the labor force. The left succeeded in hijacking the system from its mercantilist (not capitalist as any Objectivist understands the term!) early supporters.
(BTW mercantilist may be the wrong word, but I am trying to find the most appropriate term for those "businessmen" who are willing to use the government against competition, both actual and potential, to their own advantage, or who are actively seeking subsidies. "Boyles" might not be a bad one--Ayn Rand did pick that name carefully.) |
|
| Thursday, August 14, 2008 at 5:58:21 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net
Jim: That's a good article overall. The one area on which I would advise caution, though, is its admonition about considering sources. Journals like Science and Nature do not always provide objective information. The peer review system is better than the alternative (science by press-release), but it's not without problems with bias and orthodoxy, and it's own "good-old-boy" network. Sources with an economic stake in the outcome can sometimes be *more* objective about scientific issues than the alternative, precisely due to the importance of that stake. And it's an absurd myth that government funded scientists and academics lack such "incentives" of their own, especially given the extent to which government funding has taken over most basic research. Challenging a popular orthodoxy can be the quickest way to get a career in science flushed down the toilet nowadays.
What the public really needs is to exercise *content-based* skepticism, not just credential-based skepticism. They should ask hard questions regarding scientific claims like Global Warming, and not settle for vague or half-baked answers. But the public can't do that if they don't know anything about science to begin with. And that's the danger that I was talking about. |
|
| Thursday, August 14, 2008 at 6:04:23 mst
Comment ID: #16
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net
Steve: Burton Folsom (in his excellent book, "The Myth of the Robber Barons," which I highly recommend) coined the terms "market entrepreneurs" and "political entrepreneurs" do differentiate the two groups that you refer to. It's not a bad start, although I dislike the idea of letting the pull-peddlers use the word "entrepreneur" at all. I think that it's probably more straightforward to call them what they really are: fascists. I think that's as good a word as any for what you're trying to describe, which is statism exercised by those who try to hide under a thin veneer of capitalist trappings. |
|
| Thursday, August 14, 2008 at 6:46:25 mst
Comment ID: #17
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net
Here's another reference on the Oreskes issue for those who are interested: http://tinyurl.com/2f8qxr |
|
| Thursday, August 14, 2008 at 20:11:32 mst
Comment ID: #18
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
"I dislike the idea of letting the pull-peddlers use the word "entrepreneur"
How about fauxpreneurs? ;) |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Paul Hsieh
Comments
