Scientific Discussion (No Politics) regarding validity of climate change

[MrMalachiCrunch]

The answer is to treat is as we treat any other harm done by one to another (or in economics an “externality”) and disincentivize it.

Probably the most sensible statement I have heard on this topic.  The carbon tax would not amount to much per litre of fuel.  Europe pays much more for fuel than north americans or US citizens in particular.  They mainly drive small fuel efficient cars but if you want a gas guzzling muscle car you can get one, you do more damage and you pay a bit more, fair enough.  Personally, I own 2 muscle cars, my 454 powered 71 truck gets about 4 miles per gallon and my 80 Z28 gets about 6.  If you wanna play you gots to pay, again, I can life with that.

For the most part, it seems its Americans who deny any possibility that humans affect the climate in any way.  I don’t know what is so hard about say that humans do affect it but maybe in such a small way its not worth mentioning or to contemplate it was a good thing we started to do it 1000s of years ago to keep that next ice age at bay but now its time to slow down the human change…or not.

I don’t think a gradual introduction of a carbon tax with gradual ramp up would cause the world economy to collapse.  I would trade north american technology and some oil costing X for the same cost X which had little technology and lots of oil consumption.

Oil production along with natural gas is starting to increase in north american at an ever accelerating rate.  Lots of cheap fossil fuel might help the economy in the short run but having to explain to your kids where Santa goes in the summer when there is no ice at the north pole might be a bit awkward.

[LHoffman]

@U-505:

@LHoffman:

I must say that I am struck by how naively you think that everyone in the world would be on board with the solutions you posit. Not all countries will be able to do what you propose or want to do it. What body will enforce this worldwide change, because certainly only the United States participating cannot be enough? If we cannot even convince those in our own country to agree on the issue and move on a solution, how much more impossible would it be to convince over 200 nations, with differing resources and economies, to help save the planet. Not only is it wrong to do so, it is utterly implausible.

I know that not every country can make that change quickly. But, the point is to get them to change as quickly as they can within reason. And at this point we won’t have to do much convincing because the ever increasingly destructive natural disasters that are beginning to befall us should be convincing enough.

But whose reason? What body will define it and how will they mandate it? I know you cannot answer for certain, but you could give me a best guess. In any even, I do not like where this leads… a global body which has power over US sovereignty and Canadian sovereignty and British sovereignty etc… As evident as some of these problems are today, it is not bad enough currently for nations to throw their economies in the tank to fight a mostly invisible bogeyman. Ultimately, the average person will care more about their immediate needs: a job, a home, food/gas prices and their televisions… maybe their drugs too, than they will care about lowering their carbon emissions. Food at least will be influenced by the environment, but it is one aspect among many. There are and have always been natural disasters; how can we determine that a given disaster is caused by global warming. Can you throw earthquakes and tsunamis in that category? Tornadoes, hurricanes, wildfires? These all occur naturally every year. I suppose you can claim increased frequency is evidence. Regardless, it is a pertinent question to ask what will be convincing enough for the world.

@U-505:

Only recently did China overtake the US as the worlds largest producer of greenhouse gasses, but we have been going at it for a LOT longer. It would be hypocritical of us to demand that the rest of the world make a change when we have been a big part of the problem and we are resisting change. The countries that are reluctant to make a change aren’t going to go along with the program until we can prove that we can do it. Nobody wants to do it because it will be painful economically and probably in quality of life. The problem is that the longer we wait, the more painful it will get.

Hypocritical, yes… but I thought we were talking about immediate necessity, at least we were previously in this discussion. If it is crucial that the world reduce its contributions to climate change, then there must be a rapid downgrade from current emissions by everyone, no? Forgive me if I am throwing you into the Frimmel’s Day plan without your consent. This is beside the point of how we get everyone to comply… specifically, large countries, who are not friendly to us and have shown little to no compunction at pretty much raping the environment for their benefit. (e.g. Russia, China, N. Korea, maybe Iran, Venezuela…) If it will be economically painful (disastrous more likely) for us, weakening our ability to do or enforce anything globally, do you not think that these other nations will not capitalize on our weakness? Even if you stick your head in the sand and don’t think it could or will happen, it is still a reasonable question to ask. This does not even bring up all of the domestic problems it will cause for us, to re-tool and dispose of all our inefficient vehicles and devices. Quality of life will suffer drastically, but the interesting thing will be to see how many people would just be okay with it.

[Gargantua]

Great posts all around!

My only complaint with long posts though, is there are usually too many items to comment on, so I’ll just cherry pick a few.

Migration of people…  People have been migrating since the beginning of time, and continue to migrate TODAY. Despite whatever you may think.  100 years ago on the very island I live on, the largest city was Leechtown.  It rivalled Victoria for the capital of British Columbia.  Today Leechtown doesn’t exist, there’s only a single (and bad) dirt road in, and there’s nothing to be seen there but trees.

Whether you talk about the natives who -science has proven- came here from Asia, or the europeans who came here more recently.  Migration happens, and is still happening, and there are still huge swaths of habitable-yet-uninhabited areas all over the globe. Canada being a prime example.  People are migrating north here everyday.

Natives food supply… For the record, MOST native cultures -specifically in Canada, are coastal/lakeland survivors.  That’s what they lived off.  The Natives that lived off of the Buffalo and Caribou, migrated WITH the animals, (Even the eskimos still move seasonally today) and in some cases the natives exterminated the herds -without- any help from anyone else.  Sure there may have been an isolated incident where a food supply was targetted by europeans.  But I can’t find an actual incident of that recorded, and in all likelyhood the food supply was just as plausibly targetted by other natives.

Regarding trusting scientists/pilots… I really liked your point U-505, and I like that it will illustrate my own.  As a pilot in training, I’d be happy to provide advice to the man flying the plane, or take over the flying after finding out that he’s planning to use his skills to crash the plane and all it’s “useful” passengers into the pentagon or otherwise to secure funding for his own personal Jihad.  This must be gaurded against.

Millions or even billions of people would die from war, exposure, starvation, and rampant disease in the horribly overcrowded areas that would result. I find it a bit disturbing that you have such a carefree attitude towards this.

NEWSFLASH # 2 U-5! :P No matter what we do 6 Billion people are going to die over the next 100 years, from war, exposure, starvation, rampant disease, and old age.

It’s not a matter of me being care-free, it’s a matter of fact, and it’s nothing new. :D

[GoSanchez6]

My theory about climate change is this. In the year 13000bc there was an ice age. If this event were to happen today it would kill millions of people. The Ice shield stretched from the artic to Iowa. This would be considered massive climate change if it happened today. My question to all of you who believe we have control of the climate is this. How many SUV’s were the cavemen driving back the? I believe the climate may be changing but I don’t believe we are having a huge impact on it. The world has had global warming and global cooling throughout it’s existence. If you don’t believe me look it up. I personally believe we are stewards of the earth and should do our part to keep it clean and take care of nature the best that we can to leave to future generations. I also believe there are things that are out of our control and it is mans arrogance to believe we can control the weather. I will finish with this the politicians who say we have climate change have and agenda and those that don’t probably have one too. Good discussion guys.

[Gargantua]

Fred Flintstones SUV was ball’n….

[GoSanchez6]

It didn’t run on fossil fuels as his pet was one of them GAR.

[MrMalachiCrunch]

We didn’t have guns 2000 years ago but people were in fact killed back then, therefore guns can’t possibly kill people because people were killed before guns were around.

I think we can see the fallacy in that logic replace SUVs with guns and……

We do affect the climate just as there is pee in your pool if I pee in your pool.  The question is by how much and is that bad or good.  The answer is more and more but more by .00000000001% can be an ignorable amount.  Bad or good, well it was good that we prevented a new ice age but bad if we keep going to a possible tipping point where the end result means much less of the earth surface is feasible for humanity to live economically.

and in some cases the natives exterminated the herds -without- any help from anyone else.  Sure there may have been an isolated incident where a food supply was targetted by europeans.  But I can’t find an actual incident of that recorded, and in all likelyhood the food supply was just as plausibly targetted by other natives.

Garg, perhaps you could peruse the following….

http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/buffalo.htm

Under the heading:

E. US POLICY TO EXTERMINATE THE BUFFALO

. Officers and enlisted personnel also killed buffalo for food and sport, though the impact of their hunts was minute when compared to the organized efforts of the professionals." (The Military and United States Indian Policy, p. 171) "In 1874, Secretary of the Interior Delano testified before Congress, “The buffalo are disappearing rapidly, but not faster than I desire. I regard the destruction of such game as Indians subsist upon as facilitating the policy of the Government, of destroying their hunting habits, coercing them on reservations, and compelling them to begin to adopt the habits of civilization.”

Perhaps a better source of information

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/five-things/the-great-american-bison/8950/

I for one live 1/2 mile from one of the 5 great lakes.  Until rain stops falling in the northeast of North America climate change won’t affect me much.  Sucks if you live on the ocean coast I guess or near a newly emerging desert…… I’m ok Jack, keep your hands of my stack!

[Gargantua]

Thank you for the 1990’s mediafire website Mal, but…  :)

Some scholars suggest

Isn’t exactly imperical evidence… ?

And your website supports my position quite fundamentally

“Although the army was plagued by strategic failures, the near extermination of the American bison during the 1870s helped to mask the military’s poor performance. By stripping many Indians of their available resources, the slaughter of the buffalo severely reduced the Indians’ capacity to continue an armed struggle against the United States. The military’s role in this matter is difficult to asses. Sheridan and Sherman recognized that eliminating the buffalo severely reduced the Indians’ capacity to continue an armed struggle against the United States. The editors of the Army and Navy Journal supported the proposition, comparing such an effort with Civil War campaigns against Confederate supplies and food sources. Forts provided de facto support for hunters, who used the civilian services often found near army bases. Officers and enlisted personnel also killed buffalo for food and sport, though the impact of their hunts was minute when compared to the organized efforts of the professionals.” (The Military and United States Indian Policy, p. 171) “In 1874, Secretary of the Interior Delano testified before Congress, “The buffalo are disappearing rapidly, but not faster than I desire. I regard the destruction of such game as Indians subsist upon as facilitating the policy of the Government, of destroying their hunting habits, coercing them on reservations, and compelling them to begin to adopt the habits of civilization.” (The Military and United States Indian Policy, p. 171) Two years later, reporter John F. Finerty wrote that the government’s Indian allies "killed the animals in sheer wantonness, and when reproached by the officers said: ‘better kill buffalo than have him feed the Sioux.'” Although Sheridan added that “if I could learn that every buffalo in the the northern herd were killed I would be glad,” some indications point to a groundswell of military opposition to the killing. (The Military and United States Indian Policy, p. 172)

While evidence seems to point to the existence of an official policy, the debate about whether one actually existed still continues (as noted in the above paragraph).

I’m still not seeing any compelling evidence? Even from the source… Other than Indians killed the herds of their enemies… and that a modern 1870’s government recognized the importance of the food source strategically?

[Gargantua]

And the second source agrees… the first factor in the -extinction- of the species.

American Indian tribes acquired horses and guns and were able to kill bison in larger numbers than ever before

Not as previously expressed in a statement I wholeheartedly REJECT.

and because the animals they relied on for sustenance were slaughtered specifically to starve them to death

:)

The history of the buffalo though, is an interesting read, especially in a climate-change/enviromental context.

Again, it’s move, adapt, or die. That’s history, And not even 150 year old history.  One has to look at the whole picture.

[MrMalachiCrunch]

I have no doubt horses and guns help natives hunt for sustenance more vigorously, but natives tend to use and eat what they killed unlike the white man.

Rather than rehashing that debate lets review how others debated the topic of ‘Buffalo being killed to control the Natives’

http://www.westerncivforum.com/index.php?topic=2284.0

From:
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/macleans/bison-back-from-brink-of-extinction

In the United States, the decimation of the buffalo was part of a deliberate, and successful, effort to starve the Plains Indians into submission. As Geist recounts in his book, many high-ranking U.S. officials were explicit about their intentions. “The civilization of the Indian is impossible while the buffalo remains upon the plains,” declared secretary of the interior Columbus Delano in 1873. Two years later, Gen. Philip Sheridan told a joint session of Congress that buffalo hunters had done more to settle what he called “the vexed Indian question” than the entire U.S. army. Sheridan urged the politicians to continue to support the hunters. “For the sake of lasting peace,” he said, “let them kill, skin and sell until the buffaloes are exterminated.”
The Canadian government didn’t go after the buffalo quite so vigorously. But commercial over-hunting to supply the fur trade achieved much the same result. In both countries, the demise of an animal that had dominated the landscape for so long proved astonishingly swift - by 1890, only a few hundred head remained.

I try to play devils advocate with myself before asserting claims that are easily refutable.  Googling the contra-position from yours helps to make your argument more sound.

[Gargantua]

The efforts of early 20th century organizations like the American Bison Society, headed by zoologist William Hornaday and former president Theodore Roosevelt, were able to rescue the bison from its impending extinction

Well there’s no contra position to “The American President rescued the bison from it’s impending extinction” is there?

I’m not quite clear what we’re discussing though… ?

1. I am refuting the claim that the sole reason the buffalo almost went extinct was because of efforts to control natives?  It’s a fallacy.

2. I’m proving is that the migration/forced adaption of people is NORMAL, and has occurred in very recent history.

those are the points I wish to convey that relate to the climate change discussion….

[Gargantua]

**HOLY ******

FYI - those are Bison skulls if you didn’t know…

[Canuck12]

@Gargantua:

2. I’m proving is that the migration/forced adaption of people is NORMAL, and has occurred in very recent history.

those are the points I wish to convey that relate to the climate change discussion….

So why can’t reduction in carbon emissions in order to preserve the current climatic system be part of the adaptation process? Kind of like trying to preserve the Buffalo from extinction?

Doesn’t that seem like the rational choice?

Please explain your opposition to this course of action, it seems completely in congruence with your perspective.

[MrMalachiCrunch]

I read this article this morning and thought of this thread.

The Register is a British IT/Science ‘rag’ somewhat off the wall but often an interesting source of news with usually a science/technology twist.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/06/climate_change_articles_survey/

[LHoffman]

Saw this today and thought it was relevant to our discussion: Global warming ended 15 years ago?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/13212-global-climate-warming-stopped-15-years-ago-uk-met-office-admits
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/

[Gargantua]

Since 1880, when reliable temperature records began to be kept across most of the globe, the world has warmed by about 0.75 degrees Celsius.

From the start of 1997 until August 2012, however, figures released last week show the answer is zero: the trend, derived from the aggregate data collected from more than 3,000 worldwide measuring points, has been flat.

Well folks, the science doesn’t lie?

[frimmel]

:roll: Can’t let this nonsense go and since I addressed this already in my first post with the “pre-emptive strike link.” Either argument 5 or 9 or 52.

Direct link to 52 which illustrates the statistical lie trying to be called a scientific one: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm

Oh and there’s this: http://www.skepticalscience.com/misleading-daily-mail-prebunked-nuccitelli-et-al-2012.html

[Canuck12]

Check your sea-ice data Garg. Lowest in recorded history by far this last year. (Continuing the trend since record began.) Blew the scary science predictions away.

Also, you still haven’t addressed my suggestion/question. It seem sliek you want to help multiple opinions here:

1. You admit that climate change is occurring but state that there is no reasonable way to fix it

then when someone presents a reasonable way to fix it you revert back to:

2. Climate change is not occurring.

Please address this for the sake of your scientific discussion.

P.S. The sea-ice data records are quite good. They record is actually maintained by the US department of defence. They needed an accurate record of sea-ice thickness at the north pole so that they could strategically place nuclear submarines as close to Russia as possible while still allowing the subs a thin enough ice pack to surface for oxygen.

So someone that has NO interest in distorting the data has been keeping an eye on this one since the early seventies. (The science doesn’t lie.)

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Check it every day if you like. They update it every 24 hours.

[Canuck12]

PS

nice debunk frimmel

My guess is that Garg will conveniently choose not to address this or admit that his statistic was silly.

[Jennifer]

We have done this discussion many times.  Let me sum it up for you:

This is the one time in history - IN HISTORY MIND YOU!!! - that NCSCSwitch and I agreed on ANYTHING!  The universe almost imploded on itself.  Some might say it both exploded and imploded simultaniously having a complete negation on each other - we do not know.  What we know is, Herr Switch and I agreed on this topic way back in, what, 2000?  I know it was around the time of the election then, maybe it was 2001, dunno…go look it up.  Very lively debate, was a lot of fun and then I beat the ever living SNOT out of Herr Switch in a game of KJF - AA Revised!  Hillarious!