A Skeptics Guide To Debunking Global Warming Alarmism

[♦ nivek ♦]

A Skeptics Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism, Hot & Cold Media Spin Cycle: A Challenge to Journalists who Cover Global Warming , December 2006 (PDF, )

 

PDF file that is quite and interesting read. If some of our dialuppers can't catch this file, PMme, I have it captured in a .txt or .doc file. 81 pages in original .pdf, 56 in .txt format.

 

Not a casual read, nor a sound byte-ridden scare screed.

 

Scientific answers to the fundmentalist envirowhacks.

 

kFL

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Neverclear and Woodsmoke will both claim this was funded by the oil industry.

 

I have a feeling that you, Nivek, just like me, will remember back a couple decades when the world was in a tizzy over hairspray and the subsequent ban of aerosol cans for fear that they were the culprit in global warming/cooling. After hairspray came cow farts, and now SUV's. What will be next? Beer burps?

[woodsmoke]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Neverclear and Woodsmoke will both claim this was funded by the oil industry.

 

Or, you know, I'll do as I've done so many times before and admit once again I've not only possibly but quite probably stuck my foot in my mouth.

 

Of the idea that lobbyists for any established industry will use any and every piece of contrary information they can get their mitts on regardless of legitimacy to combat and discredit an idea which might cut into their bottom line, I've no doubt whatsoever. That's not alarmism, it's simply understanding how the U.S. capitalist system works.

 

The thing is, until now I hadn't really seen much if any contrary evidence put forward by independent scientists. Most of what I've seen has come from those big business lobbyists of whom I'm naturally suspicious.

 

That said... yeah. I've been wrong many times before, and there's not a snowball's chance in hell this will be the last time. Hence the custom title.

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

I have to agree with you though Woodsmoke, I distrust anything with the word lobby in it, I won't even go into a lobby for fear of that is where lobbyists hang out. I know that many of this country's ills come from them, but I also know that both sides of any major issue have lobbyists who promote thier agenda. I just happened to take a stand where I thought the evidence showed which is mainly in the area of "we don't have freaking clue of anything yet." Especially since I have watched this story grow for 20 odd years. Through polar shifts, ice ages, mini ice ages, even the precession of the equinoxes we have a lot of speculation about what causes global warming/cooling but we don't have enough hard historical data to show much other than speculation.

[woodsmoke]

Heh, I hope "I won't even go into a lobby for fear of that is where lobbyists hang out" isn't meant to be too sharp of a jab, however deserved. I don't they're objectively evil or out to get me, I just take anything said by them with a grain of salt due to my knowledge of what lobbying is.

 

A big part of my "condition" almost certainly comes from the fact that I simply lack experience. You've been watching this stuff for 20-odd years, I've barely been alive that long (21 last Sep). I do seem to be a fair bit more informed than most of my peers about science, social issues and current events, but I haven't been at this long enough to have a lot of practical wisdom with which to supplement my book-smarts.

[♦ nivek ♦]

woody:

 

There are fundamentalists on each aspect of the "Use" spectrum.

 

Some are advocates of total clear cutting and mining to bedrock, taking any resource that can be economically taken to be made into geld.

 

Others are total preservationists trying to lock the land 'as it is' by any means they can to prevent any use of lands and resources.

 

What sickens this ole fatman is the absolute waste we produce and throw away. Even in my fairly rural small city area in the desert, our garbage transfer station pulls tons of cardboard weekly, pulls thousands of pounds of metals, and zillions of reparable items head off to rot in the landfills.

 

Damn near cried when a local apartment building was torn down in some urban renewal. There were long 2x6, 2x8, 2x12, some up to 24 feet long (!!!!!) simply torn to shit by the excavator used to tear down then load the garbage.

I would have a crew in there, me paying them day wages at prevailing (18-24 usd/hr) on a weekend to get the opportunity to rescue for re-use those wonderful straight dry boards.

 

Was told simply that there was friable asbestos in the floor boarding of the old place, and that the "State of Oregon has disallowed any reuse of potential carcinogenic materials..."

(I have been at salvage and re-use for a LOTTA years, first I'd heard of that.. Hmm..)

 

Anyway, the wood, the cut lumber and timbers thrown away represent thousands of current dollars to replace, IF one can find *affordable* lengths of lumber.

 

This kind of waste happens as it is economically unsuited for the builders who have time and financial constraints on them to produce and build.

 

I have advertised and found several projects of de-construction over the years, some with good results, others a waste of funds and time. Thing is, there is wooden gold in the re-use of finished wood business. Takes more effort to find the goodies, disassemble the structure around it, and pull the zillions of fasteners, than it is *worth*.

 

The but *UNTIL* or *HOWEVER* is when you've got a pile of 'finished' lumber that is dry straight and more sound than ANYthing produced from mills, both hard and softwood.

 

I disassembled the old house we owned as part of putting up the new haciendaFatman. 2x6 doug fir timbers dried under the roof as rafters, and the lengths that were under the floors as joists. 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and a pair of 24 footers, they filled a 20 foot trailer nine feet tall.

 

My help and I pulled by hand some 7 3 gallon buckets of fasteners so we could reuse the boards to build my shop and fatDaddyHideout. Worth it? Got a 10 foot ceiling, 24x24 stickbuilt, wired, concrete floor and foundation, total cost with a shingle roof was less than five grand.

The salvage wood was straight, dry and ready to be trimmed to fit the needs of the crew.

 

I'm blithering.. We need to salvage, reuse, and recycle the already built things that can donate their components when at all possible. Less reuse means more use of *new* materials and more demand on the system to produce those.

 

Will say that American culture is so fucking spoiled with the met demands for *new* that until things finally run short, few will accept *recycled* timber, wood, plastics and metals.

We do so at the peril of simply running out of materials to keep the industries running on technology we have now.

 

woody, you are not wrong thinking.. You are gonna be a replacement politically for one of we *old farts* soon enough. Being armed with information and ensuring you never stop learning is a good thing.

 

kFL

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

Heh, I hope "I won't even go into a lobby for fear of that is where lobbyists hang out" isn't meant to be too sharp of a jab, however deserved. I don't they're objectively evil or out to get me, I just take anything said by them with a grain of salt due to my knowledge of what lobbying is.

 

A big part of my "condition" almost certainly comes from the fact that I simply lack experience. You've been watching this stuff for 20-odd years, I've barely been alive that long (21 last Sep). I do seem to be a fair bit more informed than most of my peers about science, social issues and current events, but I haven't been at this long enough to have a lot of practical wisdom with which to supplement my book-smarts.

 

I completely agree with nivek, and no jab was intended towards you. Whenever I post I have the best of intentions towards anyone I am discussing an issue with and think the same from them unless they start calling me names . The bad thing about writing is you can't tell sometimes.

 

I honestly fear that without major lobbyist reform, first steps have recently been taken, that Capitalism in its current form is a downhill road for all of us.

[scitsofreaky]

I'm going to admit my bias against Inhofe to start off with. I just don't like him, and he's going to have to earn every single thing he says. And just skimming through the first few pages I see him use (on page 6), "scary computer model which extrapolate the current and projected buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and conclude that the planet faces certain doom." It appears that he continues to portray computer modeling as somehow non-scientific, when they are an important part of science.

But I've just skimmed, so take what I say with a grain of salt. Take it!!

Oh, and everybody like to show a temp/CO2 chart. Here's my favorite: http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale_op_927x695.jpg

 

As for lobbying, I agree, it is in dire need of reform. And as for Nivek's post about reusing wood: great post!

[The Sage Nabooru]

Simply for love of life, though, I'll still prefer recycling and less pollution over the alternative.

 

Even if global warming was/is a myth, a cleaner enviroment is its own reward.

[Jubilant]

Simply for love of life, though, I'll still prefer recycling and less pollution over the alternative.

 

I agree.

 

My thoughts are that the earth was here billions of years before humans and will continue on long after we're gone. The earth in its own right puts far more harmful contaniments into the air than we humans could ever do but yet it still keeps evolving and revolving. However, at the same time, I prefer to look at the beauty of nature and not someone's cigarrette butt's all over the damn stop light intersections, or fast food bags littered all over the highway and behind grocery store wooded areas...we don't need to go overboard and be environmentalist whacko's (afterall, people are part of nature too) but damn, people can at least clean up after themselves.

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

Simply for love of life, though, I'll still prefer recycling and less pollution over the alternative.

 

Even if global warming was/is a myth, a cleaner enviroment is its own reward.

 

Can I get an Amen? I'm all for a cleaner Earth, even stiffer penalties for those who throw their McDonalds bag and beer cans on the side of the road. I'm just not going to accept every media fad that comes along. They have cried "WOLF" for too long for me to just accept it.

[Friendly Misanthrope]

I agree with Sage. It is better to err on the side of caution and try to make all of our ecological footprints much smaller. We cannot definitively prove global warming because we don't have spare earths to use for lab experiments. This is analogous to being unable to prove definitively evolution because we (as individuals at least) don't have millions of years to watch speciation take place. However, I still believe in evolution because of the evidence and logical theories behind it. I also think global warming should not be dismissed outright as foolishness, for there is too much at stake. To think that we, as humans, cannot significantly impact our environment for the worse is, too me, like trying to ignore the elephant in the room.

[Dave]

Simply for love of life, though, I'll still prefer recycling and less pollution over the alternative.

 

Even if global warming was/is a myth, a cleaner enviroment is its own reward.

I agree. But global warming is not a myth. The atmosphere is warming up. Glaciers are melting at a rapid pace. Ice packs are shrinking. Oceans are warming up. There are just too many scientific facts out there that support global warming that it would be insane to say it isn't.

 

The only disagreement is how much humans have contributed to global warming.

 

It doesn't matter though. We're fouling our own nest and we have to stop it, global warming or not.

[Mr. XC]

Even if global warming was/is a myth, a cleaner enviroment is its own reward.

Can I get an Amen?

Amen!

We're fouling our own nest and we have to stop it, global warming or not.

I will add may own "I agree" statement.

 

I head the ridiculous argument from somewhere else that minimizing impact is too expensive, therefore, it is a waste of money. Hooking up to a city sewer (and paying for the sewage system) when there is a near by lake or ocean to dump your sewage into may seem expensive, but it is the responsible thing to do. The same is true for pollution (or altering the atmosphere without knowing the full consequences) on a larger scale. I am not sure why that is not understood. I guess someone is an "alarmist" when the person points out something is bad, but may have made a mistake about the cause of that something. But just because the cause that the person stated may be wrong or exaggerated does not make the thing any less worthy of being alarming if the negative effect is indeed happening.

 

The only thing I disagree with is getting in the way of science and misrepresenting it. People on both sides of the argument can do this, so I would not blame one side without considering the other.

 

I just love how people selectively pick studies about the weather and how things point to natural global warming (and cooling sometimes) causes and ignore the studies that support human impact. Even if we contribute as little as 10% of any kind of climate change (warming or cooling), that makes us no less responsible to minimize our impact; Especially given that most of that impact makes our city's air unhealthy, etc. Even if the product of the pollution is harmless to us on the ground, anything that accumulates in the atmosphere over time will interfere with nature eventually.

 

The Earth's climate is a complex system. Pointing to studies that look at only a few components of it is deceiving. This is why I like to read studies that consider all major influences of our climate, such as this one:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm (dated in 2001, but a good example of how we should look at things by studing all components of the climate)

 

I know I am preaching to the choir, so stop reading here if you would like. I heard the argument that we humans are too small to do anything that would change the climate. Well, this is true of humans 150 years ago (aside from deforestation), but humans now have large facilities creating impact on our behalf. Also, consider the termite in a large wooden building. The termite's impact may seem insignificant, but with enough termite's and enough time, they do fuck up the building. Being small does not make their impact insignificant.

[trashy]

But just because the cause that the person stated may be wrong or exaggerated does not make the thing any less worthy of being alarming if the negative effect is indeed happening.

That is a big leap to say that we should be alarmed at even wrong or exaggerated claims! Be alarmed at the observed phenomena, sure, OK, but let's leave it at that.

 

I've often said that since man had nothing to do with the massive warm-up that ended the last ice age I'll go out on a limb and presume that he won't have much of anything to do with any future warm-up either. My main problem with the current global warming hype is the presumption of anthropogenic causes. If the media was merely hyping the warming itself I'd fret less.

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

Mr. XC, did you notice how your same logic could be used for religion? As I read your post I started noticing that the very logic that you use with environmental issues could be used to argue for the many aspects of good aspects of Christianity, ex. that just because many of the messengers are wrong or exaggerating doesn't mean that the Christian message of peace and love are wrong. People need to consider that before they go on an anti-Christianity rant. It's not the basic message, it's the messengers-and that includes some of the writers found in the Bible. Personally, if people would just give up the notion that the Bible is infallable and it was written for all times and ages-I wouldn't have a problem with them. The same can be said of science. Science is not infallable either. All it takes is a single faulty presumption somewhere back in the multitude of supporting hypotheses to make a current theory wrong.

 

Never once have I said that their shouldn't be stricter controls on emissions or the like. It is my belief that once we have 0 emissions diseases like cancer will just disappear. I believe that someone out there already knows what causes cancer but they believe that getting rid of the cause would impact current society too greatly or at least greater than the damage cancer causes to society. Insurance and automobile recall policy uses exactly this logic.

 

If you could create a device, say like a Star Trek transporter, to get people from A to B quickly and efficiently, would you use it? What if there was a chance that a small percentage of those people could die as a result of a malfunction or operator error, would you still use it? What if that percentage included someone you love, like one of your children? What if instead of the possibility of malfunction or error the cost in lives was replaced with the need to sacrifice someone every year, chosen by lottery, to make it work? What if it was a thousand people chosen at random and age was no consideration? Most likely people would still use it. In fact they use something everyday that kills way more innocent people, pollutes the atmosphere, and destroys the landscape - the automobile.

[scitsofreaky]

Oh, and if you read Inhofe's wiki page I think you'll see why I don't like him and generally distrust him.

The only thing I disagree with is getting in the way of science and misrepresenting it. People on both sides of the argument can do this, so I would not blame one side without considering the other.

I agree. Those who are trying to "help" by exaggerating are doing more harm than good. The decisions should be made based on what the science actually says. And if it is inconclusive, or a conclusion is hard to come by, I think we should err on the side of caution, that is, err on the side that we are having an impact. Just because we didn't have an impact last time, doesn't mean we aren't this time. Not only are we dumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, we are also destroying thousands of acres of trees, nature's CO2 filters. Even if we aren't having an impact, it sure seems like we're trying our best to do so.

[Dave]

.....In fact they use something everyday that kills way more innocent people, pollutes the atmosphere, and destroys the landscape - the automobile.

Todays automobile engines produce over 19 pounds of carbon monoxide per gallon of gasoline consumed. In the USA, in 2006, we averaged 390 million gallons a day in 2006. That's about 7.41 billion pounds, or if you want, 3,705,000 tons, of carbon monoxide added DAILY to our atmosphere. The USA consumes roughly 40% of the world gas supply, so just double that last figure to get a low ball figure of what is going on.

 

Now, lets that that number and say figure it out for the next 10 years.... that would be about 13,523,250,000 tons of carbon monoxide. That would also be a very low number since consumption is increasing.

 

That's just cars though. We need to add in natural sources, power generating plants, and other industry.

 

(Carbon monoxide contents of volcanic gases vary from less than 0.01% to as much as 2% depending on the volcano.)

 

Are we causing global warming?

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

I didn't get to finish my post, was interrupted, but thanks Dave for those statistics and it kind of proves my point. People can clearly see what the automobile does to our environment and lives and yet we still use it. Why? Convenience. Now, if we are causing global warming from all those vehicles on the road would we do something about it? Probably not or at least not without some serious, REALLY SERIOUS, prodding. I suppose, just like voluntary product recalls and such, that it is too inconvenient to do something about at the present time even though it may cost lives, just like the automobile on the road costs lives now for the convenience of arriving at our destination faster. It's the same with my analogy with the Star Trek transport system. We would still use it because it is convenient regardless if it costs us a few lives in the process. Everytime you get out there on the road you are subject to the lottery, one of these days your number could come in and your ticket will be punched for the next world so it is not too different than the automobile. It's dangerous for all, but it is convenient.

 

Perhaps we DO need the "alarmist" type running around shouting half truths to get us motivated. If that is what it takes to get people to listen. But what confuses me is how we can ignore all the other things in life that are dangerous. Why aren't there alarmists and scientists supporting the need to get rid of all the other dangers to society and the planet? You don't see as much coverage now on the depletion of the rainforest, or fishing to the brink of extinction, etc. like you used to. Where were the hundreds of scientist that shout out now about global warming? Is the issue not sensational enough for them? Is it not the best way to get funding?

[Mr. XC]

I've often said that since man had nothing to do with the massive warm-up that ended the last ice age I'll go out on a limb and presume that he won't have much of anything to do with any future warm-up either. My main problem with the current global warming hype is the presumption of anthropogenic causes. If the media was merely hyping the warming itself I'd fret less.

I agree, we should not presume that there are anthropogenic causes. We should let science tell us if there are, and just as impotently: listen. What I have heard from science (see the link in my previous reply for one of the sources that I have looked at) is that the causes are anthropogenic and natural. I do not think that it matters what the percentage of anthropogenic causes vs. natural causes are when it comes to making the statement that anthropogenic causes exist.

 

Mr. XC, did you notice how your same logic could be used for religion? As I read your post I started noticing that the very logic that you use with environmental issues could be used to argue for the many aspects of good aspects of Christianity, ex. that just because many of the messengers are wrong or exaggerating doesn't mean that the Christian message of peace and love are wrong. People need to consider that before they go on an anti-Christianity rant. It's not the basic message, it's the messengers-and that includes some of the writers found in the Bible. Personally, if people would just give up the notion that the Bible is infallable and it was written for all times and ages-I wouldn't have a problem with them. The same can be said of science. Science is not infallable either. All it takes is a single faulty presumption somewhere back in the multitude of supporting hypotheses to make a current theory wrong.

This is why I do not argue the benefits or harm of Christianity. I argue that there is evidence that supports the more likely conclusion that the Jesus of the gospels was not historical but is more likely to be a fictional character. If you are not familiar with the subject, there is actually a lot of historical data to support this. It is not an assumption. It is a stronger argument to make. My argument was based on that we do have some impact, regardless of how small it is. I think that is a bit more sound (and is much more supported by science) and does not rely on logic games.

 

Never once have I said that their shouldn't be stricter controls on emissions or the like.

I was not addressing you when I wrote that reply. I am sorry if it sounded like it.

 

Those who are trying to "help" by exaggerating are doing more harm than good. The decisions should be made based on what the science actually says. And if it is inconclusive, or a conclusion is hard to come by, I think we should err on the side of caution, that is, err on the side that we are having an impact. Just because we didn't have an impact last time, doesn't mean we aren't this time. Not only are we dumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, we are also destroying thousands of acres of trees, nature's CO2 filters. Even if we aren't having an impact, it sure seems like we're trying our best to do so.

This is a very good point. By exaggerating, the claims will be more easily rebuked. But I also want to throw out there that historically, few major changes go without controversy and conflict. It would be nice if all of a sudden everyone woke up and decided that they would spend many hours researching the issue and coming to a logical conclusion. But sadly, people do have to make a lot of noise to get noticed and to gain support. Thank you, JGJ@ReligionisBullshit (and others), for saying this in another way.

[scitsofreaky]

This is a very good point. By exaggerating, the claims will be more easily rebuked. But I also want to throw out there that historically, few major changes go without controversy and conflict. It would be nice if all of a sudden everyone woke up and decided that they would spend many hours researching the issue and coming to a logical conclusion. But sadly, people do have to make a lot of noise to get noticed and to gain support. Thank you, JGJ@ReligionisBullshit (and others), for saying this in another way.

I'm not ever going to count on the people doing research to do research. It would be nice if our representatives who are making these decision actually did do the research. It isn't too much to ask them to make an informed decision, especially if they are doing so in our behave. I'm sure you don't disagree

[trashy]

Are we causing global warming?

That's the question! Several prominent scientists don't think so, and I'm inclined to go in that direction. Perhaps I am putting too much faith in natural processes, and perhaps I am not giving enough credit to our ability to predict future trends based on an infinitesimally small period of planetary time. But hey, that's me.

[Mr. XC]

This is a very good point. By exaggerating, the claims will be more easily rebuked. But I also want to throw out there that historically, few major changes go without controversy and conflict. It would be nice if all of a sudden everyone woke up and decided that they would spend many hours researching the issue and coming to a logical conclusion. But sadly, people do have to make a lot of noise to get noticed and to gain support. Thank you, JGJ@ReligionisBullshit (and others), for saying this in another way.

I'm not ever going to count on the people doing research to do research. It would be nice if our representatives who are making these decision actually did do the research. It isn't too much to ask them to make an informed decision, especially if they are doing so in our behave. I'm sure you don't disagree

I agree. I think that some parts of our governments create groups of people to do said research, but I am not sure what kind of quality and power controls are in place.

 

Since we have big media now, we should go ahead and regulate them as we do for other monopolies. Every news station with more than x (large) number of subscribers should have one or more scientists who are certified by a board of peer selected scientists to filter out the garbage. Some would call that censorship. Maybe one workaround is to allow unscientific views, but they must be started as not having been reviewed for accuracy. Again, this would only be for large media who can afford this. Just an idea. I am sure others will point out holes in it (and feel free to do so).

[Mr. XC]

Are we causing global warming?

That's the question! Several prominent scientists don't think so, and I'm inclined to go in that direction. Perhaps I am putting too much faith in natural processes, and perhaps I am not giving enough credit to our ability to predict future trends based on an infinitesimally small period of planetary time. But hey, that's me.

Well, even the "The Earth is warming but mostly due to natural processes" section (the largest section as of 1/21/2007) does not state that it is due to 100% of natural processes by definition. Mostly does not equal all.

 

It might be appropriate to mention that there are people who would have been listed on that page, but have since changed their mind. Although only one is a science editor and the other is a science writer and historian of science. The others are not sciences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Form...arming_skeptics

[Dave]

Are we causing global warming?

That's the question! Several prominent scientists don't think so, and I'm inclined to go in that direction.

Many prominent scientists that work in the field of climatology do claim that humans have cause a large portion of this warming trend.... at least the ones that do not work for oil companies, or on bush's payroll, say so.

Perhaps I am putting too much faith in natural processes, and perhaps I am not giving enough credit to our ability to predict future trends based on an infinitesimally small period of planetary time. But hey, that's me.

The period of time we have records for is irrelevant. What is relevant is that for what records we do have this recent trend is warming at a much faster than any other one that has come before. What is causing this rapid increase? What other source is pumping tons of CO onto the atmosphere every second?