> Politicians and anti-capitalists love the theories though.  It lets them pass laws to make you live the way they want you to.

:)) I can't believe you're saying that :)

What do "anti-capitalists" have to do with global warming? I believe pollution is causing problems, amonst which global warming. but I'm hardly a communist. :)

L.

David Medlock wrote:
> John S. Skogtvedt wrote:
> 
>> David Medlock skrev:
>>
>>>
>>> Take heart with global warming.  Its happening on Mars as well so it probably a fluctuation in the Sun, not human causes...
>>>
>>> -DavidM
>>
>>
>> If you do a google search it seems it's not quite that simple:
>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
> 
> True, but there is no hard evidence outside computer models that humans are causing any fluctuations in temperature.  Whether it is happening is a separate issue than what is causing it. It would be terribly difficult to prove empirically that human activity is the cause.

(1) It is clear that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing significantly as a result of human activity.
(2) It is clear that, on its own, these increased CO2 levels will increase global temperature by a couple of degrees.
(3) It is known that global temperatures have risen over the last hundred years, and particularly over the last 30.
(4) What is completely unknown is, what feedback mechanisms are there in the earths climate? Especially cloud formation. Feedback could be positive or negative.
(5) The contribution of solar activity is also unknown.

(human activity) + (other causes) + (feedback mechanisms) = (observed climate change).

> Also, consider that the total temperature only rose 1 degree in the last century and hurricane season was(comparatively) a flop this year.

Be careful with that "only". Only a few degrees difference in global temperature makes the difference between the current climate and the last ice age.

> Even if you believe C02 emissions are doing it, remember that 100 years ago the automobile had just entered the market.  Who knows what we will be using in 100 more!

Indeed. But the fundamental issue is this:
For most of human history, we've implicitly treated the earth as essentially infinite, and human activity as a small perturbation. That is no longer a good assumption; for some topics, it's an extremely poor assumption. It's that simple.

> Politicians and anti-capitalists love the theories though.  It lets them pass laws to make you live the way they want you to.  Makes them feel good but its mostly junk science.  The ban on DDT has killed millions of mostly children in Africa, but it was too banned on junk science and only after first world countries had used it successfully.

There's a lot of junk science around, no doubt about it, in all kinds of directions. An interesting one is that a lot of air pollution publicity was funded by cigarette companies (so that people would blame their chronic bronchitis and lung cancer on environmental factors, instead of the toxic chemicals they were pumping directly into their lungs twenty times per day...).

Don Clugston wrote:
<snip>
> There's a lot of junk science around, no doubt about it, in all kinds of directions. An interesting one is that a lot of air pollution publicity was funded by cigarette companies (so that people would blame their chronic bronchitis and lung cancer on environmental factors, instead of the toxic chemicals they were pumping directly into their lungs twenty times per day...).

The same happened to research that denied human influence on global warming - it was (partly) sponsored by oil companies. The effect of this on public opinion was that it destroyed the image of consensus, making it into a controversial subject. Even though only handful of (sponsored) scientist deny the phenonemon as opposed to several thousands that more or less agree, it still *looks* like there is something to dispute, hence not worry about it.

Lutger wrote:

> Don Clugston wrote:
> <snip>
>> There's a lot of junk science around, no doubt about it, in all kinds of directions. An interesting one is that a lot of air pollution publicity was funded by cigarette companies (so that people would blame their chronic bronchitis and lung cancer on environmental factors, instead of the toxic chemicals they were pumping directly into their lungs twenty times per day...).
> 
> The same happened to research that denied human influence on global warming - it was (partly) sponsored by oil companies. The effect of this on public opinion was that it destroyed the image of consensus, making it into a controversial subject. Even though only handful of (sponsored) scientist deny the phenonemon as opposed to several thousands that more or less agree, it still *looks* like there is something to dispute, hence not worry about it.

Funnily enough, Norwegian politicians are all about saving the environment, except the little catch that the Norwegian economy is so oil boosted that it's been "hard" for them to actually do anything that matters. It's seemingly improving now, though. Too bad Norway is too small a country to really make a difference.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource & #D: larsivi

Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
> David Medlock wrote:
> 
> 
>>John S. Skogtvedt wrote:
>>
>>
>>>David Medlock skrev:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Take heart with global warming.  Its happening on Mars as well so it
>>>>probably a fluctuation in the Sun, not human causes...
>>>>
>>>>-DavidM
>>>
>>>
>>>If you do a google search it seems it's not quite that simple:
>>>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
>>
>>True, but there is no hard evidence outside computer models that humans
>>are causing any fluctuations in temperature.  Whether it is happening is
>>a separate issue than what is causing it. It would be terribly difficult
>>to prove empirically that human activity is the cause.
>>
>>Also, consider that the total temperature only rose 1 degree in the last
>>century and hurricane season was(comparatively) a flop this year.
>>
>>Even if you believe C02 emissions are doing it, remember that 100 years
>>ago the automobile had just entered the market.  Who knows what we will
>>be using in 100 more!
>>
>>Politicians and anti-capitalists love the theories though.  It lets them
>>pass laws to make you live the way they want you to.  Makes them feel
>>good but its mostly junk science.  The ban on DDT has killed millions of
>>mostly children in Africa, but it was too banned on junk science and
>>only after first world countries had used it successfully.
>>
>>-DavidM
> 
> 
> Sorry, calling it junk science is somewhat harsh, and it is still no reason
> to pollute, as it certainly doesn't cause anything good. Note that if what
> we are seeing now is actually due to pollution, then it is a bit late if we
> don't use cars in a 100 years.
> 
> I for one thinks it sucks with +10 degrees Celsius and rain in late
> November, and it seems my son at 3 agrees.
> 


I won't be drawn into a long discussion of this, but

- I never said anything about pollution.  C02 is a naturally occuring element in our atmosphere.  Pollution is contamination of that environment.

- My 3 year old likes going places in my car and heat for our house. You would pay much more for those things under Kyoto. Bringing your 3 year old into it is pretty juvenille.

- There is still NO EVIDENCE of C02 caused by humans.  Increasing C02 + more humans is not conclusive.  You need reproducible results and double blind studies, not a 'consensus'.

- The total temperature increase in the 1900s was 1 degree celsius.

- It IS an anti-capitalist movement.  Go read the Kyoto treaty, which was ironically rejected by Japan.

Believe the chicken littles if you like, but they have an agenda just like everyone else.  Until you have reproducible results it IS junk science.

-DavidM

Lutger wrote:

> Don Clugston wrote:
> <snip>
> 
>> There's a lot of junk science around, no doubt about it, in all kinds of directions. An interesting one is that a lot of air pollution publicity was funded by cigarette companies (so that people would blame their chronic bronchitis and lung cancer on environmental factors, instead of the toxic chemicals they were pumping directly into their lungs twenty times per day...).
> 
> 
> The same happened to research that denied human influence on global warming - it was (partly) sponsored by oil companies. The effect of this on public opinion was that it destroyed the image of consensus, making it into a controversial subject. Even though only handful of (sponsored) scientist deny the phenonemon as opposed to several thousands that more or less agree, it still *looks* like there is something to dispute, hence not worry about it.
> 
Ahh everyones favorite whipping boy, the oil companies.

The Feds here in America make more than DOUBLE the profit on a barrel of oil than the oil companies do.  I would say this casts more doubt on the government than the companies.

Again whether its happening does not conclude why it is happening.

-DavidM

David Medlock wrote:

> 
> I won't be drawn into a long discussion of this, but
> 
> - I never said anything about pollution.  C02 is a naturally occuring element in our atmosphere.  Pollution is contamination of that environment.

Yes, and unaturally high levels should be considered contamination.

> 
> - My 3 year old likes going places in my car and heat for our house. You would pay much more for those things under Kyoto. Bringing your 3 year old into it is pretty juvenille.

So you're juvenile too ;) The Kyoto agreement is about paying more for what is considered to pollute the environment, which in turn will (and already is) lead to more environomentally means to fuel your car and heat your house (and better isolation, so you need less energy to heat it).

> 
> - There is still NO EVIDENCE of C02 caused by humans.  Increasing C02 + more humans is not conclusive.  You need reproducible results and double blind studies, not a 'consensus'.

When we are talking about reproducible results, when is that? When we are certain because the polar caps melts and leads to major floodings around the world?

> 
> - The total temperature increase in the 1900s was 1 degree celsius.
> 
> - It IS an anti-capitalist movement.  Go read the Kyoto treaty, which was ironically rejected by Japan.

It is not at all anti-capitalist, it just tries to turn the capitalists towards other means of earning money on energy (and even CO2 quotas). Sadly most governments, even those who accepted the Kyoto treaty has failed to do what is necessary to make this process capitalist driven (ie the EU gives away 90% of the CO2 quotas for free).

> 
> Believe the chicken littles if you like, but they have an agenda just like everyone else.  Until you have reproducible results it IS junk science.

You're FUD'ing just enough to seem to have an agenda yourself.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource & #D: larsivi

> - There is still NO EVIDENCE of C02 caused by humans.  Increasing C02 + more humans is not conclusive.  You need reproducible results and double blind studies, not a 'consensus'.

Comment in #d :
14:01 < JimPanic> - There is still NO EVIDENCE of C02 caused by humans.
14:01 < downd> wtf
14:01  * downd breathes out
14:01  * downs breathes out AGAIN
14:02 < downs> See the CO2 yet?

SIGKTHXBYE o/

(Sorry, this is just too ridiculous.)

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 03:59:34 +0200, David Medlock <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
> John S. Skogtvedt wrote:
>
>> David Medlock skrev:
>>
[snip]
>
> Politicians and anti-capitalists love the theories though.  It lets them pass laws to make you live the way they want you to.  Makes them feel good but its mostly junk science.  The ban on DDT has killed millions of mostly children in Africa, but it was too banned on junk science and only after first world countries had used it successfully.

Oh, it's true that you can 'bend' almost any test cases to support your cause. But would it be obvious that a party (multi-million company, politician, etc) which sees an opportunity to make a lot of money will do quite much to achive that goal? For instance, they could publish results that support they goals. Test results of independent third parties (scientist that are not sponsored, or bribed even) are much more realiable to me. They are not actually getting or losing money when making those tests.

I'm not communist, and pure communism doesn't work. However, a pure capitalism is a bad thing also. (Both of these things, in their purest form, don't exist in the real world.) A company is all about making money, right? It'll make money in any means necessary without breaking the law. (It could break the law if pros are much bigger than cons and risks.) If the law is not strict enough or there are loop holes, companies can do pretty horrible things. Why? That's simple: if a company 'A' won't do it, then a company 'B' will. Or at least, so the company 'A' thinks, so it acts first, before the company 'B' can act. It's in human nature. And note that when the number of companies gets larger, the probability that some of them will act will approach 100%. So the assumption the company 'A' makes is justified and true even.

The history is full of examples of 'greediness'. Oil companies (lead in gasoline), arm companies etc (biochemical weapon factories build for Iran). And of course cigarette companies. They *knew* 30 year ago that cigarettes is harmful and will cause cancer, they just didn't publish that information. When the wheel was rolling, it was too late to make it stop, they thought. And were right. Now hundred millions are addicted to cigarettes, and the wheel is rolling so new young people will start smoking. And what's discusting, now cigarette companies are found new, fresh market area in the East (for instance, in China). Do the cigarette companies tell there the that it can kill you (if the law requires, there is a tiny label in the cigarette boxes)? No, the ads are directed to young *kids*! And why the goverments do nothing to stop that? Well, they get money when people buys cigarettes of course (taxes). The goverments do not notice (they don't want to) how much money will be spend to medical expences and in loss of taxes when people die before their time... (Or maybe they are just satisfied when many will die 5-20 years before their time; no need to pay pensions...) ... So, if any of you are smoking, please quit! :)


About DDT...
Of course, if you and your children are starving, and DDT would help, you would probably want to use it to say the least. But that's not the final solution, you have to think something else in the long run. DDT companies will of course sell the stuff until the end of time, and collect the profit. Because DDT is banned, another solutions must be invented. These are tough questions, though. But it's absolutely good that DDT is banned outside Africa, no question about it. It's clear that DDT is very harmful substance.


I have seen so much (truth bending and manipulating) propaganda (by goverments and companies), so I though to do some anti-propaganda myself. ;)

(I didn't intend to write so much... sorry about that.)

Kristian Kilpi wrote:

> 
> About DDT...
> But it's absolutely good that DDT is banned  outside Africa, no question about it. It's clear that DDT is very harmful  substance.
> 

Clear to whom?  How is it absolutely good?

By the way its banned from being produced in most countries, so Africa has been out of luck until recently.  If they produce it they risk sanctions.

It is theorized to thin eggshells but hasn't been shown to adversely affect humans.  Malaria on the other hand kills a person every 30 seconds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT
http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm

You must be confusing it with Agent Orange or DES, both of which are dangerous.

-DavidM