On 22 Nov 2003 08:57:41 -0800,
[email protected] (z) wrote:
>Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> >>>> >To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is
>> worse than
>> >>>> >the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the case
>> is being
>> >>>> >dramatically overstated.
>
>I've always wondered why 'conservatives' (to use the term loosely, as
>it correlates with most 'no global warming' folks) think that a
>billion dollars invested in developing new industries such as energy
>conservation and energy sources that do not involve combustion of
>fossil fuel is more wasteful and a drag on the economy than a billion
>dollars spent on trying to cope with the flooding of our coastal
>cities as the ocean rises.
It's not a case of developing new energy technologies. I really wish
it were that simple.
The fact is that such money (and more) is currently being used to
develop new energy technologies, and has been for a long time, yet
these technologies always seem to remain "just a few years" away.
What is constantly being advised is a (much) lowered use of fossil
fuels, with no actual replacement technologies available.
Obviously, this will cause a major change in almost every aspect of
our lifestyles.
>
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >Ed
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I don't think there's any question that global warming is happening.
>> >>>> But there are a lot of questions about that:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> *Why* is it happening? Truth is, we don't know. We can *model*
>> >>>> scenarios that say we are at fault, but those models don't admit that
>> >>>> it's happened in the past, without the possibility of us interfering
>> >>>> at all.
>> >>>
>> >>>Are you saying that the existing models don't fit the past climate
>> >>>spikes? At what point do they miss? Or are you saying that because
>> >>>there was warming in the past without human interaction, the fit of
>> >>>the model explaining current warming as tied to current human CO2
>> >>>release can't be correct? Similar to the argument that, since forest
>> >>>fires have been going on since the dawn of forests, current forest
>> >>>fires can't possibly be ignited by human actions?
>> >>
>> >>I am being rather clear in saying that "models" can model anything
>> >>that the programmers want them to model.
>
>And I am saying that isn't right; I think it is closer to say that
>'models' can pull the wool over the eyes of anyone who lacks an
>analytical mindset, particularly if they have a fixed bias.
No, it *is* right.
All you need to do is look atr recent history.
Remember the claim of an impending 'ice age' 30 years ago? It was
modeled.
Remember the holes in the ozone layer? Models showed quite
convincingly that we would need to change our outdoors habits.
Why were those models wrong?
>But as
>they say, enquiring minds want to know; and that greatly reduces the
>number and type of models they find acceptable, even if the results
>aren't what they hoped they'd be. Most working scientists have at some
>time in their career had to sadly abandon at least one pet hypothesis
>because it just didn't fit the data well enough; if they can't face
>reality to that extent, they don't get very far in the science biz.
Exactly.
So rather than disrupt everything, let's make sure we get it right.
The stakes are very high *both* ways.
>
>> >>>
>> >>>> *How long* will it last? Again, we don't know.
>> >>>> Will reducing the CO2 output from our manufacturing/transportation
>> >>>> slow/reverse the warming? Again, we don't know. And, we have
>> >>>> absolutely no idea of what would happen if we were to reverse it.
>> >>>> Would we enter another ice age? We simply don't know.
>> >>>
>> >>>Well, we do know that we are entering a new ice age; these cycles are
>> >>>pretty much worked out, and in 4-5 thousand years we are going to be
>> >>>pretty damn chilly. But most people are more interested in where we
>> >>>will be for the next few decades. And right now it looks like
>> >>>continuing to perpetually increase the amount of solar energy trapped
>> >>>by the atmosphere is probably a worse idea than not doing so.
>> >>
>> >>Yet, the actual *causes* for this warming are not known.
>> >>They are *assumed* to be caused by C02 released by us, but we don't
>> >>*know* that.
>> >
>> >They're as known as anything in science can be where you can't do controlled
>> >experiments. That CO2 is causing the current warming is as known as, say,
>> >CFCs destroy the ozone layer, or evolution explains the current diversity, or
>> >the big bang is how the universe began.
>>
>> IOW, I'm right, they aren't known.
>
>Well from that point of view, nothing in science is known. We don't
>know that there was a big bang.
True.
And it doesn't really make much difference either way, does it? Our
lives won't change if there was, or wasn't.
>We don't know that inhaling smoke
>causes cancer. We don't know that microorganisms cause disease. We
>don't know that the sun is what makes the earth warm in the daytime.
>We don't know that gravity will still function next Wednesday. We
>don't know that fossils are actual evidence of organisms that lived
>long ago, and not just interesting rock formations. But we have good
>evidence for all of the above. If you are asking to 'know' that
>manmade CO2 causes global warming, of course you're going to be able
>to say 'Nope, that's not it yet'.
And you show again that you don't quite understand my objections.
We do know that stopping smoking, for example, results in a better
life for most people.
We also know that taking the steps proposed to stop global warming
will have a very serious, disrupting effect on our lives.
Before we take those steps, and *because the effects will ne so
serious*, we need to be sure those steps (and the resulting
disruption) will actually be profitable.
>
>> >
>> >>We don't know for sure what causes climatic shifts on a grand scale.
>> >>We can see what happened, but we can't say why they happened.
>> >>So, we are being told that we must creat economic upheaval, and
>> >>drastically change our livings, because we are somehow "bad".
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Models can be made to say anything the people making the models want
>> >>>> to hear. That's reality.
>> >>>
>> >>>Not hardly. Show me a model showing that global warming is related to
>> >>>astrology, then you can say this. In any event, science consists of
>> >>>'dueling models'; you narrow it down to a few that explain the current
>> >>>data better than the rest, then narrow it down further by seeing which
>> >>>ones predict new data better.
>> >>
>> >>I can make one.
>> >>You are asking me to do something you can't do yourself, when I made
>> >>no claim that I can do that.
>> >>Sorry, but that's a bogus defence of the claim that we are causing
>> >>global warming.
>> >>>
>> >>>> It's stupid to say that CO2 that we are putting out is the cause of
>> >>>> global; warming, then push something like Kyoto, which merely shifts
>> >>>> the location of the CO2 production. Yet, that's what the tree-huggers
>> >>>> want.
>> >>>
>> >>>Similarly, it's stupid to take a little step away from the bed in the
>> >>>morning, when what I really need to do is get to my job 20 miles away.
>> >>
>> >>???
>> >>Where did this come from?
>> >>Kyoto doesn't do more than pretend that it will reduce C02. Instead,
>> >>it only shifts the production of C02 from some countries to others.
>> >
>> >It does not.
>>
>> It does. Read it.
>> It allows developing countries to skate, with the very predictable
>> results that manufacturing will move there.
>
>You'd prefer we limit the CO2 emissions from countries that don't have
>much in the way of CO2 emissions? And that they should develop
>advanced technology for energy efficiency and low emissions energy
>production rather than the US, because that will not lead to a tilt of
>the global economy in their direction? And you think that the current
>hemmorhage of jobs to the third world isn't based on the salary
>differential?
I'd prefer that, instead of simply shifting the emmissions (to the
great detriment of our country), we stopped to think of the unintended
consequences.
I'm not linking any job shift to pay differences to this in any way;
that's your obfuscation.
>> >
>> >>>Yet, it works out somehow, and I doubt that it would do so were I not
>> >>>to take that first step. What's the alternative plan? Tell the third
>> >>>world that they need to keep their living standard the way it is
>> >>>unless they can figure out how to improve it without CO2 emissions, so
>> >>>that we can maintain our standard of living with our vast CO2
>> >>>emissions?
>> >>
>> >>Maybe we should actually determine the real solution before we take
>> >>such drastic steps.
>> >
>> >Since the problem is CO2 emission, the solution is obvious.
>>
>> Again, that's not been proven, only demonstrated in small models.
>> When you know what caused past ice ages, and the subsequent warming,
>> let the rest of us know how that applies to the current situation.
>
>In other words, since that's physically, philosophically, and
>conceptually impossible, just do nothing. Do you extend this
>philosophy to other spheres of knowledge? We shouldn't act to counter
>an epidemic when we have a good idea of what causes it, but just do
>nothing until we get 'proof'.
I never advocated doing nothing. In fact, I've been saying that we
need to apply more energy to actually finding the cause, rather than
finding *a* possible cause, and proceeding on a very damaging program
to fix that supposed cause, without actually knowing if it will work.
As evidenced by your writing above, you don't seem to understand what
a large part of the supposed fix will do, yet you still want to do it.
What good does simply letting the production of C02 move to other
places on the planet do?
>
>It's not sufficient for the critics to just say 'not proved enough for
>me' again and again. The way science works is to establish a priori
>what level of evidence you would consider convincing, then do the
>tests and see if you can achieve that level of certainty or not. So,
>what level of evidence would you consider to be 'proof' of manmade
>global warming? Does it involve travelling back in time to take
>precise measurements of temperature, CO2, or other physical
>parameters? Does it require a secondary earth to be constructed,
>identical to this one in all factors except CO2 production so that a
>controlled test can be carried out? If so, just say 'Nothing you can
>possibly say or do will convince me' and save us all a lot of trouble.
>If you do have in mind some sort of evidence which is actually
>possible to gather, please let us know.
What I want is to make sure we don't take actions that will cause much
harm to our lives, with no reasonable quarantee that it will solve the
problem.
Kyoto is in that category. It simply shifts C02 production around,
hurts the developed countries, and lets under-developed countries
skate. While I'm sure that gives certain groups a warm, fuzzy feeling
(it punishes the rich countries, while rewarding the poor ones), and
has the very real probability of doing little or nothing to solve the
problem.
>
>> >
>> >>>And when they decline to take that advice, just shrug our
>> >>>shoulders and say, 'Well hell, we tried, but they won't cooperate'?
>> >>
>> >>Again, we could actually find the solution rather than base one on the
>> >>idea that we are "bad".
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Maybe if we had more facts about what the problem is, we could come up
>> >>>> with some workable answers.
>> >>>
>> >>>Facts? Like what, two tablets coming down from heaven with a
>> >>>mathematical model of climate inscribed on them, and God's handwritten
>> >>>guarantee? Fact: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Fact: we are producing CO2
>> >>>at an unprecedented rate. Fact: the climate is heating up at a
>> >>>similarly unprecedented rate. Fact: the best fitting and best
>> >>>supported models show the major agent of the rising temperature to be
>> >>>the CO2 release. Fact: there isn't enough wiggle room in the models to
>> >>>eliminate the actions of human CO2 release as a prime cause, without
>> >>>postulating some big unknown never-before-identified factor. Fact: as
>> >>>more and more research has piled up over the years, the anthrogenic
>> >>>CO2 global warming model has not been overthrown, contrary to the
>> >>>predictions of the opponents over the years; in fact, areas of
>> >>>uncertainty have become clearer and clearer and estimates of model
>> >>>parameters have become more precise.
>> >>
>> >>Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the past.
>> >
>> >Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
>>
>> And yet again, we don't.
>> We *think* we know, and we can demonstrate it in a very limited lab
>> scenario.
>> But we still can't manage to translate that into why it's happened
>> before.
>
>We've got a damn good model that fits the past century, and pretty
>good for previous times.
Again with the models.
Models predicted an ice age 30 years ago.
Models predicted the demise of the ozone layer.
Models say the current warming trend is our fault, when they still
can't say why these exact same trends have happened before we were in
the industrial age.
And, based on those models, we are supposed to radically change our
lifestyles, spending untold billions on programs that have already
been shown to be faulty?
>And I haven't seen a model that ignores
>manmade CO2 that fits any better, do you have one available?
No, and I haven't seen anyone actually produce material evidence that
Bigfoot exists, either. But I don't want to see large parts of the
country set aside as Bigfoot preserves because some people think
Bigfoot exists.
>If not, I
>am logically required to assume as a working hypothesis that the
>current temperature rise is related to manmade CO2 emission.
And there's a big problem.
You want to proceed based on the idea that, "we don't have anything
better to proceed on."
What if your coctor said, "We think your problem is based in your
liver. We don't know if it really is, but we do know that it *might
be*, so we want to take your liver out. Sign this waiver and take your
clothes off." Would you?
>What is
>your logic for saying you believe in a different model, of which you
>do not know anything at all other than that it does not involve
>manmade CO2?
Holes in the ozone layer.
>Can you demonstrate some sort of decently fitting model
>that does not involve manmade CO2? You keep saying that any kind of
>model you want can be created to show whatever you want, so please
>support your position by showing us the 'no manmade global warming'
>model you find reasonable, not to mention convincing, so that we can
>compare it to the IPCC model, which I have reproduced for your
>convenience on the offchance that you are unfamiliar with it: short
>term <http://pws.prserv.net/gzuckier/climate.jpg> and long term
><http://pws.prserv.net/gzuckier/climate2.jpg>.
I don't need to actually make my own model, when I've shown that the
current models being used do not account for earlier warming trends.
>
>> >
>> >>We do know that happened, but we don't know why.
>> >>Yet, we are so amazingly arrogant as to assume that *this time*, we
>> >>are the cause.
>> >>
>> >No, we deduce it from data and scientific principles. If I add HCl to water
>> >and the pH goes down, I don't throw up my hands and say:
>> >
>> >1. We don't know why the pH went down.
>> >2. The pH went down last year from other reasons, so we can't say why it's
>> >going down now.
>>
>> There's a slight difference there, Lloyd.
>> What's being asked for is a major change in lifestyle, not just
>> wondering why water is salty.
>> Since the consequences are major, it's only wise to make sure the
>> action is necessary.
>> You DO understand that, right?
>
>You've got it exactly backwards. Energy efficiency is a good thing in
>and of itself.
Wow! "Energy efficiency is a good thing in and of itself."
Thanks, I was wondering about that.
But that's not what's at stake here, is it?
Have you actually thought about what would happen to the US if, for
example, Kyoto were enacted here? I mean to the country, not jsut the
environment.
We'd have a very major loss of manufacturing jobs, for starters. The
economic upheaval would be tremendous.
This is a little different from just replacing our incandescent light
bulbes with flourescent bulbs. It's more than just saving energy.
It's people. It's people suffering.
>Reducing waste will always benefit the economy in the
>long run, the only reason it isn't implemented in all cases is those
>'market inefficiencies' we hear about; for instance, homeowners who
>don't now have the money to replace their incandescent bulbs with
>fluorescents aren't likely to get bank loans to do so, despite the
>fact that the investment cost will be recouped within a few years from
>lower electric bills, although from the standpoint of pure economics
>the homeowner would come out ahead financially, enough to pay enough
>interest on the loan to make it financially advantageous for the bank.
>Similarly, getting off the fossil fuel bandwagon is going to be
>absolutely necessary in the long run, and the sooner we start to do so
>the less of a shock to the economy it will be; again, the reason we
>don't do so is those 'market inefficiencies' that make short-term
>profits more important than long-term survival in a company's
>planning.
>Whereas the consequences to the economy of allowing global warming to
>proceed if we can indeed do something about it will be just plain
>destruction and devastation, with no investment potential and no
>payback.
Ah: "if we can indeed do something about it..."
There's still that "if" that's the sticking point.
You seem to want to have both: the possibility of staving off global
warming without knowing all the factors that causes it, *AND* the
economic upheaval that goes with doing what's being proposed.
Before we do that, I'd like to have some assurance we don't just get
the latter.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
