T Nation

Global Warming - On Mars...

Some more evidence that perhaps that the minority view (advocated by some of the top Russians, including those who took that $10,000 bet referenced in another thread) that the solar cycle is most responsible for our measured global warming may be correct after all:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

They’re measuring global warming occurring on Mars in parallel to ours – and there aren’t even any SUVs up there…

The attribution of our warming to the solar cycle may or may not be true, obviously – same as attributing causation to CO2 – and the article notes a competing theory holding separate, unrelated causes for both planets’ increased temperatures.

But pardon me if I persist in being dubious of the man-made global warming diagnosis and related prescriptions.

To quote David Freedman:

http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2007/02/global-warming-nanotech-and-who-to.html

[i] Global warming provides arguments for things that a lot of people, mostly left of center, want to do anyway?shift lifestyles away from automobiles towards mass transit, reduce consumption of depletable resources, and the like. Environmentalism is in part a real argument, in part a religion, in part an aesthetic; the second and third parts make people too willing to accept the first.

Which [helps explain] why I choose to align myself with the forces of evil and ignorance by expressing skepticism about the horrors likely to arise from global warming. Simply put, I am skeptical of conclusions that appear to go well beyond the scientific evidence, pushed by people who have reasons to want other people to believe them.[/i]

In other words, it seems that some people are too ready to accept the causation and prescriptions because global warming provides a convenient truth for their world views…

Particularly when the focus is on CO2 rather than methane or other much more powerfully “greenhouse” gases, and on SUVs instead of private planes…

Come on, can we get a little more disingenuous with our language?

Much like some of the people that post here regularly, this person has very much slanted their presentation and twisted reality to make a point.

The sad thing is how violently some people lap it up like milk.

Yes, sure, there are wacko environmentalists, but those that are afraid to realistically consider that mankind can do damage to his own environment are just as wacko.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Come on, can we get a little more disingenuous with our language?[/quote]

I’m not sure, but I have faith that you’ll continue to try to up your performance in that measure…

[quote]vroom wrote:
Much like some of the people that post here regularly, this person has very much slanted their presentation and twisted reality to make a point.

The sad thing is how violently some people lap it up like milk.

Yes, sure, there are wacko environmentalists, but those that are afraid to realistically consider that mankind can do damage to his own environment are just as wacko.[/quote]

Typical vroomian straw man response – arguing against a point that wasn’t made, then some analogy involving ingesting something liquid.

Aside from leaping to any environmental damage whatsoever being caused by humans from anthropogenic global warming with a particular emphasis on CO2, the point you breezed over is that the science is far from conclusive regarding anthropogenic global warming, and the prescriptions many would like foisted upon us dovetail a bit too neatly with various socialist/left-wing goals for my tastes. Particularly given the costs of some of the prescriptions.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Aside from leaping to any environmental damage whatsoever being caused by humans from anthropogenic global warming with a particular emphasis on CO2, the point you breezed over is that the science is far from conclusive regarding anthropogenic global warming, and the prescriptions many would like foisted upon us dovetail a bit too neatly with various socialist/left-wing goals for my tastes. Particularly given the costs of some of the prescriptions.
[/quote]

Boston, you add far too much to what I said. I said in essence that there are wacko viewpoints from both angles…

Anything else you are trying at add is due to your own wacko viewpoint.

There are certainly some people who have wacko prescriptions, but your original quoted material and your own response is the source of the straw man here.

You are creating the other sides viewpoint, as a crazy viewpoint, and then proving (sic) how silly that viewpoint is.

I’m not setting up a straw man when I say that rabid viewpoints exist at either end of the spectrum and that those at both ends of the spectrum are wackos, not just at the left end.

If you can’t consider that, or accept that, then you aren’t thinking very clearly on the subject.

Sorry that doesn’t agree with your personal world view.

The Mars Rover is causing the global warming there. Technology is pure evil and destroys everything it touches.

Either that or its all George Bush’s fault — he’s the cause of all the evil that ever was!!!

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Aside from leaping to any environmental damage whatsoever being caused by humans from anthropogenic global warming with a particular emphasis on CO2, the point you breezed over is that the science is far from conclusive regarding anthropogenic global warming, and the prescriptions many would like foisted upon us dovetail a bit too neatly with various socialist/left-wing goals for my tastes. Particularly given the costs of some of the prescriptions.

vroom wrote:
Boston, you add far too much to what I said. I said in essence that there are wacko viewpoints from both angles…

Anything else you are trying at add is due to your own wacko viewpoint. [/quote]

Did I forget a vroomian rule that the response does not need to have anything to do with the original point? My bad then…

To reiterate, the original point was that the science is far from conclusive regarding anthropogenic global warming, and the prescriptions many would like foisted upon us dovetail a bit too neatly with various socialist/left-wing goals for my tastes. Particularly given the costs of some of the prescriptions.

Your response was:

[quote]vroom wrote:

Much like some of the people that post here regularly, this person has very much slanted their presentation and twisted reality to make a point.

The sad thing is how violently some people lap it up like milk.

Yes, sure, there are wacko environmentalists, but those that are afraid to realistically consider that mankind can do damage to his own environment are just as wacko.[/quote]

Unless you were just going off on a random tangent and pontificating in the wind, one would presume you were tying “those that are afraid to realistically consider that mankind can do damage to his own environment are just as wacko” somehow, in some way, to the position actually taken in the original post.

Thus the “straw man” comment.

[quote]vroom wrote:
There are certainly some people who have wacko prescriptions, but your original quoted material and your own response is the source of the straw man here.[/quote]

Of course there are people with wacko prescriptions – and probably on both sides. But that was hardly the point.

[quote]vroom wrote:
You are creating the other sides viewpoint, as a crazy viewpoint, and then proving (sic) how silly that viewpoint is.[/quote]

I didn’t create a viewpoint – I pointed out the parallelism between the favored “fixes” for lowering CO2 and other socialist/left wing goals, and noted that the science as to the cause of global warming is still uncertain.

[quote]vroom wrote:

I’m not setting up a straw man when I say that rabid viewpoints exist at either end of the spectrum and that those at both ends of the spectrum are wackos, not just at the left end.[/quote}

Perhaps a non sequiter then?

[quote]vroom wrote:
If you can’t consider that, or accept that, then you aren’t thinking very clearly on the subject.

Sorry that doesn’t agree with your personal world view.[/quote]

For once I would like to discuss the actual point, rather than dither around with one of your “shades of gray” diatribes, the point of which is to seemingly to avoid the actual controversy or issue in order to go off on an extreme moderation bent.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The Mars Rover is causing the global warming there. …[/quote]

Because it was an all wheel drive SUV.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

Typical vroomian straw man response – arguing against a point that wasn’t made, then some analogy involving ingesting something liquid.[/quote]

At least he managed not to insult the integrity of scientists everywhere with the knee-jerk “Abdussamatov got a $10 gas card from ExxonMobil for a talk he gave last year and must therefore in Exxon’s pocket” response.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The Mars Rover is causing the global warming there. Technology is pure evil and destroys everything it touches.[/quote]

The rovers are solar powered right? Have you ever been around a solar panel? When they’re in the sun, those sumbitches er hot! 50 yrs. ago photovoltaic technology barely even existed and nobody was worried about global warming. Now, solar panels are everywhere and global warming is rampant! We even send solar panels to Mars on the probes and suddenly there’s global warming there! It’s got to be either solar panels or the decline in pirate regalia or both…

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

For once I would like to discuss the actual point, rather than dither around with one of your “shades of gray” diatribes, the point of which is to seemingly to avoid the actual controversy or issue in order to go off on an extreme moderation bent.[/quote]

You mean there are actual topics and issues to discuss, and not just generic truisms to repeat over and over regardless of the subject matter?

That aside, I think the actual topic is interesting. One ingredient missing up to this point has been a comparative analysis. While I don’t think the comparison is perfect, it certainly could help.

My biggest concern - if this evaluation goes forward in a comprehehnsive way, will the results of it be treated with a fair scientific objectivity, no matter what it says?

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Either that or its all George Bush’s fault — he’s the cause of all the evil that ever was!!![/quote]

There goes Bush’s exit strategy.

I heard he was planning to relocate his family to Mars once the air becomes unbreathable down here.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
To reiterate, the original point was that the science is far from conclusive regarding anthropogenic global warming, and the prescriptions many would like foisted upon us dovetail a bit too neatly with various socialist/left-wing goals for my tastes. Particularly given the costs of some of the prescriptions.[/quote]

Boston, you seem to be missing something from the get-go. Your source is clearly slanting things with language and innuendo.

Neither have I suggested that there is conclusive irrefutable proof of anything.

The point is that lining up concepts of environmentalism with wacko leftist viewpoints, so that it is easier to reject environmentalism, is what the original source document and yourself are gleefully doing.

Dude, a strawman is when you create something false and ridiculous so you can knock it down.

Are you suggesting that there are in fact not right wing wackos just as surely as there are left wing wackos?

What strawman would you suggest that I have set up?

I’ve certainly made a claim, and given that it contained “reasonably consider” it is one with a very low bar. Are you in fact unable to imagine that man is able to have an effect on his environment?

Did my statement apply to you? You tell me. I suggested there were people to which it applied… and you’ve gone off on some ridiculous strawman crusade.

That may not have been your point, but since when do I have to limit my responses to your viewpoint? That isn’t how the forums work…

[quote]I didn’t create a viewpoint – I pointed out the parallelism between the favored “fixes” for lowering CO2 and other socialist/left wing goals, and noted that the science as to the cause of global warming is still uncertain.
[/quote]

Here is where you start to go a little bit off the tracks, honestly.

The concept of favored fixes is purely nonsense. Who’s favored fixes? The fixes suggested by the fringe? The fixes suggested by mainstream people? The fixes suggested by right wing thinkers?

No, this is the crux of my problem with the original post. The fixes suggested by the nutbars are promoted to favored fixes of all people leaning left, so that they can all be knocked aside.

Again, it is not responsible to argue in this fashion, as the original poster did, creating this strawman leftist viewpoint just so you can knock it down.

Hence my original reply, pointing out that there are right wing people who are just as silly in their arguments.

Again, you tell me whether or not you are in that group. If you cannot get to the point where you can use neutral tactics to discuss the issues, but instead are only able to strawman left viewpoints, then perhaps you do fit in that set.

Only if you are blind, willfully or otherwise.

[quote]For once I would like to discuss the actual point, rather than dither around with one of your “shades of gray” diatribes, the point of which is to seemingly to avoid the actual controversy or issue in order to go off on an extreme moderation bent.
[/quote]

I am discussing the main point. You’ve brought a bullshit post into the forums and then want to sit around and beat on liberals and left leaning people based on a strawman.

The fact that some pudnocker wrote a slanted piece that provides no details from which to argue the merit of his point really leaves us little to talk about.

Perhaps you simply can’t see the slant in your initial post because you think you are “level” when you are issuing strawman arguments against collective viewpoints to the left of yours?

Is there some data lying around to prove this?

Or is it one of those “fat turns to muscle when you exercise” kind of articles so common in the media?

[quote]brucevangeorge wrote:
Or is it one of those “fat turns to muscle when you exercise” kind of articles so common in the media?[/quote]

It sounds like something Ann Coulter can now mention on prime time television, as she has “seen scientific reports”, such that it becomes believed by large numbers of people whether or not there is any real merit to it.

We need less ridiculous political bullshit and more reasoned and fair discourse on these things – they are too important for these damned games.

I’m still amazed to consider that the White House would reword scientific reports, for political purposes, before allowing them to reach the media. The government should not be in the business of “deciding the truth” in this way. This administration has done a lot of this type of thing.

Yeah, I know, I’m crossing a lot of subject boundaries.

Before people fly of the handle, and it may be too late, I’m not claiming this Mars study is wrong, but only that there just isn’t much information. A politically motivated purpose doesn’t really require much information if it’s really just supposed to circulate the blogosphere and generate uncertainty, does it?

You know, let’s say Mars has increased in temperature by 0.1 degree per decade while Earth has increased by 0.1 degree per year. What would that mean? Sure, it’s a bullshit scenario, but it’s just to illustrate that there are a lot of things that would need to be considered.

The fact that the mainstream media is happy to issue strawman arguments from the political camps, which are then picked up and trumpeted by tons of people that are not that observant, and absorbed and believed by society (see above where “favored solutions” are really less mainstream proposals), really pisses me off. When are people going to wake up?

My fear, never. We are all collectively just too busy running on the hamster wheel paying off our bills because we need all the shit we buy to show how successful we are.

Both parties, dems and repubs, have good basic tenets that are useful for society. A good economy, healthy business and low taxes won’t hurt anyone. Having a bit of concern for the well being of others and helping people succeed, or regulating improper practices also won’t hurt anyone.

Yes, sure, there are ridiculous proposals put out by both camps, and generally those get shot down, but the ridiculous strawman viewpoints of dems and repubs that pervade society, and these forums, is just stupid. Heh, if I were a woman I’d weep for the future of humanity - because with this type of overly polarized decision making process we are eventually going to be fucked.

Anyway, Bruce, I’m sure you can tell I’m not ranting at you here! :wink:

Well, since the Canadian output on this topic has been less than substantive, let’s see if any other Canadians have something worthwhile to add:

A former Canadian defense minister is demanding governments worldwide disclose and use secret alien technologies obtained in alleged UFO crashes to stem climate change, a local paper said Wednesday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070228/od_afp/canadaenvironmentkyoto;_ylt=AkFNvoTajAmob7k4blMSj4YDW7oF

Not looking to hijack, just a curious and humourous piece related to GW. Or is it…?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Well, since the Canadian output on this topic has been less than substantive, let’s see if any other Canadians have something worthwhile to add:

A former Canadian defense minister is demanding governments worldwide disclose and use secret alien technologies obtained in alleged UFO crashes to stem climate change, a local paper said Wednesday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070228/od_afp/canadaenvironmentkyoto;_ylt=AkFNvoTajAmob7k4blMSj4YDW7oF

Not looking to hijack, just a curious and humourous piece related to GW. Or is it…?[/quote]

Why do you think he’s a former defense minister?

As for the topic at hand, I used to be more on the side of the skeptic because I felt the science of GW was rather “soft.” Lately, some of the reports are getting rather difficult to dismiss. While man’s impact has been lowered from previous estimates, the confidence we have in the fact that the impact is really from man is extremely high.

Although I still think that we should favor easy, low cost solutions to start the whole process. Announcing massively expensive, all-encompassing plans scare people into inaction. More reasonable initiatives like “Ban-the-Bulb” or favoring geothermal energy stations would probably go over easier and procure more concrete results. A lot of people don’t like to see “economic costs” and “trillions” in the same sentence, especially if there’s a chance the science is incorrect.

As for Mars, it doesn’t really provide for a good analogy with Earth. It’s thin atmosphere is 95% CO2… Venus also has a 95% CO2 atmosphere. The only thing we can conclude is that we don’t want the Earth to have a 95% CO2 atmosphere.

A relatively recent story on Slashdot showed that

“According to a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, oil company ExxonMobil ‘has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.’ The report compares the tactics employed by the oil giant to those used by the tobacco industry in previous decades, and identifies key individuals who have worked on both campaigns. Would a ‘global warming controversy’ exist without the millions of dollars spent by fossil fuel companies to discredit scientific conclusions?”

[quote]lixy wrote:
A relatively recent story on Slashdot showed that

“According to a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, oil company ExxonMobil ‘has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.’ The report compares the tactics employed by the oil giant to those used by the tobacco industry in previous decades, and identifies key individuals who have worked on both campaigns. Would a ‘global warming controversy’ exist without the millions of dollars spent by fossil fuel companies to discredit scientific conclusions?”

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/05/1827216 [/quote]

And behold our moron.

Let’s see, $16M divided over seven years and 43 organizations is an annual payment of $53K to each organization. That’s not even one Ph.D.'s salary, let alone the amount the organization would have to pay for his benefits. Moreover, scientists and scientific organizations have to get paid somehow. Saying that they’ve corrupted themselves for a paltry sum of money is like saying they’d throw their mother under the bus for a buck. And if any random assortment of scientists would toss relatives under busses for relatively little reward, why are we to assume that those who draw salaries from research into global warming and surrounding policy are any more scrupulous or worthy of guiding policy?

And I assume from your statements that you support the UN/IPCC/Kyoto establishment, assuming you’re still a libertarian (socialist)/anarchist it seems odd that you would support any action from an unelected (popularly anyway) global bureaucracy. Unless, it supported some other inherent views that you felt the need to foist onto your peers regardless of whether they are/were less culpable than you or not.

[quote]lucasa wrote:
And behold our moron.

Let’s see, $16M divided over seven years and 43 organizations is an annual payment of $53K to each organization. That’s not even one Ph.D.'s salary, let alone the amount the organization would have to pay for his benefits. Moreover, scientists and scientific organizations have to get paid somehow. Saying that they’ve corrupted themselves for a paltry sum of money is like saying they’d throw their mother under the bus for a buck. And if any random assortment of scientists would toss relatives under busses for relatively little reward, why are we to assume that those who draw salaries from research into global warming and surrounding policy are any more scrupulous or worthy of guiding policy?[/quote]

Don’t get so offensive. I just reported a story that’s connected to the topic.

I am no climatologist. Despite my best efforts in trying to decipher the reports, I can’t tell you where global warming originates from. Plus, who am I to argue against a consortium of international climatologists?

What I do know, is that there are a lot of places around the world that could use fresher air. Mexico, London, Los Angeles…

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
A former Canadian defense minister is demanding governments worldwide disclose and use secret alien technologies obtained in alleged UFO crashes to stem climate change, a local paper said Wednesday.[/quote]

See? This is what happens when you write your own speeches.

Just be Glad GW has a writer.