Climate Change Skeptics

lucylespian

sourdough wrote:

Okay, I made a mistake. The digestive system of a cow does not produce more methane than Buffalo, HOWEVER, because they are fed grains instead of grass they do produce more methane. When grain is digested it produces 2-3 times as much methane than if they were to eat grass (such as the buffalo). Perhaps farmers should just go back to good ol' grass.

I don't have the stats for Australia, but a huge proportion of beef in Europe and in NA come from Brazil instead of local bred stuff. Perhaps Aussie is a special case (not sure) but for the majority of us, livestock production is intrinsically linked to deforestation. Or perhaps an evil plan by our dinosaur overlords

Yeah, we are a "special case", but the pills are helping, so that's OK.
Cattle production here is mostly free range, with some feed lot top-up.
Does CO2 trapping in the cultivated grain count or is that neglected ??
How about my lawn, does that count too ??
Is maybe the problem just too many humans, rather than their specific activities ??
I'm still pretty sure Darth Vader is a dinosaur under the suit and mask !! LOL !!

sourdough

lucylespian wrote:

Yeah, we are a "special case", but the pills are helping, so that's OK.
Cattle production here is mostly free range, with some feed lot top-up.
Does CO2 trapping in the cultivated grain count or is that neglected ??
How about my lawn, does that count too ??
Is maybe the problem just too many humans, rather than their specific activities ??
I'm still pretty sure Darth Vader is a dinosaur under the suit and mask !! LOL !!

The CO2 trapping in a lawn or a grain field is negligible in relation to forests which absorb much more CO2 than grass or grain.

I think the problem is both practices and population. However, I would say that practices have a bigger share of the problem simply because there are many practices we can modify or eliminate and still sustain our population. In terms of food production, we are drastically overproducing food. Although there are many people starving to death, it is a problem of distribution rather than production.

lucylespian

sourdough wrote:

The CO2 trapping in a lawn or a grain field is negligible in relation to forests which absorb much more CO2 than grass or grain.

I think the problem is both practices and population. However, I would say that practices have a bigger share of the problem simply because there are many practices we can modify or eliminate and still sustain our population. In terms of food production, we are drastically overproducing food. Although there are many people starving to death, it is a problem of distribution rather than production.

I agree that food over-production is a massive problem. It is at the heart of the obesity epidemic that is threatning all of us. Whatever strategies are put in place, all revolve around getting people to eat less. Trouble with that is, food services are such a huge part of our economies that we will have to go into recession to achieve correct eating levels, and that is so far off any governments agenda that no-one is even thinking of talking about it, let alone working toward it.
As for distribution, I don't believe in socialism at all, so I'm not gonna argue about that. Realistically, I don't think anything will ever change there.
AS for my lawn, I was taking the piss a bit really, though where I live teh lawn is a bit like a forest. My neighbourhood resembles Jurassic PArk just a bit !!

sourdough

lucylespian wrote:

I agree that food over-production is a massive problem. It is at the heart of the obesity epidemic that is threatning all of us. Whatever strategies are put in place, all revolve around getting people to eat less. Trouble with that is, food services are such a huge part of our economies that we will have to go into recession to achieve correct eating levels, and that is so far off any governments agenda that no-one is even thinking of talking about it, let alone working toward it.
As for distribution, I don't believe in socialism at all, so I'm not gonna argue about that. Realistically, I don't think anything will ever change there.
AS for my lawn, I was taking the piss a bit really, though where I live teh lawn is a bit like a forest. My neighbourhood resembles Jurassic PArk just a bit !!

Ya and obesity is a growing epidemic in all areas of the world. The fat get fatter and the starving get starvinger I just find it amazing how much food is wasted every day. All of our local supermarkets waste tons and tons of food each day whether it is day old bakery or veggies or even canned food that may or may not have been expired. Its such a sad state of affairs considering there are starving people and the food is just wasted.

If your lawn is as bad as you make it sound, the only logical solution is to get a cow to graze that thing down. AND because it is grass fed, you don't have to worry about the methane problem

lucylespian

sourdough wrote:

Ya and obesity is a growing epidemic in all areas of the world. The fat get fatter and the starving get starvinger I just find it amazing how much food is wasted every day. All of our local supermarkets waste tons and tons of food each day whether it is day old bakery or veggies or even canned food that may or may not have been expired. Its such a sad state of affairs considering there are starving people and the food is just wasted.

If your lawn is as bad as you make it sound, the only logical solution is to get a cow to graze that thing down. AND because it is grass fed, you don't have to worry about the methane problem

Yes, have 3 horses, but if I have too many now, they will starve in winter, so I have to burn hydrocarbons to keep it under control. TBH, there aare so many termites here, I don't think a few cows will bother the metahne level.
Food wastage is inevitable I think. The trouble with giving people stuff, is that that is all they will ever have.
I'm probbaly one of those bastards who think that climate change is inevitable, and not necessarily bad. If too many humans is the problem for this planet, rising seas should fix that. Moreover, life and the planet has survived a few life extinction evnets so far, and while we think we, and our needs and petty concerens are important, they are really only important to us. The planet does not really give a stuff, and in the big picture, our actions are really of minimal consequence.
99% of species that have ever existed are already extinct.
When the fossil fuels run out whenever, we will either work out how to use sustainable fuels, or we will go back to being a low tech agrarian culture.
I like to use ethanol added fuel though, more for less, can't ask for better than that.

breakmarysfall

Commy wrote:

a flawed concept from the beginning tho...


big corporations like walmart can role into small towns, sell everything for less than the local stores, then drive them all out of business. with no competition they can jack up their prices again. And it happens in every industry.

The consumer has no say in the matter really, especially in small towns....

But this is about the environment, so....

Some guy, John Dewey I think, said politics is the shadow cast on society by big business. And he was right. State power functions to serve big business, as has always been the case. Pick an empire and you'll notice they all function basically the same way. State power primarily serves itself, but ultimately serves big business.

Which allows businiess to get away with all kinds of things, degradation of the environment for one, especially in the third world, where environmental restraints are basically non-existent.

thanks for explaining it so well.
wow.

bubbamackdaddy69

WOW...crazy how many threads and posts are about climate change,global warming these days..
The media and politicians make us talk don't they..
Fact of the matter is that there is no conclusive evidence with of any arguements on all of this.
Just be clean to your environment and use common sense..The world is not going to melt down...relax and enjoy life..lol...
The planet earth is a mysterious place which goes through alot of cycles so use common sense and be environmentally friendly and start getting your notes ready to start debating issues in 30 years on Global Cooling or something like that.
Have a good night Y'all...
ZEN Master

Scubascott

know1 wrote:

Or this one. If humans hadn't existed at all the last 150 years, would the climate of the earth be any different today?

This is a ridiculous argument that you keep using. We know that humans have an effect on the earth. There is absolutely no way that you can dispute that. As a species, humans shape the ecosystems they inhabit just like any other species does. Australia, for example, used to be much greener than it is today, with a much larger number of large mammal species. When humans arrived somewhere between 80,000 and 40,000 years ago, they caused drastic changes to the flora and fauna of the continent by hunting the large mammals and introducing fire regimes that changed the plant communities forever. The change in plant communities resulted in a change in climate for Australia, which is now largely arid. Read "The Future Eaters" by Tim Flannery if you want to understand how human activity influences ecological change, including climate.

Of course the earth would look different if humans had never existed. We can't predict how different it would be. That doesn't change our current predicament. We do exist. We do affect the global ecosystem, and if we want to keep existing we need to do something about the way we are interacting with the system.

lucylespian

Scubascott wrote:

This is a ridiculous argument that you keep using. We know that humans have an effect on the earth. There is absolutely no way that you can dispute that. As a species, humans shape the ecosystems they inhabit just like any other species does. Australia, for example, used to be much greener than it is today, with a much larger number of large mammal species. When humans arrived somewhere between 80,000 and 40,000 years ago, they caused drastic changes to the flora and fauna of the continent by hunting the large mammals and introducing fire regimes that changed the plant communities forever. The change in plant communities resulted in a change in climate for Australia, which is now largely arid. Read "The Future Eaters" by Tim Flannery if you want to understand how human activity influences ecological change, including climate.

Of course the earth would look different if humans had never existed. We can't predict how different it would be. That doesn't change our current predicament. We do exist. We do affect the global ecosystem, and if we want to keep existing we need to do something about the way we are interacting with the system.

Of course, this raises the philosophical argument of whether the planet is better off with or without us. The machine consciousness in "The Matrix" considered us a viral plague, fit only for eradication. From the reptile perspective, we could be their sure ticket to recover world domination in time, though if we hang around as the tropics advance, we could either be painful competition, or a handy protein source.
I think the problem with the last sentence quoted from above is that "we" would have to agree on a whole range of things, and agreement between humans is contrary to our intrinsically competitive nature.
Don't you agree ????? (Massive tongue-in-chic ROFL!!!!)

he still stands

lucylespian wrote:

Of course, this raises the philosophical argument of whether the planet is better off with or without us.

that, to me, would be a completely useless argument. What if the person arguing that 'the planet is better off without us' wins? Do we all kill ourselves?

I guess this is why I couldn't be a philosopher. My view is that we're here, we're queer, deal with it.

Oops, I meant to say - we're here, life's a journey, have fun and experience this blue ball we call earth, and try to leave the world a better place than when you found it... Arguing about the reason for our existence, or if the world would be better without us, is pointless.

SundaySilence

PJPOWER wrote:

Exactly! There always seems to be an agenda beyond the science itself. Someone is to make millions on "alternative fuels" as well.........am I wrong? My point was that it's hard for people not to be skeptical on either side of the issue at this point. For every study saying that humans are overly responsible, there's always one saying that we are not responsible at all. I personally do not think skepticism is a bad thing...............the crime is disinformation and propoganda. And why does Exxon have any less of a right to defend their claims than anyone else in the market?

Skepticism is good, and I can understand why many have been skeptical for some time, but the time for skepticism is over. The science is not in question. Although all science is subject to revision as more data accumulate over time, the strength of climate change science is that is pulls together disparate pieces of information. It demonstrates that what plant biologists find when counting and measuring tree rings corresponds with what climatologists find when they examine air that became trapped in glaciers hundreds of years ago. Over the last several years scientists working around the world have validated the findings and expanded on them. There is consensus in the scientific community. This statement was co-signed by: Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil) Royal Society of Canada Chinese Academy of Sciences Academie des Sciences (France) Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher (Germany) Indian National Science Academy Accademia dei Lincei (Italy) Science Council of Japan Russian Academy of Sciences Royal Society (United Kingdom) National Academy of Sciences (United States)
Joint Science Academies' Statement: Global Response to Climate Change http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

Your claim that there for every study there is a study that finds otherwise is false.

There has been a deliberate attempt by Exxon to create the impression in the public mind that scientists are still debating climate change. They have financed right wing institutes, employing pseudo scientists pulling bits of difficult to check information out of context and severely twisting the debate to make it seem as if the established scientific theories are largely contested in the scientific community and/or are very flimsy and that the scientific community as a whole just goes along with it. Scientists are then at a disadvantage in this debate because their professional standards and integrity prevent them from employing the same tactics. They fact-check, present arguments in whole, try not to pull questionable figures out of the air, and want to make sure their conclusions are viable. By the time they can put this all together, the audience is gone or bored, and are left with the impression that "scientist" A and scientist B are legitimately on two sides of an honest debate, and that "scientist" A was a lot more sure of him or herself.


Form whom do you want to learn about lung disease, a pulmonologist or Phillip-Morris?

surferdude

SundaySilence wrote:

There has been a deliberate attempt by Exxon to create the impression in the public mind that scientists are still debating climate change. They have financed right wing institutes, employing pseudo scientists pulling bits of difficult to check information out of context and severely twisting the debate to make it seem as if the established scientific theories are largely contested in the scientific community and/or are very flimsy and that the scientific community as a whole just goes along with it. Scientists are then at a disadvantage in this debate because their professional standards and integrity prevent them from employing the same tactics. They fact-check, present arguments in whole, try not to pull questionable figures out of the air, and want to make sure their conclusions are viable. By the time they can put this all together, the audience is gone or bored, and are left with the impression that "scientist" A and scientist B are legitimately on two sides of an honest debate, and that "scientist" A was a lot more sure of him or herself.


Form whom do you want to learn about lung disease, a pulmonologist or Phillip-Morris?

Thisis such a lame arguement. Science is not dependant on who the funding comes from. If it's bad science argue the science. If it's not bad science who cares where the funding comes from. Also, do you equally question who the funding comes from for scientists who are on the climate change is nearly 100% man made? Do you question why none of these scientists come out proposing humans adapt as a strategy? Or did these scientists basically have a self-interested strategy defined before looking at the facts?

polaris

surferdude wrote:

Thisis such a lame arguement. Science is not dependant on who the funding comes from. If it's bad science argue the science. If it's not bad science who cares where the funding comes from. Also, do you equally question who the funding comes from for scientists who are on the climate change is nearly 100% man made? Do you question why none of these scientists come out proposing humans adapt as a strategy? Or did these scientists basically have a self-interested strategy defined before looking at the facts?

what did you write in the early pages of this post? ... something about can't attack the science so attack the funding ... i think this is one of those on the other foot things ... the reality is that the science has long been debunked on here, in journals and in courts ...

what is it that makes you wanna continue to defend blatant lies? ...

sourdough

surferdude wrote:

Thisis such a lame arguement. Science is not dependant on who the funding comes from. If it's bad science argue the science. If it's not bad science who cares where the funding comes from. Also, do you equally question who the funding comes from for scientists who are on the climate change is nearly 100% man made? Do you question why none of these scientists come out proposing humans adapt as a strategy? Or did these scientists basically have a self-interested strategy defined before looking at the facts?

Don't you think that funders may distort the science and compromise its integrity? I'm not saying that all science that has corporate funding is junk, however I think we should be skeptical of hidden agendas.

farfromglorified

sourdough wrote:

Don't you think that funders may distort the science and compromise its integrity? I'm not saying that all science that has corporate funding is junk, however I think we should be skeptical of hidden agendas.

Umm...the same goes for government-funded science as well.

sourdough

farfromglorified wrote:

Umm...the same goes for government-funded science as well.

Granted, but what is the motivation and incentive for the government to interfere? I'm not saying there is NO agenda, but what do you percieve the government is up to?

jeffbr

sourdough wrote:

Granted, but what is the motivation and incentive for the government to interfere? I'm not saying there is NO agenda, but what do you percieve the government is up to?

Increasing the size of the gov't, increasing taxes, increasing regulation. Most government initiatives, whether it is war, climate, education, result in more growth, new agencies, new laws, more federal jobs, etc...

farfromglorified

sourdough wrote:

Granted, but what is the motivation and incentive for the government to interfere? I'm not saying there is NO agenda, but what do you percieve the government is up to?

This is a well-written article on the concept. Keep in mind, however, that it's coming from someone who is most likely anti-global warming. That said, the point being made is quite correct.

http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/070207-machan-skepticism.php

sourdough

jeffbr wrote:

Increasing the size of the gov't, increasing taxes, increasing regulation. Most government initiatives, whether it is war, climate, education, result in more growth, new agencies, new laws, more federal jobs, etc...

But aren't those things looked down upon? Everyone hates governemnt bureacracy, most people think that action on global warming will bring economic disaster, governments do not want to discuss raising taxes and why would they want to further regulate industry and deter economic activity.

The reason why I don't buy it is because I personally know a number of climatologists quite well and I've talked with them about their research and funding and there has been no persuasion or interference with their work.

Commy

sourdough wrote:

But aren't those things looked down upon? Everyone hates governemnt bureacracy, most people think that action on global warming will bring economic disaster, governments do not want to discuss raising taxes and why would they want to further regulate industry and deter economic activity.

The reason why I don't buy it is because I personally know a number of climatologists quite well and I've talked with them about their research and funding and there has been no persuasion or interference with their work.

if economic stipulations are the only reason the US hasn't gotten involved in saving the planet our priorities sure are fucked up...