Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/29/07 01:23 AM, JudgeDredd wrote:

At 1/29/07 12:13 AM, AdamRice wrote: So basically your argument is completely valid, you just left out the sulfuric acid droplet thing which plays the largest role in a volcanoes cooling effect.

Thanks for that. {link}

And why hinder the global warming scare? It encourages people to be more conservative with their energy use and pushes along research for renewable alternatives.

I'm just pre-emptively out to appease those who will jump in and say we're anti-industry.

What, other than sulfur dioxide production which causes acid-rain, can easily off-set warming, and is still pro-industry, but without harming human health or food production? Most kinds of Global Dimming technique will affect food production, thou certain countries (Africa, Middle East) would greatly benefit from ANY relief from oppressive solar radiation and heat.

Yes sulfur dioxide, and even dirty burning of hydrocarbons (lots of soot), help to mitigate any global warming. The biggest problem with all that acid rain is that it can damage plants if the pH gets to high. This could (and already has), do heavy damage to forests and agriculture. It also changes the pH of oceans, lakes, and rivers, which can damage marine life.

We have a panel? Snap, what is it like Hawking, Gore, And some random old white guys?

At 1/29/07 01:23 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: What, other than sulfur dioxide production which causes acid-rain, can easily off-set warming, and is still pro-industry, but without harming human health or food production?

Water. Clouds are one of the most effective sun reflecting mechanisms available, and although excessive clouds can affect plants, for the most part they do not cause any harm. Producing extra water vapor may not be a smart idea, but seeding clouds is relatively easy in any moist areas, especially between growing seasons.

Also, recent research I've heard (Discover February 2007 issue, I think) suggests that this is actually happening already as a natural buffer to global warming effects (heating the oceans produces more vapor which means more clouds, but not necessarily more storms).

At 1/27/07 11:32 AM, stafffighter wrote:

At 1/27/07 06:15 AM, TheMason wrote: You know I saw on CNN last night a story about how a school district in Washington (the state) has banned Al Gore's An Inconvient Truth from its science coursework because it would have to also cover alternative theories.

Are these the same laws that make them present alternatives to evolution?

Very clever here Staff, comparing my argument to one made by a lunatic fringe. But lets get below the surface of the argument here.

1) Evolution is easily quantifiable, you can draw conclusions from data that is gathered after controlling for all other variables (ie: DNA and genetic data). Environmental science on the other hand cannot be quantified as easily. There is an infinite number of variables involved in climate change for anyone to actually say why the weather behaves as it does, or the impact man and industrialization has upon it. In this way climatology and other environmental sciences must employ the scientific method much the same way as political science (which is often criticizied by those in the "hard" sciences). Thus environmental scientists have produced theories, models and predictions that have proven to be consistently wrong and extremely overexaggerated. Simply: evolution is based upon concrete science while global warming is based upon weak science.

2) The alternative theories put forth by creationists are theologically and ideologically driven. Alternative theories to global warming explain why the theories, models and predictions are wrong and are based upon observable phenomenon. For example look at the Iris Effect where global warming causes increased humidity which in turn causes increased cloud cover. As others have stated in this thread, clouds are exceptionally effective at reflecting radiative heat (the culprit behind global warming) back into space. Therefore these alternative theories are pointing out the fact that the climate is an exceptionally complex system in which things are kept in balance through positive and negative feedbacks.

3) Those who oppose evolution base their arguments upon their religious faith, and by and large refuse to analyze contradictory data. Those of us who are skeptical of global warming and people like Al Gore who run around like Henny Penny, do not deny that climate change is a fact of life. We also look at the data put out by the global warming reactionaries. To us the question is how much of it is natural and how much of it is man-made. Furthermore, we are not nature haters. Many of us want to conserve nature, however we feel that things like the Kyoto Protocols are too restrictive based upon the quality of the available data as well as the consistent history of being wrong. We think that making industry more environmentally sound will come from the private sector rather than an inefficient government program.

At 1/29/07 12:13 AM, AdamRice wrote: And this topic is silly, we already know global warming is real. Maybe it won't create the crazy disaster scenarios that some people preach, but let us not assume that it will be harmless.

Adam,

What we know is that climate change is real. Sometimes there is a warming trend, other times there is a cooling trend. What we do not know is to what degree humans are a contributing factor. In the end we could find out that we can cutting emissions only increases our standard of living and makes modern life even more healthy, but with no significant effect on a trend that is more a result of natural phenomenon rather than man-made.

And why hinder the global warming scare? It encourages people to be more conservative with their energy use and pushes along research for renewable alternatives. This could be the pre-push to getting things inline before we wait for an energy crisis to form.

There are several reasons to hinder the global warming scare.

The first is that after awhile of crying wolf, people tend to not only not care but totally not listen. When I was your age I sat in biology and chemistry classes where I was exposed to the same information and theories as you are studying right now. We learned about the hole in the ozone layer, global warming, green house effect, population bombs, rising sea levels and more. In 1992 (when I was a Jr and Sr in HS), Al Gore ran on this issue. Ted Danson and ZZ Top were on TV telling us that in ten years the world would be radically different and much of the world would be unlivable. Craig T. Nelson starred in a made-for-TV movie that was an apocalyptic vision of that future. In ten years we were told that we would have passed a tipping point where all would be lost and NY, FL and CA would be underwater. I was scared and supported radical plans to reverse this trend. These plans were never implemented and guess what? The dire predictions haven't happened. The science was/is weak.

The second reason you can't act on the worst case scenario when the support for that approach is as unreliable as it is with global warming, is think of the people it will hurt. Radical measures such as Kyoto will not hurt industry and the rich, but the blue collar worker and laborer. Imposing artificial timetables on when industry must accomplish costly re-fitting of factories and facilities would provide an incentive for owners to close factories putting thousands out of work. Children will go hungry and without healthcare. In the end ill-concieved measures such as Kyoto may only increase the gap between rich and poor, with little impact on climate change.

One thing I find interesting (and this is a general comment, so don't think I'm aiming this at you buddy!) is that many get on here and talk about Bush going into Iraq based upon an assumption or weak intelligence concerning WMDs and a worst case scenario. Yet then these same people want extreme measures that will cost many more than 3,000 people their livelihoods based upon assumptions derivied by weak science...