Since we're done with the ozone thing which doesn't belong on this thread I thought I might critique your comments on climate change.
Climate Change in a Nutshell
I guess I should start with some of the basic science. First off, there is a natural greenhouse effect. The term ‘natural’ here is what I think is being exploited most. Without the greenhouse effect, there would be zero long wave radiation absorbed, and the planet would swing daily from one temperature extreme to another. This in mind, our activities over the past 8000 years have really been changing the face of the planet, from burning of natural landscapes to grow our crops to building large cities which are the cornerstone of our civilization, these activities among other things have and continue to contribute to the greenhouse gas portion in our atmosphere.
Pretty good so far, except you didn't mention that our contribution to greenhouse gasses is quite minimal.
We’ve gone beyond the point of sustainable growth and presently are consuming more resources than the Earth can naturally provide.
Now that's just silly. You sound like
Paul Ehrlich and his doomsday predictions. We will never run out of resources. Read a book called "Unlimited Wealth" by Paul Zane Pilzer to understand why. Perhaps it could best be summed up by something Sheik Yammani said, "The stone age came to an end, but not for a lack of stones. The oil age will also come to an end, but not for a lack of oil".
Global climate models are the diagnostic tool scientists use in assessing how the climate will change. Routinely these models are crapped on by media outlets, but they are in fact very reliable. James Hansen of NASA GISS in 1988 used models to predict that the next twelve years would see a rise in global surface temperature with a brief cooling period due to a volcanic eruption. He made this claim before a Senate committee and time has revealed that his prediction, or rather his models prediction was remarkably accurate. Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991. If we want to focus on other climate factors besides the mean global surface temperature, models have also made astonishingly accurate predictions such as: as surface temperature increased there was a corresponding stratospheric cooling, amplified warming in the Arctic, and the difference between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infra-red radiation (also known as the radiative forcing.)
In this you are completely wrong. Where are you getting this stuff? Those computer projections are totally useless. The first time it was tried, when global warming was just being thought of as a problem, the computer projection showed a very slight warming over the next century, not what they were expecting or what they wanted. So they assumed that increased CO2 would cause increased atmospheric water, and they added that into the data, and got the result they wanted (it didn't come true). THey've tested computer models by entering data from 30 years ago to see what it comes up with for today's climate, and they couldn't even get that right, when they knew what the answer was supposed to be! Are you seriously suggesting that someone was able to feed climate data into a computer and get a prediction of a volcanic eruption? Come on! Someones making up that crap.
I always hesitate to bring this kind of thing up, because quite frankly it smacks of tinfoil and area 51 to me, but without question there is a powerful lobby with global scope, not only confined to domestic politics, and I feel they have been responsible for much of the confusion over this matter. Everyone by now has probably heard about the former oil lobbyist and Bush aide Phillip Cooney, who removed and adjusted government scientists findings and suggestions. Consider that one of the largest single emitters of greenhouse gases are old and even new ‘grandfathered’ coal generation plants. Consider again that coal is very abundant in many areas across the globe. Many industry leaders were members of the Global Climate Coalition, whose stated purpose was to cast doubt on the theory of Global warming, until now when the science has become much more firm, and larger partners in this coalition such as BP and DuPont dropped out.
Oh no, no, no, don't ever bring up something like that in a debate! You're just conceding that your position is so weak you can't defend it with logic, evidence and fact. Any time someone resorts to smear tactics it means they're admitting defeat, because if you could defeat your opponents arguments you would, you wouldn't try character assasination. Sure, your supporters might like that, and frequently the media likes it, because they're on your side, but arguements and debates are won on the basis of evidence, logic and fact, not by calling your opponent names.
From there, it was the late 1970’s when the first warnings from scientists came connecting heavy coal use and climate change.
No, it was the early 70's, when the warnings from scientists claimed that production of CO2 by fossil fuel use was causing global cooling and we were on the cusp of a man-made ice age. Ever flown an airplane up through an overcast? Notice how dim it is underneath, and how it almost hurts your eyes when you emerge into the sunlight? The theory was that increased CO2 would reflect sunlight away from the earth just like those clouds. (Apparently CO2 is opaque). In the late '70's it was realized that the cooling had apparently stopped.
In the late 80’s when the Montreal Protocol began and industry learned how damaging emissions can be constrained, the war for propaganda began. Fred Palmer quipped : the Earth’s atmosphere is “deficient in carbon dioxide,” and he wanted Western Fuels, the company he was running to lead the charge to a world with 1000ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. Staggeringly stupid stuff really. These culprits have also produced such gems as the idea that more carbon makes for better crops and less world hunger, despite the fact that increased CO2 by itself does not improve growth discernibly unless there is accompanied increases in both temperature and rainfall. Even then the nutritional content of the food is much less as there are a host of other nutrients that are deficient because of our unsustainable use of soil across the globe.
More nonsense. When a plant has all the water it needs, and more, and all the nutrient it needs, like in my garden, additional CO2 will make quite a difference. This has been demonstrated (There are commercial greenhouses that have CO2 pumped into them to boost growth). A
field of corn growing in full sunlight in the middle of the day uses up all the carbon dioxide within a meter of the ground in about five minutes. If the air were not constantly stirred by convection currents and winds, the corn would stop growing. (Besides which, most plants in the world are neither cultivated nor food. Forests are full of plants, and cover more area than is under cultivation.) If you're referring to the trace elements that are deficient in some foods, growing bigger, faster won't have any effect on that.
Those scare tactics used by the "skeptcs" simply aren't true.
Uhmmm..Ya got it backwards. The "skeptics" are saying there's nothing to be scared about, while you guys are saying the world's about to end. Who's using scare tactics?
There are countries and industries fo instance, around the world that have allready slashed emissions by up to 70%, while maintaining strong economic growth.
Really? Which ones?
None in Europe. Only Sweden and England mightmake their Kyoto targets, 6 other countries might come close, and they cheated to do it. None of the other European countries even seem to be trying, some are increasing their emissions by up to 60%, and 25 new coal fired electric plants are planned for just after Kyoto expires.
In some areas of the world, wind power is cheaper allready than conventional generation facilities on a $/MW basis, which helps explain why wind energy continues to grow at roughly 20% every year. Also consider that wind generation is expected to drop in price by a further 20-30%. So what happens when the wind isn't around? Well, one solution is to dot the region with turbines instead of putting all your eggs in one basket. Perhaps excess energy could be used to create hydrogen. How about some more bad press? Wind generation is noisy, well I can tell you that I've had a conversation standing right underneath one of those big windmills, and I could hear just fine. They're unsightly, not half as unsightly as a smoke stack. Potential hazard to birds, not now that they're sleek instead of those funky Dutch looking models. Other power generation options include, solar thermal power, and photovoltaics, for it's a good bet that if theres no wind, theres probably sunlight. There are many other options such as tidal, hydro, geothermal and some oddities( check
this out,) but the best solution is a multi-faceted approach, one best suited to regional conditions.
That's pretty good. I'm in favor of any kind of energy generation, including hydro dams and nuclear (the best option), anything that gets the West off mid-east oil dependancy, which is a disaster waiting to happen.
The relationship that exists between the greenhouse gases and our civilizations don't need to be so tenacious. There are better options, and they are growing more efficient every year. It actually baffles me how someone can be so attached to a world view that ignores the consequences of our own actions. A lesson that can be learned from the Montreal protocol, public outcry is effective, very effective at initiating change. Not all change is bad, though I shudder at the thought of run away climate change.
Yes public outcry is effective, so effective that it can cause governments to make stupid decisions that are costly and damaging to society, the economy, and people.
