> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Stroz [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 11:46 AM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: SCIENCE!
>
> As I pointed out in another thread, we do not know what is causing the
> climate change, so it does not make sense to spend tons of money on a
> 'solution' that may have no affect. We need more research/knowledge to
> make
> an informed decison about what is the proper solution (if the problem
> is
> being caused or exacerbated by us) moving forward.
I'm sorry, but your arguments are all over the place and almost universally
poor.
1) The idea that "we don't know" is outright false and ignores reality.
Attempting to imply a greater (or complete) ignorance is a commonly used
fallacy.
We definitely know what causes climate change of the type we're discussing:
differences between energy received v. energy emitted. The models (and
examples) of that are clear. We know, absolutely, that the primary gas
responsible for altering this balance is CO2. We can easily measure our CO2
output and, to a much lesser extent, the CO2 uptake of the many natural
"sinks"... we can also clearly see that many of these natural sinks are
being eliminated by our activities.
We can see direct evidence of change (precipitation patterns changing,
arctic sea-ice changes, ocean-salinity and heat-current changes, animal
populations, etc). We can definitely correlate those changes as caused by
changes in global temperature (which itself is of course caused by solar
energy retention).
The questions that remain are the root of the debate, not the "cause". The
two primary questions are "how much of an effect do we have?" and "what are
the worst case scenarios?" The is definitely room for debate on both these
questions, but to say that we have no effect should be as clearly
unrealistic as saying that we're the only cause. As far worst case
scenarios... well, they're only really bad if you happen to be human.
2) Another argument you've made, again trying to falsely imply ignorance, is
that we "only have 150 years worth of data". This, again, is patently false.
We have reliable climate data, from various sources, for at least several
thousand years and more controversial data for upwards of 10,000 years. Ice
Core samples, tree-ring studies, sediment studies, ancient observations (the
Greeks may have lacked our instruments, but they're attention to detail
can't be matched). Hell - there are LIVING trees older than 9,000 years and
many of the "old-growth" forests in the U.S. are well older than 2,000
years.
In the past 150 years our ability to measure with better and better accuracy
across wider and wider regions has been unparalleled - but the increased
quality of our current instrumentation doesn't invalidate or eliminate the
huge amount of other evidence that's been (and is being) gained.
3) Again you try to imply ignorance by matching this (already demonstrated
false) position that we have "only 150 years of data" with the age of the
Earth ("the Earth is billions of years old") although this is a false
correlation. The age of the Earth and our climate have no direct connection
- none. Only the state of the Earth as it relates to our climate needs to
be considered and the history of that State is significantly shorter.
Being as liberal as possible you might go back as far as when oxygen was
introduced into the atmosphere in its present-day quantities.
Photosynthetic Oxygen levels started small, then grew far beyond what they
are today (allowing for the "giant insects") and finally dropped down to
present day levels sometime between 200 and 250 million years ago. Oxygen
is also directly responsible for the Ozone layer (which protects land life
from the ultraviolet) and the release of Nitrogen into the atmosphere (it
reacted with ammonia to form Nitrogen).
Being as conservative as possible you might include only the current
"modern" period extending back to the dawn of man - perhaps 100,000 years.
This includes several ice-age periods and might reasonably be considered as
useful for this purpose (being significantly longer than the civilization
that we're attempting to prolong). Of course the truly conservative might
consider only the "industrial age" - the past 150-1000 years - because it's
the only time on Earth when a species has been able to determine its impact.
(Personally I feel that's myopic.)
4) You imply that any effort made towards mediating global warming could
possibly have "no affect" [sic] when that is also demonstrably false. There
are many benefits to many of the suggestions for combating global warming.
Moving towards renewable fuels (considering our dependency on foreign fuels)
can only be a good thing.
The same technologies that scrub CO2 from emissions also scrub carbon
monoxide, Ozone depleting gases and other pollutants (the epidemic of
inner-city children asthma has nothing to do with Global Warming but the
solutions are similar). So called "zero impact" tree farms and protection
of old-growth and rain-forests have dramatic impacts beyond climate change.
In short almost all of the "solutions" for Global Warming have additional
benefits that are, often, more directly desirable than any possible effect
on global warming. If nothing else money and effort should be moved toward
those efforts with the broadest possible positive impact - those (relatively
few) efforts underway that would only have an effect on Global Warming
(carbon sequestration comes to mind) should be less likely to receive funds.
5) Finally you paradoxically imply ignorance while demanding more study. To
imply that our "150 years" of data is useless against a problems "billions"
of years old and then demand that we do more research? How much more
research is needed before you'll be satisfied... a million years? A
hundred-thousand? How much more research is needed if you're honest and
consider our several thousand years of data?
You imply that we can reasonably do nothing because your imaginary (and
unstated) burden of proof has not been met. Your arguments are based on
false statements and implications and are riddled with false dilemmas. No
argument with the unspoken premise that we are the sole cause of climate
change or have no impact to climate change can be considered reasonably
considering our current evidence.
Your arguments are clearly dismissive of a point of view that you'd prefer
to ignore while providing no evidence for a point of view that you clearly
hold dear. There is, in fact, much more evidence that you presume to accept
and infinitely more potential scenarios than you predicate.
Jim Davis
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to
date
Get the Free Trial
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f
Archive:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:283203
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
