Certainly, Chris, the area of climate change is one where many scientific so-called experts are playing the tunes of those who pay for the piping. On all sides. This is what makes the situation difficult for "laypeople" - including myself. To try to establish a tentative personal position I look for basic "facts", on which there is general agreement.
1.) Our planet, while vast and extremely complex from many points of view, is a finite unit; both in terms of resources and in terms of its capability to absorb the changes resulting from the actions of its inhabitants without noticable change on a global level. 2.) The world population of humans is now at 6.8 billion (up from 1.65 billion in 1900, 2.5 billion in 1950 and 6 billion in 2000) and is forecast to rise to around 9 billion by 2050 (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population). 3.) This population is consuming and will consume a very large amount of energy in order to survive and thrive (according to another Wikpedia article, 474 exajoules with 80 to 90 percent derived from the combustion of fossil fuels in 2008. This is equivalent to an average power consumption rate of 15 terawatts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption). A very large amount of this energy is not used particularly efficiently, so that a major - unwanted in most cases - by-product is heat. 4.) The fossil fuels mentioned in the previous point are basically the result of complex chemical processes which have "stored" (to a large extent originally photosynthesized) solar energy through the chemical binding of carbon (with, almost always, hydrogen and lots of other molecules as well). Utilising fossil fuels (burning them) creates energy by "cracking" these complex (hydrogen-)carbon bindings, releasing carbon and hydrogen, which then, usually immediately form much easier, energy-poorer bindings, water and CO2, with a lot of other, often poisonous, crud in the process. This means that we are currently releasing and using large amounts of original solar energy, stored over millions of years through natural processes. 5.) All of this means that humanity is currently doing quite a lot to produce extra heat on the planet, and that it is releasing large amounts of stored carbon in the form of CO2 into the atmosphere. 6.) The major question is whether this extra heat and CO2 is at a scale which is significantly affecting global temperature development or not. (In other words, are we clicking a cigarette lighter in a large, cold church, or are we setting all the pews on fire?) This is the point on which the experts differ. 7.) There seems to me to be many evidentiary indications which, taken together, suggest that the current situation is more like a pew-fire than a Zippo. These include: a.) The rise in mean global temperature in the past hundred years. b.) Considerable glacial melting, from Antarctica, through the Alps to Greenland, with a consequent increase in H2O in liquid and gaseous, rather than solid forms. c.) Significant, continuous annual shrinkage in the arctic ice-cap. d.) First evidence of changed weather-patterns. All of these indications are the result of complex processes about which experts can happily argue - at all sorts of levels. Yes, global climate and weather patterns are very long-range things and we are examining short periods in this respect. Yes, our planet and the sun are capable of producing large fluctuations and swings (volcanic activity, long natural cycles, solar flaring/sunspot activity/etc.), which can dwarf what humanity has done, is doing and may do in the future. But there do seem to be a suspicious amount of "warming" things happening in the timescale since we humans have really started to turn up the heat and release major amounts of carbon. I'm not worried about the earth, or life surviving - there have been much more cataclysmic events in the past (as the dinosaurs would testify, if they had survived their own probably meteoritic super- catastrophe). However, it does seem reasonable to assume that our current behaviour may be having a significant effect on making the planet a lot more uncomfortable for us and that it is therefore rational to modify this behaviour if such modification seems to help to ameliorate the current trend. Particularly given the fact that those who will suffer most from global-warming and a rise of sea-levels will be, as always in human- induced macro-stress situations, the poorest and most powerless. I live about a thousand feet above sea-level, in an area where the results of local climate change may have as many upsides as downsides. And we've got the wealth and technology to help us adapt well to changed situations. On the other hand, even a small rise in sea-levels will turn all Bangladesh and the Ganges delta into the new Ganges Bay. And (unlike the Dutch) they don't have the money and technical know- how to do anything about it. Just one example. Francis On 25 Nov., 15:36, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > The problem with your perspective, Arch, is that you excuse the scientists > who are manipulating data to suit their world view. Climate change IS a good > example of this. Even if you buy that it was completely acceptable behaviour > for the scientists from East Anglia to collude to suppress data, alter it at > whim to fit their predetermined results, manipulate it to hide evidence of > cooling, and delete exchanges of emails when requested for them under FOIA > requests, it's not like that's an isolated incident. Scientists with a > political cause, and grant money hanging on the outcome of their studies, > will be quick to alter data, and just as quick to provide "reasonable" > explanations for their actions when caught. > > http://www.spokesmanreview.com/pf.asp?date=011702&ID=s1086438&cat=sec... > > <http://www.spokesmanreview.com/pf.asp?date=011702&ID=s1086438&cat=sec...>It's > difficult for a layman to know WHAT to believe, and this is problematic when > the layman is expected to vote on "Science Based" policies which are going > to cost trillions. Your disdain for the layman does a disservice to rational > exploration, given the all too human proclivities of the scientists in > question. > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 9:20 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > Climate change is probably the best example of how a really dumb lay > > perspective on science flourishes. People scurry around trying to > > find the 'evidence' that fits their world-view instead of looking for > > material that may be discomforting and requires the establishment of a > > new view. Kyoto and Copenhagen demonstrate our leaders have no clue > > other than in the sense of politics Slip described using Mencken, The > > promises given are meaningless as the problem may be so severe that > > the answers lie in stuff like blotting out the Sun. Not far away from > > the hype the media encourages on this matter, we still seem to be > > hoping for 'economic recovery' on the old lines that have led to this > > and other problems. I hold out little faith in education - this needs > > disestablishment and new aims. > > > On 25 Nov, 01:03, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > “… Science as a world-view has not caught on.” – archy > > > > And, as far as I can see, this reality will only grow as education is > > > routinely dismantled in the west and the average of those in some > > > Islamic countries continues to decline, being, what, 23 or so now? Of > > > course, while ‘we’ see all of the hype and ‘advances’ when it comes to > > > education of females, I hold little hope for this on a large scale. > > > > On Nov 24, 4:06 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I would point out Francis, that stirring the shit is environmentally > > > > unsound (all that methane). At the back of this stuff is the madness > > > > of capitalism based on consumption and routine overbreeding. Science > > > > as a world-view has not caught on. > > > > > On 24 Nov, 23:29, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > In fact, I find nothing at all curious about the tactics (resistance) > > > > > to dealing with things ecological when it comes to China and the US. > > > > > As far as I can tell, in both cases the real power is to be found in > > > > > multinational organizations and not provincial local politics. This > > is > > > > > yet another example of the results of aspects of capitalism. > > > > > > And, regardless of cause, the effect of climate change is obvious. > > > > > Here I have little doubt as to the human component when it comes to > > > > > major aspects of the cause. As fran points out, even if it is just a > > > > > little ‘help’, unless one is so very skeptical and stolid as to > > reject > > > > > all efforts for change, perhaps even based on a belief in the need to > > > > > cull the herd, quick and committed action is needed quite soon, like > > > > > yesterday! > > > > > > While not literally true, the myth about putting a frog in cold water > > > > > and slowly bringing it to a boil is instructive. > > > > > > On Nov 24, 1:17 pm, fran the man <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On December 7 the climate summit in Copenhagen begins. Already, the > > > > > > chances of it achieving anything worthwhile seem to be slim. While > > the > > > > > > Europeans are pushing for concrete, binding levels of > > CO2-reduction, a > > > > > > curious Sino-US alliance (backed by other Asian-Pacific countries) > > > > > > seem intent on preventing the emergence of anything more than > > sonorous > > > > > > platitudes. > > > > > > > I'm well aware that regular posters here have sharply differing > > views > > > > > > on global warming, so I thought I might stir the s**t a bit :-) > > Here's > > > > > > a link to the latest press release of a group of experts which sees > > > > > > the situation as being even more dramatic than has been thought up > > to > > > > > > now (the link also contains a further link to a download of the > > full > > > > > > report in PDF-format). > > > > > > >http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/press.html > > > > > > > Of particular concern, it seems to me, are the figures relating to > > the > > > > > > melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets, as well as the > > > > > > Arctic sea ice and the consequent rise in sea-levels. If the > > prognosis > > > > > > is even half-right here, both Alan and Chris are going to soon have > > to > > > > > > put their houses on stilts! (Yes, Chris, I know you're not > > expecting > > > > > > it.) > > > > > > > Francis- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > ""Minds Eye"" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]<minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups > > .com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
