www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall More Proof of Global Warming?

Dear Erie Byz,

I bought three V6 Jettas in a row and would have bought a fourth. The car was absolutely the best value automabile on the market for a long time. Too bad they stopped making them.

I.F.

I agree that scientific progress has been made in measuring the climate, and in understanding it. But the models are still very flawed, have not predicted anything with accuracy, and are not trustworthy. One should not make policy on what amounts to guesses. Most of proposed new environmental regulations are based upon guesses and not on demonstrable science.

Firstly, what governments believe is irrelevant. Politicians are not scientists, and anyone should be able to see that they make policy – including environmental policy – based upon political calculations and not science.

I have not stated that I believe that the glacial ice will fully return this year or next. I have pointed out that scientists have measured the ice thickness and tell us that it has returned to where it was in the 1960s, and that if the current cooling trend continues it will return. That is a reasonable conclusion – climate change is natural and cyclical. Some 50 million years ago the North Pole was sub-tropical. Man was not to blame then. Unless one can find a definite, demonstrable link that man is to blame now one should not guess. Explain why the ice has returned to the same depth it was in the 1960s and how what is occurring is not possibly natural in scientific terms, with demonstrable measured data and I’ll listen. Your whole argument so far seems to be built on guesses and ‘blame man first – forget nature’. I simply don’t understand anyone who puts their entire faith in governments. The government could make policy on a consensus that the earth is flat. Lots of people might actually believe them. And yet the government would be wrong!

CO2 is natural and yes, it is rising. Not exponentially as you seem to indicate but a little. Think of a football stadium with 100,000 people. Add a dozen more whose name is CO2 and you can see the larger picture. An increase, but a tiny one overall.

Look at the “cap and trade” proposals in Congress and you will see I am correct. It uses tax policy raise prices of energy to force reduced consumption. A better way would be to use tax incentives (reductions) to encourage finding more energy and ways to use it with reduced emissions.

It is interesting how differently people look at things. You see people like me who disagree with you as being anti-environment and wanting to “let their children and grandchildren die of environmental pollution”. I look at someone like you as having good intentions but who is wrong in basing policy on consensus rather than science. What passed for consensus is very often political in nature. Look at the solid science to see what is behind it. Solid science based on measured data shows the earth is back at the same temperature it was in 1930. But that fact is an inconvenient truth so it is ignored and politicians try to make environmental policy based on false models, very often to enrich their friends who are selling something.

There is plenty of land to use to produce both crops and animals. Only 7% of the land in the United States is developed. 18% is farm, 36% pasture and open range, 12% managed forest and 27% other (natural forest, desert, etc.).

On the methane & cow issue I was just looking a yesterday’s paper. There is a story about Vermont famers switching feed from corn and soy to alfalfa, flax and other grasses reducing methane output by more then 15%. And it is overall an overall cost neutral switch that actually seems to be keeping cows healthier (but that is not proven yet). Pluses all around and no additional costs or penalties necessary!

Global population growth is slowing, and will peak by 2050 if current trends continue. There is plenty of room to grow food to feed the world. The problems are with governments, not with nature.

I think part of the whole global warming controversy--and the earlier global cooling controversy during the 1970s--stems from a spiritual problem. The idea that we, mankind, can control the earth, its destiny, and our own. I'd have to weigh in on the side of "no we can't." I believe that there is a Being Who does control the outcomes and that He is still around and still in control. While we may be able to make small adjustments to things, we are in no way able to control the entire process as some would have us believe.

Take acid rain, for example. We have done a lot in the United States to reduce greatly acid rain. But we have it coming from the developing areas of Asia because many places still use high sulfur coal. Why? Because it's cheap and they seem to get a pass because they are developing to catch up to our living standards. So our efforts are almost neutralized in the whole scheme of things.

The problem also takes on the idea that our standard of living will continue indefinitely. Well, civilizations come and go. So many in history are nothing but a memory, footnotes in history books, and places of archeological study. Some had things that we have--running water and sewage systems; some did not and some still don't. To somehow think that we can control the whole earth because we think we have some control over our way of life seems to me to be delusion.

Bob

"Take acid rain, for example. We have done a lot in the United States to reduce greatly acid rain. But we have it coming from the developing areas of Asia because many places still use high sulfur coal. Why? Because it's cheap and they seem to get a pass because they are developing to catch up to our living standards. So our efforts are almost neutralized in the whole scheme of things."

However, the alternative to their using high sulfur coal is to continue relying on wood, charcoal and animal dung, which has far more damaging effects to the environment, including deforestation and particulate pollution. The faster we help the third world get rich (i.e., to something approaching the standard of living in the United States ca. 1973), the sooner they will have the luxury of caring about the environment.

Because, contrary to the margarine commercials, aborigines really don't think much about the environment. They know how to survive in their environment, but long-term planning and comprehensive understanding is a bit beyond their interests. So, they tend to overgraze and over-cultivate the land, until it is no longer fertile. Then, because their population density tends to be low, they simply move on to slash-and-burn another forest or two, and start over.

Primitive cultures suffer from populations booms and collapses because they lack the technology and disposable wealth to cope with increasing population pressures combined with environmental changes. Developed countries are not like that--they are resilient, and can adapt. To cope with climate change--whether warming or cooling, it does not matter--the most effective investment of our wealth is not trying to reduce carbon emissions, which has only marginal effect even according to the climate change enthusiasts, but to help the rest of the world prepare for changes which are inevitable (as global climatic history makes clear).

"The idea that we, mankind, can control the earth, its destiny, and our own. I'd have to weigh in on the side of 'no we can't.' I believe that there is a Being Who does control the outcomes and that He is still around and still in control. While we may be able to make small adjustments to things, we are in no way able to control the entire process as some would have us believe."

Amen!

There are many reinforcers to narcissism in our public education system and in popular culture (reality TV). Where is the spiritual fruit in Jon and Kate or in the environmentalism that deifies the planet and the non-human cycle of life?

I'm not dodging anything. I don't go anywhere *near* the argument itself on global warming discussions!

I'm a scientist, and 99% of the "discussion" is between True Believers . . .



hawk

How do you define a true believer? I am curious.

A "true believer" is someone who sticks with his metanarrative even after its factual foundation comes tumbling down around his ears. Thus, someone who believes that communism can work, "if only the right people were in charge" is a true believer. Someone who thinks Joseph Smith found some golden tablets in the ground, and was able to translate them from some alien language thanks to some stones dropped into a hat is a true believer. Someone who believes the earth is going to be roasted into a cinder because of car exhausts and smokestacks that put out less in a year than a single, average sized volcano, who also ignores everything that happened before 1900, and who believes that only massive government intervention in the economy can save us is a true believer. As is anyone who thinks that wind and solar power can ever replace more conventional forms of electrical generation.

Stuart, thanks for the answer, but the question was directed to Hawk! I am interested in his answer. Hawk, is it a given that there can be "True believers" at both extremes? Are you implying that the current discussion involves True belie....naah... that would never happen here....!!!!

I have one questions for all of the folks who believe that Global Warming is caused by emission of carbon dioxide through actions of humans.

How is it that 6 Ice Ages subsided BEFORE humans were around?

In other words, please explain the natural shifts in temperature which certainly had nothing to do with actions of humans.

I LOOKED IT UP. TURNS OUT HUMAN ACTIVITY PRODUCES OVER 150 TIMES MORE CO2 THEN ALL VOLCANIC ACTIVITY COMBINED

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!

PLEASE STUART K - STOP STOP STOP POSTING WHILE YOU CAN !!

I.F.

The Administrator said:
I'm sure your statistics regarding land use in North America are accurate, however, increasingly it is access to fresh water which is becoming the limiting factor in food production in North America. Currently, most aquifers are being depleted faster than they are being refilled, and many rivers are no longer able to meet their agricultural demands. Also, North American winters have been more rainy than snowy over the past few years, further adding to the drought problem in certain areas (snow actually keeps the ground more moist than water over the long run).

Your comments regarding alternate non-methane producing foods is interesting. Also worth noting, is that they are currently experimenting on gene mechanisms which would produce 'low methane' and 'methane free' farm animals. Clearly farm animal methane issue needs to be addressed.

You say that human population will come to a plateau in 2050. That may be. Please share your thesis.

Thanks,

I.F.

Dear Subdeacon,

During the billions of years that Earth has exhisted, there have been many more than just 6 'ice ages', and at time they have been dramatic, including a 100% 'frozen' surface. The Earth has also had a 100% methane atmopshere, no Ozone layer, and high concentrations of sulfur and CO2 in the atmosphere. In fact, at at least one point in Earth's evolution, the planet was completely devoid of anything other than volcanic gases. All of these of these naturally occuring atmospheric environments were terra no gooda for humans and mammals in general. We could not live in such atmospheres even though they occured naturally.

There are those who have posted that they do not believe the planet is cooling at all, and others believe it may be but there is no proof that this is not just part of some natural cycle.

Here is what we know about our immediate past:

(1) Humans have generated soo many Ozone depleting chemicals that they seem to have permanently damaged the Ozone Layer. There is currently a giant 'hole' in Antartica which does not properly filter UV light thus making the potential for life there 'zero'. Unlike the first time in the Earth's evolution, this was not a natural occurance but a man made atmospheric environmental catastrophy.

(2) Before you came to this continent, we had a sulfur producing coal insustry which destroyed vast amounts of nature, including forests and fresh water lakes. Unlike the first time in the Earth's evolution, this was man made catastrophy which has been completely stopped, but many lakes will be forever devoid of life, both animal and vegetation. They are 'dead' lakes. This was not a natural occurance but rather a man made catastrophy which you can still experience in other parts of the world such as Eastern Europe.

Now - yes I do take a big leap of faith ...

Scientists are now tell us that we need to dramatically reduce our CO2 emmissions which are so significant that they are probably already affecting our atmosphere and climate. We need to avert a catastrophy in the waiting.

I have cited two examples of atmospheric environmental problems which where identified by scientists and are now controlled by good government policies. In both cases, Canada and Europe had to shame the USA into compliance. Now they are doing the same with CO2 emmissions. Please explain to me Fr Deacon how the the Acid Rain and Ozone Hole problems are different to that of Climate Change ? Remember it's the same global community think tanks that are now demanding that greenhouse gases be controlled.

I look forward to your response.

I.F.

Oh fun, it looks like the True Believers on both sides are going at it. I'll keep score!