Scientific Scare Tactics- do you believe them anymore?

[Orbit]

Yes, I believe there is something going on with our planet and I don't completely doubt that humans have SOME influence on it, though it's likely it was going to change anyway because our planet's weather does change over the ages.

What gets me is the *wah-wahing* of people who call themselve scientists (but are mostly politicians) making WILDLY innaccurate predictions over the past 20 years that have not come to fruition make it so hard to take them seriously when they come up with this kind of chicken little 'report' that doesn't tell us any detail of how they came to this conclusion:

Climate change means hunger and thirst for billions: report

Jan 30 3:15 AM US/Eastern

Billions of people will suffer water shortages and the number of hungry will grow by hundreds of millions by 2080 as global temperatures rise, scientists warn in a new report.

The report estimates that between 1.1 billion and 3.2 billion people will be suffering from water scarcity problems by 2080 and between 200 million and 600 million more people will be going hungry.

The assessment is contained in a draft of a major international report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to be released later this year, Australia's The Age newspaper said.

Rising sea levels could flood seven million more homes, while Australia's famed Great Barrier Reef, treasured as the world's largest living organism, could be dead within decades, the scientists warn, the newspaper said.

The Age said it had obtained a copy of the report, believed to be one of three prepared for release by the IPCC, which is highly regarded for its neutrality and caution.

Some 500 experts are meeting in Paris this week ahead of the release on Friday of the IPCC's first report since 2001 on the state of scientific knowledge on global warming.

The report will be followed in April by volumes focusing on the impacts of climate change and on the social-economic costs of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.

A chapter on Australia in the report on global impacts warns that coral bleaching in the Barrier Reef is likely to become an annual occurrence by as early as 2030 due to warmer, more acidic seas.

Bleaching occurs when the plant-like organisms that make up coral die and leave behind the white limestone skeleton of the reef.

The World Heritage site, stretching over more than 345,000 square kilometers (133,000 sq miles) off Australia's northeast coast, will become "functionally extinct", the scientists are quoted as saying.

Average global temperatures have already risen about 0.7 to 0.8 degrees since 1900, which the report says contributed to increased bleaching in coral reefs in the Caribbean and the Indian Ocean.

At 2.0 to 3.0 degrees above 1900 levels, the report predicts the "complete loss" of Australia's alpine zones and the possible collapse of South America's Amazon forest system, causing a "huge loss of biodiversity".

The human and economic costs of climate change are likely to be highest in poor countries, with water shortages crippling many African nations and increased coastal flooding hitting low-lying countries such as Bangladesh and many Pacific islands, the report says.

[Shockwave]

I stopped listening to junk science years ago. However, I realize that may have a "boy who cried wolf" affect on me. While ignoring all of the drama over insignificant things I'll probably miss something that really is important but that's their fault.

*points the finger*

[cijay]

I do believe it's bad but I feel helpless against it. I do my part but I don't think it's going to be possible for the whole world to take notice so I worry about other things.

[Dargon]

I've seen tremendous amounts of evidence both for and against global warming. My opinion, it's happening, but it's not as big a deal as everyone makes it out to be. Not to mention earth goes through climate changes on it's own.

[Brodertun]

well it snot like climate change never happened before - i mean all of Earth is still covered in glac....I mean tropical right

[KAGU143]

[tongue firmly in cheek]

Somewhere there must be a secret enclave of reptiles that are fervently praying for global warming to hurry up and get here so they can evolve back into dinosaurs and take over the world again!

[/tongue firmly in cheek]

-GB

[Beelzebuddy]

Yes, the planet has gone through many heating and coolings in the past, but do we really want to hasten the next change? Light a stogie in an already smoke filled room?

Most of the previous hot/cold cycles happened before humans were around, notice the critters that were around before and during those times are no longer here.

I refer you to this NOVA/PBS program that sort of suggests we might have inadvertantly managed to keep global warming at bay.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/

Come visit us here in Houston, Texas in August and decide if you'd like that sort of weather where you are.

[reptilelover]

[tongue firmly in cheek]

Somewhere there must be a secret enclave of reptiles that are fervently praying for global warming to hurry up and get here so they can evolve back into dinosaurs and take over the world again!

[/tongue firmly in cheek]

-GB

Yes! Yes! Ha, all you wimpy mammals just keep doing what you are doing and new Mesozoic here we come! You’ll all see then who truly has a superior evolutionary design! Ha… Global warming – I can hardly wait! :mrgreen:

[oneofthesun]

I believe that global warming is real and that it could be as bad as they say. My reason comes from taking environmental studies in college. We have already had two environmental near-disasters; acid rain and the depletion of the ozone layer. Most people don't realize that we only averted disaster in those cases because most industrial countries enacted sweeping laws to stop the problems (putting filters on smokestacks to stop acid rain and banning CFC's for the ozone layer). Since those things never reached disaster level people think the hype over global warming is overblown, but they're forgeting that the world had to take action on acid rain and the whole of the ozone layer. Otherwise we might be in serious trouble now.

I don't think the scare tactics scientists and the media are using are effective or ever will be. It's not in most people's natures to believe in disaster scenarios. Instead of focusing on the long-term effects of global warming, they should be focusing on smog. It's a problem we have right now, not something in the distant future, and no one can dispute the fact that it's caused by humans. The world is seriously f*cked up when health experts recommend not exercising outdoors some days during the summer.

[Pobblebonk]

Yes' date=' I believe there is something going on with our planet and I don't completely doubt that humans have SOME influence on it, though it's likely it was going to change anyway because our planet's weather does change over the ages.

What gets me is the *wah-wahing* of people who call themselve scientists (but are mostly politicians) making WILDLY innaccurate predictions over the past 20 years that have not come to fruition make it so hard to take them seriously when they come up with this kind of chicken little 'report' that doesn't tell us any detail of how they came to this conclusion:

Climate change means hunger and thirst for billions: report

Jan 30 3:15 AM US/Eastern

Billions of people will suffer water shortages and the number of hungry will grow by hundreds of millions by 2080 as global temperatures rise, scientists warn in a new report.

Bear in mind that this isn't the report - it's an article by journalists. It's the journalists who summarise the findings in a way that makes them out to be sensational, because that's what journalists do to sell stories. Moreover these are news journalists rather than science journalists - it's not beholden on them to report the justifications the report gives for its conclusions, or necessarily to understand them. And in fairness to them, they don't have the space in their newspaper/website to reproduce the findings of a several hundred page report in anything resembling detail.

Though I wouldn't call this a "scare story" - those are the stories that are based on emotive speculation about how bad things could get for the sake of provoking outrage - "Billions will die of thirst because of climate change!" is a scare story. "X billion will suffer a water shortage by such-and-such a date" is just reportage. This is just reporting what a particular study has found.

Average global temperatures have already risen about 0.7 to 0.8 degrees since 1900, which the report says contributed to increased bleaching in coral reefs in the Caribbean and the Indian Ocean.

I'd be interested in seeing the reasoning behind this, actually. Scientists have only known about bleaching at all since about the 1980s, and don't have data on bleaching episodes before that. From what I've read, the causes of bleaching are fairly poorly-understood and don't necessarily correlate with anything as simple as a temperature rise or greater acidity.

Phil

[Pobblebonk]

I believe that global warming is real and that it could be as bad as they say. My reason comes from taking environmental studies in college. We have already had two environmental near-disasters; acid rain and the depletion of the ozone layer. Most people don't realize that we only averted disaster in those cases because most industrial countries enacted sweeping laws to stop the problems (putting filters on smokestacks to stop acid rain and banning CFC's for the ozone layer). Since those things never reached disaster level people think the hype over global warming is overblown' date='[/quote']

That depends what you mean by "disaster level" - if you mean "went out of the news when journalists found something else to pay attention to", you're right, but no one ever claimed acid rain or ozone holes were going to cause global collapses in major ecosystems. The effects that were predicted are to a large extent still with us - the ozone hole's still there and not getting smaller as quickly as was predicted following the bans on CFCs and similar pollutants. Acid rain remains a major stress on wetland ecosystems and on the boreal forests on northern Europe, where the problem was first identified. In fact I remember reading somewhere recently that it may be starting to pose a threat to some tropical forests as tropical nations start to industrialise.

Instead of focusing on the long-term effects of global warming, they should be focusing on smog. It's a problem we have right now, not something in the distant future, and no one can dispute the fact that it's caused by humans. The world is seriously f*cked up when health experts recommend not exercising outdoors some days during the summer

Global warming has become a problem we have "right now". Australia is suffering the worst water shortages since European settlement; this may not be a consequence of global warming, but it matches predictions of scenarios that will happen more frequently under climate change. Island nations and countries like Bangladesh are already suffering from increased flooding and the need to bolster sea defences. Polar bears were recently listed as an endangered species because their habitat is under threat from early melting and insufficient snowfall.

Global warming is like habitat destruction - it's cumulative and gets worse as time goes on. But just because the Amazon's still there today, that doesn't mean we should ignore it until there are just a few small patches left and then protect it, regretting not doing anything earlier. No, global warming can't be stopped at this point - for too long scare stories and unrealistic demands by uninformed 'green groups' to "stop global warming" stymied efforts to combat climate change because they offered no practical measures politicians could take, which is like saying "stop destroying the rainforest!" instead of working out ways to protect as much of it as possible in the face of inevitable habitat destruction. Now we finally seem to be getting to the stage where people realise that the only viable strategy is mitigation, and are starting to present realistic ways to adapt to and limit the effects of global warming rather than pretending we can make it go away.

Phil

[Niemand]

How, bizzare, I was just talking about this with my history teacher earlier today.

I firmly believe in global warming. I think people, in general, tend to try and underplay things which could negatively affect them because people don't want to change their way. Avoiding/being afraid of change is a natural human instinct, in my opinion.

As far as the article, I think it'd be better if they gave things people could do to reduce their carbon emissions. That'd make it seem less like a news agency trying to scare us for the umpteenth time and more like a serious again.

Personally, I think that even if one doesn't believe in global warming, it's to everyone's benefit to try and reduce pollution. Cleaner air leads to better health and if we made our cars more efficient, it'd be cheaper, we'd use less of a finite resource, and we'd get into less conflicts over oil.

[Caseless]

I think something's going on, but as mere humans, we have no control over it.

[Orbit]

Look what global warming did to this poor guy!

click for story ->:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

:roll:

[Nightmare]

Ehm. Everything is certainly getting hotter, quite a bit really. Islands are drowning, plants and animals migrating. Draught for two years in the Amazon--I mean Australia, okay, that happens, but if the former keeps up for a few more years the rainforest is going to fall over in a literal sense. Marine migration northward. Yes, happening. No? Hm.

I didn't vote because it seems like I would be ridiculing myself, and I'm not into that.

[Kallan]

I know global warming is happening, my hometown in Alaska is significantly warmer. But all these climate changes just change Where resources like water are, not how much of it there is.

[oneofthesun]

The effects that were predicted are to a large extent still with us - the ozone hole's still there and not getting smaller as quickly as was predicted following the bans on CFCs and similar pollutants. Acid rain remains a major stress on wetland ecosystems and on the boreal forests on northern Europe, where the problem was first identified.

Both acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer decreased significantly when those defensive measures were taken. They're on the rise again now because the sheer volume of pollutants has increased with the population, and because developing countries like China lack anti-pollution laws/enforcement.

Global warming has become a problem we have "right now".

Yes, but all of its effects can be blamed on other things, whereas smog is quite obviously caused by humans.

[Nightmare]

I know global warming is happening, my hometown in Alaska is significantly warmer. But all these climate changes just change Where resources like water are, not how much of it there is.

Unless the Mooninites come to steal it, that is. Be on guard, people of earth!

[Kez]

Ehm. Everything is certainly getting hotter, quite a bit really. Islands are drowning, plants and animals migrating. Draught for two years in the Amazon--I mean Australia, okay, that happens, but if the former keeps up for a few more years the rainforest is going to fall over in a literal sense. Marine migration northward. Yes, happening. No? Hm.

I didn't vote because it seems like I would be ridiculing myself, and I'm not into that.

Drought in Oz for 2 years? Try 7.

[Nightmare]

I think me being lame and over colloquial led to confusion there (assuming Oz means Australia). I realise that the drought there has been on for a while, and that apparantly the last time such happened it lasted about 50 or so. That in the Amazon, however, is kind of bad, because the forest isn't at all drought resistant--if it continues that is. It's likely to be more and more of a problem with increased burning, as the forest produces much of the rain in the area, and a smaller forest area will accelerate drought and desertification.

[Pobblebonk]

Global warming has become a problem we have "right now".

Yes' date=' but all of its effects can be blamed on other things, whereas smog is quite obviously caused by humans.[/quote']

So, as long as we can pretend a problem has nothing to do with us we shouldn't do anything about it? In fact one of the major concerns with climate change - ocean acidification, which may threaten coral ecosystems and others dominated by hard-shelled animals - can't be put down to any cause other than an increase in atmospheric CO2 that's being soaked up by the oceans. And rising CO2 levels have no obvious non-human cause; they exceed those due to the current period of volcanism.

Smog, by contrast, is a localised problem eliminated by Clean Air Acts throughout most of the industrialised world. Its environmental impacts are not severe, being primarily a human health issue. Action already has been taken to deal with it, and this has to a large extent been successful. Of course most of the pollutants that cause smog are CO2-emitting fossil fuels, so practical efforts to limit global warming will also deal with air pollution. In fact, some recent studies suggest this may pose a problem in itself, as air pollution seems to be blanketing the planet from at least some warming effects that have already taken place.

Phil

[Orbit]

Just read this - some more fuel on the fire:

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

By Timothy Ball

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition.“Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.” . For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

And people wonder why I don't trust scientists.

So, is this guy for real, or is he the problem? Is HIS science to be questioned, or might he have a point about academia and politics corrupting TRUE science?

I know what I think... but is that based on faith in what I already believe, or in the people who say what I want them to say? Or am I making sound judgments on the science I understand and the hogwash I see put out by the likes of Gore?

And if he IS right and it IS a massive failure, and MOST of the world believes we are the cause of global warming, what does that say about our ability to be misled?

But, maybe he's wrong and he's alienating himself based on his misunderstanding of science.

how do we know? And how do we know what OTHER hotly contested 'theories' are are popular held up as fact based on politics and academia pressure while the real science of it is buried and those who question it are considered radical idiots?

[oneofthesun]

This is a perfect illustration of my point that it doesn't matter what's causing global warming because either way we still have smog. Except for when there's a volcanic eruption or a forest fire nearby no one can argue that smog is not caused by humans.

[vits3k]

Seeing as flatulent livestock are responsible for far more global-warming emissions than all human machines and industry put together, I have to wonder (again) how much gas was pumped out by grazing animals before humans began making fires.

In the old days, there were buffalo herds in North America that were the size of entire states.

Vast flatulent prehistoric herds of wildebeest, water buffalo, gazelle, aurochs, apatosauri, anyone?

[Kallan]

The environmental lobby has always been good at creating fake problems to mask the fact that they aren't willing to take on the bigger problems.

Example: In South American rainforests deforestation is a problem, lumber companies cut the forst down faster than it grows, and may have practices that will eradicated some species of animal and plant.

Rather than taking a strong arm to the south american foresters, they targeted the Alaskans.

Alaska has Temperate rainforests. Temperate climates have much less biodiversity than tropical ones, meaning you are far less likely to eradicate a species or damage the ecosystem. Also In the 50 years before loggin was curtailed loggers had cut some 2% of the Tongass National Forest. Not 2% a year, 2% total. The longest growing trees take 60 years to grow to maturity. You could cut the forest at 1.6% annually and still have a deforestation rate of 0.

[Pobblebonk]

And people wonder why I don't trust scientists.

So, is this guy for real, or is he the problem? Is HIS science to be questioned, or might he have a point about academia and politics corrupting TRUE science?

Well, I think if you're going to start from such a bold premise as:

I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change.

you lose credibility on scientific grounds from the get go. "There is no evidence that we ... could ever cause global climate change" is not any kind of scientific assessment and speaks of a failure to be open to any evidence that might come up in future.

And if he IS right and it IS a massive failure, and MOST of the world believes we are the cause of global warming, what does that say about our ability to be misled?

But, maybe he's wrong and he's alienating himself based on his misunderstanding of science.

Well, for a start he's mischaracterised the scientific method (you don't make assumptions and form a theory, you make observations and form a hypothesis), and seems unaware that suggestions that CO2 emissions could affect climate have been made and models produced supporting that since at least the turn of the 20th Century. At the very least that indicates that there is evidence human activity could cause climate change, even if there were none that it's being caused by humans at present.

how do we know?

By looking at the evidence ourselves and reaching our own conclusions - what I always emphasise in every context: critical analysis. Don't take anything on authority. This fellow's entire approach is suspect - he seems very keen to bang home his qualifications, but not at all to present any evidence for his position or any support from his own research. I think if we really were told by a scientist that the world was flat, we'd ignore him unless he provided evidence to support his case, just as we do with global warming sceptics - he seems awfully keen for people to take him at his word simply because he's a 'scientist' and has qualifications in climatology. That won't pass muster in any scientific journal. And as much as he likes to complain about personal attacks, it seems that as far as he's concerned impersonal attacks against everyone who holds a different point of view are perfectly acceptable. This is not the conduct of a scientist with any degree of professionalism. You don't denigrate the other side or whine about its acceptance as scientific consensus. You present your case on its merits and allow others to decide.

I was a climate change sceptic until fairly recently, but that position simply became untenable as I became aware of new evidence. If heating was driven primarily by the sun, the greatest levels of warming should be in the upper atmosphere rather than at ground level. Satellite data suggested for a long time that this was the case, but a couple of years ago more sophisticated measurements confirmed that warming is grestest in the lower atmosphere. The natural warming from the end of the last "little ice age" is projected to have ended twenty years ago or more. Ocean acidification is starting to take place, and the only suggested cause for that is human CO2 emissions.

In his article the writer has, as I mentioned, mischaracterised the scientific method. It isn't about forumating theories from assumptions. It is about formulating hypotheses, which make predictions, and testing those predictions against reality. Real-world climate observations are consistent with human-induced climate change scenarios generated by models produced according to the scientific method.

And, at the end of the day, the pollution controls favoured to combat climate change and the changes proposed to our energy economy are beneficial regardless of whether climate change is our fault or not - reducing polluting emissions, switching away from a reliance on fossil fuels and energy efficiency are all valuable goals for other environmental reasons quite aside from geopolitical and economic justifications. Mitigating the effects of climate change is something we'll have to do whatever its cause. Climate change just gives us the spur to make those changes. People were introducing Clean Air Acts, fitting catalytic converters to cars and aiming to increase energy efficiency long before the idea of global warming entered the political consciousness.

The real danger, and the real problem, with the overhyping that's gone on regarding climate change is that the political lobby groups have suddenly made all pollution a climate change issue - and that gives groups like the US Administration carte blanche to relax pollution controls or remain inactive by using the excuse that "we don't believe in global warming". These changes have to be made anyway and were being made before the global warming furore came up - and once politicians are made to recognise that, they'll have no motivation to suppress or distort scientific findings on global warming as they do now:

http://environment.newscientist.com/articl...ate-change.html

Phil

[Octarine]

Seeing as flatulent livestock are responsible for far more global-warming emissions than all human machines and industry put together, I have to wonder (again) how much gas was pumped out by grazing animals before humans began making fires.

Actually, humans can cause a lot of that, too. Feeding cows corn makes them significantly more flatulent than feeding them grass. (It also increases pretty much everything that's bad about meat, eg. fat content)

[Pobblebonk]

Seeing as flatulent livestock are responsible for far more global-warming emissions than all human machines and industry put together, I have to wonder (again) how much gas was pumped out by grazing animals before humans began making fires.

Actually, humans can cause a lot of that, too. Feeding cows corn makes them significantly more flatulent than feeding them grass. (It also increases pretty much everything that's bad about meat, eg. fat content)

There is a significant difference between methane emissions and CO2 emissions - CO2 is a far less potent greenhouse gas, but it has a relatively long residence period in the atmosphere. On average a CO2 molecule will remain in the atmosphere for 100 years. Methane leaves the atmosphere within a decade of release, so it doesn't accumulate. Moreover, of course, the effects are additive - the livestock is there, and so are human emissions. Prior to human industrialisation there was only livestock, and while numbers of wild megafauna were higher, overall numbers of grazing animals are higher now than in the past. During the BSE crisis millions of cattle were culled in the UK - under natural conditions there's no way the country could have supported that many native cattle.

The possible unsung villain of global warming I wonder about is smoking - think how many small fires are being lit, how much paper and plant material destroyed, merely in daily consumption of cigarettes worldwide. Smoking is officially "close to" carbon neutral - the amount of CO2 put out is approximately equal to the amount plants absorb from the atmosphere as they are grown, since burning takes place within a few years of growth (unlike fossil fuels, which are releasing carbon stored in plant tissue during the Carboniferous, which has never been in the modern atmosphere). But even a slight imbalance could produce a significant additive effect, and that's before taking into account other substances that are added to cigarettes, among them the fossil fuels propane and butane. I have no idea if anyone's thought to study this particular source of emissions to quantify its contribution to global greenhouse emissions.

Phil

[vits3k]

Actually, humans can cause a lot of that, too.

* Looks around guiltily *

Feeding cows corn makes them significantly more flatulent than feeding them grass. (It also increases pretty much everything that's bad about meat, eg. fat content)

Ah. Thanks for the clarification :oops:

Probably true, but I wouldn't count out volumes of flatulence completely. Ever sat in a wagon behind a horse that's just eaten a bunch of green hay?

[Kallan]

My problem with trying to find out about Global warming, is that no one has ever been able to link me directly to multiple scientific reports of it's occurance that weren't suspect.

I would appreciate links to credible scientific studies.

I am immidiately suspicious of anything that comes from The Sierra Club, or Greenpeace. I'm not saying these organizations always lie, but they have shown that they are more than willing to misrepresent and outright lie about facts to move their political agenda.

I'm also skeptical of any wikipedia articles on such a controversial subject.

For me a credible scientific study has to be one that is not funded or run by supporters of any specific political agenda.