Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:46:23 -0600, KKuurus wrote:

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 19:55:03 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
<jkirwan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:11:30 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
<null@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 04:59:35 +0000, Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

Just one. If you do that, and if I haven't read it yet, I'll go ask the
author for a copy and do so. Either way, I will prepare myself from it
and then we can discuss it and see where you are coming from.

Here's two:
http://www.ncpa.org/globalwarming/GlobalWarmingPrimer.pdf

Nope. I asked:
"Provide me with just one peer-reviewed paper on some technical and
quantitative facet relating to climate science that you have actually
read thoroughly yourself, with good understanding, and which well
supports some conclusion you've made here on the topic that disagrees
with the IPCC AR4. Just one."

You replied with something at a web site that is about "seeking
innovative private sector solutions to public policy problems." That
is not a citation of a peer-reviewed paper, Rich. It's a "primer"
prepared for a 'public policy' purpose.

Caution: 184 MB video:
http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle

I already watched the whole thing, long before. One of the scientists
who was interviewed on the program insisted that he was lied to by the
producers before appearing, that his responses, as edited, were
grossly misleading and didn't present his perspective, and demanded to
have his presence removed. In later showings, they did that much.
Another scientist in England, prepared an analysis of the program for
his undergraduate science class, which essentially pointed out that at
least one of the graphs presented in the show had to have been
doctored up -- and he was able to show how and with which data, they
most likely did it.

Again. And I repeat myself, sadly. Provide me with just one
peer-reviewed paper on some technical and quantitative facet relating
to climate science that you have actually read thoroughly yourself,
with good understanding, and which well supports some conclusion
you've made here on the topic that disagrees with the IPCC AR4. Just
one.

Jon

The problem is Jon the only thing those that believe like you

Not to be argumentative, but "believe?" This is about natural fact
and science. Belief has very little to do with it.

that
humans are the cause can come up with to fight the problem is punish
the U.S.A. and the E.U. for being able to change our world before the
"third world" got it's chance to.

That's a different thing. That is about justice, politics, ethics,
morality, etc. Those things, at least for now, are not the domain of
science.

I've heard China's representatives, for example, argue almost what you
are pointing out. Their gov't made a promise, not so long ago
(1980's, I think), to eventually put refrigerators in every home. Now,
in the US, this is almost universal. And we depend on them, quite a
bit. This point came up during discussions about CFCs and the much
higher cost of shifting over to HCFC units. The Chinese delegation
argued that the US and EU released tens of millions of tons of CFCs
annually and, when the world was heading towards a mess because of it,
that the US and EU expected the Chinese to "pay the bill" of buying
the more expensive equipment -- merely because they just happened to
be "late to the game." Of course, they wanted the US and the EU to
pay the difference (they did not expect the US and the EU to pay all
the bill, just the difference in costs.) Of course, that didn't fly
far, either.

All that is politics. It's not science. Science provides the theory
and result which helps us understand and predict more accurately. The
decisions made and paths chosen are then a matter of personal choice,
ethics, morality, and politics. Different fields, for now.

When and if China comes to the west
and asks politely for help to clean up thier problem with high sulfur
coal and destructive hydroelectric plans,

Which is, in part, fueled by the US demand for products. I really
cannot speak well to the comprehensive dynamics going on here, as I'm
barely able to follow some of that. But I can easily imagine the idea
that manufacturers take advantage of momentarily (in the grand scheme
of economic cycles) cheaper labor in China and thus appear to shift
pollution to another venue -- all the while pointing at them saying it
is all their fault. Of course, the real picture is much, much more
complex than that. China has been ramping up major power distribution
centers, building distribution power transformer stations like mad,
and ramping up power production. None of this started with the US
shifting demand some time back, of course. China has it's own
disasters it is mostly if not entirely responsible for, as well.

But anthropocentric global warming is everyone's problem, like it or
not. Much the same as if my neighbor started taking in nuclear waste
for a fee and dumping the liquefied waste into his own land. That
would be my problem, even if he were doing that on his land. Soon
enough, we'd wind up at war, if nothing short solved the problem.

then we who have the tech
should by all means help.

It's going to take efforts all 'round.

For a price say the loss of all communist
control and free election.

Politics, again. They will look at that as being forced, just as you
and I might if the tables were turned. And, probably, they will react
about as kindly to it. You may have noticed their predilections in
the military are of late -- satellite shoot down, submarine
development, missile development, etc. That isn't happening in a
political or economic vacuum.

Therein lies the problems we jointly face. Not an easy picture.

The freeing of Tebit. or perhaps the death
of one out of two Chinese, after all they have almost half the world
population just breathing they add untold millions of tonnes of C02 to
the atmosphere yearly, but seriously to try and punish the countries
that are trying to cut thier emissions while allowing developing
countries to propagate old technologies is a silly idea. We need a
world wide policy in order to make world wide changes.

Yes, I tend to agree. I liken this to the situation in business, as
well. If one business in a very competitive field decides to "go
green" and pay more for its energy and for its waste disposal, it's
costs go up. If the consumers aren't motivated to choose its products
at their likely higher prices, or if it keeps its prices competitive
but instead decides to forego its profit margin that it might use for
future expansion, then it will wither away. The only way you set an
even playing field for all is through the setting of public policy via
law. In that way, the playing field stays even and the businesses can
compete on the basis of safer business practices. But no business is
going to want to cut its own throat. Just as no country would do
that. If any one country unilaterally decides to make the changes
alone, it will find itself cut off from cheap energy and growth. And
soon enough, its position in the world will decline relative to that
of others.

There is a reason why the US Constitution holds international treaties
as the "highest law of the land."

So to cut the
west off at the knees while allowing the developing world to polute
even more makes sense how?

My focus is to grasp the scientific facts of the situation as well as
we may. Then we can discuss, debate, negotiate, batter about the head
and shoulders, kick, scream, gnaw, gnash, etc., amongst each other
still -- but with better information on the table in plainer view so
that we have some grasp of what the risks being taken are.

You and I can participate in the political processes as well as we are
allowed then, and to whatever degree we are motivated. But I'm in no
position to "allow" or "prohibit" anyone. That's for the big boys who
hold the power and almost all of the capital (according to legal
papers they possess, anyway.) Outside my league. Also, I know my own
guesswork about whose pollution makes sense and whose doesn't, or just
trying to outguess others about this in some kind of game, is beyond
me. My ability to try and outguess others is about nil.

Bottom line, "the west" is represented by a small number of very
powerful people. They will act and I will have very little to say
about any of it. Same with the developing world. This is far, far
beyond anything in my sphere. It will simply play out as it does and
without my say so, one way or another.

In short -- global politics hasn't made much sense to me, anyway. You
are free to struggle about it in your own mind. But regarding that
kind of politics, I'm mostly just a bystander watching a senseless
melee and occasionally spotting something I think I gather. That's
about it.

Jon
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Global Warming: Junk science at its [best] worst
    ... his undergraduate science class, which essentially pointed out that at ... That is about justice, politics, ethics, ... If one business in a very competitive field decides to "go ... Scientists have the science fact on their side. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Global Warming: Junk science at its [best] worst
    ... his undergraduate science class, which essentially pointed out that at ... That is about justice, politics, ethics, ... countries to propagate old technologies is a silly idea. ... If one business in a very competitive field decides to "go ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: NEGP, was: Schroeder collects his reward, ....
    ... and unability to keep politics and business apart is typical for both ... Prev by Date: ...
    (soc.culture.baltics)
  • Re: Little green idiots cause global warming
    ... >> This was an exercise in the realm of politics, not science. ... >> Climate model output is not evidence. ... If such scientists say that there is no problem, ...
    (sci.chem)
  • Re: Gunners Status
    ... refuse to debate the issue is what frightens me the most. ... interpretation of the politics, not the science. ... It's self-serving politics. ... Let's just wait and see if the issue sort's itself out as more facts ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)