Here is an interesting article I found from Newsweek in 1975 regarding global cooling. I figured I'd start a thread where we can place some anti-global warming sources for when we need to debate people about it. I'm talking more about the actual science and changing theory throughout history, but of course you can post some stuff regarding cap-and-trade, etc. like this piece. Everything will help.
The infamous e-mails.
It has been already debated hundreds of times in skeptic websites :) Fyi, that cooling thing is also not an issue to GW. "famous e-mail" also has been debated by the very same skeptics (scientists) and actually nobody denies the information, it's just the gullible masses (I am not talking about everyone, there are quite neutral people and so on..) only see what they wanna see and do not hear or ignore rational arguments.
I was really interested in legitimacy of this GW thing last year, and now I lost interest, not because I stopped believing (I didn't) in GW, but because I don't really care anymore about it.
Also, the funny thing, that so many GW denialists refuse to listen to "the other side", or the very same skeptics (whose whole job is to debunk bullshit), who really know better about science than ordinary libertarians/anarchists.
For more info:
http://skepticblog.org/2009/12/07/the-climategate-fiasco/
http://skepticblog.org/2010/02/08/climate-skepticism/
and there are more, but I forgotten the links, maybe find out later.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
P.S. by the way, that blog is full of statists (only few libertarians, including Shermer), beware. But I like to stick to science when debating about GW, not political agendas. And people on that blog love to call libertarians "nuts" just because many of them (it's not a secret) deny GW.... well, it's their own fault in some sense.
Brian it's a very perplexing problem because you have scientist who support the global warming hypothesis like it is fact. The problem is which scientists to believe, but more importantly which type of scientists are more credible at drawing up conclusions.
You see reports on the news that 30,000 scientist support GW, or some other exaggerated number of scientific minds that support GW as an absolute fact. However, statements such as those are very misleading because when you review the types of scientists or Ph.D specialities that support GW claims you quickly realize the majority are not climate scientist (atmospheric physicist, atmospheric chemist, climatologist,... ect.), but specialties in areas like evolutionary biology, organic chemistry, computer science and so forth. These scientists have no understanding of the underlying mechanisms, physics, and dynamics it takes to learn climate behaviour.
One of the first scientists that started engaging in GW was a brilliant theoretical physicist named, Freeman Dyson (he has proven himself to understanding theoretical applications to scientific experiments). His initial conclusion was much like the one you hear today that CO2 emission from technology should increase the temperature of the earth. However, after his initial studies, he concluded that the problem was far too complex and much of the data did not support GW trends in general. A quote from Dyson:
"I'm not saying the warming doesn't cause problems, obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I'm saying that the problems are being grossly exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other problems that are much more urgent and important. Poverty, infectious diseases, public education and public health. Not to mention the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans."- Freeman Dyson
Leonard Susskind is another brilliant scientist that has many of the same conclusions. Like Dyson, Susskind understands the grand theoretical parameters of what it would take to model climate systems. Sussking simply doesn't believe what the IPCC (Intergovernal Panel if Climate Change) is proposing that their models are converging to understanding the climate. Once I began to hear Susskind’s conclusions, I realized how insane the problem of climate models entail. Climate models are essentially physics. However, the mathematics underlying the behavior of such systems are ridiculous difficult. They involve equations called complex non-linear partial differential equations... in other words, the equations require that you know the exact values of every variable in the system, and as the equations progress time wise, they give an enormous number of plausible answers. For instance, at time=0.0001, the system may have only 1 value, then at time=0.0002, the system may have 16 possible values, and so forth. Each value represents a possible path that a system may take. When the equations finish there final compuation you have final values in the trillions of trillions that represent the final outcome of the climate at some future time. However, I'm grossly simplifying the calculation problem. This is the primary reason why the IPCC employees so many mathematicians and mathematical physicist.
However, understanding the dynamics of climate systems is much more difficult than what is mentioned above. For the IPCC to know the state of the climate, they must now a property of the system that is called a "boundary value"(the present state of the climate). That is a serious problem. Why? Because the biggest emission of CO2 is from oceanic water. Well there is no way we can know the total emission of the oceans (the flux) because the oceans absorb CO2 and cycles it through complex pathways and releases the CO2 gases 2000 years later. Thus, there is no way to understand what the total CO2 release from the oceans are, and that leads to not understanding the boundry conditions of the present climate system.
The physics at hand is much, much more complicated. I could literally spend pages and pages on the basic complexity dealing with the physics of climate systems. Then there is the chemistry that is another enormous problem altogether.
Climate modeling is essentially like economical calculations; the systems are far too complicated for current mathematics, physics, and computational devices. One single change in a molecule within the atmosphere has an incredible change in the system some time later. Essentially, climate modeling is the main defense that the IPCC is putting forth.
However, there are more general problems that the IPCC is not addressing. One you have already mentioned.
Ever since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, manmade CO2 emissions have increased exponentially. According to GW theory that would mean a sharp increase in temperature since the begining of the Industrial Revolution. That hasn't happened been observed because in the beginning of the 1940's -1970's we saw periods of cooling. How could this be? CO2 emission was still increasing during this period, and the Earth was getting cooler. Of the 20 climate models the IPCC currently has not one is able to address the issue. It can't because it goes against all the conclusions put forth on GW.
The current CO2 levels haven't been the highest the Earth has experienced. There have been times that the total concentration of CO2 gases has been 22 (Paleozoic-Carnbrian) times as high and more. That is an astronomical value because it's hundreds of times higher than what technology based CO2 has currently released. Well why hasn't the Earth gone through a runaway green house effect during these times of high CO2 concentrations?
Then there exist the emission from volcanoes. This is where a more debate exist. Many scientist point out that human CO2 output eclipses volcanic CO2 emissions. Currently, the total human CO2 output is roughly 3.5-4% of the total CO2 concentration within the atmosphere. Volcanic emission is roughly 100 times less than human CO2 output. However, after reading books on the matter and listening to other scientist debate the issue, these conclusions are misleading because they don't take into account the population of volcanoes from the oceans (which surpass land volcanoes). Scientists that advocate GW are not presenting all the data.
There is so much more to say on the matter. I've been studying the matter for over 3 years now. I've tried to understand the matter and I've come to the only logical conclusions that make sense.
1.) The IPCC not a credible source when it comes to climate models. The physics and mathematics if far too complex. Mind you, it"s climate modeling that the IPCC pushes as the biggest proof for GW.
2.) Chaotic systems are chaotic because we don't have the computational power or the systems are just too complex.
3.) The majority of scientists working in these fields are supported by government grants. In science, grant money is your life support. The question arises on who is supporting the majority of GW research? The government along with a number of political and governmental agencies.
Yet, the government will not support any grants for scientist that researches data that doesn't support GW. This is science, and in science you must support all opposing views.
A great book to start understanding the enormous claims being made by the IPCC scientist is by Patrick J. Michaels (CATO Institute scientific advisor and climate scientist) called Climate of Extremes: Globing Warming Science They Don't Want You To Know. It's interesting to note that he is the lead scientist advocating for the IPCC to release ALL of it's data to the general public for scientific review. I wasn't even aware that the IPCC along with the Department of Energy doesn't come against the scrunity of the scientific community.
Does anyone know the philosophic argument against governing laws regarding global warming? It’s great to debunk the science, but I think we need to show that even if global warming were true, government action is unnecessary. What if it was true that every creation of CO2 damaged the planet just a little bit, how would a Rothbardian anarchy society fix that problem? Would everyone sue everyone else for pollution damages?
The problem is that you can blame someone for causing you to breathe less oxygen whenever they take a few flowers out of the ground or chop down a tree for your paper.
Philosophically, Amelia did a video regarding the environment. For global warming, it seems like people don't care about the environment but instead are caring about themselves because, as she talks about, the Earth clearly got through the introduction of oxygen in the atmosphere. Earth is fine no matter what happens. So you can disprove what they're saying if they claim to want to protect the Earth.
But if they then admit they're trying to save humanity, that leads to different discussions as to the pulling-out-flowers and cutting-down-trees argument regarding how fast we should be able to ruin the Earth since in essence humans are parasites in terms of the planet (not supposed to be demeaning), and then who has the explicit authority to decide how fast we can do it.
Earth is fine no matter what happens.
Humans are fully capable of “destroying” the Earth.
We're capable of destroying earth to the point where humans cannot live on it. We came from bacteria. We literally cannot destroy every single organism on this Earth, no matter how hard we try. That's my point. Considering that, we aren't trying to preserve the environment, we're trying to enforce property rights.
If we don’t develop a libertarian solution to global warming, aren’t we conceding that there is no libertarian solution to global warming?
The science and people behind global warming are very sketchy. If you don't believe in man-made global warming, then why would you need to come up with a solution? It'd be like trying to find a solution to man-made gravity, also to which there is no current libertarian solution. See?
Why not strike the root of environmentalists’ argument, tell them: government is not the best (or ethical) way to solve environmental issues.
We just did. The government can't tell me how much carbon dioxide I put into the air, especially, as I stated before, with the lack of evidence. Cap-and-trade is regulation + theft, and the economic implications of it are ridiculously harmful. We'd go back to the Middle Ages in terms of how much energy we use, which determines a big percentage of our productivity. Now, is people want us to use less oil and come up with better alternative energy sources, you can get to the government subsidizing big oil companies and allowing them alone to drill on monopolized (government-owned) land.
Just like with the corn subsidies in relation to obesity, you'll find that many of the solutions shouldn't entail the government trying to subsidize an alternative solution but instead getting out of the situation in the first place.
Forget about Global Warming. It hasn't worked out, so plan B has been rolled out. The most pressing issue is now Biodiversité™, of which Global Warming is a subset of… genius!
Does anyone know the philosophic argument against governing laws regarding global warming? It’s great to debunk the science, but I think we need to show that even if global warming were true, government action is unnecessary.
Global warming and cooling exists - Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming does not. Government Action is not necessary - was there government action to remedy the effects of the Medieval warm period, or the Little Ice Age? Nope.
From Reisman
If global warming and mankind’s responsibility for it really are facts, does anything automatically follow from them? Does it follow that there is a need to limit and/or reduce carbon emissions and the use of the fossil fuels – oil, coal, and natural gas – that gives rise to the emissions? The need for such limitation and/or rollback is the usual assumption. Nevertheless, the truth is that nothing whatever follows from these facts. Before any implication for action can be present, additional information is required. One essential piece of information is the comparative valuation attached to retaining industrial civilization versus avoiding global warming. If one values the benefits provided by industrial civilization above the avoidance of the losses alleged to result from global warming, it follows that nothing should be done to stop global warming that destroys or undermines industrial civilization. That is, it follows that global warming should simply be accepted as a byproduct of economic progress and that life should go on as normal in the face of it. Modern, industrial civilization and its further development are values that we dare not sacrifice if we value our material well-being, our health, and our very lives. It is what has enabled billions more people to survive and to live longer and better. Here in the United States it has enabled the average person to live at a level far surpassing that of kings and emperors of a few generations ago.
If global warming and mankind’s responsibility for it really are facts, does anything automatically follow from them? Does it follow that there is a need to limit and/or reduce carbon emissions and the use of the fossil fuels – oil, coal, and natural gas – that gives rise to the emissions? The need for such limitation and/or rollback is the usual assumption.
Nevertheless, the truth is that nothing whatever follows from these facts. Before any implication for action can be present, additional information is required.
One essential piece of information is the comparative valuation attached to retaining industrial civilization versus avoiding global warming. If one values the benefits provided by industrial civilization above the avoidance of the losses alleged to result from global warming, it follows that nothing should be done to stop global warming that destroys or undermines industrial civilization. That is, it follows that global warming should simply be accepted as a byproduct of economic progress and that life should go on as normal in the face of it.
Modern, industrial civilization and its further development are values that we dare not sacrifice if we value our material well-being, our health, and our very lives. It is what has enabled billions more people to survive and to live longer and better. Here in the United States it has enabled the average person to live at a level far surpassing that of kings and emperors of a few generations ago.
And here is his Free Market Reponse to Global warming
If one indeed is needed at all.
A Free-Market Response to Global Warming Even if global warming is a fact, the free citizens of an industrial civilization will have no great difficulty in coping with it – that is, of course, if their ability to use energy and to produce is not crippled by the environmental movement and by government controls otherwise inspired. The seeming difficulties of coping with global warming, or any other large-scale change, arise only when the problem is viewed from the perspective of government central planners. It would be too great a problem for government bureaucrats to handle (as is the production even of an adequate supply of wheat or nails, as the experience of the whole socialist world has so eloquently shown). But it would certainly not be too great a problem for tens and hundreds of millions of free, thinking individuals living under capitalism to solve. It would be solved by means of each individual being free to decide how best to cope with the particular aspects of global warming that affected him. Individuals would decide, on the basis of profit-and loss calculations, what changes they needed to make in their businesses and in their personal lives, in order best to adjust to the situation. They would decide where it was now relatively more desirable to own land, locate farms and businesses, and live and work, and where it was relatively less desirable, and what new comparative advantages each location had for the production of which goods. Factories, stores, and houses all need replacement sooner or later. In the face of a change in the relative desirability of different locations, the pattern of replacement would be different. Perhaps some replacements would have to be made sooner than otherwise. To be sure, some land values would fall and others would rise. Whatever happened individuals would respond in a way that minimized their losses and maximized their possible gains. The essential thing they would require is the freedom to serve their self-interests by buying land and moving their businesses to the areas rendered relatively more attractive, and the freedom to seek employment and buy or rent housing in those areas. Given this freedom, the totality of the problem would be overcome. This is because, under capitalism, the actions of the individuals, and the thinking and planning behind those actions, are coordinated and harmonized by the price system (as many former central planners of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union have come to learn). As a result, the problem would be solved in exactly the same way that tens and hundreds of millions of free individuals have solved greater problems than global warming, such as redesigning the economic system to deal with the replacement of the horse by the automobile, the settlement of the American West, and the release of the far greater part of the labor of the economic system from agriculture to industry
A Free-Market Response to Global Warming
Even if global warming is a fact, the free citizens of an industrial civilization will have no great difficulty in coping with it – that is, of course, if their ability to use energy and to produce is not crippled by the environmental movement and by government controls otherwise inspired. The seeming difficulties of coping with global warming, or any other large-scale change, arise only when the problem is viewed from the perspective of government central planners.
It would be too great a problem for government bureaucrats to handle (as is the production even of an adequate supply of wheat or nails, as the experience of the whole socialist world has so eloquently shown). But it would certainly not be too great a problem for tens and hundreds of millions of free, thinking individuals living under capitalism to solve. It would be solved by means of each individual being free to decide how best to cope with the particular aspects of global warming that affected him.
Individuals would decide, on the basis of profit-and loss calculations, what changes they needed to make in their businesses and in their personal lives, in order best to adjust to the situation. They would decide where it was now relatively more desirable to own land, locate farms and businesses, and live and work, and where it was relatively less desirable, and what new comparative advantages each location had for the production of which goods. Factories, stores, and houses all need replacement sooner or later. In the face of a change in the relative desirability of different locations, the pattern of replacement would be different. Perhaps some replacements would have to be made sooner than otherwise. To be sure, some land values would fall and others would rise. Whatever happened individuals would respond in a way that minimized their losses and maximized their possible gains. The essential thing they would require is the freedom to serve their self-interests by buying land and moving their businesses to the areas rendered relatively more attractive, and the freedom to seek employment and buy or rent housing in those areas.
Given this freedom, the totality of the problem would be overcome. This is because, under capitalism, the actions of the individuals, and the thinking and planning behind those actions, are coordinated and harmonized by the price system (as many former central planners of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union have come to learn). As a result, the problem would be solved in exactly the same way that tens and hundreds of millions of free individuals have solved greater problems than global warming, such as redesigning the economic system to deal with the replacement of the horse by the automobile, the settlement of the American West, and the release of the far greater part of the labor of the economic system from agriculture to industry
I figured I'd start a thread where we can place some anti-global warming sources for when we need to debate people about it.
http://climateaudit.org/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
http://www.co2science.org/
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/
All good resources for realistic and rational opinons on CAGW and AGW and for that matter NON-AGW
People, people. We can't be so arrogant as to think we are going to destroy the earth. That's preposterous. Now the human race on the other hand.....
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
The Earth is probably warming on average. Also, human activity is probably one of the causes of the warming. Reducing CO2 emissions is a problem of civility norms, not of law.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
The Earth is probably warming on average.
As Phil Jones put it, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995, in addition it has been cooling since 2000.
on average since when?
Also, human activity is probably one of the causes of the warming.
There is good research to show that land use changes cause greater swings in local climates than CO2.
IPCC Predicitions are based on models, not observations.
All posit a highly sensitive climate driven by positive feedbacks.
the fact that the earths climate has remained relatively stable over 2 billion+ years means that it is probably governed by negative ones.
Human activity overall is a minor aspect of our climate system - long term ocean cycles probably have a far greater effect.
PDO, NAO, El Nino, La Nina.
Climate science is still very junior...
I've been thinking about this for a long time and recently I settle on Global warming agnosticism i.e. I don't think we know if it is happening or not and possibly we can't know.
Global warming involves a number of questions often entangled up assumptively.
1. Is Global warming occuring?
2. to what extent is it occuring?
3. If yes would it be beneficial or not?
4. what is the cause- manmade or natural or a mix?
5. If it's not beneficial ,can it be stopped? Obviously government cannot help but make the problem worse given what we know about tragedy of the commons,government subsidies to polluters etc.
6. If it can be stopped but the solution is worse than global warming then is it worth it? Is it worth poverty or starvation? or going back to the stone age?
- that question would be tricky if in that situation (a) do something has bad consequences in long term and may not work and (b) do not has bad consequences either in the short term and definately in the long term.
What complicates the matter is scientists receiving government subsidies which ensures a bias which could be carried out to help statism however this does not mean it's necessarily not occuring remember the state co-opts a number of very real problems and claims it is the only solution.On the other side corporations fund studies to say it's not occuring.So there's a large amount of bias on both sides.
Like said above ,it doesn't help for us to just say "oh it doesn't matter" or if it is we have no solution.That makes us look weak and uncaring.
So yes denialists can be just as bad as advocates.Both have false arguments.Both promote myths.Honesty is the key.We should follow logic wherever it leads.
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
Global warming involves a number of questions often entangled up assumptively. 1. Is Global warming occuring?
It is universally accepted that it has been warming for the last 150 years
we have warmed .6 deg C in that time, but have had warming periods and cooling periods. But you must remember that there are very few places in this world with 100 year temperature records, and even the US Temperature Network - the gold standard of the world is subject to question.
http://www.surfacestations.org/
Free from feedbacks, doubling CO2 from pre-industrial times would lead to another .6 deg C
Even the IPCC admits that up to 2 degree C, warming is net beneficial - but it is doubtful that we will see that in the next 100 years.
Humans have some effect on climate, mostly on a local scale - sunspots and solar radiation are correlated to temperature swings.
CO2 has never been a driver of global temperatures, or of climate change - in fact over the last few hundred thousand years, CO2 levels lagged temperature by 800-1000 years, something that Al Gore convieniently forgot to mention in his movie.
It is naive and presumptuous to assume that we could stop the world from warming, or cooling for that matter.
We are due for another ice age soon, we should enjoy this warm weather while we can!
Can't be stopped - cutting use of fossil fuels is a meaningless gesture that causes undue hardship to millions, and will leave billions mired in poverty, and unable to rise out of it.
China is now building about two power stations every week
Here in Canada, if we stopped using fossil fuels tomorrow, China and India will make up for it in a few months.
That is too bad - it is a real and dangerous threat to our standard of living in the west.
"Green Energy" policies in Spain have destroyed 2.2 jobs for every 1 "green" job created.
In Ontario, our "green" energy act is set to double the price of electricity, and is giving out millions if not billions in corporate welfare
armchair climatology itt
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
Sorry I didn't put more links in, but I can if you like - anything you would like clarified?
This is my favorite video series on the subject. I'd suggest anyone interested watch it. (I'm of the opinion that GW is real and caused by humans, but that it doesn't matter).
Sorry for the old bump, but lately I've been working in the greenhouse gas regulatory compliance field and have been pondering private property-based solutions to the AGW "problem". Though I'm not particularly well-versed on the scientific nuances of the debate, I am nevertheless extremely skeptical of AGW paranoia and to me it seems likely that the climate impact of greenhouse gas emissions is negligible.
However, just for the sake of discussion, let's assume that AGW is real and that CO2 emissions do in fact cause global temperature to increase. Is a property owner whose land has been demonstrably (I realize this would in most cases be difficult to prove) damaged or otherwise adversely affected by this temperature increase entitled, in principle, to any compensation from the polluters?
Since the atmosphere where the GHGs are deposited is, for the most part, unowned and unlikely to be homesteaded in the near future, there are no property owners up there to be damaged, so this is a much different case than air or water pollution where private property is directly affected by the physical presence of the pollutants. But when the property owner on the ground homesteads his land, does he also homestead the exit point for heat (upwards)? If we think about water, I think most here would agree that if a downstream property owner erects a dam on his property and inundates his upstream neighbor under an artificial lake, this would constitute aggression. Would the emission of a GHG greenhouse over someone's land, blocking the natural exit of heat, be a difference in kind or only degree?
Of course, assigning responsibility for the emissions would be a nightmare. Since it's a "global" phenomenon, conceivably everyone on Earth who burned any fuel (or even breathed!) could be considered an aggressor in the matter. Would compensation even be possible without some sort of insidious global carbon tax? Obviously, even if AGW were a real threat, practical concerns like these would make enforcement under property law extremely difficult, and maybe not even worth the trouble. But, conceding that, could the emission of GHGs into an unowned atmosphere ever, even if only in principle, constitute aggression against the property of others?
Sam Armstrong:This is my favorite video series on the subject. I'd suggest anyone interested watch it. (I'm of the opinion that GW is real and caused by humans, but that it doesn't matter).
Potholer is great.
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/Consensus.htm
I love this link. It even has quotes from current warming alarmists worrying about cooling.
Global warming, Ice Ages, Reversing Polar Caps, Magnetic Field Reversals, Giant Astroids, YES, they are coming, they have been here before, and if the human species is so long-lived (which we don't act like we're meant to be), we might enjoy at least in those moments an actual TRUTH. Bless them, everyone, the dinasaurs managed not to eat each other out of existence before their great extinction, what ever the cause. I can only say, I'd be so thrilled to live to see the Apocolypse.
In final address to the endless research submitted with arguments by all individuals concerned, let me say, the experts in science once believed the world was flat, the earth was the center of the universe, and the Greeks thought a dog swallowed the moon, from time to time. There are no Bruce Willis', who will drill holes in astroids. there are no heros who will zap perfect storms. There will be nothing to prevent any of the global threats to humanity that we so aggressively debate solutions.
Instread there should be volumes for us to read regarding SURVIVING some or most of these possible events. Where's a good place to move to in the event of an Ice Age? What about surviving excessive heat? Can we build cities beneath the seas? Could we replenish the seas with fish after a radio active event proved deadly? Can the magnetic field be stabilized? Can a nuclear blast move the Earth back to its previous tilt??? If not, can we build individual shelters which could provide the necessary magnetic field to protect us and preserve some atmosphere in the event of a solar wind invasion.
Most modern people don't believe in any of this..Not the Apocolypse...not global warming.. not the prevention of any of these events, for that matter. The heated debates among those interested, or just amused at exchanging proof of wit, is evidenced here in these sites where mostly its "can happens" against the "can'ts". And best of luck to both sides who joust on paper horses.