Global Myths - My Son's Sixth-Grade Speech

[Sonart]

Is pollution a cause of global warming? Absolutely not! And I will tell you why. Lets assume for a moment that global warming were true.

Feb. 17, 2005 --"Scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, and their colleagues have produced the first clear evidence of human-produced warming in the world's oceans, a finding they say removes much of the uncertainty associated with debates about global warming.

In a new study conducted with colleagues at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI),"

"US researchers compared the rise in ocean temperatures with predictions from climate models and found human activity was the most likely cause. In coming decades, the warming will have a dramatic impact on regional water supplies, they predict."--

--"This is perhaps the most compelling evidence yet that global warming is happening right now and it shows that we can successfully simulate its past and likely future evolution," said lead author Tim Barnett, of the climate research division at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, California.

"If you take this data and combine it with a decade of earlier results, the debate about whether or not there is a global warming signal here and now is over at least for rational people."--

"The new ocean study, taken together with the numerous validations of the same models in the atmosphere, portends far broader changes," said Barnett. "Other parts of the world will face similar problems to those expected--and being observed now--in the western U.S. The skill demonstrated by the climate models in handling the changing planetary heat budget suggests that these scenarios have a high enough probability of actually happening that they need to be taken seriously by decision makers."--

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We need to take this information in context with another recent news report...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--"More than 10,000 scientists, policy analysts and educators from 60 nations are expected at the meeting, which runs through Monday. At least seven sessions will touch on the relationship between science and public policy."--

--"Many researchers say they are speaking up to fight what they view as the politicization of science – efforts by industry, legislators and others to distort science to advance their agendas."--

--"In a 2003 report, the Environmental Protection Agency omitted data linking human activity to global warming."--

Everything horrable and catasrophic that has ever happend in the Earth, the Earth has fixed.

Sure, when left to it's own devices. We are definitely not leaving earth to it's own devices.

This reminds me of a common arguement I've heard, most memorably by Rush Limbaugh and repeated often here. It states that a single volcano produces more pollutants than all that created by humans combined.

First, volcanos have been belching forth since the earth began, and are well factored into the earth's equilibrium. What we create is on top of that.

Second, while a large volcanic eruption, say like Mt. Pinatubo, can produce around 8 to 10 million tons of pollutants in a year (pretty impressive, huh), humans are now belching forth about 30 billion tons of C02 a year... again, on top of nature's own polluters. I'll link these figures if you insist, although this would be about the 5th time I've done so.


.

[Mr.Vicchio]

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”
http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm

Sound familiar?

It's the same stuff, "OMG the worlds gonna end the climate is headed towards disaster!" only then they didn't have an "enemy" now they do. Us. It caught on better.

[Sonart]

It's the same stuff, "OMG the worlds gonna end the climate is headed towards disaster!" only then they didn't have an "enemy" now they do. Us. It caught on better.

So now we're the enemy of science? Do you ever actually think about what you're saying? Scientists have been warning about global warming for about 40 years now, long before it became a political football. Difference now is that scientists have 40 years of accumulated evidence to back it up.

But gawd forbid you stray from your politically correct ignorance.


.

[Mr.Vicchio]

No no.. chill man. When I said "Us" I meant mankind. Before the world was according tot eh doom sayer global scientist (and they all pretty much agreed) that the world was headed for another ice age... the enemy was the Earth itself.

With global warming.. the enemy is mankind, it sells far better, gets something people can relate too and enemy that can be countered. It's all pop science. Who funds studies showing the earth is just going through a natural cycle of heating and cooling? Not many people and not much money. Who listens to the scientist saying "there is nothing we can do, but adapt.." not many people.

But give them a target, a cause celeb.. the money flows. Big oil, easy target. SUV drivers.. hey who doesn't hate them right? And the money flows. The science, like anything else... follows the money. Why do you think I brought this article up? To make a point. Same thing with eugenics 100 years ago... if people listen, and PAY$$ then they, the scientist will give them what they want. Those that are on the Global warming gravy train.. don't want that to end. Anyone saying otherwise "must be on the payroll of the Big Oil companies!" Nice one liner don't you think?

A few pretty graphs, some neat bumper stickers.. and there you go. The recipie for hysteria, and toss in someone like Bush, who just ignores Kyoto.. and you get a Hyper Power -the USA- as a big ripe target.

I would liek to point out the Save Rain Forest crowd has been pretty much.. silent for the last 4 years or so. Why is that? Beccasue the founder of Greenpeace pointed out it was all a bunch of hooey? Partly, but partly because the dire predictions kept failing to meet reality.. and the money dried up. Oh sure a few people still spout the same old same old, and they have money comming to them from the gullible, but the issue.. is dead in the public's eyes. Same thing will happen with global warming, it's just gonna take longer (convient they put the Catastrophic Changes so far in the future, job security if you ask me.

[Pooeypants]

Sound familiar?

It's the same stuff, "OMG the worlds gonna end the climate is headed towards disaster!" only then they didn't have an "enemy" now they do. Us. It caught on better.

Mr Vicc, nearly 30 years have past since that article, yes, 30 years. Science moves on when there is new data so you can't discount something just because they were wrong in the past. Remember, science isn't infallible and it doesn't claim to be, living in the past won't solve our problems in the future.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Pooey... 30 years ago, the cry went out, "the world is going to freeze, we must be ready" and the world yawned. 20 years ago the cry went out "the world is going to over heat, it's mans fault!" and then it went down hill from there.

[Pooeypants]

Pooey... 30 years ago, the cry went out, "the world is going to freeze, we must be ready" and the world yawned. 20 years ago the cry went out "the world is going to over heat, it's mans fault!" and then it went down hill from there.

Mr Vicc, if you want to talk about scientific mistakes of the past, there are other big cases too. Point is, we've now got more data, better computational power and better understanding of the climate than we did from 20 years ago. I know that science has been doing the "boy who cried wolf", but what if the Wolf does come to play some day?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Pooey please post #63 on this thread, it address what happened.

[Pooeypants]

No no.. chill man. When I said "Us" I meant mankind. Before the world was according tot eh doom sayer global scientist (and they all pretty much agreed) that the world was headed for another ice age... the enemy was the Earth itself.

With global warming.. the enemy is mankind, it sells far better, gets something people can relate too and enemy that can be countered. It's all pop science. Who funds studies showing the earth is just going through a natural cycle of heating and cooling? Not many people and not much money. Who listens to the scientist saying "there is nothing we can do, but adapt.." not many people.

And who is funding the studies that opposes Global warming? Funnily enough, the big ones are usually by ExxonMobil...

But give them a target, a cause celeb.. the money flows. Big oil, easy target. SUV drivers.. hey who doesn't hate them right? And the money flows. The science, like anything else... follows the money. Why do you think I brought this article up? To make a point. Same thing with eugenics 100 years ago... if people listen, and PAY$$ then they, the scientist will give them what they want. Those that are on the Global warming gravy train.. don't want that to end. Anyone saying otherwise "must be on the payroll of the Big Oil companies!" Nice one liner don't you think?

Erm, genocide is not the same as preventing artificial climate change, I fail to see how the analogy works.

A few pretty graphs, some neat bumper stickers.. and there you go. The recipie for hysteria, and toss in someone like Bush, who just ignores Kyoto.. and you get a Hyper Power -the USA- as a big ripe target.

Is this how you see it, the rest of the world conspiring against the US?

I would liek to point out the Save Rain Forest crowd has been pretty much.. silent for the last 4 years or so. Why is that? Beccasue the founder of Greenpeace pointed out it was all a bunch of hooey? Partly, but partly because the dire predictions kept failing to meet reality.. and the money dried up. Oh sure a few people still spout the same old same old, and they have money comming to them from the gullible, but the issue.. is dead in the public's eyes. Same thing will happen with global warming, it's just gonna take longer (convient they put the Catastrophic Changes so far in the future, job security if you ask me.

I've never been a supporter of Greenpeace, especially on their stance on nuclear power. Further more, they are not a world authority of international environment. Regardless of what you think, our artificial deforestation has made a real impact and it is significant.

[Pooeypants]

In Ernst Mayr 2001 book, What Evolution Is, he included Haekels Drawing from 1870, in the caption he has a quote from Monroe Strickberger’s book, Evolution, it reads:See below:



[Plus a load of stuff quoted from a creationist site]

Hmm, maybe you missed the website link to which I had given you in counterargument because I knew what you were about to post. Regardless of your selective blindness, I will post some of their key points;

1. Haeckel's pictures are irrelevant to the question of whether the embryos are similar. What matters are the embryos themselves. Within a group, early embryos do show many similarities. For example, all vertebrates develop a notochord, body segments, pharyngeal gill pouches, and a post-anal tail. These fundamental similarities indicate a common evolutionary history. Other embryological similarities are found in other lineages, such as mollusks, arthropods, and annelids. These similarities have been long known. Professor Agassiz in 1849, for example, said, "We find, too, that the young bat, or bird, or the young serpent, in certain periods of their growth, resemble one another so much that he would defy any one to tell one from the other--or distinguish between a bat and a snake." (Scientific American 1849)
   
2. The embryos also show some differences, which Haeckel glossed over. However, differences should also be expected, since the animals are not all equally related. It is the pattern of both similarities and differences that displays patterns of descent. Organisms that are less closely related are expected to look less similar.
   
3. When Haeckel's inaccuracies were exposed, authors started using corrected versions. Science tends to be self-correcting.

Source

A science textbook which has made errors does not mean science itself is necessarily at fault. But hey, at least we can admit to our mistakes and the point you point up showed science isn't dogmatic, it is completed testable and infallible. Thank you for making my point clear.

If you really want to push this point, I've got another article which refutes pretty much everything else you've posted in detail on this offtopic subject. But like the Oregon Petition, I think it's best you stop trying along those lines.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Pooey, for being in college, sometimes you make me wonder. The point of bringing up eugenics was NOT the science involved, however since the connection eludes you here is the simple and easy explination.

Scientist were certain that through Eugenics, the worlds problems could be solved. The popular thinking at the time was Eugenics was the way to go, Presidents supported it, colleges supported it.. it was all the rage as it were. We know now, how faulty it is.... but at the time... Same thing here.

No it's not the "world vs the USA" Grrr. I Said the USA makes a great target for the gravy train global warming scare mongers.

[Pooeypants]

Pooey, for being in college, sometimes you make me wonder. The point of bringing up eugenics was NOT the science involved, however since the connection eludes you here is the simple and easy explination.

Scientist were certain that through Eugenics, the worlds problems could be solved. The popular thinking at the time was Eugenics was the way to go, Presidents supported it, colleges supported it.. it was all the rage as it were. We know now, how faulty it is.... but at the time... Same thing here.

But there really was no scientific consensus that Eugenics should be viable method. To say otherwise would be wrong and dishonest. From previous times you've attempted to shove this argument, I've yet to see how it was little more than some extremists trying to push their agenda. Global Warming isn't that though so don't use a false analogy inorder to try to deny it.

No it's not the "world vs the USA" Grrr. I Said the USA makes a great target for the gravy train global warming scare mongers.

Well, the US is the greatest polluter although China is/has superceded it but only because their population is about 4 times higher. Not to mention that the US is the wealthiest nation in the World and therefore can afford to use alternate methods/processes that reduce its pollution output.