RoR: Forum

James, how do I join the Society for Starving Old People Slowly? Sounds like great fun.

Barbara

Post 1

Sunday, October 24, 2004 - 11:12am

James, it was Selma Ward, not Hayek! AGGHHH! The difference is a plain as Bill Paxton and Bill Pullman. ;)

Post 2

Sunday, October 24, 2004 - 7:26pm

James,

Meteorological science teaches that hurricanes are incubated by warm tropical weather in late summer. The warmer the weather during that time, the greater the incidence of hurricanes.

On behalf of all the Floridians who have endured the unbelievable torment of four major hurricanes in the span of one month and approximately 20 billion dollars in total damage (http://www.flains.org/public/hc_keyfacts930.html-ssi), I would like to extend a hearty thanks to you for supporting the continuing refutation of the notion of global warming.

It's not like we have any evidence for it, or that it could perhaps be a costly thing to disavow or anything.

PS: If Ayn Rand says that gravity exists, and that black is white, I support what is obviously a true statement, disregard what is false, and conclude that Ayn Rand can be right at times, and wrong at times, and that it's probably not wise to subscribe to some entire "Ayn Rand Package", snail darter comments and all.

Post 3

Sunday, October 24, 2004 - 8:55pm

Orion,

I don't think there are too many people that refute that global warming is taking place. However, the questions we must ask are:

- To what extent is human activity impacting the warming? If the answer to this question is ultimately "little to none," then we simply just have to adjust to what the environment gives us. The earth's climate has undergone drastic changes (ice ages and so forth) prior to humans even existing. We can thus conclude at a minimum that climate is not stagnant and is in fact dynamic independent of human activity.

- What will the long term consequences of the warming be? Specicially, are doomsday scenarios plausible and/or likely?

- Will corrective regulation noticably improve the situation?

There is no scientific consensus on these questions. The global warming crowd's argument (for regulation) usually comes down to some form of "better safe than sorry," which isn't necessarilly bad wisdom, but it is entirely possible that proposed actions to make us "safe" might harm our economy in way that's ultimately worse than whatever the state of "sorry" entails in actuality.

However, that being said, if true doomsday scenario were proved to be a highly likely occurence, I would favor regulation to correct that if it seemed feasible. I just don't think the science is there at this time to get me to hold that view.

Post 4

Sunday, October 24, 2004 - 10:43pm

Orion, you wrote:

" If Ayn Rand says that gravity exists, and that black is white, I support what is obviously a true statement, disregard what is false, and conclude that Ayn Rand can be right at times, and wrong at times, and that it's probably not wise to subscribe to some entire "Ayn Rand Package", snail darter comments and all."

James knows this better than most people. Besides, Rand never said a word about global warming.

Barbara

Post 5

Sunday, October 24, 2004 - 10:46pm

Pete, you wrote:

"I don't think there are too many people that refute that global warming is taking place."

You are mistaken. A great many people -- including many scientists who study the subject -- deny this.

Barbara

Post 6

Monday, October 25, 2004 - 11:33am

Ms. Branden,

Yes, I know... Back when was alive and writing commentary, the environmental issues were pollution and deforestation... and she thought it was ridiculous that human needs were being supplanted to accommodate creatures like the snail darter.

It seemed to me that she was eschewing the notion that environmental protection mattered... However, it is also possible that -- although she might have intended to but never made it clear -- what really bothered her was the lack of any sound and meticulously explicit line of logic for engaging in certain "environmental protections". I wonder if she did not, in fact, agree with environmental protection if it could be rationally justified.

But then again, part of me thinks no. From her writings, she seemed preoccupied only with what mankind could achieve synthetically, as a testimony to his rational mind (such as skyscrapers and railroads). I don't think that she would have been particularly enamored of those things which flourished independently of the human mind, such as snail darters and the ozone layer.

I think she probably conceived nature as relentless, unstoppable, and savage, and the enemy of man in his struggle to survive... and that such an enemy certainly did not require our "molly-coddling", but would certainly instead re-grow itself back automatically.

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 10/25, 11:34am)

Post 7

Monday, October 25, 2004 - 5:07pm

Barbara- I'll send you a brochure on The Society for Starving Old People. We don't have any material yet for The Society for Starving Old People Slowly, an obvious improvement just recently thought up at a clandestine Republican gathering.

Post 8

Monday, October 25, 2004 - 5:59pm

During the past 2 (it is not clear when this was written) years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.

Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and
environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.

Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other
life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.

Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

A year or two ago I took it upon myself to contact about 10 of these petitioners to satisfy myself that it was legitimate. A number of them didn't remember signing the petition as it was some years previous, but they agreed with the premise. I have no doubts about the validity of this survey.

This is the petition they signed:
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December,1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.

Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Here is a 53 minute video of a global warming lecture from the same institution:

http://www.oism.org/oism/lecture/viewer/lectureplayer.htm

Perhaps you may argue that this position is not the majority position (I don't know) but it is still a significant portion.

Sam

Post 9

Monday, October 25, 2004 - 7:29pm

Barbara, are you suggesting that there has not been a slow rise in average temperatures over the past century?

Post 10

Monday, October 25, 2004 - 7:57pm

Pete, there have been rises and falls in temperatures for as many centuries as we have knowledge of.

Barbara

Post 11

Monday, October 25, 2004 - 10:34pm

The Earth gives off so much heat naturally that the small (in comparison) amount of heat generated by industrialized society isn't worth mentioning. The planet goes through heat fluctuations all the time, as evidenced by ice ages and other anomalies.

In addition, there was arguably more heat generated 75 years ago than today, with a larger number of coal-burning, smoke-billowing factories, trains, and machinery. The fuels burned today are far cleaner than the coal burned generations ago, so if global warming was a fact, the temperatures would be going back down these days! Factories for the most part are under regulations to lessen emissions, automobile makers have been producing more efficient cars with less emissions. The list goes on and on.

Global warming is a myth!

Post 12

Monday, October 25, 2004 - 10:50pm

Sarcasm usually flies right by me. Not this time! Thanks for making me laugh. Bush froze to death? HA! I may have to see this movie just to laugh at the ridiculousness of it. But that probably won't be worth the $3 it will cost me at Hollywood Video, plus the feeling of seeing one more stupid movie. Stupid movies abound, and I keep seeing them, hoping they are good. Damn disappointment.

And Orion, I'm no expert, but I remember reading something about why there are many more hurricanes this year-- there are cycles of 20 years of extreme weather, and we are entering one of those twenty year cycles. Check on it, anyway if you want.

I used to be afraid of this stuff. Why should one be? If (if!) another ice age happens it happens. I am optimistic about the capacity of humans to adapt and thrive.

Post 13

Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 9:25am

In regards to whether or not mankind can affect global warming: Is anyone here familiar with theories on Mars colonization? One idea is that we are able to change Mars by melting the polar caps, creating a greenhouse effect, which in this case, would be beneficial for humans, since an atmosphere would be created. If it is possible to do this, wouldn't it be possible, then, to do the same on Earth? Just brainstorming.

Post 14

Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 1:27pm

Well of course it's possible to affect the earth's temperature on purpose but as a result of everyday human habitation it isn't happening, and will likely never happen from that cause.

Your logic of comparing this to the Mars issue is flawed.

Post 15

Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 8:31pm

Ok then...

Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 12:55am

Those who live in Florida have learned that the last time there were four major hurricanes within a month, was way back during the height of some of the industrial era's very worst pollution, earlier this century and last century.

Although the average pollution output per person has dropped significantly since then, the human population since then has expanded exponentially, and so we're back up to having quite a lot of pollution coming as an overall output... especially in the underdeveloped nations, such as India.

Had the state of Florida not been through a ludicrous four hurricanes inside of one month, my inner jury on global warming would have no verdict; but after that, no way. Global warming is making an awful lot of sense to me now.

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 10/27, 12:57am)

Post 17

Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 8:35am

Jake, I was suggesting that IF it is possible that we could purposely create a greenhouse effect on another planet based on current activities on Earth, then isn't it possible that we could be doing it on Earth accidentally. It was just an experimental thought, not necessarily a great feat of logic. Pointing out that you think it's flawed, what, do you want a cookie? I make a mean chocolate chip. ;)
Out of curiosity, has anyone read RED MARS by Kim Stanley Robinson, or THE CASE FOR MARS, by Robert Zubrin?
Personally, I am of the mindset that the environment could be changing for the worse naturally, as it has before, and that our toxic emissions mean nothing on the universal scheme of things. But if we are changing our environment with chemicals and such, then we have to take responsibility, and distinguish from the physical and the manmade...looking at south Philadelphia, or North Jersey, I cringe at every dirty, sooty smokestack I can find.

Post 18

Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 11:25am

I would still have to argue that the effort it would take to purposely create such an effect would be so great that the accidental achievement of such a feat would be impossible.

Also, the "population bomb" as a problem is a myth as well, devised by the Western world as a reason to limit the growth of populations in Africa, India, China, and other non-Western and/or non-White regions. No one is trying to curb the growth of populations in North America or Western Europe!

And yes, by the way, I would love a cookie. I'm fat. Fat kids + cookies = bliss. I think that's Bernouli's principle or something... :)

Post 19

Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 12:07pm