Wednesday, October 01, 2008

Keeping our cool - a response to comments.

Yesterday and today I posted a comment to the Desmogblog, http://www.desmogblog.com/canadian-science-book-crosses-boldly-into-politics, in reply to an article about Andrew Weaver's book, Keeping Our Cool.
What follows below is a copy of these two posts.

Posted on September 30, 2008
Dogma: [Gr. dogma that which seems true, an opinion, from dokeo, to seem.] A settled opinion or belief; a tenet; an opinion or doctrine received on authority, as opposed to one obtained from experience or demonstration.

After reading the previous comments, a few often used words or ideas continually appeared to me.

First; the blame game.
No single individual or organisation is soley responsible for global warming. We are all responsible! The only question is how much responsibility is allocated to each individual and organisation.

Second; that we are too small and thus our measly amount of CO2 emissions makes no difference compared to others.
Richard Littlemore’s response more or less said it all.

Third; the environmental scientists are nothing more than dogma chasing zealots that are afraid to even hear the other side of the debate.
The real, as opposed to junk, climate science is very clear about the atmospheric effect that results from the introduction of CO2 into the Earth’s atmosphere. Simply put, if there was no CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere the mean global temperature would be around -15C. Therefore, if CO2 has helped warm the planet, than an increase in atmospheric CO2 will cause an increase in global mean temperature. No debate necessary. This is not dogmatic; it is fact, arrived at by using the scientific method.

Fourth; the IPCC is not a scientific body, it is a political one.
The IPCC is a scientific body that must report to a political body. Composed of thousands of climate scientists from around the world, the IPCC reviews and constructs a consensus from the leading peer reviewed scientific research available. Unfortunately, the scientific consensus is then diluted by the political body. The result of this is process is that the actual scientific data is somewhat less “accurate”. Anyone who has read reports or listened to interviews given by IPCC scientists would know about this frustrating aspect of the process.

Fifth; the very people who are telling you to make changes to save the planet are themselves jet setting about the world while living in huge mansions and spewing out CO2. They are nothing more than hypocrites.
This is a very difficult point to deal with. Most of them claim to be purchasing carbon offsets. I don’t like carbon offsets. As George Monbiot said, “carbon offsets are the equivalent of medieval indulgences, they are simply designed to remove the quilt while you continue to pollute”. Like anything else in this world, you must always accept the source of you information before you can accept what that source is imparting to you. I like George Monbiot because he practices what he preaches.

And finally; the criticism of the peer review system, as found on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is not the fountain of knowledge that some people think it is. In fact, due to its “anybody can submit their opinion” nature, it is very easy to manipulate a definition to create a favourable outcome for the author. It is a well known fact that many entries have been manipulated to remove negative or truthful information from certain entries. The majority of the manipulations have come from the vary organisations that have the most to lose if the truth was exposed. Don’t simply rely on one source for all of your information. Consult multiple sources and verify their affiliations. Organisations backed by corporate sponsors tend to slant their conclusions to support their benefactors.

In response to the the reply post submitted by Rick, he pointed out that since CO2 is only 1% of all greenhouse gases, it seemed unlikely that it alone could be responsible for such a huge temperature variation.

Posted on October 1, 2008
Here is what I have found so far.

You're definitely correct that CO2 alone is not responsible for a 30 degree temperature swing.

I haven't been able to relocate my original source of info, however; I have found many other sources that confirm that the greenhouse effect does produce a 30 degree swing form -15C to 15C.

It is truly a joy to take part in a productive discussion in which participants present their opinions, without insulting others, and work towards a better understanding of the issue at hand.

We all make mistakes.

Thank you Rick for helping me correct my mistake.

p.s. I'm going to continue this line of research. I'm interested to know just what the influence on temperature each gas has on the overall warming.

1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

кони секс бесплатно
соло секс
секс гибкие девушки
порнофильм про дзюдоисток
усталость после секса
sex kbbs php
секс знакомства тольятти
порно рэп скачать клип
попки азиатки
porna seks живтнами

7:21 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home