No Conspiracies?

[Rick Deckard]

The problem is that the issue is so politicized now that it's almost beyond recovery. I despair, too.

I've heard that Venus and Mars are also 'warming up' - I'm gonna investigate further - I wonder how Al Gore will explain that one...

...the Mars Rovers must be kicking out *A LOT* of CO2. I knew it was a bad idea to power them with coal...

 

[Rick Deckard]

If, for example, you believe that Skull and Bones, the Bilderberg group and the Tri-Lateral Commission rule the world, you have to provide hard evidence for that. If you can't, you're only speculating, and speculation is not theory.

You forgot the Council for Foreign Relations and PNAC (the Project for the New American Century).

And yes, I do believe that the members of these organisations represent 'the Elite' and they are 'plotting' in secret. Maybe their intentions are benign. Maybe their intentions have all our interests at heart. Maybe they're plotting to create a New World Order with themselves at the top of the tree. Maybe they're fighting an invasion by ETIs. Maybe they meet to play poker.

Who knows?

If you look at the list of people and the companies that they represent (oil producers, new agencies, big business, governments, military, banks) that attend these meetings you can't help but be suspicious about their motives...

...especially when the same group members land all the key jobs in Governments and other key areas of influence such as the big news networks...

 

[CapnG]

I've heard that Venus and Mars are also 'warming up' - I'm gonna investigate further - I wonder how Al Gore will explain that one...

That one churns my butter. So let me get this straight; according to the non-global warming crowd, the THOUSANDS of scientists who've been studying the ecology of the planet we all live on for centuries are clompletely off base but the handful of scientists who've been studying other planets for a scant few decades are right on track? What kind of diseased, desperation argument is that?!?

 

[Rick Deckard]

That one churns my butter. So let me get this straight; according to the non-global warming crowd, the THOUSANDS of scientists who've been studying the ecology of the planet we all live on for centuries are clompletely off base but the handful of scientists who've been studying other planets for a scant few decades are right on track? What kind of diseased, desperation argument is that?!?

You sound more desparate than I. I've no idea what the "non-global warming crowd" are saying - that is *not* my position.

The issue I'm exploring is *NOT* whether global warming is real because we can all see that it is. The issue is whether the warming is *caused by CO2* and specifically whether *human activity* produces enough CO2 to make a difference to climate.

Why was Europe several degrees warmer during Roman times than it is today?

Why was Europe several degrees warmer during the period 1100 to 1500 (Climatologists refer to that period as the "Medieval Warm Period")?

Why was Europe several degrees cooler during the period 1600-1800 than it is today (Climatologists refer to that period as the "Little Ice Age")?

Why did temperatures drop year on year between 1950 and 1980 even though human-CO2 output was increasing during the same period?

The alternative theory to CO2 causing the warming, suggests that solar activity is the cause - if it can be proven that Mars and Venus are also warming, doesn't that put a *another* bullet in the human-CO2 argument?

And another thing - how much CO2 do we humans put into the atmosphere compared to volcanoes, the ocean (which absorbs and releases hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 over long cycles) and vegetation? The answer is a very small amount in comparson.

One more thing - how much emphasis is being put on water vapour? This is the most abundant 'greenhouse' gas (as much as 85% of all greenhouse gas in the atmosphere), it also has a greater effect than CO2 and yet it is being 'overlooked' by the pro-human-CO2 brigade.

This whole issue has been hi-jacked by the politicians who are following their own blinkered agendas in an effort to stem the development activities of China and Africa who both have huge oil and coal reserves that they could utilise if only the developed countries would allow them. How long before they start to boycott goods produced in the 'dirty' economies?

Finally, I would *prefer* it if we didn't burn fossil fuels - if the technology for clean, free (or nearly free) energy exists (and some say it does) then I wish someone would dig the crate out of the 'warehouse' and start the ball rolling on a non-polluting industrial revolution..

 

[hopeful skeptic]

I don't think personal feelings would satisfy an english teacher for use of grammatically nonsensical term. "Homicide bombings"? As opposed to what, the life-generating kind? It's silly. It's like when I hear someone say "dead corpse", makes me want to illustrate the redundancy by means of demonstration...

Well, I taught English for a few years, and I don't see any redundancy at all. Dead and corpse can be synonyms for the same thing: something no longer alive. Homicide means something was killed - the act of killing someone, but bombings doesn't. Not everyone is killed in a bombing. Some bombings occur with no deaths at all, only injuries, and some leave folks completely unscathed. Homicide bombing, to me, means that a bombing that killed people was carried out - that's all.

But I can see your point of view, and why some would find it annoying.

 

[hopeful skeptic]

That one churns my butter. So let me get this straight; according to the non-global warming crowd, the THOUSANDS of scientists who've been studying the ecology of the planet we all live on for centuries are clompletely off base but the handful of scientists who've been studying other planets for a scant few decades are right on track? What kind of diseased, desperation argument is that?!?

The issue centers around the cause of global warming. I don't necessarily see lots of dissent around whether the planet is hotter now than it was thirty years ago. It is. The argument that humanity - really Western civilization, since Al Gore somehow excuses China, India and emerging economies from guilt - is causing the warming trend is at issue.

There is clear, measurable evidence that other planets close to us are warming up, too, and in ways that seem to parallel the upward curve of temperature on the Earth. That's an inconvenient truth, but it's there, and it demands explanation. There's clear evidence that these warming trends are cyclical, and have taken place in periods in which industrialized, carbon dioxide-emitting civilizations did not exist. We can't pick and choose only certain evidence that supports a political point of view - or any kind of view, for that matter.

And I take strong issue with your characterization of dissenting opinions on global warming as coming from "a handful" of other scientists whove "been studying other planets for a few decades." That's just not the case at all. There's a long, long list of qualified, credentialled, published, peer-reviewed scientists here on Earth who don't believe in Al Gore's model of global warming.

 

[hopeful skeptic]

You forgot the Council for Foreign Relations and PNAC (the Project for the New American Century).

I excluded them, among others, because listing every organization suspected by conspiracy theorists would take a dedicated website.

And yes, I do believe that the members of these organisations represent 'the Elite' and they are 'plotting' in secret.

What direct evidence do you have of the nature of these plots? What direct evidence do you have that tells you they are being implemented? How do you know if they've been successful?

I really don't understand the paranormal, conspiracy theory crowd. It's almost schizophrenic. The same people who decry the condition of the planet - some of whom also believe we're so bad that aliens from outer space are compelled to help us, for reasons I know not - also believe that shadow organizations are manipulating things in such a way as to destroy the foundation of their wealth and power. How is it in anyone's long-term interest to destroy and debase the very institutions on which their wealth and power are built?

Maybe their intentions are benign. Maybe their intentions have all our interests at heart. Maybe they're plotting to create a New World Order with themselves at the top of the tree. Maybe they're fighting an invasion by ETIs. Maybe they meet to play poker.

Who knows?

See, I don't get this. If we have no idea what their intentions are, and no evidence of their intentions, why do we suspect them of plotting?

If you look at the list of people and the companies that they represent (oil producers, new agencies, big business, governments, military, banks) that attend these meetings you can't help but be suspicious about their motives...

Why? Anticorporatism and antiglobalism aside, powerful, rich people tend to coalesce together. So do paranormal people. Would the rich and powerful be justified in suspecting paranormal people of plotting? Why not? Paranormal people attend their own conferences, accuse the government and multinationals of all kinds of controlled, planned evildoing (sans direct evidence, of course), call for their reform or overthrow, have websited dedicated to these theories, gather in discussion forums to propound them. Why aren't paranormal people in cahoots with aliens to rip away from Earth its lawful, established governments?

...especially when the same group members land all the key jobs in Governments and other key areas of influence such as the big news networks...

I see no uniformity of action at all, though. Governments are at each other's throats, corporations do anything they can under the law (and sometimes, like Chiquita, outside the law) to get an edge over their competitors, all for a measly buck? The same currency they're accused of conspiring to debase?

 

[musictomyears]

I really don't understand the paranormal, conspiracy theory crowd. It's almost schizophrenic. The same people who decry the condition of the planet - some of whom also believe we're so bad that aliens from outer space are compelled to help us, for reasons I know not - also believe that shadow organizations are manipulating things in such a way as to destroy the foundation of their wealth and power. How is it in anyone's long-term interest to destroy and debase the very institutions on which their wealth and power are built?

I am surprised that this isn't obvious to you. About the aliens, if indeed we are being visited regularly, then people from other worlds might feel compassionate towards the human race, and warn us of the consequences of our misguided actions. Compassion is also a human trait, at least is some quarters.

(BTW, there is no "paranormal, conspiracy theory crowd", except for in your imagination. There are only individuals, such as yourself, who hold certain beliefs. Some of those beliefs might be similar to those held by others, while some patently aren't. Generalisations obscure the issues one is trying to discuss, and put everyone on the defensive.)

About "How is it in anyone's long-term interest to destroy and debase the very institutions on which their wealth and power are built?", all you need to do is take a glance at history. The German (and Italien, etc.) fascists made a huge effort, and innumerable personal sacrifices, in order to build a world of their dreams. They were idealists - perhaps not so different from the idealistic necons of recent times. They really, truly believed that they were doing the right thing, when they started wars, exterminated entire sections of society, and suppressed freedom of thought and expression. They were fanatical, deadly determined - and ill. Mentally ill, yet superficially functional in the practical pursuit of their aims.

Megalomania is the word. Megalomania is quite common, even outside mental institutions. Highly qualified people with PhDs helped Hitler with marching an entire continent into the biggest catastrophe ever.

This was possible 60 years ago, and it is possible today. Or, as has been noted before: "The only thing we learn from history is, that man doesn't learn from history".

 

[Rick Deckard]

What direct evidence do you have of the nature of these plots? What direct evidence do you have that tells you they are being implemented? How do you know if they've been successful?

Well, I look at the state of the world and wonder if it is by accident or design.

Recent news story number 1:

Here in the UK, we recently 'won' the right to stage the 2012 olympics. The original cost put forward was £2,100,000,000 GBP (~ $4,000,000,000 USD) - our government has just announced that they 'missed' certain factors in the original estimate and are now putting a figure forward of £9,200,000,000 GBP ( ~ $18,000,000,000 USD ). With 5 years to go, most people are expecting the final cost to be nearer £20,000,000,000 GBP ( ~ $39,000,000,000 USD).

So, the UK, a country with a population 1/5 that of the USA, is going to spend twenty-thousand-million-pounds ( thirty-nine-thousand-million-dollars ) on a two-week sporting event and yet we don't have the resources to solve world poverty?

(I deliberately chose to avoid the word 'billion' because I feel it diminishes ones appreciation of the scale of the sums of money involved).

Recent news story 2:

Because it has been proved beyond all-reasonable-doubt (not) that CO2 emissions are gonna trigger the end of the world, our government is proposing 'green' taxes. These taxes are designed to reduce carbon emmissions by pricing certain people out of certain forms of transport. The wealthy can still go about their daily lives as before - they won't have to reduce their CO2 emmissions because they can afford the taxes.

And will the extra tax revenues be spent on 'green' issues rather than going into funding another war (with Iran or North Korea) - the UK Government hasn't yet made a firm commitment about where the money is going to be spent.


Does it not bother you that Bush, Cheney, Rice et al have massive conflicts of interest? They all have very strong links to oil and big business and they are at the heart of the US Government - isn't there a danger that they will follow policies that will line their own pockets rather than those policies that could make the world a better place?

My *belief* is that the two extremes of the super-rich and the poor is maintained by those at the top of tree - because where there's vulnerability, there is opportunity of control through reliance. Am I wrong to believe that?

 

[CapnG]

You sound more desparate than I. I've no idea what the "non-global warming crowd" are saying - that is *not* my position.

I couldn't think how to phrase it. "Anti-global warming" would have been incorrect. "Con-global warming" too.

Why was Europe several degrees warmer during Roman times than it is today?

Why was Europe several degrees warmer during the period 1100 to 1500 (Climatologists refer to that period as the "Medieval Warm Period")?

Why was Europe several degrees cooler during the period 1600-1800 than it is today (Climatologists refer to that period as the "Little Ice Age")?

Why did temperatures drop year on year between 1950 and 1980 even though human-CO2 output was increasing during the same period?

I'm not sure, I'm not a climatoligist. I would imagine there's some sort of time-delayed reaction taking place but that's just a guess. Here's one thing I do know, the earth's ecosystem is just that a system. When the system is off-balance, adjustments will be made to compensate because all systems have tollerances. Earth's system obviously has the tollerance to deal with volcanoes, solar flares, forest fires, etc. All built into the system. Know what's not? Industry. That's all us. Farming too. And landfills, massive quantities of methane produced there (and now being reclaimed by some enterprising folks). Anyone who thinks humans have a negligable impact on the environment should drive down to their local industrial district and watch the literal tons of garbage coming out of those smokestacks. You think that crap's just going to magically go away? It's dissapating, not disappearing.

How many drops of urine can you add to a glass of water before it becomes undrinkable? 100? 1000? 10,000? Want to try it and see? Or would you rather stop adding urine?

This is how I see global warming (although more accurately, it's how I see pollution and GW is a side-effect). Are we partially responsible? Probably. Are we TOTALLY responsible? Probably not. Should we start living like we are responsible? Absolutely. That way, no matter who's wrong, we're still right. What alarms me however is this "not me" attitude of those who discount global warming as if the activities of humans cannot POSSIBLY effect life here on earth. That's egotistical and irresponsible.

You'll note however that this is my opinion and isn't based on hard science. There's a reason for that. Maybe it's just me but I've noticed this whole thing turining into a pissing contest. Basically it goes like this;

Bill- Global warming is real! We gotta do something
Ed- Says who?
Bill- Scientists of course, lots of them.
Ed- They're politically motivated! It's all junk science!
Bill- Says who?
Ed-...er... scientists... lots of 'em...

Anyone else see the problem?

 

[hopeful skeptic]

I'm not sure, I'm not a climatoligist. I would imagine there's some sort of time-delayed reaction taking place but that's just a guess. Here's one thing I do know, the earth's ecosystem is just that a system. When the system is off-balance, adjustments will be made to compensate because all systems have tollerances. Earth's system obviously has the tollerance to deal with volcanoes, solar flares, forest fires, etc. All built into the system. Know what's not? Industry. That's all us. Farming too. And landfills, massive quantities of methane produced there (and now being reclaimed by some enterprising folks).

But CapnG, what evidence do we have that Earth "compensates" for too much of this or that? We've had Ice Ages, which are hardly evidence of moderation on Earth's part; the dinosaur period saw high humidity and high temperatures, which was another extreme, etc. You're presuming that there is a correlative line of increase common to global temperatures and industrialization. There isn't. These temperature fluctuations have gone on throughout human history - heck, we had a mini-Ice Age during the Middle Ages. In ancient times, Earth was more temperate than even today. If pollution from industrialization was the cause, why should we not be warming at a rate commensurate with the spread of industrialization? And considering widespread industrialization didn't hit most of the world until the 20th century, how do we get around these periods of great fluctuation - up and down - before that time?

Anyone who thinks humans have a negligable impact on the environment should drive down to their local industrial district and watch the literal tons of garbage coming out of those smokestacks. You think that crap's just going to magically go away? It's dissapating, not disappearing.

Volcanoes and extraterrestrial objects striking Earth cause far more CO2 emissions than all of our industrialization - through all our history - put together. The emissions from these events goes away, eventually. I guess I'm not sure what the difference is between dissipating and disappearing.

And how would one explain the clear warming trends on nearby planets (Mars, Jupiter, Venus, etc.)? We're not putting up any CO2 emissions there, and they are still warming? Earth isn't warming in a vaccuum, so any explanation of why global warming exists - and the solution to "fix" it, if it could even be fixed - must account for contrary evidence, too. Not just the evidence that fits a politically-motivated conclusion.

How many drops of urine can you add to a glass of water before it becomes undrinkable? 100? 1000? 10,000? Want to try it and see? Or would you rather stop adding urine?

Aren't you assuming we're the only ones peeing in the glass, though?

This is how I see global warming (although more accurately, it's how I see pollution and GW is a side-effect). Are we partially responsible? Probably. Are we TOTALLY responsible? Probably not. Should we start living like we are responsible? Absolutely. That way, no matter who's wrong, we're still right. What alarms me however is this "not me" attitude of those who discount global warming as if the activities of humans cannot POSSIBLY effect life here on earth. That's egotistical and irresponsible.

But there is substantial debate as to how much humans can affect global warming changes - that's the real gist of the debate. Asking competitive, advanced, established economies - suspiciously only Western ones - to put substantial dampers on their economies and place themselves at a severe competitive disadvantage (the Kyoto Protocol, for example) without ever having proved that the regulations would affect anything at all is destabilizing, dangerous and irresponsible.

You'll note however that this is my opinion and isn't based on hard science. There's a reason for that. Maybe it's just me but I've noticed this whole thing turining into a pissing contest. Basically it goes like this;

Bill- Global warming is real! We gotta do something
Ed- Says who?
Bill- Scientists of course, lots of them.
Ed- They're politically motivated! It's all junk science!
Bill- Says who?
Ed-...er... scientists... lots of 'em...

Anyone else see the problem?

You're setting up a straw man as your anti-global warming voice. I'd characterize the vast, vast majority of the anti-global warming crowd this way:

Bill - Global warming is real! We gotta do something.
Ed - The median temperature of the planet is definitely up half a degree, though this has happened before. If there was any evidence we're causing it, or could substantially stop it, I'd agree with you.
Bill - But scientists say so, lots of them.
Ed - Lots of scientists have doubts about Al Gore's model, too. Isn't relying on the number of voices in your favor an appeal to popularity?

Feel free to rip away, CapnG.

 

[hopeful skeptic]

I am surprised that this isn't obvious to you. About the aliens, if indeed we are being visited regularly, then people from other worlds might feel compassionate towards the human race, and warn us of the consequences of our misguided actions. Compassion is also a human trait, at least is some quarters.

If/then conclusions rely on logic, though. You're making a conclusion based on a phenomena for which no single scrap of hard evidence has ever been advanced.

You are absolutely correct in noting that compassion is a human trait (some higher animals display it, too), but so is cruelty. And if compassion is a human trait, why do you imagine an alien would have it, but not have cruelty? These theoretical aliens may have social systems and mores that have no parallels at all with human ones. I don't understand ufology's mad desire to impart to aliens a compassion for humanity and a desire to interact with us and "save" our planet. My hunch is that the larger portion of the ufology crowd has a political dog in the fight, and it's fun to imagine that UFOs are coming to fix our problems.

(BTW, there is no "paranormal, conspiracy theory crowd", except for in your imagination. There are only individuals, such as yourself, who hold certain beliefs. Some of those beliefs might be similar to those held by others, while some patently aren't. Generalisations obscure the issues one is trying to discuss, and put everyone on the defensive.)

How is that a generalization? There are a bunch of people on this board who believe in conspiracy theories, and the board is dedicated to paranormal subjects. If there's no "paranormal conspiracy theory crowd," Coast to Coast wouldn't have an audience, and Messrs Steinberg and Biedny wouldn't host this board.

About "How is it in anyone's long-term interest to destroy and debase the very institutions on which their wealth and power are built?", all you need to do is take a glance at history. The German (and Italien, etc.) fascists made a huge effort, and innumerable personal sacrifices, in order to build a world of their dreams.

They were building societies that were perceived as being better than the bourgeois, decadent rot they saw around them. They weren't looking to rape the world solely for their own benefit, and the hell with the rest. The Nazis were building a "Thousand Year Reich." Mussolini was resurrecting a New Roman Empire. The Japanese constructed a "Co-Prosperity Sphere."

While party leaders were enriched (they always are, incidentally), they had larger societal goals in mind.

(Note: I am not defending fascism and Nazism here. Not at all. I'm speaking from their perspective.)

This was possible 60 years ago, and it is possible today. Or, as has been noted before: "The only thing we learn from history is, that man doesn't learn from history".

No, but he can misunderstand it and only selectively take those things from it that support his own worldview.

 

[hopeful skeptic]

Well, I look at the state of the world and wonder if it is by accident or design.

Recent news story number 1: [overspending on the UK Olympics]...and yet we don't have the resources to solve world poverty?

Well, if you're looking at me to defend overspending on the Olympics in return for a dubious economic benefit, I won't, because the United States has run this track many times (Atlanta, Salt Lake City [famously], Los Angeles, for example). I don't know how this is evidence of a world-wide conspiracy by the ruling elite, though. You'd have to show me hard evidence of how money goes from the UK directly into the pockets of the conspirators. You'd have to show me that the accused conspirators control the mechanism by which the UK decided to make its bid, the mechanism by which the UK was awarded the Games, etc. Do you really believe a conspiracy that vast leaves no trail at all?

I'd suggest you would also have to explain why anyone has a responsibility to solve the (often self-imposed) poverty problems of someone in another country, but that is another debate for another time.

Recent news story 2: our government is proposing 'green' taxes....[wealthy still get away with their form of life]....[where will the money be spent]

But this is a conversation whenever any tax on anything is imposed. Taxes always adversely affect those who are in the worst position to pay them: the middle class. In an environment of rising inflation and rising costs of living, the poor are generally excused from the majority of taxes - in fact, government tax revenue sometimes goes to support the poor - and the rich are wealthy enough to afford them. That leaves the middle class to be hit the hardest.

But how is that hard evidence - or evidence of any kind - of a global conspiracy? What you're decrying here are ill-conceived taxes and the amassing of funds by the government. Hey, join the parade!

Here in Ohio, for example, our illustrious governor (a Republican, no less) raised gasoline taxes in a state that depends greatly on transportation and interstate commerce for its economic growth and stability. Ostensibly, gasoline taxes gathered by the state go toward road building and repair (Ohio's roads are routinely rated as among the worst by truckers and the AAA). Instead, the money raised went to a plethora of other projects, including a $42,000 grant given to the University of Akron to study why prisoners try to escape from prison.

This isn't evidence of a conspiracy. This is stupidity.

[Bush, Cheney, Rice, et al, have stock in oil companies]

Corporations are the world's most transparent organizations. One can go online and easily find out what their officers make, what their profits are, where their investments lie, where they are incorporated, how much their last tax bill was, what tax breaks they were given, etc. Corporations are required to provide this transparency by law.

If the much-maligned Bush and Cheney were involved in, or pawns of, a global conspiracy to do I-know-not-what, why are these conflicts of interest even known to the public? Why don't the conspirators hide these investments? In short, why is it so easy to find chinks in the armor of people who are supposedly intertwined in the most nefarious, secretive, duplicitous, cunning organizations in all the world?

If this is the caliber of the global conspiracy, I'm more than happy to let it continue, because it's inefficient and clumsy.

My *belief* is that the two extremes of the super-rich and the poor is maintained by those at the top of tree - because where there's vulnerability, there is opportunity of control through reliance. Am I wrong to believe that?

What anyone believes is beside the point. What the hard evidence shows is what is at hand, and what matters. I would argue that the presence of poor and ultra-rich is hardly new, and has existed throughout human history.

I personally feel that market capitalism is the best way yet discovered to encourage competition and rising earnings, but that's just me.

 

[Rick Deckard]

I could say that you'll never get your 'evidence' because whenever an 'independent' enquiry is ordered, no conspiracy is found. Is that surprising?

But I don't think you'd except that.

Are you happy with the findings of 9/11 Commission Report? Are you satisfied that they comprehensively investigated and answered all the difficult questions that have arisen around the whole event? I'm not.

I cannot give you any evidence for my suspicions. Why? Because I cannot, as a private individual, access all the information that I would need to look at. Or do you believe that I can?

Not all capitalism is bad - but we sure have been shown a lot of the 'bad' side in recent years.

 

[Rick Deckard]

Corporations are the world's most transparent organizations. One can go online and easily find out what their officers make, what their profits are, where their investments lie, where they are incorporated, how much their last tax bill was, what tax breaks they were given, etc. Corporations are required to provide this transparency by law.

How do you know that they are the most transparent organizations? If they are acting illegally will that show up in their public records? I doubt it.

What if the corporation has close links with the military and wraps all it's operations up in secrecy - how transparent are they then?

What if the CIA is the *real* terrorist organization - would that be apparent to all?

How did Bush become president? Is he *really* the best person to run your country? Did you vote for him? Isn't it strange that his father was *also* the US president - two 'brilliant' men born of the same family - now what are the chances of that happening?

Probably best not to mention grand-daddy Prescott Bush and his *alleged* links with the funding of the Nazi war machine...

...oh look, here's one of your corporations - Union Banking Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

 

[CapnG]

But CapnG, what evidence do we have that Earth "compensates" for too much of this or that? We've had Ice Ages, which are hardly evidence of moderation on Earth's part; the dinosaur period saw high humidity and high temperatures, which was another extreme, etc. You're presuming that there is a correlative line of increase common to global temperatures and industrialization. There isn't.

If that is so then a hefty portion of the scientific community is also making this "assumption". I would like to believe that scientists are sincere people doing work they consider valid and necessary and not merely political puppets. Some, maybe but most? I hope not.

These temperature fluctuations have gone on throughout human history - heck, we had a mini-Ice Age during the Middle Ages. In ancient times, Earth was more temperate than even today. If pollution from industrialization was the cause, why should we not be warming at a rate commensurate with the spread of industrialization? And considering widespread industrialization didn't hit most of the world until the 20th century, how do we get around these periods of great fluctuation - up and down - before that time?

Perhaps because our current science doesn't have the capacity to monitor the scale of those fluctuations, nor their rate. The earth is not a static object, it constantly changes over time. Why then would climate data from the cretacious period be considerd relevant to the modern earth? Additionally, there has never been any previous industralized society upon which to base any assumptions. We're our own guinea pig.

Volcanoes and extraterrestrial objects striking Earth cause far more CO2 emissions than all of our industrialization - through all our history - put together. The emissions from these events goes away, eventually. I guess I'm not sure what the difference is between dissipating and disappearing.

As I said, the earth's ecosystem is able to cope with these events as they are part of that system. The emissions do not "go away" either, the settle into the enviroment in the form of mist, dust and heat. As we continue to add in pollutants of our own making that would not otherwise be there we gradually offset that balance. Perhaps by as much only as 0.0000001% but that's still not zero. And unlike say a volcano or meteorite, our contribution is consistant and continuous.

And how would one explain the clear warming trends on nearby planets (Mars, Jupiter, Venus, etc.)? We're not putting up any CO2 emissions there, and they are still warming? Earth isn't warming in a vaccuum, so any explanation of why global warming exists - and the solution to "fix" it, if it could even be fixed - must account for contrary evidence, too. Not just the evidence that fits a politically-motivated conclusion.

Logic would point to solar activity. All the same, this doesn't preclude the possibility of a human factor in global warming, on the contrary it only aggrivates it further. Naturally we can't do anything about the sun but we can do plenty about us...

Aren't you assuming we're the only ones peeing in the glass, though?

No, I'm assuming the glass has a certain amount of pee in it naturally. Our pee is being added in on top of that and the brita filter is gradually approaching toxicity...

But there is substantial debate as to how much humans can affect global warming changes - that's the real gist of the debate. Asking competitive, advanced, established economies - suspiciously only Western ones - to put substantial dampers on their economies and place themselves at a severe competitive disadvantage (the Kyoto Protocol, for example) without ever having proved that the regulations would affect anything at all is destabilizing, dangerous and irresponsible.

If those societies are as advanced and competitive as we are led to believe then this shouldn't be an issue. I have faith in very few things in life but one I thing I know I can count on is human greed. As soon as someone figures out how to get rich off this scenario, the paradigm will shift in a heartbeat. In fact, this is the very reasoning why many believe there's an outright conspiracy to prevent such advances from occuring (not me though, I think the powers that be are just greedy and lazy and simply aren't willing to put in the effort).

Ed - Lots of scientists have doubts about Al Gore's model, too. Isn't relying on the number of voices in your favor an appeal to popularity?

Science is rule by consensus until someone breaks the consensus. Earth flat---> Earth round, Speed barrier unbreakable---> Speed barrier routinely broken, Global warming caused by....? Wait and see. Trouble is, California may have to become an island chain before we know for sure.

I'll tell you one thing I have noticed though, there's been a distinct change in the counter arguments over the past 10 years:

Early 90s- Global warming's a myth!
Mid 90s- Global warming's a mistake, we're actually cooling!
late 90s- Global warming's an exaggeration! It's perfectly natural!
Today- Global warming is... real... but it's not our fault! Honest, it was like that when we got here!

Humour me for a moment: Say global warming is man made (or at the very least, accelerated by man's industry). So we, as a species, put forth the effort to research and employ alternate means of power generation and manufacturing. Reduce pollution levels to almost nothing. Reclaim and recycle as much waste as possible to bring that down to almost nothing. Conserve, manage and refine use of existing resources. We struggle, we suffer but ultimately we make it, we get the utopia we've all dreamed of where high-tech humans can live and work within nature without having to become granola eating neo-hippies.

Then we make a startling discovery: Global warming wasn't our fault after all. Holy crap! We could have all been driving hummers for the next 3000 years and it wouldn't put a pimple on good ol' mother earth! Except of course we'd be living in a cleaner, more efficient, better world.

Remind me; why is this a bad thing?

 

[Rick Deckard]

Wow, didn't have to wait too long before someone drops the 'just in case' argument. Prevention is better than the cure, right?

The only sure way to ensure the Earth suffers no further damage is to wipe out the human race. Do you wanna go first, after all *YOU* are pumping out CO2 and water-vapour every time you breath out...

...conclusion - the population explosion of the last 200 years has caused the Earth to warm. We must all die to save the planet.

Try promoting that one.

 

[hopeful skeptic]

I could say that you'll never get your 'evidence' because whenever an 'independent' enquiry is ordered, no conspiracy is found. Is that surprising?

But I don't think you'd except that.

I can't imagine that no researcher anywhere in the world can come up with one piece of hard evidence to support the notion that there are sweeping global conspiracies afoot. Not one of them has anything more than coincidence, speculation and third-hand, uncorroborated reports. I'm surprised folks put so much stock into these things.

Are you happy with the findings of 9/11 Commission Report? Are you satisfied that they comprehensively investigated and answered all the difficult questions that have arisen around the whole event? I'm not.

Which difficult questions? I wish the 9/11 Commission Report had been broader in scope and less politicized, but the latter was probably not reasonable to expect, under the circumstances.

I cannot give you any evidence for my suspicions. Why? Because I cannot, as a private individual, access all the information that I would need to look at. Or do you believe that I can?

I believe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I believe that evidence of a global conspiracy of the weight and scope of those I hear so often forwarded by believers are insupportable.

Not all capitalism is bad - but we sure have been shown a lot of the 'bad' side in recent years.

There are few purely altruistic things in the world.

 

[Rick Deckard]

I can't imagine that no researcher anywhere in the world can come up with one piece of hard evidence to support the notion that there are sweeping global conspiracies afoot. Not one of them has anything more than coincidence, speculation and third-hand, uncorroborated reports. I'm surprised folks put so much stock into these things.

Are you happy with the findings of 9/11 Commission Report? Are you satisfied that they comprehensively investigated and answered all the difficult questions that have arisen around the whole event? I'm not.

Which difficult questions? I wish the 9/11 Commission Report had been broader in scope and less politicized, but the latter was probably not reasonable to expect, under the circumstances.



I believe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I believe that evidence of a global conspiracy of the weight and scope of those I hear so often forwarded by believers are insupportable.

Then I begin to wonder how much 'evidence' would satisfy your acceptance of anything outside the 'consensual reality'. I suspect that there is no such amount of evidence.

 

[hopeful skeptic]

If that is so then a hefty portion of the scientific community is also making this "assumption". I would like to believe that scientists are sincere people doing work they consider valid and necessary and not merely political puppets. Some, maybe but most? I hope not.

That's precisely my point. Many qualified scientists decry the Gore model of global warming because they believe the evidence shows that Gore's followers are making assumptions without evidence.

Perhaps because our current science doesn't have the capacity to monitor the scale of those fluctuations, nor their rate.

Then how does one know global warming is happening at all? If we don't have faith in measurements of global temperature taken 30, 50 or 100 years ago, on what basis can proponents of human-caused global warming say that the Earth is heating up?

The earth is not a static object, it constantly changes over time. Why then would climate data from the cretacious period be considerd relevant to the modern earth? Additionally, there has never been any previous industralized society upon which to base any assumptions. We're our own guinea pig.

The Earth is the Earth is the Earth. What is on it has changed, but the structure and essential chemistry of the planet has been pretty consistent since the Antedeluvian period. There is no difference chemically between CO2 emissions from active volcanoes and CO2 emissions from a coal plant. The question is whether all the industrialization in the world can be the sole cause of the planet's mean temperature to climb half a degree.

As I said, the earth's ecosystem is able to cope with these events as they are part of that system. The emissions do not "go away" either, the settle into the enviroment in the form of mist, dust and heat. As we continue to add in pollutants of our own making that would not otherwise be there we gradually offset that balance. Perhaps by as much only as 0.0000001% but that's still not zero. And unlike say a volcano or meteorite, our contribution is consistant and continuous.

Well, such a figure would be statistically insignificant, and not account for the 0.5 degree rise in global mean temperatures over the last 30 years. And massively handicapping the leading industrial nations of the world - the nations most responsible for wealth creation, political stability and technological innovation - seems a lot like using a sledgehammer to swat flies - unproven, possibly imaginary flies, at that.

Logic would point to solar activity. All the same, this doesn't preclude the possibility of a human factor in global warming, on the contrary it only aggrivates it further. Naturally we can't do anything about the sun but we can do plenty about us...

But you have to prove that the human factor is a significant factor. You also have to prove that the cure isn't worse than the disease.

No, I'm assuming the glass has a certain amount of pee in it naturally. Our pee is being added in on top of that and the brita filter is gradually approaching toxicity...

If those societies are as advanced and competitive as we are led to believe then this shouldn't be an issue. I have faith in very few things in life but one I thing I know I can count on is human greed. As soon as someone figures out how to get rich off this scenario, the paradigm will shift in a heartbeat. In fact, this is the very reasoning why many believe there's an outright conspiracy to prevent such advances from occuring (not me though, I think the powers that be are just greedy and lazy and simply aren't willing to put in the effort).

I worry very much about the real motivations behind Gore's climate control model. I see very little difference between his proposed cure and outright income redistribution. What communism and socialism could not accomplish, the rabid environmental lobby might.

Science is rule by consensus until someone breaks the consensus. Earth flat---> Earth round, Speed barrier unbreakable---> Speed barrier routinely broken, Global warming caused by....? Wait and see. Trouble is, California may have to become an island chain before we know for sure.

Science is not ruled by consensus. It's ruled by evidence. If there are 100 people in a room, 99 of whom believe checkered bunny rabbits are naturally produced, yet provide no evidence for their claims, and one in the room who provides evidence to the contrary, the one is acting scientifically, and the 99 aren't. That's why Galileo suffered as he did.

I'll tell you one thing I have noticed though, there's been a distinct change in the counter arguments over the past 10 years:

Early 90s- Global warming's a myth!
Mid 90s- Global warming's a mistake, we're actually cooling!
late 90s- Global warming's an exaggeration! It's perfectly natural!
Today- Global warming is... real... but it's not our fault! Honest, it was like that when we got here!

This is another straw man argument, CapnG, because the vast majority of scientists who don't believe in human-caused global warming have been asking for one simple thing: evidence. Show conclusive evidence that the planet's slight warming trend over the last 30 years is caused by man, is likely to continue, and can be solved by a change in man's behavior.

They have consistenly presented evidence - hard evidence - to the contrary. There is no question that the Earth has had warming and cooling cycles that correspond remarkably to increased solar activity, and that these cycles have occurred in periods in which mankind was not industrialized, or even in existence. They have provided evidence that other planets - planets where there is no industrialized human presence - are warming in a way that matches the relative rate of warming here on Earth. This evidence debases the very premise of the Al Gore crowd. Those folks cannot choose rhetoric over evidence without being unscientific bombasts.

Humour me for a moment: Say global warming is man made (or at the very least, accelerated by man's industry). So we, as a species, put forth the effort to research and employ alternate means of power generation and manufacturing. Reduce pollution levels to almost nothing. Reclaim and recycle as much waste as possible to bring that down to almost nothing. Conserve, manage and refine use of existing resources. We struggle, we suffer but ultimately we make it, we get the utopia we've all dreamed of where high-tech humans can live and work within nature without having to become granola eating neo-hippies.

Then we make a startling discovery: Global warming wasn't our fault after all. Holy crap! We could have all been driving hummers for the next 3000 years and it wouldn't put a pimple on good ol' mother earth! Except of course we'd be living in a cleaner, more efficient, better world.

Remind me; why is this a bad thing?

I'm not sure that what you're talking about is a utopia. but I'll go along. Any "suffering" that places a nation's competitive economy (and thus their national security) at risk is unwarranted if there is not a single reason to undertake it.

I have no objection at all to folks looking for alternate sources of energy. I strongly believe that getting off of oil would revolutionize U.S. foreign policy and allow the world to shuffle off the Middle East for good. I'm all in favor of that. But I do not believe that shelving oil dependency should be done to correct a problem I have no evidence exists, and I don't believe drastic, crippling handicaps should be placed on Western economies to fix it.

I think an alternate-fuels guy's best argument is the national security one. If you were arguing for alternate fuels on that basis, I'd buy you a drink and shake your hand. There's no question that the circumstances of oil production lends otherwise insignificant nations power and influence beyond all rationale. I don't think a real argument can be made for human-caused global warming because the evidence just isn't there and the cure is worse than the disease.