NationStates Jolt Archive

A few people have e-mailed me, taking issue with my characterization of Environmentalism. Allow me to cite one example of "Environmentalism gone bad" to prove my point. Take "global warming" for example. There have been several studies that show an increase of global temperatures of about 1/2 of a degree over the last 100 or so years. Environmentalist take this data and extrapolate it over the next century and claim that global temperatures will rise as much as 10 degrees, causing floods, famine, etc, etc.

The basis for these wild claims are studies which show a minute change of about 1/2 of a degree over the course of recorded history. But, all of these studies have one basic flaw - These studies rely solely on temperature data collected from weather monitoring stations. Every one of these studies chooses to ignore weather balloon data, which for some reason shows no indications of global warming what-so-ever.

You may be wondering why is there a discrepancy between these two data sets? Allow me to explain. Weather stations are often located in urban centers, and are thus susceptible to the "Urban heat island effect". You may have never heard of this term before, but I'm sure you are familiar with its effect. Have you ever been listen to a news report, and wonder why the temperatures in heavy urban areas are almost always a few degrees higher than the surrounding rural areas? If you've never noticed it before, I'm sure you've heard the weatherman say something like, The temp is currently 85 degrees in the country, 88 in the city. This is the "urban heat island" effect. It is caused by the fact that concrete absorbs more heat (reflects less light) than trees and other vegetation, and some of these weather stations are smack dab in the middle of this concrete jungle. As more areas become urbanized, more of the data which is collected will be skewed by this effect. Don't be alarmed. This does not mean that the planet is warming. It just means that the air inside the few square miles of the inner city is being warmed, but this has no real effect on the planet at large, since urban areas account for a very small percentage of the Earth's surface area - and only effect the atmosphere near the surface of the planet. This is why weather balloon data shows no increase in temperature.

This "urban heat island effect" can easily explain the .5 change in surface temperatures. Any meteorologist can tell you that. When you consider this fact along with the fact that weather balloon data shown NO increase in temperature, the only conclusion one can reach is that there IS NO GLOBAL WARMING! NONE! Any scientist worth his salt would have to agree, yet politicians choose to ignore the facts, and continue citing these flawed studies in order to push through their globalist political agenda. Even worse, anybody that does not fully accept all these theories as fact is branded as a heretic, and an enemy of the planet.

Don't get me wrong. I believe that we should be finding ways to limit pollution and save energy. I just have a problem with the federal government passing frivolous legislation - legislation that will end up having little of no effect on the environment, and will end up costing consumers billions of dollars - and justify these extreme actions with fraudulent studies.

We computer nerds have a saying -- Garbage in, Garbage Out. If you don't have accurate studies on the environment, you will never be able to find out if anything is actually damaging the environment, and therefore, you will never be able to fix any problems. Why are we wasting our time and money with vehicle emissions tests, when there is no sign that it is having any impact on the environment! Emission tests may be warranted in L.A. (Which has a very high population density, unique geographical features, and lots of industry, which combine to produce their smog problem), but leave St. Louis alone! Don't force consumers to waste money on removing Freon if you aren't really Sure that the hole in the ozone isn't natural phenomenon! Don't ban pesticides & other chemicals if there isn't any proof that these things have any significant impact what-so-ever on the environment. If there are any genuine environmental dangers, they will surely be obscured by all of these fabricated studies.

Whats your opinion on this? Keep in mind it IS an editorial, therefore not concrete fact. Refute it or support it as you wish. I'm not claiming this to be fact or my opinion; however, it is interesting to actually see a formulated offense of global warming. Granted, he doesn't cite sources, but Im sure they can be dug up to prove his thesis wrong or right.

Any scientist worth his salt would have to agree,

And yet plenty of scientists worth their salt do not agree...

Eh, I don't really know anything about global warming myself, so I'll leave the debate to people that do. :-p

And yet plenty of scientists worth their salt do not agree...

Eh, I don't really know anything about global warming myself, so I'll leave the debate to people that do. :-p

Exactly why I don't put support for or against this editorial. Though I disagree with the catastrophic doomsday now theory because of global warming.

That issue has been discussed in the scientific community. Data is gathered from all over and stations in urban centers compensated for the local increase in temperature.

Weather balloons are in the stratosphere, where temperature rarely changes. The fact remains that temperature in the lower levels of the toposphere, where we live, is going up.

Remember that global warming refers to an increase of Average Global temperature. This means that winters may be colder, that the temperature in your particular corner of the woods may be lower, but that taking the entire world together as a system, it's getting warmer.

That's no longer a supposition. It's a fact. And what has changed remarkably during the last 100 years that can account for this variation?

The Global Warming is a manmade emergency theory assumes that the global temp is supposed to remain static or if not then it was at the top of it's curve before we introduced cars.

The Global Warming is a manmade emergency theory assumes that the global temp is supposed to remain static or if not then it was at the top of it's curve before we introduced cars.
Yep. That's the big if. However, if it is at the top, and we're forcing it up even further, we're in big trouble.

Wasn't it Global Cooling that the Doomsayers were proclaiming back in the 60's and 70's ?

Global climate change has been a fact of existance on this planet as far back as we can calculate, via ice core samplings, fossil analysis, or any other method. However never in the anywhere remotely recent past has the temperature of the Earth, on average, increased this quickly, this long. There is no real way to extrapolate what the temperature "should" be, because it has changed so drastically and so unpredictably, but the current trend has never happened before, and the largest difference between the Earth now and in all time before now being the existance of large human populations who pump out enormous amounts of greenhouse gasses while simulateously destroying millions of acres of forest, so it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to assume there is some link between the two.

The global cooling scale came up when scientists realized that we were thousands of years overdue for an ice age, which before recently, again, occured at regular and predictable intervals.

The average global temperature has risen .5 degrees Celsius in the last one hundred years. That's about 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit. That is indisputable.
The rate of temperature increase has remained constant though. Even though the output of CO2 and other greenhouse gases has risen exponentially, the rise in temperature remained linear through-out the 20th century.
Those guesses environmentalists make about future temperature and effects really can't be trusted. They're based flawed computer models. When the raw data is put in, the models say the current average temperature should be 10 degrees than it actually is. To fix this, scientists adjust their models with false conditions so it'll match current measurements. This totally invalidates anything these models might say, but people still put stock in them.

The average global temperature has risen .5 degrees Celsius in the last one hundred years. That's about 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit. That is indisputable.
The rate of temperature increase has remained constant though. Even though the output of CO2 and other greenhouse gases has risen exponentially, the rise in temperature remained linear through-out the 20th century.
Those guesses environmentalists make about future temperature and effects really can't be trusted. They're based flawed computer models. When the raw data is put in, the models say the current average temperature should be 10 degrees than it actually is. To fix this, scientists adjust their models with false conditions so it'll match current measurements. This totally invalidates anything these models might say, but people still put stock in them.
Yeah. Obviously the thousands upon thousands of scientists who have done thousands upon thousands of studies are falsifying their data, because they can't be right. :rolleyes:

Yeah. Obviously the thousands upon thousands of scientists who have done thousands upon thousands of studies are falsifying their data, because they can't be right. :rolleyes:
When you're talking about those computer models that predict huge increases in temperature during the next century; yes. The raise in temperature for the last century has been linear: a straight line. That implies over the next century we'll see that same rise. By 2100, we should see another .5 degree rise, not 10-15 degrees like the global warming believers are claiming.

When you're talking about those computer models that predict huge increases in temperature during the next century; yes. The raise in temperature for the last century has been linear: a straight line. That implies over the next century we'll see that same rise. By 2100, we should see another .5 degree rise, not 10-15 degrees like the global warming believers are claiming.
Do you have a source for your assertions? Because when it comes between an anonymous person on the Internet, and thousands of scientists, I'm siding with the people who actually do the damned studies.

Seems to me the "opinion" is a "Reader's Digest" version of pages 367 - 385 of Michael Chrichton's newest book "State of Fear"

Not saying the opinion is incorrect, just saying the assumptions and science it is based on, and the wording used, seem to mirror that section of the book almost to the point of plagarism IMHO.

Seems to me the "opinion" is a "Reader's Digest" version of pages 367 - 385 of Michael Chrichton's newest book "State of Fear"

Not saying the opinion is incorrect, just saying the assumptions and science it is based on, and the wording used, seem to mirror that section of the book almost to the point of plagarism IMHO.
Ah yes. Michael Chrichton. There's a reason why he writes science fiction. It's because he knows fuck-all about actual science.

Seems to me the "opinion" is a "Reader's Digest" version of pages 367 - 385 of Michael Chrichton's newest book "State of Fear"

Not saying the opinion is incorrect, just saying the assumptions and science it is based on, and the wording used, seem to mirror that section of the book almost to the point of plagarism IMHO.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/030705C.html

http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=287182005

http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR032204.html

http://www.techcentralstation.com/032305H.html

http://www.techcentralstation.com/031505H.html

http://www.techcentralstation.com/040805B.html


Enough evidence of bad science on the part of the greens for ya?

http://www.techcentralstation.com/030705C.html

http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=287182005

http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR032204.html

http://www.techcentralstation.com/032305H.html

http://www.techcentralstation.com/031505H.html

http://www.techcentralstation.com/040805B.html


Enough evidence of bad science on the part of the greens for ya?

You misunderstood me. I think the "greens" rely on too much junk science and "political" and "social" BS. I was just pointing out the similarities between the orginal opinion post and the book. I actually tend to agree with the book and disagree with the idea that Michael Crichton is not a "scientist." He is actually an M.D., rejects the label "science fiction" for his work, much as Kurt Vonnegut does, and researches his stuff well.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/030705C.html

http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=287182005

http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR032204.html

http://www.techcentralstation.com/032305H.html

http://www.techcentralstation.com/031505H.html

http://www.techcentralstation.com/040805B.html


Enough evidence of bad science on the part of the greens for ya?

Seeing as the techcentral thingy is a market interest group who would have a vested interest in keeping environmental regulation down, the "National Center" describes themselves ON THEIR OWN SITE as a "Conservative Think Tank," and the other thing is an editorial, no. Not nearly enough evidence. It's all biased. Show me evidence like a peer-reviewed journal article from the actual scientific community, not political pressure groups, and I'll pay more attention to your claims.

I don't really want to jump into the debate here, but I want to say that if I here anymore about floods and apocalyps and what not I going to start choking people. Global warming increases atmospheric energy and causes mor extreem and different weather, live backwards hurricanes and all the other such messed up weather.

So, no one really has strong of an argument against this except it's biased because it's an editorial (who'd have thunk it?)

So, no one really has strong of an argument against this except it's biased because it's an editorial (who'd have thunk it?)
Didn't you read my response or are you just ignoring it?

Here's the synopsis:
Urban island effect = Known and accounted for in the calculations.
Meterological balloons = Measure temperature in the stratosphere, not troposphere.

There. What more do you want?

The theories regarding what changes Climate Change will cause are varied. Some scientists believe that claimate change will have an effect on ocean temps and currents thus causing the next ice age. The fact is that no one can really predict what effect global warming will have on the planet because we don't know enough.

The ozone hole and climate change are two different issues, why is he talking about freon? I thought they were pretty freakin' sure that casues ozone holes anyway.

Didn't you read my response or are you just ignoring it?

Here's the synopsis:
Urban island effect = Known and accounted for in the calculations.
Meterological balloons = Measure temperature in the stratosphere, not troposphere.

There. What more do you want?

Sorry, I missed it