State of Fear?

[Loredoctor]

1984

[Cybrweez]

Av, looked at the first link, that's actually what Crichton's talking about. Looking over 10 years, what a tiny example. As ur-bane noted, looking over larger stretches, you'll see similar trends. And you gotta love the words, "The size and speed of the change surprised the scientists and could indicate a slowdown in the flow of deep water currents, he said." Could. Now lets go crazy over the threat of something that could happen. Do the other links give these coulds, or simulations? In the book, there is a lawyer who reps enviro groups, and as the story progesses, his claims of global warming as a fact get shot down by the guy who just shows him the data. Think about it, how far back can we get ocean temps? I imagine not to far, but as far as we can, let's see the trends over the centuries. I don't even think scientists have centuries to disect, so how can they say that now the earth is warming faster than ever? And then, they'd have to show(if it really was warming faster) it was due to greenhouse gases. One thing pointed out in the book is the intense heat of cities, and that some rural areas are actually cooler than 125 years ago. Also, extreme weather is sometimes used as evidence, however, there is no increase in extreme weather over a century or more.

Do I think its a conspiracy? Crichton's reasoning is when he researched the 3 networks and some major papers since 1986(I think), words like disaster, castrophe and such were rarely used until the fall of the Berlin Wall. There was a marked increase after, he claims b/c the Cold War could no longer be used as a fear, something else was needed. Its plausible, but we don't know, and that seems like the definition of a conspiracy.

[Cybrweez]

I looked at the "Climate change as great a stress as AIDs", and the scientist mentioned desertification. Crichton mentioned the Sahara is actually shrinking. Wonder where we can find some data.

[Cybrweez]

Sorry, remembered something else. Obviously, I thought this book was very interesting.

Anyway, he mentioned DDT, remember when it was banned, I guess 80's, maybe early 90's. He claims it wasn't dangerous, in fact someone had actually eaten it to prove it was OK. But it lost to public opinion(which came from where?), and was banned, which actually hurt the poor countries, as it was cheaper and better than what they had to use instead. His point being that enviro groups may actually, w/their junk science, wind up hurting the poor countries. He called it something, I forget, but basically since we got ours, you can't get yours.

[Edge]

So-called 'global warming' is a complete fallacy, perpetuated by various 'green' organisations as a scare-tactic useful for fund-raising.

www.tysknews.com/Depts/Environment/debunking.htm

[kevinswatch]

I wouldn't be too quick to pass off global warming and DDT as simply conspiracies by environmental groups to get funding... I'm not an expert on either, but I have been studying to be an Environmental Engineer, so environmental input/output systems are my speciality.

Humans really do have a negative effect on our environment. It's easier to notice at the local level. But it's all a matter of conservation of mass. Input minus Output equals Storage.

On the subject of global warming, I think it's true that we don't really have a good understanding how how levels of CO2 in the air will effect the global temperature. As an environmental engineer, I can tell you first hand that environmental systems are hard to model, simply because there can be so many variables. Seriously, they are hard as HELL to model, heh. It has to be even harder when trying to model the entire earth.

However, there have been a number of very good studies that contain a lot of good, solid, data, that support some sort of global warming theory. You can't just ignore it. Wikipedia has some pretty good information on CO2, and how it's increased over the years. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide. And this is a pretty good graph. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png. Of course, you can always question the credibility of these experiments and studies to graph previous levels of CO2, but these have been many of them, and they seem to show the same thing. And from what I've heard, the studies show that air concentrations of CO2 have definiately increased noticably and exponentially since the industrial revolution. I think it's easy to see that the world is putting out CO2 every year at a growing rate, which increases exponentally, simply because our global population is growing exponentially. More factories, more cars, more people. And like I said before, it's all about Input and Output. If every year you put out more CO2 into the air than the earth uses, then it will build up in the system. So I don't think there's any question that we're pumping our atmosphere full of CO2. I think the big question is how it's going to effect our earth. And like I said before, that's hard to figure out. But there are many good studies out there looking into this, trying to model the earth, and experimenting on how CO2 works as a greenhouse gas (which it does).

So while I don't think we should be going around "OMGF We're going to die global warming!!!", I do think that enough, good, scientific research has gone into this to give it some merit. And it seems like the ultimate outcome is important enough for us to encourage more research into this field, and not simply ignore it as a "crazy environmentalist conspiracy".

Personally, I'm more concerned about how the global population is growing exponentially, and how we're going to be running out of oil probably during sometime in my lifetime. The oil problem is a real concern for me, since once we use it up, it's gone. And we're using it at increasing rates. Sooner or later it's going to be gone. And I just hope we get some alternative fuels worked out before then. Give me my hydrogen fuel cells, dammit. If I wasn't doing environmental engineering, I think I would have definitely got involved with energy engineering. Hm...I probably still could get a job with some alternative energy research company. I probably have the qualifications.-jay

[Cybrweez]

Thanks Edge, I like #14:

Fallacy Fourteen: The threat of human-caused climate change justifies taking the action proposed in the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol. If there is a consensus on anything related to this issue, it is that Kyoto's effect on temperature "would be imperceptible," writes de Freitas. "So," he continues, "in addition to being ineffective, costly, and unfair to industrialized nations, the Kyoto Protocol is also unnecessary." To which we say ... Amen!

Wasn't there a Kyoto thread here awhile ago?

[Alynna Lis Eachann]

Sorry, remembered something else. Obviously, I thought this book was very interesting.

Anyway, he mentioned DDT, remember when it was banned, I guess 80's, maybe early 90's. He claims it wasn't dangerous, in fact someone had actually eaten it to prove it was OK. But it lost to public opinion(which came from where?), and was banned, which actually hurt the poor countries, as it was cheaper and better than what they had to use instead. His point being that enviro groups may actually, w/their junk science, wind up hurting the poor countries. He called it something, I forget, but basically since we got ours, you can't get yours.

DDT was banned because, among other things, it caused birds to lay eggs whose shells were so thin they cracked during incubation. The DDT replaced a vital component of the shell, though I can't remember what it was. This was most noticeable in birds of prey, especially the peregrine falcon and everybody's favorite fish thief, the bald eagle. One of the reasons the eagles are making such a comeback is because they no longer crush their young when they try to hatch them.

DDT is still legal in many Third World nations, and while it is effective, it has a concrete, negative impact on the environment (one documented far too precisely to fall into the realm of junk science).

That being said, environmentalists chuck out their fair share of junk science, just like industry does. The key to determining what's conspiracy/junk and what's probably real is to do your own damned research and not listen to the media's generalizations. If you read five different reports by five different organizations and they all agree, chances are what you're reading is real. If they all disagree and you hear the media put one report or another on a pedestal, then it's time to get seriously skeptical.

And don't get me started on the CO2... What's wrong with protecting the environment because it's the moral and logical (not logical? unless we're all off to Mars in the next hundred years, we'd better save some air to breathe and some water to drink down here) thing to do, instead of the reactionary thing? We know murder is wrong... will we wait to pursue and punish murderers until they have killed three-quarters of us, or will we do something about it while there's still some time? Same thing.

[Kinslaughterer]

The "global warming is a myth" is its own conspiracy. Its a very popular right-wing ploy to disavow any science that shows heavy industry or forest cutting "could" be bad and supports studies that show it "probably" won't be bad. I wouldn't put too much credence in that web site as they have a large section on the New World Order conspiracy....
You've got to be kidding me global warming...I suppose there is no hole in the ozone either?

[Cail]

The fact is Kins that there's no way of accurately modeling global climate change and man's effect on it for more that the last hundred years or so. The best we can do is guess.

It is fact that the planet will go through it's own heating and cooling cycles, and there's not a thing we can do about it.

Forestry interests promoting a right-wing agenda? Please. I suppose liberals don't use toilet paper or live in wood-frame houses? Within the last 25 years, the forestry industry has become a model of efficiency and conservation, not to mention that trees are a 100% renewable resource, and just about every forest product is recycleable.

forestry.about.com/cs/treeplanting/a/tree_plt_stats.htm
www.forestinformation.com/forest_statistics.asp

[kevinswatch]

Well, I don't mind if people are skeptical and open minded. That's a good thing. All I ask is that you let us environmental engineers do our job. My main area of focus over the last billion years of college (more or less. although it seems like it. heh.) is the modeling of environmental systems. I'm getting a better idea every day what it's all about. So you have to give the people who are working on these models some repect and credibility. They aren't just "guessing". I would think that many of these models have a good solid foundation for structuring them.

And I don't know if you can say that there's nothing we can do about it. It's true that we can't really control what the earth has been doing normally (heating and cooling cycles) for the last billion years. However, we has humans DO have the power (because of technology or simply by sheer population numbers) to impact the environment on this planet at a global scale. For better or for worse. And if we continue to pump more and more CO2 into the atmosphere (remember, Input is greater than Output), then I can only see bad things happening. Sooner or later.

Like I said, it's all up to us modelers of environmental systems to figure it out. So give us a break, will ya! Some of us do have a tiny idea of what we're doing, ya know. Like I said before, modeling environmental systems is a complicated thing, because of the variables involved. However, the methods that we use to form these models have a lot of good, solid, scientific basis. We aren't just throwing things together at random, heh.

The thing though, is that many, many people have tried modeling global warming (I think). And if most of them have been saying the same general thing, it should be telling us something. Especially if most of these models were developed independently. But like I said before, I haven't been actively researching global warming, so I'm no expert.

Maybe I need to make a neural network for modeling global warming. Hehe.

Oh, I forgot before to talk about DDT as well. But it looks like A. said most of what I was going to say. DDT is bad. It's not a conspiracy. In addition to what A. said, it's also been shown to screw up aquatic life. Plus, it's just a crappy chemical to get into the environment, simply because it sticks around. It doesn't degrade well at all. I think it can stick around in the environment for years at a time. Not good stuff. Banned for a reason.

-jay

[Cail]

Jay, we've got the power to modify our impact on the environment, and I'm all for that, but do we have the ability to scrub greenhouse gasses out of the air from a volcanic explosion?

The point is, for every pro-global warming study from a reputable source that you can produce, I can produce a reliable anti-global warming source. I stipulate that I'm no expert, and I'd go as far as to say that there's probably some human-induced global warming going on, but there's just not nearly enough long-term data to support all the pollyanna theories.

[Dragonlily]

What's happening with research on methane as an energy source? It's probably one of the most renewal fuels there is.

[danlo]

One of the thing that people don't realize as a contributor to Global Warming is the amazing amounts of concrete and asphalt we cover the ground with--not only does this stuff not allow to the surface to absorb and process the sun's rays, in most cases it reflects it back up and out (let's not start on deforestation as a factor, either)...

[Dragonlily]

Plants are essential parts of a CO2 cycle. Pity I can't grow them in my apartment -- they just don't thrive around me.

When I was 5 years old the lake we lived by was a choked mess. Algae and filth. This being a resort area (Clear Lake in California), it was a disaster to the community economy. Everybody cooperated in an effort to bring the lake back to life. It took self discipline and strict planning. And it succeeded. Clear Lake is once again a thriving recreation area -- the lake is bursting with health.

It can be done, once everyone sees the need.

[Edited for spelling]

[Kinslaughterer]

When I was referring to deforestation my focus is the lumber industry's effective lobbying to the GOP to gain access to previously protected forests.

It is in our best interests to be cautious with the world we live in and on.

The sec. of the Interior under Reagen was a born again Christian fundamentalist who believed Jesus was going to be returning very soon and felt that the environment should be exploited to its maximum since it would be destroyed anyway...

[Cail]

As a member of the lumber industry Kins, I can assure you, we lobby everybody, not just the GOP.

Today the United States has about the same area of forestland as it did in 1920, even though there has been a 143 percent increase in population between then and today. There are two main reasons why the area of land in crops has remained stable since 1920. First, in 1910, about one-quarter of the land in crops was used to produce food for horses and other draft animals. The advent of the automobile made it possible to use that land to produce food for people instead. Second, advances in technology, chemistry and genetics have made it possible to produce much more food on the same amount of land.

In the US, deforestation is not an issue anymore. The industry is not willing to put up with the bad press and headlines like, "Georgia Pacific Rapes Wildlife Again". In fact, in the US and Canada, lumber suppliers replant at a 3:1 ratio (3 trees planted for every 1 harvested).

Now the 3rd world is an entirely different story. They have yet to grasp the importance of Forest Management.

Edit-It turns out I actually own a copy of State of Fear (it's the only downfall of creating a library in your home....you buy books and immediately file them on the shelves where they belong instead of in the "unread" pile on the nightstand), so I'll see what MC has to say. Somewhere on KW I think I posted a speech of his (then again, it could've been someone else, but regardless) that predates the book, but is on the same topic. Pretty heady stuff, and heavier than what he usually writes.

[Cybrweez]

Cail, that's really interesting we haven't lost any forestland since 1920. I would've never guessed that.

jay, maybe you should just put some things together randomly for your models, it worked for evolution

[matrixman]

Jay, I support everything you've said. I for one do respect the environmental science you're involved in. You're in a rare and admirable position to be able to help us understand better how the planet works. Power to you!

[Kinslaughterer]

I HIGHLY doubt we have not lost forest land since
1920. Is that the company line?

Since we already dealt with evolution and utterly annihilated your young earth argument with science. I would give Jay's models some serious consideration.