NSLog();

7 Comments »

7 Responses to "Global Warming"

1. | Reply The Plaid Cow
   Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 1:10pm #
   

   Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. I haven't seen it proven otherwise.

2. | Reply Jeff
   Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 5:03pm #
   

   to be honest, i don't think it really matters.

   give me a compelling reason (other than laziness) to NOT try and be as eco-friendly, sustainable, and smart as possible about how we consume our natural (many non-renewable) resources...

   I really don't care if it all turns out to be a crazy totally unrelated coincidence. (Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc) ...that's pretty much irrelevant to me. (though i doubt that's the case.) I still think we need to start focusing on more sustainable and realistic consumption of resources, because if nothing else, we certainly cannot just keep consuming at the rate we are, because to put it simply, there isn't enough to go around.

   i DO really like hearing people say "Global Warming? that's a scam. i mean... it was totally way colder than normal this winter! so OBVIOUSLY there's no such thing!"

   ...that's just such a mind-boggling display of silliness.

3. | Reply Jeff
   Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 5:23pm #
   

   ...also, people claiming "Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc" i don't think are paying very close attention to the scientific community.

   No one is suggesting that somehow "it's getting hotter" and "we use a lot of gas" is enough evidence to prove global warming... (Except the people who don't believe in Global Warming pretending that's all the evidence that's been given.)

   unfortunately, Global Warming has become somewhat of a wedge political issue, which means that a lot of people have already made up their minds, evidence be damned.

4. | Reply The Plaid Cow
   Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 6:52pm #
   

   [quote comment="47359"]...also, people claiming "Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc" i don't think are paying very close attention to the scientific community.[/quote]

   Yet, in six paragraphs you have provided no links to evidence of causality. If there is a large scientific community and body of evidence, it should be easy to point to research which shows steady climate through the past 10,000 years or so (to establish a steady state), followed by a relevant (outside of a few sigma) spike at the end. It should also be easy to point to research which scientifically rejects other hypotheses (ie, the sun has started putting out more energy).

   The research should also be able to show that the alternatives are as safe as burning fossil fuels. Other forms of clean energy (solar, wind, geothermal) all extract energy from a system which is considered safe--free energy. How safe is it to remove energy from the system? What is the effect of slowing down the wind or changing the temperature using a heat pump. How much sunlight can we extract before we start cooling the earth?

   The conservation of resources is a red herring for global warming. All in all, I stand behind my first argument: "I haven't seen it proven otherwise."

5. | Reply Aaron Linville
   Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 8:04pm #
   

   You might want to ask if the global warming is Anthropogenic or not. At this point, there is no question whether or not the globe is warming, it is, it's just a question of is it due to human activity.

   I've seen the evidence both for and against, and I've found that the theory that it is anthropogenic to be stronger. With that said, I just now checked the price of oil and it was $118/barrel. Capitalism will fix this issue long before anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic groups agree who is right.

   Our path forward is simple. We need to finish developing hydrogen powered cars and a hydrogen distribution system (hydrogen economy). As we do that, we need to replace the fossil fuel plants that power our grid and the only viable alternative that can handle the base load is Nuclear power.

   Nuclear power is safe and and clean[1]. Modern reactor designs produce almost no waste and are very safe (pebble bed reactors are regulated by temperature, the higher the temperature, the less power that gets generated therefore the core cannot undergo a criticality excursion). We continue to operate our current Gen. II commercial reactors, we start building more Gen. III reactors and start reprocessing the fuel (thus reducing the waste and reducing our need for fuel) and increase research on Gen. IV reactor designs and finally set our goal for Nuclear Fusion.

   [1]- And the co-founder of Greenpeace agrees with me. Nuclear power != Nuclear weapons.

6. | Reply Ben
   Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 8:40pm #
   

   There is also no question that the earth is billions of years old, yet many people still claim it is less than 10,000 years old.

   Incidentally, these are often many of the same people who claim the earth is not warming.

   At some point, it's not worth arguing.

7. | Reply Michael
   Posted 23 Apr 2008 at 8:16am #
   

   I'm totally am convinced that the climate varies over time. I'm totally unconvinced that people are causing it to vary any more than it would be already. And more importantly, I'm totally unconvinced that reducing CO2 emissions will have any affect on the normal climate variation.

   If you look at the climate on a larger scale,the earth is still coming out of an ice age and can expect a continuation of the longer term trend for ice to retreat and oceans to rise.

   Sadly, I see no well planned experiments that show human caused climate changes. Or even verifiable predictions that will show that people are causing the climate variations we see beyond what would occur naturally.