What if Global Warming is a Red Herring?


I am embarrassed on your behalf for such an ignorant thread. There could not be more consensus. There could not be more data available. A theory you can’t back up with data. There is nothing but data to support this! Your saying that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Joint science academies’ statement, U.S. National Research Council, American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Astronomical Society, Federal Climate Change Science Program, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London, Geological Society of America, The Institution of Engineers Australia and the American Chemical Society misinterpreted their data then? If global warming is real, what has more dire consequences; to assume that global warming exists or does not exist?. If it is as you say, a red herring, then what damage does it do to create a more sustainability production cycle and in the end a more sustainable society?

Actually the number you are looking for is 90%.

“In 2001, it said that it was “likely” that human activities lay behind the trends observed at various parts of the planet; “likely” in IPCC terminology means between 66% and 90% probability. Now, the panel concluded that it was at least 90% certain that human emissions of greenhouse gases rather than natural variations are warming the planet’s surface”


Do you shit where you eat? Cleaning up the mess you’ve made is never “a waste”. Your mom should have tought you this. Current industrial practices just aren’t possible with the demand to resource ratio that we have today. rkuchinsky, you’ve worked in the footwear industry. What was the percentage of waste in the factories that you were working at? Less than 50%? Would you say that there is room for improvement?

I take pity on YOU silentstar.

It seems to me (and the rest of us I’m sure) that all IP was attempting to do was ask a question that may not have been asked yet. As designers, its in our blood to ask these kind of questions.

If this guy hadn’t said “Hey you know what? I’m tired of taking a dump in the woods.” We might be in a different place right now.

He asked a question that may have gone against popular theory and came up with something new.

IP asked a question to get people thinking. Although it is backed up by some substantial evidence as you have shown, he makes a great comparison to Y2K.

Chill out man, I recycle just like you, I ride my bike to work everyday just like you, and I use compact fluorescent light bulbs just like you.

You’re crossing lines here. Pollution and actual physical/quantifiable destruction of rivers such as the photo you show above is easy to wrap one’s head around. I think you would be hard pressed to get anyone here to say “fuck it, who cares. Pollute away”.

But Global Warming…Abrupt Climate Change…Nostradomus The End is Nigh type discussions is what I am questioning here. This is a CO2 Emissions discussion. Is the Globe warming? Supposedly Antarctica is cooling on land and its Glaciers are thickening. It makes one a bit skeptical especially when married with the Media engine that is behind it.

Are we, as humans, at a point in time where we can say definitively what is or is not going to happen in the next 5/50/500/5000 years?

I’ll ask the question a bit differently:

What if abrupt climate change caused by CO2 emissions is bunk?

lets say semi bunk, but as I saw in the 70’s blown sky high by the media, politicians, actors, musisican and every other damn drama queen that needs to be freaked out about something. The funny thing is, drama queens rarely have much to do with solutions, just noise. Its no big deal, they have their little bit of fun and the rest of us are working on solutions.

66-90% well thats intresting, i play (and win) tournment poker and where you might risk your tourny on a 90% probility (aa pre flop) you are unlikely to with 88 (~60%) its far better to see the flop (more evidence) and then re adjust your % from there.

The latest WIRED (November with the Manga cover) has a great piece that challenges the use of the term “Theory” in science.

Basically the scientific community uses the word Theory in the way we’d use the term LAW, but because the public uses the word differently. Theory has been used as a way to cast doubt on science. The example is the sticker “Evolution is a Theory” slapped on biology textbooks to cast doubt.

The author wants the scientific community to end the madness by adopting the term “Law” as in “Law of Gravity.”

Might be worth a look:


great link.

more over on google video

I reckon IP got a bit guilty throwing booking that round the world trip…:wink:…he he

As much as I enjoy you pointless, ego-stroking mental masturbation exercises they are just that. Pointless. There is no denying global warming because we have an overwhelming amount of undeniable evidence; measurements, data, recorded temperatures, core samples etc, etc. Same goes for greenhouse gases. These thing can be, and are, measured. You can debate the extent to which mankind has contributed to the warming but it doesn’t change the fact that its happening and that something needs to be done about it. Therefore your exercise is fruitless. You’re not going to win the nobel prize for denying global warming any more than you are going to win it for denying the holocaust.

The only ones denying global warming these days are the ones who have a financial or political reason to do so. What you’re saying to me when your posing the question “is global warming a red herring” is that you are resistant to change and you do not want things to improve, to be more efficient. Did you know that out of the all the energy that goes into moving a car forward only 1% is used to move the person in the vehicle! 1%! The other 99% is wasted on poor aerodynamics, heat loss, rolling resistance and moving a thousands of pounds of steel around. Does that strike you as efficient? Does there seem to be room for improvement?

I think we can do a lot better and I think we can’t afford to be complacent. The world is screwed up right now and our current practices and available resources just aren’t going to sustain if we don’t change it for the better, make it more effecient, are smarter about it. This is not alarmist, end-of-the-world, Nostradamus, drama queen behavior, it’s facts. I am sorry if it makes you uncomfortable and you don’t want to hear it but it doesn’t change the fact… that it’s facts. Sticking your head in the sand is not going to make it go away. The more you learn, the more you research, the more you travel, the more you see production factories in remote parts of China, you’ll come to the conclusion that there’s a lot of things going on in this world that you wish you hadn’t known about. The world can be, especially the part that involves humans, a pretty grim place. That’s not alarmist, thats realist. Below is some more information. It is meant as a call to action, a means for motivation, not to scare people into ignoring reality although that is certainly the easier choice. I am a very positive, hopeful, motivated and solution focused designer but that doesn’t prevent me from seeing the world as it is and from seeing the urgency in needing to do something about it.

Here’s another resource efficiency issue: “Demand for water is doubling every 20 years, outpacing population growth twice as fast. Currently 1.3 billion people don’t have access to clean water and 2.5 billion lack proper sewage and sanitation. In less than 20 years, it is estimated that demand for fresh water will exceed the world’s supply by over 50 percent. The biggest drain on our water sources is agriculture, which accounts for 70 percent of the water used worldwide – much of which is subsidized in the industrial world, providing little incentive for agribusiness to use conservation measures or less water-intensive crops. This number is also likely to increase as we struggle to feed a growing world. Population is expected to rise from 6 billion to 8 billion by 2050.”

“The American Association for the Advancement of Science said that more needs to be done by policy-makers to combat global warming: The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, a critical greenhouse gas, is higher than it has been for at least 650,000 years. The average temperature of the Earth is heading for levels not experienced for millions of years.” “Scientific predictions of the impacts of increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and deforestation match observed changes. As expected, intensification of droughts, heat waves, floods, wildfires, and severe storms is occurring, with a mounting toll on vulnerable ecosystems and societies,” the board said.
World temperatures in January were the highest ever recorded for that month of the year, US government scientists said. “The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the highest for any January on record,” according to scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climate Data Center in Asheville, N.C."

“Forest fires in the Western United States have occurred more frequently, burned longer, and covered more acres since 1987—and global warming is a big part of the underlying cause—according to a research paper published in July 2006 by the journal Science. Researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and the University of Arizona found four times as many large wildfires occurred in Western forests between 1987 and 2003 compared to the previous 16 years. The more recent fires burned 6.5 more land, the average duration of the fires increased from 7.8 to 37 days, and the overall fire season during those years grew by an average of 78 days.”

“We have to deal with greenhouse gases”, John Hofmester, president of Shell oil co, said in a recent speech at the National Press Club. “From Shells point of view, the debate is over. When 98% of scientist agree, who is Shell to say, let’s debate science?”

6 years ago it was between 66-90%.

NOW, the panel concluded that it was AT LEAST 90% certain that human emissions of greenhouse gases rather than natural variations are warming the planet’s surface"

Isn’t it amazing what we can learn from reading bumper stickers.

That’s great.

Why don’t we also debate the pro’s and con’s of rape while we’re at it? After all it is a common occurrence in nature: Sociobiological theories of rape - Wikipedia

Good luck with your debating club.

The idea that most americans are not aware or not concerned about climate change is crap. I have travelled all over the world in a fair range of social strata and I think that the thoughts and awareness of the silent majority around the world is pretty common. It may range from factually informed to annecdotal but it seems fairly uniform to me. I believe that progress has been significant in increased discussion and action on the issue and would be even more so if new information was presented in a less offensive manner. How it has escaped the people with knowledge that most people do not like change and do not like being made to feel ignorant or scared is astonishing to me.

If I had to tell people that they need to think about changing something that they are not necessarily looking forward to changing I would try not to have a polarizing partisan politician be the poster child. I would also probably try to remind myself that scaring the piss out of someone will cause most people to want to think it is not true.

I think that this is worth a look as are simply viewing the photos of the Stray Dog Islands.

www.warmingisland.org/ expeditions/

And what is your emotional ranting doing other than making people tune out?

Pollution is an easy sell. Factory dumps chemicals into the water, babies die and kittens grow horns. People get outraged.

Winter comes, its cold, no one cares about the so-called “Global Warming”. Lawyer Bob can drive his Hummer through the snow with impunity because its -15 Degrees Celcius. Global warming, to him, is bunk. Doesn’t matter how many graphs you have. HOW LOUD YOU SAY IT. It just doesn’t matter until he has newly found water front property.

I knew exactly what I was going to get from asking a question like this. You assume I don’t believe it is happening. You know what they say about assuming.

Lastly…you still haven’t answered the question. In all of your blind ranting trying to convince everyone here that you’re right and us asking questions is wrong. It is a simple What IF question. I know I sure as hell can’t predict the future. What if the experts are wrong? What if? That’s all.

The big rub is that as much good as I believe the Al Gore’s of the world have done, and that I do as much as I can to educate myself outside of the realm of popular culture, it gets tiring. The media engine, your rants telling me I am a f.ucking idiot, little bits of scientific research that call to question the gloom and doom. It all makes me question, what if?

For me, the answer is simple. Its all good. What if they are wrong? Well, 25 years from now we’ll have a whole pile of LEEDs buildings. Recycling programs. A whole pile of sustainable power source research and manufacturing. We still have China barfing out coal plants like they’re going out of style (irony intended) and inefficient cars. We still have a lot to do but we’ll be in a better place, no?

I agree. Asking a question really doesn’t mean a person thinks one way or the other.

“So-called “global warming” is just a secret ploy by wacko tree-huggers to make America energy independent, clean our air and water, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, kick-start 21st-century industries, and make our cities safer and more livable. Don’t let them get away with it!”
– Chip Giller

There’s a lot of BS surrounding “green”, but I believe in lightening up and doing the best we can on personal and professional levels. whatev.

Great quote. I love it.