Science or Faith: Which is Climate Change?

[XLFD]

News that doesn't fit the template:

 

Hartford CN received a record 57 inches of snow so far in January, among other record totals in the NE USA. 

 http://www.weather.com/outlook/weather-news/news/articles/northeast...

 

Dr Kevin Trenberth (of climategate fame) stated in 2009, "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t."

In 2007, the U.N. said the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035 due to man-made global warming. Yet four years later, some are advancing. (Investor's Business Daily 1-28-11)

Contrary to media reports Antarctic sea ice continues to expand. Ice totals for March 2010 are significantly higher than 1980.  

 

Sir Karl Popper was born in 1902 and was a staunchly liberal socialist.  He is most known for his philosophy of science, in which he coined the concept of falsifiability. 

Some sciences make observations and experiments and try to prove theories using a set hypothesis.  A common example would be to say that "all swans are white", and verify that thesis by finding a preponderance of white swans; this is verifiability.  To falsify the thesis, one would only have to find a non-white swan.  One black swan would debunk that hypothesis, but could initiate a new one, stronger than the first that may account for black swans. New, conflicting data, might just change that hypothesis. 

He stated that a theory should be considered scientific if and only if it is falsifiable. This led him to attack the claims of both psychoanalysis and contemporary Marxism to scientific status, on the basis that their theories are not falsifiable.

There are many well-paid and well-meaning scientists who fervently believe in the science of climate change/global warming.  They can show you a variety of white swans.  Many will say their theory is past debate, and not even take a look at the black swans they are showed.  Some may try to paint those swans white or call them ducks. This can be done most effectively by blaming everything on GW or switching 'global warming' to 'climate change'. 

When dogma is substituted for data, GW/CC becomes little more than a religion, and definitely not a science.  Yet should we scrap the analysis of climatological data, and the attempt to decipher what it is telling us?  Of course not; let's just keep it in the realm of scientific debate and process. 

 

 

[Willy]

I have to agree with charly. It only takes a little logic to figure out that humans can and do affect the worlds eco-system. The question is, how and to what extent? And will the affects be positive or negative? Only time will tell. We can't live in our house, sh*t anywhere we please and excpet it not to affect our environment.

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

I would like to address that phrase "We can't live in our house, sh*t anywhere we please and expect it not to affect our environment."

You can got to the countries in the world where in theory ,they don't burn fossil fuels like oil or gas they crap down rabbit holes and the net effect is worse environmental issues that we here in the states do not have because we tend to make more efficient use of those resources.

The reason there is an energy crisis looming in fact stems from the fact we give the third world countries a pass on the very standards that would make life so much better for their citizens. I keep hearing about America this, and America that, in the use of Fossil fuels in relation to the rest of the world with no regard for the fact we also still feed 1/2 of the planet. If you adjust our usage for how much we give to other countries so they do not need to produce their own. we start looking real damned good.

If you would dial social justice out of the equations when addressing global usage for climate change it becomes very apparent if the rest of the world were held to our standards the smog factor would be below Roman empire time frames.

Here are some interesting facts when talking about America in real terms of fuel use.

http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/cropmajor.html

 

Corn: The United States is, by far, the largest producer of corn in the world. Corn is grown on over 400,000 U.S. farms. In 2000, the U.S. produced almost ten billion bushels of the world’s total 23 billion bushel crop. Corn grown for grain accounts for almost one quarter of the harvested crop acres in this country.

Soybeans: Approximately 2.8 billion bushels of soybeans were harvested from almost 73 million acres of cropland in the U.S. in 2000. This acreage is roughly equivalent to that of corn grown for grain. Over 350,000 farms in the United States produce soybeans, accounting for over 50% of the world’s soybean production and $6.66 billion in soybean and product exports in 2000. Soybeans represented 56 percent of world oilseed production in 2000.

Wheat: Over 240,000 farms in the United States produce wheat. The U.S. produces about 13% of the world’s wheat and supplies about 25% of the world’s wheat export market. About two-thirds of total U.S. wheat production comes from the Great Plains (from Texas to Montana).

Cotton: Fewer than 32,000 farms in the United States produce cotton. Cotton is grown from coast-to-coast, but in only 17 southern states. Farms in those states produce over 20% of the world’s cotton with annual exports of more than $3 billion. The nation’s cotton farmers harvest about 17 million bales or 7.2 billion pounds of cotton each year.

Grain sorghum: In the United States, grain sorghum is used primarily as an animal feed, but is also used in food products and as an industrial feedstock. Industrial products that utilize sorghum include wallboard and biodegradable packaging materials. Worldwide, over half of the sorghum grown is for human consumption.

Some farmers grow sorghum as a hedge against drought. This water-efficient crop is more drought tolerant and requires fewer inputs than corn. Kansas, Texas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Missouri produce most of the grain sorghum grown in this country. The U.S. exports almost half of the sorghum it produces and controls 70% to 80% of world sorghum exports.

Rice: Just over 9,000 farms produce rice in the United States. Those farms are concentrated in six states: Arkansas, California, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Texas. U.S. rice production accounts for just over 1% of the world’s total, but this country is the second leading rice exporter with 18% of the world market.

 

Now if you dial in each country of the worlds food output compared to the amount of fuel they use. U.S.A. only uses a small fraction of the fossil fuels. The UN climate counsel is not interested in those numbers however. In A liberal minded society we should stop using the amounts we do to make it fair for all of the other countries . If we did as the UN wants us to do and simply stop useing the amounts we do the rest of the world starves to death.

You used to be able to pull up a pie chart showing USAs production numbers against all of the other countries. I notice now, if you google such a thing it gives you page upon page of America Bashing gloom and doom predictions for the world if we don't stop squandering the Earth's resources.

By the way the numbers for Meat production are also very high as compared to the rest of the world. And I keep hearing mixed messages from the Environuts as to whether the world should just stop producing meant completely as cow flatulence appears to be a major contributor to Greenhouse gasses.

 

Your right.. anything living and breathing on this planet has an effect on the environment. But if it were not humans it would be a different, and possibly more detrimental species to the environment. But to assume we make so much of an impact on earth that it will not correct its self is junk science. And the cures suggested will make us all endangered quicker than global climate change will.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomborg-cli...

If your goal is to minimize impact of global climate change this guys papers on the subject might be up your alley.

[AQUAMAN]

Quite the revealing investigative statistics Guido, that's homework that no one sane should argue with. Too bad our farmers/agricultural sectors are so poor when it comes to fairness in monetary values for their undying efforts of excellence, both in quantity, and quality. Keeping in mind "junk science" keeps popping it's head up for crisis mode mentality, it's good to know some are thinking positive out of the box of ineptitude that pervades the nation these days.

[XLFD]

Very informative post, Guido.  We don't hear nearly enough about the greatness of American's farmers, and agricultural output, even in the face of some unfair competition.

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

I guess I still see the world "glass" as filling up rather than emptying out. I think if we spent half as much time working to better our own energy position ,and add things like nuclear and solar and wind. We could in fact run a pure electric car economy. but to get there from here?? You still need what you already have, and then some. No one is going to just wake up to a land where we dont have any gas powered vehicles in America.

 

But do them math realistically.. and you learn that if everyone did own an electric car America needs many many times the Electrical generation capacity it now has.. And as many of us already have seen no one wants those in everyone's back yard either do we?

Before I left Michigan I was at my doctors getting my files to transfer and the subject of electric grids came up. I mentioned the fact no one wants those in there yard. He said something to the effect of " ever fly out west"? I said of coarse!! He said "well what do you see out there for hours of flight time?" I said not much.. He said "that's the point have the US build a grid to where you could place those towers and plants and no one reasonable would complain". I answered as long as we have rabid environuts, someone will always try to block it in the name of some ground squirrel somewhere. He said "well someone has to want us to succeed'... True that.

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

You are right about the amount the average farmer is paid is not fair. But much of those issues are government created issues also, currency manipulation and such. If uncle sam would just let markets work rather than picking winners by subsidies and such our farmers would get what they are worth because the rest of the world would have to start paying its actual values. 

And for God sake quit making us use half our corn crops for ethanol production.. my cereal is going up up up!!

[Willy]

The human impact will be either a positive or a negative, not to the Earth but to mandkind. The Earth could care less what happens to humans because the  Earth will still be here, with or without us. My comments were a general statement that we humans do affect the environment in a large way. For Pete's sakes we have weapons that can destroy all life on the planet in one day. Both sides of the climate change issue must come together and gather information about how humans affect this planet. They must do it in a non biased way. But both sides have their agendas. What really scares me is the talk by some climate change advocates about the possibility of engineering the climate. That is the kind of foolishness that must be prevented. But human nature along with greed and corruption is a force that is hard to over come.

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

I guess what I am saying is I don't know that it already is not a positive rather than a negative RJE. The current scientist are going out of there way to ignore a 1500 year cycle as it is. In a 1500 year spread the climate has been warmer... and cooler for long periods of time. The supposed chart that the folks in Brittan came up with was busted for introducing a fudge factor that would basically make any climate change look like a man made and very current issue.

I guess I prefer my agendas to be honest.. and that currently is not something those on the side of man made disasters want to happen.

Engineering climate change, would be a most scary thought RJE.. Junk climate science coming to a horror screen near you.

The planet earth has weapons that could bring all life to an end also though ... I was just watching one of those history channel shows investigating the super caldera that is Yellowstone National park. If she ever does as we know she has done in the past, kiss America as we know it goodbye.

[XLFD]

RJE,

Both sides do have their own agendas, but only one side is advocating drastic changes to the status quo without showing adequate proof that such actions need to be taken. 

Besides, if we consider man's use/burning of fossil fuels as contributory to some aspect of global warming, we must also enter into the equation the depletion of fossil fuels and that at some point in the not-too-distant future our uses of such must decrease drastically due to its non-renewability. 

Like Guido, Algore and Barack, I feel we do have to prepare for this eventuality.  The way we get there should not be based on junk science, or mandates when they're not needed.