(well well, obviously JJ is looking for a new fight *g*. Unlike Lark or RD I know virtually smeg all about economic theories. But climate science...let's just say that he's just floated right into my sights...) : : Obviously, you have not taken the time to read anything about the present population problems, greenhouse effects, or global warming.
: These are mostly scare tactics from politicians, such as Al Gore, designed to enhance their electability;
(ATTENTION BOARD: this poster has engaged in the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion.
This means, of course, that everything he says should be treated as a blatant lie or regarded with suspicion at least. Not that this is in any way a gross generalization...oh nooo.)
If the poster above wishes to be taken seriously, he should avoid using any words that might have any sort of emotional baggage associated with them at all (e.g. "scare"). I suggest binary, octal or hexidecimal. Machine code would also be acceptable.
: and, from would-be Platonic Philosopher-Kings who make their arguments from politically-driven academia.
O.K., so he's advocating not only the disregarding of anyone who shows any emotion in debating, but also the opinion of anyone with any political belief at all (speaking personally, _I've_ never come across an academic department that wasn't a political minefield. It's an ego thing.). That takes out all the "experts" and anyone who actually cares about the subject. Which leaves the debate in the hands of the ignorant and the bored. Some debate...
: The most extreme warming model predicts an increase of 1.3 degrees C in the next 100 years and this figure is a dramatic drop from even 5 years ago.
Wrong. The IPCC, which does represent the broad consensus of the scientific community estimated in 1995 that the temperature gain would fall somewhere between 1.0 and 3.5 degrees Centigrade. This might not seem much, until you consider that the Earth's climate hasn't changed more than 1 degree in recorded history. And that is the global average; some places may experience localized changes of twice that figure. A 3 degree rise over one of the poles could cause a considerable amount of melt, leading to significant rises in world sea level (yes, we are talking metres here, which would put the ground in New York underwater).
Before you take me to task for making statements like "could" and "might", remember that we are dealing with physical systems here; there is no such thing as a firm statement when dealing with an imprecise science, as all "natural" sciences are. The accepted model is the one that best and most simply explains all the observed facts.
And the observed facts are that the last nine years have the hottest this century; examination of ice cores shows that 1998 was, on average, the hottest year since 1106. The meteorological trend so far this year in the UK has indicated an average ambient temperature 1 degree above "normal"; indeed, both Paris and London recorded a January high of 16 degrees Celsius (where the normal daytime maximum lies typically between 5 and 8 degrees Celsius).
: Funny though, many scientists and economists point out that this warming trend is good and not bad for humanity as most warming takes place during winter nights in temperate climates.
Would you care to cite the sources and which academic journals these can be found in?
I quote the EDF's "Global Warming; Myths vs. Facts" addressing of that claim:
Warming over the past century has occurred both during the day and at night, but night-time warming has been the greater of the two. The buildup of the haze of particles from combustion discussed above has probably contributed to this asymmetric warming. But as warming continues, the tendency toward night-time warming is expected to diminish, in part because the slow heating of the oceans causes a uniform atmospheric warming over time. In any event, night-time warming would be experienced by society and ecosystems differently than daytime warming, but may be no less problematic. For example, the northward spread of certain infectious diseases is currently limited by cold night-time temperatures.
You may find this source to be suspect; however, it reflects the evidence I saw during my degree fairly accurately.
:Thus, farming productivity and plant, especially tree, growth is the biggest development.
Wrong again. Firstly, "global warming" does not mean that everywhere experiences a warming. It merely means that the average temperature increases. Localized cooling is entirely likely in some areas, as is localized heating (above the average level) in some places. Although it is impossible to attribute single phenomena to the greenhouse effect, it is worth noting that January of this year (1999) has seen abnormally hot weather in London, whilst also seeing the first snowfall in 70 years in Majorca (an island in the Mediterranean). If the atmosphere behaves in accordance with the greenhouse model, we can expect to see ever more extreme weather conditions such as hurricanes, unseasonal storms and heatwaves.
Secondly, it is by no means a given that increased temperatures lead to increased plant growth; you need rainfall as well. Take the Dustbowl as an example. Now extend that to large areas of the continental USA. That's entirely possible in the next 50 years.
Thirdly (to quote the EDF page again):
Under the controlled conditions which occur in a greenhouse with ample water and fertilizer, plants grow more rapidly in an atmosphere enriched by CO2. The extent that this effect carries over into natural systems like forests is unknown. Some plants, potentially including weeds, may benefit while others may not. The consequence for forests and other ecosystems is uncertain, but it is unlikely to counteract the adverse impacts of a rapid climate change.
(Note: "weeds" are frequently called that because they are hardy plants and capable of growing in a lot of places, unlike the more valuable cash crops. That's why people use herbicides, instead of just letting the weed and the crop battle it out.)
Fourthly, the areas of planet which will experience plant growth are likely to be outweighed by the increased surface area of the world's deserts. Is the capitalist West going to compensate the African nations for the fact that what fertile soil they have is going to become desert due to the excessive carbon dioxide the West produces?
Fifthly, you are completely ignoring the effects that climate change has on the marine environment, despite the fact that oceans are the world's largest heat sinks (and thus, the majority of "global warming" happens there first). It is worth noting that the unusually high temperatures of last year killed off 90% of coral in some areas of the Pacific. It is also worth noting that the Alaska salmon runs failed, as described here.
In addition to which, the normally-fertile fishing grounds off the coats of Louisiana grew a "dead spot" in the 1990s where the conditions were not supportive to marine life; in 1998, this area reached the size of New Jersey.
The ocean is just about the most sensitive environment on the planet; it is also the one that should show the first signs of global warming. The actual land-surface effects are noticed when the seas cannot absorb any more heat without raising the total global temperature; this temperature rise then produces the land effects.
In case you need reminding, sea life forms a major part of many coastal economies. No fish means no cash.
Finally, just to clear up a few other points; the Greenhouse effect *does* exist, as far as we are aware; it is how Venus became the planet it is today. The question under debate is whether the Earth is in danger of undergoing a "runaway greenhouse effect" which would do similar things to Earth (although cooler, as the Earth is further from the Sun; the incident energy is less per square metre according to the inverse square law).
Now, call me dim, but the idea of setting off a process which could well spell the end of carbon-based life on Earth is one that I take seriously. If you're looking for "enlightened self-interest", well, it does seem to me that preserving the planet in a fit state to support us comes into that category, no matter how much the oil and car industries (or business in general) should scream. At the very least, to take a chance on this is rather akin to a long form of Russian roulette.
Not to mention the fact that the sea level rise of 1 metre that could occur by 2100 will mean economic upheaval. Since countries like Australia and Egypt and Australasia are typically inhabited close to the sea level, the choice these countries have is to abandon their land or improve their sea defences.
To quote the Sierra Club's report on the subject:
Myers and Kent (1995) estimate that worldwide coastal protection costs and land loss could be in the order of $17.5 trillion to $20 trillion over a 50 year period (Myers and Kent, June 1995, p. 152).
(Myers, Norman and Jennifer Kent. June, 1995. Environmental Exodus: An Emergent Crisis in the Global Arena. Washington, D.C.: The Climate Institute.)
Please don't try just voicing your own opinions (well, the oil companies' opinions, at any rate) without being prepared to back them up with some evidence.
Gideon.
