"Sure Global Warming is still not proven, but why not do what we can to decrease its likelihood. It's like smoking cigarettes. You may get cancer, you may not. You may get coronary artery diease, you may not. Why not optimize your chances?"

Isn't that what we're already doing?

---

One does not discover new lands without consenting to lose sight of the shore for a very long time. --Andre Gide

Hope is as hollow as fear. --Lao-tzu

Isn't that what we're already doing?

Boy, I hope so.

Rare mother-of-pearl coloured clouds caused by extreme weather conditions are seen above Australia's meteorological base known as Mawson Station in Antarctica in this July 25, 2024 picture. Known as nacreous clouds, the formations can only form in temperatures lower than minus 80 degrees Celcius (minus 112 Fahrenheit). They are a possible indication of global warming.

I don't know if Global Warming is real or not. I do know, it's a THEORY. It could be a fact, but it hasn't been proven. So right now, it's a "best guess".

Like I said, weather records only go back about 100 years or so....well, since 1850, so I guess it's more like 156 years. Here's an interesting article which discusses WHY the global warming theory may be, in fact, wrong.

This is only an excerpt, you can read the whole thing at: www.theage.com.au/articles/003/04/06/1049567563628.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Research casts doubt on global warming theory

April 7 2024

The Middle Ages were warmer than today, say scientists, forcing a rethink on climate change, writes Robert Matthews in London.

Claims that man-made pollution has caused unprecedented global warming have been undermined by research that shows the Earth was warmer in the Middle Ages.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To act as if global warming is some sort of theory that hasn't been "proven" is to completely miss the point.

Perhaps a few theories have been "proven." These are called laws. Everything else is still a damned theory. Earth going around the sun? A theory. Germs? A theory. Evolution? A theory. Still, we can go about our daily lives knowing these things to be true and behaving accordingly. Global warming is the same. The existence of a few crackpots doesn't change the fact that the world's climates are spiraling out of control.

Bury your head in the sand if you must, but stop trying to take everyone else with you.

Liz

---

God Bless Ken Wilber

Actually, the earth going around the sun isn't a theory. It's a fact, it's observed. We know it to be true. Evolution, on the other hand, is a theory.

The worlds climates are changing, no doubt, and I have no doubt that man is somewhat to blame, but is it actually global warming?

I don't have my head in the sand, but neither am I wearing blinders when anything contrary to the "theory" comes out against it. Just because people WANT it to be global warming doesn't make it so.

I believe we should conserve energy, find less polluting sources, lessen emmissions, but I am not going to push that agenda with a shaky theory called global warming. If you group them together, and the theory is disproved, you just destroyed everything you tagged along with it.

Read opposing points, and see why they argue that the method some groups are using to point to GW is flawed.

Is it this, is it that, or is it something else?

 

Scientists at NOAA have discovered that the world ocean has warmed significantly during the past 40 years.

 

 

To the right is an ice core reading, note the rise in Co2

 

 

I am more than happy to be wrong about Global Warming. I choose to behave as IF it were a fact. Prove me wrong...fine, that's OK. Isn't the real issue changing ones LIFE STYLE and the MONEY it will cost to solve the issue? 

Are we playing Russian Roulette?

Actually, the earth going around the sun isn't a theory. It's a fact, it's observed. We know it to be true. Evolution, on the other hand, is a theory.

The worlds climates are changing, no doubt, and I have no doubt that man is somewhat to blame, but is it actually global warming?

No theory is ever proven to everyone's satisfaction (for example, there are still Flat Earthers who refute the scientific community's overwhelming consensus and evidence about the earth going around the sun and the Catholic Church just a few years ago finally apologized to Galileo).  Evolution is exactly the same, the evidence is observable and irrefutable using the scientific method ..........there is NO serious debate or evidence to the contrary in the scientific community about the core existence of evolution (only some of the details).

A few Evolution-Flat Earthers still exist among scientists, but not many more than the original Flat Earthers.........and the same goes for the proportion of refereed scientific studies that support alternative theories to the basic principles of evolution............they are rounding error..........something like 500:1.

Now, could the 1 be right?  Sure, but he needs to prove it to the other 500.........and no serious work is being done or progress is being made in that regard in the scientific community........the basic debate among the professionals has been dead for decades..........

Right now, THE GLOBAL-WARMING THEORY AND EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT HAS RESULTED IN A NEARLY UNIVERSAL CONSENSUS among professional scientists that: dangerous global warming exists, a highly-significant proportion is man-made, as long as we continue on the present course of pouring carbons and other pollutants into the atmosphere the earth will continue warming  rapidly to even more dangerous levels, and the possibility exists that we may have already reached or are very near a tipping point which is beyond our control that may spiral out of control........

Yes global warming is still a theory (it always will be), but a society that has advanced beyond blue values must accept the OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS of the orange scientific community when there is virtually no serious disagreement among them around the globe on these findings and the basic actions we should take..........I would also argue that this is the best path to advance the even-more advanced green-values stage that we need to enter to continue to progress........but let's at least get to orange, shall we, and not remain stuck in the era of dissembling and inadequate blue-value domination?

By all means, if you have not made up your mind on this or any other theory/issue, read the available literature by the credentialed scientists who have published their findings, weigh all the available facts and evidence and find your understanding of the truth about it.  But please do so ASAP, but don't wait for it to be "proven" 100%..........it never will be! 

The scientific community needs your help in convincing a majority of population, special interests and politicians in control that the theory of global warming is supported by overwhelming evidence and it calls for significant actions and changes to be made immediately to avoid continually-growing environmental catastrophes.

---

"No problem can be solved at the level of consciousness that created it in the first place!"

887 Posts on Forum #1; 222 Posts on Forum #2......Member Since 8/8/2003

wouldn't it be interesting to do an aqal analysis of this thread?

for starters, isn't crutzen suffering from a bad case of RQ absolutism?

ralph

---

Sure, he's a flatland scientist........but that doesn't mean his and other scientists' contributions in this area are not useful........they are in fact, critical to our continued survival, progress and evolution..........

For a counter-balancing, we need to look to the emerging green-spirituality v-meme paradigm that emphasizes the LQ inter-connectedness of all phenomena in a universal web, the truths of the neccessity of far greater degrees and expressions of compassion, justice, equity and wisdom than are possible under orange and blue v-meme value systems...........

R.K.

---

"No problem can be solved at the level of consciousness that created it in the first place!"

887 Posts on Forum #1; 222 Posts on Forum #2......Member Since 8/8/2003

---

One does not discover new lands without consenting to lose sight of the shore for a very long time. --Andre Gide

Hope is as hollow as fear. --Lao-tzu

Nope. Didn't get it. Hilarious-thanks for pointing that out!

Liz

---

God Bless Ken Wilber

Published on Wednesday, August 2, 2024 by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Washington)

Forward-Thinking Idea For a Trendsetter

by Charles Komanoff

"Microsoft is looking for more elbow room," said a recent headline in The New York Times, over a picture of a new six-story parking garage going up at Microsoft's Redmond headquarters. What's wrong with this picture? Microsoft wants elbowroom. Microsoft builds new car park. New car park enables more car commuting. More car commuting means more traffic gridlock. More gridlock means less elbowroom. Not a winning strategy. Here's a better one: What if Microsoft paid employees for not driving to work? Wouldn't that discourage car commuting to its headquarters, reducing road congestion and making that expensive new garage superfluous? Indeed it would. Microsoft could strike a double blow against traffic jams and global warming, simply by instituting a system to pay employees cash bonuses for each day they show up at work without driving. This system, known as "cashing out" parking, has been a smashing success at eight California firms since the '90s. The number of cars driven to those companies has fallen an average of 11 percent as employees have traded parking spaces for cash by biking to work, taking a train or bus or carpooling. Microsoft tries hard to entice commuters out of solo commutes with free FlexPasses, preferential carpool parking, showers for bike riders and such. But without the allure of cool, hard cash, those are undersubscribed. If Microsoft also offered, say, $6 per avoided car trip (double the rate in California), the number of car commutes to its Redmond campus, now more than 20,000 a day, might easily drop by 15 percent. What would 3,000 fewer car journeys mean? Quite a lot. If the typical one-way commute is 10 miles and goes 20 mpg, 3,000 gallons of gas would be saved each day, along with 30 tons of CO2 emissions. With fewer cars clogging the roads, the time savings would add up too -- not just for Microsoft employees but for other drivers, too. Where would the money come from? Partly, from the dollars Microsoft saves by not having to build and maintain so many car parks. This pot could be sweetened by a "productivity fund" reflecting workers' quicker commutes and even a "climate fund" reflecting reduced greenhouse emissions. Microsoft's leadership would be a big step forward for parking cashout. The Redmond campus employs 100 times as many people as the biggest cashout site to date, in Santa Monica. And Microsoft isn't just huge; it's a trendsetter. If every U.S. workplace offered parking cashout, the savings could be staggering -- more than 2 percent of all U.S. vehicle miles traveled, and more than 10 million gallons of gasoline a day. It's not just gridlock and gas, either. The climate crisis demands new financial incentives. Building rail lines and bike paths and wind farms is essential, but climate solutions need to be systemic. We need to reward every decision to not drive or jet or burn. Al Gore put it well in a recent speech at another corporate behemoth, Wal-Mart: "We should sharply reduce payroll taxes and make it all up in CO2 taxes so the low- and middle-income people don't bear the cost burden of this big transition in energy sources." Cashing out parking is the same principle, applied at the parking place. Hey Bill Gates, step outside the box and start a revolution. Charles Komanoff, of New York City, is an economist and environmental activist www.komanoff.net. © 2024 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

---

"Dwell in possibility" - Emily Dickinson

I didn't get it either, now that I do: lol

""Sure Global Warming is still not proven, but why not do what we can to decrease its likelihood. It's like smoking cigarettes. You may get cancer, you may not. You may get coronary artery diease, you may not. Why not optimize your chances [of getting it]?"

If the underlined word have been "increase" I would have gotten it right away...

arthur

---

"Dwell in possibility" - Emily Dickinson

rkrkrk:

Right now, THE GLOBAL-WARMING THEORY AND EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT HAS RESULTED IN A NEARLY UNIVERSAL CONSENSUS among professional scientists that: dangerous global warming exists, a highly-significant proportion is man-made, as long as we continue on the present course of pouring carbons and other pollutants into the atmosphere the earth will continue warming  rapidly to even more dangerous levels, and the possibility exists that we may have already reached or are very near a tipping point which is beyond our control that may spiral out of control........

I don't disagree. I think you need to dig deeper though. Pointing out that many scientist agree on this theory is like telling me that dogs eat dog food. NOBODY is denying that many scientist agree on it, esp. me.

I'm simply saying that weather, it affects, and how it correlates into patterns is something I deal with every day in my job. I use this knowledge about weather patterns to help form my view. I am not convinced that this is not a recurring CYCLE. It may be a 300 year cycle, it may be more. I don't know, and more importantly, the scientist DON'T know. I think it would be rather rash to start discussing ozone alterations and what not to correct something that may not be broke.

There is no doubt that the climate is warming. I know of no one, including myself, that says this is not happening. Is it global warming? I don't know. I don't believe the current models are accurate because we simply do not have enough weather history to produce a an accurate model. So, far, I am not convinced it is "global warming" as much as cyclic warming that happens every so many years (ala weather phenom like El Nino)

Here's an interesting paragraph from a study:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to properly read any of the reports or research on global climate change, one must keep in mind that nothing (or almost nothing) is certain. Everything has a certain degree of uncertainty, a certain flavor of the unknown. There really is no conclusive evidence of global warming, and many scientists in favor of the global warming hypothesis say that it will be a decade or more before it is possible to develop any substantial evidence. As an anonymous senior climate modeler has said about global warming, "The more you learn, the more you understand that you don't understand very much" (Kerr - Greenhouse Forecasting). Global climate is by nature always fluctuating, and that only adds to the confusion about anthropogenic global warming. If there were an anthropogenic global warming, we couldn't be sure what temperature we were supposed to be at, as climate shifts are a natural part of life on Earth. Compounding that confusion is natural variability, which is always working to confuse researchers just as they come close to attributing a perceived change in average temperature to some external factor, such as atmospheric composition (GHGs) or solar variation. One reason for this variability is the long adjustment time of the oceans' heat storage and current systems. It is estimated to take several hundred years for water to circulate from the deepest portions of the oceans back to the surface. This means that if, for example, a pool of extra cold water is singled out and stored in the depths by some freak mechanism, it could stay there a century or two before resurfacing and producing a local, cool climate change (Clarkson, North, and Schmandt).

Since no one can create another Earth (let alone one that behaves exactly like ours) and perform atmosphere-altering experiments on it, we are left with the alternative of theorizing based on observations. In other words, the only way we can purport to know anything about what might be changing in our climate is by playing with data, such as records of temperature, borehole measurements, etc., and seeing what scenarios the data will agree with.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's another brief quote from the same:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And so, we can see that the science behind global warming is far from settled. Much is not known and conflicting theories abound, as they often do in scientific forums. New ideas and new studies keep the science of global climate change going, keep it second guessing itself, keep it looking for newer, better ways to explain what's going on. In the end, global climate change may be a way for science to prove it can work well even under the most uncertain of circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, even though the general consensus is that the planet is warming (and no doubt it is), it may not be global warming, in the manner which so many have been lead to believe from the hype in the news and enviromental organizations that are intentionally hyping this angle to further their agendas.

Like I said earlier, by all means, let's pollute less, find other sources of clean energy....why? Because it's the right thing to do. The sooner they better, right? We get cleaner air, water, and soil.

However, I will not blindly follow dubious studies, flawed models, and a possible errant consensus simply because many people believe global warming is a fact.

Great post Liz,

 
I think as much of the study of climate change involves the study of the anti climate change ad campaign as a history of the last twenty years as does the actual statistics. Al Gores book draws a similar parallel to smoking when in the early days cigarette companies denied the links to cancer by bringing skepticism to the health studies. How do we know? When I look out my back door up here in the forest I see about 80% of the forest dead. The trees are walking off the mountain seeking a cooler climate. I haven’t had a six foot snow pack in more than a decade. The trees are dying and my house is hotter than it has ever been. But then the “scientists” have been telling us that for years.

 
Regarding the initial post…it appears to be a rational technical solution to a rational technical problem. What we know by studying integral (as our buddy Einstien said), is that the problems created at one level can only be solved by a higher level. So maybe from an integral perspective we should consider that the technical problem of global heat increase as a LR “Truth” might involve more than a LR technical fix. We also should consider the other quadrants as the problem did not just pop up without tetra-emergence from the other quadrants. I am also making the radically integral assumption that the solution will be expressed not only by our techno economic base but also from our hearts, minds, beliefs, cultural ideologies. This is complex stuff and will require a lot more than just continually expressing our opinions, or “hiding our heads in the sand” when it gets tough.

 
I would cherish an integral dissection of climate change and its solution…usually referred to as sustainability. A good start is to ask the question “What do you want to sustain, for whom, and for how long?” Please see Will Varey’s paper “Defining Sustainability: An Integral Triptych” at http://emrgnc.com.au/Integral.Sustainability.Assessment.pdf.

 
And by the way for a rational solution to a big problem we have to honor the guy who wants to fix the problem as he sees it, (his perspective) and also see that it is only part of the picture and part of the problem.

---

With Love, John

The distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion. -- Albert Einstein