PDA

View Full Version : Jared Diamond and the NAS on Global Warming


DialecticMaterialist
10th September 2003, 01:28 AM
Jared Diamond:

An even commoner reason for a society's failing to perceive a problem is that the problem may take the form of a slow trend concealed by wide up-and-down fluctuations. The prime example in modern times is global warming. We now realize that temperatures around the world have been slowly rising in recent decades, due in large part to changes in the atmosphere caused by humans. However, it is not the case that the climate each year is inexorably 0.17 degrees warmer than in the previous year. Instead, as we all know, climate fluctuates up and down erratically from year to year: three degrees warmer in one summer than the previous summer, then two degrees warmer the next summer, down four degrees the following summer, down another degree the next summer, then up five degrees, etc. With such wide and unpredictable fluctuations, it takes a long time to discern the upwards trend within that noisy signal. That's why it was only a few years ago that the last professional climatologist previously skeptical of the reality of global warming became convinced. Our president is still not convinced of the reality of global warming, and he thinks that we need more research. The medieval Greenlanders had similar difficulties in recognizing that the climate was gradually becoming colder, and the Maya of the Yucatan had difficulties discerning that the climate was gradually becoming drier.



http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/diamond03/diamond_p4.html


And the National Academy of Sciences:

Surface temperature measurements recorded daily at hundreds of locations for more than 100 years indicate that the Earth's surface has warmed by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century. This warming has been particularly strong during the last 20 years, and has been accompanied by retreating glaciers, thinning arctic ice, rising sea levels, lengthening of growing seasons for some, and earlier arrival of migratory birds. In addition, several other data support that conclusion, the report says.



and:

Are We Changing the Climate?

The Earth's surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, and surface temperatures have risen at a substantially greater rate than average in the past two decades. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely because of human activities, for the most part. But it is not known how much of the temperature rise to [Factory Emissions. File Photo.] date is the result of human activities, the report says. Climate models do not adequately represent all the processes that contribute to variability of the climate system

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/webextra.nsf/44bf87db309563a0852566f2006d63bb/e4dcc6e935831fc885256a8400588146?OpenDocument


Both Jared Diamond and the NAS are not people/groups very succeptible to hysteria or unrealistic ideological causes. They are sources I very much trust and admire. I used to be agnostic on the Global Warming issue but these two sources are gradually making me come around. At the very least, we should take notice.

Cain
10th September 2003, 05:20 AM
*sigh*, enough with the statist propaganda.

Jared Diamond should stick to physiology, and it's an open secret that the National Academy of Sciences is populated by liberal crusaders.

I suggest you check out the ICR-- that is the Institute for Climate Research based in San Diego. Practically every researcher there has a Ph.D and they'll happily debate anyone on the sad hoax that is "global warming."

You might also want to consult truly independent sources like www.cato.org/, the American Petroleum Institute (http://api-ec.api.org/intro/index_noflash.htm), and www.junkscience.org/

See also _Reason Magazine_ and Penn & Teller's episode of "********!" dealing with the topic. A host of respectable voices in American discourse disprove the proclamations of these so-called "scientists" daily. A brief list off the top of my head: Rush Limbaugh, Larry Elder, G. Gordon Liddy, Tom Delay, the _Wall Street Journal_ editorial page, Bjorn Lomborg, Shanek, Shane Costello, and Ronald Bailey.

Unlike Jared Diamond -- a notorious socialist -- or the Academy of Sciences -- a bastion of anti-gun hard-core leftism -- none of these commentators hold strong ideological beliefs that may blind their understanding of the actual science.

Publications directed at layman like _Scientific American_ and _New Scientist_ are not to be trusted. And all of us know, for example, how un-American the "scientific journal" _Nature_ is.

How many more times will the politically unbiased, scientifically-inclined JREF posters among us have to tolerate another thread perpetuating the left-wing global warming myth?

Jon_in_london
10th September 2003, 05:43 AM
Surface temperature measurements recorded daily at hundreds of locations for more than 100 years indicate that the Earth's surface has warmed by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century.

So for 100 years they have been accurately (to within 1 farenhight whatever a farenheit might be) measuring the earths surface and have concluded that there has been a one farenwotsit increase compared too..............erm...........

Excuse me while I go and be unconvinced.

Quasi
10th September 2003, 06:35 AM
I agree that global warming is ocurring, but I strongly disagree what we should do about it. Essentially, I do not want my taxes to go up, I want the economy strong, and I will vote appropriately. The IPCC, the UN board has recommended actions totally rediculous as to our current knowledge of GW. So we do need more research before we commit to outragous changes in the world economy and how we live. Asshat politicians today all think in billions- Dukakis wants 7 billion for a train track between South Boston and North Station, Bush wants 87 billion for Iraq, Gov. Romney wants 10 billion for the power grid- guess who gets to pay for it all?

Mr Manifesto
10th September 2003, 06:39 AM
Originally posted by Cain
*sigh*, enough with the statist propaganda.

Jared Diamond should stick to physiology, and it's an open secret that the National Academy of Sciences is populated by liberal crusaders.

I suggest you check out the ICR-- that is the Institute for Climate Research based in San Diego. Practically every researcher there has a Ph.D and they'll happily debate anyone on the sad hoax that is "global warming."

You might also want to consult truly independent sources like www.cato.org/, the American Petroleum Institute (http://api-ec.api.org/intro/index_noflash.htm), and www.junkscience.org/

See also _Reason Magazine_ and Penn & Teller's episode of "********!" dealing with the topic. A host of respectable voices in American discourse disprove the proclamations of these so-called "scientists" daily. A brief list off the top of my head: Rush Limbaugh, Larry Elder, G. Gordon Liddy, Tom Delay, the _Wall Street Journal_ editorial page, Bjorn Lomborg, Shanek, Shane Costello, and Ronald Bailey.

Unlike Jared Diamond -- a notorious socialist -- or the Academy of Sciences -- a bastion of anti-gun hard-core leftism -- none of these commentators hold strong ideological beliefs that may blind their understanding of the actual science.

Publications directed at layman like _Scientific American_ and _New Scientist_ are not to be trusted. And all of us know, for example, how un-American the "scientific journal" _Nature_ is.

How many more times will the politically unbiased, scientifically-inclined JREF posters among us have to tolerate another thread perpetuating the left-wing global warming myth?

Damn, you, Cain, use sarcasm tags! Some of us aren't too swift, here.

I'd just finished a rant about how the hell can you think the American Petroleum Institutes is an indepenant source. Then I read the rest of the post and saw the bit about Rush et al not holding strong ideological beliefs. I'd like that five minutes of my life back.

Cain
10th September 2003, 10:09 AM
<-------------------My duck is cute.

bignickel
10th September 2003, 11:45 AM
I too got taken in by Cain's post.

The problem is: I usually read the first 2-3 paragraphs, and when my BS alarm goes off, I stop paying attention to the rest.

Dang, that "host of respectable voices" bit should have been the tipoff.

Doppleschaden!

DialecticMaterialist
10th September 2003, 11:58 AM
Well I'm not sure what we should do about. Perhaps at most take a few small steps, until we get more evidence. Though I wouldn't mind a tax increase, if it seriously came to avoid Global Warming vs. a small tax increase the choice should be obvious. I personally don't know why people are so paranoid of taxes anyways. Conservatives complain about government spending and taxes but don't complain about how the war on Iraq costs us quite a bit. I guess they wish for small government everywhere except the military just to be different from liberals, who want large government everywhere but the military. Pinker goes more into this in his latest research i.e. examining the development of liberal/conservative traditions but as for now I'm just puzzled.

Solitaire
10th September 2003, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Well I'm not sure what we should do about.
Perhaps at most take a few small steps, until we get more evidence.
Small step number one: show the model that calculates the
temperature of the atmosphere based upon its composition.
I've search the net for ages looking for even a simple on
dimensional model that will allow me not only to calculate
a temperature of the Earth, but Mar and Venus as well.

Sundog
10th September 2003, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by Cain
*sigh*, enough with the statist propaganda.

Jared Diamond should stick to physiology...


:roll:

Brilliant post. Took me in completely until I got to the "respectable voices" part.. You are evil!

peptoabysmal
10th September 2003, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Well I'm not sure what we should do about. Perhaps at most take a few small steps, until we get more evidence. Though I wouldn't mind a tax increase, if it seriously came to avoid Global Warming vs. a small tax increase the choice should be obvious. I personally don't know why people are so paranoid of taxes anyways. Conservatives complain about government spending and taxes but don't complain about how the war on Iraq costs us quite a bit. I guess they wish for small government everywhere except the military just to be different from liberals, who want large government everywhere but the military. Pinker goes more into this in his latest research i.e. examining the development of liberal/conservative traditions but as for now I'm just puzzled.

The best solution I've heard so far is to pollute more. That is; to dump iron into the ocean.

Story (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/ironoceans001012.html)

EvilYeti
10th September 2003, 10:55 PM
There's a thread going on in the Science forum with a discussion of some of the mechanisms and evidence of global warming as a man-made phenomena. It brought alot of woo-woo's out of the woodwork.

Anyone interested in the definitive meta-analysis of the data should read the following paper:

"The Seasons, Global Temperature, and Precession" by David Thompson. Science magazine, April 1995

a_unique_person
11th September 2003, 05:36 AM
Originally posted by Synchronicity

Small step number one: show the model that calculates the
temperature of the atmosphere based upon its composition.
I've search the net for ages looking for even a simple on
dimensional model that will allow me not only to calculate
a temperature of the Earth, but Mar and Venus as well.

here is a model for you to look at

http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/gordon_2002a.pdf