PDA
You are viewing a trimmed-down version of the SkyscraperPage.com discussion forum.  For the full version, click the link below.

View Full Version : Global Warming: Consequences of a rising Bay


BTinSF
02-19-2007, 07:50 AM
It's gonna get damp!

CONSEQUENCES OF A RISING BAY

GLOBAL WARMING: New set of maps reveals how melting polar ice could change shoreline and carry a high price for entire region

Jane Kay, Chronicle Environment Writer
Sunday, February 18, 2007

New maps show that neighborhoods and roads in many cities near the San Francisco Bay shoreline would be under water if global warming causes tides to rise as much as 3 feet in the coming decades, and officials say regions face key decisions about where people will be able to live and build.

The maps, which the Bay Conservation and Development Commission prepared for The Chronicle, offer a detailed look at how a changing shoreline would affect life around the bay.

Parts of Corte Madera, San Rafael, Hayward and Newark and much of the Silicon Valley shoreline would be under water, including a portion of Moffett Field, the site of NASA Ames Research Center, where Google wants to build a 1 million-square-foot campus.

On the edge of the rising waters would be stadium sites proposed for the 49ers -- in Santa Clara and at the Hunters Point Shipyard in San Francisco. Fremont's proposed site for the Oakland A's ballpark also could be vulnerable to flooding in the 21st century, the maps show.

Wastewater treatment plants for more than a dozen cities in the South Bay, including San Jose, and the industrial ponds for the Valero oil refinery in Benicia and the Chevron refinery in Richmond, would be inundated by the projected rise in the bay.

While the Bay Area has done a good job designing for earthquakes, it hasn't done so for sea-level rise, said Will Travis, executive director of the bay conservation agency, which approves shoreline development. Aside from cutting greenhouse gas emissions, Travis said, "The amount of planning and preparing that we do is really what will affect how severe the impacts are here.''

Cities can protect vulnerable shorelines with sea walls and levees, but the fixes and maintenance would cost billions of dollars. Officials will have to decide what to save and what to let go. Some development plans in the works may have to be shelved or drastically re-engineered, Travis said.

The maps illustrate the regions of risk. Among the areas threatened are:

-- In the North Bay, low areas include Bel Marin Keys, parts of Highway 37 and much of the former Hamilton Air Force Base around Black Point. Parts of Highway 101, Mill Valley and Sausalito would be flooded. Sections of Corte Madera would be under water, as would southern San Rafael.

-- On the San Francisco shoreline, vulnerable spots include parts of Mission Bay housing and office developments, Caltrain tracks, Candlestick Point redevelopment, Heron's Head Park and the city's sewage-treatment system on Islais Creek. Parts of Treasure Island and the San Francisco and Oakland airports would be under water.

-- Foster City and parts of San Mateo, Redwood City, Mountain View and Palo Alto would be flooded. Waters would inundate sewage treatment plants located in Palo Alto, Sunnyvale and Alviso, which serve dozens of cities and thousands of businesses. Parts of Shoreline Park at Mountain View would be at risk of flooding.

-- Parts of Alameda, San Leandro, Hayward, Union City, Fremont and Newark, including sections of Interstate 880, would be covered with water.

-- The Richmond Parkway and parts of Richmond and San Pablo are vulnerable to rising bay water, as is the enormous West County landfill.

Areas of greatest risk

The new maps showing a 1-meter rise shouldn't be used for specific planning purposes, the bay agency's representatives say, although the maps indicate which regions of the shoreline are at the greatest risk of incremental inundation.

Just how fast or how high the oceans might rise in the coming decades are points of uncertainty among climate scientists. Most models don't take into account the recent increasing rate of melt in Greenland and sloughing of ice in western Antarctica. Nor can they project with much confidence the amount of expansion of ocean waters as they warm. At this point, models show a range of rise from 0.5 meter to 5 meters by 2100.

The problems for a metropolitan estuary are enormous. Topping the list is saltwater flowing up into the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, where pumps send fresh water to two-thirds of Californians. Homes, businesses, highways, groundwater and wetland habitat would be flooded.

Sea water would inundate dozens of industrial and municipal wastewater systems ringing the bay, disrupting treatment. Another worry is old shoreline dumps and military installations that could leak biological and chemical contaminants into the bay if soaked.

"Since the bay isn't going to rise over night, the landfill owners can extend dikes, as well as design for flood control, as part of a maintenance program,'' said Curtis Scott, chief of the ground water and waste contamination division of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.

For example, bay waters would lap up around the big West County landfill off Richmond in the event of a 1-meter rise. The owner, Republic Industries, already has dug down into the bay and built walls around it. The wall could go higher, Scott said.

Lila Tang, the regional board's division chief of wastewater permitting, said municipal and industrial wastewater treatment plants are at risk because they're generally at the low spots on the edge of the bay.

Difficult solutions

Protecting them "isn't as simple as building a berm or seawall around a sewage treatment plant," she said. "If the bay water rises, the operators would have to install additional pumping capacity to force the treated water out to a higher bay.'' Other problems would be backflow into the system or a rising groundwater table that would allow seepage into the collection system.

There are no current cost figures of what's at stake. In 1990, the Pacific Institute, an Oakland independent think tank, determined that a 1-meter rise would threaten $48 billion in residential, commercial and industrial property. Constructing new levees and seawalls, raising buildings, freeways and railroads and replenishing beaches, according to the estimates then, would exceed $940 million with $100 million a year to maintain.

Officials from the bay conservation agency and the Pacific Institute are seeking funds to conduct a study to identify real estate, infrastructure and natural resources at risk, and calculate the costs.

Perhaps hardest hit would be the South Bay and Silicon Valley, where government agencies and property owners have started to look at ways to reduce flooding. Some parts of Santa Clara County have dropped 14 feet as the ground sank when groundwater was pumped from the 1940s to 1960s. Agricultural lands in the North Bay and delta islands have also dropped.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is poised to play a part in levee construction, and is conducting a study of South Bay shoreline flood-control with agencies including the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The work will be done in conjunction with the major transformation of some 15,000 acres of salt ponds into tidal marsh.

Few fears for sports teams

Some businesses are more concerned than others. Forty-niners spokeswoman Lisa Lang said the team owners "are aware of the predictions and the many variables associated with them'' at a Santa Clara site under consideration for a new stadium. But she said the owners believe that if the site is feasible, "it will provide decades of enjoyment for our fans.''

The Oakland A's plan to build a ballpark in Fremont at one of the sites at risk of rising tides. Team spokesman Jim Young has said that if the owners thought the water was a problem, they wouldn't be going ahead with planning for a Fremont park.

Officials at the NASA Ames Research Park on Moffett Field are actively working with the Corps of Engineers and others to plan levee protection from sea-level rise, said Sandy Olliges, deputy director of the environmental office. Already home to dozens of businesses, nonprofits and universities, NASA Ames is planning to build the world's largest concentration of high-tech companies, including the Google campus.

But few of California's coastal cities and counties have taken action to prepare for rising tides, said Susanne Moser, a research scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who surveyed 300 planners, public works engineers and other officials from city and county governments last year.

Only one city, Berkeley, and two counties, Sonoma and San Luis Obispo, had in place some plan that considers the effects of global warming. San Francisco, Alameda, Palo Alto, Solana Beach (San Diego County), Goleta (Santa Barbara County) and the counties of Contra Costa, Marin and Humboldt are preparing plans.

The officials who haven't acted blamed lack of money, staff and support from the state and federal governments, as well as the press of other obligations.

It's difficult for local officials to plan given the uncertainty of how much sea levels will rise, said Harvard University Professor John Holdren, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, who is in San Francisco for the group's annual meeting.

But he said a new report expected next month from the United Nations will proclaim that "prudence requires not building close to the shoreline in the future.''

Learn about climate change
Discussions of climate change and other events will be held at a free Family Science Day today in San Francisco that is part of the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The programs will be held in the Yosemite Room of the Hilton San Francisco, 333 O'Farrell St., between 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. For more information, go to aaasmeeting.org.

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/02/18/mn_bigger_bay_maps_clr.jpg
E-mail Jane Kay at jkay@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/18/MNG6SO72DJ1.DTL

Smiley Person
02-20-2007, 05:32 AM
The real consequences are a little further east on the map... From Sacramento to Stockton, we'll be looking at the California Central Lake.

Reminiscence
02-20-2007, 05:46 AM
If anything, this might be a return to normality as California was actually underwater long ago. The Central Valley or even Death Valley, may become the West Coast's Great Lakes. I wonder what the planning commision is doing in anticipation of this affecting San Francisco.

tujunga
02-20-2007, 01:12 PM
Normality would depend on how fast the sea level rises or drops.

What is a Rivercat?
02-20-2007, 05:31 PM
People still believe in global warming? lamerz

northbay420
02-20-2007, 05:49 PM
People still believe in global warming? lamerz

^ haha. ill be laughing when your house is underwater. to think (7 billion) humans have no effect on the environment is just plain stupid. :whip:

i think a possibility to minimize the destruction would be a type of dam structure spanning the entrance to the bay (similar to the system venice is constructing).

northbay420
02-20-2007, 06:02 PM
^ok, heres some proof:

"The Earth is absorbing more energy from the Sun than it is giving back into space, according to a new study by climate scientists in the US....The group describes its results as "the smoking gun that we were looking for", removing any doubt that human activities are warming the planet."

see full article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4495463.stm

or go to http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fgwscience2006.asp

the above site has a list of studies they refer to on their website, many from universities and NASA.

Frisco_Zig
02-20-2007, 10:25 PM
If anything, this might be a return to normality as California was actually underwater long ago. The Central Valley or even Death Valley, may become the West Coast's Great Lakes. I wonder what the planning commision is doing in anticipation of this affecting San Francisco.

We are about to approve large projects in these compromised areas such as the huge Treasure Island redevelopemt and the new Fremont ballpark for the A's

Its to far off to concern anyone I guess

What is a Rivercat?
02-20-2007, 11:27 PM
^ok, heres some proof:

"The Earth is absorbing more energy from the Sun than it is giving back into space, according to a new study by climate scientists in the US....The group describes its results as "the smoking gun that we were looking for", removing any doubt that human activities are warming the planet."

see full article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4495463.stm

or go to http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fgwscience2006.asp

the above site has a list of studies they refer to on their website, many from universities and NASA.

Oh finally! PROOF of global warming!

Here's some more:

GLOBAL COOLING: 1890s-1930s

The Times, February 24, 1895
"Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again"
Fears of a "second glacial period" brought on by increases in northern glaciers and the severity of Scandinavia's climate.

New York Times, October 7, 1912
"Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age"

Los Angeles Times, June 28, 1923
"The possibility of another Ice Age already having started ... is admitted by men of first rank in the scientific world, men specially qualified to speak."

Chicago Tribune, August 9, 1923
"Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada."

Time Magazine, September 10, 1923
"The discoveries of changes in the sun's heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age."

New York Times, September 18, 1924
"MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age"



GLOBAL WARMING: 1930s-1960s

New York Times, March 27, 1933
"America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise"

Time Magazine, January 2, 1939
"Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right.... weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer."

Time Magazine, 1951
Noted that permafrost in Russia was receding northward at 100 yards per year.

New York Times, 1952
Reported global warming studies citing the "trump card" as melting glaciers. All the great ice sheets stated to be in retreat.

U.S. News and World Report, January 18, 1954
"[W]inters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing."



GLOBAL COOLING: 1970s

Time Magazine, June 24, 1974
"Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

Christian Science Monitor, August 27, 1974
"Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster than Even Experts Expect"
Reported that "glaciers have begun to advance"; "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter"; and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool".

Science News, March 1, 1975
"The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed, and we are unlikely to quickly regain the 'very extraordinary period of warmth' that preceded it."

Newsweek, April 28, 1975
"The Cooling World"
"There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now."

International Wildlife, July-August, 1975
"But the sense of the discoveries is that there is no reason why the ice age should not start in earnest in our lifetime."

New York Times, May 21, 1975
"Scientists Ponder Why World's Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable"



GLOBAL WARMING: 1990s-?

Earth in the Balance, Al Gore, 1992
"About 10 million residents of Bangladesh will lose their homes and means of sustenance because of the rising sea level due to global warming, in the next few decades."

Time Magazine, April 19, 2001
"[S]cientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible."

New York Times, December 27, 2005
"Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax About New Warming"

The Daily Telegraph, February 2, 2006
"Billions will die, says Lovelock, who tells us that he is not usually a gloomy type. Human civilization will be reduced to a 'broken rabble ruled by brutal warlords,' and the plague-ridden remainder of the species will flee the cracked and broken earth to the Arctic, the last temperate spot where a few breeding couples will survive."

_J_
02-21-2007, 01:37 AM
We are about to approve large projects in these compromised areas such as the huge Treasure Island redevelopemt and the new Fremont ballpark for the A's

Its to far off to concern anyone I guess

So far as the TI Redev. is concerned, there seems to have been some attention paid to this topic. The area most affected by rising sea levels, i.e. the NW corner, is to be completely devoid of habitation. Granted, flooding of power generators wouldn't contribute positively to the infrastructural independence TI is supposed to espouse, but hey at least there won't be 30,000 people made homeless just after they move in.

enigma99a
02-21-2007, 02:40 AM
Rivercat,

Science has been unreliable in the past, but we can now see that CO2 levels are way above what they have ever been. Now you should know that C02 levels are directly related to climate temperature. That being said, how can you ignore the undeniable facts of global warming?

fflint
02-21-2007, 02:55 AM
Oh finally! PROOF of global warming!

Here's some more:

GLOBAL COOLING: 1890s-1930s

The Times, February 24, 1895
"Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again"
Fears of a "second glacial period" brought on by increases in northern glaciers and the severity of Scandinavia's climate.

New York Times, October 7, 1912
"Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age"

Los Angeles Times, June 28, 1923
"The possibility of another Ice Age already having started ... is admitted by men of first rank in the scientific world, men specially qualified to speak."

Chicago Tribune, August 9, 1923
"Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada."

Time Magazine, September 10, 1923
"The discoveries of changes in the sun's heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age."

New York Times, September 18, 1924
"MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age"


GLOBAL WARMING: 1930s-1960s

New York Times, March 27, 1933
"America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise"

Time Magazine, January 2, 1939
"Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right.... weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer."

Time Magazine, 1951
Noted that permafrost in Russia was receding northward at 100 yards per year.

New York Times, 1952
Reported global warming studies citing the "trump card" as melting glaciers. All the great ice sheets stated to be in retreat.

U.S. News and World Report, January 18, 1954
"[W]inters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing."


GLOBAL COOLING: 1970s

Time Magazine, June 24, 1974
"Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

Christian Science Monitor, August 27, 1974
"Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster than Even Experts Expect"
Reported that "glaciers have begun to advance"; "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter"; and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool".

Science News, March 1, 1975
"The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed, and we are unlikely to quickly regain the 'very extraordinary period of warmth' that preceded it."

Newsweek, April 28, 1975
"The Cooling World"
"There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now."

International Wildlife, July-August, 1975
"But the sense of the discoveries is that there is no reason why the ice age should not start in earnest in our lifetime."

New York Times, May 21, 1975
"Scientists Ponder Why World's Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable"


GLOBAL WARMING: 1990s-?

Earth in the Balance, Al Gore, 1992
"About 10 million residents of Bangladesh will lose their homes and means of sustenance because of the rising sea level due to global warming, in the next few decades."

Time Magazine, April 19, 2001
"[S]cientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible."

New York Times, December 27, 2005
"Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax About New Warming"

The Daily Telegraph, February 2, 2006
"Billions will die, says Lovelock, who tells us that he is not usually a gloomy type. Human civilization will be reduced to a 'broken rabble ruled by brutal warlords,' and the plague-ridden remainder of the species will flee the cracked and broken earth to the Arctic, the last temperate spot where a few breeding couples will survive."

Looks like a copy-and-paste from some wing-nut website. Just click the 'fallacies' button for pre-packaged paleo-conservative rhetoric! Thank you for smoking!

What's the deal? Apparently, we're supposed to read these cherry-picked headlines, alone and all by themselves, as constituting some sort of fact about the world. A fact about what? Perhaps it's about science, perhaps it's about politics, and perhpas it's about money. Or maybe it's about all three of them.

When What is a Rivercat clicked 'fallacy,' he actually got a two-fer: red herring and poisoning the well.

A 'red herring' is a diversionary tactic and a fallacy. The intent is to divert attention away from the merits of a given argument, and toward some other argument, idea or thing. Here, whatever conclusion we're expected to draw from the list of headlines is meant to get us thinking not about the merits of the scientific consensus about global warming, but rather, about something else. Perhaps that science is open to change over the course of time, as new data adds to humankind's knowledge about the world? And, of course, that's bad because we all know that every truth was revealed to us 3,000 years ago in the Middle East? Perhaps, perhaps not. Perhaps it's just meant to discredit atmospheric scientists and their work in order to feels good, or serve a purpose.

If the latter is the case, as seems likely, then we're getting the poisoning of the well, which is also a diversionary tactic and a fallacy that pulls one's attention away from the merits of a given argument. One poisons the well by insisting that an argument should be judged not on its merits, but on the supposed merits--here, lack of merits--of the one or ones conveying the argument: "global warming is not happening, because the global warming experts just cannot tell us anything trustworthy or true because they are untrustworthy/ignorant/ill-motivated/hiding something," etc.

A collection of random headlines neither proves nor disproves anything about the current scientific consensus that Earth is now warming, likely as a result of humanity. So why, when the experts in the field are agreed, would a non-expert conclude as true the very opposite of the experts' consensus opinion?

Well, the answer to that question isn't offered up by science, which holds knowledge is its own reward. Opposing science, its methods and its mandate to change over time with the acquisition of new knowledge is the rotten fruit of something else. Perhaps it's a political and religious ideology, a vigorous and reflexive opposition to any idea that is not already accepted or preferred, with total disregard for the merits. Or perhaps it is more about business, where unpleasant factual truths are acknowledged only in their obsfucation, via whatever is necessary to preserve the profit derived from the preferred illusion.

Either way, it's lamer than lamerz. It brings nothing to the table of knowledge.

Reminiscence
02-21-2007, 04:05 AM
So far as the TI Redev. is concerned, there seems to have been some attention paid to this topic. The area most affected by rising sea levels, i.e. the NW corner, is to be completely devoid of habitation. Granted, flooding of power generators wouldn't contribute positively to the infrastructural independence TI is supposed to espouse, but hey at least there won't be 30,000 people made homeless just after they move in.

I was aware Treasure Island had a seawall included in the proposal. I'm not sure however, how much that will benefit due to the fact that global warming may be a very unpredictable chain reaction of events. A warming ocean means not only stronger and larger hurricanes, but also hurricanes at locations previously thought not to support hurricanes due to atmospheric pressure or present oceanic temperatures. Should something like this ever strike the bay area with already elevated water levels, it could very well be a repeat of Hurricane Katrina, and we all know how dissastrous that was.

innov8
02-21-2007, 04:23 AM
^^ One things for sure, every generation thinks they know
better than the one before... as those headlines illustrate.
This can be said about any given subject that has been debated over the years.

tujunga
02-21-2007, 05:51 AM
^ok, heres some proof:

"The Earth is absorbing more energy from the Sun than it is giving back into space, according to a new study by climate scientists in the US....The group describes its results as "the smoking gun that we were looking for", removing any doubt that human activities are warming the planet."

see full article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4495463.stm

or go to http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fgwscience2006.asp

the above site has a list of studies they refer to on their website, many from universities and NASA.

Some scientist think the earth is heating from within; under sea volcanos heat up the oceans water. Who knows, things certainly seem to be off.

:shrug:

fflint
02-21-2007, 06:21 AM
^That "warming from within" idea is not accepted by a majority of experts in the field. In any case, it does not necessarily exclude warming as a result of human activity, which is most likely according to a consensus of the experts in the field.

"Who knows?" Come on. Lots of people know. It's not all up in the air, with everyone running around blind looking under couches for the most likely cause of global warming. The science is in: humanity is most likely warming the planet.

A good rule of thumb when it comes to this sort of thing: when the experts in a given field agree, it is irrational for a non-expert to conclude the opposite is most likely to be true.

What is a Rivercat?
02-21-2007, 03:41 PM
Looks like a copy-and-paste from some wing-nut website. Just click the 'fallacies' button for pre-packaged paleo-conservative rhetoric! Thank you for smoking!

What's the deal? Apparently, we're supposed to read these cherry-picked headlines, alone and all by themselves, as constituting some sort of fact about the world. A fact about what? Perhaps it's about science, perhaps it's about politics, and perhpas it's about money. Or maybe it's about all three of them.

True, it's cherry-picking headlines, but this is exactly the same strategy most advocates of global warming use. The fact is there are more scientists who don't believe in GW than is ever reported.

A collection of random headlines neither proves nor disproves anything about the current scientific consensus that Earth is now warming, likely as a result of humanity. So why, when the experts in the field are agreed, would a non-expert conclude as true the very opposite of the experts' consensus opinion?

If you'd bothered not to pre-judge me like you always, always do, you'd realize my post was not an attempt to disprove GW but to satirize the cherry-picking discussed above. The only difference is you believe the headlines northbay posted while I am skeptical.

It's also incredibly amusing that you assume I am some creationist who hates science - I love science and I love facts even more. And there is no fact yet published that proves man is accelerating GW. I believe the earth is in one of its countless cycles of heating - I have simply not seen proof that man is aiding this warming process.

There is no reason not to be environmentally conscious, it's good whether GW is real or not. What bothers me about you is GW has become one of the very institutions you so often decry - your religion. And like any religion, its followers are especially susceptible to hypocrisy.

Now, since I have actually stood up to you, I suppose you'll invent some infraction and ban me yet again.

soleri
02-21-2007, 08:45 PM
True, it's cherry-picking headlines, but this is exactly the same strategy most advocates of global warming use. The fact is there are more scientists who don't believe in GW than is ever reported.



If you'd bothered not to pre-judge me like you always, always do, you'd realize my post was not an attempt to disprove GW but to satirize the cherry-picking discussed above. The only difference is you believe the headlines northbay posted while I am skeptical.

It's also incredibly amusing that you assume I am some creationist who hates science - I love science and I love facts even more. And there is no fact yet published that proves man is accelerating GW. I believe the earth is in one of its countless cycles of heating - I have simply not seen proof that man is aiding this warming process.

There is no reason not to be environmentally conscious, it's good whether GW is real or not. What bothers me about you is GW has become one of the very institutions you so often decry - your religion. And like any religion, its followers are especially susceptible to hypocrisy.

Now, since I have actually stood up to you, I suppose you'll invent some infraction and ban me yet again.

Say 98% of the world scientists said there was a potentially catastrophic threat coming from a Middle-Eastern dictator who had a WMD program. Your reaction would be to discount their concerns and listen to Al Gore?

No. You cherry-pick according to your ideological impulses (much as Bush and Cheney did regarding Iraq). This is the problem with an epistemology based less on knowledge than the ridicule of knowledge. It's hardly an accident that empiricism is not considered a virtue on the right.

Reminiscence
02-21-2007, 10:53 PM
I for one, believe they've proven time and time again that humans are at least aiding global warming. There has been scientific proof all around us that implements this. Even if there has not been any proof, its noticable that lately things have been warmer than usual. I would think that natural changes in climate happen more gradually over a period of many many years. However, to see a spike in temperatures and carbon dioxide levels that have consistently increased for 60+ years, is to say the least, mysterious. Indeed the levels today are as high or higher than they've been at anytime within the last 600,000+ years. The arguments against global warming are just reversed arguments that are for global warming. I too am a religious person, but I cannot deny the facts that have been proven to me. We have already failed in the first step which was to possibly prevent global warming from even happening. Now it has been suggested that since at least some global warming is inevitable, we should aim at minimizing the effects that will surface in the next 100 years. I just hope politics dont get in the way as they have in so many other ocations in the past.

fflint
02-22-2007, 01:08 AM
Joke of the Day: I'm still laughing at the flailing accusation that the current consensus among experts in the field, holding humans are most likely warming the planet, is a "religion." Meaning, the joke goes on, that anyone who adheres to reason and accepts that consensus opinion among the experts in the field is being a "hypocrite" if he properly points out out the many illogical fallacies engendered in another's cranky, tin-hat argument.

Challenge: Quick--name a religion dedicated to altering its most coveted tenets whenever newly-acquired information rationally compels it!

Leach the controversy: The infinitesimally small fraction of scientists who claim humans are *not* responsible for warming the planet hold no special place, intellectually or scientifically, within their field. They have nothing new to bring--all their existing theories and arguments supporting such a conclusion have already been considered, and rejected, by the vast majority of experts in the field who *do* concur that human activity is warming the planet.

Non-Experts and Reason: It would be entirely irrational for any one of us non-experts to conclude that the vast majority of the scientific establishment and the consensus among experts in the field is unlikely to be true, or that some oppositional claim is more likely to be true.

Reason and Its Discontents: Of course, some non-experts do not aspire to be rational. They are more than willing to insist the experts are wrong, because the unreasonable prefer to go with whatever feels good, or makes them more money, or whatever. They'll reject the scientific experts' consensus because it doesn't jibe with their anti-scientific inherited ancient belief system, or because science gets in the way of making more money. These people are free to sqauwk, of course, from the margins--but they are not entitled to any place of prominence at the table of scientific inquiry and logical discourse.

Denouement: If those who deny the Earth is warming as a result of human activity are right on the science, right on the facts, then let them muster their new evidence and their new arguments--you know, because the existing stuff has already been repeatedly vetted and rejected--and convince the experts in the field. Because that shift in consensus opinion among the experts in the field--and only that--would be good enough to get this non-expert to change his mind.

Forums Directory