Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
Dennis_Harmon

ANWR drilling

Recommended Posts

We must put an end to this sort of civilized discourse lest we tarnish the reputation of cc.com. [big Drink]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Poseur:

We must put an end to this sort of civilized discourse lest we tarnish the reputation of cc.com.
[big Drink]

Well damn me and trask were tryin'

 

Oh well back to waxing the snafflehound... protecting the horsecock... whatever... [Razz][big Drink]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Since science is a human endeavor, it is not entirely possible to divorce it from politics. Surely you are not so naive as to think that scientists don't want to please their funding sources?"

 

The point remains that the use of good method will in fact expose faulty research if it does not meet the tests demanded by good method: repeatiblity, falsifiability, and predicatibility, among others.

 

Do I think groups do not skew their data sometimes? Of course not, but we can sort that out if we all agree on method and refuse to engage in debating whose source is better, instead of whose data and work is better and verifiable.

 

Far too many arenas are now poisoned for serious debate by the ad hominim style attacks on who funded what, instead of who proved what, and by what method. I propose we dispense with the concern over who funded what here in this thread, and instead focus on the claims they are making for their findings.

 

"You (I think it was you, apologies if I'm wrong or if I've misinterpreted) said that the market would settle everything out anyway, when the cost of alternatives came close to the status quo."

 

yes it was me, no worries.

 

"The longer one can avoid adding the full cost up for fossil fuels (if the climate change scenario is right) then the more the market is skewed by disinformation."

 

This why no players should be subsidized. Subsidy is market disinformation about price, choice, and scarcity. I agree everyone should pay the full cost of their choices, and this can be realized by not hiding the costs of making administrative, instead of market, choices of one item over another.

 

"There's nothing anymore pure about "The Market" than there is about "Science." Both are quite open to manipulation for the sake of making money."

 

This is true. However science tries to deal with verifiable absolutes, which are independtly provable and observed, while a market depends on the values of it's participants, many of which are unprovable by their very nature.This establishes a necessarily differing set of guidelines, but in neither case is manipulation by fraud acceptable.

 

"That being said, I've enjoyed your questions, and they will prod me into a little research sometime later when I don't feel guilty about avoiding what I should really be doing right now..."

 

I'm glad I sparked some questions, I'd like to know what you come across independently. I have no emnity towards the idea of warming theories, I am just very suspicious of the science for some of the reasons I have mentioned. Especially in light of the comments of it's supporters (one of whom claimed any doubts should be understated because the goal is just) and the political manipulations evident in Kyoto itself.

 

After all, I do not have to hold a PhD in climate theory to understand good method, and when a model cannot reproduce known events even a dumbass like me can ask why they think it should predict future ones with any accuracy whatsoever. Or ask basic questions like why proponents choose to represent a tiny fraction of the climate record when presenting historical data to the public at large.

 

I expect the give and take of such discussion to better define what is really going on, both politically and scientifically. I'm glad to see so many reasonable folks here, even if we disagree on this issue.

[smile]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MtnGoat

 

there is 30% more C02 in the atmosphere right now than there was pruior to the Industrial Revolution.

 

Over that time the mean global temperature has increased by [don't have this figure readily available, IIRC it is more than 1 degree C]. and the Northern Hemisphere growing season is now 9 days longer.

 

Please tell us what part of this increase is non-anthropogenically caused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MtnGoat, I have to agree with you concerning the nature of the scientific method, and looking back on a post I made (that you quoted) I noticed that I made a typo and meant to write that the best educated minds in the science of climatology can (NOT) conclude that global warming is anthropogenically produced. Still, I have to instinctively believe (which, as you know, doesn't mean squat in science) that we're contributing to the problem. I appreciate the intelligent discussion. Dennis

 

[ 07-16-2002, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: Dennis Harmon ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Over that time the mean global temperature has increased by [don't have this figure readily available, IIRC it is more than 1 degree C]. and the Northern Hemisphere growing season is now 9 days longer."

 

The temperature increase is not seen by satellites which measure troposphere (lower air layer) temperatures which have been operational for a while now.

 

Further, this increase measured by ground stations has data problems not usually discussed. Heat island effects of changing local environments may not be adequately controlled for, as is the decreasing number of stations and the way stations are grouped into larger measurement blocks. Basically, from what I have read this is a commonly made claim but has legitimate problems with the claim which are not yet resolved.

 

"Please tell us what part of this increase is non-anthropogenically caused."

 

I don't know, any more than anyone can tell for sure how much is caused by anthro sources, if *any*. We are in an interglacial. The earth has warmed and cooled all by itself for periods both long and short and as recently as the last couple millenia. The earths "natural" temperature is a *changing* one, not a static one. The idea that we have a set perfect temperature at some recent point in the past is as anthro centered as the idea that we are causing warming.

 

Besides, this all kinds of begs the question, good method details you must prove positive statements, not prove them by assuming you are correct and requiring others to prove you are wrong. IE, prove warming by first positing that warming has occurred (which is *not* a given anyway) and asking someone else to prove how much was natural. If that was your intent, anyway.

 

I do not claim to know how much is natural warming, I sure as hell don't understand the finer points of many concerns, but my suspicion personally is that it probably all is natural. is that answer sufficient?

 

***************

"Still, I have to instinctually believe (which, as you know, doesn't mean squat in science) that we're contributing to the problem. I appreciate the intelligent discussion. Dennis"

 

I guess we're at opposite ends on that one, but reasonable people can and do disagree without each assuming the other is an asshole or liar, (you wouldn't know it from much of CC.com!) and I'm glad you and I can share the place where we have honest disagreement without rancor or suspicion.

 

I have no interest in cooking good old mother earth by my actions or anyone elses, but I also have no interest in using the economic output of billions of people's finite lifespans to fix problems that may not exist!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well even if you don't like the science behind global warming.

 

Burning fosile fuel causes

 

polution in big citys

health problems

getting a good chunk of energy from outside the US

 

Don't you think its in our interest in terms of health and national security to get our energy on our own soil.

 

Biodiesel is available today, and with some government support hydogen could be a practical fuel source in a decade. It wouldn't be the first time government funding speeded up a technology. Why if it wasn't for the space race we would have much slower computers right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of points. The overwhelming majority of scientists involved in climate research recognize the impact of human greenhouse gas emissions on global climate. Most detractors are industry apologists and/or mouthpieces for conservative politics (actually the same thing). A natural warming trend since the last ice age is not contradictory with additional climate warming due to antropogenic inputs. Climate scientists base their opinion on data of the type referred to by Dru (CO2 and temperature of the historical past) not on model results. Numerical climate models are only tools to assess the sensitivity of climate to various parameters (such as CO2 levels), they do not have to reproduce past conditions to tell us something useful about system behavior under changing conditions. It is ridiculous to expect to have complete certainty before we change negative behavior (do you need to be certain that a crevasse is in your path before you rope up?). It is likely that our actions now will only affect the system a few decades in the future which may mean that it may be very late to be reducing our emissions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Burning fosile fuel causes

 

polution in big citys

health problems

getting a good chunk of energy from outside the US"

 

No doubt, all serious problems. My point would be that while these are problems, yes, you don't need to assume global warming is real to deal with them. I don't buy into the "yeah, but what about the other problems it would solve" method of justification. I'm not saying you do this, only that I've seen this before and don't agree with it.

 

"Don't you think its in our interest in terms of health and national security to get our energy on our own soil."

 

Heck yes.... That's why I said we should drill ANWAR, in a thread about drilling ANWAR! I think we should eliminate subsidies to oil (and all other energy sources hydro, nuclear, wind, solar, etc), let the prices float where they need to go. And tell the Saudis to stuff it, we don't need their oil and will now deal with their other major export, religious murderers, since we are no longer forced to ignore their complicity by our oil use.

 

"Biodiesel is available today,"

 

Does it generate more energy than it takes to create it? A crucial point, just wondering if this has been addessed.

 

"and with some government support hydogen could be a practical fuel source in a decade."

 

We'd have to disagree here, I don't favor subsidy.

 

"It wouldn't be the first time government funding speeded up a technology."

 

It also wouldn't be the first time govt funding sped up a losing technology either, which does happen. I don't care what govt thinks is a winner, I care what market forces think is a winner because that's what shows actual efficiency, but only in the absence of subsidies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Numerical climate models are only tools to assess the sensitivity of climate to various parameters (such as CO2 levels),"

 

I posit that if they cannot model the past, what they are testing is their *model's* sensitivity to CO2, because they have not established their model is correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't stepped on my dick in a few months so here goes.

1. I've been to modern drilling sites in the GREAT state of Alaska. The men and women that work there are very aware of keeping things as clean as possible. Mistakes and accidents are the nature of the business but the companies operating the services there are quick to respond.

2. Modern drilling platforms can directional drill therefore placeing less stress on the surrounding lands and waters to get to the crude oil.

3. How many of the people complaining walk, ride a bicycle, ride public transportation or use a horse, mule, donkey for transportation more that 50% of the time? Do you use modern climbing ropes, pack backs, modern mountaineering clothing that is quick dry? And don't give me that shit that you use the recycled plastic from Patagonia, 'casuse it came originally from oil.

4. Here is a tid bit I found in a history magazine. At the turn of century in the greater New York Borough there were as many horses as people. 99% of the horses were used for work in the borough. Each horse urinated 2 to 3 gallons each day in the streets of the borough. Each horse defecated 10 to 15 pounds of manure daily in the streets of the borough. When a horse fell in its harness and dies which they did frequently it was up to the borough to remove it. Now, if you lived in the up scale areas of the borough then the carcass was removed promptly otherwise it was left until a borough crew got there and in the cases of the poorer sections of the borough it stayed there until dogs, cats, crows, magots, ants etc. worked it down so it would wash away in the up coming rain storms. And finally, our little friends, English Sparrows, were imported by our government to help in the removal of horse manure. It seems the little buggers like to pick thru the manure to find undigested tid bits and by doing so sped up the decomposition of the manure.

5. Picture our cities of today with its ever expanding population if we were forced to go back to 4 legged transportation?

6. I haven't seen the usual agrument: Well, in European countries more people use bicycles,and walk. Those cities for the most part are far smaller that anything Americans live in. WE have been a mobile group of people since we came here in the 1600's. Americans have always been on the move. I agree it would be nice if we would take an interest in more public transportation but it ain't going to happen anytime soon.

7. Finally..yes we do have a problem with global warming, acid rain, soil, water, and air quality pollution. When will we as humans stop? We won't until we have reached the end of either fossil fuels or we have messed things up so bad that we as THE HUMAN RACE are in danger of going the way of the dinosaur. Then and only then will we realize we have to do something and it won't be to save the environment, but it will be to save or sad asses.

 

[ 07-16-2002, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: sisu suomi ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this was some of the better reading I've found here in a while. So here's my two-cents:

 

Since the end of the last ice-age the earth has been "warming". That, I would say, is a point of fact. If it wasn't I think we'd all be under a couple miles of ice. How much will the earth warm before it "cycles" back to another ice-age? Hang around a few thousand years and find out. Maybe it won't; all planets die and maybe earth is on it's last leg. But, earth cycles are long in human terms: 75 year life span isn't squat to a rock that millions or billions of years old! So, I'm not going to run up lots of debt and expect the apocalypse to bail me out.

 

So the question: Are humans helping this warming process? Hell if I know. From what I've read and heard it all depends on who's "paying the bills". I agree with MtnGoat that we do not have good data for a baseline temp (if one even exist) so it becomes very difficult to say what is going on. I feel to say "It's all our fault" is just as wrong as to say that all the pollutants we're pumping into our atmosphere has absolutely no effect.

 

I feel money would be better spent trying to clean up our air and water so we (as humans) might be around long enough to see how the whole "Earth Temperature" thing pans out. Alternate fuels.....I'd love to one and I think we will fairly soon.

 

So until then, I'll continue to drive to the trailhead and pack in and see as much of this beautiful country as I can. And I'll do my part to make sure nobody knows I was there by "leaving no trace". I'm assuming, of course, that the next person also wants to enjoy the view and not see my garbage or read on a rock that "I was here". That's a proveable, repeatable, non-scientific approach to "enviromentalism" that we can all practice so others can enjoy the wilds.

 

Craig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mtn Goat,

 

You are wasting your breath (keystrokes) with the likes of AlpineK and associates. "The Sky is Falling!" and no one will ever convince them otherwise. I agree with your assesment of the global warming situation.

 

"Science" has been drowned out by hysteria and a lazy media willing to gobble down whatever "facts" are fed to them by any left-leaning special interest group.

 

Wind power; hydrogen; solar; all good ideas seriously worth spending billions researching. ....But rest assured those like AlpineK would quickly find fault in those energy sources too. You see, what they really hate is that humans (ESPECIALLY Americans) are "living too well". I believe they will always see the glass as half-empty. They are tortured by the guilt of living their own good lives.

 

...just MHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We will not see a non-oil-based economy in our lifetimes. Buying oil from other countries is an economic and military strategy- use theirs until it's gone so they can't afford ours when it's all that's left. Then we will continue to have economic and military superiority because all of the machines on the planet will be fueled with N American oil, our fat cats will still make the money, our bombers and missiles will still be flying, and Detroit will continue to pump out cheap gas-hog SUVs to drive the workers home to the far away suburbs (interesting how sprawl showed up with the automobile) and people will buy them because the TV told them to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Fairweather:

Mtn Goat,

 

Wind power; hydrogen; solar; all good ideas seriously worth spending billions researching. ....But rest assured those like AlpineK would quickly find fault in those energy sources too. You see, what they really hate is that humans (ESPECIALLY Americans) are "living too well". I believe they will always see the glass as half-empty. They are tortured by the guilt of living their own good lives.

 

...just MHO

You are totally wrong and off base to charactorize my views that way.

 

I could charactorize you. All you are about is money and fucking over the less fortunate. You like big business. So I bet like Enron screwed retired folks out of their life savings you are trying to screw someone.

 

I don't agree with MtnGoat, but at least he doesn't make broad statements about what I believe in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MtnGoat: "The temperature increase is not seen by satellites which measure troposphere (lower air layer) temperatures which have been operational for a while now."

 

not according to the 2001 IPCC report:

"Since the start of the satellite record in 1979, both satellite and weather balloon measurements show that the global average temperature of the lowest 8 kilometres of the atmosphere has changed by +0.05 ±0.10°C per decade, but the global average surface temperature has increased significantly by +0.15 ±0.05°C per decade."

 

MtnGoat: "Further, this increase measured by ground stations has data problems not usually discussed. Heat island effects of changing local environments may not be adequately controlled for, as is the decreasing number of stations and the way stations are grouped into larger measurement blocks."

 

not according to the 2001 IPCC report:

"Over the 20th century the increase has been 0.6 ±0.2°C 5,6 (Figure 1a). This value is about 0.15°C larger than that estimated by the SAR for the period up to 1994, owing to the relatively high temperatures of the additional years (1995 to 2000) and improved methods of processing the data. These numbers take into account various adjustments, including urban heat island effects."

 

MtnGoat: "The idea that we have a set perfect temperature at some recent point in the past is as anthro centered as the idea that we are causing warming."

 

not according to the IPCC report:

"The warming over the last 50 years due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases can be identified"

 

and on, and on, ....

 

It is quite legitimate to ask where does MtnGoat get his science?

 

For reference (although it probably won't help for some): http://www.ipcc.ch/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aw this is a great thread. I shouldn't open my mouth on this stuff, 'cause Fairweather always sticks his foot in it. But I see he has made friends with Alpine K this time.

 

My two cents:

 

1. Humans are contributing to the problem.

2. We don't need scientific certainty to change the status quo.

3. We can, as a society, make the break from fossil fuels, and I think we can do it over the next twenty years. How long did it take for the auto industry to phase out leaded gas? It can happen quickly.

4. Until that time, don't condemn everyone who asks for change because they drive a gas guzzler. If you silenced all but those who somehow manage to drop off the grid then there wouldn't be anyone left to speak in a voice of dissent.

 

FW - fire at will with your broad generalizations regarding our deepest motivations and agendas. [Moon][big Drink]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by AlpineK:

quote:

Originally posted by Fairweather:

Mtn Goat,

 

Wind power; hydrogen; solar; all good ideas seriously worth spending billions researching. ....But rest assured those like AlpineK would quickly find fault in those energy sources too. You see, what they really hate is that humans (ESPECIALLY Americans) are "living too well". I believe they will always see the glass as half-empty. They are tortured by the guilt of living their own good lives.

 

...just MHO

You are totally wrong and off base to charactorize my views that way.

 

I could charactorize you. All you are about is money and fucking over the less fortunate. You like big business. So I bet like Enron screwed retired folks out of their life savings you are trying to screw someone.

 

I don't agree with MtnGoat, but at least he doesn't make broad statements about what I believe in.

Give me a break AK,

 

I can't even count the number of times you've taken unprovoked swipes at me. Generalizing, mischaracterizing, outright lies about studies I've supposedly cited, accusing me of owning stock in Texaco, and the list goes on and on............

 

So I take a little baby swipe at you and you cry all over your keyboard. Grow some skin.

 

[ 07-16-2002, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: Fairweather ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Winter, I LIKE IT! And thanks to all of you for the intelligent discourse on this vitally important issue. I've learned a lot and thanks. Wish the Feds with the power to influence some things would read this thread...where's the CIA when you need them? Dennis

 

[ 07-16-2002, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: Dennis Harmon ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The National Academy of Sciences doesn't agree with you MtnG. The Bush admin ask them to do a study before an international summit, and they found that the global temp will increase at leas 2 degrees if we keep on pumping shit into it.

 

But what do you care you probably think Mt Rainier would look a lot better without glaciers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ANWR should only be drilled if it can be drilled on lead otherwise retrosaurus must get his crowbar out again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the battle over ANWR isn't about the volume of oil, its about setting the precedent. If you can make that acceptable to the people, it will be a short haul to open up the Californina coast to drilling again (way more oil, much easier to get) and pave the way to more resource extraction from wilderness areas and national parks. The issue is ideology, not necessity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×