SkepticLance

Swansont That argument is fallacious, since it is not ice that is melting on the moons of Saturn. The average temperature is way below zero, and it would take enormous amounts of heat to melt ice. Instead, it is probably a material (like methane) that is normally a gas on Earth that is melting. If the temperature is only a little colder than that needed to convert the methane to solid form, then a slight increase in solar flux will be enough. On Mars, telescopic observation has shown a slight shrinkage of polar 'ice' caps. Of course, it is not ice that is melting. It is solid CO2 turning to gas. Anyway, while the sun is definitely warming, as shown by satellite studies, the amount is very slight, and definitely not enough to account for global warming on Earth. So you need not feel that your favourite theory is threatened.

A small insert here. jryan says I am not doing a very good job on behalf of sceptics, and that is probably correct. I tend to get bogged down, such as on the silly objections of iNow, who refused to accept the kind of references that are normally accepted by the people on this forum. It would be nice to see another, more competent sceptic, able to rise above the less than competent replies of swansont et al. I do not think that referring to the events of thousands of years ago will do it, since the issues are more recent. What happened, of course, is a simple piece of psychology, that is well researched and well proven. When you get a group of people together who share a view, and discuss it often, that view gets more and more extreme. This is simple human nature, and psychologists know it well. In this case, we got a bunch of people together about 20 years ago, who saw the world warming over the previous 10 years, due to human release of CO2. They wondered how harmful that trend might be and talked about it. Years later, that talk has escalated into a firm belief that the world is heading into imminent catastrophe. They totally fail to understand that the strength of their belief is based in their own psychology, and not in climate science. This is a psychological feed-back mechanism at work. Since it has become global, it is immense in its power. It is now very difficult to see how much of the disaster predictions are science and how much pure politics and human psychology.

Swansont One definition of good science is standing up for the truth. I stated that over the last 30 years, warming was 0.15 to 0.2 C per decade, which was and is true. You knew it. Yet you stayed silent while iNow tried to play his silly games denying that fact. Had you been a good scientist, and showed the reverence such scientists have for the truth, you would have said to iNow that he should accept the figure as it was right. OK, it was too much to hope for. Your argument about slope change on the graph is a red herring. I never said the warming was totally linear. I said that, if we ignored the minor fluctuations, it was close to linear, which is true. This silly matter was generated by a debater who tried to discredit real and correct data with demands for extra references, after I had already provided suitable references. The kinds of references I provided are very similar to numerous other references provided by debaters on this forum, which have been accepted without demur. The only reason they were not accepted on this occasion was because they were not convenient to iNow, and who thus tried to be difficult. You and others know damn well that on this point (amount of warming per decade) I was right. So stop arguing.

To Swansont I do not for a moment think that iNow was being a good scientist with his demands for more evidence of a very basic datum. He was simply trying to be difficult since my data was getting in the way of his argument. That behaviour does not need excusing. You knew, even if iNow did not, that my data was correct. Yet you said nothing in support. Perhaps you should be trying to excuse your own failure to support good science.

To bombus The term 'habitat loss' is very vague. This is inevitable, because of the context. If you want a scientifically exact definition, you are going to be disappointed. However, the English word 'loss' means something is gone. If I say that I have lost something, I mean it is totally gone. If I lose a page from a book, I do not say the book is lost. I say the book is lost only if the whole book is lost. In the same way, to say a habitat is lost when only a small change has occurred is simply incorrect. You said ; " How could Panda's survive without their bamboo forests? How could mountain Gorillas survive without their habitats? How could tigers survive without thier forests?" These are genuine examples of habitat loss, since you are talking about the loss of the entire habitat. The reason the loss of a forest does not result in the extinction of the tiger is simply that there are other forests. That is why habitat loss rarely, by itself, leads to extinction. I agree that if ALL forests in the world were lost, the tiger would go extinct. You may care to ask yourself how probable that is. Therefore, how likely that habitat loss leads to to extinction. You also said "I can't understand why you would rather take the word of a capitalist statitician who has an interest in denying environmental problems" If you read the preamble to Lomborg's book, you will see that he began his researches in an attempt to prove the greenies correct. Lomborg was even a member of Greenpeace. He became a sceptic of environmental dogma only as a result of his research results, and only reluctantly. And as I pointed out, I did not take his word. I did not reject his findings - just treated them as tentatively possible, and did further reading, which confirmed that Lomborg was mostly right.

iNow said "Please show me specifically where I've switched to a less rational argument due to a threat to my world view. I would like to correct faults in my approach." Nicely worded. A bit like the razor blade inside the chocolate cake. Might be hidden in something sweet, but it still cuts! (Just joking). I was, in fact, speaking generally. However, you came close to the description when you refused to accept the evidence I posted - not because it was wrong, but because it was inconvenient to your argument. I do hope you now appreciate that what I said about warming rates was actually correct. To bombus I think you have ended up in a piece of circular logic. You believe fervently that habitat loss is the major cause of extinctions. You therefore say that, if something goes extinct as a result of a change in its environment, such as the introduction of a predator, it must be habitat loss, and you define that change as habitat loss to make it so. When I first read about habitat loss being a minor cause of extinction, I was surprised also, since I too had been exposed to the opposite propaganda. However, what I did (and any good scientist will do) was slip the information into a mental file labelled "to be tested". Over the several years that followed, I expanded my reading to include extinction examples, and ran a mental test on each : 'was this habitat loss?" I discovered over time that, in fact, very few - if any - could be described as habitat loss. Thus, I did what any good scientist will do, and changed my world picture to accept the idea that habitat loss was only a minor cause of extinction. I have been doing this ever since. Whenever I read about an extinction - I say "is this habitat loss?" Almost invariably, the answer is no. As you know, I even went to the extent of posting a thread on the subject, and found that, even the selected extinction examples that people were posting to prove habitat loss caused extinction, normally had other causes. I should also add that no-one - not Lomborg and not me - are suggesting this principle be used as an excuse to permit habitat loss. I will enthusiastically argue that forests:mad: , rain forests, wetlands, lakes and other relatively unspoiled habitats have their own value, separately from preserving particular species from extinction. The conservation of special habitats is worth doing in its own right. We are NOT in any way trying to justify their destruction.

To iNow I do not think that anyone on this forum lacks an ability to understand uncertainty. What we argue about, rather, is the question of how uncertain? For example : I accept that the relationship between global CO2 increase, global temperature increase, and human activity is pretty sound over the past 30 years. I see a very simple relationship there, and little sign of significant impact from other known variables such as vulcanism and sunspot activity. However, I am only too aware that the times before that included a raft of other factors, and a reduced CO2/human act factor, due to the fact that CO2was increasing a lot more slowly. Thus, the statement that humans cause CO2 rise which is the main cause of temperature rise, for the periods before 1976, I consider to be a much shakier conclusion. There is also a bit of a problem when we are arguing with you personally, in that you are sometimes reluctant to accept data which is quite valid. You are also reluctant to accept logic. Yet logic is a valid form of argument. When I was trying to tell you the rate of warming over the past 30 years, I twice posted references, which you rejected. It was ironic, since the information I was presenting was not in the least controversial. It was universally accepted by climate scientists. However, you had chosen, for whatever reason, to reject the references. That tends to upset the people presenting data. If you reject data, I suggest you had better have a good reason. This is all very human, of course. My current argument with bombus, who has redefined habitat loss to include any case of alien species introduction, is a case in point. When a person's world view is threatened, that person will often switch to less rational argument. It takes a special kind of person, who applies good scientific self discipline, to rise above that tendency.

doG said : "Are you saying that these people are not trying to claim their 72 virgins? That there is no religious motivation at all? If things are as you say the why do we not see suicide bombers from other social groups?" I am not claiming to be an expert here. I read a couple of articles, is all. They said that the primary motiviation for the suicide bombers was social. I personally suspect that the religious thing was a rationalisation. However, rationalisations can be powerful too. And we do see suicide bombers from other social groups. Even hear of the Tamil Tigers?

To doG I think you may have missed the point of my post. According to those studies, religion is NOT the reason people become suicide bombs. Social approval is. Remember, these guys are members of some weird and extreme social groups. Approval comes from abnormal behaviour.

To bombus I also looked up the Wiki definition of habitat. It was a bit long-winded, but boiled down to the combination of 1. Physical and chemical features in the environment that affect the relevent living things plus 2. Biological factors in the environment that affect those living things. Habitat loss therefore includes the loss of a large number of features. There is a distinction between habitat loss and habitat change that you have failed to acknowledge. Not only can you change habitat, but it is happening all the time, whether 'natural' change or human induced. Habitat change is not habitat loss unless it is very drastic. If a road is built through a forest, the forest habitat remains, though it is now changed. If a new species of tree starts to grow in the forest, the forest habitat remains, though there is a small change. That is NOT habitat loss, since the forest habitat is still there. The articles I have read on habitat loss always use much more drastic examples than you admit to. Deforestation is the number one example in all the articles I have read. Draining of wetlands is also frequently mentioned. Ditto, conversion of 'natural' environment to farmlands. I really think you are out on your own in re-defining habitat loss to include introduction of one or a few alien species. In fact, as I said before, I think you found yourself in the position of losing an argument and resorted to an illegal re-definition of terms out of desperation.

bombus said : "anyone who thinks habitat loss is not linked to species extinction is not worthy of my attention" Lomborg never said, and nor did I say, that habitat loss was not related to extinction. What he said, and I agree with, is that it is a minor cause of extinction - not a major cause as is claimed by the greenie dogma. If habitat loss is associated with another cause of extinction, then of course it makes the situation worse. However, there are lots of cases where other causes are singularly the cause, and very, very few cases where habitat loss is singularly the cause, unless you go with your rather weird definition of habitat loss. It is interesting that the man who was chosen to attack Lomborg on ecology was Edward O Wilson. Professor Wilson is a very intelligent and expert scientist, but definitely not lacking in bias. He is the man who is behind a great deal of the 'habitat loss is the major cause of extinction' dogma. He came up with equations for calculating extinction rate based on the amount of habitat lost. Those equations have been tested empirically and found to be invalid, but are still used by organisations such as Greenpeace to calculate exaggerated and phony extinction rates. Wilson sticks by his disproved equations, which makes him very suspect as an 'expert' on this subject. bombus also said : "You sound very sure about that. Funny, 'cos he's the one who's the expert, not you!" I suspect that the editor of SciAm himself would deny this. He is a journalist - not a scientist. That is why he selected scientists to do the attacking, rather than himself. Because his own lack of expertise would mean he would not be taken seriously. bombus also said : "Animal and plants altering their dispersal? What kind of statement is that?" OK. Maybe that was a poor choice of words. There have been many cases where various species move from one geographic region to another, without any human influence. Sometimes that results in extinctions of other species. Would you regard that as habitat loss? I certainly do not. For example : when the two sub-continents of North America and South America drifted together, to meet at the Isthmus of Panama, two quite different sets of ecosystems suddenly had geographic continuity. This happened quite recently in geological or biological time. A heap of animals promptly invaded the other sub-continent. This led to a wave of extinctions. Yet the habitats in each zone remained the same. The South American rain forest was still the South American rain forest. The various ecosystems were changed, but to the degree you can call it loss of habitat? If the change was caused by humans I am sure lots of people would so define it. But this was caused by 'natural' causes, and I suspect that most ecologists would not define it as loss of habitat. I have certainly never seen it so described. bombus also said "The term 'rainforest habitat' is a human conception/description that's handy for us to use to describe certain habitat types to ourselves. Nothing more." So you admit that your terminology is subjective, and malleable? If that is the case, how seriously must I take your modified definition of habitat loss? "If bears were reintroduced it would be very unlikely that they would survive as their simply isn't enough of a suitable habitat left for them as we have cut down too many forests." Interesting example to choose. Bears are omnivores and very adaptable. Bears do not need forest. They can live in a wide range of habitats. Where they are wiped out, it is because humans actively remove them, as by hunting. If bears were re-introduced to Britain, they would probably thrive, until people got so brassed off at their foraging that they took to them with rifles. I decided to see if I could find a definition for habitat loss. Here is what the Wiki article says http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitat_destruction I quote : "Habitat destruction is a process of land use change in which one habitat-type is removed and replaced with another habitat-type. In the process of land-use change, plants and animals which previously used the site are displaced or destroyed, reducing biodiversity. Urban Sprawl is one cause of habitat destruction. Other important causes of habitat destruction include mining, trawling, and agriculture." I would suggest that this is closer to the way I use the term than the way bombus uses it. I gave examples being deforestation or draining wetlands and lakes. Bombus would have us believe that it happens when an alien species enters a habitat, even though the habitat stays otherwise unchanged.

I have read a couple of articles about the psychology of suicide bombers. While I can't remember all the details, one point stands out. The motive is always social. The people who volunteer to be suicide bombers always are treated as being very high status. They are treated with enormous high esteem and respect from the group. These people are made to feel special, and made to feel very superior. Alpha males! Often, when the death gets closer, they start getting less certain of their path, and a number of would-be suicide bombers have chickened out, and fled - even surrendering to authority. This, of course, is a prime source of information for those researching the psychology.

To Lockheed Yes there were indeed four people criticising Lomborg in SciAm. However, the point is that they were carefully chosen by ONE man. He picked those he could be sure would reflect his own prejudices. In spite of their expertise, they were able only to pick a very small number of errors from Lomborg's book, and mounted a massive attack based on those few errors. As I said before, if I could write 352 pages of small print and make only 9 errors, I would be a genius!

To bombus You really are arguing from ignorance. You have not read Lomborg, and are assuming that, because a few dogma ridden dudes don't like what he wrote, that he is wrong. Read him yourself before you argue without knowledge. The major attack on Lomborg came from the editor of Scientific American. He is a greenie from way back, and has always followed green dogma whether it is scientifically demonstrated to be true or not. He is wrong. I have read both Lomborg's book, and the SciAm attack. Therefore I am in a much better position to judge relative merits than you. This does not constitute me saying, "my cause is right because I say so". It is an assertion that I have done the necessary research to make a judgement and you have not. On the business of a habitat. You are trying to define habitat loss as almost any habitat change. That is not correct. Sure, once change gets to a certain point, we can define it as habitat loss. But where we draw the line is a damn sight further along that just introducing one, two, or three new species. This happens all the time in a natural way, with animals and plants altering their dispersal. Yet if a rainforest receives or loses a few new species, we do not turn around and say : "That is no longer a rainforest habitat." Habitat loss is when the majority of all factors influencing the viability of the species living there changes, to the point where they cannot survive. If we chop down a forest, that is habitat loss. If we drain a wetland or lake and turn it into a meadow, that is habitat loss. If we introduce a rat species into a new island, that is a small habitat change, but not habitat loss. Over the past 12,000 years, polynesian peoples have crossed, and colonised the Pacific. As they went, they carried the polynesian rat with them. The result was the extinction of an estimated 2,000 species of island birds. Yet, the islands that were so colonised retained the same forest, the same tree species, the same lakes, lagoons, soils etc. One small change, leading to massive extinction, but only habitat change - not habitat loss. If an example like that were defined as habitat loss, then the whole concept of habitat loss loses all meaning, and becomes a worthless phrase. In fact, we could say that the entire globe - every corner has suffered habitat loss. That makes the idea totally valueless. Is that what you are asserting?

To iNow I was trying to avoid going back to an argument that never ended. It was pointless arguing because there was no chance of agreement.

To bombus I am not sure if I should even reply to your last post. I read it several times, and it boils down to "Lomborg is wrong because I said so." I looked for an argument and could not find one. And I know perfectly well what a habitat is. I have studied more than microbiology and have 'A' passes in university ecology. If the habitat is stated to be rain forest, and the rain forest is still there, the habitat has not been destroyed, even if another species is now present. To iNow I fully understand about multiple factors influencing climate. I was trying to keep things simple, and avoid extra pointless argument about something that did not matter.

To bombus, re Lomborg. First : Hav you read his book? If not, your arguments actually mean very little. You said : "You (and Lomborg) were totally blown out of the water in that thread, but just wouldn't accept it" Actually no. Some examples were offered. Each and every one was of an extinction which had several causes, and habitat loss was not in any case the primary cause, with the possible exception of the Yangtze River dolphin, which was probably mainly killed by water pollution. However, even in that case, there were other factors, such as the large number of dolphins killed by nets in that river. You also said : "Introduction of an alien species IS HABITAT LOSS! Why can't you understand that simple point!?" You are now trying to win a debate by arbitrarily altering definitions. Habitat loss is when the habitat is gone. Alien species are not loss of habitat. They are a new, added factor. Not a loss of habitat. You could use your altered definition to say each and every cause of extinction is habitat loss. If people arrive and hunt an animal to extinction, that is habitat loss. If a new disease causes an extinction, that is habitat loss. Sorry bombus. That tactic is cheating. Here in New Zealand, the native thrush is extinct. The cause is predation by introduced rats and stoats. But its habitat remains. It lives in South Island rain forest. The South Island rain forest is still there, so the habitat is not lost. Its extinction was not caused by habitat loss. You also said "SkepticLance, Lomborg is a fool who, due to his lack of a scientific grounding is totally incapable of interpreting the data in a meaningful way." Lomborg has never claimed to be a scientist. He is an associate professor of statistics at a Danish University of Aarhus, and is also trained as an economist. He is far from stupid. He is actually rather smart, as his Ph.D. kind of testifies. His research for his book was meticulous, and his conclusions follow directly from the papers and studies he refers to. He is not alone in the stance he took. Professor Julian Simon was the first person to publicise the data showing that the global environment was not all some kind of disaster story. Numerous others has also written to demonstrate the same. However, good news is never acceptable by environmentalists, and people ignore the facts to concentrate on the dogma. I suggest you read Lomborg's book.

To iNow If you go back more than 30 years, say to 1941, you get a period of net global cooling. It is something of a complication, to say the least, to talk about human action causing global warming, when the world is actually cooling. From about 1941 to about 1966, the world cooled down by 0.2 C. From about 1966 to about 1976, the world temperature bounced up and down a bit but did not increase overall. After 1976, there was a 30 year period of steady warming (ignoring the minor fluctuations up and down). This is the 30 year period I was referring to.

There is an awful lot of hot air being released here, and to very little effect. First : proving that global warming is caused by human action. Let's not get into a tizz about anything that includes the word 'proof'. In science, nothing is proved, as we should all know. However, that does not been we cannot accept something to be considered a good model of reality, until more evidence shows otherwise. I would suggest that we all avoid this nonsense by agreeing that human action, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, over the past 30 years is a good model of the cause of global warming over that same period. That way we get around the impossibility of 'proof'. To bombus Your statement that Lomborg must be wrong is a reflection of the almost certainty that you have not read him. I actually introduced the example you note in a new thread on this forum some time ago, and asked members if they could come up with examples of species that had been made extinct purely by habitat loss. No-one could. I can list from memory any number of species that have gone extinct for one major reason only, when that reason is overhunting/overfishing by humans, or when the reason is introduction of an alien species into the environment. Trying to list species that have gone extinct for the dominant reason that their habitat has been destroyed (say by deforestation) is an almost impossibility. I am sure there are examples, but they are few and far between. Thus, for Lomborg to say that habitat loss is a minor cause of extinction is actually quite correct. Bombus, I strongly suggest you read Lomborg before you criticise him. His work is meticulously researched. His bibliography is massive. Everything he says is supported by references. The fact that you do not like his conclusions does not make him wrong.

Lockheed said "Can you be a little more specific about this genuine error you speak of, and one that hasn't been debunked yet?" I am kind of repeating myself here, which I am reluctant to do, since this was covered in an earlier post. It is those factors which are not properly understood that contribute the greatest error. My earlier post mentioned the effects of increased plant growth, changing cloud patterns, changes in sunspot activity etc. If we knew the impact of poorly understood factors, there would not be the error. I would suspect there are other factors that will come to us as a surprise.

To Lockheed. On margin of error. We are talking about two different things here. You are talking about calculated margin, and I am talking about genuine error. You can calculate margin of error, and be correct if you have all the facts. The point I am making is that we do not have all the facts in relation to climate over the next 100 years. It is the unknowns that will kill it. To Mr. Skeptic yes, you are correct to cast doubt on our ability to predict the future. I certainly do not know what will happen in the future. However, I do know what has happened in the past. This is not the first time that well meaning people have tried to predict the future, often using (like the Club of Rome) the very best brains and the very best methods. Inevitably they get it wrong! This should tell people something. There is one principle I know that is quite reliable in making predictions. Not 100% reliable, because nothing is. That principle is that, any long term trend is likely to continue. For example : the demand for energy will continue to increase. For example : our ability to supply energy will increase. Technology will improve substantially. Appropriate new technology will be introduced and become widespread. There are some things I do not dispute. I agree that CO2 is increasing and this is driving global warming. I know that CO2 emissions need to be controlled. I do NOT agree that they will get further out of control. I have more faith in human technology than that. Humans are highly adaptable, and are fully able to change things, especially when that involves introducing new technology.

To Pangloss Very sound comments. I do not think iNow is stupid, or uneducated, or anything like that. He is probably a smart and well informed individual. However, I think I see a certain lack of mental flexibility, in that only a specific kind of evidence is acceptable. I have long believed that scepticism is a vital part of scientific thinking. Simply accepting that something is so because the orthodox paradigm says so is not good thinking. These discussions on global warming often take the form of : "IPCC (or other authority) says something, so therefore it is true." I am not prepared to deny good data. If the data is sound, then I will accept it. However, the same sound data can lead to any number of different interpretations. We all need to be aware of that. And we are all human - which means we interpret things according to our own preconceptions and biases. This, of course, applies to me as well as anyone else. Anthropogenic global warming is real. The data is sound. However, when we start trying to predict the future, we enter a field that is unsound by its very nature. Any attempt to predict the future, in any field, and especially long term, is likely to prove totally wrong. Many on this thread may be too young to remember. However, an excellent example is the Club of Rome, and their infamous publication in 1973 - "Limits to Growth". They gathered together the very best minds in the world, scientists and economists, and set out to develop a model of future resource needs and availability. They did not have supercomputers, but the model was much simpler than current GCMs. Thus, it was do-able. The only problem is that they got the results terribly wrong. For example, they predicted that the world would run out of oil by the year 2000. They predicted massive price rises in a range of resources, such as copper and nickel metal. In fact, by the deadlines given, the price of those materials actually fell. How is it they got it all so wrong? Simple. They assumed that conditions that prevailed before 1973 would continue afterwards. The main error in their models came from the fact that human technology did not remain static. The massive improvements meant that the problems they so confidently predicted simply did not happen. So here we are in 2007. We have another problem - anthropogenic global warming. Have the savants of today learned from the Club of Rome? No they have not. They set out to do the same thing, only much more complexly. Their predictions have about as much chance of success as the Club of Rome's had. What will actually happen? We will see the same massive increase in technological capability, and this will change the entire picture. Those who predict a warming of 3 Celsius in the short term are ignoring human progress. My opinion, which (since it is just an opinion, even if based on a firm historical basis) could be quite wrong, is that over the next 100 years, increases in energy needs will be more than matched by increases in our ability to fill those needs without emitting carbon. CO2 will increase for some decades yet, but not at an accelerating rate. We will gradually replace old technology carbon emitters with new technology that does not. Obviously, this conclusion cannot be proven or disproved by debate. Only time will tell.

In today's technology, deep sea submersibles use flat lead plate as seals in joins. Normal rubber seals cannot tolerate the high pressures. I think it rather likely that the Egyptians had lead. After all, the ancient Romans used lead pipes. Perhaps blocks of rocks sealed with lead beaten flat might have been used? The lead would be recovered when the shaft was dismantled.

One of the factors leading to loss of advantageous alleles is small population. If the species has a very large population, then any 'accident' that causes a loss will be compensated for by the fact that numerous other individuals carry the advantageous allele. However, if the species concerned has a very small number of individuals, then a 'rock fall' type accident is enough to remove an allele from the population. Homo sapiens, in spite of our large numbers, is a genetically non diverse species. Variation from any one individual to another is only about 0.1% genetically. Many paleoanthropologists believe that there was a time when our forebears consisted of a very tiny number of individuals, and all of us today are descended from that small number. Hence our current lack of diversity. That situation, of course, is rife for loss of alleles through random chance.

I would imagine something like a water tight lift shaft. A gate at the bottom is opened to float a barge in, and then closed and sealed. Some technique, whether bucket chain or other, is used to fill the shaft with water, and the barge floats up to the required level. As the pyramid gets higher, the shaft gets built up accordingly. There could be a problem with stresses due to water pressure at the bottom of the shaft. If the shaft was 100 metres high, that represents a pressure of 11 bars at the base, or 250 pounds per square inch. Could ancient Egyptians build to resist that?