Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 00:41:02 -0800 From: Mark Jones <Jones_M-AT-netcomuk.co.uk> Subject: Re: M-I: Global warming James Heartfield says: > it is impossible to estimate > the impact of CO2 emmissions on temperature levels if you do not know > the trend in global temperature. > This is wrong. The prediction that greenhouse gases will warm the atmosphere by retaining solar energy did not derive from study of global temperature trends but from knowledge of the formulae which govern black body radiation. When the first predictions of global warming were made they, as a matter of fact, did not coincide with observed trends. Like many social scientists who have read Kuhn and half-understood Imre Lakatos, Heartfield does not understand much about the way real science works. If he did he would know that these observed discrepancies had no bearing at all on the theory underpinning the predictions, namely quantum mechanics. To falsify that theory would entail something different. Massive amounts of money and a huge international research effort has gone into researching global warming. It is silly to decry this effort, whose results have been set out in various reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the way that Heartfield does when he says: > the > findings of the IPCC have been heavily politicised, to the point where > they are little more than a function of competing trade and governmental > strategies. That is, as a matter of demonstrablke fact, not the case. The findings of the IPCC are subject to the peer review process which he elsewhere says is indispensable. The form research into global warming has taken has been to determine how the complexities in the global system impact open global warming as a result of greenhouse gas emission. The fact that greenhouse gases induce global warming is NOT in question, any more than the fact that the world is spherical and not flat. No scientist has any doubts about quantum theory. If Heartfield does then he is alone. In various posting both I and Lou Proyect have summarised some of the more salient research and the findings of eminent, reputable scientisist whose work and reputation is not in doubt. The findings are conclusive and inarguable by any sane person. They show that global warming is not merely a prediction of quantum theory, but also an observable fact. Anyone doubting this needs a priest or a psychiatrist, not a marxist discussion list. In my own postings, which Heartfield ignores, I went to some lengths to detail research into the tendencies and the counter-tendencies at play in global atmospheric systems. Much of this research is readily available on the Net and if Heartfield doubts my own summary of it he has an obvious remedy, and I should be delighted to see him prove me or Proyect wrong, but he cannot and therefore will not. On all counts, in all of his assertions -- that there is no discernible global warming, that there is no evidence linking severe weather events like ENSO events with global warming, that deforestation has no bearing on the case, and so on, Heartfield is not only wrong, he is demonstrably and ludicrously so. When challenged his general tactics are to smear, to avoid the question, to squirm and wriggle, to confuse the issue, to erect straw men and make ad hominem attacks. It is not possible to seriously debate Heartfield who is obviously operating to his own agenda and is not interested in the rules of debate or in rational discourse. Heartfield says, inter alia, that there is no evdience of deforestation in the US. There is a sense in which he is right. In states like Virginia, land that was denuded of tree cover a century ago is now thickly planted with trees. The reason is the extremely simple one, which David Pimentel gives in his 1995 Kermit Olson lecture, which I posted, that Americnas do not use wood for fuel any more. They use oil. The amount of energy released by the burning of fossil hydrocarbons in the US exceeds the amount of energy trapped by photosynthesis by all the vegetation growing in the US. This situation is radically unsustainable for several reasons: firstly because of the well-known global-warming effects. Secondly because of impending oil shortages. Thirdly because of many other well-documented enviornmental impacts, some of which I hale also posted, al of which Heartfield ignores. Heartfield insistently asked his list of questions, and we answered them. Why does he not answer questions put to him? Does Heartfield agree that global warming is predicted by theory? Does he believe that global warming, ie anthropogenic climate forcing, is happening? Does he agree with any present variant of the Climate Convention Treaty, meaning, does he agree with any limitations on greenhouse gas emissions? Can he produce any plausible scenario which can allow the 75 percent of humankind which currently does not use fossil fuel energy and who live in the so-called Third World, to enjoy a European or American standard of life, and if so, using what mix of technologies? --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005