Global warming not all human caused... argument continues?

Lambton Kent Middlesex EDA (SW Ontario)
Open source must be compared to something or other, or we are being warned to avoid learning about the claims and non-issues likely to be presented by people who have read one or two similar articles.

Frankly, the argument that we do not need to debate these issues comes from a wrong point of view.
It comes from the point of view that says we must accept the views of our expert witnesses even when members of the jury have been exposed to contrary opinions. Not only that, but our jurors are hearing our story not from our expert witnesses, but from us, the advocates. Our expert witnesses may outrank the opponent's expert witness, but our non-expert advocates, the people our jury can see, do not outrank the advocates of the opposition. We are left with is the ability to explain the case from basic principles. This is advocates vs advocates with no expert witness in the court. All advocates can do is present their case or actually bring some real expert witnesses. We can not even convince the jury by pretending that we know that all expert witnesses agree with us while one expert witness is saying not so.

Like a lay person, we can assert our absolute confidence in our expert witnesses. But when we have to identify our trusted experts, it comes out that we too are really taking the word of our own advocates whom we assume have gotten the holy manna of wisdom from our trusted expert witnesses. But they might have left a spin on what they got from those experts.

If you look closely you find article one of opposition is that not all global warming is man made. Now if you had checked carefully that statement is not in question. Our expert witnesses do not make that statement. Nor for that matter do our expert witnesses assert that discontinuing our carbon emissions offers any guarantee that we can stop global warming. Rather and to represent the situation accurately, if we discontinue our Carbon emissions very soon, we may be able to slow or stop global warming. If we delay too long our reduction of emissions, no amount of reduction of emissions offers to stop global warming.

If man made carbon emissions alone were causing Global warming. we could promise to stop global warming no matter how long we delay.

There are two things we need to keep in mind. We must explain to the public why time is of the essence, We have to do that to provide the sense of urgency we require. We can not logically make that case until we acknowledge that carbon emissions are only part of the problem. We just happened to fall into a period of increased solar output... it matters, but more important are those secondary causes.

The biggest all time cause of global warming is global warming, It is that which makes early action, not just action, so important. We need to understand why that is so, and how much the other causes are producing. We are not experts arguing with the convinced. we are mere advocates presenting the case to the electors who are not all scientists.

Lambton Kent Middlesex EDA (SW Ontario)
As advocate for a line of action we should have a thorough understanding of just what our side is claiming, what we are not claiming, and why.
If an opponent says that they do not believe all of global warming is of man made origin, they have not contradicted science, they have not contradicted us. Rather they have given an opening to explain why this very fact makes immediate action imperative.

If they tell you that man made emissions are a small part of the total greenhouse effect, again, they have not contradicted science. They have not presented an obstacle to your position. We totally agree. Water vapour is such a large part of the Greenhouse Effect that man made emissions will be a small part of that effect, a small part of it but not insignificant. It is in acknowledging that water vapour is the major part of the Greenhouse Effect that we can understand that allowing the earth's temperature to rise further, and so enhance the role of water vapour. is an unacceptable option. As global temperatures rise, the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere rises, and so the Greenhouse Effect. This very fact is critical to understanding that our role in global warming has already contributed so much to global warming that trivial adjustments like Kyoto can not be offered as a serious solution. Kyoto is but a first step.

If an opponent points out that even by 1990 the CO2 concentration had already been heating up the world and will continue to do so, so Kyoto is ineffective, the opponent is not contradicting science, nor our position. We can not and do not claim that achieving Kyoto targets will be adequate. We know all too well that this target was put forward as an initial step. If Kyoto targets are hard to achieve perhaps part of the reason is that we already know the target will not accomplish the objective. It is too timid a target.

We are not setting Kyoto targets as a solution, we all too well understand that as we achieve those targets we must forge on to much lower emissions targets.

This can be a cruel trick to play on people. They think that they are going to be ok by cutting their carbon footprint by 30%, and spend a lot to get there, only to discover that they should have been targeting a 70% reduction. Not only should they be planning to cut litres per mega metre in half, they are going to have to cut the number of mega metres travelled in half. Cutting heating consumption by 30% is not going to be enough,,, now they discover there is just no way to adequately reduce fuel consumption without also cutting down the size of the home. Had they had that focus they could have avoided that expense on retrofitting the large home.

Again, we have to assert, not admit, that global warming is one of the most important causes of global warming, not just a result of human activity. This is why we have to take action now, not a century from now. Human caused Global warming has a double effect. It warms the earth and increases the amount of water vapour as a result of warming the earth. Both the direct GW effect of human caused emissions and the larger secondary effect, the increased water vapour, will reach a critical point, the rising temperatures will take out of our hands the option to merely cut back our emissions.