General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2257021

    Global warming is real, and caused by humans.

    Locked

    by absolutely ·

    Excerpt from http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2006/911/2

    For the entire article, purchase a membership to http://www.sciencemag.org

    “Hurricanes are born in the warm waters of the tropical Atlantic and Pacific oceans, which are both getting warmer. Over the 20th century, ocean surface temperatures increased by between 0.32 degrees Celsius in the Pacific tropical region and 0.67 degrees C in the Atlantic tropical region. This has correlated with a twofold increase in category-4 and -5 hurricanes over the last 30 years (ScienceNOW, 17 August). Some researchers maintain that these changes in sea surface temperature (SST) are within the natural variability of climate. Others say that the human-caused climate change is the culprit.

    “To figure out just how much people are to blame, atmospheric scientist Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and colleagues compared observed SSTs with the predictions of 22 global climate models. They ran the different models under various physical scenarios, including changes in solar irradiance, volcanic eruptions, and increased sulfate aerosols and greenhouse gas emissions. Only model simulations that included the known human-caused increases in greenhouse gases replicated the observed rise in SST. In total, the team found an 84% probability that two-thirds of the observed temperature changes were caused by human activities. “There is no way of explaining the observed increases without positing a large human impact on these ocean temperatures,” Santer says.”

    Maxwell, don’t even start with your BS about political bias: Ben USED the competing models, and they all FAIL to account for the measured change. Address the science, or STFU, please.

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #3228452

      entire article available for free

      by absolutely ·

      In reply to Global warming is real, and caused by humans.

      Science magazine does not require membership for all articles, and this is a free one, at this time at least. My mistake.

    • #3228434

      I just watched it

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to Global warming is real, and caused by humans.

      A documentary on that same observation. It left a few questions but was still most conclusive, probably due to something I missed or was edited due to time restraints. They did show a computer graphic of the Earth had there been NATURAL only compared to what they find is Human contamination.

      Quote a big difference really, I have never really questioned it too much though. The naysayers just don’t have any relevant facts to counter the rest. Simple, outside the box obervations, but no real scientific facts.

    • #3228351

      Carbon levels higer than recorded history

      by mjwx ·

      In reply to Global warming is real, and caused by humans.

      And ice cores are pretty accurate. I’m talking about the Vostok ice core which has been completely analysed as of last week.
      This is a press release from a few years ago
      http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/en/pres/compress/mist030699.html

      It states that that the natural variance in CO2 levels is between 180 and 280 PPMV (Parts Per Million Volume) but the maximum was recently amended to 320 PPMV in a BBC report last week (which I cant seem to find) as the full results of the analysis were published. The level of CO2 in our atmosphere stated in the above link was 360 PPMV in 1999. In 2005 it was 380 PPMV as stated in this BBC article
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4215881.stm

      20 PPMV in 6 years is an increase far steeper than that recorded in the ice core.

      Heres a Reuters story on the subject also it states the maximum CO2 level to be 300 PPMV.
      http://tinyurl.com/lx6yb

      Whist there is some confusion over the exact maximum CO2 level it is nowhere near our current CO2 level.
      But there is a global warming hoax of sorts. Those who continue to perpetuate that global warming either
      1. Does not exits
      2. Is happening within natural limits
      3. Humans are not affecting the environment
      I call it the “global warming hoax hoax”.

      • #3229064

        Right,

        by tonythetiger ·

        In reply to Carbon levels higer than recorded history

        CO2 is at the highest level we’ve ever estimated it to be.

        Temperatures are [b]not[/b] the highest we have ever estimated it to be.

        Therefore the link between temperature and CO2 levels is obviously [b]not[/b] what these scientists are claiming it is.

        • #3228788

          Wrong, Tony

          by jalefevre ·

          In reply to Right,

          ***CO2 is at the highest level we’ve ever estimated it to be. Temperatures are not the highest we have ever estimated it to be. Therefore the link between temperature and CO2 levels is obviously not what these scientists are claiming it is.***

          What your observation indicates is that CO2 is not the only contributor to the warming. No one argues that it is. Several contributors (. . . including changes in solar irradiance, volcanic eruptions, and increased sulfate aerosols and greenhouse gas emissions . . .) were reviewed. CO2 is just the most obvious human contribution, and a significant contributor to the current warming.

        • #3227059

          What caused

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Wrong, Tony

          the periods of warming that were higher than this one?

          All of those things you mentioned (except for the solar irradiance, of course) could be results of global warming, rather than the cause of it. But that possibility won’t be investigated (at least not at the scale the other possibilities are), because that is a result they (the politicians who fund the research) don’t want to find!

          They can run all the models they want, but if all of those models start with a (possibly) false premise (that something on earth is causing global warming), they are going to come to a (possibly) false conclusion. Mankind has a long history of setting out on witch-hunts, and finding witches. Trouble is, by their own belated admissions, witches don’t exist.

          It reminds me of a joke that made the rounds shortly after the Rodney King trial:

          The FBI, the CIA, and the LAPD are all trying to prove that they are the best at apprehending criminals. The President decides to give them a test. He tells them there’s a rabbit in the forest and they have to find it. First the CIA goes in. They place animal informants throughout the forest. They question all plant and mineral witnesses. After three months of extensive investigations they conclude that rabbits do not exist. Next the FBI goes in. After two weeks with no leads they burn the forest, killing everything in it, including the rabbit, and they make no apologies. The rabbit had it coming. Finally the LAPD goes in. They come out two hours later with a badly beaten bear. The bear is yelling: “Okay! Okay! I’m a rabbit! I’m a rabbit!”

        • #3227269

          Dear Mr scarecrow

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Right,

          No it’s not you claim they are claiming it is.
          No reputable scientist would claim there is any link between CO2 levels and temperature regardless of other factors.
          The most they would claim is that at a certain point in certain situations it would become the dominating factor based of the drastically simple model they are using.

        • #3227057

          Thank you

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Dear Mr scarecrow

          I think you may have hit it on the head with the second sentence. I don’t think reputable scientists [b]are[/b] making the claims. It is the press and certain politicians who are claiming that reputable scientists are saying that.

        • #3229264

          Hold up there, fella

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Thank you

          Big science requires funding, serious funding. To get it you have to support your sponsors reasons for giving you it. The treehuggers ‘want’ global warming, the money huggers don’t. You come out with evidence that doesn’t support their view point, they’ll squash it, rubbish it, and never fund you again.

          The only way those of us without a preset agenda can proceed, is to read all the science and pay special attention to what they don’t say, the conclusions they don’t draw and the methods they don’t use.

          Your argument is valid, but for both sides ‘scientists’, not just those who come out with evidence that supports your beliefs.

        • #3204788

          The only

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Hold up there, fella

          belief I have that pertains to this subject is that there is far too little evidence to come to [b]any[/b] conclusion.

        • #3203133

          Couldn’t agree more

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to The only

          But if you take a position to keep on the way we are based on the fact that the evidence for changing isn’t incontavertible, then by way of action you are saying it’s wrong.
          The consequences of being wrong about global warming and not taking action are far greater than those of being wrong about it and doing something.
          One hurts a few people’s pockets temporarily, the other, everybody permanently. So simple pragmatism says you should operate on the basis that human caused global warming is fact until proven otherwise.

          Any argument that says we should do nothing until it happens and is therefore too late to do anything is flat out self serving, short sightedness as best

        • #2591613

          One simple fact…

          by jcitizen ·

          In reply to The only

          I concur Tony. The thing that amazes me about this whole argument is one simple fact. The fossile fuels that we’re burning were, at one time, in the air.

          Now I don’t think anyone would argue that the Precambrian epoch wasn’t hot; but the Carboniferous period that followed was the one that trapped all that carbon under ground. Looks like carbon was good for life! If the Cambrian explosion is any yardstick.

          So DUH! I am really worried about a new explosion of life! There may be more of the species that like hot weather, that we don’t like; but BOO HOO! I’m not too worried about it.

          Now if you want to talk about energy independence; thheeennnn you will get my attention. This is more important to me. I don’t want to depend on fossile fuel for my nation. I think there is room for compromise on this, no matter what a guy believes; because energy independence equals freedom and no more wars over fuel.

        • #2591589

          2 important points, JC

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to The only

          1) All of the CO2 trapped in fossil fuels, the now frozen tundra, etc., was [b]not[/b] all in the atmosphere [b]at the same time[/b].

          2) While the Cambrian period may have been “good for life”, I doubt that it was a “life” that either you or your descendants would view as “good.”

          It’s easy to say that you don’t care; but, you’ve no right to impose the results of your indifference on future generations.

        • #2591585

          RE: 2 important points….

          by jcitizen ·

          In reply to The only

          I am more worried that ocean species will not adapt soon enough to climate change. Arthropods were adapted to glean oxygen from the water, and they had no problem leaving the water and adapting to land; yet their size didn’t change to smaller body types until the oxygen levels were higher? Why?Notice that very little geologic science enters into most of the arguments in the media. Like how much CO2 was in the air through the periods of prehistory and what kind of life was supported above water?

          Just after the Carboniferous period there was a global warming period. Why? Paleontologists claim, during this period, that even a lighting strike could light the forests for miles because the oxyten was so high! There is a lot of mixed messages in the science. Perhaps an enlightened individual such as yourself could set us straight – opposed to all these other experts. Who are we to beleive?

          Besides if you read the end of my statement there; you’ll notice that I want an end to fossil fuel dependence anyway. Also I feel there are economical ways to absorb the excess CO2 from the atmosphere even if we kept using fossile fuels – which I am NOT in favor of (once again).

        • #3227212

          Wrong, Tiger

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Right,

          “CO2 is at the highest level we’ve ever estimated it to be.

          Temperatures are not the highest we have ever estimated it to be.”

          Therefore, what?

          “Therefore, the link between temperature and CO2 levels is obviously not” the [b]only[/b] factor involved, nor is that “what these scientists are claiming it is.”

          From the article, emphasis added now to make [b]crystal clear[/b] that TonytheTiger doesn’t know science from his azzho1e:

          “To figure out [b]just how much people[/b] are to blame, atmospheric scientist Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and colleagues compared observed SSTs with the predictions of 22 global climate models. They ran the different models under various physical scenarios, [b]including[/b] changes in solar irradiance, volcanic eruptions, and increased sulfate aerosols and greenhouse gas emissions. [b]Only model simulations that included the known human-caused increases in greenhouse gases replicated the observed rise in SST.[/b](sea surface temperature) In total, the team found an 84% probability that [b]two-thirds of the observed temperature changes were caused by human activities.[/b] “There is no way of explaining the observed increases without positing a large human impact on these ocean temperatures,” Santer says.”

          Go find yourself another strawman, loser, I’m out of your league.

        • #3227056

          If 84%

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Wrong, Tiger

          of trains made it their destination without crashing, I’ll be damned if I’d get on one. You can stay on yours though. Have a nice ride.

        • #3227041

          84% probability that two-thirds of measured global warming is human-caused

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to If 84%

          If you have ever taken … Excuse me, I mean, if you had ever [b]passed[/b] a statistics class, you would understand that the probability is higher than 84% that at least 60% of the observed increase in SST is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, and that the probability that human greenhouse gas emissions is directly responsible for at least half of the observed temperature change is higher still. Of course, you don’t know a confidence interval from your own azzh0le, either.

        • #3226995

          Just keep on

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to 84% probability that two-thirds of measured global warming is human-caused

          ridin’ that train… Whoo Whoooo

        • #3226988

          This train

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Just keep on

          This train is bound for glory.

        • #3229200

          CO2 Levels A Blame ALL

          by m.daspit ·

          In reply to Wrong, Tiger

          In the 19080s many of these same scientist were proclaiming the Co2 particals from nuclear explosions would cause a nuclear winter.

          What is really correct seems that “Natural Science is today Polical Science

        • #3229144

          CO2 particles ?

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to CO2 Levels A Blame ALL

          Nuclear winter would be caused by multiple ground bursts throwing dust particles in to the high atmosphere, ther by blocking sun light from reaching the earths surface. The only person I’ve heard make the claim you did is in fact you, personally I’d be wary of making any more, this one wasn’t too clever.

        • #3204984

          There was conjecture

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to CO2 particles ?

          that the K-T impactor hit in an area with a high concentration of lime….

        • #3204906

          Tony, he specified the 19080s

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to CO2 particles ?

          Do you mean to imply, by contradiction, that you also have access to his time machine, and know what these scientists said more than 17,000 years from now?

        • #3204785

          No, just pointing out

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to CO2 particles ?

          that according to conjecture, large amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere could cause a global cooling (which had been described as [b]like[/b] a ‘nuclear winter’)

        • #2516548

          No you’ve misunderstood

          by ralphclark ·

          In reply to No, just pointing out

          The nuclear winter claim specified that dust & ash particles from nuclear groundbursts would collect in the upper atmosphere and block out the sun’s rays thus causing the Earth to cool. It is still thought to be the case. Please note that “particles” in this sense may well contain carbon and even oxygen but they not CO2, they are solid and a lot bigger than individual gas molecules.

          The global warming hypothesis is that CO2 gas in the atmosphere – regardless of origin – blocks infrared (i.e. heat) but passes light and ultraviolet. Hence it lets sunlight in, which heats the Earth, but doesn’t let heat out. So it works just like the glass in a greenhouse (hence “greenhouse gas”, “greenhouse effect”). As a result the more CO2 lingering in the atmosphere, the more the Earth heats up.

          What the Vostok ice core studies established as a matter of incontravertible fact is that since the start of the industrial age (when, coincidentally, humans started burning fossl fuels on an industrial scale, ha ha) CO2 levels shot up from 180ppm to 360ppm which is far above anything seen during any ice age or any interglacial period going back as far as we have data for (about half a million years).

          So we have three things here that we know for sure:
          1. Atmospheric CO2 levels have grown continually ever since human fossil fuel usage began to increase when we started burning fossil fuels to power our machines.
          2. There is a simple theory that predicts how increased CO2 in the atmosphere would contribute to a rise in average global temperature.
          3. The average Ocean temperature is in fact rising.

          The ONLY valid question there ever was about this, was how much of number 3 is down to numbers 1 and 2.

          The article which this thread is discussing is about a study which showed how the various explanatory models were testing – both the ones beloved of the treehuggers and the ones beloved of the gas guzzling dont-take-my-car-away right wing, and the only models that resulted in the effects so far observed were the ones that included human-caused CO2 output. So 1 and 2 really do lead to 3.

          Anyone still contending otherwise clearly has no clue what they are talking about. Fortunately such people are a dwindling minority. Most of the loudmouth right wing corporate apologists have suddenly gone unusually quiet on this subject.

    • #3228144

      Hellooooo?

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to Global warming is real, and caused by humans.

      Funny how everyone wants to debate global warming but ignore the facts and findings. LOL. 🙂

      • #3227627

        Hello!

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Hellooooo?

        I’m not at all amused by morons who want to discuss any topic, “but ignore the facts and findings.”

        The only things in the universe that mean anything are facts.

        • #3227991

          A counter argument

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Hello!

          Facts have no meaning until you use them to illustrate what you mean.

          I mean if you ignore the facts that mean you are wrong, it seems to mean you are right.

          Or if you only consider the facts that mean you are right , it seems to mean you are not wrong.

          No I mean , what exactly are the facts and who says so. I don’t agree with you , your facts are wrong, therefore it means I’m right.

          The fact is what the facts mean isn’t what you say they mean but what they I say they mean, otherwise it would mean I was wrong.

          and that’s a fact.

          LOL

        • #3227984

          That was mean!

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to A counter argument

          nt

        • #3227937

          Cruel nonsense, pointed or barbed perhaps

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to That was mean!

          Hold on, I seem to have caught something.

          Nothing like a bit of virtual angling if you can’t get any of the real thing.

        • #3227962

          Oh Tony

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to A counter argument

          A fact is not a thesis or a theory, it is not speculation. Facts are proven discovery.

          The sky is blue on a clear, sunny day…FACT. You can say it isn’t but you sure as hell wouldn’t be correct by denying such a fact.

          Round tires roll better than square tires. FACT.
          Again deny it all you like, you are not in ANY way right though because FACT ‘proves’ you wrong. This is of course based on friction, agitation etc. Scientific and proven fact.

          So no, facts are not deniable, you can ‘pretend’ facts don’t exist or you can question the science behind a fact. But unntil proven otherwise, a fact is a fact, whether you agree or not.

        • #3227941

          Well I don’t want to be picky

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Oh Tony

          But the sky on my pluton is not blue on a clear and sunny day.
          What colour is blue and can I have some more clarity in the definition of clear please and exactly how sunny does the sun have to be to get this unclear clear sky to resolve to this significant proportion of the visual spectrum known as blue.

          I wish you was right Oz, but facts are all too easily denied. The meaning attached to the facts, even more easily.

          Did I mention my new company Square that makes the roundest rolliest tyres ever, by the way ?

        • #3227936

          Completely incorrect, but amusing all teh same

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Well I don’t want to be picky

          Your train of thought is somewhat amusing here, if not a little tiring.

          When you are describing ‘your’ view of teh sky as somewhat smoggy, that is SMOG you are viewing not the sky. The sky beyond the smog is being inhibited BY the smog.

          What s clear? Without smog, pure without tainted tint due to human intervention.

          Water in a pool is clear too until you pee in it, that doesn’t mean ‘water’ is not clear though.

          YO uare playing a stupid game, it’s not even worth it really, just a bit tiring. YOu really don’t have a point, just a poor understanding of what makes fact a fact, it has nothing to do with what YOU believe or what YOU think. IN the case of Square, go for it, just don’t invest your kids tuition money in it, because it won’t fly. People understand facts and logic, because YOU feel square tires roll better , that is neither a fact nor logical in any sense of either word.

        • #3227913

          Now you’ve irritated me

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Completely incorrect, but amusing all teh same

          Facts have actuallity, they have no inherrent meaning whatsoever.
          The words we use to describe them, give context and we derive meaning from that.

          Yes I was playing a game. I thought that was goddamn obvious, if you don’t want to play, don’t !

        • #3227900

          The Sky

          by jellimonsta ·

          In reply to Completely incorrect, but amusing all teh same

          Isn’t the sky simply solar radiation viewable as a result of being scattered by air molecules, cloud particles or other particles?

          If so, could not the SMOG be considered in this all encompasing definition of ‘Sky’?

          Just my 2c ]:)

          [edit: because I type like a spazmo :p ]

        • #3227877

          Techinically everyone is wrong

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Completely incorrect, but amusing all teh same

          If you really want to get into it. The Sky woul dactually be every colour BUT blue as we only see the colours that are not absorbed and that are reflected back to our eyes. When something is red, it is in reality every colour BUT red, as it reflects red and does not absorb it as it does with every other colour of the spectrum.

          But it’s funny how a serious discussion that counters what MANY people sepw here is completely iognored or segued due to people’s inability to accept facts they don’t believe.

          The sky as we see it is generally Blue because yes, the reflection of the sun off off our planet, oceans etc. combined with the particles of gases in the air make it appear blue, yet the atmosphere is for the most part made up of colourless gases.

          The point is, ‘the sky’ as most normal people see it, is blue. Takes a real dork to see anything beyond that (sorry, nothing too personal intoned there), but really that is just geekspeak to avoid the focus of the comment.

        • #3227816

          Hee-hee, Oz: it depends what you mean by “is”!!!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Completely incorrect, but amusing all teh same

          If the color that the sky “is” describes the color(s) of the light frequencies that [b]reach[/b] our eyes, then the sky is blue, but if the color that the sky “is” means the frequencies of light that the atmosphere [b]does not[/b] emit, reflect, or refract to the surface of Earth, then the sky is some other color.

          Ha!

        • #3227735

          alright smart arse

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Completely incorrect, but amusing all teh same

          What is ‘IT’? You know, ‘IT’ what is ‘IT’ all about? F**ck ‘IT’, screw ‘IT’, forget ‘IT’ what is ‘IT’? Okay that was good acid and wild youth.

          Anyhow,the PIGMENT that an object retains is not the colour WE see. Therefore a red chair is not actually red, we just see it as red.

          A blue ball is actually every pigment BUT blue, but our eyes tell us it’s blue because we simply see what the actual pigment reflects. Thus we identify objects by the reflected colour, not the actual colour.

        • #3229022

          not as much of a smart arse as I thought I was

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Completely incorrect, but amusing all teh same

          It’s the nitrous oxide (another greenhouse gas, aka “laughing gas”) in the atmosphere that makes me feel funnier than I really am.

          😀

        • #3227105

          Actually all of you are wrong.

          by croeiii ·

          In reply to Completely incorrect, but amusing all teh same

          To truly determine the color of any sky one must first remove ALL impurities. When that is done the true color of any sky would be…..Black!

        • #3204758

          Wrong again

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Completely incorrect, but amusing all teh same

          Remove ALL gases and impurities and light reflection from the air and it becomes a colourless/odourless gas.

          What you claim is black would actually be outer space, unlit and black of course.

        • #3227101

          The sky is NOT Blue!!

          by zx2zx ·

          In reply to Oh Tony

          “The sky is blue on a clear, sunny day…FACT. You can say it isn’t but you sure as hell wouldn’t be correct by denying such a fact.”

          You are only seein grefraction of blue light waves. So technically the sky is colorless, you putz.

          No on to Global Warming… there is no such animal. And even if there were, so what? I hate the winter and prefer summer. Teh increase in CO2 is caused by the highest level of animal life on this planet ever. We produce CO2 when we exhale! The supposed GREENHOUSE GAS is CO, so why study the wrong gas as proof of global warning?

          Statistics and facts never lie, it is those who use them taht do.

        • #3227079

          Your science it a bit iffy….

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to The sky is NOT Blue!!

          The sky on a sunny day is obviously blue simply from the way we define “sky”. We define the daylight sky as the blue bit that isn’t ground and isn’t clouds. How else would anyone define it?

          Oz! Take note!

          The blue colour of the sky is due to Rayleigh scattering. As light moves through the atmosphere, only the shorter, blue wavelengths are absorbed by gas molecules and these are then then radiated in different directions. Since you see the blue light from everywhere overhead, the sky looks blue. Closer to the horizon, the sky appears much paler in colour as the scattered blue light must pass through more air. As an aside, that’s why the setting sun appears redder than the noonday sun.

          The greenhouse gas really is carbon [b]dioxide[/b] you know.

          As living animal life on this planet is mostly protein and carbohydrates, it’s a nett carbon [b]sink[/b]. The source of the increase in CO2 is easily provable by isotopic ratios to be fossil carbon.

          Wrong from start to finish. Ah well, never mind… 🙂

        • #3204831

          Almost

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Your science it a bit iffy….

          Neil, I have performed lectures for science classes at the science center here on how our eyes interpret colours. I understand the sky reflections but that really isn tho wthis all started at all. I used a figreu of speech, a la, “as right as the sku is blue”.

          That figure of speech has been dragged out into a science class by some geeks with absolutely no ability to comprehend the subject and see the difference in the focus of the thread.

          As for Co2, yes that is a greeenhouse gas. But CO, Carbon MONoxide is the really harmful emission, to us, right now, as we live and breath everyday. CO is the reason I support clean air emissions standards etc. That’s what kills us.

        • #2516466

          I would add something

          by ralphclark ·

          In reply to Your science it a bit iffy….

          All of you who’ve been saying that a blue object isn’t really blue are just misusing the accepted definition of words.

          The colour attribute of a surface is defined by the frequencies of light that are emitted, transmitted or reflected from that surface. If the frequencies of the light are predominantly blue then the surface and the object it is considered part of, are blue.

          It’s meaningless to say that an object is red because it absorbs red light. That’s just not how we define colour. If we did then to be consistent we would have to rename every colour to its opposite, complimentary colour.

          Life would instantly become more complicated as we would then be naming colours not for themselves, but for what was known to be missing. What would be the frickin’ point of that? Imagine having to teach colour to a child, then!

        • #2516465

          I would add something

          by ralphclark ·

          In reply to Your science it a bit iffy….

          Edit: Sorry, dupe post because of website snafu

        • #2516207

          Then, you would multiply that something by 2!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Your science it a bit iffy….

          😀

        • #3227031

          I’m really hoping this was the result of a

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to The sky is NOT Blue!!

          language difficulty. The use of the word putz suggests american after all. LOL
          No such thing as global warming?
          So the globe isn’t getting warmer?
          I don’t want to rain on your parade, after all that would decrease the amount of sun you get, but winter is sort of necessary.

          Even more amusing of course is, if we do get a runaway green house effect it will be less sunny. Venus is a good example.
          By the way, no one would complain about there being too much CO in our atmosphere, we’d all be dead. CO2 is poisonous after a certain level as well, except to plants of course, the take it in and push out a waste product oxygen. That’s the O in CO and CO2.

        • #3204836

          Listen to your own advice “You putz”

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to The sky is NOT Blue!!

          CO is but one greenhouse gas, CO is also the most toxic gas that we emit into our breathing air at low level altitude every day. Carboxyhemoglobin is something you’d like to take note of, it is caused by our extensive burning of fossil fuels.

          Thus removing such fuels or driving more efficient fuel burning vehicles, our lives are healthier from the get go. Don’t even start me in on CO and vehicle emissions, I am an alternate fuels specfialist (former mechanic) and have spent a lot of time studying fuels and emissions effects.

          As for the lgobal warming factor, your reply intones that you really havent got a clue what global warming is about or its effects.

          First of all you state it doesnt exist, a firm statement, then you quetsion your own comments by saying “if there were”. Actually global warming is a fact, nobody has ever denied it and can’t the Earth has warmed and cooled naturally for millions of years. What’s the problem then? WE are increasing those natural effects (again fact) with our emissions and wasteful use of our natural resources. Sure, our planet will live for many millenia after humans exist, but why make that existence shorter?

          You prove you have nothing but a very elementary concept of the subject yet speak with such voracity, perhaps you should try learning about it first.

        • #3139079

          The “supposed” greenhouse gas is CO???

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to The sky is NOT Blue!!

          While you are correct re. the “color” of the sky, the rest of your post is gravely in error.

          1) The “greenhouse gas” is CO2, [b]not[/b] CO;

          2) There is nothing “supposed” about it; and,

          3) We are [b]not[/b] living during a period of the greatest amount of animal life ever.

          Next time, get your facts straight before you attack.

        • #3227933

          Facts? Whose facts?

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to A counter argument

          But what if my facts are different from your facts?

          Are these real facts we are dealing with or only factual facts?

        • #3227869

          As a matter of fact

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Facts? Whose facts?

          They are not facts unless factually proven, infact most facts are not facts at all but just mere conclusion based on speculation, such as Tony’s comment, ‘fact of the matter is’. Now that’s a fact.

          So technically, and logically, a blue sky my ipso-facto blue NOT be?!

          I suppose what Tony is TRYING to say is that if He sees a different conclusion then there is an alternate fact, his own fact.

          But we are not talking about speculation, which teh previous comment shows.

          We are talking fact, if something has occurred, it is a fact. I don’t care who believes or disbelieves it, the Twin Towers collapsing is a fact.

          Stating thta if you light a match and hold it to a can of gasoline will most likely result in fire or expolosion is a fact, no matter what you believe it just IS.

          So yes, there are fecta in life, undeniable facts, unless someone is stupid of course., but that still doesn’t chanege the facts.

          How seemingly educated or intelligent people can claim otherwise is just hilarious, no amount of pseudo psychiatry changes facts,some poeple think the play on words is even clever but it really isn’t because it is not at all logical; which it would need to be in order ot hold water. And THAT is a fact. 😉

        • #3228932

          The only thing I was trying to claim was

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to As a matter of fact

          fact are not meanings.

          Meanings are value judgements, facts are brought into support meanings. Seeing as values are usually in place before facts are discovered some people have a distressing tendency to pick and choose them to keep the long standing comfort of the value they hold.

          Here’s a fact, you seem to have taken the fact that I disagreed with ABS that facts are meanings to mean that I am Mr Edison’s camp in relation to the ‘global warming issue’

          Nothing could be further from fact than that.

          I find all arguments against action on the possibility of human engendered global warming specious and self serving.

          I’m talking survival of the planet they are talking personal profit, which facts they choose to support their argument or ridicule mine is immaterial. Their values, on this issue at least, are utterly incompatible with mine.

        • #3227876

          According to…

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to A counter argument

          … Homer Simpson: Facts are meaningless, they can be used to prove anything. 🙂

        • #3228928

          See even iconic american morality

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to According to…

          agrees with me.

          It’s a fact that he said it, but what does it mean.

        • #3228823

          One does not question

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to See even iconic american morality

          …Home Simpson 🙂

        • #3227210

          Table your counter argument

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to A counter argument

          Just kidding, only wanted to get your attention! Did it work?

          This is starting to get interesting:

          “Here’s a fact, you seem to have taken the fact that I disagreed with ABS that facts are meanings to mean that I am Mr Edison’s camp in relation to the ‘global warming issue’

          Nothing could be further from fact than that.

          I find all arguments against action on the possibility of human engendered global warming specious and self serving.

          I’m talking survival of the planet they are talking personal profit, which facts they choose to support their argument or ridicule mine is immaterial. Their values, on this issue at least, are utterly incompatible with mine.”

          In what way do you think I’m talking personal profit before survival of the planet? I’ve argued before that wealth is worthless without a habitable environment, and I think this fact is self-evident. If I’ve forgotten it somewhere, please tell me.

        • #3227110

          Not you Abs

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Table your counter argument

          I disagreed with you because you said only facts have meaning, we were getting on the semantic freight train again.

          Oz took my disagreement with you on that issue to be disagreement with you on global warming and tried to argue the position all three of us agree on with arguments based on the one I don’t.
          That got a little confusing.

          The ‘Maxwell Edison – Al Gore the early years’ position is profit before survival.

          What I tried to point out that in that case I don’t care what facts are chosen for either argument. None of us are 100% sure of the facts after all. What some of us can be sure about is that the biosphere is worth a heck of a lot more than the ability to upgrade your PC or buy a new toaster.

          Less interesting now, unless you want to jump into what would be an off topic sidebar on actuallity and context and how both get blurred by semantic disconnect.

        • #3227058

          Ha! OK, never mind.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Not you Abs

          I agree to drop our semantic argument about meanings, which is not the subject I started this thread to discuss.

        • #3229237

          As a matter of fact all valid meanings derive directly from fact via logic.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to A counter argument

          Any asserted “meaning” whose basis is anything other than fact(s), must be based instead on fiction, aka lie(s), or on nothing. Either way, such an asserted “meaning” is baseless, and therefore, in FACT, [b]meaningless![/b]

        • #3229143

          Meanings are values not facts

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to As a matter of fact all valid meanings derive directly from fact via logic.

          I knew you would’nt be able to resist !
          To be fair people illustrate what they mean with facts and they attach meanings to facts. Given anything we say meaning something is the summit of whole series of assumptions or at least acceptance of ‘facts’, it’s extremely hard, if not impossible to disentangle the two.

          Attach a meaning to a fact, act on that meaning making it a value, and then that colours your perception of subsequent facts. Which is why many try to counteract facts posited by those with different values.

          I believe this
          Why
          Because of that
          Are obviously that is wrong.

          The only one to one relation is with those facts we choose to back up our values with.

          Total objectivity, would suggest that you shouldn’t be guilty of this, but in my opinion you often are. You and I often simply finish up agreeing to disagree on values not facts.

          Course it could be just be me, couldn’t it.

        • #3204919

          One to one relation unnecessary.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Meanings are values not facts

          Human brains are capable of [b]creating[/b] working one-to-many relationships in relational databases. I pardon no person so ignorant that it cannot [b]understand[/b] one-to-many relationships of meaning to facts, and a zero-to-any relationship of meanings to myths.

        • #3226547

          Nice sidestep or

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to One to one relation unnecessary.

          semantic disconnect again.

          “Only facts have meaning” was what you stated wasn’t it?

        • #3141389

          Oh, go semantic disconnect yourself.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to One to one relation unnecessary.

          “You mean what I know.”

          Meanings derive from facts, and only from facts. I do not mean to say that meanings & facts are exactly equivalent. I thought we already clarified, and reached agreement on this point weeks ago. Just taking the pi$$, aren’t you?

        • #3204837

          meaningless!

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to As a matter of fact all valid meanings derive directly from fact via logic.

          Much like your last post. Try not to obfuscate the issue. Better yet, try using simple words and simple sentences to get your point across and stop trying to sound smart. You’ll go a long way in helping your argument.

        • #3204773

          Thanks for the tips.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to meaningless!

          But I prefer to use the most exact word available in my repertoire, not the one most accessible to the most people. I always preferred literature that required me to use a dictionary occasionally to understand it. The universe is big, and learning new words to describe its many phenomena is a worthwhile use of time.

          The last post was [b]intended[/b] to asymptoticaly approach meaninglessness, and to be so pompous it would be nearly indecipeherable. I was exchanging a joke with Tony Hopkinson, with whom I have disagreed vehemently about political economy in the past. Sorry my attempt to smooth relations with him annoyed you. But, if you re-read the post to which I replied, and the humorous discussion of fact vs. meaning between his post & mine, and my first joking reply, “Table your counterargument”, hopefully you will also see the humor.

        • #3204566

          Not annoyed!

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Thanks for the tips.

          You didn’t annoy me.

        • #3205420

          Great!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Thanks for the tips.

          Do you see the humor yet? Irony, and essential agreement with Tony’s statement about facts & meaning, are all I was trying to convey there. I’m sorry for anybody who took the time to read that, and wasn’t amused.

        • #3204554

          Meaningful

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to meaningless!

          The simplest words carry the biggest semantic loads.
          Anti-disestablishmentarianism has very few connotations, faith, good, evil too many to count.

          If I said someone was an anti-disestablishmentarian, we are being fairly precise, if I said he was evil though, what would I mean?

          That I thought anti-disestablishmentarianism was evil and because he believed in it, he was evil?

          If I only said he was evil, would you say oh he’s an anti-disestablishmentarian, obviously!

          You’d need a lot of context for that to be an accurate conclusion about waht I meant wouldn’t you. Probably a long string of words that would mean something different to you anyway.

    • #3228017

      So now what?

      by puppybreath ·

      In reply to Global warming is real, and caused by humans.

      Let’s assume for the moment that this one scientist is correct and that he has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that man is causing global warming.

      What now? How are you going to save the Earth?

      What rules/policies/laws are you going to put into effect?

      How will they be enforced?

      Which ones will be voluntary and which ones will be mandatory?

      • #3227985

        so this…

        by john.a.wills ·

        In reply to So now what?

        climate-heating activity is connected with other kinds of pollution. Make the polluter compensate those affected by the pollution. Each kind of petrol shouldm be taxed according to the poisons it causes the car to spew out and the health-care providers should be paid for treating those made sick. That should get the pollution rate down, and with it the global-warming rate.

      • #3227979

        I’m going to fly anti clockwise

        by tony hopkinson ·

        In reply to So now what?

        around the planet at great speeds and then use my super breath to cool everything down.

        If for some reason that can’t be done, then my second option is to relocate to Mars, because warming it up is step one to making it habitable.

        Until we accept there is a problem there will never be a solution. The fact that the solutions we can think of at the moment are unpalatable doesn’t mean the problem doesn’t exist and therefore a solution need not be found. It means we need to think up something better quick, or even better try something now, while we think up something better.

        Make being tanned unfashionable.
        Make home grown food fashionable.
        Make out of season food unfashionable.
        Make pollution unprofitable.

        Make Al Gore the president, only joking.

        The change has to come from us, our governments won’t ever try to get us to do something that will upset their sponsors.

        • #3227940

          Noe THAT is NOT a fact.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I’m going to fly anti clockwise

          Conveniently in the same thread, I get to support our FACT comments.
          You said: “The fact that the solutions we can think of at the moment are unpalatable doesn’t mean the problem doesn’t exist ”

          Now THAT isn’t a fact at all.

          What can YOU do? That isn’t unpalatable?
          http://www.davidsuzuki.org/NatureChallenge/

          Now THAT’s a fact proven by science.

        • #3227929

          Far too radical

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Noe THAT is NOT a fact.

          What about the energy companies, you can’t chop 10% of the pofits off our best entrepreneurs. They’ll do something else and not contribute to my political campaign.

          Walk or bike to work, it’s two hundred miles away. Nothing wrong with my challenger anyway it’s got very good fuel economy for a tank and I have no partking problems at all.

          No pesticides, we’ll be infested with green fly, ladybirds will wear out their mandibles and die.

          Perhaps I should have said unpalatable to those we have handed decision making power to. It sounded a bit stilted though, and I knew what my fact meant.

          ROTFLMAO

        • #3227759

          That’ sthe problem in a nutshell

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Far too radical

          Nobody is willing to accept personal responsibility. As long as it’s HIM that makes changes and I don’t need to do anything to adjust my wasteful lifestyle than all is well.

          No wonder nobody can solve issues when at summits with the US.

        • #3228993

          Exactly nothing will happen

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Far too radical

          until the day after the biblical disaster happens.

          I do what I can in terms of energy saving because it saves me money. I use public transport, I recycle. I even argue the issue pragmatically.

          After all if we treat it as an issue and we are wrong we get a cleaner planet, if we don’t treat it as an issue and we are wrong we’ll be building arks in our back gardens out of the forests we haven’t burnt yet, to put on pairs of species we have failed to extinguish.

          No brainer really isn’t it.

          Course making fuel expensive won’t get you voted for and cutting down the availablity of cheap flights won’t get you voted in to power, being in favour of either won’t get you a very big campaign chest to get into power.

          We need global legislation. If you pollute you pay, sliding scale % of net profit. Fine starts at 100% for one incident, slides down as you put some effort into stoppping. That’ll stop their farting in church.

          That is a bit radical isn’t it.

        • #3227854

          I agree with you.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to I’m going to fly anti clockwise

          What does that mean?

          “The change has to come from us, our governments won’t ever try to get us to do something that will upset their sponsors.”

        • #3228992

          It would seem a value masqueraded as a fact again

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to I agree with you.

          Very simple it’s much easier to make money from polluting than it is from not.

        • #3228951

          That depends on the choices made by the market.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to It would seem a value masqueraded as a fact again

          If the market chooses to buy from polluters, from where does that very same market acquire the right to act, as “voters & citizens”, to punish the companies it rewards for providing us conveniences? Isn’t that about the most hypocritical act you can imagine?

        • #3228924

          Close , but not the most.

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to That depends on the choices made by the market.

          The most hypocritical act is to manipulate your market to get what you want, then when the consequences come home to roost, say it’s the fault of those you manipulated for being gullible twits.

          Especially when you’ve spent their lives indoctrinating, grooming and educating them to create a massive blindspot, you could exploit to your personal advantage.

          Hypocrisy <> ignorance and ignorance is definitley not bliss, just easier.

        • #3227215

          “manipulate your market” ?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Close , but not the most.

          If people make bad choices, the existence of advertising does not absolve us of responsibility.

        • #3227108

          Bad choices absolves no one of resposnsibility

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Close , but not the most.

          not us for making them, or them for making it easier for us to make them.

        • #3227038

          I will never agree, Tony, and I know you won’t change, either.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Close , but not the most.

          No person is responsible in any degree for the uncoerced choice of any other person. If citizens have chosen to buy and use substances that we later learn is “pollution”, or which we knew at the time to be pollution, the ease with which we acquired those substances in no way shifts responsibility for our choices to buy them from us to those who provided to us what we, in our roles as part of an economic market, told them we wanted.

          Once you buy that gasoline, or Twinkie, or cigarette, you [b]own[/b] it, and have [b]100%[/b] of the responsibility for what you choose to do with it, including any harm your property does to yourself or others.

        • #3229263

          I’m not sure that we disagree in any meaningful fashion anyway

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Close , but not the most.

          Effectively both of us believe continuing in ignorance is voluntary. If we addressed that argument then those who wish to gain from the perpetuation of ignorance would defeat themselves. Everytime they tried to progress their agenda, it would be a spur to do the exact opposite.

          Anyone ‘gaining’ from me accepting their position on anything is immediately treated with extreme suspicion. Works for me anyway.

        • #3138828

          We probably disagree on some meanings, fewer facts, and no fundamentals.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Close , but not the most.

          “Anyone ‘gaining’ from me accepting their position on anything is immediately treated with extreme suspicion. Works for me anyway.”

          That makes perfect sense.

      • #3227946

        That’s been done too many times

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to So now what?

        This isn’t some new cutting edge science. It is a new confirmation of what for years has been scientific speculation, denied by the unqualified.

        What can be done to ‘save the earth’?
        Have you been in a box for the last 10 years or what?
        You want to do YOUR part? Your own personal change that will ensure that YOU have helped as best you can? a VERY small personal sacrifice?

        Take the challenge. If not, please explain to me how taking such a minor personal responsibility is not applicable to yourself.

        http://www.davidsuzuki.org/NatureChallenge/

        Instead of asking what LAWS and legislation should be applied, think about what you can do instead. If you are not prepared to do YOUR little part, then you are not serious in your question.

        Take time to visit the 10 links and discover just how easy it is to do your part.

        • #3227878

          Actually

          by puppybreath ·

          In reply to That’s been done too many times

          I’m very serious about my question. If the situation is as critical as you claim, then evryone needs to do something immediately.

          Looking at the site you provided shows that only 222k people have signed up for his challenge.

          IMHO You aren’t going to be able to get enough people involved unless they are forced into it.

          So the question remains: How are you going to convince/require/force people to accomplish your goals when they really don’t care.

        • #3227838

          How to convince, not require or force

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Actually

          My approach is to sing the praises of the T-Zero.

          It reaches 60 mph from a standstill in around 4 seconds, and its ability to accelerate rapidly is a simple consequence of using electricity instead of chemical combustion, not of some outrageous engineering that will have to be incredibly expensive. Much of the acceleration time of a vehicle with an internal combustion engine has to do with the limitations of a chemical reaction, which cannot exceed a rate determined by kinematic equations. A battery-powered circuit, on the other hand, reaches full power within a fraction of one second. The other factor in determining acceleration potential is the size of the vehicle compared to the total output of its engine, in the case of internal combustion and battery-powered alike. So, in the case of an identical combustion vehicle, you’re waiting for the engine’s force to reach its maximum value, F(max), while the battery-powered car’s engine switches from zero to F(max) in — literally! — the time it takes a light to turn on when you flip the switch. In both cases, the magnitude of F(max) compared to the mass of the car (m) determines the acceleration (a) according to the equation F/m=a. In a T-Zero, F = F(max) the [b]instant[/b] you floor the accelerator pedal. Your Challenger will have to wait for the gasoline/air/electricity mixture to reach equilibrium, so you’ll be pushing against the same mass with less force for some time. Clearly, battery power is [b]superior[/b] for drag-racing and freeway entry applications.

          This car costs about $100,000 — [b]custom-made[/b]. Major car companies have [b]higher[/b] per-vehicle production costs for [b]their prototypes[/b], but in every conversation about electric cars, I hear complaints about the electric cars’ high prices compared to [b]assembly-line[/b] models. The major companies just never devoted the same assembly-line resources to their electric cars (GM’s EV1, Toyota’s RAV4 EV, Ford Think), so comparisons of their electric cars’ prices is also not valid. The lower production cost of a T-Zero to a Detroit prototype is also a feature of any electric car: electric motors are just simpler.

          The only reason that electric cars haven’t been as practical in the past as they are now is that the lithium ion battery is a new invention.

        • #3227740

          Only 227 thousand people

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Actually

          Have actuially registered and signe dup for the nature challenge. I know several, including myself, who follow several of these guidelines and haven’t signed up though.

          NOw lets look at the issue.
          Is it imperative that something is done overnight? Yes.
          Doi we need to clean the air overnight? No.

          Do we need to start taking action and increasing aareness now? Yes.

          Is 227 thousand people a drop in teh bucket, yes and no.

          Th econdcept is that each person folowing these guidelines to better resource management, will save an average of 1 tonne of emissions each year. Thus a quarter of a million TONNES of emissions will be reduced over the next year.

          Now if everyone had your mindset, which I must agree is very common, then NO, nothin gwill happen. When it does get ‘enforced’ by teh government ,there will be protests, human rights issues, republicans screaming about big brother watching, personal liberties etc. NOTHING gets done that way.

          If people suchj as yourself were prepared to accept personal responsibility, as at least a quarter million peopl ehave already, then there will be time to help reduce th eeffects of global warming. Will we STOP it? Of course not, it’s natural, will we slow the harmful effects of our emissions on th eatmosphere? Damn straight we will and that’s all it takes. Not some radical law to enforce. Cleaning up emissions and governmentregulations started in California in 1986, with the clean air act. It was HEAVILY opposed and at the time people complained about wimpy new cars that didn’t burn $50.00 of gas between gas stations. No HP, death traps etc. These people have since been proven wrong, and I am confident a good share of them now drive far more economical cars.

          It’s fear of change, it happens to everyone who is somewhat insecure or living in a confort zone. We only progress as a nation/society/race when someone steps outsde of that zone or takes a chance and finds a better way.

          Anytime I mention clean air or global warming to ANYONE it is accepted with full interest, mention it in the US and you get every single irrelevant issue you can conceive, and then some, thrown in your face as to why they are different than the rest of the world.

          Clean up you OWN act, don’t wait for everyone else to do it. If you are a sheep or a simply follower peon I can understand, but you guys are always claimng how you are upstanding and righteous and strong and independant and not controlled by your government and all the opther BS you guys sling here daily.

          Yet when it really comes doen to it? “Leave it for someone else to do, or have the government enforce it.” What a whimpy piss-ant reply, and when I contest that I don’t know how you became and held on to super power status, you all get riled and start on again about your strength and independence. Give me a break, nobody buys that cop out hypocrisy anymore.

        • #3227708

          Why

          by puppybreath ·

          In reply to Only 227 thousand people

          must you be so rude and vehemently criticize me when you don’t even know me? I happen to be doing MY part and am probably just as “green” as you are if not more so. I just don’t have to brag about it to make myself feel superior as you do.

          I asked a simple question because we both know that it would be extremely difficult to get many people to change their mindset because of their selfish ways. Instead of listing possibilities, you throw out a bunch of insults and go off on one of your Anti-US rants again.

          You really are a sad piece of work.

        • #3229056

          Quit bickering, kids, or you’re both grounded with no bicycles for a week!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Why

          Like any fashion, there is a point when “weirdos” reach a critical mass and become “trend-setters”. The more a “green” lifestyle can be portrayed as apolitical, arbitrary, and/or frivolous, the more likely it will “catch on”.

          [edit: your -> you’re]

        • #3229008

          But….

          by puppybreath ·

          In reply to Quit bickering, kids, or you’re both grounded with no bicycles for a week!

          if you take away my bike, how will I do my shopping? Are YOU going to get my groceries for me?

        • #3228948

          You claim to be green.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Quit bickering, kids, or you’re both grounded with no bicycles for a week!

          Walk.

        • #3228847

          Insults?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Only 227 thousand people

          You’ve got a long way to go here before you realize those are not even remotely close to being personal insults thrown at you.

          You raised the same question evertyone else does that doesn’t want to be personally responsible and take personal action.

          THAT is the problem. If you do take action yourself and follow good guidelines to lower emissions, reduce driving by buying locally etc. Then all the power to you, why even raise the question then?

          the point it, you stated the common “what about everyone else” comment, lead..dont’ follow, that’s the difference.

        • #3229120

          Global warming up, insults

          by local support ·

          In reply to Insults?

          I would not think to insult anyone of you.

          In about 500 years, we we would not recognize the Earth as we see it today.

          I will be gone in 20 years from now, and I aint got no children.

          Does not mean I don’t care though.

          \Local Support

        • #3202944

          I admire your optimism OZ…

          by Anonymous ·

          In reply to Insults?

          But I think I’d have to take Puppy’s side on this. I don’t have the faith in human nature that you do, perhaps. People don’t drive (close to) the speed limit because it is the considerate, safe thing to do, they do it because they don’t want to pay the fines. 1/4 million (+/-) may in fact be (relatively) philanthropic, and choose to recycle, drive economic cars, etc…, but the other many billions of people aren’t going to pay more to recycle witout some ‘incentive’.

        • #3140551

          Incevntive?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Insults?

          You mean like, the planet that we live upon will not be able to sustain human life if we continue on the current path?

        • #3140461

          You’d think that would be enough.

          by Anonymous ·

          In reply to Insults?

          But I don’t think most people think beyond next weekend, much less next month, next year, or next decade. There is no instant graticifcation in saving the planet so our kids will have someplace nice to play (Like I said, I admire your optimism. You have more confidence in humantiy than I do at his point).

      • #3227879

        Ooh Ooh… I know…

        by jellimonsta ·

        In reply to So now what?

        Let’s put an additional 50c on all gas prices per gallon, that is contributed to scientific means for finding alternate fuel sources, or other means of ‘green’ energy!! :p

        • #3227732

          Don’t think so

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Ooh Ooh… I know…

          the rich woul dcontinue to drive gas guzzling machines and the poor woul dbe crammed onto buses. Therefore the richer get a care free life while the poor pay for it?

          Wouldn’t work. :p

          Yes, I know you weren’t serious, even you aren’t THAT dumb.

        • #3229058

          Noo, noo… I know…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Ooh Ooh… I know…

          Eliminate all transportation taxes except to pay for road maintenance. Eliminate all other “sin taxes”, and let people pursue our own happiness, not beg and petition the government to provide it to us.

          Exit once and for all the vicious circle of citizens electing officials to pass taxes to coerce the same citizens to alter their behavior, in the interest of … the citizens themselves? All sides need to agree: no person has the right to [b]assert[b] their point of view by force, including via their elected representatives. The only just role of law is to [b]prevent[/b] coercion, not to initiate it, for any utopian pipe dream. Civilization means that the ends cannot justify the means. Initiating coercion is wrong, even for the sake of clean air.

        • #3229041
          Avatar photo

          Wrong Stance Jelli

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Ooh Ooh… I know…

          Douglas Adams said it best in one of the old Dr Who series when he was the script writer way back when instead of using Gasoline use Hydrogen No major conversions to be made to the cars and very little redesign required with a inexhaustible source of fuel and no nasty by products of combustion.

          We had the correct answer back in the 60’s and still nothing has been done about it. Could it be that the [b]Oil Companies[/b] contribute way too much to reelection campaigns to see any improvement in fuel usage policy?

          For 5 days after 9-11 with no aircraft flying the air cleared immensely but now that the no flying has been revoked we are back to our dirty ways and increased pollution.

          This entire thing reminds me of the debate about CFC’s and the Hole in the Ozone Layer when it was first put forward it was laughed at and eventually we had to act to stop the problem. Now only a few years latter that’s simply no longer a problem.

          The fact that places like China are investing heavily in Wind Power should be a dead give away on where we should be heading instead of continuing more of the same things as we’ve been doing for centuries.

          If I remember correctly even in thew BBC series [b]The Goodies[/b] they did a skit of the melting of the polar Ice Caps and decided that the water level rise would be immense. Now that we are beginning to see this happen I’m wondering who will take responsibility when all the low lying islands in the oceans become flooded and the people there have to move to higher ground just as most of us who live close to the coast will be placed in the same position.

          If I was to be alive in about 50 years I will have a Ocean Front View though with the changes in the Oceans Water Chemistry I’m not quite sure what I would be able to see or what ocean animals would survive. We are already seeing the signs of the beginning of the end with Ice Caps Melting Coral Reefs Bleaching and not recovering because of higher than normal water temperatures stronger and more frequent storms and longer droughts.

          Col

        • #3228985

          I know Col

          by jellimonsta ·

          In reply to Wrong Stance Jelli

          I was being facetious.
          As Oz pointed out, the additional ‘tax’ (or whatever you want to call it) on top of gas prices would only affect the lower and middle class, while the wealthy would stay largely unaffected by such measures.
          Although, as blunt as Oz was about my reply, he must have neglected to see that his scenario of ‘lower class being crammed onto buses’ is exactly what is being suggested anyway for the American population en masse, is it not?
          Or do we believe that just getting rid of the trucks and SUVs will right all that is wrong? And maybe it will even promote peace in the middle east, ease tensions in war torn African countries? :p

        • #3138837

          I am a fan of the hydrogen fuel idea.

          by Anonymous ·

          In reply to I know Col

          Made from water, returns to water. I really can’t see a downside to it. The only challenging part is the momentum bit. Who is going to pay to introduce Hydrogen pumps to all our fuel stations? Safe to say the fuel companies won’t, unless there is a demand, but to be a demand there must be cars that run on Hydrogen, and for those to exist there has to be a supply. I wonder how much money the various world govt. are giving to Big oil in the form of subsidies, etc.? Perhaps if that was all made avaialble ONLY to those companies who had Hydrogen at their stations?

          Is it even possible to retrofit a Gasoline car to run Hydrogen? Obviously a new Fule tank is required. Cna any part of the engine be re-used?

        • #3138774
          Avatar photo

          It’s a very similar conversion to the LPG conversions

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to I am a fan of the hydrogen fuel idea.

          Though you use Hydrogen rather than LPG which here is about 28 Cents a Litre as apposed to unleaded at $1,09 a Litre and we consider that cheap. A few weeks ago it was up around the $1.30 a Litre mark.

          Now the down side of Hydrogen you need much more to produce the same amount of energy and the Fuel Air mix is much richer as well. Currently the Petrol or LPG powered engines have somewhere near the ideal 15:1 ratio of 15 Parts Air to 1 part Fuel but Hydrogen requires a much richer mix to burn so you would be looking closer at a 2.5 or 3 :1 Fuel Air Mix Ration.

          Probably not good enough for the current cars on the roads but a great idea for Hybrid cars that have a small engine driving a generator and then everything else is electric.

          There would be a few problems with Unsprung Mass in the wheels as you would have electric engines in there which are heavier than conventional wheel carriers. But on the up side you could do away with brakes as Regenerative Braking would act to stop the vehicle and at the same time feed power back into the batteries.

          That’s a proven technology that is used on every one of the Solar Racers in the Darwin Adelaide race that is held here annually and has been used in all hybrid vehicles since WW11 where that Field Gun that Dr Porsche designed could move about and hurl a 24 inch shell over the horizon. The main problem with the entire unit was it’s weight and the slow speed that it could travel at but if you wanted more ammo you just hitched on more waggons with the electric engines in the wheels and they all drove the entire thing around.

          Converting that technology to smaller vehicles is long overdue as to date it’s mainly been confined to extremely heavy vehicles like Diesel Electric Trains where you are talking about the primary motive unit weighing in at several Hundred tons. Theoretically it’s possible to have an engine not much bigger than the average Lawn Mower driving an electric generator to provide long distance travel for a new breed of Hybrid Vehicles. If you where looking at that type of engine size it would be very economical to use Hydrogen as a fuel along with Regenerative Braking and microprocessor controlled recharging of the batteries.

          You could keep the engine speed fairly constant while varying the actual road speed of the vehicle by altering the flow of electricity into the motors in the wheels. You could even in theory use a small Gas Turbine engine to drive the generator and this would be far more economical to power than a conventional Internal Combustion Engine and if you went with the Bypass design you could cut down dramatically on the number of moving parts while retaining a good fuel economy rating.

          Col

        • #2591600

          There was a system in the Midwest…

          by jcitizen ·

          In reply to It’s a very similar conversion to the LPG conversions

          A natural gas concern used to supply it’s own fleet with CNG which has the same technical conserns as hydrogen. They did very well with it through the ’80s and had infrastructure scattered throughout- from north Texas to Wyoming and Nebraska. Used both pickups and cars using ordinary welding bottles as tanks. The pumps were very expensive because of the fire hazard safety design. When you ran out of CNG, all you had to do was flip a switch and you were running on regular gasoline. The price of gasoline got so (relatively) cheap, they abandon the system though.

      • #3227858

        Assume what you want.

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to So now what?

        I didn’t say [b]anything[/b] about any “rules/policies/laws” I’m “going to put into effect” because to do so would be contrary to my beliefs, which include the right to control one’s personal property. I have information that I believe is relevant. If you’re interested in more information about the present state of battery-powered vehicle technology, I am most impressed by the company AC Propulsion.

        http://www.acpropulsion.com

        The T-Zero prototype gets just a moment in the movie “Who Killed the Electric Car”, but I enjoyed that movie nonetheless.

    • #3229070

      Are you global warming dupes still at it?

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Global warming is real, and caused by humans.

      And Absolutely is absolutely the biggeest dupe of them all!

    • #3229069

      I would wager $1,000. . . . .

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Global warming is real, and caused by humans.

      …..that the summer of 2007 won’t break the record either. Where could I place such a bet? I go to Las Vegas often, but I haven’t seen any global warming book makers. Hey Neil, are there any in London? I hear a person can bet on anything over there.

      http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2700.htm

      Oh my, I forgot! It’s not called “global warming” anymore. It’s called “climate change”, something that’s caused a storm of controversy. Rational thinking people must have rained on their parade, showing they’re full of hot air, so they changed their wind direction to something more vague. Their heads are still in a fog, however.

      • #3229063

        REALLY??

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to I would wager $1,000. . . . .

        Records have been kept since 1895. Are you willing to play book maker, and offer payout to reflect the odds that 2007 will be the hottest, assuming pure random chance? 113:1 is the probability that 2007 will be the hottest ever, assuming no global warming. How confident are you really? What odds will you offer that the hottest year won’t occur in the next decade? In the next two decades? Are you willing to place any bets that the frequency of hurricanes will decrease? That they will stop increasing?

      • #3228989

        I always got the impression

        by tony hopkinson ·

        In reply to I would wager $1,000. . . . .

        that the term ‘climate change’ came out when those who’d said global warming wasn’t a fact had to admit that the globe was getting warmer. This was a disaster until one read an article about the thermal pulse and sun spots and stuff.

        I ‘m wagering some unnecessary economic upheaval on being wrong.

        You are wagering the biosphere

        If I’m right WE get a bisophere.
        If you’re right SOME get a dividend.

        I like my bet more, it risks less and gains more.

      • #3227090

        And what happend to BC?

        by zx2zx ·

        In reply to I would wager $1,000. . . . .

        All this whining was to get the PC Lefties into office, hell Global Warming was supposed to kill us off 20 years ago when they fist started bitching about it.

        Then after the commie PC party got into power they took away all mention of Christioan religion (ie Christmas, BC, St. Valentine’s) to cleanse the world for secularism (holiday tree, BCE, and valentines day).

        Hell even the Pope can’t read a 13th century quote in an academic venue about the only way Islam can be spread is by the sword without having an apology demanded by global leaders.

        Sheesh drink your mocha latte and get a grip!

        • #3227029

          Given guys who’ve held his office

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to And what happend to BC?

          spread chistianity by the sword for centuries, he did sort of stab himself in the foot with that one.

          One of a long line of apologies the pope has had to make for the catholic church. Don’t worry though there is a much longer line of things to apologise for. Makes you wonder why he tacked another onto the list, habit I suppose.

        • #3229298

          What’s it to you, HYPOCRITE?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to And what happend to BC?

          “Then after the commie PC party got into power they took away all mention of Christioan religion (ie Christmas, BC, St. Valentine’s) to cleanse the world for secularism (holiday tree, BCE, and valentines day).”

          If the god in which you claim to “believe” were anything other than a figment of your wish to evade the real fact of your insignificance, the beliefs and actions of [b]other people[/b] would not be your primary concern.

          I am no commie, and your inability to differentiate scientifically proven fact from your Stone Age superstition does not make you significant, nor do any epithets you utter based on your many inabilities. Don’t flame me back! Instead, prove your faith by obeying the mandates of your superstition: turn the other cheek and endure the ridicule of this infidel with SILENT humility.

          I do not believe in faeries, easter bunnies, resurrections, santa claus, dialectical materialsim, nor a Free Lunch by any name.

          Democrats were the small government party in the days of Thomas Jefferson. While Bill Clinton was in office, government spending shrunk from over 20% of GDP to less than 19%, the first reduction in … a long GODDAMNED time. Under George Walker Bush, who claims he hears the voice [b]of god[/b], not Sam (why should I put faith in him? GWB is certainly not God!), in his head, spending has increased to more than it was when Bill Clinton moved into the White House, and spending grew [b]more rapidly[/b] than under Lyndon Baines Johnson or Tricky Dick Nixon.

          I, like all Good Libertarians & Objectivists, don’t care whether a person is associated with a jackass or an elephant. I know that in the [b]real[/b] world, my pursuit of happiness is best secured by a government that taxes me less and concentrates more on preventing & punishing coercion than on initiating it. A change toward smaller government has happened only once in my lifetime, when we had the lucky combination of an influential Republican in Congress (Newt Gingrich) who campaingned with promises of small government and a Democrat President (Bill Clinton) with middle name Jefferson. We citizens cannot count on good luck to keep government within the bounds defined in the Constitution. We can only ensure that government does not remove both Atheist & christian of the right to practice our respective beliefs FREELY in our respective homes by respecting the others’ right to live as they choose, so long as nobody interferes with another individual’s ability to earn happiness, and to enjoy the happines that individual has earned.

          capitalize whatever Word you want, but when you deal with me, you had better remember that you have no right to religion beyond my right to irreligion. Don’t even THINK about treading on ME!

        • #3229267

          Sheesh Abs

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to What’s it to you, HYPOCRITE?

          There was enough crap coming out of him already without ripping him a new orifice for it to get out of.

        • #2516512

          I really did rip him a new one, didn’t I?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Sheesh Abs

          The twit had it coming. These pompous, theocratic wanna-be tyrants all need to be insulted back into their proper places, much more often. Religious extremism can only take hold when stupid ideas are treated as “respectable”, merely because they are asserted in the guise of religion. I issue no free passes for stupid ideas, including stupid religious ideas. Since the rest of society is failing to do its part to properly & sufficiently ridicule those stupid ideas which happen to be “religious” in origin, I [b]target[/b] stupid religious ideas for extra ridicule, whenever they cross my path. It’s a sh!tty, thankless, monotonous job, but dammit it’s important to do.

        • #2516416

          Not to mention very time consuming.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I really did rip him a new one, didn’t I?

          I recently had a peer-to-peer e-mail from another member inquiring as to why I continued to repeat myself; and, that did I not risk appearing to be the fool for such.

          My reply was that if it were the case that the posts of the miscreant in question never be read by anyone other than those who were already aware of his behavior, then all would be well; but, as there will always be newcomers, any and all specious bullsh!t flowing from said miscreant needed to be addressed for the benefit of those newcomers.

          “It’s not my job to please them, but to wake them up.”

        • #3139077

          Pure tripe.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to And what happend to BC?

          Have you anything left to grip?

    • #3229051

      I don’t know if I would call it political bias.

      by tonythetiger ·

      In reply to Global warming is real, and caused by humans.

      It’s more like the press… and “bad news sells” (It also pays (as in grant money)). Examples:

      The press doesn’t jump all over themselves to announce to the world that 3,834,451 children got all “A”s on their report cards this grading period.

      Scientists don’t spend billions of dollars on finding out why my great grandfather lived to be 113 years old, smoking for the last 100 of those years.

      You know why? There are three reasons.

      1. Because they don’t involve something that can be [b]blamed[/b] on someone else and used to get even more money from them.

      2. They [b]contradict[/b] the “facts” they want the public to know (If it becomes too widely known though, and they cannot explain it away using “known facts”, they have to fall back on the “It’s a scam”, “It’s a hoax”, or “It’s a con” explaiations).

      3. Politicians and scientists together decided that breeding stupid people was an excellent way to make money to fund research projects (they even discovered that they could teach some of them a few big words that are meaningless, but will make the other ones believe they know what they’re talking about), so instead of allowing them to die off naturally by their stupidity at age 10, they kept them alive long enough to breed and now the world is overrun with them 🙂

      • #3229028

        In a nutshell.

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to I don’t know if I would call it political bias.

        A lot of people in a lot of professions find scapegoating more comfortable than admitting, then choosing to either overcome or to accept and live with, personal shortcomings.

        • #3229000

          scapegoating

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to In a nutshell.

          is a gross understatement. These clowns have a GOD complex.

    • #3227078

      Can you have it both ways?

      by oldboydave ·

      In reply to Global warming is real, and caused by humans.

      The increase in numbers of hurricanes is caused by global warming or so it is claimed for the past years when the numbers increased. However, this year so far the number and intensity of hurricanes has decreased. Did someone drop an ice cube into the oceans? Or is the decrease also caused by global warming?

      • #3227074

        Increase in hurricanes

        by neilb@uk ·

        In reply to Can you have it both ways?

        Not many respectable climate scientists have stated that Climate Change will cause an [b]increase[/b] in hurricane frequency. They state that if hurricanes form they will be more intense because of the increased sea surface temperatures – this being the energy source for hurricanes.

        As for this year; it isn’t over yet. We’ve had Florence, Gordon and Helene in the last week or so. Weather conditions have meant that none of those three has moved into waters close to the US.

        That’s why statistics are gathered and interpreted from extended time periods by anyone who has half an ounce of sense.

        • #3227067

          “by anyone who has half an ounce of sense.”

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Increase in hurricanes

          guess that leaves out all the people in the US that have been going on about this…..

        • #3227060

          The science. Just for you :)

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to “by anyone who has half an ounce of sense.”

          The availability of warm surface water with a temperature of over 26?C is an absolute requirement for the formation of hurricanes. That’s not enough on its won. The amount of wind shear MUST be low – the difference in speed and direction of winds within the vertical column of air in which the hurricane will form. They can only form under conditions which are warm and where weather fronts are rarely found.

          So, if Global Warming is a reality and warm water masses expand further North or South, they will reach areas with strong winds in the upper atmosphere and the formation of hurricanes will be prevented.

          As a working example, the Caribbean water temperatures are sufficient for the formation of hurricanes all year, but only in late summer and autumn do low shear conditions prevail enabling the formation of hurricanes.

          See. If I know that then surely most meteorologists do. The UK Met office does and so does your NOAA.

          😀

          If you do get ’em though – they’ll be BIGGER!

        • #3229307

          Right, not increase in hurricanes, but…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Increase in hurricanes

          “They state that if hurricanes form they will be more intense because of the increased sea surface temperatures – this being the energy source for hurricanes.”

          Which can be stated, equally accurately, as an increase in Category 4 & 5 hurricanes (accompanied by a useless, corresponding [b]decrease[/b] in Category 3 & lower hurricanes). Net change: more disasters. Who will vote [b]for[/b] that?

      • #3227044

        Can YOU?

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Can you have it both ways?

        “However, this year so far the number and intensity of hurricanes has decreased.”

        Decreased compared to what? Is this decreased number in comparison to “the past (unspecified by you number of) years when the numbers increased”? Is it compared to the era before global warming, as would be appropriate to a true counter-argument?

        YOU cannot have it both ways: YOU cannot contradict a scientific study (and have such contradiction taken seriously!) without QUANTIFYING your conclusions.

        • #3204878

          What “ERA”?

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Can YOU?

          Please describe the “ERA before Global Warming”? This is not a new thing. The earth has been warming and cooling cyclically since its inception (when ever that was [the topic for another discussion]).

        • #3204781
          Avatar photo

          But if that where true

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to What “ERA”?

          That would mean that Life was evolving to continue to live in the changing climates wouldn’t it?

          Are you now saying that the [b]Monster EL Lie[/b] thread was wrong?

        • #3204564

          Oh for heavens sake!

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to But if that where true

          You?re being silly. How does climate change cause speciation? Adaptation is a biologic function that has been reproduced many times and is well understood. Darwinian evolution has to do with speciation where organisms change into completely different species by way of genetic mutation which has never been reproduced, observed or evidenced in the fossil record.

        • #3204427
          Avatar photo

          Really Why then

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Oh for heavens sake!

          Is the Great Barrier Reef off the coast of QLD constantly suffering from Bleaching and dieing off in massive amounts over he past 10 or so years?

          If the increased Ocean Surface Temperature which is causing this problem was a natural process it should be much slower to allow for the species involved to adapt to the changes which they clearly are not! The only thing that has helped the Great Barrier Reef recently was Larry which introduced a lot of Cold Water into that part of the reef and allowed the coral to recover from the heat stress that it had been exposed to. Unfortunately it didn’t affect a large enough area of the reef to have the required impact on the reef but the area that was affected is now better off for the Cyclone than those areas that remained unaffected.

          Col

        • #3204424

          The price of tea in China

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Really Why then

          Why must you always begin your posts with a question? Especially a question that has absolutely nothing to do with the post it’s attached to. How does the bleaching and dieing off of choral correlate in any way to speciation or biological adaptation? The choral was not able to adapt to the toxicity of the water or the temperature changes and so it died. Death was a result of a failure to adapt to the environmental conditions. This happens all the time. How does this prove or disprove man’s involvement with global warming?

        • #3204416
          Avatar photo

          Obsoletely nothing

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Really Why then

          But it does prove that the Coral in this case which is dieing because of increased water temperature is not adapting so that provided that this is a Natural Occurrence something is going wrong!

          If this was natural it would be slower and allow the Coral to evolve/Change/Adapt or whatever which isn’t happening.

          As far as Toxicity goes this is directly attributabled to man by the overuse of fertiliser & pesticides that is allowed to run off and flood the rivers and then pollute the reef so there can be no debate about Man’s involvement in this particular issue it is incontrovertible proof that Man is Responsible for a build up of Toxins in some localised areas of the Great Barrier Reef.

          However the original question here was not about man polluting the Reef but weather or not man has some input into making the Oceans Hotter and causing this problem to occur.

          Incidentally I wasn’t the one to raise any issue with Toxicity caused by man I only made reference to the Heat Issue that is one of the current things that is happening, the toxicity issue has mostly been handled by proving to the farmers that they can actually save money by not using the chemicals in the quantises that they where previously.

          Col

        • #3204395

          “observed or evidenced in the fossil record”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Oh for heavens sake!

          Would a [b]fossil[/b] of both species’ DNA be required to convince you that one species had mutated to another?

        • #3204769

          Good point.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to What “ERA”?

          I should have been more specific: I meant, but neglected to specify, the era before [b]human-caused[/b] global warming, which means before the Industrial Revolution. Nice catch.

      • #3227042

        It’s hard to draw a direct link

        by tonythetiger ·

        In reply to Can you have it both ways?

        but yes, it’s possible that the same warming that increases the number of hurricanes can also decrease them. Not only is very warm water required for the formation of hurricanes, but a [b]difference[/b] in temperature between the water and the air is also required. So as the water temperature goes up, the chances go up, but as the air temperature catches up, the chance drops somewhat.

        This is, however, extremely simplistic, since it does not take into account other important factors, such as how many Republicans are in congress 🙂

      • #3227033

        There IS an ice cube in the oceans. It’s called “Antarctica”.

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Can you have it both ways?

        http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2699.htm

        Temperature changes vary with currents, and there is a variation to ocean temperatures with periodicity of more than one year. The heating & cooling trends are characterized by the terms “El Ni?o” & “La Ni?a”, and are well known to people qualified to comment on climate change. Read up, and until you have, I’ll waste no more of my time on you.

        • #3229243

          Gee,

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to There IS an ice cube in the oceans. It’s called “Antarctica”.

          And all this time I thought it was a continent.

          Hey, maybe when global warming raises the oceans and takes out all the costal cities, those displaced can move there!

        • #3229178

          Tony – Be advised

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Gee,

          You’re conversing with the one of the most severe resident nut-cases around. Absolutely has absolutely lost all grasp of reality.

      • #3227023

        One year does not make a trend…

        by colonel panijk ·

        In reply to Can you have it both ways?

        Nor do two. 2004 and 2005 were nasty years for hurricanes, but [i]by themselves[/i] do not prove a trend. 2006 has been a pussycat of a year (so far), but does not mean that 2004 and 2005 were abberations. You have to look at long term [i]trends[/i], where year-to-year noise has been smoothed out. If we choose to do nothing about GG emissions, we’ll find out for sure by mid-century if the world’s climate is going to hell in a handbasket. The trouble is, by then it may be too late to stop the warming and its effects. Hey, at least we’ll all die [i]really[/i] rich!

    • #3229201

      The Big Picture

      by m.daspit ·

      In reply to Global warming is real, and caused by humans.

      Yes the earth may in a warming trend at this time but if you look at the trends over the life span of the earth, several million years the 20th/21st centuries are a speck in Tech terms worth about a bit of memory on a gigabit hard drive.

      We the earth has gone through ice ages and warming periods some long some short. The last mini ice age ended in the mid to late 1800s, less than 200 years ago. So what should be occurring when we come out of an ice age but to warm up.

      Looking at recorded history, that there was an ice or cooling period occurred the range of 400 AD period during the decline of the Roman Empire. It was recorded the Rhine freezing over allowed the Germanic trips to cross. The Dark ages have little recorded but what can be put together is that it was bleak and one can assume the weather was the same. The middle age marked a significant Tempe true rise as can be noted by the increase in agriculture production and the development of new improved systems. I wonder if the people of the middle ages were the cause of this trend?

      Slowly the cooling period started again resulting in the last mini ice age that just ended, (in the time frame of the earth).

      Bottom line if we are no warming we are cooling, if we are static then I worry the earth is really dying then. Personally having lived in the artic for 2 years I prefer the warmth then another ice age. Yes realize that the powers of the natural elements are stronger then what mere mortals can do.

      • #3229142

        The dark ages

        by tony hopkinson ·

        In reply to The Big Picture

        were called the dark ages because nothing was recorded, we could shed no light on what happened during them.

        I recommend a bit a reading for you, James Gleick’s Chaos. It’s a good book anyway and the concept of chaos will blow a hole right through the simplistic model you seem to be using to extrapolate your conclusions.

        I hasten to add it’s not a tree huggers bible or anything, it’s pretty much apolitical, except for the academic infighting.

      • #3204777

        Just ask yourself

        by tonythetiger ·

        In reply to The Big Picture

        Where do most people like to vacation? There are far more tickets sold to St. Thomas or Cancun, than to Reykjavik or Yakutsk 🙂

      • #3204768

        In tech terms…

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to The Big Picture

        Earth has indeed had changes in average temperature that have not been catastrophic. But these changes occurred over longer periods than the temperature changes cause by human-built combustion engines and the CO2 emitted. In tech terms, it’s like sending 9 Terabytes of data to be processed immediately, to a system with 512 MB of system memory. The planet just can’t continue to change temperature so quickly.

    • #3229331

      Question

      by norm.d ·

      In reply to Global warming is real, and caused by humans.

      What does STFU mean? I think I know, but not sure of the U.

      • #3205470

        It obviously means. . . . . . . .

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Question

        …that he’s obsessed with the numerous times I’ve slapped him down in the past for pointing out his inconsistency, ignorance and lunacy, and he can’t even start a discussion without thinking about it. It’s really sad, if you think about it.

      • #3205439

        STFU means that Absolutely is. . . . .

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Question

        Silently Tormented, Fretful (and) Unnerved.

        Still Twisted, Freakish (and) Unbalanced

        Still Thinking Fallaciously (and) Unsoundly

        Still Thoroughly Fixated Unreasonably

        Still Totally (and) Fatuously Upset

        Spanked Thoroughly, Fading Uncontrollably

        Still The Flaky Urchin

        Silly, Tiresome, Foolhardy (and) Unreasonable

        Still Throbbing From (Maxwell’s) Upper-hand

        Still Tormented From (Maxwell’s) Utility-Hammer!

      • #3204908

        That “U” is for “up”.

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Question

        The “S” is for “shut”, and “TF” is for emphasis.

        The reason I told Maxwell to STFU until he is ready to quantify his assertions scientifically is that he has a habit of changing the subject to irrelevancies such as his least favorite personality traits of famous people who acknowledge the reality of global warming. Nothing about Albert Gore or any scientist’s personality has anything to do with whether or not the known, increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are having a negative impact on the climate of Earth, making it less habitable.

        • #3204886

          Your argument

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to That “U” is for “up”.

          The problem is that this argument is not yours. You copied it from someone else who, more than likely, was intellectually capable of carrying on a debate or discussion on the topic. You, on the other hand have not demonstrated the ability to present original thought or put forth your ideas in a manor that is neither childish nor belligerent.

        • #3204767

          And I won’t try.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Your argument

          “You, on the other hand have not demonstrated the ability to present original thought or put forth your ideas in a manor that is neither childish nor belligerent.”

          I have no incentive to prove anything about my manor (sic) to anybody, here or elsewhere.

        • #3204452

          “the ability to present original thought”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Your argument

          “You, on the other hand have not demonstrated the ability to present original thought or put forth your ideas in a manor that is neither childish nor belligerent.”

          Whether a thought is original and whether that thought is correct are entirely separate questions. I endeavor to be correct. Originality is irrelevant.

        • #3204436

          Relevance

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to “the ability to present original thought”

          Okay Rabbit I’ll be your Alice and chase you down this rabbit hole. How are you measuring your “correctness”? You posted a thread that began this debate; the very idea of which was neither created by you nor penned by you. You have not attempted to substantiate your position in any way and have had many opposing comments that refute the basis of your argument. So how are you, by any definition, correct?

        • #3204382

          None from you.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Relevance

          What I said about originality is that originality is [b]not[/b] a criterion of correctness.

          “You posted a thread that began this debate; the very idea of which was neither created by you nor penned by you.”

          I accept those statements as factual.

          “You have not attempted to substantiate your position in any way and have had many opposing comments that refute the basis of your argument.”

          What do you suppose my “argument” to be? Where has its basis been refuted? When you, or anybody else, can present any facts that can reasonably be interpreted so as to cast doubt on the fact of global warming, or partial combustion as its primary cause, I will address them.

          Until then, I restate my position on “original thought”: the truth of a premise is determined by its consistency with reality, not in any part by the identity of the first person to express the premise.

          “So how are you, by any definition, correct?”

          Methodologically, I am correct by checking every premise I hold, if I ever find it to be contradicted by reality. The nature of reality is such that contradictions among facts cannot exist. Therefore, the perception of any contradiction must be a result of some misunderstanding, in other words, one or more incorrect premises.

          “So how are you, by any definition, correct?”

          I have already cited easily understandable data that proves, with 84% certainty, that at least two-thirds of measured increase in sea surface temperatures can [b]only[/b] be explained by greenhouse gases emitted by human processes. Competing models, including volcanic activity, were also part of the comparison cited in the opening post, and those [b]failed[/b] to explain the measured increases in sea surface temperature. So, if because the claims did not originate with me, you conclude that [b]I[/b] am not correct, fine. But the assertion that two thirds of measured increase in sea surface temperature is due to human activity, with 84% certainty, has not been refuted by any alternative explanation even once, let alone many times.

        • #3205418

          How about this

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to None from you.

          Ocean Cooling Confounds Climate Models
          Climate Science, August 14, 2006
          A new study of ocean temperatures indicates significant cooling over the years 2003-2005. This unexpected result has implications for climate models. As Roger Pielke SR of Colorado State University says, “The explanation of this temporal change in the radiative imbalance of the Earth?s climate system is a challenge to the climate science community. It does indicate that we know less about natural- and human-climate forcings and feedbacks than concluded in the IPCC Reports.” The abstract reads,

          ?We observe a net loss of 3.2 (? 1.1) X 10**22 J of heat from the upper ocean between 2003 and 2005. Using a broad array of in situ ocean measurements, we present annual estimates of global upper-ocean heat content anomaly from 1993 through 2005. Including the recent downturn, the average warming rate for the entire 13-year period is 0.33 ? 0.23 W/m2 (per unit area of the Earth?s surface). A new estimate of sampling error in the heat content record suggests that both the recent and previous cooling events are significant and unlikely to be artifacts of inadequate ocean sampling.?

          Selected excerpts from the article read,

          ?From 1993 to 2003, the heat content of the upper ocean increased by 8.1 (? 1.4) X 10**22 J. This increase was followed by a decrease of 3.2 (? 1.1) X 10**22 J between 2003 and 2005. The decrease represents a substantial loss of heat over a 2-year period, amounting to about 21% of the long-term upper-ocean heat gain between 1955 and 2003 reported by Levitus et al., [2005].?

          ?From 1993 to 2005, the average rate of upper-ocean warming as determined by a linear least squares fit is 0.33 ? 0.23 W/m2 per unit area of the Earth?s surface.?

          ?The recent decrease in heat content amounts to an average cooling rate of -1.0 ? 0.3 W/m2 from 2003 to 2005, and results in a lower estimate of average warming from 1993 to 2005 than that recently reported for the 1993 to 2003 period [Willis et al., 2004].?

          ?The cooling signal is distributed over the water column with most depths experiencing some cooling. A small amount of cooling is observed at the surface, although much less than the cooling at depth?..The maximum cooling occurs at about 400 m and substantial cooling is still observed at 750 m?..The cooling signal is still strong at 750 m and appears to extend deeper?

          ??.the updated time series of ocean heat content presented here (Figure 1) and the newly estimated confidence limits (Figure 3) support the significance of previously reported large interannual variability in globally integrated upper-ocean heat content [Levitus et al., 2005]. However, the physical causes for this type of variability are not yet well understood. Furthermore, this variability is not adequately simulated in the current generation of coupled climate models used to study the impact of anthropogenic influences on climate [Gregory et al., 2004; Barnett et al. 2005; Church et al. 2005; and Hansen et al., 2005]. Although these models do simulate the long-term rates of ocean warming, this lack of interannual variability represents shortcoming that may complicate detection and attribution of human-induced climate influences.?

          This is a very important observational study of changes in climate system heat content. While the models predict a general montonic increase in ocean heat content (e.g. see (Figure 1) ), the new observations in Lyman et al 2006 show an important decrease. The explanation of this temporal change in the radiative imbalance of the Earth?s climate system is a challenge to the climate science community. It does indicate that we know less about natural- and human-climate forcings and feedbacks than concluded in the IPCC Reports. ”

          How about that?

        • #3205394

          That’s a good start.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to None from you.

          My initial reaction is that a pattern of 3 years is cause for hope that temperature trends will stabilize in a range survivable for the human species, but that a single period of 3 years is not enough to start printing invites to the “Global Warming Was A Total False Alarm Party”. Also, if a lot of Antarctic ice melts, that might reduce the temperature of the oceans, without implying that “global warming” is not continuing, or even accelerating. But primarily, I appreciate the effort to quantify your counterargument. Numerical measurements, published journals, and named researchers are exactly what I meant. Finally, a counterargument worth addressing!

    • #3205041

      must be Bush’s fault.

      by inbox.com ·

      In reply to Global warming is real, and caused by humans.

      Let’s abort all unborn babies in the world and start killing off everyone. Save the Earth!

      • #3204890

        Katrina

        by protiusx ·

        In reply to must be Bush’s fault.

        Everyone knows that he was responsible for Hurricane Katrina and the intentional blowing of the levies in certain places in order to protect the white neighborhoods at the expense of the black neighborhoods.
        I am not even going to put the sarcasm tag. If you can’t read the dripping sarcasm I don’t know what to say.

      • #3204774
        Avatar photo

        Well a good start would be to apply this to PP’s

        by hal 9000 ·

        In reply to must be Bush’s fault.

        That’s Potential Politicians. Without them the world would just be so much better off.

        So lets start by sterilising any current Polly their Spouses and either kill off their children or sterilise them and have them commented because they have [b]Delusions of Grander[/b] and then we can start the drive by shootings of any new people who poke their heads up at the next Election.

        Without these people we would all be so much better off world wide. 😀

        Col

    • #3204910

      Okay

      by protiusx ·

      In reply to Global warming is real, and caused by humans.

      If humans are to blame for global warming then what was to blame for the global warming that occurred prior to the 20th Century?
      What caused the Climate shifts which caused the mini-ice age of the 19th Century?
      From what I have read and learned (I am not a scientist but I do dabble) it can be stated that the earths climate is changing. The earth’s climate has always been in a state of flux and is self regulating. The question that has not been answered definitively is “what is the level of mankind’s influence had on the global climate”. I think it would be perversely naive to say that humanity has had no impact but it would be equally perverse to say that humans are so powerful as to sway the climate of the planet with a few decades of activity.
      By the way – Your disparaging remarks to Maxwell are a bit out of line. If you wish to argue with someone do so but to preempt their responses with such childish banter detracts from your argument.

      • #3204771
        Avatar photo

        One flaw in your arguments here

        by hal 9000 ·

        In reply to Okay

        Remember the CFC’s and the Hole in the Ozone Layer? Well Humans where responsible for that and once the CFC’s where removed the Hole started to close up to such an extent that it’s no longer an issue.

        Now are you trying to say that Mankind was not responsible for that one and it was a Natural Occurrence?

        Col

        • #3204570

          On the contrary

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to One flaw in your arguments here

          I did not say that humans have no effect on their environment. I merely stated that the effect is not as great as being reported by the left wing propaganda machine and regurgitated on forums such as this.

        • #3204556

          This is one of the reasons why I say. . . . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to On the contrary

          …that global warming, or climate change, or whatever else they might want to call it these days, is not an environmental issue, but rather a political issue designed to frighten (or dupe) the electorate into voting for certain people. That’s why these people are all talk and no walk. Al Gore is an easy example to consider. If he really believed (or was really committed) in what he said, he wouldn’t drive an SUV or even have any for his staff, and he wouldn’t fly around the country in a planet-destroying private jet; he wouldn’t be investing in radio and television stations whose only purpose is to advance a political agenda, but rather in alternative energy technologies. Look at his lifestyle, and compare it to the lifestyle he espouses for others, and that alone is sufficient reason to disregard everything the hypocrite says.

          Coupled with the most obvious fact that it is not “scientists” who are coming out in droves — and in concert — warning about “global warming”, but rather politicians seeking votes. If this was as dire a situation as those advocates would like us to believe, we would be seeing a million-scientist-march on Washington!

          The following is a cut-and-pasted excerpt:

          [i]On the floor of the U.S. Senate during debate on Senate Bill 139 back in 2004, Arizona Senator John McCain described his affection for the writings of Ernest Hemingway, especially his famous short story “The Snows of Kilimanjaro.” Then, showing photos of the magnificent landmark taken in 1993 and 2000, he attributed the decline of glacial ice atop the mount during the intervening years to CO2-induced global warming, calling this attribution not only a fact, but a fact “that cannot be refuted by any scientist.”

          In subsequent debate on the same bill, New York Senator Hillary Clinton echoed Senator McCain’s sentiments. Displaying a second set of photos taken from the same vantage point in 1970 and 1999 – the first depicting “a 20-foot-high glacier” and the second “only a trace of ice” – she said that in those pictures “we have evidence in the most dramatic way possible of the effects of 29 years of global warming.”

          Sadly, and despite the absolute certitude with which the two senators expressed their views on the subject – which allowed for no “wiggle room” whatsoever – both were as wrong as they could possibly be, according to the conclusions of six of the best scientists ever to study the legendary mountain and its once majestic ice-capped peaks.[/i]

          http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N38/EDIT.jsp

          In my opinion, this is the absolute biggest scam in the history of mankind. And I’m amazed at the otherwise intelligent people who have bought into it lock, stock, and barrel.

          http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp

        • #3204549

          This is a left wing forum ?

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to On the contrary

          Why am gerenarlly in the minority then ?

        • #3204489

          TR and Liberalism

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to This is a left wing forum ?

          I don’t think TR’s forums are liberal but I do think that there are more leftists who post than conservatives. The problem is that liberal ideology is so warped and perverse that it is impossible to argue these points intelligently. So, when a liberal posts something it comes off as either the angry ranting of the lunatic fringe or is obviously cut and pasted from another source of liberal propaganda.

        • #3204406

          That is trite and insulting.

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to TR and Liberalism

          I bet on several isues you are more ‘liberal’ than I am.

          Calling Abs a left winger because he feels global warming is a fact is like calling you one because you believe in freedom of religion!

          Me and Abs do agree on global warming , I guarantee we would’t agree on methods of attacking it.
          I find myself in total agreement with Apotheon on edcuation and IP , yet he’s a free market capitalist and I call it feudalism writ large.

          To dismiss an argument on one issue because of your own idealogical posturing on other issues is foolish in the extreme.

          It will cut profits so therefore you are a commie and it is bollocks. That isn’t insane?

        • #3204396

          What ProtiusX said:

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to That is trite and insulting.

          ProtiusX, [i]”I did not say that humans have no effect on their environment. I merely stated that the effect is not as great as being reported by the left wing propaganda machine and regurgitated on forums such as this.”[/i]

          Tony said, “This is a left wing forum ? Why am generally in the minority then ?”

          Sorry, Tony, but I can’t see where your response accurately addressed what ProtiusX actually said. He said that the human-caused global warming claim is something started by, advanced by, and perpetuated by the left wing propaganda machine. I agree; and it’s something I’ve also suggested. He went on to say that the rhetoric is repeated in forums like these. I did not see where he called this a “left wing forum”.

          He then said, [i]”I don’t think TR’s forums are liberal but I do think that there are more leftists who post than conservatives. The problem is that liberal ideology is so warped and perverse that it is impossible to argue these points intelligently. So, when a liberal posts something it comes off as either the angry ranting of the lunatic fringe or is obviously cut and pasted from another source of liberal propaganda.”[/i]

          I also agree. There do seem to be more left-thinking people who post in these political discussions than right-thinking people. He sees the liberal ideology as warped and perverse, and he finds it impossible to argue these points intelligently. Again, I agree. How often have I suggested that a left-leaning emotional argument is difficult to counter with a right-leaning reasoned argument? And the left-wing (in the USA) does indeed come across as angry ranting. I’ve also seen all sorts of people simply repeat the same silly left-wing rhetoric that only gets repeated over and over again.

          You called that “That is trite and insulting”.

          Well, personally speaking, I find it to be the epitome of insulting when one person presumes to tell another person how to live. I find it to be the epitome of insulting when one person presumes to vote himself (or another) the fruits of another person’s labor. Who should be insulted when a person votes himself the property of another?

          ProtiusX also never did call Abs a left-winger. He called human-caused global warming left-wing propaganda — and it is. Besides, if you want to try to label Abs, look for the message in which he says that in the absence of a Libertarian candidate on the ballot, he searches for the most liberal Democrat to vote for. Personally speaking, I’m not sure what that makes him.

          You concluded by saying, [i]”To dismiss an argument on one issue because of your own ideological posturing on other issues is foolish in the extreme. It will cut profits so therefore you are a commie and it is bollocks. That isn’t insane”[/i]

          I appears to me that you read too much into what ProtiusX actually said — and way too much into what he didn’t say.

          The bottom line on global warming is this. It IS NOT a forgone conclusion that human activity is causing the earth to warm. The “left-wing propaganda machine” is advancing the issue as though it is, but it’s not. Therefore, any solution or cure is not only premature, but silly and unwise.

        • #3204392

          Not so black and white

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to That is trite and insulting.

          I doubt your first statement but unless we do the comparison one will never know.
          I have never dismissed an argument outright as is the modus operandi of those who can not form a cogent argument. My point is that all to often my liberal TR brethren will spew forth some dribble like “Bush lied and kids died” or “That’s the way it is. It’s a fact and if you don’t believe it then STFU”. I don’t say these things at all! I encourage those who disagree with me to form their arguments and present them in a cohesive and well constructed way.
          There have been a few (such as Neil and Oz and sometimes HAL9000) who have posted some very interesting arguments without resorting to personal attacks, outright dismissal or throwing epithets.

        • #3204379

          SHUT UP TONY, THE ISSUE IS CONVENIENCE!!!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to That is trite and insulting.

          SUVs & ad hominem attacks are both more [b]convenient[/b] than their alternatives. Stupid commie!

        • #3204377

          Moreover, when a leftist argument is proved wrong. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to That is trite and insulting.

          ….he will neither concede a point or change his position.

          A case in point:

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=200923&messageID=2094458

          What does that mean?

        • #3205408

          The real bottom line (Max)

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to That is trite and insulting.

          [i]The “left-wing propaganda machine” is advancing the issue as though it is, but it’s not. Therefore, any solution or cure is not only premature, but silly and unwise.[/i]

          is not what they propose or try… it’s [b]who’s going to be paying for it![/b]

          What it boils down to is: They’re not out anything if they’re wrong!

        • #3205391

          Power and Control

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to That is trite and insulting.

          Tony – That’s not the point

          They want the issue, not the “solution”, so to speak. I’ve been following these global warming arguments since they started with the global cooling arguments. They want to gain power and control, not to “protect the environment”. They’re using it as a chip in the game for power so they can advance the rest of their agenda.

          Why didn’t Al Gore and Bill Clinton ever propose anything to seriously develop alternative energy sources? They even had a Democrat controlled Congress for their first two years. They campaigned, in part, on a global warming issue, but what’s the first thing they did? Advance a national health care program. And why don’t the Democrat faithful JUST DO IT? If Europe is so gung-ho about “solving global warming”, go ahead. Just do it. They don’t need the USA. Go ahead, Europe. Lead the way and show everybody how to do it. Go ahead, Tony. If you want to solve “global warming”, just do whatever you need to do — and the same to ALL of you. Nothing ever gets done because there’s NOTHING TO DO! They want the issue to gain power and control, no more, no less.

        • #3205382

          Mahatma Gandhi said. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to That is trite and insulting.

          …Become the change you see in the world.

          In all ways, that’s exactly how I live my life. One example is that I espouse self-responsibility, so I become responsible for self. Whatever it is I espouse and believe in, I just do it. I don’t try to force anyone else to, but I’m constantly at battle with people who try to force me to live a certain way — their way. I’m constantly at battle with people who try to deny me the right to take self-responsibility. I’m constantly at battle with people who try to take responsibility from me! (Social Security is a prime example.)

          And all these “global warming advocates” are only trying to force others to capitulate to their will. But all they would have to do is become the change they see in the world. Why don’t they?

          It’s a factopinguess that 150 million Americans and 1 billion Earthlings believe that human activity and human behavior — presumably THEIR OWN activity and behavior — is causing global warming. All they have to do is become the change they see in the world, regardless of what the rest of us do, and their “problem” will be “solved”. That many people can do anything. But they don’t do it. Why is that?

          (I like this “factopinguess” word!)

        • #3205358
          Avatar photo

          BUSH LIED

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to That is trite and insulting.

          Shock Horror!!!!!!!! :^0 😀 :^0 😀

          What do you honestly expect he is a politician after all you only have to get really worried when he tells the truth and that applies to any Polly. The moment that they start telling the truth not washed though their lack of reality filters they get scary and stay that way! :p

          Col

        • #3205354

          Maxwell, did you mean…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to That is trite and insulting.

          “Become the change you [b]want to[/b] see in the world.” ?

          I think I get your drift, and it’s an admirable sentiment.

          I see that bumper sticker at least twice a day in this hippie town. I don’t really know much about Mister Gandhi, although I do remember that the movie makes him look like somebody who belongs on my top 10 list of historical figures I would have liked to meet, competing with Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison, Richard Feynman, James Clerk Maxwell, Aristotle, Louis Pasteur, Ayn Rand, James Madison, and a couple others.

          Anyway, I agree that nobody who doesn’t want one should be [b]in any way[/b] coerced to have an electric car. But I think that global warming [b]is[/b] caused primarily by the internal combustion engine and that car makers have a vested financial interest in continuing to build combustion engines, with a lot of parts that need frequent replacement. I further hypothesize that their interest is based on the ability to sell the same number of cars they do now, with a built-in [b]need[/b] in the market for replacement parts that we would all not need if our engines were purely electric instead of combustion-powered. My general hypothesis is that all liars, in this case the automobile industry, lack the industry, talent and wherewithal to adapt to a new, better motive force.

        • #3205269

          Abs – Whatever the correct quote is. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to That is trite and insulting.

          …is what I meant. As with any such quote, one could find a dozen variations, but the sentiment is the same.

          Nonetheless, unlike you, I don’t think that global warming is caused primarily by the internal combustion engine; and unlike Al Gore, I don’t think the internal combustion engine is the greatest threat to mankind (source: [i]Earth in the Balance[/i], 1992). Regardless, on that one point, it’s as simple as agreeing to disagree.

          But also, unlike you, I don’t “blame” the current crop of car makers for continuing to build it, nor do I espouse forcing them to change their ways. If you, and Al Gore, and every other “global warming advocate” quit buying them, quit driving them, quit riding in them, and even took it a step further and did whatever was necessary to compete with them by offering an alternative to their product, “your problem” would be half way solved — perhaps even totally solved.

          Your “general hypothesis is that all liars, in this case the automobile industry, lack the industry, talent and wherewithal to adapt to a new, better motive force.” Well guess what, dude? All you global warming hypocrites and liars ALSO “lack the industry, talent and wherewithal to adapt to a new, better motive force”. Who in the hell is stopping you? Nobody is stopping you. Like I so accurately pointed out, there are hundreds of millions of you “global warming advocates” who are doing NOTHING except crying in your beer about what other people are doing and/or not doing, sitting on your hands doing NOTHING. It’s YOU people who are more despicable; it’s YOU people who are the greater LIARS; and it’s YOU people who are NOT becoming the change you (want to) see in the world.

          Practice what you preach, or (as you love to say) just STFU. And don’t say you can’t do it, because you — and especially the collective you — can indeed do it if you really wanted to. And if you really can’t, perhaps because it’s impossible (or for whatever other reason), then everything you say is the epitome of disingenuousness and dishonesty. Either way, it’s you guys who are blowing smoke out of your own exhaust pipe.

          P.S. But then again, you guys (the collective leftists ….. the usual suspects behind the global warming scam) actually WANT to blow smoke, because it’s the smokescreen you actually want; it’s the smokescreen that you hide behind so you can advance your REAL agenda of power and control. It’ not about global warming; it’s not about protecting the environment; it’s ALL about power and control. And YOU, Absolutely, have bought into it — have been DUPED into it — even if it means compromising your very own libertarian principles.

        • #3205151

          Abs- Battery power

          by jellimonsta ·

          In reply to That is trite and insulting.

          Abs, a big problem I see with the battery powered vehicle is the charge time. If I can get around 350 miles to a tank, and I can fill a tank in 5 minutes, it is convenient.
          Say I want to drive 1000 miles, I don’t want to stop overnight 3 times to recharge the car when I could do the trip in 16 hrs, ya know?!?! 😀

        • #3205101

          Jelli – I’m not an electrical engineer, but. . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to That is trite and insulting.

          ….what about some sort of magneto devices, or electrical generators, incorporated into the axles of a vehicle, through which the batteries are recharging as the vehicle is moving? But the bigger question is this. Why haven’t some of these “smarter-than-everybody-else” global warming advocates figured it out by now?

        • #3205083

          RE: Max

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to That is trite and insulting.

          [i]what about some sort of magneto devices, or electrical generators, incorporated into the axles of a vehicle, through which the batteries are recharging as the vehicle is moving?[/i]

          It would require breaking the laws of physics to put back as much energy as was taken out (same thing with a windmill on top of your electric car.). They [b]do[/b], however, use a variation of this theme when braking to capture some of that, otherwise wasted, energy. Now if we could get the highway department to make all roads go down hill 🙂

        • #3204358

          RE: Magneto Device

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to That is trite and insulting.

          Hybrid cars do use this technology. I have a co-worker who has a hybrid car and I have shared a ride with her from time to time. There is a cool display that shows energy flow as it goes to the wheels from the battery or from the axels to the battery.

        • #3204278

          Mr. Magneto

          by jellimonsta ·

          In reply to That is trite and insulting.

          I know there are some dynamo/ magneto devices to influx otherwise wasted energy. However, it does not seem like the technology has been advanced to the level that would be acceptable for any kind of prolonged travel. IMHO.

        • #3204116

          re: Battery Power (Jelli)

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to That is trite and insulting.

          Charging time would be a limitation, at least for the early adopters. Once the free market chooses a standard battery type (or a small enough number of variations), the best idea I have heard is that drivers would exchange our drained batteries and a (reasonable?) fee for charged batteries at charging stations.

          edit: put the “y” in “battery”

        • #3202909

          Well Damn, how did I miss all this.

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to That is trite and insulting.

          Ho hum.

          You don’t have to use epithets to insult people, you can used arguments so obviously flawed, that only a complete idiot would swallow them.

          I find the imputation that I’m some sort of gullible thicko who can’t keep his issues straight far more insulting than being called tree hugging commie liberal pinko.

          Much more insulting !

          Do you admit to the possibility that global warming might be caused by humans ?

          Yes Or No !

        • #3202685

          Tony, who are you asking?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to That is trite and insulting.

          You asked, [i]”Do you admit to the possibility that global warming might be caused by humans? Yes Or No?”[/i]

          If you’re asking me, the answer is no. That’s the most ludicrous notion I’ve ever heard.

        • #3138423

          ProtiusX

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to That is trite and insulting.

          Dont’ mind hearing your answer either, I’ll even try not to take how much the guy is irritating me, out on you.

          May be shift to one of Deepsand’s current threads though. This one has gone well off topic in places.

        • #3138316

          You mean like the Creation “Scientists”?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to TR and Liberalism

        • #3204476

          Can you quantify that assertion?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to On the contrary

          “I merely stated that the effect is not as great as being reported by the left wing propaganda machine and regurgitated on forums such as this.”

          Quantify your assertion and submit it to peer review, or it is dismissed out of hand. That is how science works.

        • #3204431

          Child

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Can you quantify that assertion?

          I feel as though I am arguing with a child. There are mountains of data that have been published and many of them were sited by Maxwell. Read his posts and follow the links. If you would like I can reproduce them with tiny URL but it would be easier for you to read his posts. If you want original links try these:

          http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
          http://www.globalwarming.org/

        • #3138266

          Is NASA an apologist for the left?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Child

          See http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=200777&messageID=2102142 .

          Or, StratFor?

          See http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=200777&messageID=2102173 .

          You and Max are now in the position of having to attempt to proof that the majority of the scientific community is wrong.

          Should you or any of your IM force be captured, … Good luck.

        • #3138902

          Having worked at Lewis research center…

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Is NASA an apologist for the left?

          It is sadly… It is also a haven of very far left wing political people.

          They renamed the engineering center after John Glenn. Oh the shame… It was named after an engineer, Oh the horror!

        • #3138794

          I think they may have been captured.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Is NASA an apologist for the left?

          As neither Max or Protius has yet to reply, there’s a good chance that they’ve been captured … by aliens. Oops, that was earlier, which explains their odd behavior.

          As for NASA, you’re quite right. No one in full possession of their senses would dare to have such a logical reason for so naming a building; unless, that is, they had no interest in currying polical favor. It’s an egregious display of naivete.

        • #3205397

          “not as great as being reported by the left wing propaganda machine”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to On the contrary

          “Child” you say? Fine, I won’t dispute that. I know my age, and your opinion won’t change that.

          Key words like “left wing propaganda machine” can falsely give the impression to many readers, without proof, that your opponents’ claim(s) is/are false. Because I am not a leftist, I do not take that particular epithet personally. But your response (criticism of the style of my delivery instead of the substance of the research I initially presented) is the basic reason that I continue to request quantified arguments, which you and Maxwell both continue to not provide.

          I’ll try to be less confrontational now, and return to the text of the message directly up the vertical line from this one:

          “I did not say that humans have no effect on their environment. I merely stated that the effect is not as great as being reported by the left wing propaganda machine and regurgitated on forums such as this.”

          How great does “the left wing propaganda machine” report the human effect on the environment? How “great” or not great do you say the effect [b]is[/b]? Please do me the courtesy of treating me as though I am not part of any “left wing propaganda machine” and that I honestly believe the facts as I have cited them. In fact, I am not running for any elected office, and have no other reason to hope for any material gain, other than keeping the Earth habitable for myself and other humans, if I successfullynconvince people of the reality of globabl warming caused by combustion of fossil fuels.

      • #3138274

        2 flaws

        by deepsand ·

        In reply to Okay

        1) Past causes of temperature flucuations are irrelevant; and,
        2) Earth’s climate is [b]not[/b] self-regulating. It is, in fact, susceptible to runaway in either extreme.

        • #2591583

          Past causes are irrelevant to a chaos model..

          by jcitizen ·

          In reply to 2 flaws

          Both your statements are correct. I guess I better read the rest of your posts to verify just what stand (if any) you take on any action or lack thereof society should initiate.

        • #2591553

          A heads-up & a question.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Past causes are irrelevant to a chaos model..

          Be prepared for a lengthy read; this is but [u]one of many[/u] discussions re. global warming. And, just so it is clear to you, my interest here is first & foremost in the scientific facts, with matters of policy to be based on such; i.e., form follows function.

          You say that you hail from Palmer, [b]AQ[/b], which presumably is [i]not[/i] within the U.S.. And, since TR’s system does not comport well with non-US addresses, those of you outside the U.S. are forced to use various kludges re. your location.

          What does [b]AQ[/b] denote?

        • #2591530

          re: form follows function

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to A heads-up & a question.

          Please comment on the application of that same principle to the government as sponsor of research into effects of ‘greenhouse gases’ on climate. How does the observed form of the government’s role as sponsor follow government’s valid function? Or, do you see the role of sponsor as axiom, with form following that function, above question?

        • #2592309

          ???

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to re: form follows function

          Since both government & sponsorship are functions, I’m uncertain as to the meaning of your question. Are you asking if the sponsorship of scientific research is a legitimate exercise of government?

        • #2592911

          RE:headsup

          by jcitizen ·

          In reply to A heads-up & a question.

          Sorry deepsand I don’t like to divulge my exact location in open online forums but I would be happy to email anyone willing to give up their email address. Or if requested give out mine.

          I find this discussion fascinating and I try to stick to the facts as well. It goes without saying that probably not all the “facts” I have are accurate; as they are only as good as the source and my brain damaged memory.

          But speaking of chaos; would you not agree that without a good knowledge of the “attractant” in climate modeling anything you do to the environment could cause an undesirable affect, including the control of CO2? Perhaps we could end up with wild harmonic responses in our weather; which may already seem to be the case. But I am not confident that there is enough verifiable facts to draw a conclusion from modern history.

        • #2592991

          Wasn’t trying to determine anything more than the meaning of “AQ.”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to RE:headsup

          Given the problem mentioned with foreign addresses, taking “AQ” to be a non-USA designation rather than a means of obscuration, and having, for example, seen “NS” used for something other than Nova Scotia, mine was a question born of simple curiousity. If you’re in the US, a better way to achieve you desired end, while still giving other members an idea of your nationality, would be to use the correct State code with a fictious City, as many here do. Given the many cultural differences represented here at TR, it is oft times the case that knowledge of a member’s nationality is not merely useful, but necessary for a proper understanding of his post.

          As regards climate, chaos, etal., by “harmonic” I assume that you mean “cylical.” If so, it must be noted that cylical systems are [b]not chaotic[/b], but rather are highly organized responses to positive feedback.

          Now, an increase in the levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases does, of physical necessity, result in a positive feedback loop. Therefore, as a reduction in the rate of said increase serves also to reduce the rate of increase of said feedback, such [b]cannot[/b] serve to foster oscillation.

          Weather systems are driven by thermal energy; the greater the amount of such energy, the more violent and volatile, or chaotic, the weather. As a reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases is, as explained above, a counter-cyclical force, such reduction will [b]not[/b] serve to increase thermal energy, and therefore cannot result in more “chaotic” weather, but can only have an opposite effect.

        • #2592861

          Affirmative..

          by jcitizen ·

          In reply to Wasn’t trying to determine anything more than the meaning of “AQ.”

          Thank you very much for you time and interesting input. The acronym is short for Palmer Station Antartica (US)

    • #3204818

      P.T. Barnum is credited as saying. . . . .

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Global warming is real, and caused by humans.

      …..[i]There’s a sucker born every minute.[/i]

      And to prove that point, how many [i]”suckers”[/i] believe that Mr. Barnum ever uttered those words? No, he never did. In fact, Mr. Barnum had too much respect for the public to ever view them in such a light. Unfortunately, we can’t say the same for those who are the driving force behind the “Global Warming” scare. And also unfortunately, it only goes to show that if a lie is repeated often enough, everybody will begin to believe it as truth.

      “The noblest art is that of making others happy, honesty, sobriety, industry, economy, education, good habits, perseverance, cheerfulness, love to God and good will toward men. These are the preeminent requisites for securing health, independence, or a happy Life, the respect of mankind and the special favor of our Father in Heaven”, or so says Mr. P.T. Barnum.

      None of the traits of which Mr. Barnum spoke seem to apply to today’s Democrat Party and the people advancing the notion that human activity is causing the earth to warm at an alarming and dangerous rate. Everything they advanced is based on the premise of doom-and-gloom, class envy, race-baiting, dependency on others, pessimism, advancing the facade of wide-spread misery, and the false notion of human-caused global warming.

      It’s a factopinguess that close to 99 percent of the American population doesn’t know the first thing about greenhouse gasses, CO2 emissions, historical temperature fluctuations, global warming and cooling cycles, and so forth; but the American public is so stupid and helpless in every aspect, or so says the leftist propaganda machine — and so believes the leftist power mongers — that they can be convinced of anything. Yep, they realize that the American public can indeed be duped into believing the earth is being invaded by beings from Mars, as Orson Wells showed, or that the earth is being destroyed by man himself. And now the ignorant are even presenting arguments of proof, although most of them don’t know the first thing about the subject.

      Wake up, people! P.T. Barnum was a master showman, but all he did was to put on a show. It’s the leftist global warming crowd that’s attempting to dazzle you with the illusion that man is more powerful than the forces of nature. We never have been and we never will be. If you believe otherwise, well, just go have a sucker and watch [i]The Sky is Falling[/i] show.

      • #3204807

        How fitting

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to P.T. Barnum is credited as saying. . . . .

        I often visualize clowns, with red noses and giant, funny shoes and hear Kaliope music when reading your posts.

        “Ice cold Coke heeeeeeear! Git yer hot buttered popcorn!”

        (boo-boo-booddle-oo-do-do-doop-doop-doo-doo)

        “shhhhhh, Max is about to tell us about his politcal views from the right ring. There he is with all the other Republicans in that little car”

        Aw c’mnon Max, now that was funny.

        • #3204803

          Hey Oz, unfortunately. . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to How fitting

          ….much of the so-called “right-wing” has also bought into the notion that human activity is causing the earth to warm.

          Be careful when you try to be funny. Sometimes it just comes across as being stupid.

        • #3204756

          No S*it

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Hey Oz, unfortunately. . . . . .

          Yes I know the right wing has many GW supporters. You really missed that post completely.

          It’s nearly impossible to offer light banter with technically minded people.

          Take the upper thread for example, I use a common figure of speech, such as ‘as sure as teh sky is blue’ and it turns into a scientific discussion about the physical characteristics or the sky and human optics.

          That’s what happens when you talk to nerds, they just don’t see the forest througth the trees. It happens in nearly all threads here, what some say is misunderstanding is simply someone not being able to see the gyst of a topic because they are trying to analyze it one word at a time, as if they don’t they won’t get it, which is what actually happens by overanalysis.

          But seeing as you had no comeback, I’ll accept your irrelevant poke, whether it works or not.

        • #3203268

          What “gyst”?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to No S*it

          “Take the upper thread for example, I use a common figure of speech, such as ‘as sure as teh sky is blue’ and it turns into a scientific discussion about the physical characteristics or the sky and human optics.

          That’s what happens when you talk to nerds, they just don’t see the forest througth the trees. It happens in nearly all threads here, what some say is misunderstanding is simply someone not being able to see the gyst of a topic because they are trying to analyze it one word at a time, as if they don’t they won’t get it, which is what actually happens by overanalysis.”

          Without nerds the rest of you would still be fleeing from tigers, if not extinct altogether. If the literal meanings of your words do not effectively communicate your intended “gyst”, the fault belongs to you for choosing the wrong words (an din you’re case4 miss tie ping most uvthem!), not to your audience for taking you at your words.

          Every second of your life that you spend [b]not[/b] running for your life, you owe directly to nerds for inventing the devices that bestow on you the luxury of pursuing happiness instead of fleeing terror and suffering from predators. Quit trying to pretend that there is any better type of person than an intellectual. The epithet “nerd” does not diminish the importance of human intellect, which is the only reason [b]any[/b] of us are alive instead of killed by faster, stronger, venomous species with sharper claws or teeth. Nerds are [b]better than average[/b] people, and the rest of you will be much better for it when you stop trying to pretend that you haven’t noticed this fact.

        • #3203229

          What are you on about?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to What “gyst”?

          First of all, you obviously place yourself into this group of ‘nerds’ and then imply that you are a superior to everyone else as nerds have invented everything since the dawn of time? Really? No….reeeealy?

          That’s the most insanely inaccurate comment I think I’ve ever read on TR.

          No inventions or advances in man’s world have ever been discovered or created by pure accident. NO workingclass,middle class person has ever invented anything of any importance to the advancement of mankind?

          “Nerds are better than average people, and the rest of you will be much better for it when you stop trying to pretend that you haven’t noticed this fact.”

          Uh, ooookay then. Tell you what,the day ‘nerds’ realize that they aren’t making the world rotate is probably the time when they will be accepted by the mainstram and not become overly defensive and unable to socialize with the rest of society.

          Oh my gawd he’s lost it. Whatever you stupid dork, that comment alone should see you baished from your secret society. LOL, that’s too dumb for a nerd. Get over yourself and realize your just a stupid human like anyone else on this big blue ball, except unable to function in a social situation. I can’t believe you actually said that, it really is laughable. 🙂 What an idiot! :p

        • #3203139

          Oz – He DOES (appear) to believe. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to What are you on about?

          …that he’s superior to everyone else! This guy’s a real nut-case.

        • #3226356

          Maz

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to What are you on about?

          On that, we both agree.

        • #3204472

          Based on what you yourself said about nerds.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to What are you on about?

          “That’s what happens when you talk to nerds, they just don’t see the forest througth the trees. It happens in nearly all threads here, what some say is misunderstanding is simply someone not being able to see the gyst of a topic because they are trying to analyze it one word at a time, as if they don’t they won’t get it, which is what actually happens by overanalysis.”

          Right there, you defined a nerd as somebody who is able to analyze your words, one at a time, and see that there is no substance or cohesion to your argument. People who are able to articulate our intended meanings, one word at a time, are really better than those of you who cannot articulate your “gyst” to others using the literal meanings of words.

        • #3204410

          Take your head

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to What are you on about?

          And give it a good shake. Somethin’ aint right up there?!

          The ability to define individual words is not considered more clever than ability to comprehend meaning. Breaking everything down into the smallest pieces so you can understand them is actually considered a neurosis that requires professional help. This is called neurotic behaviour, it’s a clear sign of a damaged mind.

          Being able to read something into a message that simply is not there at all is actually a hinderance and is not helpful to anyone at all.

          As you can see in this thread alone, your simple inability to conprehend a comment has resulted in your endless drivel about how you feel nerds are so much more clever than other humans. I mean, its not even remotely LOGICAL and you’re basing your entire argument on it??? Even the REAL self proclaimed ‘nerds’ on TR woul dthink you are insane by stating nerds are moreintelligents than others. Your complete lack of social activity proves that you are not only a nerd, but one who completely fails to see society for what it is. So next time your car breaks down, remember, nerds didn’t engineer it, nerds didn’t design it and nerds sure as hell aren’t about to fix it.

          But didn’t they invent everything worthwhile for mankind?

          To claim anything else, is pure insanity, not being clever but sheer madness. There is a BIG difference between being ahead of your time, eccentric and yet still considered mad while actually being a genius, and what you claim to be, that’s for sure. In your case it really is madness, eccenticity, and being so far behind everyone else that you completely see something that nobody has presented.

          Like I said, give your head a good shake, you really need a wake up call.

        • #3138834

          umm, oz…

          by Anonymous ·

          In reply to What are you on about?

          could you please – in the future – refer to him as a dweeb? The nerds are going to be offended if keep classify him in their ranks. 😉

    • #3226542

      The sky is falling!!

      by eclypse ·

      In reply to Global warming is real, and caused by humans.

      What a bunch of crap. Twenty-five years ago we were all going to freeze to death from global cooling. Now we’re all going to die from global warming. The idea that everything bad that happens is because of human beings is stupid.

      Let’s throw away all of our technology and live in caves again or just kill ourselves to save the planet and the environment. My philosophy is, simply stated, screw the environment. This whole global warming “scare” is just to keep people rolling in government grant money. Without global warming, they have no reason to exist. Just wait a few more years and it’ll be something else that we’re all responsible for.

      And I don’t worry about STFU because I didn’t address the science – I addressed the money. That’s where you should be looking.

      • #3204718

        You want me to look at the money

        by tony hopkinson ·

        In reply to The sky is falling!!

        Offer me more. I was thinking may be 1000 billion per grandchild.

        I’m waiting ……

        Still waiting ….

        • #3205390

          Ditto.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to You want me to look at the money

          Sum the total magnitude of petroleum and auto industries, and you have the financial incentive to deny global warming, regardless of any evidence.

      • #3204466

        OK then, show me the money!

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to The sky is falling!!

        SHOW…ME…THE [b]MONEY[/b]!!!

        While you’re saving up the money you want me to see, you can tell me who has ever espoused the “idea that everything bad that happens is because of human beings.”

        Agreed:

        “The idea that everything bad that happens is because of human beings is stupid.”

        It’s also stupid for you to expect me to incorporate your straw man to my argument. My position is that humans can in fact solve almost every problem we face, and there is no reason to dismiss global warming, because that can be solved too.

        “Let’s throw away all of our technology and live in caves again or just kill ourselves to save the planet and the environment.”

        You’re free to dispose of your technology, and as far as I’m concerned to dispose with your life, as you please. I would prefer to switch to a battery-powered vehicle and other technologies that don’t pollute. Caring about my environment doesn’t make me the technology hater you’re imagining.

    • #3226327

      Another reasonable scientist

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Global warming is real, and caused by humans.

      • #3226307

        Which one?

        by neilb@uk ·

        In reply to Another reasonable scientist

        Pielke seemed the more reasonable to me. Hardly trying to rape your economy:

        “There are uncertainties. It?s not like you change your light bulbs today, you?re going to have better weather tomorrow,” he said. “It?s even better if those actions you?re taking make sense for other reasons, like getting off Middle Eastern oil or saving money.”

        Strikes me as more “reasonable” than:

        “Why do it if it?s not going to make a difference anyway?” he [Gray] said. “Whether I?m right or wrong, we can?t do anything about it anyway.”

        Given that if he’s wrong then why should we take Gray’s advice on whether we can mitigate the effects?

        • #3204462

          Imagine the same quote in an argument about Welfare.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Which one?

          “Why do it if it?s not going to make a difference anyway?” he [Gray] said. “Whether I?m right or wrong, we can?t do anything about it anyway.”

          The best thing I can still say about Maxwell Edison is that if economics were the topic, he would never espouse an opinion that humans lack the talent or wherewithal to change our own situation. I know that talent and wherewithal can also produce cleaner technology than the internal combustion engine, but that battery-powered cars don’t require nearly such frequent replacement of oil, filters, hoses, belts, and a host of other parts that wear relatively because of higher temperatures and more moving parts, compared to an electric engine.

          Follow the money, indeed!

        • #3204418
          Avatar photo

          Or another example

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Imagine the same quote in an argument about Welfare.

          Dump Gasoline as a Fuel a use Hydrogen which is both plentiful & clean to use. Currently LPG Powered cars are common because the cost of LPG is much lower than petrol in all it’s forms. So a switch to Hydrogen wouldn’t be a major step that requires massive changes to the current technology that is being used and would have no harmful byproducts of combustion.

          Of course better materials would be required in Exhaust Systems and there would be no need for Catalytic Converters so there may be a slight Legalisation issue involved here but all in all it would be a cleaner easy to introduce alternative fuel that is constantly replaceable as it will never run out.

          If you then go with the better Man Made Lubricants which have somewhere around 100,000 KMS between Oil Changes revert back to using multiple belts instead of one to do it all there should be very little pollution produced by the current crop of motor vehicles.

          Granted in the interim the change would result in a lot of rusted out Exhaust Systems but that’s only Iron Oxide which can be reused and initially a lot of the conventional Lubricants would be required to be disposed of when the initial change was made but again these can be re manufactured into something better.

          Dr Porsche had it right all those years ago when he wanted to use Hybrid vehicles for mass transport his original idea was to have a fuel consuming engine powering a Electric Generator to charge batteries and incorporate Regenerative Braking to help recharge the batteries and do away with any form of brakes as we currently know them so there would be no pollution arising from there as the electric motors would when in the Over Run situation be generating power that is feed into the batteries to be stored till required. Unfortunately while the idea was perfect the current technology of the time was sadly lacking in Storage Capacity so it was impractical for anything but big units like the Diesel Electric Trains that are so widely used now days and some extremely heavy Artillery used by Germany in WW11.

          It’s only been with recent advances in Storage Technology that his ideas have been realistically possible and it’s not currently in the Fuel Companies Best Interests to see these vehicles developed particularly if they where to burn Hydrogen and no fossil fuels.

          The new Ceramic Constructed fully sealed Graphic lubricated engines burning hydrogen would of course be a much better use as they would produce no pollutants other than when they where destroyed and special precautions would have to be undertaken in the proper disposal of these items.

          Col

        • #3138831

          Cost to get there is pretty high, I think

          by Anonymous ·

          In reply to Or another example

          Don’t get me wrong, I am all for Hydrogen, but I wonder about the cost of building out hydrogen infrastructure. can’ imagine fossul fuel infra. will convert readily or inexpensively. It seems, with the Hybrid trend, that perhaps electric cars and Hydrogen Powerplants to charge the grid might be more ocst effective. the one drawback to pure electical cars of course is weight and inefficiency of batteries, which limits range a pure electric can go. But I remember reading some rather compelling bits about flyweels as battery replacements (in fact our UPS vendor offered us one as a backup to our room full of betteries for our NOC. For the same storage capacity it was supposedly abut 25% the size and 10% the weight. Those were off the cuff numbers when he was telling us about it, and we never got past talking aobut it, but I wonder if that might be the easier path to take to get there?

        • #3138768
          Avatar photo

          Well currently a LPG conversion

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Cost to get there is pretty high, I think

          Here is about $3,000.00 AU and there is a waiting list of about 6 months before you can get one installed.

          As a New Option they add about 2K to the cost of the car but then the dealer and auto maker are getting a fair rake off as well with the option.

          The ideal that I’ve seen was a Converted VW Beetle that had an electric motor that replaced the normal petrol motor so it acted like a real car drove somewhere around the 120 miles before needing recharging. The down side was the then available batteries the old Lead Acid just don’t cut the mustard with the drain that is placed on them but the newer sealed Jell Batteries are a great improvement. They’ll even continue to work if you shoot them with a high velocity large calibre projectile and basically destroy the external casing. Though naturally with reduced power output.

          With Hydrogen replacing LPG you would need a bigger tank to provide the same power output and you would get a slightly lower range before refills but again the fuel should be much cheaper. Though if you where to do away with Internal Combustion motors and go with a Hydrogen Fuel Cell that would be a totally different matter.

          Where this system would come into it’s own is on a new design that has a small fuel engine driving an electric generator and charging the on board batteries. There have been a lot of prototypes built over the last 30 or so years along these lines though many used Petrol as the primary fuel up until recently. But as yet none have been produced as the Auto Makers have always claimed that they wouldn’t sell but they do enjoy showing them off at car shows all around th world.

          This started in Germany after the rebuilding as a result of WW11 and is continued to this day with Hybrid vehicles coming out of Korea and China now as well as all the existing Automotive Manufacturing Companies.

          Actually I don’t think price is a major issue at the moment as all the current car makers will gladly spend $12,000,000.00 retooling to allow a slightly different Tail Light assemble and mounting piece of metal and minor changes to the bonnet and headlights so they can flog off the [b]New Model[/b] which is exactly the same mechanically as the previous model. Currently they just lack the incentive to produce a decent Hybrid vehicle and the first to market will I think break the Oil Companies monopoly on the lack of availability of these vehicles.

          Currently the projected prices are way too expensive but that is based on small scale production that could be totally consumed if there was a mass market appeal for these vehicles. If the current car manufactures will spend 12M just to make some minor cosmetic design alterations to give a slightly different look for what is effectively a very complicated piece of technology they would actually be saving money by producing a composite constructed Hybrid Car that had the potential of being safer and capable of being driven an indefinite distance without a second thought. After all how many Diesel Electric Trains do you hear of only travelling a short distance before needing to be refuelled?

          Col

        • #2591588

          No prob HAL…

          by jcitizen ·

          In reply to Well currently a LPG conversion

          Please reference my earlier answer to this same solution to your earlier post. If a small company in the Midwest US can afford it, the mass production capability of the world could easily do it.

          The price of gasoline NOW is already motivating people to find their own solutions. There are many blogs and RSS feeds on the current technology out there. I think that individuals will end up bypassing their governments and the energy companies soon.

          In fact solutions will be as plentiful as Linux distros for the individuals who are initiated enough to get up of his/her duffs and apply them. I have already designed a solar powered four wheel electric bike that goes 15 to 30 miles on a 2 hour charge(less time with plug in). Bear in mind that the new tech makes 5 minute charges for 40 mile treks already a reality with full sized PHEVS.

    • #3226322

      More reasonable scientists and scientific organizations

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Global warming is real, and caused by humans.

    • #3204483

      Follow the money?

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Global warming is real, and caused by humans.

      Do you want an incentive for perpetrating the human-caused global warming sham?

      http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aZ4gr6yG.qto

      • #3204457

        Yes, let’s follow the money.

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Follow the money?

        How much money is paid every year in automobile repairs, for parts & labor? How much less would it cost to maintain a car with an electric motor powered by batteries? That amount is the economic incentive to tell the lie that global warming is not a fact. I don’t assert this amount (which I haven’t researched, but everybody who owns a car knows it’s a lot) as proof that automakers, parts manufacturers and mechanics are deliberately conspiring to keep electric cars from assembly lines. But, I do assert that such a situation is [b]more[/b] plausible than the situation that professional scientists with the intellect and discipline to earn PhD’s are unable to find productive work, and have fabricated the concept of global warming caused by gases produced by incomplete combustion, in order to create jobs perpetuating a fairy tale.

    • #3204398

      Reduce greenhouse gasses! Stop farting!

      by why me worry? ·

      In reply to Global warming is real, and caused by humans.

      damn those beans again! aaaaaaarrggggh!

    • #3204271

      Richard Branson. . . . .

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Global warming is real, and caused by humans.

      …is putting his money where his mouth is.

      http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/09/21/D8K9AML02.html

      This reminds me of a previous global warming discussion we had in which I suggested that global warming advocate investors should spend 10 to 40 billion on “their cause”, to find and develop alternative energy sources, instead of trying to force other people and governments to spend it. One person’s retort was, Maxwell, when was the last time you tried to raise 10 billion dollars? (How silly was that?)

      Well, Richard Bransen just doled out 30 percent of it.

      And you can be sure that he realizes the HUGE profit potential at the end of the road.

      You’ll find another thread in which I suggested to young people in their twenties to find jobs in the alternative energy sector.

      I’m amazed at all the complaining we see around here, but nobody is willing to actually do anything and walk their own talk.

      Abs, if you’re driving a combustible engine automobile, you have no principle. (And now is when you blame other people for it.)

      • #3204115

        Cool.

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Richard Branson. . . . .

        I hope his investment will be effective.

        “Abs, if you’re driving a combustible engine automobile, you have no principle. (And now is when you blame other people for it.)”

        No, I don’t blame other people for my combustion engine automobile. I bought it myself, knowing it’s not the cleanest vehicle in existence, but I judged it to be the best vehicle for me right now based on a combination of personal safety, reliability, fuel efficiency, aesthetic appeal and affordability, in no particular order. I’m enough of a realist to know that becoming a zero-emissions individual could only reduce the total CO2 emissions of the planet by about one part in a Billion. But if I can convince a few people that electric cars are truly feasible, that would represent a more substantial contribution to climate stability.

        Doesn’t a similar principle motivate you to occasionally extol the virtues of capitalism publicly, during time you might otherwise spend in the pursuit of capital?

    • #3203412

      “British Science Group Says Exxon Misrepresents Climate Issues”

      by absolutely ·

      In reply to Global warming is real, and caused by humans.

      THE NEW YORK TIMES, THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2006

      British Science Group Says Exxon Misrepresents Climate Issues

      By HEATHER TIMMONS

      LONDON, Sept. 20 — A British scientific group, the Royal Society, contends that [b]Exxon Mobil[/b] is spreading “inaccurate and misleading” information about climate change and is financing groups that misinform the public on the issue.

      The Royal Society, a 1,400-member organization that dates back to the 1600’s and has counted Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein as members, asked Exxon Mobil in a letter this month to stop financing these groups and to change its public reports to reflect more accurately the opinions of scientists on the issue.

      There is a “false sense somehow that there is a two-sided debate going on in the scientific community” about the origins of climate change, said Bob Ward, the senior manager for policy communication at the Royal Society.

      The reality is that “thousands and thousands” of scientists around the world agree that climate change is linked to greenhouse gases, he said, with “one or two professional contrarians” who disagree.

      Dozens of lobbying groups, some of them receiving financing from Exxon Mobil, are relying on these contrarians as experts, Mr. Ward said. Meanwhile, he said, Exxon Mobil writes in documents it distributes to the public that it is difficult to determine the extent to which climate change can be attributed to human actions, a view that, he said, the vast majority of scientists do not share.

      In a statement, Exxon Mobil said the Royal Society had “inaccurately and unfairly described our company.” It added: “We know that carbon emissions are one of the factors that contribute to climate change — we don’t debate or dispute this.”

      Exxon Mobil said it was taking steps to minimize emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from its operations.

      In a letter sent to Exxon Mobil this month, the Royal Society said it was “very difficult to reconcile the misrepresentations of climate change science in these documents with Exxon Mobil’s claims to be an industry leader.”

      The letter states that Exxon Mobil pledged in July, after a meeting with the society, to stop financing organizations that spread information the society considers misleading, and it asks for proof that the financing has stopped.

      in 2005, Exxon mobil sent $2.9 million to 39 groups active in the United States that spread misleading information about climate change, Mr. Ward said, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the International Policy Network and the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.

      Exxon Mobil said in its statement that it gave financial support to organizations that “research significant policy issues and promote informed discussion on issues of direct relevance to the company.” These organizations do not speak on the company’s behalf, nor does it control their views and messages, Exxon Mobil said.

      • #3202925

        Source

        by protiusx ·

        In reply to “British Science Group Says Exxon Misrepresents Climate Issues”

        I hate to discount the source outright but we are talking about the New York Times. They’re one of the progenitors of this whole mess. The NYT skips hand in hand with Al Gore and Hillary Clinton down the merry road of totalitarian communism. They may as well change the name of the paper to Pravda West.

        • #3140378

          Source = British Royal Society, not NYT

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Source

          The New York Times reported the [b]fact[/b] that the Royal Society has accused Exxon-Mobil of misrepresenting the scientific consensus on global warming. Do you dispute [b]that[/b]? This was not a New York Times editorial. Even Fox News will not dispute the [b]fact[/b] that the Royal Society is bringing charges against Exxon-Mobil in British Court. Whatever source you like better than the New York Times might publish different commentary & opinion, but when they report the facts – if they report on this suit at all – they will have to report the same facts.

        • #3138433

          Your source not theirs

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Source = British Royal Society, not NYT

          Look, you read the NYT and believe what they write. You regurgitate what you have read as fact and the source of this information that you spew is the NYT. NYT’s source is the Royal Society. My point is regardless of what the Royal Society did or did not say the NYT will spin it to their leftist agenda and print this propaganda for people like you to belly up to and drink deeply of.
          As to the suite that the Royal Society is bringing against Exxon – so what? You have a group of people who “believe” something to be true and will not tolerate any dissension from anyone or anything and it just so happens that the UK has a law that will allow them to bring suite against the company in order to squelch the descent.
          This is classic leftist strategy which is to not address the argument or the facts but stand on ones laurels and attempt to quell any opposition or debate.

        • #3139164

          “…stand on ones laurels and attempt to quell any opposition or debate…”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Your source not theirs

          “This is classic leftist strategy which is to not address the argument or the facts but stand on ones laurels and attempt to quell any opposition or debate.”

          What argument, and what facts, am I ignoring? Or, are you disappointed that I do [b]not[/b] ignore the absence of any contradictory facts, and of any meaningful counterargument? Would you like to try to contact the British Royal Society directly, then?

          Do you have [b]any[/b] evidence to support your assertion that “regardless of what the Royal Society did or did not say the NYT will spin it to their leftist agenda and print this propaganda for people like you to belly up to and drink deeply of”? Can you show, in the article posted, any example of “spin” that contradicts the literal meaning of the facts? You have made an assertion. Now, let’s see you try to support it with facts.

    • #3139692

      Another who agrees with me — another voice of reason

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Global warming is real, and caused by humans.

      • #3202900

        I just looked the guy up

        by tony hopkinson ·

        In reply to Another who agrees with me — another voice of reason

        See if you can find someone else eh, given his history, I’d be as likely to accept the arguments of the CEOs of the top five lignite mining companies.

        I loved comparing global warming to the third reich ‘the big lie’

        The Animal and Earth Liberation Front’s being the biggest terrorist threat to the US was even funnier.

        Perhaps he should organise an invasion and force a regime change.

        ROTFLMAO

        • #3202676

          Tony, you know nothing

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I just looked the guy up

          I’m amazed at you Brits (and Australians) who claim to know a person serving in our U.S. Senate based on reading a few select Internet stories, and then summarily dismiss his argument by dismissing him. What a dweeb!

          As to your laughing at his suggestion that the Earth Liberation Front was, as you said, “the biggest terrorist threat to the U.S.”, it might also humor you to know that those organizations were indeed listed by our FBI, at one time, as being the biggest terrorist threat to the U.S. And they probably are still listed as the biggest domestic terrorist threat.

          “John Lewis, the FBI’s deputy assistant director for counterterrorism, said animal and environmental rights extremists have claimed credit for more than 1,200 criminal incidents since 1990. The FBI has 150 pending investigations associated with animal rights or eco-terrorist activities, and ATF officials say they have opened 58 investigations in the past six years related to violence attributed to the ELF and ALF.”

          http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/19/domestic.terrorism/index.html

          You’re looking pretty foolish, Tony.

          Edited addition:

          It might also be interesting to note that any right-leaning organization that claimed responsibility for 1200 criminal/terrorist acts over the last 16 years might just get more negative press coverage than these left-leaning organization have. I wonder why most people don’t realize the scope and frequency of their destructive activities?

        • #3138301

          Talk about the pot calling the kettle

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Tony, you know nothing

          black. You show more bias than I do.

          The guy is about as credible as Al Gore when he invented the internet, he’d change his tune in a heartbeat if he wasn’t going to get voted in or have his campaign chest filled, he’s a politician!

          No point in holding him up to me as some sort of example, my principles can’t be bought for mere money.

          You know the place, I couldn’t find out.
          Who puts the money up for his campaigns, which lobbying groups is he most cosy with?

        • #3138291

          Tony, I forgive you

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Talk about the pot calling the kettle

          I can excuse your lack of knowledge when it comes to our U.S. Senate and Senators. Heck, many Americans don’t even understand the body. Why would I expect a Brit to understand?

          What I know about the members of the British Parliament, you could shove into a thimble and it would rattle like a bee-bee in a boxcar. What you know about the U.S. Senate is probably comparable. I, however, don’t presume to know such things, while you apparently do. I wonder why? Are you suggesting that you’re more an expert on our Senate than I am?

          And on “bias”. There is nothing wrong with bias, unless one tries to hide it, and unless it’s not based on basic principles. I always admit mine, while others evade and try to hide theirs. Look at these silly people building their global warming position on something they call a “fact”, but when pressed on their “fact”, they can’t even come close to proving it. My “global warming” bias, for example, is that I do not trust the people (always politicians and activists) advancing the claim, and all I ask for is proof that their credible sources (scientists) have really formed a “general consensus” among themselves and are in agreement — a very simple premise that they are simply lying about. And what’s their retort? Prove that it’s not true. How silly is that? Asking to prove such a negative? It’s like asking one to prove aliens don’t exist, and if I can’t, then we need to prepare for their inevitable destruction of Earth.

          By the way, if I were a U.S. Senator, I’d be saying the same thing the gentleman from Oklahoma has been saying. (A little U.S. Senate lingo for you.)

        • #3138280

          What’s to forgive?

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Tony, I forgive you

          Whether or not we – Tony or myself – know anything about the workings of the US Senate, you are putting this guy forward as a commentator on climate change so I think we can feel free to comment.

          A quick Google on senator James Inhofe and we find that, amongst other stuff, in a Senate speech, Inhofe said that America should base its Israel policy on a text of the Bible. This guy is a right-wing religious fundamentalist flake and, if you want him on your team, you have him.

          As far as I can see, he’s an End Times Fundamentalist with all that is implied in terms of an irrational belief in the imminent Apocalypse. If The Good Senator believes that the World Will End in the next ten years or so then he’s hardly going to have an even slightly “normal” approach to a problem twenty or fifty years down the line!

          Inhofe is the US environmentalist’s – and posssibly the world’s – worst nightmare. He makes major policy decisions based on heavy corporate and theological influences, flawed science, and an apocalyptic worldview – and he chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee! Wow! You Yanks can pick ’em!

          Do me a favour Max and stop taking the piss by holding up the likes of Inhofe as a supporter of your stance. It does you nor your platform any credit!

          Neil

        • #3139265

          Eggsackly

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to What’s to forgive?

          The only politicians I have any respect at all for are those who give up political power in favour of principle. Needless to say they are rarer than rocking horse turds.

          They aren’t fit to wipe your arse on, don’t bother with them.

        • #3139258

          So you don’t feel left out, Neil. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to What’s to forgive?

          …I forgive you too!

        • #3139256

          Very kind of you, I’m sure!

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to What’s to forgive?

          No doubt I’ll post something that needs forgiveness sooner or later.

          I wasn’t going to get drawn into this thread but I just found Inhofe such a wonderfully alien character when I checked him out that I had to comment.

          We have [b]nothing[/b] like him over here.

        • #3139251

          Neil, if you discount one thing. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to What’s to forgive?

          …a politician might say just because of other stupid things he/she might say, and if you apply that sentiment equally and across-the-board, then we should discount everything that every politician says. Right? All of them say something stupid some of the time, don’t they? I assume we’re in total agreement thus far. If not, please explain why not.

          Therefore, we must simply dismiss all of this global warming nonsense, because it’s ALL advanced by politicians. By dismissing the gentleman Senator from Oklahoma (That’s how they talk in the U.S. Senate, you know.) just because of other things he said, we must also dismiss the Senators (and Representatives) who make the human-caused global warming claim because of other stupid things they have said.

          All is not lost for you guys, however, because you can still redeem yourselves and prove the notion of human-caused global warming is a consensus among qualified scientists. I’ve been saying all along, let’s get politics out of the issue, and I’ll listen and talk to anyone about it.

          Which leads me to my latest question:

          You global warming advocates often claim that it’s a forgone conclusion that there is general consensus within the scientific community that human activity is indeed causing global warming.

          1. Define “scientific community” by describing those “scientists” who are both educated and experienced in whatever fields which would qualify them as being a person who can offer an expert opinion — make that an expert conclusion based on their own findings or the review of other’s findings. And, of course, define the field in which those particular scientists work. A nuclear scientist, for example, who works for the Atomic Energy Commission wouldn’t qualify.

          2. Show me the results of reliable poll conducted by a reliable polling organization which showed that the “scientists” you described above — and ONLY the scientists you described above — agreed that human activity was causing global warming, and that concluded there was a “general consensus” among those people that human activity is causing global warming.

          3. Define “general consensus”. Would that be at least 50 percent of those scientists polled? 60 percent? 76.8 percent? 100 percent? The poll results are necessary to reach this conclusion.

          4. And as a matter of full disclosure, who do these “scientists” work for, and who pays their salary and/or provides their means of income?

          You continually cite these people and presume to speak for them. How about defining and identifying who they really are?

          ———-

          Neil, is that really too much to ask?

        • #3139194

          Not stupid sayings, self serving ones

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to What’s to forgive?

          Politicians are in it for what they can get, they might represent us, but not out of some form of altruism, but because it’s it good way to set up a situation where they get paid. That is their goal !

          All politicians need funding, the people who provide the funds call the shots, not the people who voted for them.

          I don’t mind self interest in fact I trust it, doesn’t mean I have to agree to serve their interests though does it, I’m serving mine.

        • #3139160

          MAXWELL: First part of your 4-part challenge, answered.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to What’s to forgive?

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=200777&messageID=2102332

          Is publication in a professional publication a fair criterion for establishing professional expertise or isn’t it? If not, why not, and do you have any counterproposal for establising professional credibility?

        • #3139161

          YOUR ignorance of HIS Parliament is your counterargument?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Tony, I forgive you

          “What I know about the members of the British Parliament, you could shove into a thimble and it would rattle like a bee-bee in a boxcar. What you know about the U.S. Senate is probably comparable. I, however, don’t presume to know such things, while you apparently do.”

          Whatever you “don’t presume to know” will remain true, or remain false, regardless of your ignorannce of it, and regardless of your presumptuous assertion, implied by the choice to use the word “presume”, that there is some sort of virtue in your ignorance.

        • #3138278

          But an American politician is omniscient?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Tony, you know nothing

          That’s some of the stupidest tripe ever spouted.

          Let’s now turn to the good Republican Congressman from Florida, Tom Foley. Surly you’ll want to claim him as your champion as well.

    • #3138590

      Prove it to me

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Global warming is real, and caused by humans.

      You global warming advocates often claim that it’s a forgone conclusion that there is general consensus within the scientific community that human activity is indeed causing global warming.

      1. Define “scientific community” by describing those “scientists” who are both educated and experienced in whatever fields which would qualify them as being a person who can offer an expert opinion — make that an expert conclusion based on their own findings or the review of other’s findings. And, of course, define the field in which those particular scientists work. A nuclear scientist, for example, who works for the Atomic Energy Commission wouldn’t qualify.

      2. Show me the results of reliable poll conducted by a reliable polling organization which showed that the “scientists” you described above — and ONLY the scientists you described above — agreed that human activity was causing global warming, and that concluded there was a “general consensus” among those people that human activity is causing global warming.

      3. Define “general consensus”. Would that be at least 50 percent of those scientists polled? 60 percent? 76.8 percent? 100 percent? The poll results are necessary to reach this conclusion.

      4. And as a matter of full disclosure, who do these “scientists” work for, and who pays their salary and/or provides their means of income?

      You continually cite these people and presume to speak for them. How about defining and identifying who they really are?

      • #3138464

        You can’t learn what you don’t want to know.

        by deepsand ·

        In reply to Prove it to me

        The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that the former has its limits, whereas the latter knows no bounds.

        • #3138390

          But you didn’t answer the question

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to You can’t learn what you don’t want to know.

          Regardless of whether or not I’m willing “to learn”, it’s interesting to note that you don’t have the material “to teach”.

        • #3138373

          Deliberately evading the point.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to But you didn’t answer the question

          The point being that there is no proof, short of a divine revelation, of the issue at hand that is or will be acceptable to you.

          In this respect you differ not from those who cling to the “Creation Science” belief.

        • #3138338

          There is no proof?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Deliberately evading the point.

          Thank you for agreeing with me. I’m glad you concede that there is no proof that human activity is causing global warming. That’s been my position all along.

        • #3138315

          Don’t flatter yourself by implying that I agree with you.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to There is no proof?

          You demand “absolute” proof, where the appropriate measure is the preponderance of evidence.

          And, by the way, where’s the “proof” for your position?

        • #3138299

          Not fair, you aren’t meant to be that clever

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Don’t flatter yourself by implying that I agree with you.

          Your argument is “stupid” so logic dictates you should be as well.

          Logic
          LOL

        • #3138281

          Re: Your argument is “stupid”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Don’t flatter yourself by implying that I agree with you.

          What “argument?”

          Was this post mis-placed?

        • #3139263

          No I was saying

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Don’t flatter yourself by implying that I agree with you.

          because believing in global warming is meant to be stupid , you should be gullible enough not to spot that the opposition are asking you to prove it exists, neglecting the fact they hadn’t proved their contention that it doesn’t.

          I’ll add tags next time.

        • #3139154

          Thanks for the clarification.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Don’t flatter yourself by implying that I agree with you.

          Your explanation confirm my initial take based on a quick reading. However, on a more careful re-reading, I found myself questioning my inital appraisal.

          Just goes to show that sometimes your gut reaction is the correct one!

      • #3138457

        1. Define “scientific community”…

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Prove it to me

        Being published in [i]Science[/i] and/or in [i]Nature[/i] is my criterion for taking seriously any researcher, on a topic of such broad interest as global warming. For the very latest on efforts toward unbreakable encryption, I might look at a more specialized technical publication specializing in optical physics, but global warming is such a popular topic that I wouldn’t include the “specialist” publications for the most subtle questions in climatology. But if you want to propose some climatology mags, I’d consider them.

        For myself, I read [i]Science[/i] & [i]Nature[/i], the two publications most read by professional researchers to stay informed of the [b]most important[/b] developments in all fields of scientific research.

        • #3138387

          Abs – You disappoint me

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to 1. Define “scientific community”…

          What’s the matter? Can’t you answer my questions? They’re actally ones that you, yourself, might ask in regards to other issues. They’re very simple questions to answer — unless, of course, the premise is false. Prove your premise, Abs, or admit that you are throwing logic and reason out the window.

        • #3138273

          The burden of proof is now yours.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Abs – You disappoint me

          Your position now stands in contrast to that accepted by the scientific community in general.

          [i]”Panels of journalists and scientists gathered July 25 at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington to discuss the mainstream media’s reporting on climate change. The consensus was that the media have not covered the issue well. According to both panels, the greatest shortcoming has been in persistent portrayals of the issue as one of contentious scientific debate: In reality, the assembled scientists said, man-made climate change is generally accepted throughout the scientific community as a reality.”[/i]

          See http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=200777&messageID=2102173

          At this point, it is your burden to proof that they are wrong!

        • #3139228

          I disappoint you?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Abs – You disappoint me

          Then, you have come to expect better quality from my replies than what you perceive above?

          😉

          Seriously, I only attempted to address your point #1, with the intention of addressing the rest after agreeing on the sources to consider authoritative. I apologize for not making my intended approach clearer. I agree, your questions are the type I ask on every topic, and I replied as acknowledgement of that. But, I’d like to take them one by one if you don’t mind. This way, we can more accurately (& constructively?) identify the point(s) on which we agree & disagree.

        • #3139242

          Published in Magazines?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to 1. Define “scientific community”…

          Just because something is published in a magazine or a newspaper, does that make it automatically credible? Or do you distinguish between particular magazines and newspapers? Do you simply give blanket-approval to all magazines and newspapers, or just the ones that publish stories that support your desired outcome — or just certain ones? What if they publish something that can’t be proven or supported — like the questions I asked? What then?

          If Science Magazine is given automatic crediblity, then is Mother Jones Magazine also credible? If not, why not?

          If something is published as “fact”, then there should be support for it somewhere. Don’t you agree?

          Where’s the support? That’s all I ask.

          Just answer my questions, and don’t deflect a difficult question by stating you read it in a magazine. That’s contrary to absolutely everything else you claim to be.

        • #3139186

          Published in PROFESSIONAL magazines!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Published in Magazines?

          [i]Science[/i] & [i]Nature[/i] are where serious scientists dream of seeing our names, similar to many kids’ dreams of making it to the NBA one day. Some scientists undoubtedly read [i]Mother Jones[/i] too, as well as [i]Republic[/i] and many other political magazines, but they read those for political [b]opinion[/b], not for information about the latest scientific research.

      • #3138328

        I don’t, maybe I’m not a global warming advocate

        by tony hopkinson ·

        In reply to Prove it to me

        My position is very simple, it could be true.

        I can find scientists that say it isn’t, I can find scientists that say it is. Both groups have their own agenda or are funded by people with their own agenda. Hence in terms of making an informed decision they are useless.

        Other’s position is that only they are right, and they wheel out their expert witnesses to justify a position they have ALREADY taken. Anything put forward by treehuggers or the moneyhuggers is prejudiced. That prejudgement has to be taken into account, you can’t point the finger at one side without pointing it at the other.

        So given no one can prove that we are or we aren’t, I choose to operate on the basis that we are.

        The reasoning is a simple cost benefit analysis.

        If we cut our environmental impact, we lose some environmental impact, which set of scientists and interest groups are correct does not matter.

        If we don’t cut our environmental impact the nay sayers have to be right.

        To accept the posibility and act on it risks the profit of those parts of the economy that can’t adapt. To discount the possiblity, so you don’t have to act, risk’s the survival of a significant proportion of the entire biosphere.

        In other words I’m not making my decision based on our knowledge of the situation, but on our ignorance of it.

        It’s nice when ethics and pragmatism march hand in hand though. I’m biased not prejudiced, there’s a big difference.

        • #3138279

          Precisely what Max refuses to acknowledge.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I don’t, maybe I’m not a global warming advocate

          I’ve pointed this out to him on several previous ocassions, but he persists in holding that remedial responses to a clear and present danger are somehow vastly superior to preventive responses to reasonably possible ones, to the extent that the latter are wholly unworthy of consideration.

          Presumably, therefore, he has no type of insurance, health, disability, auto, homeowners or other, so as to be logically consistent with his position on the matter here at hand.

        • #3139261

          Total agreement

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Precisely what Max refuses to acknowledge.

          Lets face the risk of your house burning down is quite small, no one thinks insurance is a bad idea.
          The possibility is small,but if you are unlucky or careless the consequences are drastic. Seeing as the cost is small you mitigate it.

          Stuff the science and the politics, just look at the pros and the cons.

          After that it’s a no brainer.

        • #3139153

          Assumes facts not in evidence.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Total agreement

          What if the person making the decision begins with a “no brain” handicap? Is it then still a “no brainer?”

        • #3138997

          True, more legislation required

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Assumes facts not in evidence.

          What should be the minimum IQ to qualify as an elected official, I’m thinking 140. Smarter than me but not so smart I can’t understand them.

          Hmmm wait, may be there should be a maximum, I don’t understand them now!

        • #3138976

          An interesting question.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to True, more legislation required

          Your suggestion falls in what is known as the near genuis range; this I know because it’s where mine is. (No, that’s not bragging. Most people have no idea how difficult it is being known as a “genius.” On one side lies the ridicule of one’s peers; on the other, the greatest of all expectations of one’s elders.)

          Still, I agree that, to the extent that IQ is relevant, it’s probably a good range for politicians to be in, as it is described as being the range in which one is intelligent enough to not have to follow, but not so intelligent that one is forced to lead.

          The fly in the ointment is that being in possession of a fine intellect is no quarantor of a character of equal quality.

          I’d wager that there are quite a few near geniuses here at TR, though I’d vote for none of them on that basis alone.

        • #3139997

          deepsand: no fly, just unclean ointment

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to True, more legislation required

          “The fly in the ointment is that being in possession of a fine intellect is no guarantor of a character of equal quality.”

          The only guarantor of integrity of character is that the system rewards integrity. When The People decide that their desire to cheat the system is less important than their desire to not be cheated by the system, they will return to that system established by the Constitution’s original meaning. Until then, we can only wait patiently for the light of intellect to flicker on, one mind at a time.

        • #3141305

          I doubt that mankind will survive to see such a day.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to True, more legislation required

          I suggest that, by the time man comes to realize that he has soiled his cradle beyond all repair, he will also have consumed so much of its resources that he no longer possesses the ability to escape its gravity well, and will here perish.

        • #3138754

          How To get to into space By A politico

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to True, more legislation required

          Get populace to pile up all waste. As they die from being poisioned or simple asphyxiation, redfine them as waste. Drive airtight SUV up pile into orbit.

        • #3138716
          Avatar photo

          No that will not work Tony :D

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to True, more legislation required

          The Airtight SUV will require bottled air straight to the engines intake or it will stop before you get into orbit. :p

          If you where to use a Hybrid vehicle to do the same thing I should warn you that as batteries get colder they become less efficient and when cold enough shut down completely so that wouldn’t even work all that well but it would allow you to get slightly higher than just on the petrol engine alone. 😀

          Col ]:)

          [i]Edited to add[/i] Don’t you just hate it when some Smart A$$ Mechanical Engineer jumps in to ruin a perfectly good idea. 🙁

          Oh well I think Douglas Adams had it right in HHGTTG when he described the way that the inventor of the Infinite Improbability Drive was treated by his fellow scientists [b]Nobody Likes a Smart A$$[/b] :^0

        • #3281136

          Did I forget to mention the

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to True, more legislation required

          methane conversion kit, plenty coming off the decomposing muck you are driving up.

          Some big intakes on the front, sort of a low tech bussard ramjet.

        • #3281074
          Avatar photo

          OH I see Tony you mean something like this

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to True, more legislation required

          http://tinyurl.com/oezof

          [b]Caution if you are easily offended DO NOT OPEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/b] You’ve been warned so don’t come complaining to me when you claim to be so shocked. 😀

          Now Tony this would work better the higher you go and while the thrust would remain the same the lower the atmosphere density the more movement you would achieve. :^0

          Although I’m not sure if this is a contributer to the Green House Effect or something environmentally friendly. :p

          Col ]:)

        • #3281069

          Well, it would definitely be friendly to the environment …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to True, more legislation required

          of the survivors who man the SUV!

          As an alternative, why not simply have the next to the last survivors carry the final survivors to the apex?

        • #3139222

          Exactly

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I don’t, maybe I’m not a global warming advocate

          And that’s what Max has refused to see.

          [i]’If we do not change our direction, we are likely to end up where we are headed.’ [/i]

          I think the reason is that it is logical, as are most other issues he seems to refuse to see.

          Global warming? Could be increased by man.
          Emissions killing us? Undenicable reality.

          Our emissions make us ill or kill us now, that is an absolute fact. Reducing our emissions of CO a deadly gas, will save lives, TODAY. Fact.

          But, as there are many people in denial like Max, who don’t want the inconvenience of emisisons control and industryial resourcefulness, that will simply ignroe the facts and focus on the questionable areas instead.

          Just like suporting the Iraqi war, ignore, dismiss facts that are ‘uncomfortable’ to face, and replace them with questions that are focused on something else that is unknown, in order to create doubt.

          Tiring, these days, just tiring.

        • #3138996

          Still no disagreement – does this mean I’m right?

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to I don’t, maybe I’m not a global warming advocate

          Come one gauntlet thrown down, take the challenge!

        • #3139994

          Yes, but…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Still no disagreement – does this mean I’m right?

          “In other words I’m not making my decision based on our knowledge of the situation, but on our ignorance of it.

          It’s nice when ethics and pragmatism march hand in hand though. I’m biased not prejudiced, there’s a big difference.”

          Were I to grant your basic premise – our ignorance – I would agree with your reasoning. But, I do not grant the premise that global warming is sufficiently in doubt to resort to your pragmatic argument.

          PS Please explain this “big difference” between bias and prejudice. I’m familiar with the use of the word “bias” in electrical circuit theory, but I can’t follow the analogy to human interactions in any way that doesn’t coincide with the meaning of “prejudice”.

        • #3141382

          As to the pragmatic view

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Yes, but…

          This is the one I’ve always held. All theis yes a nd no camp stuff in politics and science is getting us nowhere. Appealing on an ethiical basis, well we knew that wouldn’t work before we said it. So lets go straight to not so common sense.

          Too much eco-friendly = left = bad going on for me.
          Did you know you are a left winger by the way, a damn commie. I was almost ready to send you red welcome comrade mug, then I realised they were talking about Abs, not happening is it.

          Definitions, bias is a desire to decide in favour if the evidence allows you to, prejudice means you don’t give a crap what the evidence is, you’ve already decided. Which is why people use Inhofe as an arguments against us, they think we are prejudiced too.

        • #3141318

          Thanks, & you’re right.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to As to the pragmatic view

          “All theis yes a nd no camp stuff in politics and science is getting us nowhere.”

          Among an audience capable of rational thought, the existing scientific proof would [b]have already decided the outcome of this discussion[/b], not only here on TR, but in the public. Until then, I suppose the pragmatic argument is the only one to bother presenting.

      • #3139170

        Second attempt @ 1. Define “scientific community”

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Prove it to me

        I define a scientist as “both educated and experienced in whatever fields which would qualify them as being a person who can offer an expert opinion — make that an expert conclusion based on their own findings or the review of other’s findings” when they have their own findings published in [i]Science[/i] and/or [i]Nature[/i], for reasons I implied above, and will now clarify.

        [i]Science[/i] and [i]Nature[/i] are the two most important publications in research science. They do not focus on one branch of science to the exclusion of others. Instead, they publish scientific results in all fields that are judged to be of greatest interest to the general scientific community. Which results are of greatest interest is the only “judgment call” these two magazines make regarding the experiments they publish, and experimental results are presented without comment, although they are usually summarized. One or both magazines also publish occasional opinion pieces, but in any given issue, the vast majority of pages are devoted to simple publication of experimental results, verbatim.

        I look forward to addressing #2-#4, but I see no point in taking the time to do so until we agree on #1. As I tried to imply before, but will now say more literally, I’m willing to incorporate your input in order to facilitate discussion, in order to finalize proof.

    • #3138277

      NASA Report

      by deepsand ·

      In reply to Global warming is real, and caused by humans.

      ‘One degree and we’re done for’

      27 September 2006
      From New Scientist Print Edition.
      Fred Pearce

      “Further global warming of 1 ?C defines a critical threshold. Beyond that we will likely see changes that make Earth a different planet than the one we know.”

      So says Jim Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. Hansen and colleagues have analysed global temperature records and found that surface temperatures have been increasing by an average of 0.2 ?C every decade for the past 30 years. Warming is greatest in the high latitudes of the northern hemisphere, particularly in the sub-Arctic boreal forests of Siberia and North America. Here the melting of ice and snow is exposing darker surfaces that absorb more sunlight and increase warming, creating a positive feedback.

      Earth is already as warm as at any time in the last 10,000 years, and is within 1 ?C of being its hottest for a million years, says Hansen’s team. Another decade of business-as-usual carbon emissions will probably make it too late to prevent the ecosystems of the north from triggering runaway climate change, the study concludes (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 103, p 14288).

      The analysis reinforces a series of recent findings on accelerating environmental disruption in Siberia, northern Canada and Alaska, underlining a growing scientific consensus that these regions are pivotal to climate change. Earlier this month, NASA scientists reported that climate change was speeding up the melting of Arctic sea ice. Permanent sea ice has contracted by 14 per cent in the past two years (Geophysical Research Letters, vol 33, L17501). However, warming and melting have been just as dramatic on land in the far north.

      A meeting on Siberian climate change held in Leicester, UK, last week confirmed that Siberia has become a hotspot of global climate change. Geographer Heiko Balzter, of the University of Leicester, said central Siberia has warmed by almost 2 ?C since 1970 – that’s three times the global average.

      Meanwhile, Stuart Chapin of the University of Alaska Fairbanks this week reported that air temperatures in the Alaskan interior have risen by 2 ?C since 1950, and permafrost temperatures have risen by 2.5 ?C (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0606955103).

      In Siberia the warming is especially pronounced in winter. “It has caused the onset of spring to advance by as much as one day a year since satellite observations began in 1982,” says Balzter. Similarly, Alaskan springs now arrive two weeks earlier than in 1950, according to Chapin.

      The Leicester meeting heard that the rising temperatures are causing ecological changes in the forests that ratchet up the warming still further. Vladimir Petko from the Russian Academy of Sciences Forest Research Institute in Krasnoyarsk says warm springs are triggering plagues of moths. “They can eat the needles of entire forest regions in one summer,” he says. The trees die and then usually succumb to forest fires that in turn destroy soil vegetation and accelerate the melting of permafrost, Petko says.

      In 2003 Siberia saw a record number of forest fires, losing 40,000 square kilometres according to Balzter, who has analysed remote sensing images of the region. Similar changes are occurring in Alaska. According to Chapin, warming there has shortened the life cycle of the bark beetle from two years to one, causing huge infestations and subsequent fires, which destroyed huge areas of forest in 2004. “The current boreal forest zone could be so dried out by 2090 that the trees will die off and be replaced by steppe,” says Nadezhda Tchebakova, also at the institute in Krasnoyarsk.

      Melting permafrost in the boreal forests and further north in the Arctic tundra is also triggering the release of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, from thick layers of thawing peat. First reports published exclusively in New Scientist last year (13 August 2005, p 12) were recently confirmed by US scientists (Nature, vol 443, p 71).

      “Large amounts of greenhouse gases are currently locked in the permafrost and if released could accelerate the greenhouse effect,” says Balzter. Hansen’s paper concludes that the effects of this positive feedback could be huge. “In past eras, the release of methane from melting permafrost and destabilised sediments on continental shelves has probably been responsible for some of the largest warmings in the Earth’s history,” he says.

      We could be close to unleashing similar events in the 21st century, Hansen argues. Although the feedbacks should remain modest as long as global temperatures remain within the range of recent interglacial periods of the past million years, outside that range – beyond a further warming of about 1 ?C – the feedbacks could accelerate. Such changes may become inevitable if the world does not begin to curb greenhouse gas emissions within the next decade, Hansen says.

      Meanwhile, another new study underlines that the boreal peat bogs, permafrost and pine forests are not just vital to the planet as a whole, they are major economic assets for the countries that host them. A detailed study of the northern boreal forests by environmental consultant Mark Anielski of Edmonton, Canada, puts the value of their “ecosystem services” at $250 billion a year, or $160 per hectare.

      These benefits include flood control, water purification and pest control provided by forest birds, plus income from wilderness tourism and meat from wildlife such as caribou. Anielski presented his findings to Canada’s National Forest Congress in Gatineau-Ottawa earlier this week.

      The value of these ecosystem services is more than twice that of conventional resources taken from the region each year, such as timber, minerals, oil and hydroelectricity, Anielski says. “If they were counted in Canadian inventories of assets, they would amount to roughly 9 per cent of our gross domestic product – similar in value to our health and social services.”

      You can add to that figure the value of having such a huge volume of carbon locked away. “The boreal region is like a giant carbon bank account,” he says. “At current prices in the European carbon emissions trading system, Canada’s stored carbon alone would be worth $3.7 trillion.”

      And if Hansen is right that the carbon and methane stored in the boreal regions has the potential to transform the world into “another planet”, then the boreal region may be worth a great deal more than that.

      From issue 2571 of New Scientist magazine, 27 September 2006, page 8-9

    • #3138276

      STRATFOR Report

      by deepsand ·

      In reply to Global warming is real, and caused by humans.

      Stratfor Public Policy Intelligence Report
      Strategic Forecasting
      PUBLIC POLICY INTELLIGENCE REPORT
      07.27.2006

      “Science, Policy and the Media”
      By Bart Mongoven

      Panels of journalists and scientists gathered July 25 at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington to discuss the mainstream media’s reporting on climate change. The consensus was that the media have not covered the issue well. According to both panels, the greatest shortcoming has been in persistent portrayals of the issue as one of contentious scientific debate: In reality, the assembled scientists said, man-made climate change is generally accepted throughout the scientific community as a reality.

      Most of the time at the conference was dedicated to examining the media’s portrayal of the issue and explaining how it came into being. The root of the problem, most participants agreed, is that climate change has been covered primarily as a political rather than a scientific issue — and thus, the media have focused on the political debate rather than the science behind it.

      In the background of this discussion loomed a larger issue: The mainstream media, recognizing that there is more to the story, now are struggling with ways to change their portrayal of the climate change issue. Arguments are emerging that the scientific debate has now been concluded, “industry” has lost and the new debate is about policy options. Though this line of thinking is nearer to the truth, it does not entirely close the gap. The fact is that industry all but stopped contesting the premise of man-made climate change two years ago, but the media’s preoccupation with the traditional battle lines — industry versus environmentalists — continues to obscure the complexity of the issue and the positions of various players.

      The issue is worthy of examination because the media portrayals have some impact as public policy is formed. To be sure, the media are consumers of a complex discussion between mainstream scientific institutions, industry and activists — each of whom approaches scientific debates with completely different outlooks, values and goals. At the same time, however, the “fourth estate” is positioned to break the complicated scientific matters into terms that both the public and politicians can understand. Reporters’ ability to do so, as well as any tendencies to overlook or oversimplify aspects of the debate, can be felt down the road as regulations are formed. As editors and reporters come to recognize this, the media likely will assume a more important role in the shaping of public discourse and policy development.

      The Importance of Scale

      The portrayal issue is becoming particularly relevant at this time because the regulatory questions that are emerging at the nexus of science and politics are unlike any that have come before. Scientific knowledge and human ingenuity are producing technologies and results of incredible power and scale: Industrialization has reached a point at which the Earth’s protective ozone layer has been threatened, and the planet’s climate is likely being affected. At the same time, chemists are finding ways to work on an incredibly small scale — developing nanotechnologies that could revolutionize medicine, consumer products and lifestyles.

      With this remarkable scale (at both ends of the spectrum) comes unprecedented complexity — and new challenges for the media that report on these issues. A layman easily can grasp the notion that vapor feedback mechanisms contribute to the Earth’s climate (and even that these mechanisms counteract some of the warming that likely results from increased carbon in the atmosphere); however, the details of how these feedback mechanisms work are beyond the understanding of most nonspecialists. Meanwhile, sciences like toxicology are undergoing quiet revolutions: The interactions of specific substances and specific genes are being studied to determine whether some substances can have particularly beneficial or (more emphatically) particularly damaging effects on people with certain genetic makeups. These types of investigations (known as “toxicogenomics”) are as complicated and involved — yet as important in the scientific debate — as climate feedback loops.

      In the middle of all this, lawmakers, regulators and (increasingly) consumers are being asked to draw conclusions about such issues as the threat of climate change and the risks posed by nanoparticles. In addition to making these assessments, with the continuing trend toward deregulation, consumers and businesses are also being asked to weigh these risks against the benefits of cheap energy and emerging technologies.

      The media play an important role in this process: Ultimately, they have the power to translate scientific debates and findings into words consumers and their representatives in government can understand. The way these issues are reported often dictates how certain issues are addressed in public policies.

      To be fair, editors at major news organizations in industrialized countries appear to take this role very seriously. While not unheard of, unjustified consumer scares are surprisingly rare in industrialized countries, and when they do occur they generally result from intricate intentional campaigns to fool the media. Still, the media are in a difficult position as they report on complicated scientific issues: Their challenge is to navigate through the interplay between the scientific establishment, industry and policy advocates. And, it is important to note, the approaches and roles of these groups are changing in new and interesting ways.

      The Industry Stance

      Industry’s view of the science behind public policy has changed markedly in recent years. As institutions, businesses crave stability and certainty. The regulations by which they are governed are important, but the predictability of the regulatory system is even more important in their eyes. Industry historically has preferred that public policy be determined by national governments and that policies give clear guidance as to what will and will not be allowed in the future.

      For the most part, industry wants regulation that is based on firm unchanging scientific grounds — and it wants regulatory language to be as unambiguous as possible. In most cases, it also wants regulations to be protective of health or the environment. For some companies, this is a very highly held social ethic. For others, it stems merely from fear of U.S. tort law. In either case, the tendency has been for companies to call for deliberate scientific investigation that justifies a regulation, while simultaneously acknowledging the importance of regulation.

      This traditional approach is changing, however. As the problems of scale we already have discussed increasingly come into play, the trajectory of regulation is growing uncertain and difficult to chart. Further complicating matters is the deregulatory ethic in Congress and within the Bush administration, which has allowed issues to be debated in the public sphere but left businesses to work out the resolutions in private. The climate change debate in the United States, for example, shifted as it became clear to many companies that policies likely were forthcoming — but the nature of these regulations remained opaque. The uncertainty this produced stymied company planning, research and development efforts. Uncertain which way the regulators would go, businesses erred on the side of conservatism and began to adopt very stringent self-regulatory policies in efforts to move past the impasse.

      The perspective extends to more than just climate change, however. To cite another example, computer manufacturers have begun to phase certain substances out of their products — not because the substances are illegal or because they have been found to cause health problems, but because allegations that the substances may be harmful might crop up. Rather than fight these allegations or potential class-action lawsuits, manufacturers prefer to build products and design processes with the certainty that their substances will not become controversial. The revolutions in medicine, genetics and toxicology that are now under way will only drive more of this kind of thinking as companies conclude that the regulatory stability they crave can be created only by taking extremely precautionary approaches.

      Activists and Science

      The activist organizations that advocate regulatory change — whether increased regulation or decreased regulation of industry — were established to change the world in a specific way. Activist groups on both sides of the political and ideological spectrum tend to view science as a tool: They use it only when it is helpful to their cause. Many groups spend a great deal of time and money looking at scientific questions, but their objectives nonetheless are political, not scientific.

      For example, think tanks and activist groups created to fight regulatory action on climate change sometimes make scientific arguments; at other times, they try to move beyond science to place the issue in economic, ideological or political terms.

      Consider the array of nongovernmental organizations that previously have pressed for stringent national regulations: Many of these have shifted their approach in light of the emerging concerns about scale. As expressed in both the climate risk and chemical risk issue debates, groups are beginning to play up uncertainty — scientific and regulatory — and press for businesses to adopt new management styles that effectively amount to self-regulation.

      Because the media continue to write about these matters as political issues — debates between two interested parties — the scientific questions at the center of campaigns on climate change, the relative risk of various chemicals and substances and the risks posed by genetically modified organisms have been relegated to the backburner. Rather than being the focus in the policy debates, the science is used as a tactic in a communications and public relations battle.

      Enter the Media

      As the journalists and scientists who attended the Wilson Center event agreed, the mainstream media in the United States have not kept pace with the changes that are under way. Though they have been responsible in avoiding massive consumer scares, there is still a tendency for the media to report on scientific issues as they pertain to policy change — using traditional terms that pit industry against activists in a fight over the interpretation of very complex science. The back-and-forth makes headlines.

      At its root, the politicization of the scientific debate closely resembles the mainstream media’s election reporting — and the criticisms of it are much the same as well. In politics, the standard criticism is that the media focus on the horse race (polls, one-line zingers and sound bites) rather than on the issues and candidates’ positions. In regulatory battles and politics, mano-a-mano sells — complexity does not.

      For the news media, much is at stake in this discussion — particularly if deregulatory trends continue. As science-based policy battles continue to play out on the field of consumer opinion rather than in regulatory agencies and courts, the media will face the decision of whether — and how — to change the way they report on the issues. The decision will not be an easy one, particularly since journalism is itself a business: In de-emphasizing the political and focusing on the technical aspects of the issues, a news outlet runs the risk of boring the public and losing sales.

      On the other hand, a shift in this direction also could dramatically increase the media’s relevance in the policymaking process.

      Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.

      Middle East Crisis ? Get Regular Updates and Breaking Intel at http://www.stratfor.com

      Stratfor analysts are currently on full alert, offering expanded 24/7 coverage on the current Middle East crisis between Israel and Lebanon. From a potential expansion of the conflict to a full military engagement that could extend into Syria, to economic and security ramifications for the region and globally, this situation presents many risks and uncertainties.

      Frequent updates, situation reports and in-depth analyses will be posted online 24/7 for subscribers, as well as special podcast briefings by George Friedman and the analyst team. Become a member today to get access to this coverage and more by visiting https://www.stratfor.com/services/online-subscriptions.php.

      Distribution and Reprints

      This report may be distributed or republished with attribution to Strategic Forecasting, Inc. at http://www.stratfor.com .

      ? Copyright 2006 Strategic Forecasting Inc. All rights reserved.

      • #3139180

        I take issue:

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to STRATFOR Report

        “At the same time, however, the ‘fourth estate’ is positioned to break the complicated scientific matters into terms that both the public and politicians can understand.”

        Politicians who don’t already understand science well enough to interpret the summaries in science journals can spend their incessant pay raises on hiring science advisors to dumb it down for them. The failure of the “fourth estate” on global warming has been to break the two-year-old news that industry has entered a plea of “no contest” to being responsible for global warming: “The fact is that industry all but stopped contesting the premise of man-made climate change two years ago, but the media’s preoccupation with the traditional battle lines — industry versus environmentalists — continues to obscure the complexity of the issue and the positions of various players.” This discrepancy between [b]current[/b] fact & media portrayal allows industry to continue to lean on our politicians to continue the public pretense that global warming, caused by humans, is less than certain.

        • #3139152

          True, but in part only.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I take issue:

          There is another STRATFOR report, which I’ll append as soon as I have time to find it, which reports that business is finding it better to respond, on their own terms, to public pressure rather than wait for government pressure, under the governments’ terms, to do so.

        • #3139146

          STRATFOR Public Policy Report

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I take issue:

          Stratfor Public Policy Intelligence Report

          Strategic Forecasting
          PUBLIC POLICY INTELLIGENCE REPORT
          09.27.2006

          Corporate Campaigns Find a Peak
          By Bart Mongoven

          The Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility’s (ICCR) annual meeting of investors, shareholder activists, religious activists, issue advocates and business representatives took place Sept. 21 and 22 in New York. Participants usually discuss new or emerging issues concerning such things as corporations’ labor practices, environmental policy and performance, and so forth. This year, however, participants spent very little time on discussions of how to encourage corporate change — traditionally their focal point — and spoke instead about root issues (such as AIDS in Africa and access to health care in the United States), and politics (the midterm election and goals for the next Congress) without regard to corporations and their role in policy.

          ICCR pioneered the use of shareholder activism as a means of swaying companies to voluntarily change corporate policies, and it has been among the most influential corporate campaigning groups of the past two decades. It excelled during the corporate campaigns of the 1990s and first years of this decade — before a recent wave of market campaigns convinced corporate managers that a new era was dawning. In the previous era, campaigns usually caught corporations by surprise; activists often made a barrage of allegations against a company to capture the attention of media and shareholders, and strove to keep the corporation off-guard and on the defensive. ICCR representatives would step into this controversial and occasionally acrimonious environment and chart a reasonable path the corporation could follow to satisfy its critics. In the ensuing negotiations, ICCR often elicited significant concessions from targeted corporations.

          We noted in June that shareholder activism has reached a plateau, and that winning new levels of support from shareholders is a growing challenge for such activists. It now appears this problem goes even deeper. Corporate campaigning appears to be nearing its zenith, and soon could become a less powerful tool for winning policy changes.

          Several factors have acted as catalysts for this change. These include the development of measurement systems to track corporations’ social performance and progress, the creation of management structures that are designed to deal with social controversies and growing adoption of voluntary codes of conduct by corporations. In short, corporations are changing their behavior adroitly, but they are also doing so in manageable increments. The businesses are doing the driving, rather than being driven — and activists, as a result, are looking for other venues through which to bring change.

          The Rise of the Market Campaign

          During the past six years, the number of nongovernmental activist groups that criticize corporations, in attempts to push corporate policy changes, has boomed. Corporate campaigning is as old as the modern corporation, but the surge of campaigns in recent years was intended to augment the government’s de jure regulatory structure with a public policy regime developed and enforced by a vocal political minority.

          [b]This trend was driven by two coinciding factors. First was the perception that a new era of globalization had begun. Activists in the United States and Europe who wanted to change the way business was conducted in far-off developing countries found it was difficult or impossible to effect change through the governments of those countries — and that it was critical to change the activities of corporations instead.

          The second factor was frustration among activist groups who were unable to achieve their key objectives through normal political processes. This was most acute in the United States, where liberal activists found little opportunity to instigate regulatory change during a period of Republican control in the House, Senate and White House. Activist groups saw the marketplace as their best alternative venue for bringing change. That said, as market campaigning proved effective, the trend was not limited to the U.S. political left; it was picked up by conservative groups as well. Over the past three years especially, groups from the religious right have waged a number of high-profile corporate campaigns against corporations they view as supporting corrosive or damaging moral values.[/b]

          Corporate campaigning of all types has slowed in recent months, and new approaches and relationships are developing among corporations and activist groups. Large companies have adjusted to the new campaigns, and consequently, the way activists run corporate campaigns is shifting.

          Changing Business

          [b]One of the most significant outcomes of the trends of recent years among nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) is the fact that companies now have infrastructure for dealing with corporate campaigns. Large corporations have offices and staff who specialize in dealing with these challenges. As professionals whose job is to work on broad issues of corporate social responsibility have emerged in the market, there also have come waves of innovation in measuring and tracking a company’s progress on these issues. The development of management systems and rules for the measurement of social performance has been the most significant driver of the recent changes in corporate-NGO relations.

          The most significant innovation has been the monitoring and management systems developed through the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). Initially drafted by the corporate social responsibility group Ceres, GRI is an effort to promulgate uniform guidelines for corporate reporting on a wide array of environmental and human rights issues. More than 1,000 major companies, including more than half the Fortune 100, follow GRI’s guidelines, and they are rapidly emerging as the basis for a common language for discussions of companies’ environmental and social performance.[/b]

          GRI was initially written by activists for their own purposes, and most NGOs accept reporting that follows GRI requirements. Herein lies its power for corporations: Management systems developed according to the guidelines are generally considered credible. This means that corporations following GRI can set a benchmark based on rules that activists established and constantly measure their performance against that benchmark. Though it is expensive to implement and is still flawed in many ways, GRI — by providing objective measures, using universally agreed-upon systems and setting out clear management standards — provides a new level of insurance against activist allegations that have no basis in fact. For those allegations that do have a strong factual basis, corporations, working with NGOs through other management systems, are adept at addressing problems.

          Meanwhile, an effort to provide measures for broader corporate social responsibility is in the works at the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). These standards, known as ISO 26000, will be complete by 2010. This standard will usher in a new era in corporate-NGO relations and, in so doing, bring new challenges for major corporations. Over the next few years, however, the attention being paid to measuring performance will provide some peace on the corporate campaign front.

          From Measuring to Certification

          A second important set of steps that corporations have taken in response to the increased use of corporate campaigns involves the development of certification systems — or at least agreements to develop them. These systems, developed by corporations and their activist critics working together, usually rely upon quantifiable variables and dictate an acceptable set of corporate behaviors. As the number of corporate campaigns has increased, so has the demand for certification systems.

          The number of certification systems in place is growing rapidly, and few major industries are not covered by at least one significant code of conduct or certification regime. Activists have been instrumental in developing certifications for the ways companies and banks:

          * Market infant formula

          * Test and sell drugs in developing countries

          * Harvest timber

          * Lend to development projects in poor countries

          * Catch fish

          * Mine gold

          * Trade diamonds

          * Market alcoholic beverages and tobacco

          * Manufacture palm oil

          * Grow soybeans

          * Recycle computers

          * Test products on animals

          * Source textiles

          and perform other functions.

          Most of the certification systems in these examples began with a single corporation reluctantly coming to the negotiating table, under pressure from activists. A code of conduct can take years to develop, but when complete it usually sets a standard that satisfies activists’ key concerns and that most corporations can reach while remaining competitive.

          The development of codes of conduct and certification systems accelerated when many businesses recognized that if a certification system was being built, it was better for them to be involved than remain passive.

          For instance, when the code of conduct on computer recycling was introduced in 2004, a critical issue for the activists at the Computer Take Back Campaign was whether companies would recycle all computers made after a certain date or whether they would be responsible for all the computers they ever sold (products referred to as “legacy waste”). Dell Computer Corp. was the first to begin negotiating the code of conduct with activists, and its interest in the legacy waste issue was clear: It had a distinct advantage if it could develop an industry code that saddled rivals HP (which had merged with Compaq in 1998) and IBM with responsibility for recycling all of their old machines, as well as products that would become waste in the future.

          Similarly, in the 1980s Nestle was reluctantly brought to negotiate a code of conduct on the marketing of infant formula. After a decade-long market campaign, the company’s brands were beginning to suffer and Nestle’s business focus was distracted. Suing for peace, the company pledged in negotiations with activists and the World Health Organization not to employ a number of marketing tactics, many of which it had used in the past — and many others that Nestle had never used, but which its competitors did. In essence, the company used the fact that it was brought to the negotiating table alone to some advantage.

          Almost every significant certification regime contains similar opportunities to wrest out a competitive advantage, and as a result, new movements toward a code of conduct bring most of the large corporate players to the negotiating table. As a result, corporations are beginning to write rules almost as quickly as activists raise issues. This has been clearly seen in the debate over regulation of nanotechnology; industry is working with NGOs and government to write rules proactively, before opportunistic groups use any lack of regulation as a foundation for a broad market campaign. It is also visible in the reaction of Wal-Mart, which has begun to react quickly (usually by making significant concessions) to complaints leveled against the company.

          Looking Forward

          [b]Any element of society that is as large and as powerful as multinational corporations will be subject to criticism. The question now is whether the trend will be toward continued use of market campaigns to make increasingly incremental changes, or whether activist groups will return to relying primarily on the government to regulate the behavior or corporations.[/b]

          Corporations’ heightened attention to standards and certification regimes has allowed them to enter into negotiations with activists groups with confidence that they will, to a large extent, be using the same language and factual foundations. Critically, because companies are agreeing on the fundamental terms of the debate, the truth of any allegations leveled by activists are not at issue as often as they were in the past. Corporations therefore no longer rely solely on public relations staff to resolve the issues raised by activists, but assign technical experts to lead negotiations and work closely with the activists as well.

          As a result, corporate-NGO negotiations take place on far more realistic grounds than ever before. At the same time, the changes that companies agree to come with slow deliberation. Because the corporation’s negotiator knows the technical details of the company’s products and processes, campaigns seldom end with massive concessions in which management sues for peace and only later tries to figure out how to abide by its agreement.

          In light of these shifts, corporate campaigns as we know them seem to be waning. Companies are better equipped for dealing with them; they have developed standards for measuring performance and progress, and when a controversy appears inevitable, they are acting quickly to preempt and satisfy the key demands likely to be raised by activists. With these changes emerging, it is little surprise that the professional corporate campaigners who meet at ICCR’s annual event were looking for different ways to achieve their objectives. The playing field is changing — they have changed it — but now they have to adjust.

          Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.

          Distribution and Reprints

          This report may be distributed or republished with attribution to Strategic Forecasting, Inc. at http://www.stratfor.com . For media requests, partnership opportunities, or commercial distribution or republication, please contact pr@stratfor.com.
          Newsletter Subscription

          ? Copyright 2006 Strategic Forecasting Inc. All rights reserved.

    • #3139207

      Cooling Down The Climate Scare

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Global warming is real, and caused by humans.

      The following is a cut-and-pasted story from:

      http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/060929/issues01.html?.v=1

      Environment: The country is drowning in wild alarums warning of impending doom due to global warming. Yet there has risen — from the U.S. Senate, of all places — a lone voice of rational dissent.

      While Al Gore drifts into deeper darkness on the other side of the moon, propelled by such revelations as cigarette smoking is a “significant contributor to global warming,” Sen. James Inhofe is becoming a one-man myth-wrecking crew.

      Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma, took to the Senate floor two days last week to expose the media’s role in the global warming hype. This is a man who more than three years ago called the global warming scare “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people” and has made a habit of tweaking the left-leaning environmental lobby.

      One member of the media, Miles O’Brien of CNN, responded last week to Inhofe’s criticism of the media with a piece criticizing Inhofe and challenging his arguments. If anything, it seems that O’Brien’s reply simply motivated Inhofe to continue his effort to undress the media’s complicity and bring light to the issue.

      We hope so. The “science” on global warming and the media’s propaganda campaign need to be picked apart.

      The assumptions made by gloomy theorists should be revealed for what they are: mere conjecture.

      The lies and carefully crafted implications, many of them discharged like toxic pollutants by a former vice president, deserve a thorough and lasting deconstruction.

      What the public needs — and deserves — is a credible voice to counter the sermons from Gore, on whose behalf cigarettes were distributed in 2000 to Milwaukee homeless people who were recruited by campaign volunteers to cast absentee ballots. Inhofe could be that voice.

      He’s no John the Baptist crying out in the wilderness. What he is, in fact, is a thrice-elected senator, a former member of the House and, before that, a state senator and representative.

      For those not impressed by a political background — after all, Gore, far out of proportion to his qualifications, rose to the second most powerful position on Earth — consider that Inhofe is an Army veteran and longtime pilot, and has actually worked in the private sector.

      Unlike most in the Senate, Inhofe is willing to stand on a soapbox and expose his head to his opponents’ rhetorical stones. Name another in that august body who would dare label as a hoax the premise that undergirds the day’s most trendy pop cult. Is there anyone there who would want to try to stand up to the likes of O’Brien?

      O’Brien’s biased report is not exactly the type of exposure global warming skeptics hope for, though. The goal, say the skeptics, should be to teach and inform, to provide an alternative to the flood of hyperbole and intentionally misleading thunder that’s passed off as settled science.

      There are enough scientists to fill a fleet of Humvees who can express scepticism over global warming, despite Gore’s claims that the matter has been resolved in favor of his conclusions. But none has the forum a U.S. senator can command. With rare exceptions, scientists can marshal media attention on the climate change issue only by spouting the party line that man-made emissions are causing Earth to warm. That’s the sort of stuff the press laps up like a starving dog.

      Without the wind of a compliant media at his back, Inhofe nevertheless got his message out to America, primarily through C-Span and the Drudge Report, which linked to his speeches at the Web site of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

      Among those responding to Inhofe’s first speech included a scientist and a meteorologist. Both hold views on global warming that are in line with the senator’s — which puts them at odds with the environmental lobby’s assertions of “consensus” that have been relentlessly beaten into the masses for more than a decade.

      The most important audience, though, is among the Americans who have no links to science. They’re the ones who have a lot to learn and will benefit the most from someone who has mass access to the public and is willing to challenge the widely — and often uncritically — accepted claims about climate change.

      • #3139198

        Inhofe

        by neilb@uk ·

        In reply to Cooling Down The Climate Scare

        I thought that you might give this guy up as he’s

        a) A religious flake,
        b) Bought and paid for by oil and gas companies: Inhofe has received almost $300,000 in campaign donations from oil and gas interests and nearly $180,000 from electric utilities. In the 2002 election, he received more oil and gas contributions than any senator except one.

        I could go on.

        A bit of consensus: The 2001 report by the US National Academy of Sciences, commissioned by the Bush administration, confirmed the reliability of the earlier studies by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In its opening sentences, that report stated point-blank, “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising.”

        So, that’s the fifteen years research findings of a body established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to assess the “risk of human-induced climate change” confirmed by the premier scientific body in the United states.

        But, of course, that amounts to nothing when compared with the Bible-inspired ravings of the oil companies’ top pimp.

        Maxwell! Be ashamed…

        • #3139143

          Your points a and b on Senator Inhofe

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Inhofe

          A. I suppose anyone who is a devout Christian would fall under the definition of a “religious flake” to a devout Atheist. So I’ll take your comments through the filter of your Atheism.

          B. Oklahoma is an oil state, and it’s right and proper for a Senator to not only represent those interests, but even possibly — heaven forbid — to receive campaign donations from them. For better or worse, that’s how our system works — for ALL Senators.

          C. Oh, never-mind. You didn’t go on.

          Even in the tripe posted by the tripe-hound, deepsand, it eluded to the fact that the issue is driven by the media and politicians, not the scientific community, per se, which falls in line with my biggest objection.

          Oil and coal are at issue. Go ahead, all you environmental nut-cases. Just do it! Just develop an alternative to oil driven vehicles, market those vehicles, and not only solve “your problem”, but put those conniving oil barons out of business by competing with them . And why do these same environmental nut-cases continually block attempted alternatives to coal, such as nuclear and wind?

          Why? BECAUSE IT’S A POLITICAL ISSUE, NOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE!

          As long as you people use this issue as political leverage, it’s YOUR motives that are in question, not the ones resisting. Why can’t you understand that?

          P.S. I find it interesting that you continually trash President Bush and his administration, except in this one case where you find support for your issue. What happened to automatically discrediting and dismissing “religious nut-cases”? Neil! Be ashamed!

        • #3139129

          Bush and shame

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Your points a and b on Senator Inhofe

          I always give credit where credit is due. There just happen to be very few occasions in these discussions where I feel Bush is worthy of credit. Most of my serious anti-Bush feelings have been vented over Iraq. I see no reason to change [b]that[/b] view!

          “Religious flake”. My point – in an earlier post – was that Inhofe is not just religious but is an “End Times” fundamentalist. This flavour of Christian has a proven track record of basing their actions on the belief that The Apocalypse is imminent and that long-term planning is therefore a waste of time.

          The fact that Inhofe is a religious flake [b]and[/b] is at every level bought and paid for by the Oil and Gas industries and yet is set as Chairman of The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is something that we foreigners have trouble getting our heads round. It may be the “way that you do it” but it doesn’t seem particularly rational! It just makes it [b]far[/b] more political than it needs to be.

          To be honest, after a bit of Googling around Senator Inhofe, I found myself laughing out loud.

          The climate debate is nowhere near as political in the UK as it is in the US. We [b]do[/b] have a consensus. And our scientists are equally as competent as yours.

        • #3139082

          At best, being a Senator merely means that …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Your points a and b on Senator Inhofe

          you convinced a sufficient number of people to [b]not[/b] vote for your opponent(s); at worst, that you had the means to buy the office.

          It is you who should be ashamed of your persistent intellectual dishonesty.

        • #2516335

          Maxwell, at this point you have lost the argument

          by ralphclark ·

          In reply to Your points a and b on Senator Inhofe

          Utterly and completely. Mainly thanks to deepsand who called your bluff.

          1. The scientific community are shown to have reached a solid consensus on global warming and climate change.
          2. Most of industry capitulated two years ago.
          3. Only the oil industry still pretends the question hasn’t been settled, since the necessary reduction in oil consumption must hurt their profits.
          4. The only person you can find to champion the head-in-sand position is the oil industry’s paid shill. And all he can come up with is empty rhetoric.

          Game over, dude.

      • #3139197

        In some ways I agree

        by tony hopkinson ·

        In reply to Cooling Down The Climate Scare

        The media and political hype around the issue is not helping.
        Whether it’s the radicals and reformists trying to scare people into being environmentally friendly, or the conservatives trying desperately to keep their status quo.

        Why have these tactics been resorted to?. Because both sides are scared by their ignorance.

        You’re an intelligent bloke, can you say hand on heart that there’s no chance at all of us impacting our climate, never mind the whole environment.

        No one is saying you have to go out and hug a tree, adopt environmentally friendly policies as good business if you want.

        In the UK. The big retail chains are now selling solar panels and wind turbines. ?1500 a pop, theoretically they’ll cut energy use off the national grid by 30% for a household.

        At the moment out of something like 30 million houses in the UK they think about 82,000 have the technology. So there’s a potential ?450 billion to aim at, and 30% isn’t too hard to improve on either.
        That’s just the UK, your energy is cheaper though rising in cost, but the market is HUGE.

        It’s cheap because it’s self financing for the customer, there’s a decent profit to be made, the market is enormous and you need a sizable service industry to support it.

        A capitalist’s wet dream if your marketing is good, you can even do a deal with a finance company for the initial capital outlay to ease the sales.

        Wish I’d have thought of it.

        Environmentally friendly is only anti-capitalist, if you want it to be.

        Have a cleaner environment, make money and mitigate the possible danger of human caused global warming. How can you argue against it ?

        A fun thought may be all the scare tactics is a way to beef up the market potential so someone can make a killing.

        • #3139142

          Tony, it’s really quite simple

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to In some ways I agree

          I’ve said it dozens of times in these “global warming” threads. There are tens of millions (or perhaps hundreds of millions) of you global warming advocates who want some sort of change. WELL CHANGE! JUST DO IT!

          Oil and coal are at issue. Go ahead, all you environmental nut-cases. Just do it! Just develop an alternative to oil driven vehicles, market those vehicles, and not only solve “your problem”, but put those conniving oil barons out of business by competing with them . And why do these same environmental nut-cases continually block attempted alternatives to coal, such as nuclear and wind?

          As long as you people use this issue as political leverage, it’s YOUR motives that are in question, not the ones resisting. Why can’t you understand that?

          By the way, Tony, I concede that “environmentally friendly is not anti-capitalist”, and I’ve even suggested as much myself. I’m an environmentally friendly advocate — but by personal choice, not by political force or coercion. And the longer you people try to force and coerce, and the longer you, yourselves, DO NOTHING, the more resistant I will be, and the more I will seriously question your own motives.

        • #3139118

          “environmentally friendly” ???

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Tony, it’s really quite simple

          Try convincing the Polar Bears of that.

        • #3138988

          Are you having a laugh ?

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Tony, it’s really quite simple

          I posted my reasoning in
          “I don’t. maybe I’m not a global warming advocate”

          rebuttals from ‘no global warming advocates’ have been conspicuously absent.
          If you went back and read it then you’d know how fatuous I found this response

          I have ONE motive, I want my grandchildren to be able to stand under a tree, breathe the air and survive long enough to have children of their own.
          Politics should go where the sun doesn’t shine not my family.

          If that motive means you have to rework your investment folio, so be it.

          Possibly because you take such an extreme position yourself, you see all the oposition as at the other end of the spectrum. I would never block a wind farm. In fact I might have one in my back yard if I can get planning permission and the finance, it’s windy enough up here for it.

          In the UK we call wind farm opponents who claim to be eco-friendly NIMBies not in my backyard. Strangely enough it’s a good name for people who like nuclear fission but don’t want to live near where they dump the waste.

          Nuclear power is a whole different ball game, you want to research and set up fusion plants, micro black holes or whatever fine. I’m eco-friendly though, so nuclear fission is out unless we put the plants in space.

          Don’t try and convince me how safe it is. Keeping the waste for forty years in a tank before you can vitrify it, dump it miles down on the sea bed in a form that will last 200,000 years yet still sterilises the entire area, doesn’t sound all that safe to me. Maybe I’m not seeing the big picture eh?

        • #3138978

          I think he’s just out-to-lunch.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Are you having a laugh ?

          Funny, isn’t it, how many people there are in the world who have trouble dealing with substantive rebutalls to their positions. It’s as if they can’t understand why anyone would not agree with them.

          Re. windmill farms, one does need to be fully cognizant of [b]all[/b] the environmental impacts. For example, it’s an observed fact that many birds end of being the equivalent of road-kill owing to their being struck by the blades. Here, in Pennsylvania, we’ve a problem convincing some that placing them atop certain mountains is a very bad idea, as the very winds which are suitable for windmills are also those which make for this area being a spectacular fly zone for soaring birds in general, and birds of prey in particular. In fact, the winds here are so great for soaring, that glider pilots seeking flights with the longest durations and greatest distances launch from here.

          As for nuclear energy, breeder reactors, which would have replaced the conventional ones now in use, were very near to being to being viable when the Three Mile Island scare hit, with the result that Congress killed the research, leaving us stuck with 50 year old technology.

        • #3140206

          An unfriendly shade of green

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Are you having a laugh ?

          Wind farms aren’t the answer to our problems, they are simply one of the simplest and cheapest forms of renewable to implement.

          I don’t even feel renewables as they are currently defined are a long term solution.

          We need to look at fusion, at space based generation, at super tech possibilities like unipoles, micro holes.

          Even if we had these now we still have massive problems, increased longevity, medical advances that increase potential fertility coupled with a steadily growing population with a steadlty growing requirement for more and more energy.

          Long term solutions, we should be talking in millenia not time in office.

          The only difference between fission and fossil is the polution is more localised and therefore more concentrated. I don’t want to be in a position where I have to choose between coughing or glowing in the dark. Calling fission renewable is a bad joke anyway, the real financial cost keeps getting hidden.

          Decomissioning alone cost billions, who pays for it. In the UK, the tax payer!. That’s just plain wrong.

      • #3139147

        There is no dark side of the moon!

        by deepsand ·

        In reply to Cooling Down The Climate Scare

        And, you’re still ignoring the fact the the scientific community as a whole tkes a stand counter to your position; and, the the good Senator is [b]not[/b] a scientist.

        Again, I refer you to

        http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=200777&messageID=2102173

        and

        http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=200777&messageID=2102142 .

        If you’re going to persist in ignoring facts that counter your position, then you have nothing to offer but mere obfuscation.

        • #3139140

          You’ve already proven. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to There is no dark side of the moon!

          ….that you’re a total imbecile. You only behave like those annoying gnats we swipe away ……. swipe …… swipe ……. swipe …….

        • #3139125

          Non responsive, as usual.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to You’ve already proven. . . .

          Why would I expect better?

        • #3139104

          Because you’re simply not worthy. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Non responsive, as usual.

          …of either my time or serious consideration.

        • #3139083

          That’s a coward’s escape.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Because you’re simply not worthy. . . .

          The fact is, you’ve no logical ground for your position, so that you are forced to resort to obfuscation and [i]ad hominem[/i] retorts in order to avoid capitulation.

          In that respect, you are no different from ippirate in the EL discussion.

        • #3141313

          Like the recent IT bubble…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Non responsive, as usual.

          “Why would I expect better?”

          Irrational exuberance, or just irrational optimism. Or simple charity.

        • #3141304

          Charity must be earned.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Like the recent IT bubble…

          One earns charity by not knowingly and willingly contributing to one’s plight.

          Deliberate stupidity deserves nothing but to be held up to scorn and public ridicule.

    • #3139137

      “…arguments are so weak that they are pathetic…”

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Global warming is real, and caused by humans.

      .
      http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

      Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.”

      But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of “climate change skeptics” who disagree with the “vast majority of scientists” Gore cites?

      No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. “Climate experts” is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore’s “majority of scientists” think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

      Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. “While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change,” explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. “They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies.”

      This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn’t make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

      So we have a smaller fraction.

      But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. “These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios,” asserts Ball. “Since modelers concede computer outputs are not “predictions” but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts.”

      We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

      Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

      Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, “There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years.” Patterson asked the committee, “On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming?”

      Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and “hundreds of other studies” reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth’s temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

      Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore’s dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. “The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier,” says Winterhalter. “In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form.”

      Dr. Wibj?rn Karl?n, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, “Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems.”

      But Karl?n clarifies that the ‘mass balance’ of Antarctica is positive – more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the ‘calving’ of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, “their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year – not much of an effect,” Karl?n concludes.

      The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

      Gore tells us in the film, “Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap.” This is misleading, according to Ball: “The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology.”

      Karl?n explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. “For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years,” says Karl?n

      Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, “There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001.”

      Concerning Gore’s beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, “Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance.”

      Gore’s point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. “It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records,” he says. “The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual.”

      Carter does not pull his punches about Gore’s activism, “The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science.”

      In April sixty of the world’s leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what’s at stake – either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents – it seems like a reasonable request.

    • #3138959
      Avatar photo

      Well I wasn’t going to add any more here but

      by hal 9000 ·

      In reply to Global warming is real, and caused by humans.

      I picked this up today and thought it interesting.

      [b]Flies feel the heat[/b]

      Fruit Flies on three contents have independently evolved identical genetic changes within just 2 decades – and they?ve almost certainly done it to cope with Global Warming.

      ?Global warming is leaving its imprint on genes.? says Raymond Huey of the University of Washington in Seattle, a member of the team that made the discovery. ?For this to happen in such a short time in so many parts of the wold is very disturbing.

      The researchers analyzed DNA from Drosophilla subobscura from 26 different sites in Europe, South America and North America. They where looking for particular chromosomal changes that tally with latitude and by implication , with ambient temperature.

      The Result? Changes once found only at warmer latitudes have spread as temperatures have risen further away from the equator {Science, DOI:10.1126/science.1131002}.

      [i]New Scientist 9 September 2006 page 19[/i]

      And to those who may believe that Man has no impact on anything at all I found this very interesting.

      [b]Weeds shall Inherit the Earth[/b]

      Huge numbers of species are doomed to extinction, no matter what we do, says Stephen M. Meyer. We need to think ahead to a very different world.

      For more than a decade, Scientists have been warning of an impending collapse of global biodiversity – the sixth great extinction. Adverting this massive species loss and the resulting pauperization of ecosystems demands immediate action, they argue.

      What they don?t realise is that this ?extinction crisis? is no more preventable than previous extinctions caused by asteroid impacts or the detonation of tens of thousands of volcanoes. In the century ahead upwards of half of all species will functionally, if not literally vanish. In this respect, the crisis is over.

      The cause of the sixth extinction is well known: human selection [what might be termed as unintelligent design] is systematically replacing natural selection as the engine of evolution. ?Weedy Species? [those organisms that thrive on the disturbances that we create] are experiencing rapid population growth, accelerating dispersal and maybe augmented speciation – the development of additional species from an existing one. The great many ?relic species? – those not equipped to live alongside us – are being shoved to the margins of existence. Many of these have become ?ghost species?: they are on the brink of extinction. The net effect is global homogenisation and ecosystem simplification – the end of the wild.

      Human selection is particularly insidious for 2 reasons. First it is driven by an otherwise innocuous aspirations, actions and choices of ordinary people pursuing a better life. You might wonder how my taste for Swordfish for tonight?s dinner could affect the tropic balance of sea life. Let alone drive the species to the brink of extinction. Yet hundreds of published studies document how the cumulative pressure of over 6 billion people systematically transforms the landscape, alters global biogeochemical processes, demolishes geophysical barries thereby facilitating the free flow of alien species, consumes natural resources beyond their capacity for regeneration, and motivates us to intentionally eliminate those organisms we deem inconvenient. For weedy species, such as the English house sparrow and the Asian Tiger Mosquito, we are building paradise. For relics and ghosts like the Polar Bear and the Chilean monkey puzzle tree, the new world is a graveyard.

      Second the very actions we take to forestall the ?extinctions crisis? and blunt the force of human selection serve to amplify its distorting effects. Species-based regulatory regimes such as the Endangered Species Act in the US preferentially allocate protective resources to organisms that are charismatic, symbolically important, and do not pose a serrious serious social or economic conflicts. Conservation goals are set by social carrying capacity – what people will tolerate – rather than what is of evolutionary value.

      Human considerations are equally decisive in the design and operation of bio-reserves and refuges, which become agents of human selection. Bio-reserves are isolated islands of landscape, or marine-scape, embedded in a sea of human activity – remnants of what were once expansive ecosystems. Often a country?s last undeveloped places, these areas are ripe for economic development, natural resource exploitation and homesteading, as in Mexico?s Montes Azules Biosphere Reserve, where 25% of jungle habitat has disappeared. As human activity seeps in, weedy species crowd out relics and ghosts. The resulting balance among the menagerie of what remains is neither ecological nor self sustaining. Similarly, experiments in sustainable development are fundamentally about human needs. Ecosystem tolerance is a residual concern.

      Restoring natural selection to its dominant place – bringing back ?the wild? – requires unprecedented changes to human aspirations and societal organisation. Lacking a global spiritual epiphany of unimaginable proportions, this is simply not possible in the world as it is now. The grossly mistaken belief that we can halt – if not reverse – the ongoing extinction fuels our preoccupation with saving relics and ghosts and steers us further away from preservation strategies based on ecological and evolutionary value.

      We need a new approach. We must turn our attention to the new assemblages of organisms that are emerging as a result of ?Unintelligent design?. The huge loss in global biomass caused by previous great extinctions will not happen this time; the Earth will continue to teem with life as the expansion of weedy species occurs simultaneously with the decline of relics and ghosts. Net bio-mass might actually increase. What will change is the complexity of how life is organised and how the biotic and abiotic worlds interact. Understanding and engaging this transformation should be the focus of conversation efforts in the years ahead.

      [i]New Scientist 9 September 2006 Page 21[/i]

      If man kind can have such a devastating impact on the various species living what’s so hard to believe that Humans can have an adverse impact upon the Atmosphere as well?

      Col

      • #3140213

        And, let’s not forget that there are those who simply do not care.

        by deepsand ·

        In reply to Well I wasn’t going to add any more here but

        Most dangerous of all are those who see the destruction of all that makes Earth such a wonderous place as being a justifiable and reasonable price to pay for the “advancement” of mankind.

      • #3138843

        If yiou don’t belive in God though, this shouldn’t worry you.

        by Anonymous ·

        In reply to Well I wasn’t going to add any more here but

        It’s all part of the evolutionary process, we wipe ourselves out and the Cockroaches begin the next great evolutionary transformation. 😉

        (*sorry, this was really an entirely pointless quip*)

      • #3138841

        A more serious response

        by Anonymous ·

        In reply to Well I wasn’t going to add any more here but

        That is quite interesting. Thanks for sharing. I’ve seen a fair amount of ‘evidence’ for and against Global Warming, and human involvement in said event, I can’t say I am firmly on one side of the fence or the other (leaning towards for), but it seems to me, whether you belive it or not, there is no doubt that we humans are a key variable int he ecosystem equation, and uniqe from other species in that we have the ability to consciously do something about it. Doesn’t common sense suggest that we should be actively looking for better, cleaner, more efficient, and more renewable sources of energy? Doesn’t it just make basic sense that we should try to reduce the amount of unrecycleable waste we create? If you had to personally store are your waste on your piece of property, I suspect you would be highly motivated to reduce your waste output.

        Hmmm.. there’s an idea, charge people by the pound for waste disposal, a significant higher rate for unrecyclable/unrecycled waste, a much lower rate for recycled. Then it becomes an economic exercise, which seems to be everyone’s favorite motivator.

        • #3138781

          Many communities already do precisely that.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to A more serious response

          It is common, here in the east coast, for municipalities to charge a fee for the collection of trash; some use a flat annual fee, based on the average annual weight per household, while others charge for the actual weight collected from each household.

          Materials that are collected for recycling, such as glass, aluminum & steel containers, paper, and selected plastics, are collected at no fee, with the revenues realized from the sale of such going into the community coffers.

          Those items which contain heavy metals and other toxic materials, such as electronics, are collected at an additional fee specific to the size and type of item.

        • #3138766
          Avatar photo

          Society changes as well

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Many communities already do precisely that.

          In the days of my grandfather’s [b]Bugger All[/b] was ever thrown out as rubbish. Everything was reused. Be it the Tea Can that was used for something else or food scraps used to feed the animals or Compost Heap so he could grow better crops or at the very least the House Hold Veggie Patch was always well cared for.

          Then today places like Japan’s idea of being environmentally conscientious is to eat at fast food places off disposable plates with plastic knives & forks that way there is no cleaning to do afterwards and everything ends up in the local Land Fill.

          We’ve made some major advances but we’ve also taken quite a few wrong turns in our approach to life.

          The idea of everything being Disposable or Planed Obsolesce isn’t one of the better ideas either.

          Col

        • #3281022

          China recently raised quite a ruckus with the locals …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Society changes as well

          by banning disposable wooden chop sticks.

          It seems the powers that be finally noticed that their forests were rapidly vanishing.

        • #3280991

          Environmentalism is no “conspiracy”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to China recently raised quite a ruckus with the locals …

          It’s easy to find wingnuts who claim that environmentalism is a scheme to defraud productive people of the value we’ve earned, but the fact is that the human population of Earth has increased by several orders of magnitude in a period that is [b]VERY[/b] short compared to the time scales of “natural” climate changes, and it would be [b]INSANE[/b] to assume that such a rapid increase, and the technological advances that have both made that increase possible, and resulted from that increase, will have [b]NO[/b] deleterious side effects.

        • #3281133

          Im my county in the UK

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to A more serious response

          We have a bin for paper, glass, metal, compostible and the rest. Toxic materials must dumped in a controlled fashion, large items paid for.

          The biggest cost in recycling is sorting, getting the producers of the waste to do it for you with the minimal amount they have is simple and very cost effective. Even with the extra collection cycles and bins etc, still paid for it self easily.

          When you put the aluminium out you have to guard it though, otherwise gangs steal it and take it to the scrappy themselves.

          But the sorting is the important bit.

        • #3281021

          Here, too, aluminum is gold to the trash pickers.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Im my county in the UK

          Although, they generally pass by the containers of beverage cans, and go for the larger items, such as lawn and patio furniture, window screens, lawn mowers, etc..

    • #3140335

      Speaking of Science Magazine. . . . . .

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Global warming is real, and caused by humans.

      …What did that publication warn us about in 1976? Global COOLING perhaps? And the looming “little ice age”?

      If that publication is so credible, tell us what became of that warning.

      And let’s project ourselves to 2036. I wonder if another “Maxwell Edison” will be asking some other fear-monger the same kind of question.

      • #3140002

        Then you dispute the validity of every article in Science, on the basis…

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Speaking of Science Magazine. . . . . .

        of this one error, which you attribute to [i]Science[/i] without citing the issue & page? The practice of science does not operate on unsupported assertions. If you wish to undermine the authority of the most authoritative sources of science research, you’re going to have to get specific: when exactly did [i]Science[/i] warn us about “Global COOLING”? Who wrote the article? What data were used to support that assertion in that article, and [b]how widely was that assertion ever accepted by the scientific community?[/b] The bottom line: you cannot blame scientific researchers for the failure of “journalists” to accurately convey the conclusions of science, in the vocabulary of the masses.

        No insult to “the masses” is intended nor implied: there are plenty of topics I don’t know in enough detail to understand highly technical discussions. Art, for example, is “like Greek to me”, except that I at least can identify most letters of the Greek alphabet! So, discussions of post-modernism vs. surrealism are as near meaningless to me as discussions of chemistry and thermodynamics seem to be to the writers of the [i]New York Times[/i], [i]Newsweek[/i], etc. But, when I read an article about art, I would at least [b]expect[/b] that if a “journalist” uses the word “paintbrush”, it would describe something very similar to what I know a “paintbrush” to be. Hopefully, this gives a meaningful indication of how badly I believe the popular media have miscommunicated the [b]relevant[/b] facts about global warming, and the conclusions that may be reasonably inferred from those facts, and how those inferrences are, in fact, based on rigorous logic, and facts establised [b]within a sufficiently small margin of uncertainty[/b] to state, with confidence, that global warming [b]is[/b] happening, and that it [b]is[/b] caused by human activity. That statement is based [b]entirely[/b] on peer-reviewed scientific research, found by peers to be accurate.

        My premise with regard to politics is that personal lifestyle choices, and policy decisions, are a [b]separate[/b] issue, to be discussed on the basis of these facts, and that policy preferences cannot change the laws of chemistry & thermal physics.

        • #3141372

          You asked the same question I did!

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Then you dispute the validity of every article in Science, on the basis…

          “…how widely was that assertion ever accepted by the scientific community?”

          That’s exactly what I asked about this current assertion, to which you relied on the validity of Science Magazine!

          Talk about an exercise in circular logic, you take the cake on this one — whether the cake is cooled or warmed!

        • #3141319

          Except that I cited my source.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to You asked the same question I did!

          You expect me to take on faith that the past predictions of global cooling are comparable to the present [b]results[/b] showing that global warming [b]is occurring[/b]. That is not the case, nor the cake, which I’m not interested in taking. You’re welcome to keep it.

        • #3141294

          As usual, the logical flaw is one of your own making.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to You asked the same question I did!

          Do you not know the difference between a [b]prediction[/b] and [b]fact[/b]?

          Global cooling, as sited by you, was the former; the present observable warming, the latter.

          Perhaps you thought us to dim witted to notice your attempt at slight of hand.

          Now who has cake on their face?

      • #3141302

        Well, if one must be eternally infallible to be heeded, …

        by deepsand ·

        In reply to Speaking of Science Magazine. . . . . .

        why are you still speaking?

        One again, where, when and as convenient, you’ve arbitrarily chosen a standard that suits your own purposes.

        Are there no limits to your intellectual dishonesty?

      • #3141081

        Wow good argument !

        by tony hopkinson ·

        In reply to Speaking of Science Magazine. . . . . .

        No really.

        I’m mean inarguably right.

        Can’t possibly win an argument with a debating champion like yourself on top form with logic like that, I give up.

        No really.

        • #3138791

          Don’t do that.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Wow good argument !

          With his finely honed analytical skills, and his unsurpassed grasp of the facts, he’s likely to take that to mean that you really do concede!

          Then he’ll be lording it over all of us.

        • #3138753

          Desperate for a response that didn’t insult

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Don’t do that.

          my intelligence

        • #3281018

          Great expectations oft times require infinite patience.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Desperate for a response that didn’t insult

          Do you think that He will once more grace us with his presence here?

        • #3280180

          No, I think he knows the arguments

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Great expectations oft times require infinite patience.

          he’s been presenting on the issue for as long as I’ve been here have been proved false both scientifically and ethically.

          Hence the desperation tactics, avoidance of serious debate, rational investigation of the real issues and severe emotional clouding of whatever judgement remains to him on this matter.

          Personally I think his entire ‘reasoning’ comes from his perception that being eco-friendly is an attack on standard business practices therefore left wing therefore bad.
          Until he can examine his own motivation and follow the train of this logic to the underlying fallacious assumptions, he can never be a useful contributor on the real issues.

          There are some as well, the major loons like the luddite types who oppose anything simply because it was sponsored by the free market are just as blind as he is.

          Someone of Maxwell’s ilk should know something about that actually, austerity measures are one of their favourite rescue packages for the thing they think important.

        • #3282011

          Irrational man.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to No, I think he knows the arguments

          The never ending struggle between man’s inseparable rational and irrational selves is the basis of life itself, without which we would have no imigination, and therefore neither art nor exploration.

          Maintaining that delicate balance between the 2 is, at best, an ongoing and arduous task. For some, it is Herculean; for others, Sisyphian.

          Max appears to one of the many who resolve their inner conflict by declaring the irrational the victor by default in those instances when the challenge raised by the rational proves too threatening to deeply held beliefs.

          In this respect he differs not from those who vigorously deny and vehemently deride facts that assail their deeply held religious belifs.

        • #3282220

          deepsand: I disagree, only with P1

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to No, I think he knows the arguments

          “The never ending struggle between man’s inseparable rational and irrational selves is the basis of life itself, without which we would have no imigination, and therefore neither art nor exploration.”

          The urge to create (“imagination”) and to cure one’s own ignorance (“exploration”) are both attributes of the rational faculty, not of the reflexes, including emotion.

        • #3281892

          Why, for example, would logic make us like music, or …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to No, I think he knows the arguments

          enjoy a beautiful sunset, or like the smell of lilacs?

          Why, if grounded in logic, is fragrence the most powerful evocator of memories & past felt emotions, followed by music?

          And, why do all the philosophers and psychologists whose works I’ve read (no, do not ask me for quotations; remembering names is my weak suit) seem to support my statement?

        • #3281854

          Those reactions are learned.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to No, I think he knows the arguments

          The fact that certain reactions are so deeply incorporated into the psyche that they are nearly automatic does not [b]logically imply[/b] that they are [b]contrary[/b] to logic.

          “enjoy a beautiful sunset, or like the smell of lilacs?

          Why, if grounded in logic, is fragrence the most powerful evocator of memories & past felt emotions, followed by music?

          And, why do all the philosophers and psychologists whose works I’ve read (no, do not ask me for quotations; remembering names is my weak suit) seem to support my statement?”

          I won’t ask for quotations. Undoubtedly we’ve read several of the same ones. Emotions frequently operate more quickly than conscious calculation, but when they operate [b]contrary[/b] to conscious calculation, insanity or cognitive dissonance is the prognosis. So, psychologists tend to contradict their own assertions, and should thus be dismissed out of hand. Philosophers may be taken seriously – some of them, at least, though we needn’t name names.

        • #3281691

          But, that still begs the question.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to No, I think he knows the arguments

          That an emotion may not be illogical does not, does not mean that such must of necessity be borne of logic; i.e., [i]not illogical[/ib] is [b]not[/b] the same as [i]logical[/i].

          Furthermore, observations of other animals, including those close to use on the evolutionary tree, clearly show that logical thought is not required for the existence of emotions.

        • #3280845

          deepsand: my point of disagreement

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to No, I think he knows the arguments

          “The never ending struggle between man’s inseparable rational and irrational selves is the basis of life itself, without which we would have no imigination, and therefore neither art nor exploration.”

          If you meant that the source of imagination, art & exploration, is an internal struggle and not irrationality itself, then I misunderstood & do not disagree at all. Back to global warming?

        • #3221254

          Clarification & Relevancy

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to No, I think he knows the arguments

          Preface: Note that (ir)rational and (il)logical are [b]not[/b] interchangeable terms.

          1) It is our irrational self that drives us; our rational self controls said such, as best it can.

          2) Our rational self is not always capable of controlling the irrational.

          3) Max’s stand re. global warming, and mans’ role in such, serves to illustrate the conflict between the rational and irrational selves. In his case, his beliefs, born of the irrational, are so strongly felt that he rejects facts which run contrary to such; i.e., his irrational self trumps his rational self.

          We observe the same behavior in many who hold strongly felt regigious beliefs. These we cannot change by the mere presentation of facts and logical arguments; only personal epiphanies, of a nature that forces them to deeply question their beliefs, will suffice to effect such change.

    • #3138822

      It was much warmer …

      by too old for it ·

      In reply to Global warming is real, and caused by humans.

      … back before the present ice age, which we are just now coming out of.

      Trust me, it’s cow farts if anything.

      • #3138803

        True, but irrelevant

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to It was much warmer …

        Humans were unable to have any impact beyond the range we could throw a spear, “back before the present ice age, which we are just now coming out of.” Today, we have much more power than in any previous period, to make global changes. Those changes can be improvements, if we choose to act deliberately, with the results of our actions in mind, or they can be detrimental, if we choose to act on the range of the moment. It’s that simple.

        “Trust me, it’s cow farts if anything.”

        Some might find that funny, but it isn’t even ironic. Cow flatulence [b]is[/b] another major source of CO2 emissions, and the average American diet includes far more than a healthy amount of beef. Cattle overpopulation is killing us at least two ways, and I haven’t even started describing the damage done to fish in streams near cow pastures. Maybe some of you have heard about the recent spinach problem, though, and the direct link to nearby cattle who are fed straw instead of their natural diet of grass? I’m not saying that cows themselves are evil, but having too many of them around is certainly harming the environment, in terms of its capacity to support healthy humans.

        • #3138786

          Straw is a grass.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to True, but irrelevant

          It’s the dried remains os the stalks of various grasses.

          A cow’s normal diet includes many plants, including alfalfa, timothy and clover, which are the most common plants harvested as hay. If suitably cut, they will also eat corn stalks and the like, which are commonly stored as silage.

          The problem that you allude to is that some farmers are now using whole grains, which is the fruit [i]only[/i] of various grasses.

        • #3138782

          It’s possible I meant hay.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Straw is a grass.

          I have never worked on, or anywhere near, a farm, and heard this factoid on the radio while puttering around the house. What I am certain that I remember is that the common diet of industrial-scale beef cattle is not what their digestive system evolved to digest, and leads to an unnatural excess of poisonous E. coli bacteria. Apologies for all inaccuracies.

        • #3138779

          Hay is fine; it’s the grains that are a problem.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to It’s possible I meant hay.

          Grain feed cows have a ph level in their digestive tracts that is sufficiently different from those fed whole grasses so as to favor specific entero-bacteria that are more hostile to humans if consumed.

          The human gut, like all animals, contains a myriad species of bacteria, which are essential to our digestive system’s ability to extract nutients from our food. [i]Escherichia coli[/i] (E. coli) is a particularly common one found in all humans.

          However, simply because any bacterium is found naturally in the gut does not mean that it is benign when introduced into other bodily systems. Take E. coli from your gut, swallow it, and the upper GI tract views it as an invader!

          Furthermore, like all bacteria, E. coli has many variations, some of which evoke little or no immune response, while others can be quite life threatening to humans. The E. coli produced by grain fed cows are an example of the latter.

        • #2592296

          methane is a worse offender…

          by jcitizen ·

          In reply to True, but irrelevant

          I understand that methane is more a greenhouse gas offender that CO2. With my experience in the natural gas industry I know that mining activity probably releases a tremendous about of this into the atmosphere. Earthquakes also release large amounts from under the ocean especially.

          Makes me wonder if extracting methane from the atmosphere and/or burning it would be more affective than focusing on CO2. Anyone have any links out there to compare?

        • #2592154

          While current tropospheric concentrations of CH4 are approx. 4-5 times …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to methane is a worse offender…

          those of CO2, its contribution to radiative forcing is less than one-third that of CO2. Furthermore, CO2’s atmoshperic lifetime is roughly 20-40 times that of CH4. For data, see
          http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html
          and
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gases .

          As for the disposal of CH4 via combustion, given that the products of such are H2O & CO2, which have longer lifetimes & cause more pronounced increases in radiative forcing than CH4, such disposal of CH4 would clearly result in undesirable consequences.

          As you yourself earlier noted, beware the Law of Unintended Consequences.

        • #2590764

          GWP – My new catch phrase,,,

          by jcitizen ·

          In reply to While current tropospheric concentrations of CH4 are approx. 4-5 times …

          Or should I say acronym? Good links deepsand – Obviously even if methane were a vigorous GHG it is just not a major player when you look at the actual affect (potential).

          I have my doubts we can get China on board with this despite the facts. Hopefully I’m wrong. If not I don’t think it is worth fighting a nuclear war over. We could always work on the entrapment options; but you won’t get the tree huggers on board with that.

          Desiccated trees in drought areas should be cut down instead of allowing them to burn. And when wet periods return, then growing trees will trap more carbon than a plant that just sits there and breathes. All forestry and animal conservation practices would be observed, within reason, of course.
          I don’t see much “reasoning” going on in the popular debate, unfortunately.

        • #2592539

          It’s all such a delicate balance.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to GWP – My new catch phrase,,,

          At one end are those habitats where dense populations of trees promote the growth of other trees, shrubs and plants which do not thrive well in open & well sunlit environs. At the other are those, such as certain pines, which require the heat & ash causes by their burning for the release & germination of their seeds.

          As for zealots, one side maintains that no remedy can justify the cost, while the other insists that any remedy is better than none at all. It’s “do nothing” vs “do something, anything.”

          In re. China, they are now actively working on remediating their environs; but, to what exent such will prove to be little more than windowdressing for the 2008 Summer Olympics remains to to seen.

          For the “green” zealots’ part, it is encouraging to note that many have revisited their position re. nuclear energy, and concluded that a continued opposition to such is no longer compatible with the larger problem of global warming.

        • #2592498

          Agreed: that’s a necessary step to considering complexity, and tradeoffs.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to It’s all such a delicate balance.

          [i]For the “green” zealots’ part, it is encouraging to note that many have revisited their position re. nuclear energy, and concluded that a continued opposition to such is no longer compatible with the larger problem of global warming.[/i]

        • #2591160

          No reason not to form a coalition now…

          by jcitizen ·

          In reply to It’s all such a delicate balance.

          Never before has there ever been a greater need to form a coalition from all camps on this issue. And I see evidence that this is indeed happening.

          As posted earlier: for me, energy independence is reason enough to go to renewable fuels. We may have to rely on coal in the short term for a while; but it is a lot easier to clean up centrally located generating plants than millions of tailpipes.

          To me cost is not as much an issue when you see the tremendous costs from the damage that global warming will incur.

        • #2582436

          Such symbiotic relationships began evidencing themselves …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to It’s all such a delicate balance.

          at least 2 yrears ago. For example, many metro areas have energy co-ops which serve to both foster the development of alternative energy sources and bring together the buyers and sellers of such energy. The result of this is that there are now a number of independent providers of “green” electricity, and several major utility companys, having recognized the demand for such, are now offering such.

          In addition to an increasing demand for “green” electricity, the number of entrepreneurs offering bio-diesel fuels, made from, for example, the waste greases and oils of food purveyors, is rapidly increasing, aided in great part by the co-ops.

          Given that the largest consumers of energy are businesses, and that such already have a keen eye turned toward reducing their costs for such, I see no reason to believe that such trends will do anything but continue at an accelerated pace.

      • #3138789

        Only if you light them, so as to generate heat.

        by deepsand ·

        In reply to It was much warmer …

        Seriously though, past causes of the state of anything are immaterial and inconsequencial with respect to the present causes of such; their only relevance is in that they may [i]suggest[/i] possible current causes.

      • #3281126

        Indeed it was

        by tony hopkinson ·

        In reply to It was much warmer …

        There are more cows than there used to be.

        as eco friendly as I am I’d miss my steak.

        The only article I could find that stated the exact cause of the ice ages was one that suggested it was god arranging Noah’s cruise holiday. It seemed to be lacking from a scientific point of view though.

        These two were tad more scientific, but still nowhere near definitive.

        http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/chill.html

        http://culter.colorado.edu:1030/~saelias/glacier.html

        Are you arguing for the lets make a profit before we all drown scenario then ?

        • #3281017

          Why do you think I went Navy?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Indeed it was

          Per my Boy Scout training, I’m prepared.

    • #3274997

      Global warming happens every 1,500 years.

      by yardbyrd ·

      In reply to Global warming is real, and caused by humans.

      The panic spearheaded by Al Gore and empty-headed sycophantic clones is tragic because the so-called science he uses isn’t. Read “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years” for some REAL Science.

      • #3276402

        No it doesn’t.

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Global warming happens every 1,500 years.

        Show me some data. A book title isn’t an argument.

      • #3216055

        Emanuel Velikovski’s ” Worlds in Collision ” was labeled as “science” too,

        by deepsand ·

        In reply to Global warming happens every 1,500 years.

        as were countless other works. You need look no further back than to “Creation Science” for evidence of such “scientific claims.”

        For starters, let’s look at a Hudson Institute’s review of the book that you cite.

        ———————————————

        Featured Book of the Month
        Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years (Rowman and Littlefield, 276 pp., $24.95)

        The Earth?s recent warming trend isn?t a product of human activity, but rather caused by a solar-linked cycle that creates harmless, naturally warmer temperatures approximately every 1,500 years, write Dennis Avery and Fred Singer in their controversial new book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years.

        During the course of their research Avery, an agricultural economist and senior fellow at Hudson Institute, and Singer, a climate physicist, assemble considerable physical and historical evidence of the natural climate-change cycle that ranges from ancient Roman, Egyptian, and Chinese temperature records, to harvests of historic wine grapes?which are the most accurate and sensitive indicators of temperature, the authors explain. Avery and Singer also examine and analyze Vikings? tooth enamel in Greenland?s cemeteries, ice cores, seabed sediments, tree rings, fossil pollen, and cave stalagmites to document their research.

        The authors show that the science of the natural cycle runs counter to what many believe and fear will happen as a result of man-made global warming. They debunk such climate-change myths as the looming extinction of polar bears; the possibility of rising sea levels drowning New York; and famine caused by warming.

        The book is written in an accessible style, designed for both the lay person and for policy experts.

        ———————————————

        Let’s begin at the end; “[i][b]designed for[/b] both the [b]lay person and[/b] for [b]policy experts[/b][/i].” Hmmm; no mention of hard scientific data or proof here – just as is to be expected of someone who’s seeking to avoid the close scrutiny of an informed eye.

        Well, then, how about the referenced data sources? How about those “[b][i]ancient Roman, Egyptian, and Chinese temperature records[/i][/b]?” I’ll bet that those are real accurate! Please tell us how said temperatures were then measured, what the accuracy was, and how such records can be reliably translated into today’s temperature systems.

        But, surely the authors of this work must have [i]some[/i] champions. Well, of course they do, people who have not a clue as to what real science is, people such as Michael Medved and right-wing Christian Conservative groups. And, apparently, now you as well.

        To quote Albert Einstein (a [b]real scientist[/b], by the way), “[i]The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.[/i]”

    • #3218381

      Organized attacks by the sceptics.

      by deepsand ·

      In reply to Global warming is real, and caused by humans.

      State of denial

      04 November 2006
      NewScientist.com news service

      Fred Pearce

      KEVIN TRENBERTH reckons he is a marked man. He has argued that last year’s devastating Atlantic hurricane season, which spawned hurricane Katrina, was linked to global warming. For the many politicians and minority of scientists who insist there is no evidence for any such link, Trenberth’s views are unacceptable and some have called for him step down from an international panel studying climate change. “The attacks on me are clearly designed to get me fired or to resign,” says Trenberth.

      The attacks fit a familiar pattern. Sceptics have also set their sights on scientists who have spoken out about the accelerating meltdown of the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica and the thawing of the planet’s permafrost. These concerns will be addressed in the next report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the global organisation created by the UN in 1988 to assess the risks of human-induced climate change. Every time one of these assessments is released, about once every five years, some of the American scientists who have played a part in producing it become the targets of concerted attacks apparently designed to bring down their reputations and careers. At stake is the credibility of scientists who fear our planet is hurtling towards disaster and want to warn the public in the US and beyond.

      So when the next IPCC report is released in February 2007, who will be the targets and why? When New Scientist spoke to researchers on both sides of the climate divide it became clear that they are ready for a showdown. If the acrimony were to become so intense that American scientists were forced to stop helping in the preparation of IPCC reports, it could seriously dent the organisation and rob the world of some significant voices in the climate change debate.

      One of those who knows only too well what it is like to come under attack from climate change sceptics is Ben Santer of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in California. The lead author of a chapter in the 1995 IPCC report that talked for the first time about the “discernible human influence on global climate”, he was savaged by sceptics and accused of introducing this wording without consulting colleagues who had helped write the chapter. One sceptic called it the “most disturbing corruption of the peer-review process in 60 years”. Another accused him of “scientific cleansing” – at a time when the phrase “ethnic cleansing” was synonymous with genocide in Bosnia. The IPCC investigated and dismissed the allegations as baseless.

      Another scientist to suffer the ire of the sceptics was Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University in University Park. He was attacked after the IPCC assessment in 2001, which highlighted his “hockey stick” graph showing that temperatures began a rapid rise in recent decades and are now higher than at any time over the past thousand years. The sceptics accused Mann of cherry-picking his data and criticised him for refusing to disclose his statistical methods which, they claimed, biased the study to show recent warming (New Scientist, 18 March, p 40). Last year, Texas Republican Congressman Joe Barton, chair of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, ordered Mann to provide the committee with voluminous details of his working procedures, computer programs and past funding. Barton’s demands were widely condemned by fellow scientists and on Capitol Hill. “There are people who believe that if they bring down Mike Mann, they can bring down the IPCC,” said Santer at the time. Mann’s findings, which will be endorsed in the new IPCC report, have since been replicated by other studies.

      Santer says, however, that he expects attacks to continue on other fronts. “There is a strategy to single out individuals, tarnish them and try to bring the whole of the science into disrepute,” he says. “And Kevin [Trenberth] is a likely target.” Mann agrees that the scientists behind the upcoming IPCC report are in for a rough ride. “There is already an orchestrated campaign against the IPCC by climate change contrarians,” he says.

      The “contrarians” include scientists and politicians who are sceptical of the scientific evidence for climate change. Some of those who spoke to New Scientist insist that they are not planning character assassinations, and intend merely to engage in robust scientific debate, not least by challenging the IPCC’s status as the arbiter of truth on climate change.

      Many of the IPCC’s authors, some of whom asked not to be named, say this is a smokescreen. They claim there is an extensive network of lobby groups and scientists involved in making the case against the IPCC and its reports. Automobile, coal and oil companies have coordinated and funded past attacks on them, the scientists say. Sometimes this has been done through Washington lobby groups such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), whose officers include Myron Ebell, a former climate negotiator for George W. Bush’s administration. Recently, the CEI made television advertisements arguing against climate change, one of which ended with the words: “Carbon dioxide, they call it pollution, we call it life.” CEI’s past funders include ExxonMobil, General Motors and the Ford Motor Company.

      The money trail
      Some sceptical scientists are funded directly by industry. In July, The Washington Post published a leaked letter from the Intermountain Rural Electric Association (IREA), an energy company based in Colorado, that exhorted power companies to support the work of the prominent sceptic Pat Michaels of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville. Worried about the potential cost of cleaning up coal-fired power plants to reduce their CO2 emissions, IREA’s general manager, Stanley Lewandowski, wrote: “We believe that it is necessary to support the scientific community that is willing to stand up against the alarmists… In February this year, IREA alone contributed $100,000 to Dr Michaels.”

      So what is this money buying? For one, an ability to coordinate responses to the IPCC reports. Michaels told New Scientist that a flashpoint in the upcoming report could be hurricanes. Trenberth, who is the head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado, has angered the IPCC’s critics by supporting the idea of a link between global warming and the intensity of hurricanes. The sceptics insist there is no published evidence to back this up. Trenberth says he is simply putting two established facts together: “Sea-surface temperature is rising because of global warming, and high sea-surface temperatures make for more intense storms.”

      In the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, and with a US administration that has a record of hostility to concerns about climate change, Trenberth’s statements are political dynamite. “I suspect the sceptics will want to try and dismantle the argument that there is a link,” Mann says. Santer agrees: “If I was an industry-funded sceptic, I’d hit that area hard, for sure.” Trenberth himself fears the worst. “I would not be surprised if the hurricane aspect of the report is targeted, along with my own role,” he says. “But I am proud of what we have achieved.”

      One lead author of the chapter on hurricanes told New Scientist that it will include discussion of two papers published last year in Science and Nature, both of which showed that the frequency of the most intense hurricanes has increased in recent years. Even if Trenberth and his co-authors do not directly attribute this to global warming, the mere mention of these papers in the context of climate change is likely to provoke criticism.

      Trenberth’s opinions have already alienated his co-author Chris Landsea of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory in Florida. Landsea disputed Trenberth’s view, arguing that older measurements made before the era of satellite observation were not reliable enough to make the claim stick (New Scientist, 3 December 2005, p 36). When IPCC chiefs refused to censure Trenberth for his remarks directly linking last year’s hurricanes to climate change, Landsea resigned, claiming that the IPCC had been “subverted, its neutrality lost”.

      Another sensitive area is the concern that existing models of ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica massively underestimate future melting and consequent sea-level rise. “Our understanding of the dynamics of ice-sheet destruction has completely changed in the last five years,” says Richard Alley of Penn State University, a lead author of the chapter on ice sheets who expects to find himself in the firing line over this issue. “We used to think it would take 10,000 years for melting to penetrate to the bottom of the ice sheet. But now we know it can take just 10 seconds,” he says.

      The rethink has come from the discovery that when surface water from melting ice drains down though crevasses it can lubricate the join between ice and bedrock. This mechanism appears to explain the faster discharge of ice from Greenland into the Atlantic, but it has yet to be incorporated into ice-sheet models, which still assume that the limiting factor is the rate at which heat penetrates through solid ice.

      Michaels dismisses the idea of more rapid loss as “hysteria”, and has thrown down a challenge to the IPCC to justify any change to the ice-sheet models. “[The IPCC] criticise people like me for saying the models are wrong, so it’s going to be really interesting to see how they respond when their own people say the models are wrong.” Alley, however, points out that leading glaciologists mostly agree that the current generation of ice-sheet models are wanting, whereas climatologists are mostly happy with their models.

      A third focus for debate will be the way the IPCC treats recent reports of climate change disrupting the natural carbon cycle more than anticipated. This has to do with the release of large amounts of CO2 from rainforests and soils, and methane from permafrost and beneath continental shelves, possibly speeding up global warming. “These are factors not included in the current models, which may cause us to underestimate warming,” Mann says.

      Some insiders suggest that the IPCC may be more cautious in its upcoming report than it has been in the past, but this is unlikely to placate climate-change sceptics. Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado, Boulder, accuses the IPCC leadership of “seeing their role as political advocates rather than honest brokers”. And Michaels has set out to prove this (see “A taste for bad news?”).

      For the majority of climate scientists, who are convinced that global warming is a real and present danger, the most alarming outcome of this discord is that federal funding could be withdrawn from those who work on IPCC reports. Here too Trenberth may find himself caught in the headlights. The US Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee under its chairman James Inhofe has begun investigating NCAR, Trenberth’s employer. Inhofe has repeatedly written to NCAR and other agencies demanding details about financial and contractual arrangements with their employees and with federal funding agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF). In a letter to the NSF in February, Inhofe said he needed the information to help him in “researching, analyzing and understanding the science of global climate change”. Inhofe has a record of hostility to the idea of climate change, having asked on the Senate floor in July 2003: “Could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it.”

      NCAR is not commenting on Inhofe’s investigation, but many climate scientists contacted by New Scientist regard it as a tactic designed to intimidate those working on the IPCC report. “Inhofe’s actions appear to be an effort to discourage leading US scientists from being involved in international scientific assessment processes such as the IPCC,” Mann says.

      This is potentially disastrous for the IPCC. Out of 168 scientists listed as lead authors or reviewers involved in assessing the science of climate change, 38 are from the US – more than twice as many as the second-largest national grouping, the British.

      IPCC scientists who spoke to New Scientist insist they are not trying to turn science into politics or to shut down genuine debate. They do, however, worry that their conclusions might be drowned out by some politically motivated and industry-funded sceptics. “I’d hate to see hundreds of people putting years of their lives into producing a report that is then trashed by these people for political ends,” says Santer. “That is what happened in my case, and I felt very bad about it.”

      A taste for bad news?
      Pat Michaels of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, claims that climate research is biased towards pessimistic conclusions, and says he can prove it.

      Michaels has analysed publications by climate scientists in the journals Nature and Science between mid-2005 and mid-2006. He found 115 articles of which 83 said that the likely impact of the greenhouse effect was going to be worse than previously suggested, 23 saw no change and only 9 said that things were not as bad as previously thought.

      To most researchers this is solid evidence that the prognosis for the planet is worsening as new science comes in. Michaels rejects this interpretation. To have any faith in the forecasts of climatologists, he argues, “we should expect that new research should have an equal probability of being better or worse [for Earth’s climate] than previous research.”

      His explanation for what he calls “this highly skewed result” is that scientists and journal editors are more interested in bad news. “The literature is intrinsically biased,” he says. “And that means that the IPCC – which is largely a literature review process – is also biased.” Michaels aims to publish his work in February, when it is likely to distract attention from the IPCC report expected at that time.

      From issue 2576 of New Scientist magazine, 04 November 2006, page 18-21
      Close this window
      Printed on Thu Nov 02 22:55:39 GMT 2006

      • #3217201

        Lazy scientists are happy with simplistic, 7th-grade algebra model.

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Organized attacks by the sceptics.

        “Another sensitive area is the concern that existing models of ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica massively underestimate future melting and consequent sea-level rise. “Our understanding of the dynamics of ice-sheet destruction has completely changed in the last five years,” says Richard Alley of Penn State University, a lead author of the chapter on ice sheets who expects to find himself in the firing line over this issue. “We used to think it would take 10,000 years for melting to penetrate to the bottom of the ice sheet. But now we know it can take just 10 seconds,” he says.

        The rethink has come from the discovery that when surface water from melting ice drains down though crevasses it can lubricate the join between ice and bedrock. This mechanism appears to explain the faster discharge of ice from Greenland into the Atlantic, but it has yet to be incorporated into ice-sheet models, which still assume that the limiting factor is the rate at which heat penetrates through solid ice.

        Michaels dismisses the idea of more rapid loss as “hysteria”, and has thrown down a challenge to the IPCC to justify any change to the ice-sheet models. “[The IPCC] criticise people like me for saying the models are wrong, so it’s going to be really interesting to see how they respond when their own people say the models are wrong.” Alley, however, points out that leading glaciologists mostly agree that the current generation of ice-sheet models are wanting, whereas climatologists are mostly happy with their models.”

        In fact, H2O undergoes a phase change at 32F, and exhibits different physical behavior above this threshold than below it. Above 32F, water flows, and quantities including gravity, average geometrical parameters of cracks in ice sheets, and tendency of flowing water to contribute to melt along these cracks would have to be included in a thorough model. Since said complexity requires a degree of mathematical sophistication unattainable to mediocre climatologists, it should be denied, so as not to discriminate against the incompetent.

        [edit: replaced “variables” with “quantities” because the acceleration of gravity would not be treated as a variable in this model]

        • #3274550

          “Science for the Masses”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Lazy scientists are happy with simplistic, 7th-grade algebra model.

          As with the Dennis Avery and Fred Singer book cited above by greg.walker – I don’t expect he’ll be back to defend his thesis – much of what the sceptics here publicly say and/or publish is deliberately dumbed-down so as to produce a seemingly substantive statement while making it understandable and seemly reasonable to the least educated and most indiscrimating of minds.

          This very tactic has been used repeatedly throughout history to pillary countless persons, peoples, institutions, beliefs, and causes.

        • #3217035

          The free market is good because…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to “Science for the Masses”

          … people (tend to) rise (or sink) to (match) what is expected of them. (The same holds true in the marketplace of ideas.)

          Explain science to them in idiots’ terms, and they conclude that science is truly simplistic enough for idiots to comprehend. Accordingly, they act logically on the premise demonstrated to them, and cease to attempt to understand the math and logic used to derive the facts that “science beat” journalists never understood, but reported as though they did.

          [edit: in () above]

        • #3219038

          And, such comprise the target audience for the junk scientists.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to The free market is good because…

          Unfortunately, there are far more of “them” than there are of us.

        • #3218940

          Did such audience exist, before they began being targeted?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to And, such comprise the target audience for the junk scientists.

          I don’t think it possible that [i]mis[/i]-informed people can exist, without mis-informers. Of course, there will always be people who are [i]un[/i]-informed, about some things, until we all become omniscient. Being ignorant of some things is not a problem. The problem occurs when, whether through one’s own arrogance or another’s malice, one gets the belief of knowing more than one does, and acting on untrue premises.

        • #3218870

          Depends on your definition of [i]mis-informed[/i].

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Did such audience exist, before they began being targeted?

          If we include the instance in which one is in possession of correct facts alone, but lacks all of the requisite facts for reaching a particular conclusion, and does in fact reach such conclusion, he may be said to be mis-informed, although, strictly speaking, his conclusion is owing to ignorance.

          Nonetheless, he has [b]not been mis-informed by another.[/b]

          Perhaps it would be better to say that such person was [i]ill[/i]-informed.

          Those who are given correct information, but not [b]all[/b] of the relevant information, as is often the case under discussion here, have not perforce been mis-informed, but are most assuredly ill-informed.

        • #3217587

          Whatever, Sandy.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Did such audience exist, before they began being targeted?

          Your argument is clever, and more of less internally consistent, but it does not apply to the situations being discussed.

        • #3217548

          I think it to be quite applicable.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Did such audience exist, before they began being targeted?

          Quite frequently the husksters, in this case of junk science, present a carefully selected set of facts, all of which are true, which appear to support their stated conclusion. Absent errors of [i]commission[/i] on their part, it cannot be truthfully held that they have [i]mis[/i]-informed their audience.

          However, their errors of [i]omission[/i] have most certainly resulted in their audience being [i]ill[/i]-informed, in a manner that is wholly non-obvious to said audience.

          Husksters employ such tactic as it is not always easy, or even possible, to both identify errors of omission as well as prove that such were knowingly and intentionally committed.

        • #3222773

          omission + commission = I concede the point

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Did such audience exist, before they began being targeted?

          In the examples that come to mind, a period of warming, and/or changes in greenhouse gas levels, is cited without an explicit, untrue assertion, and I find the implication to be false only by conducting further research, usually chasing down the same variables, over a longer timeframe. This is omitted data, not commission of falsifying. You’re right.

      • #3217198

        Can he also prove that George W. Bush graduated cum laude?

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Organized attacks by the sceptics.

        “A taste for bad news?
        Pat Michaels of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, claims that climate research is biased towards pessimistic conclusions, and says he can prove it.

        Michaels has analysed publications by climate scientists in the journals Nature and Science between mid-2005 and mid-2006. He found 115 articles of which 83 said that the likely impact of the greenhouse effect was going to be worse than previously suggested, 23 saw no change and only 9 said that things were not as bad as previously thought.

        To most researchers this is solid evidence that the prognosis for the planet is worsening as new science comes in. Michaels rejects this interpretation. To have any faith in the forecasts of climatologists, he argues, “we should expect that new research should have an equal probability of being better or worse [for Earth’s climate] than previous research.”

        His explanation for what he calls “this highly skewed result” is that scientists and journal editors are more interested in bad news. “The literature is intrinsically biased,” he says. “And that means that the IPCC – which is largely a literature review process – is also biased.” Michaels aims to publish his work in February, when it is likely to distract attention from the IPCC report expected at that time.”

        Just as “we should expect that new research should have an equal probability of being better or worse [for Earth’s climate] than previous research” we should likewise expect that the President of any nation should possess at least above average intelligence. Obviously, then, George Walker Bush’s widely published, commonly “known” record of academic mediocrity must also be a fraud.

      • #3225670

        I have discovered the real cause of global warming:

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Organized attacks by the sceptics.

        hot air emitted by IT “pros”. See any or all of the previous 15 messages.

    • #3288960

      paste URL at Amazon.com

      by yardbyrd ·

      In reply to Global warming is real, and caused by humans.

      • #3288871

        Why would I?

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to paste URL at Amazon.com

        You haven’t told me one thing about this book. Why would I bother to investigate its contents? Your say so? Ha!

      • #3288870

        Maybe if you tell us why it’s interesting…

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to paste URL at Amazon.com

        Otherwise, not a chance.

      • #3273968

        Have you taken complete leave of your senses?

        by deepsand ·

        In reply to paste URL at Amazon.com

        You have yet to respond to earlier rebuttal; and, you now expect us to bow down in blind faith?

        What a small mind you have.

Viewing 32 reply threads