# Global Warming...the true facts ?



## abvidledUK (Mar 9, 2007)

Just watched a really interesting programme on Channel 4's Dispatches here in the UK.

Many scientists interviewed.

It showed that Global Warming produces increased levels of Carbon Dioxide, not the other way round, as per the popular misconception.

Basically, Global Warming is produced by................the Sun !!

(Correlated to Sunspot activity too)

It showed graphs of temperature v CO2, which clearly showed a delay of around 800 years between temperature changes, and CO2, the temperature changes occuring first.

Explained by the Oceans absorbing CO2 when cooler, and releasing CO2 when warmer, the huge volume explaining the time lag.

With regards to mans impact, that is a a very small amount, much less than environmental factors, such as volcanos, animals and decay.

Many other facts, but basically the myth is expounded by the (discredited) EU IPCC and others (media) with an invested interest.

Another fact was that it was being used to try and halt development by growing "Third World" countries, expecting them to use expensive "Non Carbon" alternatives to produce energy, such as solar and wind power, which they could ill afford.

It also showed that the world has cycles, including warmer and colder spells than we are currently experiencing, and not to worry too much about it.


So, it would appear that attempts to curb Global Warming by reduction of CO2 is a worthy cause, (in reducing pollution) but will have little effect on Global Warming.


----------



## Josey (Mar 9, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

The film sounds like it is one of those sponsored by Exxon. CO2 levels are not only extremely high, but the CO2 is tagged so scientists can prove that the increase comes from manmade sources. The CO2 rate in oceans is increasing, threatening to kill off the lower levels on the food chain. Exxon has been very aggressive about hiring scientists to promote its point of view, but the vast majority of independent scientists acknowledge that global warming is real, is caused by human activity and is a threat to our future and the future of our children.


----------



## cobb (Mar 9, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

***The Facts***

1, there is for the most part, nothing we can do to change it unless we can trigger a large volcano erruption or block out the sun.

2. people would rather argue rather or not we are experiencing global warming than doing anything about it.


----------



## Datasaurusrex (Mar 9, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

"but the CO2 is tagged so scientists can prove that the increase comes from manmade sources."


So, what do they hook the tag to? Is it a micro stamp on each molocule? A "Hi, I'm man made" name tag?


----------



## Greta (Mar 9, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

This is a good topic... worthy of discussion. _BUT!_... it has the potential to get nasty. Keep it civil guys... attack the post... not the poster... and we'll keep it open. Anyone deliberately trying to get it closed will have their post removed and they will be banned. Yes... that's a warning.

OH! ... and watch out for the punk in this one... he seems to know a little bit about this...


----------



## Trashman (Mar 9, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

On the radio, the other day, Rush Limbaugh was pointing out how in the 50's everybody had there panties in a bunch about the global *cooling* that was happening. Now, it's global warming. Do we really know what's going on? Hole in the ozone layer? Global warming? These are things we've just recently been talking about (recently, compared to the age of the earth) and studying, and, in fact, these are things that we've just recently (relatively speaking) gained the scientific ability to measure. Who knows what was going on in thousands and millions of years past? Maybe, the ozone layer actually has a fluctuating hole in it, that recedes and fills up every so many thousands of years. Perhaps, we're only seeing the "hole phase" right now and we think we're making it, when in fact, we've got little to do with it. Perhaps, the same thing goes for global warming. Maybe, a cooling and warming phase just happens, naturally, and some of us think that we're doing it. Do we really know? I don't think so, not unless we're looking at the whole of time while dining in the restaurant at the end of the universe.


----------



## Beamhead (Mar 9, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

While I don't believe what certain types try to force feed us/me I do believe and try to live in a way that reflects my view.

We as thinking beings should do what we can to ease the footprint we leave while keeping open minds and freedoms in tact.


----------



## BB (Mar 9, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

Just for fun, more weather science from news papers:



> f you like glaciers, you'll enjoy Rocky Mountain National Park. That any glaciers exist there in 2006 might have surprised readers of the Nov. 7, 1937, _Rocky Mountain News._ According to the 1937 _News,_ scientific measurement of the glaciers in Rocky Mountain National Park showed that "these sheets of 'eternal' ice, within a few short decades, may be 'eternally gone.' " The _News_ pointed to climate graphs showing that "winters are not what they used to be in the Never Summer Range." Thus, the glaciers were "inexorably retreating to extinction."
> 
> "Can it be possible that the Earth is undergoing a slow, but steady climactic change?" asked another Denver paper. The article pointed out that the "The winters are becoming colder, and the summers drier and hotter." The changes were taking place "all over the continent", while "In Europe we hear of climatic changes as strange as they are unaccountable." The newspaper was the _Denver Tribune,_ and the year was 1874.
> 
> ...




-Bill


----------



## BB (Mar 9, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



Sasha said:


> This is a good topic... worthy of discussion. _BUT!_... it has the potential to get nasty. Keep it civil guys... attack the post... not the poster... and we'll keep it open. Anyone deliberately trying to get it closed will have their post removed and they will be banned. Yes... that's a warning.
> 
> OH! ... and watch out for the punk in this one... he seems to know a little bit about this...



Is that a Global Warning, or just a local warning for this thread?

-Bill


----------



## bwaites (Mar 9, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

It's funny, I was reading a "Great events of the last Century" book published in the mid to late 70's just the other day and it had an extensive article on Global Cooling, and that all the scientists were predicting a "little Ice Age" similar to the Monder Minimum that some scientists are now proposing was responsible for the trees that created the great Stadavari violins.

Cold or Hot we're all in it together, but we can't seem to agree what IT is!!

Bill


----------



## powernoodle (Mar 9, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

The liberal media wants a weather crisis. It just can't figure out which one. Either one will do, as long as it forms a basis for attacking capitalism. 

New York Times Headlines:

- Sept 18, 1924: "Macmillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age" (thats _global cooling_ )

- March 27, 1933: "America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Record a 25 year Rise" (thats _global warming_ )

- May 21, 1975: "Scientists Ponder Why World's Climate is Changing: A Major Cooling Widely Seen as Inevitable" (thats _global cooling_ )

- Dec 27, 2005: "Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax About New Warming" (thats_ global warming_ )


Time Magazine:

- Sept 10, 1923: " . . . possible advent of a new ice age . . . ." (thats _global cooling_ )

- Jan 2, 1939: " . . . weather men have no doubt . . . that the world is growing warmer . . . ." (thats_ global warming_ )

- June 24, 1974: " . . . harbinger of another ice age . . . ." (thats _global cooling_ )

- April 9, 2001: "cientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible." (thats _global warming_ )

For some fun reading, here is a PDF file showing a goofy April 28, 1975 Newsweek article warning of the impending global cooling crisis and possibility of mass starvation. It has pretty graphs, lots of numbers, and references to twisters and hurricanes. Just like those relied on by the promoters of the current weather scam. 

So, the liberal media creates a series of demonstrably false crises which are abandoned when the weather doesn't cooperate. One may be assured that they'll be back to their dire warnings of global _cooling_ sometime in the range of 2030. Anything to get my SUV away from me.

cheers


----------



## Sub_Umbra (Mar 9, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

It must be really bad if we're causing the poles of Mars to melt!


----------



## Greta (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



BB said:


> Is that a Global Warning, or just a local warning for this thread?
> 
> -Bill


 
It's a climate warning...


----------



## TorchBoy (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



bwaites said:


> ... a "little Ice Age" similar to the Monder Minimum that some scientists are now proposing was responsible for the trees that created the great Stadavari violins.


Maunder Minimum?


----------



## greenLED (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

 ...waiting for that punk to show up. He probably knew this was coming.

But while she gets here, there are some random things to keep in mind:

- Earth's climate is controlled at many different scales going from astronomical (yes, the sun and our planet's movement influence weather) to local (think rainshadows), from eons (climate) to short-term (weather) temporal effects.

- The "energy balance" of our planet is the core control of Earth's climatic patterns. All planets have energy balances and their own climate systems. Some are similar to Earth's, some are not.

- Earth's climate is responds interactively (and not always linearly or in the same magnitude and direction) to positive and negative energy feedbacks from oceans, atmosphere, and terrestrial ecosystems. The spatial and temporal scales of these feedbacks and responses vary from millenia to decades (and in some select cases just a few years).

- Climate change is inherently a _global _ phenomenon. Our planet has seen drastic climate change naturally in the past, and will continue to suffer from its effects in the future. The difference is that future climate change will be influenced in great extent by human activities. 

- We now live in a human dominated world; our influence is evident in a multitude of our planet's systems. We can finally pat ourselves in the back - we've finally controlled climate. :nana:


Now, let me address some questions that have already come up:

- "tagging" CO2: scientists use radioactive isotopes of carbon and oxygen, which can be correlated to past climatic conditions. We're talking millions of years of climatic records here which have been pieced together from multiple and independent "proxies" (lines of evidence which encompass ice cores, coral rings, tree rings, boreholes, etc.).

- cobb is, in a very broad sense, correct on both accounts. I would only add that, being an optimistic, I trust we will find technological solutions that will allow us to mitigate and adapt to the effects of global climate change. Technological solutions have their own pros and cons.

And while I'm the topic of "what to do"... I try very hard not to get involved in the _political _side of this debate. I'd be happy to attempt to explain some basics of climate change science. Climate change science involves knowledge of atmospheric science, oceanography, physics, terrestrial and marine ecology, geomorphology, chemistry, biogeochemistry, and a super long etc. after that so don't expect me to know all the answers or be able to explain everything. I have varying degrees of familiarity and understanding of some of these; some I'll just look at you and go HUH? Don't expect me to run over to the library to look for references either - got more fun things to do.

Anyway, that's just a tiny bit of my take on the subject. 

I know of at least another CPF'er who works on this subject. Maybe they'll stop by and say :wave: Maybe the punk Sasha mentioned will show up here to elaborate too, but maybe she'll just hide under a rock if the political debate takes off.


----------



## bwaites (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

My spelling was evidently incorrect. The more proper spelling is "Maunder Minimum".

In my defense, I took the spelling I used from this, "These isotope records confirm the occurrence of the monder minimum every few centuries, for example, in the 13th, 15th and 17th centuries, those low dips in the curve, but also occasional grand magnetic maxima of the sun."

Which is from this transcript:

http://www.ncpa.org/press/0929gwd.html

Bill


----------



## PhantomPhoton (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

My message to all sides of such arguements is... do you beleive everything you're told, see, and read? Or when an interesting piece of information comes to your attention, do you take the effort to track down and examine the source of the information yourself? Do you take into account who is bringing this new information to your attention and what their agenda is? Or do you only ever listen to the same single side of the story day in and day out because it fits your beliefs nicely?
Make the effort to confirm things yourself, don't just take someone else's word for it.


----------



## TorchBoy (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



bwaites said:


> The more proper spelling is "Maunder Minimum".


Explanation accepted  although I believe the phrase is "the correct spelling" since we're talking about a guy's name. It's not "more proper" - it's just right or wrong. If only climate change were that simple.

A couple or three years ago I was going over transcripts of an environment-friendly conference to correct typos, and found that there were so many mistakes it would have been just as fast to transcribe the whole thing myself (which would also have saved paying someone else to do it). The problem was that the typist just wasn't familiar with the industry. In the talks there was so much jargon and so many references to organisations, people, practices etc that were obvious to someone who knew a little about it, that simply vanished into mumbling for someone who didn't. I guess this was one of those cases.



cobb said:


> ***The Facts***
> 
> 1, there is for the most part, nothing we can do to change *it* unless we can trigger a large volcano erruption or block out the sun.


Cobb, is *it* here the "fact" of global warming or the environment itself?


----------



## DrizzitT (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

Minor points...

Mars "phenomena" has been attributed to a slight oscillation in Mars's rotational axis which points the poles more directly at the sun than usual. Notice that the guy's paper has been out for a year or two (2005 I believe) and has generally been ignored by scientists. Then the media picks it up.

News source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html. Based on this source, I don't even think the guy wrote a paper about this... which in the scientific world means its just a conjecture.


3rd World Country... Please show some links for that. Frankly, I doubt GW has ANYTHING to do with "putting down" 3rd world countries. We were/are worried about India/China becuase they have the capability to double+ CO2 emissions, but they are usually not conisdered 3rd World but rather 2nd World/Transition to 1st world. And this transition is a dangerous period also, as evidenced by Britan's white/black moth corrleation with smog and general health (classic evolution/adaption example). This involves leaded gasoline, smog, etc. and as much as China doesn't want to admit it, but the pollution has begun to affect the general population which is why the government has put some environmental restrictions on industries. But in general... shutting down 3rd World Countries? um.....


The best link I could find is this: http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=805 . Note, I didn't look very hard. The crux of this argument was 

"The activists? recipe for solving global warming thus appears to be, first, to kill off economic development in the developed world and, then, to have the developed world send what money it has left over to the developing world. It?s not clear, though, that an economically crippled developed world would be able or willing to subsidize poor countries, leaving those countries forever impoverished." Which is a shady relationship at best. 

and this "After a four-year-long campaign, the RAN pressured Citigroup to restrict its lending practices in the developing world, including: not lending to projects that might adversely impact natural habitats; banning logging in tropical forests; avoiding investment in fossil fuel energy projects; and reporting greenhouse gas emissions from power projects in its lending portfolio." Which is more valid, but still... the US itself is moving towards such measures; we're essentially telling these countries "this technological fork is nearly dead, don't go this way" in terms of investment in FFE projects, which may or may not be true, but considering we are actively moving away from FF's....


CO2 tagging like greenLED said is done usually by radioactive isotope tagging where the isotopes are extremely rare in nature. 


I will agree with many here that the media has overhyped manmade global warming, but to not do anything about it isn't such a great idea either. Considering the ozone layer hole has now stablilized and has, I believe, to show signs of regression, I don't see why minor changes in everyday lifestyle is so controversial the majority of the population. While gas guzzlers have essentially been mandated by the auto industry for the past few decades (due to consumer demand), more fuel efficient SUV's/trucks/etc. are available now. Changing to florescent lightbulbs etc. is a trivial (and money saving) matter now. Its not much, but even that stuff helps in conserving resources and helping the environment. I ain't saying "CUT ALL COAL/NATURAL GAS PLANTS!!!" but reducing electricity consumption (which those things are usually run for) can save a lot in a short period of time.


----------



## Niteowl (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



abvidledUK said:


> ......... Basically, Global Warming is produced by................the Sun !! .........




That's just way too simple of an explanation to be true. 

Besides, if "the vast majority of scientists" were to come out and say so, there would be no Chicken Little hysteria to fuel funding for their "research". 

I, for one, am not buying into the Global Warming Misconceptions spewed by misanthropic segments of society and others with hidden agendas. 

If people want to live off solar panels and windmills, all the more power to them! While I'd like to, it's just not practical for me. I do however try to practice _common sense_ when it comes to energy usage and not just because the utility bills suck. 

It would certainly be wise to curtail mans' use of the planets resources, but this current load of crap being thrust upon us is almost more than I can take. 

Oh yes, either Al Gore is a complete fraud, or a complete idiot. What kind of person cries out for others to conserve energy while consuming mass quantities of it himself. Someone please enlighten me, or has the whole world gone mad?


----------



## LEDninja (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

2006 was an El Nineo year. El Nineo can warm North America and Western Europe by as much as 5 degrees.*** Unfortunately after watching the Gore-acle's Oscar winning movie, a lot of people attribute many of El Nineo's effects to a convienent theory. El Nineo finally subsided mid-January and Canada got stuck in a deep freeze it had not experienced for decades. A deep freeze strong enough to ruin the orange crop as far south as California. (and I like orange pound cake - sigh)

***Global warming only raises the temperaure by a tenth of a degree. But year after year it adds up.


----------



## DonShock (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



Josey said:


> ...... Exxon has been very aggressive about hiring scientists to promote its point of view......


If the fact that Exxon pays for research discredits the results because they stand to benefit if the prediction is for little environmental damage, why doesn't the fact that the environmental organizations which stand to get more donations and more grant money by predicting doom and gloom thus discredit their results?

Personally, I look at how the parties behave and apply a little common sense when trying to decide which side to believe. If a researcher refuses to make his data and methodology public so that his results can be verified, I am suspicious. If the data and results are real, critics should be easily refuted by the data, not by attacking their credibility. I also look for results that can be tested scientifically, not just vague predictions that can never be proven in our lifetimes. For these reasons, I am currently leaning towards those that believe that we are at the hot side in a natural cycle of climate variability. Common sense also pushes me in that direction. When you look at the geologic record and find evidence of jungles in Canada and glaciers in the southern US, it's apparent that there is a large variability in climate over time. As for man's impact, when just a few large volcanic eruptions can generate as much global warming gases as years of human activity, I can't see our activity having the catastrophic results predicted. And when you look at the fact that the Sun is in the hot phase of it's natural cycle right now and there are signs of warming on Mars, I think that is a much more likely explanation than Gov. Arnold's Hummer.

Yes, there are a lot of humans on the planet. As a result, we put out a lot of CO2 by breathing and other human activities. And yes, we should try to minimize the waste we generate and do things in the most efficient way practical. Human innovation now allows us to more, with better efficiency and less waste, than ever before. And things will only get better unless we start imposing artificial restrictions on our growth and getting the government involved in controlling research. Private industry has produced more solutions to problems than government ever can.


----------



## Geologist (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*


----------



## DrizzitT (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

"As a result, we put out a lot of CO2 by breathing and other human activities. And yes, we should try to minimize the waste we generate and do things in the most efficient way practical. Human innovation now allows us to more, with better efficiency and less waste, than ever before. And things will only get better unless we start imposing artificial restrictions on our growth and getting the government involved in controlling research. Private industry has produced more solutions to problems than government ever can."

Mostly true, I just have a few things to say. Yes we are getting better efficiency wise and produce less waste, but things overall will NOT get better. While the US and the 1st world countries WILL get better pollution control wise, we will also have 3rd world countries (as stated above in the examples of India and China) who have large populations who will dump more CO2 than technology cuts down. When India/China become a more serviced based economies similar to the US and other 1st world nations, manufacturing and industry will move to 3rd world nations and industrialization will continue. Case and point: Brazil. China has begun to hit its industrial power workforce wise. Brazil is seen as the "next manufacturing industry." Thus we run into a problem; do we limit these 3rd world countries (which, because of soverignty, will not happen), or do we try and curb ourselves (meaning, 1st world nations) more to prevent this from happening? Check out any CO2 projection chart. The graph only goes up, not down. And as far as I know, this upward trend is not disputed, only how much the CO2 affects the environment is disputed. Yes, US CO2 output will drop, but CO2 output as a WHOLE will not. And we also have a population problem, but that's another issue

And yes, private industry HAS advanced CO2 emission technology a lot, but ONLY after a "gasoline shortage" scare, which led to increased research in alternative fuel sources like bio-diesel (who had heard of this 5 years ago?!), and "Global Warming/Clean Fuel Source" scare. If you look up fuel cell/solar panel technology, you'll realize that its been there for a long time, but not much research has been done into it, until now. Look at wikipedia for fuel cells. Discovered in 1838. Not developed for commercial use until 2006. An example all flasholics should understand, Alkaline, NiMh, LiOn batteries. I bet if research was done into the progression of these technologies into the consumer market, there will be some major consumer demand (safe rechargables?, more laptop battery life?) that drove the development of these technologies. Notice Lions were first discovered in 1912, with a workable model in 1970. 20 years of development, hit market at 1991. Fuel cells? 1843. 163 years of development? I don't think so. No demand? Most likely. Yes, fuel cells are quite a bit more complicated, but...

Private industry works on consumer choices. If there is no demand for solar panel/fuel cell research, none will be done, outside of academia. When did this demand begin? After an artificial OPEC gas shortage. After the "next apocolypse" was developed in terms of global warming. The auto industry didn't start moving to hybrids until gas prices shot up to ridiculous highs. Remember a few years ago when gas would "never break $1.50"? There was no need for hybrid technology then. Then sudden OPEC cut gas/oil was harder to find. While I don't buy into the "Gasoline will run out in the next 20 years," there is indisputable evidence that gasoline IS harder to find, which MAY mean we have hit our gasoline peak. Once this "Oil is running out!" "OPEC is cutting supply!" scare hit... BAM, demand for more fuel efficient, hybrid, whatever cars increased and research commenced.

And btw, aside from Exxon hiring scientists, the Govt. also hires scientists. And as against Global warming our current govt. is, there have been numerous reports (suppressed/leaked/whatever), that Global Warming is occuring. How much is based on human interation is debatable, but CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we contribute SOME amount to the atmosphere. Large volcanic eruptions that drastically influence climate happen rarely (when was the last large eruption?). The earth has time to heal. We are constantly here. 

Do some calculations. If we add an extra 1% (grossly overestimated) CO2 to the climate every year, compounded, and CO2 level was 1:1 correlated (again, grossly untrue, but for examples sake), within 60 years, the temperature would double, given all other factors stay the same. A volcano that dumps 20% of the current CO2 would be equivilent to only ~18 years of human activity based on this model. Add this on TOP of human intervention... Problem yes?

Now, the media is overhyping nearly everything. I am a GW supporter and I turned Gore's stuff off within the first 1/2 hour. I dislike this spread of false information and attribution of nearly everything to global warming, and blaming everything on "us". HOWEVER, I AM glad that it has organized the general populous to DEMAND something that will actually help. Companies have now changed practices to be more "green." Recently in Time/Newsweek/LA Times (never remember), there was an article about companies who are selling "clean" energies. How Dell, will for a few dollars, offset your computer electricity cost by planting a tree. Cars now have much better milage and run cleaner. Many more alternative energy sources have arisen. 

Is the hype pretty ridiculous? Yes, but if it results in cleaner fuel sources, I don't see why it is such a bad thing.


----------



## Geologist (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

The availability of fossil fuels (which is the primary source of mankind's contribution to the problem) are limited, Peak oil (not to be confused with with Peak Lights  ) is expected to hit withing the next ~3-5 years. Demand for these fossil fuels will of course increase the price and to a certain degree, and prevent or inhibit the growth of "third-world industrialization" from using the 100 year old method of dependence on oil to make it happen. 

I would speculate (as I am not an expert on industrial production), that the main use of oil in young industrial economies is to drive the transportation systems, with some more limited useage for electricity and heating purposes. By placing a higher cost on transportation, production will shift to smaller localized levels (made in your backyard vs the other side of the globe).

I agree there is a problem with mankind's total neglect for the environment. I do not think that we are the primary cause for any "global warming" - other posters have indicated that a volcano can do a lot more damage to the weather patterns and casuse much more affects to climate change than a bunch of mammals buring some Jurrasic muck deposits. If for no other reason, mankind should be more careful about fossil fuel useage as these sources are limited and finite. Last time I checked, oil resources are there for another ~30 years? We did not start tapping these resources until ~1920s and they are almost gone. Here is hoping that we start putting our efforts into developing other sources of energy not only to reduce pollution (and any possible effects) but to also provide for future needs.

My vote? Hydrogen. Cover the deserts solar panels and use the energy to produce portable hydrogen based fuels (at least until battery technolgy gets advanced enough provide otherwise).

Geo


----------



## magpie (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

I also watched this programme a few other points raised were.

that from 1940 to around 1975 a time of war and post war and mass industrial activity with less stringent controls on pollution the earths temperature actually fell.

here in the U.K grapes used to be grown almost up to the borders of scotland showing that the climate here used to be much much hotter.

and at the other end of the spectrum that the river Thames used to freeze fully and to such a depth that ice parties and market stalls would take place on the frozen river showing that it also was much much cooler than it is now.

also stated was the amount of money and jobs that on the back of global warming would be lost if the theory was found to be non man made...an example was something along the lines of

"a sceintist wants to do a study on "squirrel nut gathering patterns" but struggles to get funding...same scientist then wants to do a study on "squirrel nut gathering patterns in relation to global warming" suddenly he has as much funding as he needs.

did make for compelling viewing and I for one dont have the answers but one things for sure taxation in the U.K on cars is now based on emmisions I am sure if it wasnt for global warming! it wouldnt be as under the old system it was purely based on C.C


----------



## DieselDave (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

We can't let the fact that science and the media have cried "wolf" multiple times for a headline or just poor science make us ignore the possibility of global warming. While I believe the warmer temps are just part of the cycle that doesn't make me right. On the other hand a newspaper wants a story, a photographer wants "that" photo, a hunter "that" shot and a climate researcher wants "that" event. Everyone wants some major event during their career as their crowning jewel. It's easiest to get the applause for your great epiphany if you forecast the event to come to fruition after your career is over or you are dead therefore guaranteeing you won't be wrong (at least while you are alive) 

I have no doubt we need to move forward to alternative and cleaner fuels for a number or reasons so I am a supporter in concept. Again but, we will keep driving our Suburban for now.


----------



## Greta (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

There is alot I could say as far as my "beliefs" and opinions on this topic. And quite frankly, I'm a bit on the fence with this figuring that the "truth" really *IS* somewhere in the middle. 

However, the thing that strikes me most and very nearly has me tumbling off the fence toward the "we don't got no global warming" side is the fact that it is mighty arrogant of us to think that we are *THAT* significant and have such an impact on something that is of such a design and magnitude *MUCH* more significant and efficient than we tiny little ants scurrying about the surface of a rock. Perhaps if the "data" were presented in a less arrogant manner and tone, I'd be more receptive to it. And quite honestly, that kind of "reporting" really does occur on both sides of the fence. No wonder most choose to tune it out and continue scurrying about without a care.


----------



## PEU (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

Its all these ROP, Magcharger, Thor guys that make the earth warmer, switch to LED please, save the planet !!!  




Pablo


----------



## James S (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

There are several topics as contentious politically and emotionally as global warming, but they are generally not backed up with what should be observable data. The politics has become ludicrous and much of the science is suspect and the alarmists get all the press.

I have come to the conclusion that global warming is happening and that human activity is responsible for enough of it that we should be changing our ways. I've even had people who I think are smart enough to know what they are talking about tell me that Al Gore got "most" of the science right in his otherwise alarmist and stupid movie, but that is time frame for the images he was showing was of by about 200 years.

Luckily, even if WE can't get our act together and go "nookuler" China seems to want to and are contracting even with American companies to build LOTS of really big plants. Course, they are also building enough coal plants to make Americas total industrialized and SUV'ed output to be nothing but a footnote in the final venus'ization of the planet. So lets hope they and India go full out for that. I've been studying in detail the "new" nuke designs (some of which have been around and in use in places since the 70s, ours are from the 50's) and I've become a total convert.


----------



## BB (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

On the funding the the researchers by Exxon:



> Britain's leading scientists have challenged the US oil company ExxonMobil to stop funding groups that attempt to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change.In an unprecedented step, the Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific academy, has written to the oil giant to demand that the company withdraws support for dozens of groups that have "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".
> 
> The scientists also strongly criticise the company's public statements on global warming, which they describe as "inaccurate and misleading".
> 
> In a letter earlier this month to Esso, the UK arm of ExxonMobil, the Royal Society cites its own survey which found that ExxonMobil last year [-BB: 2005?] distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society says misrepresent the science of climate change.



Hmmm, $2.9M/39 groups= $74,000 per group... 

Or in terms of reasearchers... 

Assume $100,000 would by one of their soles-- $2.9M/$100k=29 researchers 
How many signed those mass cocuments??? 1,500+ (?). Those people got their funding from somewhere--Govenments? (In the US) tax deductable pressure groups?

In terms of releasing data--the famous "hockey stick" report from the IPCC (UN) back in ~2002--Mann would not release the underlaying data set and methods--McINtyrehad to find the pieces and reconstruct the research before they could disprove it.



> Mr. McIntyre first became interested in the hockey stick in late 2002 after seeing the graph in materials distributed by the Canadian government. "What struck me is that it looked very promotional," he says, "and I wanted to see how they made it." As a financial consultant to small minerals-exploration companies, he was mindful of how wrong estimates of the size of Borneo gold deposits lay behind the 1997 Bre-X Minerals scandal. Mr. McIntyre, who won math contests in high school and a math scholarship to the University of Toronto, says he'd always been disappointed in not having any academic accomplishments "despite having a good mind." [font=arial, MS Sans Serif, geneva, Helvetica][size=-1] Mr. McIntyre e-mailed Dr. Mann requesting the raw data used to build the hockey stick. After initially providing some information, Dr. Mann cut him off.
> 
> Dr. Mann says his busy schedule didn't permit him to respond to "every frivolous note" from nonscientists. The climate-statistics expert, now 39, gained a big career boost from initial publication of the graph in 1998 and 1999. Although others had sought clues to past temperatures, his team was among the first to stitch many disparate records together to span hundreds of years across the entire Northern Hemisphere.


 

And here we go again--what was release first by the IPCC? Not the report "written by 1,500 scientists" but the summary written by ~50 political appointees and UN functionaries... The real report is comming later (that apparently cuts the rise by the Oceans to 7"-17" inches instead of the 20 feet that is pushed in An Inconvient Truth...




> [/size][/font] The IPCC Working Group I Fourth Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is now available for download in PDF format. [pdf] _(updated 5 Feb 2007)_
> 
> Note: Text, tables and figures given in the SPM are final but subject to copy-editing.
> 
> ...


 

There is a list of udpates to the real report--I like the first paragraph in the updated (pulled from the [/size][/font]here[font=arial, MS Sans Serif, geneva, Helvetica][size=-1] link above):



> Consistent with Section 4.2 of the IPCC procedures, *Coordinating Lead Authors have identified some changes to the underlying report that will ensure consistency with the language used in the approved Summary for Policymakers,* or provide additional clarification as agreed at the Working Group Session.
> 
> These changes do not alter any substantive findings of the *final draft of the underlying report as distributed to governments on 27 October 2006.* Note that the final draft of the underlying Working Group report is also subject to copy-editing and minor corrections in proof as normally applied to scientific reports.


[/size][/font]
Making sure that spin is working correctly before the real report and supporting data is available the the people that (through their taxes) are really paying for this report?

-Bill


----------



## abvidledUK (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

One thing that kept coming out in the TV show was that IPCC claim 2,500 scientists, quite a lot of whom were just researchers, etc, and many scientists had pulled out, disagreeing with IPCC conclusions, only to find they were now listed as authors, and still counted towards the 2,500.

Re Al Gore Movie:

I didn't quite catch what was said, I think it was something along the line of one of his double graphs was upside down, or time shifted, and was factually incorrect.


----------



## DonShock (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

AbvidledUK: I believe the problem with the graphs you are referring to is the ones showing CO2 levels and temperatures tracking with each other. The movie suggests that CO2 levels rise which then produce a temperature rise. But some have made the point that when the graphs are on the same time scale, the temperature rises first and then the CO2 levels start to rise. But I haven't seen any supporting or refuting data on this since the argument on this particular aspect is fairly recent.


----------



## kingoftf (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*


----------



## eluminator (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



James S said:


> I've been studying in detail the "new" nuke designs (some of which have been around and in use in places since the 70s, ours are from the 50's) and I've become a total convert.



So how did you get to be unconverted? Surely you haven't been watching Hollywood movies. That makes about as much sense as reading a book written by Al Gore


----------



## abvidledUK (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



DonShock said:


> AbvidledUK: I believe the problem with the graphs you are referring to is the ones showing CO2 levels and temperatures tracking with each other. The movie suggests that CO2 levels rise which then produce a temperature rise. But some have made the point that when the graphs are on the same time scale, the temperature rises first and then the CO2 levels start to rise. But I haven't seen any supporting or refuting data on this since the argument on this particular aspect is fairly recent.



Yes, that was my original point, as made in the programme.

Temperature first, then CO2 follows, up & down, 800 years later.

There were about 5 scientists, all making the same point, there must be published data somewhere.

I've still got it on DVD, the Channel 4 programme, I'll have to re-view it in light of this thread.


----------



## James S (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



> So how did you get to be unconverted?



I was unconverted along with most people by the very successful public disinformation campaigns that vilified and the nuke industry and the various fictionalized movies about how dangerous and unnecessary nuke plants were  I've converted back to the skeptical scientist that I was raised and educated to be and have found those scare tactics and propaganda against it to be lacking once the light of day is shone on them.

So yes, I'd rather have a pebble bed reactor down the block than a wind farm 

Or were you referring to my conversion to put any credence into the whole global warming thing at all? Even without global warming I'd still rather use power from a pebble bed reactor than from a coal plant. And china is building pebble bed reactors on the same time frame and for the nearly the same construction costs as big coal plants. We could do this right now. By the time I am in the market for a new car, it could be a 100% electric getting 100% of it's electric power from renewable and nuclear and 0% from coal. Thats how fast it could be done if we had the will to do it. But the fossil fuel industry makes a lot of money...


----------



## Lynxis (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

Global warming has been going on since the "last ice-age" 
.... and then .... "comes another new ice-age


----------



## Quickbeam (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



Niteowl said:


> abvidledUK said:
> 
> 
> > ......... Basically, Global Warming is produced by................the Sun !! .........
> ...



That's what a lot of people would have everyone else believe - the Sun is just too simple of a solution. Humans must be demonized every chance possible... [Mike Myers voice on] We're eeee-villl, like the fru-its of the Dev-veillll. 
[Mike Myers voice off]

But there is good evidence that it really is the Sun causing this climate shift right now, and little else...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,220341,00.html


----------



## Gunner12 (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

Whatever the reason for global warming is, us humans and our food supply can only live in a certain range of temperature. If it gets too hot or cold, we will die off. So even if it isn't caused by us, we should still stop global warming unless people are willing to let the human race die.


----------



## Sub_Umbra (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

Since the evil oil companies support of research has been brought up on this thread it would probably be appropriate to make at least a few notes on some who benefit from global warming fear mongering:

 *Socialists.* The ideologues will love it! They *do* love it! Global warming is a real boon for anyone who wants government to control ever greater portions of the economy and the private lives of citizens. Regulate this -- regulate that -- make sure that the government has the final say in all matters personal and commercial. IMO the Kyoto Accords were very attractive to European nations because they are farther down the road towards total socialism than the States are _and Kyoto was a way to get back some of their competitive edge_ (economically) and level the playing field with the States. That way, they don't have to become less socialistic if they may just make the States more socialist and thus more costly to do business with. Nothing against Europe here -- we're both on the same road.

If you don't believe this just look at the cost of consumer goods in Europe. Look at the importation schemes for CR123s and other products that CPFers are always trying to cobble together here on CPF *in an attempt to dodge the VAT.* References to how much more expensive things are in Europe are all around us on CPF.

Further indication that Kyoto was meant to be just an economic hobble to the States is shown by Kyoto's refusal to give credits to the States for Nuke power. If Kyoto is really about reducing 'Greenhouse Gasses' that does not make sense.

Yes, by all means, let's follow the money.


 *Bureaucrats.* You certainly don't have to be a Socialist to benefit from Global Warming. Any bureaucrat, _inside or outside_ of government has a very good chance of expanding his department (with an *expanded budget* as well) almost as a matter of course with the inaction of a confusing myriad of new *regulations* that must be complied with in the struggle to save the earth from mankind. Government bureaucracies will have to expand so they will have enough people writing and enforcing all of those new business policies to save the world. Oh boy, more taxes to pay for the regulators! It should be mentioned that few of these regulators will have any experience in business -- *and how this all affects business will not be very high up on their list of concerns.*

Of course, outside of government many, many bureaucracies in the private sector will bloat with the unproductive, also. Virtually every Bureaucrat's power base will grow (their salaries will reflect this) as business _hires armies_ of lawyers, and advisers in an attempt to make their transition into compliance with the new regulations _less expensive_ for them. Many new startups and business just getting by will fail. All of this will result in *higher cost for all goods,* not just consumer goods.

Yes I think this idea of following the money is a very good one. I wish the press would.


 *Thieves, thugs and corrupt politicians.* Global warming will seem Heaven sent to thieves and corrupt politicians -- although admittedly they may just look nearly identical to Socialists. Global Warming regulation will present *countless opportunities* for corrupt politicians to milk scams with dishonest businessmen to circumvent the new rules. Every contract will be a potential *cash cow* with payoffs all around -- except to the consumer *who will pay for this whole, never ending ride.*

Follow the money.


 *The Press.* Global Warming has been reported in a very dramatic way for two reasons: Drama sells papers and it's much cheaper to just pass the hype they've been fed downstream than it is to write the real story.

Yes, the press has a vested interest in Global Warming and they have made a great deal of money on that subject. It also gives them an almost never ending chance to take political potshots at those they dis-approve of. It's a win-win for the press. 

Follow the money.
The examples noted above absolutely dwarf the piddling amounts spent *by all of the opponents of Global Warming combined* in an attempt to just open the subject to discussion. It is totally misleading to ignore all of the theft and corruption that will follow the implementation of these policies as though they do not exist. It is absurd to grouse about the minuscule amount that Big Oil has spent to get their side out when one considers what city, state and federal governments and the press and learning institutions have been throwing at this for decades now for policies *that will clearly build their political machines, line their wallets and expand their power bases.*

It wasn't that long ago that Clinton/Gore shook down Big Airlines for huge campaign contributions _with just the threat_ of regulations that would make doing business more expensive for them. The opportunities for corruption in Global Warming regulation make Clinton/Gore look like shakedown amateurs.

The very fact that the GW Left refuses to admit how much they will benefit financially from all of this shows that they are either trying to hide it or they are so clueless that they don't see it coming and have no understanding of human nature. At least they finally stopped trying to claim that 10% of the rain forests were disappearing every year.

I know that this post won't change anyone's mind. The totally one sided, holier-than-thou "follow the money" claims made about the oil companies gave me a chance to at least question the pure motives of all of those who would try to save the world from the rest of us and seem to be in such a hurry to say that the science is settled on this matter.

Normally, I avoid religious threads like the plague.


----------



## GJW (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

This thread is not going in the direction I would have imagined.


I like that.....

Carry on.


----------



## 270winchester (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

a very simple example.

In the Santa Cruz mountains, in Ben Lomnd, Boulder Creek, as well as in Niscene Marks stae park, at around 2500-ft, there are ton of sand(like the beach), shark teeth fossil, and assorted reminants of a prehistoric water-front.

the exact date of those sites are not agree upon since we also have to account for seismic and geological activities that *could* push those sites up. But as far as thosedead sharks are concerned we are still in an ice age!!!!


----------



## greenLED (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

Since this is not about science anymore, let me throw in a little devil's advocate bit in here before I go hide under my rock again:

*IF* humans had, indeed, absolutely no role in influencing the climate (which is not the case), we are left with natural variations as the remaining explanation for climate controls. Seeing how "the sun controls all aspects of climate", and it's clear climate changes through Earth's history (under Sun's influence), what are humans going to do to survive this latest shift in climate? Maybe that was a moot point million years ago, but back when there were no humans concerned with their species survival! We are the most prevalent and influential species on this planet, are we going to sit back and watch humanity suffer the effects of climate change or are we, as a species, going to do our best to adapt and mitigate to the impending change?

I tell ya, the safest place is under my rock... :nana:


----------



## Quickbeam (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

We'll go extinct, just like the dinosaurs, and millions of species before us.... The Earth has been through this before, and perhaps we shall not be part of the equation after this. Who says we *have* to survive as a species anyway? I think it would be rather egocentric to insist we are "so much better" than every other species on the planet that we must survive. Reminds me of the reasoning behind the now defunct idea that the earth was the center of the solar system (and the rest of the universe).



Got room under that rock for another?


----------



## hank (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

A good foundation in the basic science is available here: 
http://www.aip.org/history/climate

It will take a few weeks to read it. I don't know anything as good, clear, and with sources always given so you can look up anything you want to check. 

Never rely on unattributed claims without checking sources.

I'm willing to talk about the science with anyone who's willing to give their sources for what they believe and say why they believe their sources. 

Watch out especially for those who will provide fake "facts" -- this was far more common before Google came along. 

Now, when you see a tasty bit of text attributed to someone, whether on "your side" or against "your side" -- put it in quotes, paste it into Google's search box, and read a bit if it shows up.

There are a lot of claims made about climate and CO2 --- check them. If you liked high school science or have college level classes, paste the keywords also into Google Scholar, which is going to find you denser and more difficult sources but filters out a whole lot of the pure opinion without facts behind it.

It is truly amazing how much of what we believed in the past century was bogus, written by PR people, often by PR people pretending to be on the _other_ side of issues, to embarass those who believed them.

Here, for example, from a cautionary site listing fake quotes about gun control:

"... no matter how loathsome our enemies become, that is still no excuse for falsely attributing quotes to them. In fact, citing a proven false quote only discredits the rest of the message, even if the person may only be unintentionally and unknowingly repeating the made-up quote. This can be very damaging .... Please do the pro-gun cause a favor – If you locate any websites innocently citing any of the following quotes, please forward the URL of this page to that page’s webmaster...." 
http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/general/BogusAntiGunQuotes.htm

"Just because you're on their side doesn't mean they're on your side." (Teresa Nielsen Hayden)


----------



## paxxus (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



Quickbeam said:


> That's what a lot of people would have everyone else believe - the Sun is just too simple of a solution. Humans must be demonized every chance possible... [Mike Myers voice on] We're eeee-villl, like the fru-its of the Dev-veillll.
> [Mike Myers voice off]
> 
> But there is good evidence that it really is the Sun causing this climate shift right now, and little else...
> ...


I did hear about this danish research before. This caught my eye:



foxnews said:


> Low-level clouds cover more than a quarter of the Earth’s surface and exert a strong cooling effect. Observational data indicate that low-cloud cover can vary as much as 2 percent in 5 years which, in turn, varies the heating at the Earth’s surface by as much as 1.2 watts per square meter during that same period.
> 
> “That figure can be compared with about 1.4 watts per square meter estimated by the [United Nations’] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for the greenhouse effect of all the increase in carbon dioxide in the air since the Industrial Revolution,” says Svensmark.
> 
> That is, cloud cover changes over a 5-year period can have 85 percent of the temperature effect on the Earth that has been claimed to have been caused by nearly 200 years of manmade carbon dioxide emissions.


I dont know wether this Danish National Space Centre is totally corrupt or in the pockets of oil companies, but if this is even remotely true my mind about this whole matter is made up.


----------



## Quickbeam (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



hank said:


> A good foundation in the basic science is available here:
> http://www.aip.org/history/climate
> 
> It will take a few weeks to read it. I don't know anything as good, clear, and with sources always given so you can look up anything you want to check.



An immediate concern with that site's information is found in the title of the page:

"A hypertext history of how scientists came to (partly) understand what people are doing to cause climate change."

The compiler of that information has already jumped to the conclusion that people *cause* climate change, which would make me concerned that the information they are providing is strongly biased in that direction, or they are providing information that supports their conclusion, potentially excluding other information. Even scientists have biases and those biases work their ways into their papers and research despite their best efforts to prevent it.


Now for some opposing views to the "humans cause global warming" hypothesis...

http://www.junkscience.com/

I really need to find that rock........


----------



## Greta (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



Gunner12 said:


> Whatever the reason for global warming is, us humans and our food supply can only live in a certain range of temperature. If it gets too hot or cold, we will die off. So even if it isn't caused by us, we should still stop global warming unless people are willing to let the human race die.


 
That's some pretty serious "doom and gloom" there Gunner..  And you're correct regarding _"... us humans and our food supply can only live in a certain range of temperature."_ However, it's a pretty wide range. For instance, I live where it is typically between 110°F-125°F for 4-6 months out of the year with an average annual rainfall of 2.5". (There are *no* typos in the previous statement) And you say that _"Whatever the reason.... we should still stop global warming..."_. Well... if it really **IS** something like the sun that is causing it, how do you propose that **WE** stop it? Again, I feel it's arrogant for us to assume we have that much influence one way or another. 


On a side note... I've been hearing alot lately that the terminology is changing. Some are no longer referring to current phenom's as "global warming" and instead are referring to them as "climate changes". Is that significant? Perhaps... at least it makes you go _"hmmmm...."_ :thinking: ... I'd buy into climate changes... there is at least cyclic tangible data to back that up.


----------



## Datasaurusrex (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

quote: "I live where it is typically between 110°F-125°F for 4-6 months out of the year with an average annual rainfall of 2.5"."

Where is your food grown? Fruits? Vegtables? Meat?

Yes people can live in a desert, but what's the carrying capacity? (bear in mind the middle east's carrying capacity is bolstered by oil money) 

There was an excellent documentary about marketing, had an interview with the guy who first started using the term "climate change" (or rather, the guy who invented the term and told others to start using it). Ingenious really.


----------



## Greta (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



Datasaurusrex said:


> Where is your food grown? Fruits? Vegtables? Meat?



Good point... and I apologize if I implied that we were self-sufficient here. Obviously, we are not. However, neither are those who live in the opposite extremes of temps below 0°F or single digits. My point was simply that the range for what _"... us humans and our food supply can only live in a certain range of temperature." _ is quite wide and the theory that we're all gonna die is just a bit on the ridiculous side... don't you think?


----------



## greenLED (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

Quickbeam, come on over! There's plenty of room under my rock. I just ask you please bring your collection of lights, that way it won't be too dark down here. :laughing:

Sasha, on the issue of human influences over our planet, the following is considered one of the "classic" publications in that regard. It is a little dated now but, if anything, the magnitude of human influence has become stronger since the article was written:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/277/5325/494

_Edit: Yup, people can't readily access the full text of that article. PM or e-mail me your e-mail address if you're interested in the .pdf.
_
The citation: Vitousek, P.M. et al. 1997. Human Domination of Earth's Ecosystems. Science. 277(5325): 494 - 499.
If I may quote a small piece of the introduction:


> This article provides an overview of human effects on Earth's ecosystems. It is not intended as a litany of environmental disasters, though some disastrous situations are described; nor is it intended either to downplay or to celebrate environmental successes, of which there have been many. Rather, we explore how large humanity looms as a presence on the globe--how, even on the grandest scale, most aspects of the structure and functioning of Earth's ecosystems cannot be understood without accounting for the strong, often dominant influence of humanity.



And for those of you checking credentials, Peter Vitousek is an outstanding scientist.


----------



## McGizmo (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

I am not a scientist and I don't know or understand the existing science or how well it gives a "true" picture of whatever changes are in store for the planet or to what extent these changes can be attributed to man. I do know that man has cause and effect on changes in our environment and on the planet because I can see their manifestation everywhere.

Living in Hawaii now has given me an interesting perspective on some of this. Hawaii is a small blip in the middle of the ocean. There are groups and organizations addressing invasive species here in the islands. I am a haole or outsider. 

Well the planet itself is a closed system but the notion of invasive species still has relevance, IMHO.

Global Warming, Global cooling or Global temperature constancy (unlikely), to what extent at our hands or doing? If we could control the climate, would we elect to do so. If yes, towards what goal? Would it be a global goal or a national goal? Would it be to maximize profits and yields for the next quarter or towards some distant future "golden age"? Would we elect to expand the temperate zones so we could expand and more comfortably house more humans on planet? One of the few terms I have heard in recent time that just makes sense to me is that of sustainable resources. I don't have confidence that the money and powers that be are motivated or focused on a platform of sustainable resources; cynic or perhaps realist that I am.

I put my faith in nature and its tendency to equalize or put a dampner on populations that can not be sustained. I wish I could put my faith in man. 

Whether we are here by devine purpose or just a bilogical hapenstance, our continued presence is up to us, to a real extent, whether we elect to have any control or influence on the situation or not. I suspect that there is a finite number of inernal combustion engines that the planet can support and I suspect there is a greater number of same that the planet can not support. Pray the automotive market is sated with a number closer to the first rather than the last.  I single out the automobile but the same holds for water consumption, tract homes, sewer permits, McDonalds and even flashlight makers! :nana:


----------



## hank (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

>aip

That's the American Institute of Physics; I suggest reading a bit further before deciding the author jumped to a conclusion -- the AIP has been writing about science research and history for quite a while now, and the research described is the basis for, among other things, the first lasers (did you know a carbon dioxide laser uses the same principle --- absorbtion and emission of photons --- that explains the greenhouse effect?

The British TV program appears to have been busted already; they stop their chart that claims solar activity and temperature vary together at 1980. 

Here's why -- this is a PDF file, just a couple of pages, and you can look at the subsequent citations and the other research and decide for yourself if this is real science or someone's PR work. Consider the source.

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf

see figure 1(c) and compare it to the one they showed on the tv, and you'll see why the tv show chart cut off the data after 1980.

Don't be fooled into believing any of the political spin, you _can_ check the facts and decide.


----------



## ikendu (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

Sheesh. What a mish-mash of opinons all over the map.

I'm still for using renewable energy that we produce right here in the good 'ole U S of A.

If nothing else, our addiction to imported foreign oil is a big risk to our economy and our national security. Switching the money we already spend on imported oil and developing our own transportation energy will hugely stimulate our economy and create many jobs that can't be exported to China.

However, the companies that make billions by selling us imported oil will not want us to stop using it. If you want to talk about facts, there is certainly one.

And... as a side benefit, this renewable energy helps us with global warming, should that be important too. You might say that the global warming benefit "rides along for free".


----------



## Sub_Umbra (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



ikendu said:


> ...I'm still for using renewable energy that we produce right here in the good 'ole U S of A.
> 
> If nothing else, our addiction to imported foreign oil is a big risk to our economy and our national security. Switching the money we already spend on imported oil and developing our own transportation energy will hugely stimulate our economy and create many jobs that can't be exported to China.
> 
> ...


I really think you're right. That "Big Picture" approach would help us out of many messes over the next half century.


----------



## hank (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

PS -- for those who want to see it, it's available here at least for the moment.
(For those who don't know Lubos, check sci.environment for some context)

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/03/great-global-warming-swindle.html


----------



## BUZ (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



powernoodle said:


> The liberal media wants a weather crisis. It just can't figure out which one. Either one will do, as long as it forms a basis for attacking capitalism.
> 
> New York Times Headlines:
> 
> ...





Ahh the New York Slimes gotta love em'! Good post!


http://www.magic-city-news.com/Gues...st_Another_Liberal_Orthodox_printer7441.shtml


----------



## BB (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

Here is the 1 hour 15 minute program from Channel 4 (UK) called The Great Global Warming Swindle (Google Video--don't know how long it will stay up) -- As I have not yet watch the show, I am guessing that it is written as a counter to the An Inconvenient Truth by Mr. Gore.

View at your own risk (high speed network probably required)....

-Bill


----------



## BB (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

And now the corn shortages/price increases are going to hit our food prices just like they did in Mexico a few months ago:

Demand for ethanol driving up meat prices (March 9th, 2007):



> WASHINGTON (AP) — Strong demand for corn to use in ethanol plants is driving up the cost of livestock and will raise prices for beef, pork and chicken, the Agriculture Department said Friday. Meat and poultry production will fall as producers face higher feed costs, the department said in its monthly crop report. Ethanol fuel, which is blended with gasoline, is consuming 20% of last year's corn crop and is expected to gobble up more than 25% of this year's crop.
> 
> The price of corn, the main feed for livestock, has driven the cost of feeding chickens up 40%, according to the National Chicken Council. The council says that chicken, the most popular meat with consumers, will soon cost more at the grocery store. The industry worries the competition from ethanol could cause a shortage of corn.
> 
> The average price of corn is more than $4.20 a bushel, according to the futures prices on the Chicago Board of Trade. In October, it traded at less than $3 a bushel...




As from another thread--the Law of Unintended Consequences will get you every time...

-Bill


----------



## Trashman (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



Gunner12 said:


> Whatever the reason for global warming is, us humans and our food supply can only live in a certain range of temperature. If it gets too hot or cold, we will die off. So even if it isn't caused by us, we should still stop global warming unless people are willing to let the human race die.




Bah. The human race would build a nuclear temperature controlled growing environment the size of Texas, before it would let itself die.


----------



## Greta (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

Or there's always the Biospheres here in AZ... _*snicker*_


----------



## TorchMan (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



Sasha said:


> Or there's always the Biospheres here in AZ... _*snicker*_


 
Yeah, but I'd rather perish than be stuck in a Biodome with Pauly Shore!


----------



## raggie33 (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

i got a fax on the subject once but my machine was out of papper.


----------



## turbodog (Mar 11, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

Tinfoil hats. We should all wear tinfoil hats. 

They will reflect the sunlight back into outer space.




Sasha said:


> ... how do you propose that **WE** stop it? Again, I feel it's arrogant for us to assume we have that much influence one way or another...


----------



## mobile1 (Mar 11, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

If global warming is not caused by humans, why would the European Union than implement strict reductions in CO2 emissions until 2020. Each one of the countries within the EU has millions and millions of $ invested in research, if that is really true what this movie said, I doubt it the EU nations would do that... because economically its much cheaper and efficient to NOT do anything about it.

So the question is who do you believe, one film, or 30 countries where each one of them had done tons of research with hundrets of university, government funded projects.


----------



## BB (Mar 11, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

I just finished watching "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (TGGWS) and found it to dovetail pretty well with, what I know, about all of the odds and ends concerning climate research and the politics that go with it...

This program cuts no slack to the Human Caused Global Warming thesis. They quote scientists, politicians, a founder of Green Peace, and journalists. They tie Margaret Thatcher with her desire for nuclear power (from the oil shocks of the 1970's and her distrust of the Middle East / British Coal miner unions) with the fall of the USSR/Eastern Europe and activists/radicals looking for a new anti-capitalist cause.

TGGWS only addresses CO2 (not a cause for Global Warming, but actually a lagging indicator of the temperatures of the world's oceans--water warms, releases CO2, water cools, absorbs CO2) and that the sun, solar activity, cosmic rays, and water transport (clouds/rain) and water vapor as the main global warming gas are the true drivers of (an always changing) global climate... The program does not even talk about conservation, pollution control/avoidance, etc. (in the positive or negative).

If you are a skeptic--TGGWS is the show for you...

It would be interesting to hear from the folks that disagree with TGGWS and where they would quibble with the presentation... (I have not seen ""An Inconvenient Truth--I have only read the counter discussions to the points raised 

TGGWS also reminded me of what happen with earlier versions of the IPCC reports (and even one scientist that had threatened to sue if his name was not removed from the final report):



> [size=-1] The Clinton Administration's claim that there is a scientific consensus about a global warming threat is also belied by several polls that have been conducted since the release of the IPCC report in 1996. The Science and Environmental Policy Project conducted a survey of American climate scientists, which included some of the 100 climate scientists who allegedly endorsed the IPCC report. The survey found that about half did not support the report's conclusion that global warming was a fact and posed a threat to the environment. Surveys of other scientists, climate and non-climate, who participated in developing the report have shown similar levels of disagreement about the report's assertions. 19
> 
> So why do so many people believe that IPCC scientists are in agreement on global warming? Because the 1995 IPCC report was altered after the IPCC endorsed it. In November 1995, an IPCC scientific panel met in Madrid where they reviewed and accepted a version of the report entitled "The Science of Climate Change." While this scientific panel included few climatologists, the scientists at the Madrid conference - mainly biologists, physicists, geographers and oceanographers - did faithfully represent the skepticism regarding global warming voiced by the climatologists and other scientists who had assisted in developing the report. The report was subsequently approved in December in Rome by the full IPCC.
> 
> ...




US Climate Science funding went from $170,000,000 per year to $2,000,000,000 per year in the very early 1990's (Bush I)... To now more than $4,000,000,000 per year today (just Climate Studies)--There are a very large number of people today making a good living off of just government funding of climate studies.

-Bill

PS: Compare the documentary TGGWS with this doom and gloom today in an article from AP:



> [font=Verdana,Sans-serif] Tropical diseases like malaria will spread. By 2050, polar bears will mostly be found in zoos, their habitats gone. Pests like fire ants will thrive.[/font]



But, malaria has never been a only a tropical desease... As mentioned in TGGWS and confirmed here from Rueters' in 2004:



> OSLO, Norway - Malaria-carrying mosquitoes were once a scourge of Shakespeare's chilly England and even Arctic regions of the Soviet Union. With malaria's history of surviving in the cold, experts are at odds about how far modern global warming may spread one of the planet's most deadly diseases which kills a million people a year in poor countries.
> 
> U.N. reports say rising temperatures linked to human burning of fossil fuels are likely to widen malaria's range in the tropics because mosquitoes and the parasite they pass on when sucking human blood thrive best in hot, wet climates.
> 
> ...


----------



## Quickbeam (Mar 11, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



BB said:


> And now the corn shortages/price increases are going to hit our food prices just like they did in Mexico a few months ago:
> 
> Demand for ethanol driving up meat prices (March 9th, 2007):
> 
> ...



Gee wiz... I wonder if the politicians from the grain and meat producing areas of our country voted in support of ethanol (energy) legislation or against it... Let's see... it benefits their constituants by increasing the income of farmers and ranchers because as prices go up, profits go up.... hmmmm...... I'd bet these consequences weren't "unintentional" at all, or at least were not unexpected... :shrug:

Some reading reference regarding the Ethanol swindle...

http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/apr2006/bw20060427_493909.htm

Oh, and there IS something we can do to stop the temperature increase known publicly as "global warming". A simple idea, but so are most brilliant ones.... Will the politicians follow through on this one? Never. Too much political capital at stake to actually do something EFFECTIVE about it.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060727180326.htm

GreenLED - I'll bring the lights, you bring the batteries and the solar charger!


----------



## DonShock (Mar 11, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



mobile1 said:


> If global warming is not caused by humans, why would the European Union than implement strict reductions in CO2 emissions until 2020.


Because they are politicians and bureaucrats! Their whole reason for being is to tell people what to do. They get into that line of work because they are convinced that they are infallible and know what's "best for the people". Their goals are to get re-elected and to accumulate power. And the Global Warming predictions are perfect for that purpose. They get to say: Elect us and we'll save the world, elect the other guys and we're all dead. That's powerful electioneering rhetoric. And as for power, just look at some of their recent proposals. Since they predict a "global" catastrophe, what better excuse to expand their regulatory and taxing abilities to the entire world, not just their own individual countries. Of course, at the same time they are proposing an involuntary global tax on greenhouse gas emissions, their own countries don't meet the Kyoto Protocol limits that they voluntarily agreed to.




mobile1 said:


> Each one of the countries within the EU has millions and millions of $ invested in research, if that is really true what this movie said, I doubt it the EU nations would do that... because economically its much cheaper and efficient to NOT do anything about it.


The concept of maximum results at minimum costs is totally foreign to their way of thinking. After all, how many times do you hear them say "If it helps just one person, then it's worth any cost." And from their way of thinking, it makes sense. After all, they don't have to make money, they just have to take it from somebody else through higher taxes. They ignore the fact that if they raise taxes to help one person, they may cause other problems for two more people. They probably think that just proves how much they are needed, because now there are even more people in trouble. After all, what are the vast majority of proposals being put forward by government: increased taxes and punative fees for companies and individuals. Of course, they usually exempt themselves from the regulations. And even if they don't, they just pay the money using your tax dollars.




mobile1 said:


> So the question is who do you believe, one film, or 30 countries where each one of them had done tons of research with hundrets of university, government funded projects.


I'll believe whichever one can produce scientifically verifiable results and not just dire predictions of doom and gloom which can never be verified in our lifetimes.


----------



## karlthev (Mar 11, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



Sasha said:


> Or there's always the Biospheres here in AZ... _*snicker*_




Yeah, I flew over that in a two-seater plane a couple of years back Sasha. As I recall, that venture didn't fare so well......


Karl


----------



## Greta (Mar 11, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



karlthev said:


> ... that venture didn't fare so well......



... to put it mildly.


----------



## ikendu (Mar 11, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

Ah... the ethanol "swindle" or "boondoggle" or "scam" or...

Yeah. Hmmm.

Taking money we would normally spend on lovely imported oil from the Middle East or Nigeria or Venezuela and sending it instead to our farmers here in the U.S. (darn greedy American farmers ...we'd be WAY better off if we simply imported all of our food).

Hey, wait a minute! We've been subsidizing those farmers for decades with American tax dollars for corn price supports and now... the price support cost is disappearing as market demand for ethanol has raised corn prices. Hmmm.... I'll have to think about that.

But wait a minute. I heard once that it takes more energy to make ethanol than you get out!

Well, there have been a variety of studies on that. There are two researchers that issue "new reports" every year that are based on the same basic data and same basic premise dating from the 90's; Pimental and Patzek. They refuse to include any of the by-products of ethanol production (like distillers grains ...about 1/3 of the original food value) and want to include energy inputs like the fuel for the workers cars, their lunches and the energy to create the farm machinery in the first place ...into their "overall energy balance" equations. 

The most recent study by Dr. Kammen of Berkley shows that you get 30% more energy out than you put in when you create ethanol.

Although, all of the studies show that very little oil is used to make corn ethanol. Most of the fossil fuel inputs come from natural gas (fertilizers) and coal (process heat and electricity). The USDA study shows that for every BTU of oil that goes in ...you get 13.2 BTUs of ethanol out.

So... if getting off of imported oil is important (and I do believe that it is), corn ethanol gets you a 13:1 leverage.

BTW... that most recent study also shows that you only get .8 BTUs out of every 1 BTU of oil you find by the time you pump, transport and refine the crude oil. If you look at oil from the Alberta Tar Sands you only get .6 BTUs out and if you convert coal to diesel fuel you only get .5 BTUs out. That's before you even start the refining process.

Of all of those petroleum fuel alternatives, ethanol looks pretty good. Funny, we don't ever hear stories about the "Alberta Tar Sand swindle". Most of the extra energy that is used to cook Tar Sand oil out of the sand is natural gas. Hmmm... I wonder if using all of that natural gas to cook oil out of sand will have an effect on natural gas prices for heating our homes. Oh well, at least with gasoline from tar sand, we don't have to worry about those darn ethanol "swindlers".

Now, seriously, corn ethanol isn't the ideal substitute either. No one wants to be put into the position of choosing food over fuel. Even if we converted every kernel of corn into ethanol, we'd only displace about 15% of our gasoline. It won't get us all the way to imported oil independence. We do need to continue research on other biofuels (cellulose conversion of mixed prairie grasses that don't need to be replanted or tilled or fertilized every year looks promising but requires more study and demonstration projects).

We will need more energy efficiency. Savings from efficiency (higher mileage) is the quickest way to save the most energy the soonest. The CAFE standards have been frozen since the early 90's. We should have raised then already and we certainly should raise them now; right now.

In the end, we should be switching to Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) like the Chevy Volt concept car unveiled this year. A PHEV with 25 mile battery range will shift 60% of our petroleum usage for transportation from imported oil to domestically produced grid electricity. Electricity for PHEVs is like buying gasoline at less than $1/gallon. Even central production of electricity from our variety of sources (including coal) pollutes less and sends less CO2 into the atmosphere than using gasoline in millions of vehicles. A study released by the DOE in Dec. 2006 shows that if ALL vehicles were PHEVs, we could charge 84% of them with existing generating and grid capacity.

We have solutions within our grasp for ending our dangerous dependence on imported, foreign oil. We could be off of foreign oil within 10 years if we were really serious about it. While we quibble about global warming and who's study shows what ...our addiction to foreign oil just continues to roll along. We are in the middle of fighting our second war in the Persian Gulf area to ensure our access to Middle East oil. Once the demand for oil from China and India ramps up (and it is), will we be fighting Gulf War #3? Only then, it won't be with insurgents with roadside bombs, it will be with a nuclear armed opponent that is just as serious about protecting their economy and lifestyle as we are about protecting ours.

Don't forget this. The people that make billions selling us that imported oil do not mind about the danger to our economy or our national security that it represents. They care about next quarter's profits.

And to come back around to the original point... I can't get too worked up about the "ethanol swindle" when I consider the danger of addiction to imported oil.


----------



## Quickbeam (Mar 11, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

Ah - the Ethanol lovers strike back.

It just so happens that our city newspaper just ran a nice article about Ethanol.

Let's take a look at the real costs of that wonderful fuel, based on the info in the article, shall we?



> that most recent study also shows that you only get .8 BTUs out of every 1 BTU of oil you find by the time you pump, transport and refine the crude oil.



ONLY .8? ONLY??? That's 80% efficiency! So this means that it takes 20 gallons of gasoline equivalent energy to get 100 gallons of gasoline to your tank.

Our paper reports closer to 94% efficiency, not 80%, which would cost 6 gallons of gasoline equivalent energy to get 100 gallons gasoline to your tank. But hey, we'll use the worse numbers just for the sake of argument.

From farm to pump, as reported, it takes about 75% of the energy of the gallon of ethanol to get it to your tank. Farm equipment uses fuel, fertilizer is produced in plants that use energy, trucks that transport ethanol use diesel (can't use the more efficient existing pipelines - ethanol's too corrosive), the refineries use huge amounts of natural gas and energy. The result? 75 gallons of ethanol worth of energy to get 100 gallons to the tank. Not 20 gallons as with gasoline, but 75 gallons! Not so rosey.

Interesting that the USDA has much more optimistic numbers... considering they have the most to gain if more money is pumped into the ethanol scheme... no bias there either, I suppose...

Add to the fact that the only way the ethanol plants in the midwest can actually make a profit is because of our lovely govenment pumping millions of our tax dollars into these plants to keep the cost of the end product fuel down to the point where it is actually competitive with gasoline, and you start to see that it really is a boondoggle.

Oh yes, and I believe this was mentioned somewhere else... 30% less miles to the gallon on ethanol than gasoline, but at the same price as gasoline (with government subsidies, AKA your tax dollars, used to keep the price down that low, that is...). So on a tank of gasoline that would get you 100 miles, you'll only go 70 miles on a tank of pure ethanol. But at the SAME cost per gallon (again thanks to your tax money being pumped into the pockets of the manufacturers, othewise it would cost much more per gallon at the pump). This results in a net cost INCREASE of 30% per energy unit if ethanol is sold at the same price as gasoline. It's like an instant 30% tax per gallon of ethanol.

The government should NEVER get involved in these schemes because it becomes a political imparitive to make it work no matter what the cost in order to prevent political backlash and the bad press that comes along with it. Private industry and the market forces should be the decider. If it was, ethanol would go nowhere until some enterprising inventor figures out how to produce ethanol at a MARKETABLE price. If they can't, then the idea should go away just like so many other infeasable, foolish, and unmarketable options.

I'm not saying dependence on foreign produced oil is a good thing, but ethanol is a joke as auto fuel. Switching to a more expensive, less efficient, fuel which jeopardizes the worlds food supply in order to lessen (not REMOVE) our dependence on foreign oil is doing the wrong thing for all the right reasons. It's still wrong, regardless of the motivation behind it.

However ethanol will always be welcome in my martini. :drunk:

GreenLED: I'll bring the martinis if you bring the olives!

P.S. Oh, and subsidizing our farmers for years prior falls under the same "wrong thing for the right reasons" umbrella.

PPS. This is fun! It's also why I try not to post in the Cafe much - I get too involved. I'll shut up now, eat some popcorn, and watch.


----------



## DonShock (Mar 11, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

EDIT: I see Quickbeam beat me to the punch on some of these issues while I was typing, so pardon the repeats.

Ikendu: I don't get it. What difference does it make where the energy comes from to process the various fuels? You are only shifting the pollution burden to other sources. This does not result in a net benefit. Maybe ethanol production uses less oil than oil production but it uses a lot of non-oil energy. What is the total energy efficiency of each source? That should be the question. I find it difficult to believe that ethanol is more efficient than oil since you have to convert the grain to sugar and the sugar to alcohol before it is usable. Whereas oil already has the various fuels present in the raw product and requires only seperating out the various types of fuels which each have their own uses. And that's not even taking into account the fact that the end product is a less efficient fuel due it's lower combustion temperature. And what about the increased transportation costs for the end product since the alcohol is too corrosive to be pumped through pipelines and must be shipped by tanker vehicles?


As for raising the CAFE standards being a quick solution: TANSTAAFL (There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch)
It's not as though there is some answer to increased mileage that is not being used just out of meaness by the car companies. Several of the US auto makers are on the verge of bankruptsy. Don't you think if they had a way to make more fuel efficient cars that people would buy, they would be making them? Given the current state of technology, you can only get so much energy out of a gallon of gas. And I think the fact that most of the cars on the road only have minor variations in their body shapes shows that aerodynamics is near it's maximum efficiency. There are a few places, like regenerative braking, that show some promise at capturing some current losses in the energy cycle, but even these would only provide miniscule improvements. However, barring some major innovation in technology, the only way to increase efficiency is to make vehicles lighter and more compact. But as this has been done in the past to meet the earlier CAFE standards, more and more people have migrated to trucks and SUVs because their comfort and needs were no longer being satisfied by the new smaller vehicles. Now the government is trying to eliminate these choices as well by applying the car CAFE standards to trucks and SUVs. The only way to meet them will be to make the trucks as small as cars.

As for hybrids: once again, that only shifts the burden around. It doesn't actually increase efficiency. However, the increased use of electricity does make it more likely that nuclear technology will be more widely adopted. Nuclear is the one area where I think the technology exists but is just not being used for irrational reasons.

I do understand that your main point is that we need to get off of foriegn oil, so just shifting to another fuel regardless of efficiency helps further that goal. But it's not like we live in isolation and can forget about the cost associated with less efficient fuels. If we force people and industry to use a less efficient fuel, their costs will go up, and they will not be able to compete against those using a more efficient fuel source. I believe the free market will govern these issues, not government dictates. Every new technology gets started by the dreamers and early adopters who pay a premium for the latest and greatest. But as the technology matures, it becomes available to larger numbers of people because of increased ease of use and lowering prices. This development takes finite amounts of time and is governed by peoples behaviour. Reasonable regulations can discourage certain behaviours, but they can't create answers to problems.


----------



## ikendu (Mar 11, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

Quickbeam, I'm trying to follow your numbers.

Here are the numbers as I understand them:

Start with 100 BTUs of energy.

Oil:

Find 100 BTUs of oil.
Spend 20 BTUs to drill, refine and transport it.
80 BTUs get delivered to your tank.

A losing equation over time. Always spending more of what you find.
Coal to diesel ...makes this worse.
Tar sands ...also makes this worse.
Drilling ultra deep waters in the Gulf of Mexico ...again, makes this worse.

Ethanol:

Start with 100 BTUs of various fossil fuels (some oil, coal and natural gas).
Spend all 100 BTUs plant, harvest and convert to ethanol.
Deliver 130 BTUs to your tank. 
(BTUs... not gallons so the "mileage" consideration is the same)
Solar energy allowed you to start with 100 BTUs of energy and end up with 130 BTUs of energy.

Every BTU of imported oil replaced with 13 BTUs of ethanol.

With oil, every 100 get you 80 and it only gets worse as we drill deeper or convert other fossil fuels to gasoline.

As far as subsidies go, after reading this forum, are you still thinking that our government doesn't subsidize petroleum?

If we need subsidies to help us jump start a new source of fuel to replace 15% of our gasoline ...I'll take it. What will Gulf War #3 cost us? We already see the cost of Gulf War #2.

I will agree with you on this. Corn ethanol is no magic bullet that makes our oil dependence go away. Although, finding a new source of transportation fuel that is equivalent to 15% of all of the gasoline we use ...is not insignificant.

If you don't like the energy balance of ethanol, use biodiesel. I do. 

Instead of 1 to 1.3 ethanol balance, soy biodiesel is 1 to 3.2

And... since this started about global warming:

Corn ethanol is 27% less CO2 added to the atmosphere than gasoline.
Soy biodiesel is 78% less CO2 added to the atmosphere than petroleum diesel.

Every gallon of U.S. produced biofuel makes us more secure an we get a CO2 benefit that rides along too.


----------



## ikendu (Mar 11, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

DonShock wrote:

I do understand that your main point is that we need to get off of foriegn oil, so just shifting to another fuel regardless of efficiency helps further that goal. But it's not like we live in isolation and can forget about the cost associated with less efficient fuels. 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ok. Let's talk about the cost.

We import about 65% of this "efficient" energy source; oil.

There once was a time when we had plenty of it. We could find a gallon of it and refine it into gasoline. We'd find 100 gallons and deliver something less to our tanks. Since 1982, we've been finding less oil than we consume every year; finding less, consuming more. At one time, we were the world's biggest exporter of oil (prior to WWII). In fact, we had such power and influence, we declared an oil embargo against Japan to protest their occupation of China. Japan decided it had to have oil so... attack on Pearl Harbor to knock our out fleet so they would have free reign to capture oil from Indonesia (darn societies that are highly dependent on a critical, imported resource).

Hmmm. What does it cost us to import 65% of our transportation energy?

Well, whatever cost you want to agree on, it is going to get worse every year.

We keep finding less (not because we aren't looking). Other economies are now demanding more of the world-wide oil pie; finding less, demanding more.

I wonder what that will do to the cost of this efficient energy source?

The free market (as though petroleum exists in a free market), will put us right where we are today. 65% dependent on outside sources for a resource critical to our economy and our national security. 

Japan decided they had to tackle the U.S. or be strangled by our oil embargo.

What will we decide when faced with a similar choice?

The Middle East has something like 66% of the world's remaining oil reserves. The big find in Alaska's Prudhoe Bay is already dwindling away, the big find for Britain in the North Sea is also dwindling away. We can't drill our way out of this.

I've decided that our best shot of avoiding a very expensive Gulf War #3 is ending our dependency on imported oil. If you see some other way of doing it, I'm very interested in your ideas.


----------



## James S (Mar 11, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

heh, but we dont need ethanol or foreign oil. It's not necessary that we subsidize either one! The electric companies could go nuclear and it would pay for itself just like an investment in any other plant.

And if you didn't have to subsidize anybody, imagine what you could spend all that money on then! Why, you could give all politicians pay raises. You could buy all US children a PlayStation to improve their hand/eye coordination. You could pass laws about the mandatory serving of asparagus at breakfast giving that industry a huge boost! Mostly you could get back to business as usual for the government which is making laws about things they can't change and dont understand that wont have the effect that they think


----------



## Quickbeam (Mar 11, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

Actually, it looks like the numbers have become twisted.

"With oil, every 100 get you 80 and it only gets worse as we drill deeper or convert other fossil fuels to gasoline."

"....it takes 20 gallons of gasoline equivalent energy to get 100 gallons of gasoline to your tank."

These two statements are not equal. You are implying that it takes 100 gallons worth of energy to get 80 gallons of fuel to the tank. 

Stated your way, 100 gallons worth of energy would get 500 gallons of gasoline fuel to the tank. 20% of the energy equivalent amount arriving at the tank would have been expended on production. 100 is 20% of 500. This would be an 80% return, as suggested earlier.

The next statement: "Spend all 100 BTUs plant, harvest and convert to ethanol. Deliver 130 BTUs to your tank."

100 gallons of ethanol energy equivalent would get 130 gallons to the tank? That's about a 30% energy return. Close to the 25% efficiency quoted in the papers today.

:shrug: I don't know.


----------



## ikendu (Mar 11, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



Quickbeam said:


> :shrug: I don't know.



What we have here, is a lack of communication.
(Cool Hand Luke)

I agree. Seems like we aren't calculating in a manner that makes sense to the other person.

You start with 100 BTUs of oil in the ground. By the time it gets to your tank, there is only 80 BTUs left. You can express the percentages any way you feel comfortable.


----------



## BB (Mar 11, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

Note: There are a bunch of replies posted as I was writting this--I will have to take a little time reviewing them... But I think much of what I posted is a different take on the issues so I don't believe there is much overlap. -BB



ikendu said:


> Taking money we would normally spend on lovely imported oil from the Middle East or Nigeria or Venezuela and sending it instead to our farmers here in the U.S.
> ...
> So... if getting off of imported oil is important (and I do believe that it is), corn ethanol gets you a 13:1 leverage.
> ...
> ...



OK... So should one be worried about global warming or importing oil, or protecting (or exploiting) farmers??? I guess we can do this all without links to backup documentation...

The quibble about Anthropogenic Global Warming is allowing world governments to force massive new taxing and trading schemes (and giving some of that money to China, India for carbon offsets--forcing local people off of their lands to plant trees, building cheap polluting chloro-florocarbon chemical plants so that they can sell the right to stop the "global warming" pollution--and then start all over again--About 8 chemical companies in China and Inda are responsible for absorbing at least 40% of the current carbon offset funds (go see the Australian Bulb Ban thread for links). There is at least a 10x leverage in the current system biased towards limiting these "specialty global warming gases" than the cost to actually reduce CO2 production.

OK--if you are not too worried about CO2 and global warming then we can look at "...I consider the danger of addiction to imported oil."

It looks like the US is now just like a junkie changing from one injectable drug to another to achive the same high:



> If this alliance is consolidated it will erode the Bolivarian plan to integrate the continent with a model of state-regulated economies and Venezuelan oil. It would also undermine efforts to strengthen the Southern Common Market.In the deal, Brazil gains capital to develop ethanol-producing technologies within its own borders and export them to Central America and Caribbean nations. In addition to investment and credits, the São Paulo industrialists are assured policies to extend agribusiness into the Amazon and other regions now populated by small farmers.
> 
> The United States gains greater independence from Middle East oil by importing more of the cheap Brazilian ethanol. It also begins to redraw the map of energy integration in Latin America based on Brazilian ethanol rather than Venezuelan oil and Bolivian gas, thus neutralizing the power of nations it considers uncooperative.
> 
> ...




And who just started a new organization "...Interamerican Ethanol Commission to promote the use of the alternative fuel throughout the Americas and slowly wean the region off gasoline..."



> *In one of his last initiatives as governor, Jeb Bush on Monday announced the creation of the Interamerican Ethanol Commission* to promote the use of the alternative fuel throughout the Americas and slowly wean the region off gasoline. Bush said his support for ethanol was shaped by watching the suffering of Floridians through eight hurricanes in the past two years and the resulting damage caused by a temporary loss of fuel supply.
> 
> "Wouldn't it be nice to have alternative sources of fuel as we prepare for hurricanes?" he told reporters.
> 
> *Also launching the commission was Luis Alberto Moreno, head of the Interamerican Development Bank, and former Brazilian agriculture minister Roberto Rodrigues, who now heads the country's agribusiness council.*



So, now we have "big ethanol" with government officials first creating the organizations then sliding into them for a nice job... All on the back of "Global Warming"... Notice the nice allusion to "hurricanes" and the myth that violent weather is associated with global warming--which is false as weather models require a temperature difference between the equator and the poles to drive weather systems. And, in all of the "global warming" science (from both "sides") show the poles warming while the temperatures at the equator remain relatively stable--taking the energy away and preventing the formation of violent weather patterns.

So, now we are in the toppsy turvy world of trying to substitute our foreign dependence on oil with a foreign dependence on ethanol (ironically destroying the Amazon Rain Forests, destroying the small farmer, driving up world food prices, and creating huge mono-culture farms) to stop violent weather which would have been fixed by dumping more CO2 into the atmosphere (most cost effectively creating CO2 by burning coal)...

If anything, human history has shown major human and cultural developments during warming trends (many that where warmer than they are today) and massive problems during cooling trends (dark ages).

Worrying about Iran getting nuclear weapons funded by what is left of their oil industry (slowly declining due to sanctions) is probably not near the issues that we are facing with an already nuclear armed China being fueled by money and technology from the US and the 1st world (and, by the way, China is setting up deals with Iran for deeply discounted oil--So, even if the west does avoids Iranian oil, they will still get the money and China will still have cheap energy sources)...

Followed your link Shoot Up And Cool Down: Fighting Global Warming By Injecting Sulfur Into The Atmosphere suggesting to inject sulfur into the atmosphere to cause global cooling--And just who will be responsible for the damage and destruction when those violent storms begin to rampage around the world again...

Here is a nice paper from 1995 (a little dated regarding CO2 and ice core research which had not be completed at that time) that talks about previous times when the earth was warmer than it is today...

In any case, if you are after a "twofer"--both reduce "green house gases" and "increasing world food supplies" then take the world towards mandatory vegetarianisms... That would 1) reduce global warming gas production better than if we 100% eliminated all forms of fossil fuel transportation and 2) dramatically increase the amount of calories available for human consumption (grain to meat production cycle is, at best, roughly only 10% efficient).

Farm to people ratio:



> According to the British group Vegfam, a 10-acre farm can support 60 people growing soybeans, 24 people growing wheat, 10 people growing corn and only two producing cattle. Britain -- with 56 million people -- could support a population of 250 million on an all-vegetable diet. Because 90 percent of U.S. and European meat eaters' grain consumption is indirect (first being fed to animals), westerners each consume 2,000 pounds of grain a year. Most grain in underdeveloped countries is consumed directly.



In the end, tell us which problem(s) we are trying to solve and address them directly... Don't just throw things on the wall and see what sticks (politically derived science and economics). Making a mistake affecting only a hand full of people is one thing--Making a mistake affecting billions of people is a whole different problem.

-Bill


----------



## TedTheLed (Mar 11, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

using electric vehicles instead if gas combustion has another advantage; you don't burn to death.
the story of the Pinto seems to illustrate the problems with 'progress' in a microcosm:

"
Pinto Crash Test

The financial analysis that Ford conducted on the Pinto concluded that it was not cost-efficient to add an $11 per car cost in order to correct a flaw. Benefits derived from spending this amount of money were estimated to be $49.5 million. This estimate assumed that each death, which could be avoided, would be worth $200,000, that each major burn injury that could be avoided would be worth $67,000 and that an average repair cost of $700 per car involved in a rear end accident would be avoided. It further assumed that there would be 2,100 burned vehicles, 180 serious burn injuries, and 180 burn deaths in making this calculation. When the unit cost was spread out over the number of cars and light trucks which would be affected by the design change, at a cost of $11 per vehicle, the cost was calculated to be $137 million, much greater then the $49.5 million benefit.
"..
In 1972 the NHTSA had been researching and analysing auto fire causes for four years. During that time, nearly 9,000 people burned to death in flaming wrecks. Tens of thousands more were badly burned and scarred for life. And the four-year delay meant that well over 10 million new unsafe vehicles went on the road, vehicles that will be crashing, leaking fuel and incinerating people well into the 1980s.."

http://www.fordpinto.com/blowup.htm


----------



## ikendu (Mar 11, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

Ah, the vegetable protein diet.

Bill is quite correct about that.

It takes 10 pounds of corn to create 1 pound of beef.

Actually (since this is a global warming thread), livestock production only makes greenhouse gases worse. Livestock expell methane (an even more potent greenhouse gas). In the end, our ever growing populations and western meat centered diet are important contributers to greenhouse gases too. Over consumption of meat is also linked to various cancers by many studies.

Although, I'm still a little more worried about our eventual competion with China for those last dregs of petroleum. A big confrontation with China is likely to cause all sorts of expensive and undesireable consequences for the people of the world. Sure would be nice to "plan our future" to avoid some of that. I can pretty well assure you that none of those potential future consequences are being considered much in our "free market" boardrooms.


----------



## greenLED (Mar 11, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



Quickbeam said:


> GreenLED: I'll bring the martinis if you bring the olives!


You like those shaken or stirred?


----------



## BB (Mar 11, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



TedTheLed said:


> using electric vehicles instead if gas combustion has another advantage; you don't burn to death.
> the story of the Pinto seems to illustrate the problems with 'progress' in a microcosm:
> 
> "
> ...



Much on that link appears to be a mashup of many different facts all--sort of pointing a damming finger towards Fords and Pintos (I have no great love of either--but I do try to reduce the spread of urban legends)... And, please note that the drawing from the FordPinto link above was drawn by a *Byron Bloch*... Read down through the quote below and see what appears with his name...

From this link (which much better summarizes my understanding--admitingly not that vast--of the Pinto issues over the years):



> Remarkably, the affair of the "exploding" Ford Pinto--universally hailed as the acme of product liability success--is starting to look like hype. In a summer 1991 Rutgers Law Review article Gary Schwartz demolishes "the myth of the Pinto case." *Actual deaths in Pinto fires have come in at a known 27, not the expected thousand or more*.
> 
> More startling, Schwartz shows that everyone's received ideas about the fabled "smoking gun" memo are false (the one supposedly dealing with how it* was cheaper to save money on a small part and pay off later lawsuits*... and immortalized in the movie "Fight Club"). *The actual memo did not pertain to Pintos, or even Ford products, but to American cars in general; it dealt with rollovers, not rear-end collisions; it did not contemplate the matter of tort liability at all, let alone accept it as cheaper than a design change; it assigned a value to human life because federal regulators, for whose eyes it was meant, themselves employed that concept in their deliberations; and the value it used was one that they, the regulators, had set forth in documents. *
> 
> ...



Hmmmm....Another "expert" selling his sole to "big trial lawyers" and "big news"?

And just an (admitedly stupid) point that electrical fires are not unknown either:



> During a typical year, home electrical problems account for 67,800 fires, 485 deaths, and $868 million in property losses. Home electrical wiring causes twice as many fires as electrical appliances.
> ...
> In urban areas, faulty wiring accounts for 33% of residential electrical fires.
> ...
> The home appliances most often involved in electrical fires are electric stoves and ovens, dryers, central heating units, televisions, radios and record players.



Just to show that old equipment and improper maintenance will cause fires (and deaths) wether in the home or in the "electric" car.

Now back to your normally scheduled program on Global Warming... 

-Bill


----------



## James S (Mar 11, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

best Pinto gag ever was in the movie "top secret" when the whole cast in a deuce and a half military truck have just driven through everything but when seeing a pinto stalled in front of them they all scream and slam on the breaks only to kiss the pinto's bumper with a sound effect "ding!" after which it explodes in a fashion only hollywood can provide 

If you want to know why there are geologists that comment on the expense of mining uranium when it's actually very easy and can be done by pumping carbonated water down wells rather than strip mining, ask yourself what industry employs almost every geologist without a gig at a school...


----------



## hank (Mar 11, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

The video makers have been busted --- they stretched the charts, someone took the NASA chart and did an 'artistic' version of it to fit the story they were making up.. This is all over the web by now, this morning, I found it at half a dozen science-watch websites in the first few minutes.

http://badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=32125&sid=ff3edd7b046f639e7683cd388ef9e531#32125

http://fermiparadox.wordpress.com/2007/03/10/swindlers/#comment-6

http://portal.campaigncc.org/node/1820

And if you don't want to look at the science, because your politics say global warming is inconsistent with what you believe

--- "just because you're on their side doesn't mean they're on your side" 

Martin Durkin, who made the movie, claims to be a Marxist -- from the "Revolutionary Communist Party" group. They get libertarian support by flat out lying. Works for them.

That third link points out: 

"The writer and presenter of the programme was Martin Durkin. Although it was written in a highly personal and opinionated style- speaking freely of 'lies', and the 'shrill frenzy' of 'scare stories' – we never saw Durkin or discovered his personal credentials. As George Monbiot has revealed Durkin is closely affiliated with the Revolutionary Communist Party which has a strong ideological opposition to environmental science (more on Durkin and the RCP.

"In 1997 Channel Four was forced to issue a humiliating public apology over a previous series of anti-environment programmes directed by Durkin called 'Against Nature'. The Independent Television Commission found that 'the views of the four complainants, as made clear to the interviewer, had been distorted by selective editing' and that they had been 'misled as to the content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part.'"

Here's the reference on that:

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/1997/12/18/the-revolution-has-been-televised/


You can look this stuff up. 

If you haven't looked up that "Sara Brady" gun quote, by the way, do -- it's bogus too.


----------



## Quickbeam (Mar 11, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

:lolsign: Just goes to show you what people will do to further their agenda! It's rampant on both sides of the debate.

I'll bet the TV station had great ratings and got a lot of money from it's advertisers during that program.

Is global temperature rising? I think that's a given. Is it the fault of humans? No one knows for sure, and anyone who claims to have a difinitive answer one way or the other is probably selling something.

Again...


----------



## BB (Mar 11, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

Fair enough... The Channel 4 show's science is on par with "An Inconvenient Truth" then?

-Bill


----------



## hank (Mar 11, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

You're entitled to your own opinion.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." --- Richard P. Feynman


----------



## ikendu (Mar 11, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

If you look at the ice record, CO2 levels have gone up and down 5 times in the last 650,000 years. As of 1940, the levels reached the highest they have been in all that time.

Since 1940, CO2 levels are 27% higher than at any time in the last 650,000 years.

It is only these last 200 years that mankind has been burning coal, oil and natural gas at prodigous rates.

These facts are as close to science facts as I think you can get.

Is there any way to prove absolutely to the satisfaction of everyone that this is human caused? I don't think so. :shrug:


----------



## Quickbeam (Mar 11, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

...and the CO2 levels and temperature right now is nearly the lowest it's been in 275 million years - the Earth goes through these big swings in tempertature and atmospheric CO2...

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html (scroll down to "Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time " chart.)

That's funny - I'm feeling like Deja Vu...


----------



## jayflash (Mar 11, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

Legalize marijuana. The seeds would provide bio diesel fuel, ethanol from the rest of the plant, cheap strong fiber for clothing, rope, etc. , inexpensive medicine for pain, and mood enhancement  (as opposed to expensive suicide inducing prescription drugs). The savings to our "system of justice", by not imprisoning non violent drug offenders would provide billion$ to advance energy research and efficient dwellings.

Remember that there is only one reason pot possession is a crime and it's not because the government is protecting us...it's because drug laws get politicians elected.


----------



## hank (Mar 11, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

>nearly the lowest it's been in 275 million year

Now, how do you feel about evolution as a subject? 
Most of that 275 million year period was ... different.

Consider that the plankton responsible for the base of our (the planet's) food chain -- the ones that make shells of calcite and aragonite ---- only appeared about 100,000 years ago --- and changed the atmosphere. 

The pteropods gave us our current atmosphere -- and are threatened by the change in CO2 in the oceans that's happening --- unnaturally fast, right now.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AGUFMOS24B..08O

"e we show with ocean data and models that due to this anthropogenic acidification, some surface waters will become undersaturated within decades. When atmospheric CO2 reaches 550 ppmv, in year 2050 under the IS92a business-as-usual scenario, Southern Ocean surface waters begin to become undersaturated with respect to aragonite, a metastable form of CaCO3. By 2100 as atmospheric CO2 reaches 788 ppmv, undersaturation extends throughout the entire Southern Ocean (<60oS) and into the surbarctic Pacific. Meanwhile, Weddell Sea surface waters also become undersaturated with respect to calcite, the stable form of CaCO3. These transient changes are much larger than seasonal, interannual, and decadal variability. They threaten high-latitude aragonite secreting organisms including cold-water corals, which provide essential fish habitat, and shelled pteropods, i.e., zooplankton that serve as an abundant food source for marine predators...."

That's a problem independent of global warming, it's plain chemistry.

We don't want to go back to the old atmosphere, eh? It wasn't favorable to intelligent life. 

But we are, rapidly, going back to that old, higher level of CO2 --- without knowing the result.

We know it's fossil fuel burning-- there's no carbon-14 in fossil fuel. 
See the AIP History article for how that's figured, if you aren't up on the science.

Seriously, look at the science. 
Don't just pick at things that might help support your political point of view.
Read the rest of the page. 


David Brin's really good on this:

".... many are capable of believing in science, in human improvability, and in tomorrow. My suggestions cater to neither liberal dogmas nor conservative ideologies. They are pragmatic. They serve the Enlightenment. Comments and criticism is welcome at my blog: 

" davidbrin.blogspot.com

"None of the observations that I just offered can be made to fit the most pervasive, misleading and mind-numbing political metaphor of all time -- the left-right political axis ...."

and

"I have referred to this repeatedly, because I think it is the key problem before us. In order to end the culture war (instead of getting suckered into waging it) .... good luck to the genuine and sane Americans -- of all parties, including sincere, future-oriented conservatives -- who are joining in this revolution, this counter-attack against a new wave of would-be feudal masters.

"Remember, the American Experiment was never about dogmas and incantations. It was about eager and pragmatic problem-solving, using all kinds of consensual and market tools, a gradual and gritty but powerful process that involves relentless negotiation with our neighbors, in a spirit of good will.

"Dogmatism is an enemy, wherever it arises, even among our friends!"


----------



## Josey (Mar 11, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

I recently read a column that said something like 76 percent of college-educated Republicans do not believe in global warming, and just the reverse for college-educated Democrats. I think the problem is that we, as people, are basically tribal. We support our tribe, regardless of the facts. When politics (tribalism) collides with science, politics almost always wins. 

But whether or not you believe that global warming is caused by man and threatens our future, you cannot deny that the vast majority of scientists believe that the case is proved. You may think science is wrong, but you cannot say that science isn't united on this issue. You can say that 99 percent of the scientists are wrong, but you cannot say they are not united after carefully examining the actual evidence.


----------



## hank (Mar 11, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

The one scientist included who's actually working in this area now says he was duped by the film's producers.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/#comment-27434

End of story. Fool me once, shame on me, these people have fooled a lot of people twice now.

There are crap artists on all sides of any issue. Our task is to find facts by checking claims.


----------



## DieselDave (Mar 11, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

After making hurricane predictions and re-validating their predictions from Dec. 2005-May 2006 the weather experts weren’t even close. 

2006 they predicted 17 named storms, 9 hurricanes, 5 of Category 3 or higher
2006 what really happened 10 named storms, 5 hurricanes, 2 of Category 3 or higher

They predicted an 81% chanvce a major hurricane would hit the US, didn’t happen. No hurricane of any category hit the US in 2006 and only 2-3 tropical storms hit.

Even in the borader sence they predicted a well above avaerage season and it was only average. It was the least tropical activity since 1997.

If they can’t accuratly predict the next 6 month’s weather why would we think they can predict the next 10-20-30 or 100 years or know what causes it?

Don’t get me wrong, I am THRILLED they were wrong. It just shows you how little we really know about our climate.

Science thinks it has the answers because “we are so much smarter than we were 50 years ago and our equipment is so much better.” Don’t you think the same thing was being said 50 years ago about the previous 50 years and don’t you know it will be said again in 50 years. Once they get smart enough they can keep the humidity below 60% here in the summer I will finally be a believer.


----------



## hank (Mar 11, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

Chuckle. 
May I ask who you rely on for your information, and why you trust your source?

El Nino always moves the storms from the Atlantic to the Pacific, as happened in 2006.
You may recall hearing about the storms --- hitting Australia. 

The total -- global --- was about average; the action was in the Pacific, as always during El Nino years.

The weather guys (Gray, at Colorado) didn't predict the El Nino. Climatologist James Hansen did, early in 2006.

I'm real curious to track down the sources claiming there was a low total number of hurricanes in 2006, so I'd really appreciate a pointer to wherever this is coming from, if it's a science site.

If it's one of the PR sources -- they're entitled to their own opinions, but I'll argue for facts I can confirm rather than rely on anyone's opinion.

Here's a source for facts that is well checked out and all 'sides' of the political discussion use:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/perspectives.html


----------



## Led_Blind (Mar 12, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts. **the flying spaghetti monster is to blame***

:Comment with out reading the entire thread:

What really p's me off about all climate change debate is the politicization. As we all know politicians need a single scape goat they then focus on one "root cause". Oh, its CO2, no its the sun... no wait it really IS the flying spaghetti monster!!! Whatever.... 

I saw that show to, but please, it looks like another production by the "intelligent design" campaigners

- the one graph that actually showed the warming far exceeding what would be expected by the sun alone was onscreen for less than 1\2 a second and then ignored.... Hmm i smell something funky.

- CO2 and 20th century does not match... isnt that due to sulphates, what they didnt talk about them. Really??

- Troposphere warming should be faster but its not.... wait weren’t there measurement issues with the satellites... what, that was not discussed either?! That smell is getting stronger. 

- clouds are formed from cosmic rays (intelligently designed cosmic rays)... wow, i thought water vapor formed on particulate in the air.

- What is all this crap about global warming being a political tool to stop 3rd world countries from developing. As far as i know the Kyoto agreement specifically exempts developing countries. (Damn that smell sure is strong)


Now my biggest gripe, what general pollution? Its all fine and dandy if we reduce our CO2, politicians pat each other on the back. But what about all the other crap we pump out, the stuff that is killing of species including us…..


----------



## ikendu (Mar 12, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

DieselDave wrote:

If they can’t accuratly predict the next 6 month’s weather why would we think they can predict the next 10-20-30 or 100 years or know what causes it?

+++++++++++++

I think this is a key point. So many people want to "do the right thing" but how can we be sure what that is?

For me, it helps to break this into two parts:

1. The cause for renewable energy
2. The need to eliminate excessive CO2 emissions

I used to think about them as one and the same. Indeed, #1 (renewable energy) supports #2 (reduced CO2). Whether Global Warming is right or not doesn't really change the importance of getting off of imported oil. Even if GW is completely wrong, we are still WAY too dependent on imported oil. It puts our economy and our national security at great risk. Some of you are old enough to remember the recessions triggered by the Arab Oil Embargo or the loss of oil from Iran when their revolution getting rid of the Shah threw Iran into chaos. We were only importing 28% of our oil then ...now it is 65%.

The problem is, human nature being what it is about "I don't want to change until I have to", we won't naturally prepare for a sudden lack of importable energy. We'll wait until there is a break in the supply which will throw our economy into a tail spin. Meanwhile, the balance of trade issue of importing so much energy is slowly bleeding our economy to death.

I conclude that the case for switching off of imported oil is clear; very clear.

Now, how about #2; reducing excessive CO2?

A good example for this part is our use of coal. Coal produces a huge amount of CO2. If Global Warming theory is right, we should stop emitting that CO2 as soon as possible. Either by simply stopping coal consumption or by burying the CO2 in the deep ocean or underground in geologic formations. That will be expensive and we aren't even sure it won't create a danger of sudden CO2 releases. We should likely build a demonstration power station that does this to see how well it works. The DOE (Department Of Energy) plans just such a "FutureGen" plant for 2012.

So... maybe if GW is wrong, we should jump into this?

For myself, I've decided this. Even coal is finite. We will need to switch away from coal eventually anyway. I know some people hope that cold fusion or hot fusion or "something" will come along that makes this simple and easy. I'm not so convinced that this new, "other" technology is out there.

I do know that we have a lot of wind energy we could be harnessing. Wind farms are going up and they are working. The more experience we get with them, the smarter we are about the designs and management of the turbines. Wind energy keeps getting more efficient and more effective.

So... what holds us back? Even just two states have enough wind for the whole U.S. (North and South Dakota).

Two things; where the wind is and the profile of when it provides energy.

"Where the wind is" goes like this:
- Off shore up by New England
- Off shore in the Great Lakes
- Narrow spine up the Appalachian Mountains
- Broad band from west Texas up though the Dakotas
- Rocky Mountains
- Areas down the west coast mountains from Washington, Oregon and eastern California.

There is plenty of wind but it isn't always where we need it for our population centers. We'd need to build "transmission corridors" to bring the wind electricity to where we need the energy.

And... wind energy is not "dispatchable". 

Our need for electricity is pretty predictable. We have a big peak around 3 pm every day when businesses and schools are all running. This is especially true during air conditioning times. Then we have a big dip in demand about midnight until 6 am.

Wind, on the other hand, blows when it does and that is not always when you need it. Natural gas generators are extremely dispatchable. They are like jet turbines and can sit there waiting until needed, then fire up quickly and fairly quickly shut down later when not needed. Our big thermal plants like coal and nuclear are not nearly so nimble. They are slow to start up and slow to shut down. Which is why night time electricity can be pretty cheap to buy if you have time-of-use billing.

Hmmm... so, lots of wind but not very dispatchable.

We'd need to store the energy from wind if we really want it to satisfy our need for dispatchable power. Some amount of wind would work even without storage; something on the order of 15-20 percent. Denmark has 20% right now but has to sell off some of it when they've got it at the "wrong times". The U.S. has less than 1% wind now and should be building out wind farms like crazy even now to get started.

How to store the energy?

Three ways:

A. Pumped water (we have 25 such facilities in the U.S. right now)
B. Compressed air (one facility now, a few more planned)
C. Hydrogen (low density storage, hard to pipeline)

All of these have losses of one kind or another. Pumped water is about 78% recoverable and is fairly low tech. All three add in more cost to our electricity.

A fourth way would be batteries in Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) or EVs. But even then, the wind may not always be blowing when you want to charge up those batteries. When you flip the switch, you want electricity, right? So... even with PHEVs or EVs, "dispatchability" is desireable.

So... should we create energy storage facilities?

Well, even our existing coal and nuclear plants would benefit from storage. I suppose that is why we already have 25 of the pumped water facilities.

If GW is right, we'll need them.

If GW is wrong, we still create a lot of pollution from burning coal and a lot of mining and nuclear waste pollution from nuclear. In fact, unless we adopt plutonium cycle reactors, there might only be about 50 years of economically recoverable uranium left right now (I'm still looking into this). Plutonium cycle reactors introduce all sorts of risks for nuclear terrorism and plutoinum is extremely toxic just from a poison point of view.

I'm beginning to believe that we should develop these energy storage solutions and transmission corridors whether GW is right or not. They would represent public works projects that will stimulate the economy. They'd help insulate us from world energy pricing spikes or dwindling fossil fuel resources. Similar projects like Grand Coulee Dam, Boulder Dam and the TVA all stimulated the economy. This wouldn't even have to be done as a federal program. It could all be done with private industry with the right combination of incentives and policy.

Sorry for the long post...

GW might be right or it might be wrong. There are still good reasons to agressively pursue renewable energy. We'll need to de-commission our fossil fuel use anyway at some point. Why not be ahead of the game?


----------



## Darell (Mar 12, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

First... may I say how proud I am to see that this thread hasn't devolved into the political gutter! Good on (most of) you! 

Second, let me get a pet peeve off my back. There is NO SUCH THING as an "untrue" fact. The whole idea of calling something a "true" fact just bugs me. There are facts, and then there is everything else. And there are very few facts in this matter.

1. We use energy.
2. We import much of that energy (speaking for the US here)
3. Our current traditional fuel energy sources are finite.
4. We pollute when we use traditinal energy sources.
5. Pollution is bad for us.
6. Climate has always changed...

Blah, blah.

As for the rest of the stuff - will we ever know the facts? Does human pollution effect climate? I don't know. And for the most part, I don't really care.

What seems clear to me is that we have far more compelling reasons to change our ways because of dangers we face in the short term: Too many world powers are going to want an ever increasing piece of the finite world energy pie. Many of us would like clean water and clean air. Even leaving the climate discussion out of the equation - I see compelling reasons to chang the status quo. The longer we wait, the harder it will be to change, and the bigger hit our security and economy will take.

Fact? Don't know. Reasonable? I think so.


----------



## jayflash (Mar 12, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

ikendu and Darell make valid points and present important facts, and the fact that their facts are factual - if I understand my facts correctly, make them, truly...facts! 

Yes, how can it possibly hurt to diversify our energy resources, especially the type that produce little or no pollution? The same can be concluded regarding improvements to transportation and building efficiency. The only downside to energy independence and a cleaner environment might be less profits for existing monopolies and corporations that won't adapt. The present Big Players already have the resources to retain that status; it's their choice to use those resources for immediate gratification or a, clean, sustainable future.

The justification to "stay the course" with our present energy policies is often hung on the nonfactual assumption that renewable and "free" energy is insufficient to power industry. Granted, large, three phase, power consumers won't find, immediate, direct, relief with some forms of alternate energy. However, the surprisingly numerous sources of power beyond foreign oil, coal and nuclear, along with improved energy efficiency, might be sufficient to remove many of our dwellings and commercial buildings from the grid, thus, freeing up capacity for the mega users.

Another fact that has always impressed and astonished me, is how very LITTLE air and water exist. Compared to Earth's volume, breathable air and fresh water are almost trace elements. It's scary how we are all narrowly clinging to life on this planet, how tenuous life really is.


----------



## greenLED (Mar 12, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



Darell said:


> What seems clear to me is that we have far more compelling reasons to change our ways because of dangers we face in the short term: Too many world powers are going to want an ever increasing piece of the finite world energy pie. Many of us would like clean water and clean air. Even leaving the climate discussion out of the equation - I see compelling reasons to chang the status quo. The longer we wait, the harder it will be to change, and the bigger hit our security and economy will take.


Very well said, D! If I may add a little thought, it's the short-term mentality that has gotten humanity into a lot of mudholes. IMO, it's time we take a step back and consider our long-term goals, and act accordingly.

So, where's that martini, Quickbeam?


----------



## Darell (Mar 12, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

Good news on the beer front.

One of my favorite breweries is 100% wind-powered. The other is significantly solar-powered. And the national bicycle shop that I use the most is (in theory) 100% wind powered today as well.

Me thinks we'd be in better shape if more people/companies had this sort of view: http://www.newbelgium.com/sustainability.php


----------



## BB (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

Here is a 3/13/2007 article from the NY Times about Al Gore and his movie (use www.bugmenot.com or the FireFox bugmenot addin if you need a user name and password)...

After about 4-5 screen fulls of text talking about what was not consensus science, they ended the article with:



> ...Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton who advised Mr. Gore on the book and movie, said that reasonable scientists disagreed on the malaria issue and other points that the critics had raised. In general, he said, Mr. Gore had distinguished himself for integrity.
> 
> “On balance, he did quite well — a credible and entertaining job on a difficult subject,” Dr. Oppenheimer said. “For that, he deserves a lot of credit. If you rake him over the coals, you’re going to find people who disagree. But in terms of the big picture, he got it right.”




Read the rest of the article if you are interested in what the NYT is saying today about "An Inconvenient Truth".
-Bill


----------



## TIP AND RING (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

Beer and wind power..I have experienced unwelcomed experiments of my own.  I find it strange that society, as a whole, has found more creative ways to kill itself. Peak Oil, global-warming, nuclear destruction, global depression,etc. The list is almost endless. The ability to forsee the events also provides the ability to possibly prevent the events. I have not given up on us yet. I think that hope is the key. The old, simple, adage my father passed on is: "We do not inherit our future from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children." Leave it to a poorly educated, mixed-breed, semi -native American to think that he can fully understand the natural order of things. It's still my opinion, that there isn't anything that we observe, that we can't fix.


----------



## greenLED (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

http://realclimate.org/

A running commentary (a blog, of sorts) on current climate change issues. The posters are senior scientists in several fields. Some of the stuff assumes you're "in the loop" about a lot of things, but there's still a lot of facts and scientific explanations for those of you looking for food for thought.


Quickbeam, forget the martini, Darell's bringing beer!


----------



## dudemar (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



PhantomPhoton said:


> My message to all sides of such arguements is... do you beleive everything you're told, see, and read? Or when an interesting piece of information comes to your attention, do you take the effort to track down and examine the source of the information yourself? Do you take into account who is bringing this new information to your attention and what their agenda is? Or do you only ever listen to the same single side of the story day in and day out because it fits your beliefs nicely?
> Make the effort to confirm things yourself, don't just take someone else's word for it.



I completely agree, 100%. It is _*so*_ easy for people to get on their high horses and end up spouting a bunch of opinions in their arguments, *not* facts.


----------



## abvidledUK (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

Apparently the total human contribution to CO2 is only 4% of the total.



And as one scientist here in the UK put it, the new "Green Taxes" are just a "Weapon of Mass Taxation" and actually bear no relevence to reducing Global Warming, but then we knew that anyway didn't we ?


----------



## dudemar (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

I want to start off by saying the following is purely my opinion. I *know *I just posted something about *not posting* *opinions* and *instead posting facts so there's no need to rag on/remind me* about it. I *know* I'm shooting myself in the foot on this one, but hey what's wrong with posting an opinion every now and then? 

As for where I stand with global warming I'm not sure about it yet, _*so I'm not arguing for or against it.*_

It's ridiculous I have to post all these disclaimers, but whatever here it goes.

My question to those who want to continue to use gasoline (regardless of being for or against global warming) is what's so wrong with the alternative? Is it such a crime to use solar, wind, electric, etc. energy (infinite source of energies) so the United States of America can become a self-reliant energy producer?

Gasoline (a finite source of energy) backs our dependency of energy from the Middle East (and the rest of the world), thus eliminating reliance on the Middle East would knock out a lot of our problems. We would be strengthening our own economy and securing our position in the globe. It's not like the technology isn't available and we're fumbling in the dark for it, *it's within our grasp!*

Do we as Americans _*want*_ to continue to rely on the Middle East for energy? I want to think otherwise, but it looks like a lot of us *are* in fact uncomfortable with departing from this idea.

Do gasoline byproducts cause global warming? Who knows. It just makes more sense to me to be self-reliant when it comes to energy.


----------



## MarNav1 (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

Looks like a refresher course on the Report from Iron Mountain and Between Two
Ages is in order. Leonard C Lewin & Zbigniew Brzezinski. 2 of many books that will
explain what is going on and it has nothing to do with energy. Both books written in the mid 60's. Another great read is Tragedy and Hope- A history of
the World in our Time by Prof Carroll Quigley, Bill Clintons mentor and teacher
at Georgetown University. The plates to this book were destroyed by McMillan
and Co for obvious reasons.


----------



## dudemar (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



MARNAV1 said:


> Looks like a refresher course on the Report from Iron Mountain and Between Two
> Ages is in order. Leonard C Lewin & Zbigniew Brzezinski. 2 of many books that will
> explain what is going on and it has nothing to do with energy. Both books written in the mid 60's. Another great read is Tragedy and Hope- A history of
> the World in our Time by Prof Carroll Quigley, Bill Clintons mentor and teacher
> ...



Wasn't Report from Iron Mountain a hoax?


----------



## James S (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



> Wasn't Report from Iron Mountain a hoax?




Yup...

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/iron.html


----------



## DonShock (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



dudemar said:


> ......My question to those who want to continue to use gasoline (regardless of being for or against global warming) is what's so wrong with the alternative? Is it such a crime to use solar, wind, electric, etc. energy (infinite source of energies) so the United States of America can become a self-reliant energy producer?.......


There's nothing wrong with the alternatives. In certain situations, they can be viable alternatives and as the technoligies get better in the future they will naturally gain wider use. The problem comes when you try to mandate the use of alternatives with no regard for the potential consequences. Let me give you a personal example: Several years ago I had my house built. Thinking to reduce my future utility bills, I investigated putting in a solar electricity system. Obviously, the technology exists and would be a viable alternative here in Texas. However, the cost was prohibitive, it would have been $40,000 for a system to fit my $52,000 house. If such a system was mandated, I could never have afforded my own home. But since it was voluntary, I now have my house. Maybe I'll be able to afford a solar system in the future as prices come down and my income improves, but that should be my choice, not a government mandate.


----------



## MarNav1 (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



James S said:


> Yup...
> 
> http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/iron.html


 If it's a hoax then it's
funny how it's being followed step by step, but I shouldn't be suprised at this
because it's the usual reaction I get. Reality is usually scoffed at and illusion
is usually king, but in the battle for survival for western civilization it's reality
not illusion that will determine what the future will bring. But I don't waste
time arguing the point anymore because there are very few truth seeker's
left so I just present the facts and report them to those who are interested.
The truth is all around us and so few people see. The information mentioned
is the tip of a very large iceberg, but the captain of the Titanic missed it too.
 If anyone is interested, let's go to Email shall we?


----------



## Josey (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



DonShock said:


> .... Several years ago I had my house built. Thinking to reduce my future utility bills, I investigated putting in a solar electricity system. Obviously, the technology exists and would be a viable alternative here in Texas. However, the cost was prohibitive, it would have been $40,000 for a system to fit my $52,000 house. If such a system was mandated, I could never have afforded my own home. But since it was voluntary, I now have my house. Maybe I'll be able to afford a solar system in the future as prices come down and my income improves, but that should be my choice, not a government mandate.


 
A professionally installed $40,000 solar system would be roughly a 4 kilowatt system, and much larger if you installed it yourself. A small, energy-efficient house can get by with a much smaller system. And solar is modular: You can start small and add to it, paying for increased capacity with your savings. Most people in Rainy Washington state spend much less on solar, even on $200,000-plus houses. Their 2- to 3-kw systems eliminate their electric bills forever (and earn a positive return) with a system costing half the price that was quoted to you.

Your other point about government mandates bothers me a bit. Sometimes government has to step in and protect society from the actions of irresponsible people and corporations. But in this case, the government is providing massive subsidies to nukes, coal and oil, making it difficult for solar to compete. The nuclear industry would collapse without government subsidies. If our energy industries had to pay their real costs of producing power, solar would be one of the cheaper sources in the market, especially where you live. I think that you are not using solar because the government has tilted the playing field.


----------



## ikendu (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

Mandates vs incentives vs personal choice:

Some societal benefits will only really work as mandates:

Seat belts as standard equipment
Pollution controls as standard equipment
Clean water regulations
Clean air regulations

Here in Iowa, hog lot confinements have been granted authority to locate anywhere they meet state guidelines regardless of local control from county supervisors or county zoning laws. What has happened is that people (and companies) have located hog confinements next to existing homes and destroyed quality of life and the property values of the neighbors. The state guidelines have no measurements or limits for oder.

The "free market" has simply located their confinements, meeting the minimal guidelines and destroyed the property rights of neighbors. Doesn't seem right to me and I've never met a "regular Iowan" that is for this (including family farmers). However, the meat packing companies in the state are the ones that can afford political contributions, so... that is how the law is.

Kind of like a "clean air mandate" in reverse.

On the other hand, I rode motorcycles for years. I always wore a helmet; always. I'm not for mandatory helmet laws though. Mandatory eye protection, yes. Helmets, no.

Just my $.02


----------



## bwaites (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

ikendu,

Why would you choose not to be for mandatory helmet laws, and yet support other mandates?

Head injuries are the #1 cause of long term medical care for individuals under the age or 40 or so. Multiple studies have shown that mandatory helmet laws reduce that number significantly. The cost to society of just ONE head injury care for 1 year is estimated at $250-$500,000 AFTER the initial critical care is done, and that care often is at least $500,000. If simply wearing a helmet reduces the cost to society by close to a $1 million *in the first year alone* why shouldn't helmet use be a mandate supported by everyone?

Bill


----------



## jayflash (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

As alluded to by others, if the USA's massive corporate welfare system were to be eliminated or if alternate energy sources received equal subsidies, then coal, nuclear and oil would no longer be able to compete.

In most cases it seems obvious that harvesting existing energy from the sun, waves, wind, geothermal, etc. will provide nearly infinite, domestic, safe, non polluting power.

It's only politics and greed that keep us from acting responsibly. Properly crafted government mandates can force beneficial change. Unfortunately, much legislation is really created to help the already powerful and the great sounding titles (Clear Skies Initiative) obscure a law's true intent.


----------



## James S (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



> f it's a hoax then it's funny how it's being followed step by step



it's a hoax because the guy passed it off as a paper by some committee of experts when he just wrote it up himself. That doesn't necessarily make the information in it completely wrong  Just removes the argument form authority of it and calls into question the motivations and ethics of the author.


----------



## evh (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

C'mon guys... We all know it was Crab People. CRAAAAB PEOPLE... CRAAAAB PEOPLE...


----------



## ikendu (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

I'm not for mandatory helmet laws because motorcyclists usually pay higher premiums for insurance because of their risky behavior. And... if any companies don't charge more, they certainly could.

I'm for mandatory eye protection because that protects other motorists.

If a motorcycle rider wants to take personal risks and is willing to pay the higher premiums that go with it... fine with me. You could try to make a case the helmet laws protect other motorists too... but the connection there seems much less distinct.

I'm also against gambling because it encourages destructive, addictive behavior. I'm OK with the state lottery, because people are going to gamble and they might as well have a clean, well-regulated outlet for that. However, I'm not for fancy advertising of state lotteries like "It can change your life!!!". For those that must gamble, its there. We don't have to lure people into more destructive behaviour.

So... I guess my whole stand on mandates is not mono-lithic. If there is a sufficiently powerful public good... maybe I'm OK with it. I do believe in personal freedom though when it isn't hurting anyone else. Our county wanted to tighten zoning laws one time... if you had two cats and a dog, they wanted to require a kennal license. I wasn't for that. I had 5 acres, 3 cats and 1 dog.

I am for things that will help us plan and choose our future as a society. I'd sure like to avoid Gulf War #3 with a nuclear armed opponent. It is my humble opinion that the oil companies that make billions by importing oil and leaving us so terribly vulnerable are being irresponsible, unpatriotic and unethical. Although, they are just companies. What else would you expect? Morality, ethics and societal responsibility are not usually part of the "bottom line". That is where government should be stepping in. It is where our country's leaders should be ...leading.


----------



## bwaites (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

OK, first, insurance companies don't pay the medical bills for long term care after a head injury, almost invariably that is paid for by the government, either Medicaid or Medicare. That means it is paid for by NON-motorcyclists, by and large. 

Using the same argument, there should be no seat belt laws, because they protect the people in the accident, not others

Stretching it further, we should legalize street drugs, put them in stores and tax the heck out of them. That would, by and large, get rid of drug gangs and the attendant problems, and would secure a safe, non-contaminated supply for those who chose to use them.

BUT...public good is almost NEVER the real reason for any mandate, regardless of what the politicians say! If it was, prohibition would have worked, as would the current war on drugs. Drunk driving, caused by LEGAL alcohol, is a public scourge, causing thousands of deaths and billions of dollars in lost wages, damages, and medical and legal bills. That situation would likely worsen with legalized drugs. 

As far as public good, not ONE study has shown conclusively that public lottos benefit anyone but the politicians who created them. Washington States public lotto was designed to raise money for schools. Have Washington's students benefited? Not in any measurable way...SAT/ACT scores haven't gone up, graduation rates haven't improved, drop out rates haven't gone down. 

Mandating greener power ideas will have the same effect, in my opinion. Things won't change until the PEOPLE themselves recognize a need for change. When that happens, things will change rapidly and for the better. 

Josey is a perfect example. HE made the decision to use solar power, and he has made it work for him in an area that wouldn't seem to be the most ideal place. I live in Eastern Washington, where we have sun 300 days out of the year. I haven't made the switch. WHY? Because my local PUD owns two dams on the Columbia River, my electricity is incredibly cheap in comparison to what most people pay already.

I disagree with some peoples viewpoint that the Gulf Wars have been ALL about oil. That may play a part, but I also am glad that a man who murdered thousands of his countrymen is gone. Democracy comes at a price. We forget, because it has been so long since we fought for our own freedom. 

Those Big Oil companies you mention, who owns them? The truth is that they are publicly traded companies owned by many of us. If we don't own any stocks, but own mutual funds, we can bet that some of those funds own stock in those energy companies!

Bill


----------



## James S (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

Bill doesn't easily get drawn into the fray, but when he does :bow:


----------



## ikendu (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

Bill, I'm not opposed to profits or companies. For what they do, they often do it well. Just don't expect them to operate responsibly outside of what they are good for (making profits). Hammers are great for driving nails... not so good for sorting eggs though.

We could talk Gulf War all day long. For me, it is simple. If there was no oil in the Middle East, we wouldn't have cared if Saddam invaded Kuwait and wouldn't have cared if he threatened Saudi Arabia. Only the presence of the oil made it something that was of vital importance to the U.S. It is only our dependence on the imported oil that makes it vital for us to protect the flow. If the U.S. were so energy indepedent that interupting the flow of Persian Gulf oil was a mere blip to our economy, we wouldn't be fighting wars in the Gulf. Sure, Saddam was a "bad actor". We supported him when he attacked Iran. We sure didn't threaten to invade and do a regime change. Why? Well, because, everybody knows that Iran and the people who live there are just bad human beings that hate us for no good reason at all. <--- the belief of some, not what I believe.

Personal change is necessary (and I am doing it... reduced my personal consumption of oil by 75% by switching to biodiesel). But individual action is not enough. It won't keep us from being dangerously dependent on a critical resource that we import at the 65% level.

The people on this board have seen me using biodiesel now for years. I bet many of them even see a danger of our dependence on imported oil. But I also believe that virtually all of them continue to consume gasoline or petroleum diesel that because it seems to be cheaper or more convenient. I say seems to be cheaper because those extra costs associated with our dangerous dependence on imported oil are mostly hidden costs. You don't pay them at the pump. But you pay them none-the-less; in your taxes and in the cost of all of the other goods you buy and in the societal cost of health care from the pollution of burning fossil fuels.

The solution is there, the danger is there, but still people don't act.

Would it be in their best interests for our leaders to make a societal move with laws, regulations, incentives and education to make us no longer dependent on foreign oil? Sure it would. Anybody want to get into a struggle with a nuclear armed China for control of the dwindling reserves of oil? I don't see anybody raising their hands. 

So... is personal action needed. Yup.

Is it enough? Not by a long shot.


----------



## BB (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



ikendu said:


> I'm not for mandatory helmet laws because motorcyclists usually pay higher premiums for insurance because of their risky behavior. And... if any companies don't charge more, they certainly could.
> 
> I'm for mandatory eye protection because that protects other motorists.
> 
> ...



I have yet to see a car/auto insurance that includes a $1,000,000+ liability limit for medical coverage--Heck, until recently, at least in California, every medical plan I have received (corporate and privately funded) had a $1,000,000 life time limit (seems to have been bumped now to $5,000,000).

I am against mandatory helmet laws--but I can certainly understand the societal arguments. Question--do we let the, usually, guy die if he only has $35,000 in medical coverage? That would be the obvious solution...

Regarding state lotteries--I am strongly against them. The payout is is only 42%.... And the FEDS are going to take 39.5% of that--leaving _*[fix math] 25.6*_% of the gross. What respectable gambler would not drive to a casino (or a private card game) for 90-98% return on the dollar. This is purely a tax on the stupid and the poor.

15% goes to the company that runs the games and when the take falls, they pay with the payout numbers (big vs small prizes) and do heavy advertising. When casino gambling and lotteries were illegal in California--you hardly even so the "get rich quick" ads that you see today.

The odds on winning a large (multi-million dollar) jackpot is something like 1-174,000,000 for one game (odds on buying $1 ticket). You would have to buy ~$200 in lottery tickets per year just to equal the odds of getting hit by lighting--really nice financial planning.

What are the odds of getting hit and injured or killed by lighting in the US? 1/400,000 to 1/700,000...

Gambling and lotteries are a huge social sink and hurt the very poor the worst by teaching (with massive Ad Campaigns from the State telling them that saving and working hard is not important--Life is just luck. And this is brought to you by Big Nanny State Government.

Regarding the Corporate Welfare state...



jayflash said:


> As alluded to by others, if the USA's massive corporate welfare system were to be eliminated or if alternate energy sources received equal subsidies, then coal, nuclear and oil would no longer be able to compete.
> ...
> It's only politics and greed that keep us from acting responsibly. Properly crafted government mandates can force beneficial change. Unfortunately, much legislation is really created to help the already powerful and the great sounding titles (Clear Skies Initiative) obscure a law's true intent.



We have a massive Federal Welfare State--but have you looked at where most of the money is going (PDF File page 36)?

$461 Billion for Defense and Home Land Security (boy--do I hate that name)... $1,397 Billion for Social Security, Welfare, and Medicare (and interest). Out of a $2,292 Billion budget...

May be room for corporate welfare--but not much compared to the welfare of the people... And we have congress writing such poor laws for corporations that they are leaving the US for other countries (Stanley Tool trying to move out a few years ago... Halliburton just announced a couple days ago they are moving their HQ to Dubai (middle east). That corporate welfare does not seem to be enough to keep our companies here (or their work forces) vs the laws (and social welfare requirements being written into our laws)...

And, no matter how much one can knock the ways laws are written in this country--the air is cleaner here than in many other countries with absolute dictatorships and leftest governments (I have been to China, Brazil, and Europe. Read about USSR/Russia, even the nuclear disasters in the US that were funded and covered up by US government laws).

-Bill


----------



## powernoodle (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

I should bite my tongue, but this is too delicious. Its as if we are living in some kind of bizarro world where left is right and up is down.

"March 13, 2007 - A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite. The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment."

link

Perhaps Bancroft and Arnesen next can swim across the Atlantic to bring attention to the world's growing salt water shortage.


----------



## greenLED (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

I should bite my tongue as well, but the fallacy of your argument is too much to let pass:

The _average _global temperature is what's incresing, powernoodle, that does not preclude poles from continuing to be "cold". I fail to see where a single instance of frostbite in the polar region (where, by definition, it's freezing cold) debunks volumes of data indicating average global temperatures are on the rise.

Climate change is a _global _phenomenon, not a localized one. 

:wave:


----------



## powernoodle (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

I didn't make an argument. 

If I had a point, other than the one under my hat, it would be that the temperature goes up and goes down. This is what has caused those who are looking for a crisis to repeatedly switch from warnings of global cooling (demonstrably false) to global warming (demonstrably false) and back and forth again. See post 11. After several cycles, some of us are beginning to catch on.

cheers


----------



## DonShock (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



greenLED said:


> .....I fail to see where a single instance of frostbite in the polar region (where, by definition, it's freezing cold) debunks volumes of data indicating average global temperatures are on the rise......


Yet every time there is a record high temperature, that is generally reported as yet another confirmation that global warming is all out fault. Every low temperature is just weather, every high temperature is climate change.


----------



## MarNav1 (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

bwaites- a little off topic I just wanted to help you with democracy. It means rule
by majority. CONSTITUTIONAL Republic- rule by LAW. Not picking on you at all but
we as citizens have forgotten our history.


----------



## greenLED (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



DonShock said:


> Yet every time there is a record high temperature, that is generally reported as yet another confirmation that global warming is all out fault. Every low temperature is just weather, every high temperature is climate change.


Thank you! That's a clear example of how the issue has become severely politisized (check spelling on that one), and nobody seems interested in discussing (nevermind _understanding_) the science behind this.

P'noodle, it seemed to me your were waving the old "it was cold in NY this week" line of reasoning to contradict a long-term, measured, trend that indicates global patterns of warming.

Even when you account for all the variation in the long-term patterns, the data cannot accurately explain the recent raise in temperature unless you account for human influence.


----------



## bwaites (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

MARNAV1, 

Huh? I said nothing about OUR country, other than that it has been so long since we fought for our own freedom that we have forgotten that democracy comes at a price.

Our country was NOT founded as a Constitutional Republic, for their was NO Constitution at that point. We fought for the right to rule by majority: one man, one vote. In fact, the first major document governing the United States was the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, not the Constitution. To put it very simply, the problem with the Articles was that they only provided for 1 State, 1 Vote, meaning the more populous states bore a heavier burden, but with no more voice, than the smaller states.

However, in fact, democracy actually means, "rule by the people", NOT as you said, "rule by majority."

A constitutional republic can, and in our case is, a democracy. But it is a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. Another term which might be applied is that it is a LIBERAL DEMOCRACY. Not in the current sense of liberal, but in the "ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law." 

So yes, the United States is a democracy, (small letters), but in the form of a Constitutional, representative, republic. 

As William J. Bennett said, "America's support for human rights and democracy is our noblest export to the world."

Bill


----------



## alaskawolf (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



evh said:


> C'mon guys... We all know it was Crab People. CRAAAAB PEOPLE... CRAAAAB PEOPLE...


 
darn those Crab people :laughing: 


its mid march and it was -32F this morning, at noon it had only warmed up to -18F 

someone send me some warm weather


----------



## MarNav1 (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

I respectfully disagree but I don't want to sidetrack the thread too much, we could
converse with email if you wish.


----------



## Josey (Mar 14, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



powernoodle said:


> .... global warming (demonstrably false) ...


 
Tests of coral reefs, tree rings, bore holes all prove that global warming is real and higher than at anytime in the measurable past. CO2 levels have risen from 280 molecules per million in the 1800s (from air bubbles trapped in ice) to 380 molecules per million today. Because CO2 has isotopic signatures that betray its source, scientists can prove that the rise in CO2 has been caused by the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

The warming isn't spread evenly. The Arctic is the canary in the coal mine. It is heating faster than other parts of the globe due to feedback loops: melting ice reveals brown earth which heats even faster.

There is no question that human activities are changing global climate for the worse. The only question is whether we still have time to avoid abrupt climate change. I don't think we can. We're too late. But we can't even muster our ingenuity because of a political system where the richest lobbyists in the history of mankind have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.


----------



## dudemar (Mar 14, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



MARNAV1 said:


> If it's a hoax then it's
> funny how it's being followed step by step, but I shouldn't be suprised at this
> because it's the usual reaction I get. Reality is usually scoffed at and illusion
> is usually king, but in the battle for survival for western civilization it's reality
> ...



I was just teasing you MARNAV1, it was nothing personal or intentionally harmful. The story does in fact draw uncanny parallels.


----------



## hank (Mar 14, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*

Hey, true facts! The newspaper's been pressing for the sources of the claims. 

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece

I'd say "you just can't make this kind of thing up" 
-- except that's exactly what they did.

Ask yourself the real question: -----> WIBAFFTG? <------

[ Would I Buy A Flashlight From This Guy? ]


"...The programme-makers labelled the source of the world temperature data as "Nasa" but when we inquired about where we could find this information, we received an email through Wag TV's PR consultant saying that the graph was drawn from a 1998 diagram published in an obscure journal called Medical Sentinel. The authors of the paper are well-known climate sceptics who were funded by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and the George C Marshall Institute, a right-wing Washington think-tank.

"However, there are no diagrams in the paper that accurately compare with the C4 graph. The nearest comparison is a diagram of "terrestrial northern hemisphere" temperatures - which refers only to data gathered by weather stations in the top one third of the globe.

"However, further inquiries revealed that the C4 graph was based on a diagram in another paper produced as part of a "petition project" by the same group of climate sceptics. This diagram was itself based on long out-of-date information on terrestrial temperatures compiled by Nasa scientists.

"However, crucially, the axis along the bottom of the graph has been distorted in the C4 version of the graph, which made it look like the information was up-to-date when in fact the data ended in the early 1980s.

"Mr Durkin admitted that his graphics team had extended the time axis along the bottom of the graph to the year 2000. "There was a fluff there," he said."

'"The original Nasa data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find," Mr Durkin said.

"The programme failed to point out that scientists had now explained the period of "global cooling" between 1940 and 1970. It was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight. Subsequent clean-air laws have cleared up some of this pollution, revealing the true scale of global warming - a point that the film failed to mention.

"Other graphs used in the film contained known errors, notably the graph of sunspot activity. Mr Durkin used data on solar cycle lengths which were first published in 1991 despite a corrected version being available - but again the corrected version would not have supported his argument. Mr Durkin also used a schematic graph of temperatures over the past 1,000 years that was at least 16 years old, which gave the impression that today's temperatures are cooler than during the medieval warm period. If he had used a more recent, and widely available, composite graph it would have shown average temperatures far exceed the past 1,000 years."

-----> WIBAFFTG? <------


----------



## DM51 (Mar 14, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



hank said:


> The programme failed to point out that scientists had now explained the period of "global cooling" between 1940 and 1970. It was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight. Subsequent clean-air laws have cleared up some of this pollution


Hank, that is excellent -- the answer to this problem has been staring us in the face the whole time, and now you've found it! 

Obviously what we need is a lot more sulphate emissions into the atmosphere. Then the world will cool down again and we won't have to be bored stiff being subjected to interminable droning lectures from Al Gore etc. 

Brilliant!


----------



## greenLED (Mar 14, 2007)

DM51 - the problem with sulfur emissions is that they cause acid rain. Pick your poison.


----------



## hank (Mar 14, 2007)

Yep. There have been serious suggestions that global warming can be delayed by using smoke (sulfates, as from coal plants) and mirrors (in space).

Those won't protect the oceans. Ocean plankton are the primary producers --- that's where most photosynthesis happens, so most of the oxygen comes from, as well as the basis of the food pyramid.

Big engineering schemes might be able to cool a greenhouse planet -- they should be tried on Venus first, in my opinion. Mount a scratch planet, test the theory.


----------



## imfrogman (Mar 15, 2007)

Here is my take on it. We have had warming & cooling cycles many times during the earths history. Do we know what has caused those cycles? Hell no. We can only speculate, which is exactly what is going on now, pure speculation. Any one that claims their findings is science is just full of it.
There are way too many variables , most of which we do not even know about, involved in our planets climate to calculate or to try to recreate in a lab. It just can't be done, period. Therefore, how can one claim they know what is causing the current warming trend? Is the earth warming, the current data seems to suggest that it is. Are humans causing it? There is absolutely no way to know tha answer to this plain & simple. Did the dinosaures bring about the climate change that caused their destruction? I can make as good an argument that they did as poeple are making that humans are causing it now.
I am in the camp that believes we are way to insignificant to affect a change in the earths climate. The earth has been here for millions of years & will be here for millions after we are gone.


----------



## greenLED (Mar 15, 2007)

imfrogman said:


> Here is my take on it. We have had warming & cooling cycles many times during the earths history. Do we know what has caused those cycles? Hell no. We can only speculate, which is exactly what is going on now, pure speculation. Any one that claims their findings is science is just full of it.
> There are way too many variables , most of which we do not even know about, involved in our planets climate to calculate or to try to recreate in a lab. It just can't be done, period. Therefore, how can one claim they know what is causing the current warming trend? Is the earth warming, the current data seems to suggest that it is. Are humans causing it? There is absolutely no way to know tha answer to this plain & simple. Did the dinosaures bring about the climate change that caused their destruction? I can make as good an argument that they did as poeple are making that humans are causing it now.
> I am in the camp that believes we are way to insignificant to affect a change in the earths climate. The earth has been here for millions of years & will be here for millions after we are gone.


I beg to differ, frogman. Those of us working in related fields don't need to speculate and wave our hands to explain climate patterns. There's volumes of scientific research describing how current and past Earth's climate system works. Based on this understanding, climatic models are increasingly robust in representing past and present conditions (future modeling is hazier because so much of what happens to the climate system depends on what humans will decide to do). Furthermore, there are several scientific methods to show how humans influence changes in climate. I'd be more than happy to share the .pdf file I linked to a while back, and there's more where that came from. 

There are indeed, those who want you to believe there is no science behind these assertions, but that is definitely not the case. 

Incidentally, I'm curious to see what mechanisms you propose for this "self-inflicted extinction" of dinosaurs you are willing to speculate about.


----------



## Casual Flashlight User (Mar 15, 2007)

Haven't read all this thread...but if you wish to watch the program that's created all the fuss, it can be viewed here...

*"the great global warming swindle"*

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&q=the+great+global+warming


CFU


----------



## ikendu (Mar 15, 2007)

imfrogman said:


> ...be here for millions after we are gone.



Well, exactly. 

I guess the question isn't whether the Earth will be here... but will WE be here.
Or... will we be the agents of our own undoing?
And... how much suffering and loss will be self-inflicted.

We've already seen our own ability to affect meaningful levels of both air and water pollution.


----------



## bwaites (Mar 15, 2007)

greenLED,

What the SCIENCE shows is an increase in temps over the last couple decades. What it does NOT show is mans impact on that increase. There are HYPOTHESES, not facts, that have been advanced that man has had an impact on those increases. 

Just 3 decades ago, there was plenty being published about a rapid descent into another ice age. Now we are worried about global warming.

Has man had an impact, and how large is that impact, if he has? The answers to both those questions is unknown and, for right now, unknowable. The hypotheses support that man has had an impact, at least if you listen to those who think that this cycle is caused by us. 

The only FACT is that temperatures have been slowly rising for several decades. At least where we have been measuring them. 

As for methods to demonstrate cause and effect, they are just that, methods. They aren't hard evidence, because if we had that, you wouldn't need to demonstrate it, it would be hard data. 

The hard data only supports one conclusion, that for several decades, average temperatures have been rising.

Interestingly, though, the temperatures have still not reached the point where they must have been at some point in the past. At one point in the past they were high enough that keeping and grazing cattle in Greenland was feasible. It is not today. The Vikings pulled it off for several hundred years, until climate cooling caused a significant enough loss in growing season to keep them from harvesting enough hay to keep the cattle through the winter. When that occurred, they refused to eat food from the sea, and slowly died off, although they might have been able to sustain themselves if they had adapted to the Inuits ways of survival, they also refused to do that. 

Interpreting data is an interesting business. I find it fascinating that both sides of the global warming argument have valid points, and that the data certainly does NOT support what either side proposes, at least not yet. Speculation and extrapolation might support arguments, but they are just that, speculation and extrapolation.

Does anyone remember that last hurricane season was predicted to be one of the worst in history? What happened? Almost nothing! 

That's what happens with speculation/extrapolation and hypotheses. 

I don't have a side in this fight, but I am amazed at the good science that has been done and the bad science that is then proposed by both sides!

The only true, hard, data is that temperatures are rising and have done so for a relatively short time frame, at least geologically speaking.

All the rest is speculation.

Bill


----------



## imfrogman (Mar 15, 2007)

Greenled, again you cannot possibly conceive all the variables that go into the make up of our climate. If you can then why has there never been a working accurate model of our climate where one could interject different stimuli to see what affect they had.
You may be able to speculate what you think causes these climate patterns, but you do not know for sure. For example, can you tell me the effect that a cosmic dust cloud hovering 83 million off the earth in outer space has on our climate patterns? No, you cannot because no one has ever been threr to measure that effect. Now this might seem poposterous to you, but it illistrates the fact that not all variables can be taken into account when talking about the earths climate. As you claim there are many so called scientific evidence to support your claim, but for every report you have I can come with just as scientific report refuting yours. 
As fas as my speculation about the dinosaurs, well isn't methane gas from cows contributing to the so called global warming?, well imagine the amount of methane those dinos put out. Can you disprove this?


----------



## imfrogman (Mar 15, 2007)

Bill, 
You reiterated my point much more eloquently


----------



## greenLED (Mar 15, 2007)

bwaites said:


> What the SCIENCE shows is an increase in temps over the last couple decades.


More like the last 200-150 years or so. Is that a "couple decades"?



bwaites said:


> What it does NOT show is mans impact on that increase. There are HYPOTHESIS, not facts, that have been advanced that man has had an impact on those increases.


I disagree. Science is the process of obtaining data, which I think you're referring to as "facts". 

Anyway. Continuing with your idea of human influence over climate:



bwaites said:


> Has man had an impact, and how large is that impact, if he has? The answers to both those questions is unknown and, for right now, unknowable. The hypothesis support that man has had an impact, at least if you listen to those who think that this cycle is caused by us.


 Again, I'd be happy to share that .pdf file I mentioned before if your curious to see what the "human footprint" quantification might be. Also, check out this image (from IPCC 2001) showing how CO2 must be accounted for to match global temperature trends:
http://www.esr.org/outreach/climate_change/mans_impact/mod_val.jpg
(The red line shows the observations (actual measurements), the grey line shows what our models depict (which are based on our current understanding of the observations). What you see in that graph is that, unless you take CO2 into account, the model observations don't match the observed data.)

If you want to read more about the "humans can't influence climate" argument, read this blog entry from Scientific American. Good summary, IMO.



bwaites said:


> Just 3 decades ago, there was plenty being published about a rapid descent into another ice age. Now we are worried about global warming.


And a lot of research has been done in the last 30 years. The constantly advancing and evolving nature of scientific knowledge frustrates a lot of people (and sure is fodder for those citing 30 yr-old publications as evidence against more complete knowledge of a phenomenon!). 

That decrease in temperature coincides with aerosol accumulation from some volcanic eruptions and/or sulfur emissions from human sources. Aerosols have the potential to cool the atmospheric temperatures, but we get to breathe "dirty air" (and get acid rain), and their forcing effect varies with their location in the atmospheric column. "Carbon black" is another example of an aerosol with negative forcing. Does that imply we should pollute our entire atmosphere to the levels of Mexico City so the planet cools off? I hope not.



bwaites said:


> The only FACT is that temperatures have been slowly rising for several decades. At least where we have been measuring them.


I am not sure we're talking about the same thing when I say "data" and you say "fact", BTW.

That is partially what data has shown (it also shows increase in concentrations of several other anthropogenically-produced gases and aerosols, each with slightly different magnitudes and duration of their effects, among many other simultaneously occurring phenomena). Available data is not restricted to the last several decades, though; we have independent proxy data extending far back (millions of years).



bwaites said:


> As for methods to demonstrate cause and effect, they are just that, methods. They aren't hard evidence, because if we had that, you wouldn't need to demonstrate it, it would be hard data.


 True about correlation vs. causation. The fact remains: temperatures are raising: are we going to dig our heads into the sand or do something about it. 



bwaites said:


> Interestingly, though, the temperatures have still not reached the point where they must have been at some point in the past. At one point in the past they were high enough that keeping and grazing cattle in Greenland was feasible. It is not today. The Vikings pulled it off for several hundred years, until climate cooling caused a significant enough loss in growing season to keep them from harvesting enough hay to keep the cattle through the winter. When that occurred, they refused to eat food from the sea, and slowly died off, although they might have been able to sustain themselves if they had adapted to the Inuits ways of survival, they also refused to do that.


 Excellent point - temperatures and CO2 concentrations have been higher in the past. However, there weren't +6.5 billion humans back then. We can't simply relocate to "better pastures" these days, and I'd like to see billions of people refusing to simply "die off".


----------



## greenLED (Mar 15, 2007)

imfrogman said:


> If you can then why has there never been a working accurate model of our climate where one could interject different stimuli to see what affect they had.


There are! And not just "one" model, but multiple, independent ones based on different premises, mechanisms, resolutions (spatial and temporal), and feedbacks. They all show similar patterns. 



imfrogman said:


> As you claim there are many so called scientific evidence to support your claim, but for every report you have I can come with just as scientific report refuting yours.


I can think of a lot of "what IF" scenarios as well, frogman. Can those be backed up with multiple, independent, peer-reviewed data, or are we to trust what partially censored and heavily modified "Congressional reports" have to say on the topic?

I've been down this road many times before; this is where the issue gets political, and both sides are keen in exploting the general public's lack of understanding. I'm not an expert, but have worked in this field long enough to see a wolf in sheep's clothing far too many times (from both sides).


----------



## ikendu (Mar 15, 2007)

bwaites said:


> The only true, hard, data is that temperatures are rising and have done so for a relatively short time frame, at least geologically speaking.
> 
> Bill



And... let's not forget the hard data on CO2 levels that coincide with our burning of fossil fuels.

Reminder:

CO2 levels have gone up and down 5 times in the last 650,000 years. Since 1940, they are now 27% higher than at any time in the previous 650,000 years.

It doesn't absolutely prove that they are higher because we are burning fossil fuels, but it does coincide with the period during which we have burning fossil fuels at a high rate.


----------



## Sub_Umbra (Mar 15, 2007)

bwaites said:


> ...Does anyone remember that last hurricane season was predicted to be one of the worst in history? What happened? Almost nothing!
> 
> That's what happens with speculation/extrapolation and hypothesis...


And that example is just the tip of the iceberg...sorry. 

If the _science is settled_ in this subject:

 Why must the GW Crowd jump up and down in an effort to hype a phony hurricane causal relationship that just blew up in their faces. They should think a little harder about their own lame excuse, "Global Warming is very unpredictable," and stop trying to predict things that there is no scientific basis for or things that they refuse to admit that _they have no real understanding of, whatsoever._ If they have the science they should stop making fools of themselves -- this boy who cried wolf crap was really old _decades ago._


 Why must the GW Crowd in the world in general attack _so viciously_ those who disagree with their point of view with statements ranging from the de-certifying of weathermen to drying up funding for scientists projects who don't tow the party line on CO2? Why get so ugly? (Not here -- globally) If those who scream the loudest that, "The science is settled on this" really believe it why don't they rely on their sound science to carry the day? What are they afraid of? The name calling in the cause of good science is repulsive and will not convince _a growing number of people who are interested in more rational arguments._


 When the GW Crowd is caught distorting a graph, or twisting statistics in other ways, or manipulating the results of studies they very often will admit their mistakes/distortions when confronted -- and then they and those who agree with them add _that it's OK, it doesn't matter, the conclusions *are right, anyway!*_ Why must so many who claim over and over that "The science is settled on this," be so willing to fall back on knee-jerk convictions that sound more like religious arguments than science? Put up or shut up! When a scientist pokes holes in your conclusions let your science speak for you and not your religious zeal!
The GW Movement states by it's words and *deeds:*

 Global Warming is occurring. (That may very well be) 
 CO2 is the main culprit.
 Man is the greatest cause of Global Warming.
 Man is not only destroying the earth but he is doing it so quickly that there is no time for real science *or even discussion.*
There are a growing number of people who will increasingly dig their heals in at the above rational for destroying the world economy *and* what's left of our personal freedoms.

If you have the science I would recommend you police your ranks and try not to sound so much like religious crackpots.

I'm speaking globally -- I'm not pointing this at anyone on this forum -- I'm referring to the strategy of the *Movement* in general.

Aside from the _science_ in this issue it also is a political, cultural and economic issue and this will have to be addressed.

I'm afraid that there will be a backlash in a few years and the image of *Scientists* in general will be somewhat tarnished by the un-scientific way that so much of this battle has been fought.


----------



## ikendu (Mar 15, 2007)

Sub_Umbra said:


> There are a growing number of people who will increasingly dig their heals in at the above rational for destroying the world economy *and* what's left of our personal freedoms.



I will admit that I hear some people advocate a future like "The end of suburbia" and such... 

But mostly I don't see Global Warming folks advocating "destroying the world economy".

I do see lots of people advocating producing energy in a way that reduces CO2 emissions like wind energy. Wind energy won't destroy our economy, it stimulates construction and creates new jobs that can't be exported to China.

As far as destroying "what's left of our personal freedoms", can you list three examples of that?


----------



## DonShock (Mar 15, 2007)

ikendu said:


> ......As far as destroying "what's left of our personal freedoms", can you list three examples of that?


1. After tightening of the CAFE standards for cars turned them all into cracker boxes, more and more people began choosing trucks and SUVs. Since people didn't make the "right" choice, they are now proposing the same standards be applied to the trucks and SUVs which will eliminate the ability to choose a vehicle with a decent people/cargo capacity. If your vehicle needs don't meet the government limits, too bad!

2. Some cities have proposed banning/penalizing personal vehicles in their downtown areas to minimize "urban pollution" and encourage the use of mass transit. If your schedule or your origin/destination points don't happen to coincide with the government run mass transit, tough!

3. Warning to homeowners as the green vision is unveiled


> Ministers yesterday promised deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions that they warned would mean everyone in the country having to 'live, work and travel differently'.
> .........
> The Government said that every new home should be 'carbon neutral' within ten years - and existing properties subject to a 'home energy audit' to assess how green they are.


If you can't afford all the upgrades or the increased price of a new home, they'll be happy to put you in one of the government run slums.

EDIT:




I don't know how I forgot about this one!
4. Australia to Ban Old-Style Light Bulbs to Reduce Greenhouse Emissions
We here all know LEDs are getting better and better, but they still can't meet the light output of incandescents in some uses. But don't worry, you didn't really need to see that rapist hiding in the shadows anyway.


----------



## greenLED (Mar 15, 2007)

Sub_Umbra said:


> The GW Movement states by it's words and *deeds:*
> 
> Global Warming is occurring. (That may very well be)
> CO2 is the main culprit.
> ...



I'm taking a leap here, because I generally don't like to discuss policy, but I'm trying to relate this back to science:

In general, I agree with the 3 first points I quoted (I say "in general", because points 2 and 3, as stated, are overly simplified and not entirely correct). I don't know how you arrived at your fourth premise, though, and I strongly disagree with your statement. Science IS about discussion and a large peer community bent over backwards trying to poke holes into your understanding of a phenomenon (something politics doesn't have). If the public feels that's not the case, then we've (as a rational-thinking human society) failed miserably at educating the public as to what science really is about and what role and interactions it plays in society.

If the arguments sound like religious crackpots to you, we should look both ways before crossing the road (and that also applies to the comments I did not quote or refer to). That happens, IMO, because popular lack of understanding has facilitated manipulation campaigns from both sides: contrarians touting opinons or distorted reports as if they were truth, and some "greens" crying like the sky is going to fall on our heads tomorrow. Both are extremes with which I do not agree, BTW. Add a generous dash of political bias and economic interests, and the melting pot is ripe for a circus performance. I have to ask myself: Who benefits from this? I bet it's not the majority of us - regardless of where we're headed.

I'll have to dig through my files and share a paper discussing how the premise of "hurting our economy" does not hold to close economics theory scrutiny. Something about how generalized economics assumptions don't quite match the real world, but I forget the details. Stay tuned on that one.

Personal freedoms? I won't even touch that one! :laughing:


----------



## Sub_Umbra (Mar 15, 2007)

ikendu said:


> ...But mostly I don't see Global Warming folks advocating "destroying the world economy"...


Don't be surprised by that. The leaders of the Bolshevik Revolution never advertised that the changes that they would make in government would cause *tens of millions* of citizens to die at the hands of the State over the next 87 years -- coupled with a very broad ranging loss of most of the freedoms we hold dear in the West. No salesman would try to make that sale. Likewise, Pol Pot never made the claim that his minions would _summarily_ execute anyone wearing glasses because that would be enough indication that _they may be intellectuals_ and therefor deserving of death by Pol Pot's standards. Along these lines it should be noted that Pol Pot was so stealthy that in the years following his takeover most of the intellectuals _were already dead_ before many of the survivors even knew he was running the government. 

Hitler never mentioned that *democratically electing* him would allow him to, for the most part, legally accomplish a chain of events that would put a complete halt to the democratic process in Germany until he was dead and most of the countries means of production lay in ruins.

As much as I hate to paraphrase Ferlinghetti, "...The car salesman won't tell you the tires are retreads and the tank is empty." I'm sure that there were good, honest, well meaning souls in all three of those countries who backed those extremists. Not good enough.


ikendu said:


> ...As far as destroying "what's left of our personal freedoms", can you list three examples of that?


I gave a myriad of examples of how Global Warming regulations will reach into the lives of everyone and nearly all businesses in *this earlier post.* In it I state that there is a tremendous potential for corruption and other forms of abuse, a potential _unprecedented in our history._ I mention that this potential for corruption is never mentioned by those who would simply have government write all of the rules for all business and make all of the decisions for everyone. We have a system that was designed to keep bureaucrats from making all of the decisions. What the GW Movement wants (in their desire for changes that would allow the regulation of nearly everything) *is a revolutionary change in how our City, State and Federal governments govern, and they won't even admit that it would be a change.*

To keep this simple, *corruption robs many facets of 'freedom' from those who will not or cannot pay.* That is why corruption is frowned upon by society. If you read my post and that which follows you won't see anyone refute my claim that this would result in massive corruption. No one writes, "We've thought about this and here's how we've got it covered." As I mentioned in the linked post, *they never allude to the corruption, which might be called THE HUMAN FACTOR of this equation* We are talking about changes in our society and government on a huge scale and the folks who want the changes won't even discuss the side-effects -- an accelerated socialization way beyond anything that could be accomplished at the ballot box.

As with the good souls in Cambodia or Germany or Russia I alluded to above it is very easy to deny that *world shaking* repercussions won't come out of the colossal changes cavalierly suggested, but that does not mean that there is no fine print.

The Movement is going to have to do much better in the future. Eventually they will have to address some of the issues that will emerge out of their proposals -- issues that they've been able to skate on without explaining so far.


----------



## Josey (Mar 15, 2007)

Here’s what I see:

Today’s atmospheric CO2 levels are 380 parts per million, up from 180 ppm during the 1700s. During the 650,000 years before industrialization, the natural range of CO2 was 180 to 300 ppm. The earth has not seen CO2 levels this high for hundreds of thousands of years, perhaps 20 million years. Other manmade aerosols have increased during industrialization, too, such as methane (agriculture and burning fossil fuels) and nitrous oxide (agriculture). The CO2 isotopic composition (and decrease in free oxygen) proves that the CO2 comes from fossil-fuel combustion and deforestation.

Carbon has three isotopes: 12C, 13C and 14C. Plants prefer 12C and take that up readily. 14C is radioactive and not found in fossil fuels because these fuels are older than 10 half lives of 14C. As CO2 levels have risen during the industrial period, the ratios of 14/12C have declined [no C14 in fossil fuels, so the numerator (natural 14C) is made smaller relative to the denominator (new 12C from burning fossil fuels)] and the 13/12C ratio has also declined (12C is found in fossil fuels and released by deforestation).

Scientists have reached a rock solid consensus that global warming is caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. They believe the results, if we don’t act, could be devastating.

Three million years ago, when the earth was 3 degrees C warmer, sea levels were more than 75 feet higher. New Orleans won’t be the only major city under water.

Scientists are warning that we could exceed the Permian-Triassic mass extinction of 251 million years ago, when the earth lost 70 percent of land life and 90 percent of marine life.

We are not acting.


----------



## ikendu (Mar 15, 2007)

I think when I see Global Warming and the "H....." word mixed in with the same post, we have reached the point where my meager knowledge and powers of persuasion have no real chance of affecting opinion.


----------



## TorchBoy (Mar 15, 2007)

Josey said:


> Carbon has three isotopes: 12C, 13C and 14C. Plants prefer 12C and take that up readily.


Really? How do plants tell the difference? I thought those isotopes behave pretty much the same, chemically.



Josey said:


> Scientists have reached a rock solid consensus that global warming is caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.


So the first post (ie the thing that kicked this thread off) wasn't referring to anything to do with scientists?


abvidledUK said:


> Just watched a really interesting programme on Channel 4's Dispatches here in the UK.
> 
> Many *scientists* interviewed.
> 
> ...



:touche:


----------



## greenLED (Mar 16, 2007)

TorchBoy, my ecophysiology is a bit rusty but, plants have to spend slightly more energy to move the heavier isotopes in/out of their tissues. This is because the atoms of different isotopes are of different sizes and atomic weights than their "normal" counterparts, so they react at slightly different rates than the "normal" atoms. For example, plant evapotranspiration discriminates against heavy isotopes - thus causing a shift in the expected isotopic ratio, which can be traced back (because we know natural rates of isotope decays) to atmospheric concentrations through time. 

The same technique can be traced back to measure C turnover in soils, as we can estimate how long ago a site was covered with forests, pastures, etc.


The OP has to do with *scientists being misled, and their knowledge misrepresented to misinform the public.* The following link should explain that better than I can:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

and part of a letter one of the scientists interviewed for that documentary sent to the broadcasting company:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/#more-417


...and that's what happens when politics and hidden agendas are presented as "science".


----------



## Empath (Mar 16, 2007)

I recall some words from Green in a previous thread on the topic.



greenLED said:


> This is why nowdays I watch from the sidelines every time a global warming thread starts on CPF.



I did a share of the talking there. In this thread, I've attempted to adopt Green's philosophy for myself. I'm apparently not too successful. It's difficult to stay silent, even knowing that what is said is soon forgotten and will soon begin anew, with the same things said and sides taken.

rather than saying it all again, I'll just make reference.


----------



## greenLED (Mar 16, 2007)

Empath, thank you for your timely quote. If I may, in turn, quote you from that other thread:


Empath said:


> It's strange how everything becomes political, as if that has any effect on science or fact. Developing opinions doesn't alter facts. Convincing others to accept one's beliefs doesn't alter facts. Things are as they are, and will be as they will be. Trying to alter other's opinion too, won't change it.





Empath said:


> It's difficult to stay silent, even knowing that what is said is soon forgotten and will soon begin anew, with the same things said and sides taken.


 
If there's something I'm passionate about is discussing climate change science. I'm not here to talk politics or convince anyone to think like me (the world would be a screwed-up place)  but I cannot sit idle while incomplete knowledge, improper logic, and personal opinions about a field I'm familiar with is presented as irrefutable "fact". Maybe that's why I keep dragging myself into these threads. I may stop when Darell brings that beer he offered a couple of posts back.


----------



## bwaites (Mar 16, 2007)

Most of the "incomplete knowledge, improper logic, and personal opinions about a field I'm familiar with is presented as irrefutable "fact". " that I have seen comes from the GW proponents.

As I have said before, I haven't seen evidence that convinces me either way, but the hardcore people seem to all be on the GW side, and the data and "facts" don't support that. 

GreenLED, I had a long post eaten by CPF, and it's not worth the hassle of rewriting it, but I think SubUmbra's points are well thought out and well spoken. 

Bill


----------



## Bob_G (Mar 16, 2007)

Hey, I've got an opinion too!

I've never seen any of the documentaries, I don't read much on the subject, I don't know any of the science, and I don't care to. So there ...

I was in school in the '70s, and the big thing then was that oil was running out to the extent that it should have been gone by now. But technology marches on - new, better, cheaper ways of finding it and retrieving it - so here we are today with SUVs and trucks the vehicle of choice for many.

Does anyone not believe that oil is a finite resource? Does anyone not get that this means if we continue to use it that it will eventually run out? It doesn't matter when, just that it will. 

The objection to the idea of our atmospheric temperature being on an effectively permanent upward trend, often seems to be in fact an objection to the worst case scenario/Chicken Little view as expressed by those with a political agenda, so one's own political agenda becomes the basis of the objection. Just because "they" play politics with science doesn't mean we have to. 

I might be missing something in my simplified view, but here it is. 

At some point, the planet on which we reside could not support life. At some point, conditions changed so that it could. This life formed and evolved over time, lots and lots of time, to what we have today. The life (as we know it - life technically existed before the formation of the oxygen based atmosphere as we know it now) that evolved (small "e" there) was defined by the conditions present. Without these conditions, we're all still just a bunch of bacteria. If conditions were different, or changed drastically and suddenly, familiar species would not have come into being long enough to notice, or would have died off. The basic parameters of our life supporting system don't change enough to notice - it is what it is.

And what it is, is an engine in a closed system. The atmosphere is locked, nothing gets in (from the outside) or out (from the inside.) Life evolved as we know it based on that simple fact, and without it, I don't see how life could exist in any system, as things would change too fast and unpredictably. It's the nature of a life supporting atmospheric system to be stable.

So what we have is a hunk of rock, with a stable atmosphere, orbiting around a heat source at a distance that keeps things comfy (you know, the oceans aren't frozen or anything like that.) Then along comes man, and we evolve to the point of what we call the industrial age. We start, and continue, to dump all kinds of "unnatural" (i.e. an amount of whatever far exceeding what the planet has learned to accommodate) stuff into that fixed system. It's self cleaning to a point, but it is a closed system, so stuff builds up. At some point, it over-burdens the system. 

The nature of the system (atmosphere plus heat source) and the nature of the stuff, adds up to the atmosphere holding more heat. So yes, the sun is the problem. If we had a thermostat for it, we could just turn it down a little. 

Here's a visual reference that I hope is accurate. I'm rounding off the numbers. 99% of the mass of the atmosphere is in the first 100 km. The planet is about 13,000 km in diameter. To visualize the thickness of the atmosphere, picture holding a 13" ball in your hand - the atmosphere would be .1". Reduce that down to where we and most everything else lives, call it 15000 ft, and it's .005" on a 13" ball. And it's a closed system. And we're dumping lots of stuff into it that it wasn't designed to handle. 

So no, I don't have any problem at all believing that the system is heating and that we're the cause. The results of that? No idea ... maybe catastrophic, maybe we'll just adapt. Maybe if we do, lots of other stuff won't so we'll kill the planet while saving ourselves. Or maybe we'll kill ourselves and save the planet - it could happen. One thing I'm sure of, there's no where else to go. We're stuck with this rock, and it's the only rock anyone knows of that supports our kind of life. Westward expansion is done. There's no new world to discover and populate. The population of this world continues to increase, and large parts of it that never were are now becoming industrialized. 

So not only is the atmosphere a closed system, the planet is a closed room, and we keep putting more and more stuff into it. The people stuff all have their own desires and demands and jealousies and animosities, but there's no door. Nobody can leave and go next door where the folks are more to their liking. It's getting pretty stinky and pretty hot in there.


----------



## Nomad (Mar 16, 2007)

Well a lot of the spend-waste-destroy "conservative" crowd would like to deny that human activity has had an impact on the global environment so they can continue to destroy the world in the hope of extracting a profit (who cares? They'll be dead when things really get bad, right!?). Pretty much anyone who denies that greenhouse gasses are building up due to human activity either isn't very well educated on the subject, one of those people who likes to deny everything they think is skewed by the "liberal media", not that bright, or just plain evil/greedy...at least from what I've seen.

What bothers me is that people want to make this all about politics and political parties. The people with the real educations who aren't in the pockets of major oil/republiclan think tanks say that even if we stopped producing all additional CO2 from industry and power plants NOW it'll take at least 50 years before the effects of global warming will stop. What really pisses me off is that there is only a limited amount of oil and coal in the world EVER. Once it's gone, it's GONE. So why waste it? Why MUST you drive that 10 mile to the gallon SUV? (I think that it's because you have a very small ::ahem:: "unit") A lot of the real cuties I used to know had a saying they passed around - "the bigger the truck, the smaller the man". At any rate, I still don't get why wasting natural resources is seen as a good thing by a certain type of person. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD. I CAN go out to the pound, adopt a dozen kittens, skin them and turn them into gloves...but I shouldn't ('cause it's gross, cruel, and really serves no purpse). I CAN legally blast obnoxious rap music that rattles my neighbors windows until midnight (noise ordinance)...but I don't because it's obnoxious and serves no purpose. The thing is, there ARE better ways to power cars available...but right now the government is even managing to mess that up (why use ethanol from corn? It's VERY inefficient, if you're going to burn ethanol make it from one of the hundreds of plant sources that is more efficient?).


I'm really just tired of people trying to make this a republican vs. democrat thing. If there's even a damn good chance that all the CO2 being pumped into the air is f'ing up the world for future generations, then be f'ing responsible and DO SOMETHING NOW. Solar and wind power come down in cost the more demand there is for it, economies of scale. Tidal and geothermal generators are proven and tested technologies. And as far as developing countries go, we're their biggest market, if the USA and the EU got together and told these countries "We won't buy your products if you continue to pump all this pollution into the air, and we're cutting off the BILLIONS in aid unless you use it to develop clean power rather than coal plants, and stop dumping toxic waste into the rivers and oceans too." then guess what...they'd follow suit. If for no other reason than the scumbags in charge of most of those developing countries skim off a big chunk of that aid money for their own pockets. 

Ah well...that's just MY take on things. I live out in the boonies, we have a smallish SUV that gets about 24-25 on the freeway, the high clearance is great during monsoon season. We also have two sedans, an old AMC Hornet that almost never gets driven, and a modern Kia Optima that actually goes over the bumpy dirt roads better than the SUV and gets close to 30 MPG freeway. We'd like to get a hybrid Toyota Highlander for our next SUV...and a hybrid sedan to replace the Kia, when funds allow...if for no other reason than we don't have to fill up the tank as much or worry about emissions tests. Our house is an energy star rated manufactured home, I pay under $100 month in the middle of August to keep the house in the 72-73 range (moving that up to 75-80 this summer most likely). That's with 3 computers, 2 TVs, and all the lights switched over to compact flourescents.


----------



## DonShock (Mar 16, 2007)

(Rather that try to retype it all, I just highlighted a few areas in the original post.)


Nomad said:


> Well a lot of the





Nomad said:


> spend-waste-destroy "conservative" crowd would like to deny that human activity has had an impact on the global environment so they can continue to destroy the world in the hope of extracting a profit (who cares? They'll be dead when things really get bad, right!?). Pretty much anyone who denies that greenhouse gasses are building up due to human activity either isn't very well educated on the subject, one of those people who likes to deny everything they think is skewed by the "liberal media", not that bright, or just plain evil/greedy...at least from what I've seen.
> 
> What bothers me is that people want to make this all about politics and political parties. The people with the real educations who aren't in the pockets of major oil/republiclan think tanks say that even if we stopped producing all additional CO2 from industry and power plants NOW it'll take at least 50 years before the effects of global warming will stop. What really pisses me off is that there is only a limited amount of oil and coal in the world EVER. Once it's gone, it's GONE. So why waste it? Why MUST you drive that 10 mile to the gallon SUV? (I think that it's because you have a very small ::ahem:: "unit") A lot of the real cuties I used to know had a saying they passed around - "the bigger the truck, the smaller the man". At any rate, I still don't get why wasting natural resources is seen as a good thing by a certain type of person. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD. I CAN go out to the pound, adopt a dozen kittens, skin them and turn them into gloves...but I shouldn't ('cause it's gross, cruel, and really serves no purpse). I CAN legally blast obnoxious rap music that rattles my neighbors windows until midnight (noise ordinance)...but I don't because it's obnoxious and serves no purpose. The thing is, there ARE better ways to power cars available...but right now the government is even managing to mess that up (why use ethanol from corn? It's VERY inefficient, if you're going to burn ethanol make it from one of the hundreds of plant sources that is more efficient?).
> 
> ...


 I see, rather than respond to other's facts and opinions, it's just easier to name call. And the contradictions are amazing. It shouldn't be about politics, but it's all the stupid/evil conservative/republicans fault. And of course YOUR SUV(s) are needed and reasonable, it's the other guy that only buys an SUV because he has an ego problem.

I'll try again. GW is happening, right now anyway. The full causes, how much is human caused, how much it has occurred in the past, how long it will continue into the future, how it can be dealt with, how much it will cost to deal with it, and what the effects will be are all debatable topics. A reasoned scientific approach should be used to evaluate the data and find the answers to these questions. But even that isn't perfect, there will always be some debate when you are attempting to predict future events and decide what level of intervention in peoples lives is justified based on those predictions. However, the full scope of GW is far from settled science. Only more science and open debate will show the truth of the issue. Screams of “the sky is falling” and name calling solves nothing.


----------



## greenLED (Mar 16, 2007)

bwaites said:


> Most of the "incomplete knowledge, improper logic, and personal opinions about a field I'm familiar with is presented as irrefutable "fact". " that I have seen comes from the GW proponents.
> ...
> GreenLED, I had a long post eaten by CPF, and it's not worth the hassle of rewriting it, but I think SubUmbra's points are well thought out and well spoken.
> 
> Bill


Bill, I've been involved with climate change-related science since 2000, and the picture I see is very different. You could say that makes me a "tree hugger" and precludes me from seeing the other side of the argument, but neither statements would be accurate.

I've been extremely fortunate to interact with scientists who support the notion of climate change, and those who don't. One thing I've learned from them is the importance of learning about both sides of a debate, seeking alternative explanations, revising one's understanding (which is not the same as one's beliefs) of a phenomenon, etc. If there are "holes" in one's research, you can trust other scientists to find them and call you out on them - that's what we do, and what makes science so interesting to me.

If there's something a lot of the people I work with agree upon is that, as scientists, we've failed miserably at communicating what the scientific process is really about, and appropriately sharing scientific results so everyone can understand and make sound use of them.

Just today I was talking to a senior scientist from Tulane University. He was telling me how the Army Corps of Engineers are given these massive amounts of money to "restore the wetlands" affected by Katrina... and, yet, these are engineers with little or no understanding of what the biological systems they're trying to "restore" require. It's one thing to restore a water table; it's entirely different ballgame restoring ecosystem functioning, and they're not seeking input from hydrologists, biologists, etc. Sadly, not a lot of the latter groups are sharing their own understanding with the engineers either! :shakehead

Why do I mention this? Because it's this same detachment between scientists and the general public that allows other "interest groups" to fuel and perpetuate misunderstandings about global climate change data and the science that generates those!

Finally, I just want to say that SubUmbra's posts are, like you say, "well thought out and well spoken." They are very valid concerns and I read them attentively. If I've chosen to ignore them (for the most part), it's because his arguments are mostly political, not scientific. And whenever I see a shadow of scientific fact, it's just that... a shadow. Not my piece of pie. 


OK, now, seriously, where the heck is Darell and that beer!


----------



## bwaites (Mar 17, 2007)

greenLED,

I appreciate your posts because you DO stay calm, and you try to point out the scientific data and facts.

I was a biology major first. I was specializing in Marine Biology, when I found out that I had an ear condition that would not allow me to dive. I then switched to history/pre-law. After advice from several very successful attorneys convinced me that law was not what I wanted to do, I ran my own successful business for a decade, before I got bored and went BACK to school in my 30's, again in biology, and eventually decided on a degree in Nursing, then a degree in Rural Health Sciences, and became a Physician Assistant. 

To make a long story short, I spend all day, every day, immersed in the science of human biology and the art of medicine. 

I tell you all this for one reason. I do nothing very fast. It literally took me a decade to figure out what I wanted to be "when I grew up". 

I have spent the last decade+ studying and reading a lot of the information made public about global warming. I'm certainly not a climatologist, but I have read, and read, and read just about everything I can about climate change. I have read and studied many books and papers related to climatology, societies response to climate shifts, and so on. I have just finished Jared Diamonds book, *Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed (2005)* after having read *Guns, Germs, and Steel (1997)*

I am deeply concerned with the waste of natural resources I see around me. 

That said, I am convinced that temperatures have risen for the last several decades, and agree that an argument can be made that they have risen for the last 200 years. (Although at least 150 of that could be easily construed to be normalization of temperatures after the "Little Ice Age" phenomena.) 

I agree that there are well meaning scientists on the GW side. 

BUT...and to me this is huge, the data and facts do not yet support GW as being caused by man. There are extensive arguments for it, but they are neither conclusive or convincing yet. The time frame is simply too short on a geological scale to make sense of them AND draw the conclusions that are being drawn.

CO2 levels may also be higher than at any time in the recent past, heck, maybe even the distant past. BUT...once again, the correlation between man and those levels is too short term and too simplistic for me to come to the same conclusion that some of the GW proponents are. 

As an example: Many years ago a US drug company discovered a promising compound for the treatment of depression. It had no side effects in mice or rats. This company chose Beagle dogs as their advanced study for safety. Beagles had been used in similar studies for anti-depressant drugs for other companies testing similar compounds, and it made sense to use them for this new compound. However, as they gave the drug to the dogs, the dogs began dying. So many died, in fact, that the company stopped the study and withdrew the compound. They decided the drug was unsafe. Years passed.

Another company, this one in Europe, then bought the compound. Their advanced experimentation was on primates, and they saw no ill effects. The drug tests advanced once again, first with testing in healthy humans, then with testing in humans with severe depression. The drug was a remarkable success. It treated depression very well in humans, and extensive experimentation showed no ill effects in humans. It became the most widely used anti-depressant in Europe. 

Then the company wanted to introduce it the United States. The FDA remembered the studies on the compound made by the previous owner. They made the new company jump through hoop after hoop, but eventually it was approved in the US. Today, that drug is widely recognized as the most side effect free drug commonly used for depression. 

So why did the drug kill Beagle dogs for the first company and work so well for the second? Was the first company using a bad batch of drug? Nope, it turned out, that after extensive study, (this took years) it was discovered that Beagle dogs do not produce an enzyme plentifully common in humans, rats, mice, and primates. That enzyme helps the liver detoxify the compound. 

The drug is very safe in humans, but treating Beagle dogs for depression with it is not a good idea!

So why tell this stupidly long and complicated story?

The first company had a great drug, but they lost it because they didn't have enough data points to draw the conclusion that they should have been able to arrive at. They took the data from the study on Beagle dogs and hypothesized that the drug would be harmful to humans. They ignored the rat and mouse data, because it contradicted what they felt was superior data from the Beagle studies. 

They had incomplete data. Right now, I think the GW proponents are in the same boat. They have incomplete data, and they want desperately to extrapolate that data out. But...they can't! The data isn't complete!

There is lots and lots of data that points in one direction, but like the company that owned the drug first, they are drawing conclusions that the data points at, but MAY not be drawing the conclusion that is actually more true.

You are right, they don't convey the data well to the public. And for many in the public it might not even matter, because, just like cigarette smokers who refuse to quit even in the face of incontrovertible evidence that it is harmful, a large percentage of the population won't listen anyway. But some of us would, if that data was presented in the right way and with the right supporting information. 

That isn't happening, and the data and facts are not yet conclusive.

I haven't made up my mind, but I do know that I deeply resent being labeled uneducated simply because MY scientific training won't let me accept something that is not yet proven! 

GW cause is suspicious, but like that first drug companies suspicion, it may be completely and utterly wrong.

Bill


----------



## Sub_Umbra (Mar 17, 2007)

> ...If there's something I'm passionate about is discussing climate change science. *I'm not here to talk politics* or convince anyone to think like me (the world would be a screwed-up place) but I cannot sit idle while incomplete knowledge, improper logic, and personal opinions about a field I'm familiar with is presented as irrefutable "fact". Maybe that's why I keep dragging myself into these threads...


Emphasis mine.

Respectfully, I don't think that that's at all realistic. Humans are political animals. As I mentioned before, GW is a *huge political issue.* It is a huge economic issue. It's very convenient for your argument to say you'd prefer to just step above the political fray but I must admit it leaves me scratching my head.

Humans settle _all kinds_ of conficts *politically.* They stoop to politics _to amicably resolve the truly important issues in their lives._ They even reluctantly leave the warm, comforting glow of their TVs on weeknights to go to their city halls and talk out mundane *political* items like whether people should be allowed to park on a given street after dark. We do it _politically_ because it is the most civilized way that humans know of to settle disputes. It is much more civil than the alternatives.

Yet, as I've mentioned in posts above, the GW Movement *INSISTS* on doing everything they can to avoid discussing the political ramifications of *any* of their proposals. Like some here, they often disdain political discussion and won't even _lower themselves_ to the level of politics *when it comes to discussing their own pet subject.* IMO on the benign side this view is naive in it's attempt to divorce any important decisions from their political consequences. On a much less benign level it is a tactic employed to avoid ever having any meaningful discussion of the implementation of their policies. That way those who disagree with their tactics and science will also have no success at holding their feet to the fire about how they plan on putting their huge, expensive, potentially culture rocking plans into action.

In my opinion *no conflict* exists in a vacuum. Likewise, *no conflict* exists outside of the _political sphere_ -- until it devolves into violence.

I see Global Warming as a very appropriate subject of civil political discussion anywhere, including the CAFE. There are political repercussions of Global Warming -- *that's a fact.* Global Warming will increasingly be addressed politically. For some that may evolve into an... inconvenient truth...

If anyone finds the civil political aspects of Global Warming so distasteful that they choose to abstain from comment, I sympathize. I even sympathize with the guy who won't go to city hall on a week night to get politically involved in the parking ordnances for his own block -- but this isn't anything as trivial as parking.

If anyone wants to sit out the _civil political discussion_ about what some claim to be *THE FATE OF MANKIND* and the real life, nuts and bolts impact on all of humanity of their proposals, which would seem to be *the largest, most expensive and broad ranging project in the history of the earth* -- fine. No one is going to force anyone to explain what they will do to save the human race. No one is obligated to explain the social, cultural, economic and _political_ fallout from their proposals. The GW Movement has been very consistant in keeping it's hands unsoiled by talk of politics -- even as it insists the earth is becoming uninhabitable. Ironic.

I, on the other hand, am bound by no _self-imposed_ constraints of that nature. If some are willing to give up a weeknight of TV to discuss the politics of city parking I have no qualms about wanting answers about *how the GW Movement's solution to the RAPIDLY APPROACHING DEMISE OF MANKIND will affect my life and the lives of those I love.* If politics are too unsavory for the GW Movement to stomach _even to save mankind_ that is _their problem_ and they must make their own decisions about how they will or will not respond. Everyone has their own priorities. Go figure.

I sense a growing interest in the political side of Global Warming on a grass roots level. I would _definitely_ like to see more interest in the actual details of how all of this will affect our freedoms, our economy, and our culture. I want answers. Others do, too. I still have a stake in my own life. Some will keep asking the political questions. 

Anyone who wants to sit in an Ivory Tower and dictate how the world should be run without ever explaining the details and repercussions in the real world is certainly free to do so but they should keep in mind that the only way to resolve this or any other big issue *without* the help of politics...is violence.


----------



## Nomad (Mar 17, 2007)

DonShock said:


> (Rather that try to retype it all, I just highlighted a few areas in the original post.)I see, rather than respond to other's facts and opinions, it's just easier to name call. And the contradictions are amazing. It shouldn't be about politics, but it's all the stupid/evil conservative/republicans fault. And of course YOUR SUV(s) are needed and reasonable, it's the other guy that only buys an SUV because he has an ego problem.
> 
> I'll try again. GW is happening, right now anyway. The full causes, how much is human caused, how much it has occurred in the past, how long it will continue into the future, how it can be dealt with, how much it will cost to deal with it, and what the effects will be are all debatable topics. A reasoned scientific approach should be used to evaluate the data and find the answers to these questions. But even that isn't perfect, there will always be some debate when you are attempting to predict future events and decide what level of intervention in peoples lives is justified based on those predictions. However, the full scope of GW is far from settled science. Only more science and open debate will show the truth of the issue. Screams of “the sky is falling” and name calling solves nothing.


 

How about this: Pumping tons of pollution into the air almost certainly does no good, and almost certainly does harm...so why not try to stop?? 

Also, I am against the habit of "conspicuous consuption" that people seem to enjoy in order to display their "success"...driving a 10,000 pound hummer with spinning rims on it that gets 8 MPG IS just plain wasteful...you can't even take it off road! Really, there's only a finite amount of oil in the world, why waste? If you feel the need to have an SUV or truck for work or because you live in a rural area with dirt roads and need the clearance to get around then at least have the decency to get something halfway fuel efficient...not the "Earth Killer 2000"! 

Yes...I'm annoyed by it...angry actually. Average MPG has gone DOWN in the past couple of decades because of the vast proliferation of SUVs and large trucks. It's nothing but an ego/style thing in most cases. And that's just the start of the whole mentality...


----------



## Tactical candle (Mar 17, 2007)

It looks like somebody is making a lot of money of this scary science by selling their *environmental friendly products!!!!!!*


----------



## MarNav1 (Mar 17, 2007)

As Roosevelt said "In politics nothing happens by accident, if it happens it was
planned that way". Keep the people busy arguing while the real agenda moves
forward.


----------



## Josey (Mar 17, 2007)

The facts still are:

1) The vast majority of climate scientists around the world, after decades of study and debate, have concluded that global warming is real, will hurt us and is caused by UNECESSARILY excessive human activity. The latest IPCC report by international scientists gave this conclusion its highest certainty -- 99 percent or higher.

2) There are powerful political forces, mostly in the United States, trying to mislead the public into thinking that global-warming science is uncertain and that addressing it at any meaningful level would be disruptive to the economy.

3) There is still scientific uncertainty about exactly how global warming will play out: exactly how bad it will be and exactly how soon it will cause severe regret to us and our children.

4) We are out of time. We have to act now if we are to have any chance to prevent the devastating effects. This is the view of scientists, not some cult of global-warming enviro freaks.

5) We, as a society, lavish far more subsidies on activities that make the problem worse than we do on activities that diminish the problem.

6) Perhaps the only thing I agree with sub on is that facts change nobody's mind, as witnessed by this thread. Everything is politics. And that's why we are on the cusp and why civilizations tend to be short-lived.

7) The real debate around global warming should be about the ethics of continuing to do nothing when the science is so clear, the engineering solutions are so easy and the consequences are so dire.


----------



## greenLED (Mar 17, 2007)

Bill, I sincerely apologize if my posts came across as trying to label people as uneducated. That was not my intention. It just frustrates me beyond measure that data are manipulated and presented to the public in a way that leads to conclusions that do not match the original studies. I don't mind more studies contradicting this or that explanation, and I do enjoy learning about other people's points of view, but I do mind the manipulation of the data to suit political ends. My rants were more general in direction and not targeting anybody in particular. Again, I do apologize if I came across that way to you and/or others.

Sub, yes, climate change is both a political and economics issue. I prefer not to comment too much on those because I am only marginally familiar with those fields. I also think a lot of those types of arguments are based on _opinions _and sometimes even knee-jerk reactions of what _feels right_ to people. It's hard to argue against people's feelings - whatever they are, they're very valid for the individuals, and I can respect that. Bill's example about smokers not willing to quit is a good one.

Furthermore, I see political arguments based on the manipulated or exaggerated data I've been ranting about (and this is applies to both sides), and there's almost no point trying to explain that to some, because then I get labeled as a tree-hugging, gun-hating liberal (I'm neither, BTW) with an agenda! :shakehead

If something this debate has been successful in doing is in polarizing our society. In my mind, that is not how we should approach problems, and I have to wonder who benefits from that polarization.


----------



## pedalinbob (Mar 17, 2007)

When discussing GW, I am always struck by the idea that human-caused GW is based upon "consensus". Where is the science in consensus?

Anyone else find that odd? If 51% agree, it is considered a "fact."


----------



## jayflash (Mar 17, 2007)

None the less, as I and others continue asking: why not pollute less? Why not save finite resources while increasing national security? Yes, a large volcano could erupt, or a meteor may strike and counteract GW to the point we all freeze. However, as mentioned several times: might it not improve the US economy by manufacturing the equipment needed for harvesting the, existing, energy provided by nature?


----------



## pedalinbob (Mar 17, 2007)

I'm with ya, jayflash.

I recycle, use fluoros, and generally try not to waste anything.


----------



## bwaites (Mar 17, 2007)

greenLED,

What I posted wasn't really directed so much at you as it was at those who disparage ANYONE else because they may/may not have an obviously scientific background. It was my way of expressing my bona fides, as one of my good friends says. (Although I DID address you, so it indeed looked that way!)

I think pedalinbob makes a good point, "consensus" in science is not always a good thing. "Scientists" at one point mostly agreed that the Earth was flat, that we were the center of the universe, and that base metals could be changed to gold easily. We now recognize the fallacy in all of that.

Sometimes we try to explain with science that which cannot be explained with what we currently KNOW. We take what we THINK we KNOW and extrapolate something that may be incorrect because we lack enough data to make good conclusions. 

The science behind human caused GW is at that point right now. We have data that shows a difference in climate, (I hesitate to call it a "change" because I don't think we have enough data to factually state that it is a change, only different that what has been previously noted.)

However, the truth about the causes for that change are still only being postulated. There is simply not enough data for it to stand on it's own as the ONLY possible explanation. It is a valid point of investigation, but not the ONLY possible explanation.

Some would like to draw a direct correlation between increased CO2 level and the temperature shifts. But if you look at the numbers, the temperature upswing started long before the record demostrates that there was a significant correlating rise in CO2 or other "greenhouse gases". 

Here is a great article on CO2 levels and some of the factors affecting them:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2412.htm

And here is another documenting how Antarctic sea ice might even play a part:

http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2000/mar00/noaa00r603.html

BUT...and to me this is critical, we have yet to even identify what caused the variations in C02 levels in the past. In fact, about 4700 years ago the levels rose to 315 PPM, not as high as today, certainly, but much higher than the average of 270-290PPM documented. 

Does burning fossil fuels play some part? You would have to be completely oblivious to state it played NO part. And yet, we can't truly and effectively blame fossil fuel consumption until we can establish why the variations occurred BEFORE there was significant fossil fuel CO2 production.

Should we be conserving fossil fuels, obviously. Should we panic about it? Not in my viewpoint. Should we create harsh, draconian measures to make sure everybody complies with some "Green Planet" ideas? ONLY if the data is unambiguous that we are the only significant cause of the issue, and so far, that data is anything BUT unambiguous. 

Does it make sense to continue the research, and explore new energy uses and sources? Of course! 

Am I envious of those who have done so? You bet! I think Josey is an incredibly good example of what you can do living "off the grid" if you really want to do something. 

Can all of us do it? Probably not and maintain our current lifestyles. 

Should we then change our lifestyles? 

I think this is the WHOLE question that really stirs everyone up! The answer is what causes the heartbreak, antagonism, and frustration.

Mr. Gore has chosen to be the point man for the issue. Let's look at him as an example. He talks the talk, shouldn't he walk the walk? 

Here's an article from USA today, hardly a conservative bastion:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm

Others have reported that Mr. Gore has made the switch to wind energy, at least in part. BUT...shouldn't he be a proponent for less energy use, period? Shouldn't he find and finance a way to decrease his use of wind energy since he is using energy that others could use and reduce the need for coal fired plants?

It appears to me that if you are rich, you can simply buy your energy credits and continue on with your wasteful energy habits and then everyone talks about how cool you are that you use that "Green" energy! 

Overuse is overuse, period. At least to my apparently limited viewpoint!

Bill


----------



## Sub_Umbra (Mar 17, 2007)

greenLED said:


> ...Sub, yes, climate change is both a political and economics issue. I prefer not to comment too much on those because I am only marginally familiar with those fields...


Yes, but you ARE human. You do have 'dogs in this fight.' There is no requirement that you exhibit expert level skill to become involved in the politics of any conflict. Most democracies allow everyone a vote regardless of their level of expertise in any subject. For this reason I have *every right* to know what mechanisms are or are not being contemplated to protect me from the hoards of faceless bureaucrats that the GW Movement would set up to regulate every facet of industry and private life *on a world wide scale.* So far, none of the 'experts' who would change the world have offered any reassurances. In fact for the most part _they refuse to admit that there will be any negative consequences for anyone brought about by *the socialization of every country on earth.*_ 

I've been thinking for a day or so now about the criticism I received when I mentioned *Hitler* in one of my posts. Consider this, Hitler started out by only socializing ONE country. (For the historically challenged, the name of Hitler's political movement was the National *Socialist* Party.) At least Hitler's socialism was only national. Of course it became _regional_ as he consolidated his power base and tried to rule the whole world. 

Upon reflection I do not regret upsetting a few hand-wringers by bringing up Hitler on this thread. The more I thought about it the more I realized that the world was indeed very lucky that Hitler hadn't been able to socialize the entire world, in one felled swoop, _which is precisely what the Global Warming Movement is entent on._ At least following Hitler's socialization there were other countries, countries outside his sphere of influence that could muster the force required to restore at least a semblance of sanity to the world.

The GW Movement's plans as stated -- or more precisely _unstated_ are undeniably world wide. *Who will be left to resist the implementation of the Global Warming Movement's World wide plan to restructure the economy of the world when the anointed ones finally allow the details to filter down from the Ivory Towers to the unwashed masses?*

My use of Hitler's name was not hyperbole. The size of the economies Hitler destroyed are dwarfed by the size of the world economy which the CW Movement's recommendations will impact -- both in raw size *AND* in the percentage of the world's population directly affected, and who will be left to pull the world out of this mess that the GW Movement is dragging them into _without ever thinking that the masses are important enough to be informed about just what will be in store for their families and descendants when they get their way._

The change of life brought about by what the GW Movement is advocating will affect far more people than Pol Pot, Hitler and Lenin _combined_ ever did. The Global Warming Movement is world wide so the safety net for backing away from this after implementation of the plan will be non-existent or at the very least have much bigger holes. Yes, the world press unified on a theme -- great. They are too of one mind already. All governments linked together by treaty to enforce demands for compliance of any _weak sisters._ I am not at all confident that we will be able to reverse this by the time the WG Movement *is finally willing, if ever, to show it's hand.*



greenLED said:


> ...If something this debate has been successful in doing is in polarizing our society. In my mind, that is not how we should approach problems, and I have to wonder who benefits from that polarization.


That's rich. The Global Warming Movement screams that the world, as we know it, is coming to an end, and only draconian measures will save mankind, measures that *will transform* the entire population's economy, freedoms, culture and religion. (I worship Hummers. ) Then the Movement scolds the entire population of the world _like little children_ because they continue to ask questions that are so *inconvenient* to said Movement that no answers are EVER forthcoming. Then the same folks who have always refused to answer valid and reasonable questions from the masses gaze out at the crowds who, by this time have pitchforks in their hands and lament that somehow the different sides have become *POLARIZED.* Duh! You think they are polarized now? This is NOTHING! If the Movement keeps trying to just beat the masses into submission while maintaining that all of their questions about how this will affect their _trivial little lives_ are unrelated you will begin to see _real_ polarization.

*Cliff's Notes* version: the issue is polarized because the vast majority of those who want the biggest changes made are miffed that the commoners have questions about the details of the plan that they don't want to answer. They know that they could make the world a much better place if the masses would just be happy with their promises of _...rainbow stew and free Bubble Up_ and not concern themselves so much with the details of who makes the big decisions in their lives and how they are made. 

Here's the deal:

Science does not exist in a vacuum. People do not exist in a vacuum. Science is not some abstract thing in isolation. It only has value to the extent that it benefits people. I am very skeptical of any plan that is based on science that is so important _in and of itself_ that it's providers are unwilling to even *bring people into the plan.* Even worse IMO are those who may not feel the masses are *even worthy of any explaination.*


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Mar 17, 2007)

What bothers me is the "education" that people are getting by watching Mr Gore's film. I just can not believe that people will let themseves be converted to the GW dogma by watching one film. I see it in two my daughters and my wife, to some extent. Very convincing they say. It is just scary to me. Of course it could have been GC, global cooling, and of course man would have been the most significient factor, also. I say we blame it on the sun, and then try and fix those "sun spots and "sun flares". Now that is something I can deal with.

Bill


----------



## greenLED (Mar 17, 2007)

Ah, the "concensus" story...  I'm not sure how to properly explain that one. There is no "concensus" in science, but that does not mean scientists don't agree on certain bodies of knowledge. Furthermore, and more importantly, I think, "lack of concensus" doesn't mean complete ignorance, which is exactly how this particular argument is flown around. Ask me about the "uncertainty" argument some time. 

Bill, I'd have to double check on this but, IIRC, higher CO2 concentrations in ancient Earth's history can be attributed to higher volcanic activity and lower autotrophic activity (or a combination of increased heterotrophic respiration due to higher temperatures). I'm not sure if I mentioned this before or not, but different fractions (you can think of those as different types of carbon) of all available carbon cycle in Earth at different rates. The vast majority of the carbon on Earth is actually buried deep inside our planet, only to be released at million-year time scales through tectonic/geologic events. Atmospheric carbon cycling takes decades, oceanic cycling may take centuries to millenia (ultimately, oceanic carbon circulation is what returns atmospheric carbon into rocks).

The way I understand it, humans have become very successful at disrupting the short and medium-scale carbon cycles (we can release C faster than it can be absorbed at these time scales). We may still be overridden by the geologic time-scale cycling, though. 

Anyway, this brings me to the issues of "scale" that I've commented on before. Take hurricanes, for example. If you look at the entire hurricane dataset, it becomes obvious that their intensity (and possibly frequency) of hurricanes is on the rise (this is because surface waters are warmer nowdays). However, if you look at a subset of those data, namely the portion dealing with hurricanes to make landfall... that hasn't changed much. See where this is going? Climate change contrarians (being a skeptic is something different), grab onto the latter argument and say: "climate scientists are full of it! There hasn't been a change in hurricanes; that's BS." Ummm... no, that's not what the entire data set indicates! The average person, who may have varying degrees of interest (and personal/political biases) and sources of information, will likely be exposed to only one side of what the data show and will form their opinions upon that partial information. When confronted with the entire story, confusion obviously arises. If you want to stir up the pot, focus on the seeming contradicting results. 

So, which conclusion is right? Both! The key in understanding this apparent contradiction is to consider "scales". Natural ecosystems are notorious for displaying non-additive effects; something we call "emerging behaviors". That is, the sum of the parts is not the same as the expected total; most of the time what we see is more than what we would expect from looking at the individual parts of these systems. Why? Because there are multiple feedbacks between ecosystem components, and not all biological responses are linear or in the same direction. To understand global phenomenon, you need to study them at global scales.

You (Bill) made a comment a while back about science and communication, and how you'd hope scientists were better at it. I'm interested in skepticism as a personal practice. Two prominent individuals often mentioned in the skeptics circles are Carl Sagan and James Randi. Personally, I think Carl Sagan was one of the greatest minds to roam this planet. As if his intelligency and scientific prowess wasn't enough, he was a magnificent communicator of science. He made science interesting and fun to understand. He dispelled scientific myths left and right, through a very respectful approach. James Randi is in the same "business" of skepticism and dispelling myths. Randi's approach, however hovers around excessive sarcasm and disrespect towards the "unenlightened", if I may use the term as a CPF pun. This attitude causes friction, and instead of bringing more people to his "ranks", he shunts away potential audiences. I don't know which approach is best (I like Sagan's better), but I bring this up because I see it done also when climate change science is shared.

Sub, if there's something I agree with you (at least partially) is on your last paragraph:


> Science does not exist in a vacuum. People do not exist in a vacuum. Science is not some abstract thing in isolation. It only has value to the extent that it benefits people. I am very skeptical of any plan that is based on science that is so important in and of itself that it's providers are unwilling to even bring people into the plan. Even worse IMO are those who may not feel the masses are even worthy of any explaination.


Please don't take my personal position on policy discussions to be a reflection of what you call the "GW movement" might do (or not). IMO, there's as much of a GW movement as there are GW contrarians. I've been down that road many times, and it really is not something that personally I'm interested in engaging here.

:thinking: In all honesty, and with all due respect, I read your posts with great interest, but the way you phrase them raises a "conspiracy theorist" flag, and my skepticism radar lights up all over. Pardon my disbelief, but "Greens" intent on dominating the world? Hitler and Lenin? :shrug: Replace "GW movement" with "oil companies", "UN", or whatever, and the argument would fly with equal ease. If I were to discuss policy, I'd probably present my arguments in other ways. If I were to use the skeptics labels I referred to before, you'd fall onto the Randi modus operandi, and you've lost a listener in me. Show me published papers, verifiable data obtained through rigorous, repeatable methods and I may be interested.

Bill raises a key point about the politics of climate change: how much of our lifestyles are we willing to alter? For people in industrialized countries, that's a matter of choice. For people in developing countries, that may be a matter of survival. The crux of the political debate may well be one of global equality, and that is where things get beautifully polarized and heated. ...and that's as much as I'll say about politics. 


You know, it's actually refreshing to see this thread not being shut-down; this must be a CPF first. Kudos to y'all participating.


----------



## DrizzitT (Mar 17, 2007)

Hm... I see that *Collapse* by Jared Diamond was brought up. To me, that book CLEARLY showed the problem of our societies today and how the scare of Global Warming is attempting to remedy the problem (in some ways). I don't have the book currently in front of me but from what I remember, in one of his pasages, Jared compares a few islands with differing characteristics and the people who lived (and mostly died) on these islands.

Our current world is now LIMITED to essentially a SINGLE island. With advent of trade and the ease that resources can be transmitted back and forth between countries, our world has been shrunk into an island in a middle of a sea where every change in environment becomes OUR responsibility. We have no ability to "expand" and find more resources; what is left on Earth is what we HAVE. Based off Amazon and one of the publishers 

"He explores patterns of population growth, overfarming, overgrazing and overhunting, often abetted by drought, cold, rigid social mores and warfare, that lead inexorably to vicious circles of deforestation, erosion and starvation prompted by the disappearance of plant and animal food sources."

Can we not say we are "overusing coal," "overusing gasoline," etc.? All of the above can be considered FINITE resources, Farming->soil->chemical composition, hunting->game population-># of animals. What is interesting to note is that all of these, EVEN *Gasoline* will result in a cycle of interdependency. Not enough food? More farming. Not enough game? More hunting. Gasoline? Improvement in gasoline technology while others are neglected. In our terms, what does this result in? Overdependence on Gasoline/other FINITE natural resources, which Jared states will result in the downfall of society (and is backed up by history). To say we are NOT overdependent on coal/gasoline is a joke.

How does this relate to GW? While I will agree some, if not most of it is overhyped, the "scare" of GW has resulted into research that made up for our "GASOLINE GASOLINE GASOLINE!!!!!!" mind set in terms of technology. I noticed a few posts mentioned Nuclear Reactors for "clean" power. We HAVE had NR's for quite a while. But after the 2 major accidents, Chernobyl (spelling is definitely wrong) and the 3-Mile Island, Nuclear technology was abandoned as a "safe" alternative for energy. So why are we looking at nuclear tech NOW? What DROVE society to look at different technology?

Even this Australian "Ban" on Old-Style Lightbulbs is a gradual phasing, NOT an instant change. What major technology change did not require a transition period? Floppy disks to Zip drives to CD drives and now DVD drives, ALL of these changes required time to implement. Floppy disks have only been declared "dead" within the last 5 years! If Australia said "NO, change NOW!!!!" I can see the concern, but based on the Fox News article itself, 

"Under Turnbull's plan, bulbs that do not comply with energy efficiency targets would be gradually banned from sale. Exemptions may apply for special needs such as medical lighting and oven lights."

While I understand the concern at this legislation, I believe Collapse had a few examples where DRASTIC measures had to be taken in order to ensure future survival of the group that was living there (again, no book so I can't cite right now). EVEN IF Global Warming turns out to be false, is this movement away from wasteful energy practices and dependence of various limited finite resources a bad thing?

Sub_umbra, I understand that this politization of GW worries you, and it also worries me. However, aside from this scare of GW, how can we convince companies that care ONLY for the bottom line (Coal/Natural Gas is much cheaper than any other tech) to look for alternative energy sources that do not require consumption of finite resources? I know this approach seems like the saying "the ends justify the means," but is that not what businesses use also? Two wrongs don't make a right, but how else would we get a mostly uneducated public to see the potential dangers of oil dependence/finite resource problems w/o even talking about GW?


----------



## bwaites (Mar 17, 2007)

The way to convince companies who care only for the bottom line that they need to find alternative energy sources is easy:

STOP investing in them. Demand that your retirement plans don't buy companies who don't have active experimentation/development of alternative energy sources. Bottom line companies understand one thing, THE BOTTOM LINE. If they don't get investment capital, they will quickly understand why.

Think it won't work? Do some research on South Africa and watch what happened to apartheid when the western world stopped investing in South Africa because of apartheid. The companies there understood the bottom line, and changes happened fast. That happened because first world investors, led by colleges and mutual funds if I remember right, heard their people saying, "don't invest in South Africa, or we'll take our money elsewhere." 

You want companies to find more green energy, start agitating for change in investment strategies to companies that DO have green energy programs. 

Bill


----------



## Josey (Mar 17, 2007)

There is something like 1 trillion barrels of oil left in the earth's crust. That's an asset worth trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars. If that oil had no value, there would be no debate over global warming. Poof! Debate over. 

This debate is not about science. It's about money.


----------



## TedTheLed (Mar 17, 2007)

remember the Pinto?

same old story, same old problem, motivated by personal financial interests only..

"..In 1972 the NHTSA had been researching and analysing auto fire causes for four years. During that time, nearly 9,000 people burned to death in flaming wrecks. Tens of thousands more were badly burned and scarred for life. And the four-year delay meant that well over 10 million new unsafe vehicles went on the road, vehicles that will be crashing, leaking fuel and incinerating people well into the 1980s.
It wasn’t until May of 1978 that the Department of Transportation (a division of the NHTSA) announced that the Pinto fuel system had a "safety related defect" and demanded a recall. Ford agreed, and on June 9, 1978 the company recalled 1.5 million Pintos.
Unlike many engineering disasters, there was no single event that caused all of the deaths and injuries related to Pinto’s. Ford had many opportunities to limit the damage done by the faulty design of the Pinto. Engineers bowed to pressure from superiors to keep quiet about the unsafe cars. As deaths and injuries continued to occur, Ford decided that it was not profitable to recall Pinto’s..."

.."not profitable" was figured at a worth of $200,000 per dead person... 
http://www.fordpinto.com/blowup.htm


----------



## MarNav1 (Mar 18, 2007)

Guys, guys, your missing the point. I love you all, stop and think for a moment. I
can prove what I am saying but will you listen? Academia will lead you down the wrong
road! I have tons or info, will you listen?


----------



## DrizzitT (Mar 18, 2007)

bwaites said:


> The way to convince companies who care only for the bottom line that they need to find alternative energy sources is easy:
> 
> STOP investing in them. Demand that your retirement plans don't buy companies who don't have active experimentation/development of alternative energy sources. Bottom line companies understand one thing, THE BOTTOM LINE. If they don't get investment capital, they will quickly understand why.
> 
> ...



Exactly. Has the scare of Global Warming done this? To be frank, I personally think that Global Warming + the gasoline spike/realization of dependence on gasoline have been THE driving force for changes to clean technology. I see no other incentive to move away from coal/gasoline/natural gas (as natural gas is still commonly found) power plants other than global warming. NG keeps electricity costs low and we supposedly still have plenty of it in the environment. What else could drive the movement toward "non-CO2" creating powerplants other than GW?

So GW is producing the result that is needed for the world to transition into clean energy. GW is *overhyped*. But at least there is change for the *BETTER*. Whether GW is man made or not is still unknown, but at least it has created a *DEMAND *for companies to shift toward cleaner energy sources.


----------



## DM51 (Mar 18, 2007)

MARNAV1 said:


> Guys, guys, your missing the point. I love you all, stop and think for a moment. I
> can prove what I am saying but will you listen? Academia will lead you down the wrong
> road! I have tons or info, will you listen?


We love you too, and we're listening, we're listening. 
But before you start, could you fix your avatar?


----------



## MarNav1 (Mar 18, 2007)

What does my Avatar have to do with anything? We are speaking of a serious subject,
whats an avatar to do with it? I am not playing games here, I have much info
to share. But I wont share it with people who don't care or want to make a game with it. Sorry to be so touchy about it but it's happened too many times.
Pm if you are interested, I won't have Sasha down my throat for derailing the
thread.


----------



## BUZ (Mar 18, 2007)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyqOQp-MHN4













.


----------



## Josey (Mar 18, 2007)

The clip that Buz linked to basically says that global warming is a plot by someone to prevent developing countries in Africa (which are exempt from CO2 restrictions) from lifting themselves out of poverty. The clip also says global warming is a hoax by the world's leading climate scientists to get more research money. It cites no studies. Presents no facts. It is just a series of short statements by people saying that global warming is a conspiracy. I don't know all the "experts" interviewed, but one was Gordon Moore, who is the long-discredited co-founder of Greenpeace who now is a flack-for-hire by polluting industries. 

Unless I missed something, I don't believe that any of the posters in this thread who are skeptical of global warming have cited any credible source or study or have responded to the very specific information and studies that support the global warming findings. Even the experts hand picked by George Bush came to the conclusion that global warming is real.


----------



## jayflash (Mar 18, 2007)

Ironic that our president's first two initials are GW, of course they could mean gee whiz, too...or gasp wheeze (for breath), just as well.


----------



## BUZ (Mar 18, 2007)

Josey said:


> The clip that Buz linked to basically says that global warming is a plot by someone to prevent developing countries in Africa (which are exempt from CO2 restrictions) from lifting themselves out of poverty. The clip also says global warming is a hoax by the world's leading climate scientists to get more research money. It cites no studies. Presents no facts. It is just a series of short statements by people saying that global warming is a conspiracy. I don't know all the "experts" interviewed, but one was Gordon Moore, who is the long-discredited co-founder of Greenpeace who now is a flack-for-hire by polluting industries.
> 
> Unless I missed something, I don't believe that any of the posters in this thread who are skeptical of global warming have cited any credible source or study or have responded to the very specific information and studies that support the global warming findings. Even the experts hand picked by George Bush came to the conclusion that global warming is real.



Patrick Moore.

It's funny a while back I remember the leftists pushing global cooling LMAO, your probably not old enough to remember that though. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFXM0claHq4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO928uEJV1w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OM_JlhKGbEc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoFET3OhWco

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQzXRzXpWMg



I have a feeling that for some of you no matter what kind of facts are presented you will will not change you mind!


----------



## Josey (Mar 18, 2007)

Thanks for the correction on Patrick Moore's first name, Buz. Can you tell me what you think is the strongest single piece of evidence the global warming is a hoax?


----------



## BUZ (Mar 18, 2007)

Josey said:


> Thanks for the correction on Patrick Moore's first name, Buz. Can you tell me what you think is the strongest single piece of evidence the global warming is a hoax?



Can you tell me what you think is the strongest single piece of evidence that global warming is man-made? 

All we are seeing is natural fluctuations in temp.


----------



## BUZ (Mar 18, 2007)

1. How can you estimate the complete effects of a supposed global phenomenon when you only have decades of data? In other words, can global destruction really be estimated to occur in the next ten years by looking at only 100 years of data, when you conveniently forget the fact that the Earth is millions of years old?

2. What has ended and begun the last 3 or 4 ice ages? When we know for a fact that there is a cycle of cooling and warming on this planet, why can’t Global Warming nut's who are positive of Earth’s destruction prove that this warming cycle isn’t leading to yet another ice age? Gore’s only answer seems to be to take his word for it.

3. Why do they call it Global Warming when temperatures are hot, and conveniently start using the term “Climate Change” when temperatures are cold. If Global Warming is real, why do they keep having to rename it based on the Earth’s current temperature?

4. Why is China, the largest polluter in the world, being given a free pass while America takes most of the blame? If there _really_ is a problem, why don’t they _really_ address it?

5. Since when did CO2, the naturally occurring gas that all plant life needs for survival, become pollution?

6. Water Vapor accounts for a much larger percentage of the “greenhouse effect”–almost 90%–so why isn’t it taking blame also? _Because Capitalists don’t make water vapor!

7. _Why is there no talk of the Sun? How can you ignore something that has so much control over the Earth’s temperature? Why ignore the fact that the sun has been burning brighter and brighter over the last forty years?

8. Why is sea level rise blamed on Global Warming when the sea level has risen at a constant rate for thousands of years, evenly, through periods of warming AND cooling?


In 2005 data from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide “ice caps” near Mars’s south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

“The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars,” he said.


----------



## Josey (Mar 18, 2007)

BUZ: I PUT MY RESPONSES IN CAPS. I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT YOU THINK OF MY RESPONSE TO YOUR POINT NO. 2.--JOSEY


1.	How can you estimate the complete effects of a supposed global phenomenon when you only have decades of data? In other words, can global destruction really be estimated to occur in the next ten years by looking at only 100 years of data, when you conveniently forget the fact that the Earth is millions of years old?

WE HAVE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF DATA. AIR BUBBLES TRAPPED IN ICE TELL US WHAT WAS IN THE ATMOSPHERE FOR THE PAST 650,000 YEARS. WE ALSO HAVE TREE RINGS AND FOSSIL TREE RINGS AND FOSSIL POLLEN, ETC.

2. What has ended and begun the last 3 or 4 ice ages? When we know for a fact that there is a cycle of cooling and warming on this planet, why can’t Global Warming nut's who are positive of Earth’s destruction prove that this warming cycle isn’t leading to yet another ice age? Gore’s only answer seems to be to take his word for it.

I DON’T KNOW WHAT HAS STARTED AND ENDED THE ICE AGES. THERE ARE CYCLES OF WARMING AND COOLING, BUT THIS CURRENT WARMING CYCLE IS EXTREMELY FAST AND CORRESPONDS TO INDUSTRIALIZATION. CO2 IS RISING IN TANDEM WITH GLOBAL TEMPERATURES AND THAT CO2 CARRIES ISOTOPIC SIGNATURES THAT LINK IT TO THE BURNING OF FOSSIL FUELS AND DEFORESTATION. AND THIS WARMING CYCLE DOES NOT CORRESPOND TO SUN CYCLES OR OTHER FACTORS THAT WE KNOW OF BESIDES GREENHOUSE GASES.

3. Why do they call it Global Warming when temperatures are hot, and conveniently start using the term “Climate Change” when temperatures are cold. If Global Warming is real, why do they keep having to rename it based on the Earth’s current temperature?

I THINK IT WAS GEORGE BUSH WHO PREFERED THE TERM CLIMATE CHANGE. HOWEVER, GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT SPREAD EVENLY ACROSS THE GLOBE. PARTS OF ANTARCTICA ARE COLDER. BUT ON AVERAGE, GLOBAL TEMPS ARE RISING FAST. AND GLOBAL WARMING PREDICTS MORE EXTEME TEMPERATURES, HOT AND COLD.

4. Why is China, the largest polluter in the world, being given a free pass while America takes most of the blame? If there really is a problem, why don’t they really address it?

POLITICS. CHINA WILL SOON BECOME THE BIGGEST POLLUTER IN THE WORLD, AND I THINK THEY SHOULD BE INCLUDED.

5. Since when did CO2, the naturally occurring gas that all plant life needs for survival, become pollution?

IT’S ABOUT BALANCE. CO2 IS A NATURAL AND NECESSARY GAS, BUT WHEN LEVELS GET TO HIGH IT CAN CAUSE THE GLOBE TO HEAT UP AND CAUSE TERRIBLE DAMAGE TO MOST LIFE FORMS, INCLUDING PEOPLE.

6. Water Vapor accounts for a much larger percentage of the “greenhouse effect”–almost 90%–so why isn’t it taking blame also? Because Capitalists don’t make water vapor!

IT’S ABOUT BALANCE. WE WANT SOME GREENHOUSE HEATING. BUT NOW WE’VE PUT SO MUCH CO2 INTO THE ATMOSPHERE THAT WE’RE GETTING TOO MUCH HEATING.

7. Why is there no talk of the Sun? How can you ignore something that has so much control over the Earth’s temperature? Why ignore the fact that the sun has been burning brighter and brighter over the last forty years?

SCIENTISTS HAVE LOOKED AT THE SUN AND SUN CYCLES, BUT IT DOES NOT CORRELATE TO THE CURRENT GLOBAL WARMING.

8. Why is sea level rise blamed on Global Warming when the sea level has risen at a constant rate for thousands of years, evenly, through periods of warming AND cooling?

I DON’T THINK SEA LEVELS HAVE BEEN RISING AT A CONSTANT RATE, AND CERTAINLY NOT THROUGH PERIODS OF BOTH WARMING AND COOLING. I’VE NEVER HEARD THAT.


In 2005 data from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide “ice caps” near Mars’s south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THIS.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THIS, EITHER. I’D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE TO SAY. I DO KNOW THAT THE WORLD’S LEADING CLIMATE RESEARCHERS (IPCC) FOUND THE SUN IS NOT TO BLAME BUT HUMAN ACTIVITY IS.

“The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars,” he said.


----------



## BUZ (Mar 18, 2007)

Agree to disagree I guess.


----------



## Josey (Mar 18, 2007)

BUZ said:


> Agree to disagree I guess.


 
No problem. Thanks for the specifics. 


For those interested in the theory from the Russion scientist about the Mars ice caps retreating, here's a link from National Geographic:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming_2.html


----------



## jayflash (Mar 18, 2007)

Lousy, international, economic, trade, and energy agreements that impose unfair sanctions should be eliminated. Careful, measured, application of well established science should replace knee-jerk legislation crafted for political advantage.


----------



## Sub_Umbra (Mar 18, 2007)

Holy cow! A lot has gone on here in just 24 hrs!


greenLED said:


> *...Please don't take my personal position on policy discussions to be a reflection of what you call the "GW movement" might do (or not).* IMO, there's as much of a GW movement as there are GW contrarians. I've been down that road many times, and it really is not something that personally I'm interested in engaging here.


Emphasis mine.

I'm sorry if it looked that way in my post(s). I actually think about that each time I've quoted you in a post. I'll fess up to starting out with one of your quotes and then blending into more generalized issues. 

_Having said that,_ in all fairness, your arguments and rhetorical tactics (whatever your _personal_ motivation) mirror many of those tactics _used very widely_ by *The Movement.* While I respect you and your individuality (I really do), much of what you've written in your posts reflect, IMO, core beliefs of The GW Movement -- and it's important to realize that I'm not merely addressing your comments on the *science* of GW but also _how your posts dovetail_ with the rhetorical devices used by *The Movement* in general. For example:

Aversion to discussing nuts-and-bolts ramifications on everyday life resulting from the largest multi government project ever proposed for mankind and the politics necessary to make this happen. As I've tried to show in previous posts we put a great deal of effort in _politically_ hashing out the minutia of our lives, simple minor things like the parking I mentioned in my example -- and yet with the biggest, most wide ranging, potentially most disruptive project _ever proposed in the history of mankind_ The Movement has, on a systemic level, not been forthcoming or at all responsive.


Bringing up the issue of polarization is a rhetorical device widely used by the GW Movement. As I've inferred previously, it's actually a corollary to the 'Aversion to Political Discussion Device.' As used by the Movement it's kind of a *Rodney King -- Why can't we all just get along* plea that implies seriousness and sincerity while trying to guilt trip opponents into swallowing draconian measures to save mankind whole, without ever getting any answers to just how all of this will be implemented and who will make the decisions that will radically alter all economies and daily life on a world wide scale. 
It must be expected that:
• Some will always infer that those who respond to these issues in this manner are merely towing the 'party line' and employing their tactics in an effort to further The Movement's ends. I'm not saying that this assumption is in any way correct, only that it must be expected from some.​• The more an individual's responses correspond to that _of any movement_ the more those same individuals may expect to be compared to those movements. Assuming hard linkage would be a stretch IMO but comparisons of the views and or statements of an individual to those of a movement that espouses similar views is totally fair game. Duck testers abound. There are many who will call a spade a shovel!​


greenLED said:


> ... :thinking: In all honesty, and with all due respect, I read your posts with great interest, but the way you phrase them raises a "conspiracy theorist" flag, and my skepticism radar lights up all over. Pardon my disbelief, but "Greens" intent on dominating the world? Hitler and Lenin? :shrug: Replace "GW movement" with "oil companies", "UN", or whatever, and the argument would fly with equal ease. If I were to discuss policy, I'd probably present my arguments in other ways. If I were to use the skeptics labels I referred to before, you'd fall onto the Randi modus operandi, and you've lost a listener in me. Show me published papers, verifiable data obtained through rigorous, repeatable methods and I may be interested...


I am no "conspiracy theorist," to use _your phrase._ In fact, I am the opposite. I totally concur with a statement made by Historian and Philosopher Thomas Molnar when he said (paraphrase):
*...Conspiracies are almost always the product of lazy historians. History is complicated. Current events are so distorted that it is often very difficult to find out the truth about what has happened today. History is much more difficult to make sense out of. If you take shortcuts you will get the causal relationships wrong...*​So, give me a chance to show you that I was not referring to conspiracies in *any* of my posts.

One of my major points of concern with the GW Movement is that the recommendations if and when implemented will create the opportunity for corruption and socialization on an unprecedented scale in the history of humankind. Note that at no time am I saying that there are a bunch of guys in a smoke filled room that are pulling the strings. *I am not and have not said or implied that in any of my posts.* For decades the FBI textbooks listed *opportunity* as one of the six major motives for all crime. Most of my arguments are about the opportunities presented by what the Movement proposes -- and ignoring them won't make them any less threatening to civil society.

Yes, I mentioned Hitler and some others, but that was only an attempt to give a remote idea of *the scale* of the changes being casually thrown around (and never explained) by the Movement. I'm no economic expert but I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say that the economies destroyed by Hitler, Pol Pot and Lenin pale in significance when compared to our current world economy. The examples are actually *understated* when compared to the prize. I've obviously failed to get my point across. When I mention Hitler, Pol Pot and Lenin and what they did to the rights of their citizens and their economies, the real point is that they were only able to do it because their followers never DEMANDED answers to _how_ the changes would be made and _at whose expense._ What I was trying to give examples of were not conspiracies at all, but how time and again modern man has lost everything because of his willingness to turn over huge chunks of power over every aspect of their lives to one entity or another *without ever reading the fine print.* It cost them dearly. Over less than five generations Socialism alone killed 110 million people at the hands of their own governments world wide. 

The examples I've used are dramatic, but hey, they are dwarfed in scale by what has been proposed. Socializing the whole world all at once is way too dramatic for me. Some might think that this will be done without socializing the world and changing virtually every aspect of our everyday lives. I would answer that no information that would counter my fears has any part of The Movement's dogma. They normally rarely even weakly deny the socialization and they *never* talk about any measures that may be taken that will actively prevent it.

So from my point of view The Movement is no vast Left Wing conspiracy -- it's just a warm, fuzzy deal made up mainly of fine print written in invisible ink. I am horrified that so few on this planet see the countless, systemic similarities to all of the most deadly and costly fiascoes of the twentieth century.

I'd also like to give an example of how _opportunity_ may be confused with _conspiracy:_ 
Suppose I wrote about a long, dark, narrow alley in a city. The alley has cars, garbage cans, stacks of pallets and other objects distributed throughout it's length that give people lots of places to hide. I could describe this alley as a very dangerous place -- a place so dangerous that many people are robbed, beaten and raped there every week.​GreenLED, it is very important to understand that in the alley example above I am in no way implying that all of the thugs in the alley are involved in a *conspiracy* to commit crimes there. The alley only presents suitable conditions for *many, many opportunities* to commit crimes. That is an important distinction.

I devoted nearly a *whole post* to listing groups who benefit *greatly* by Global Warming. The post is still there. Like the thugs in the alley, many who profit from the _opportunities_ presented by Global Warming _are not required to be part of any conspiracy._ Likewise they may act individually to protect their favorable environment just as different muggers may individually break streetlights to enhance their own work environs. The muggers do not have to engage in a conspiracy every time they do something that inadvertently may make another mugger's lot easier. 

My examples of twentieth century history likewise do not point to conspiracy at all -- only that the broad ranging measures demanded and yet not explained by The Movement create a nearly identical set of *opportunities for corruption and abuse that empowered most of the now fallen Socialist dictators of the last century.*

I believe many will see that I never referred to any conspiracies in any of my posts.

I must also state that while I cannot know why you chose to take the *conspiracy tack* in reference to my posts I do know that to compare someone to a "conspiracy theorist", to use your exact phrase, is tantamount to calling someone a 'nut-case' -- someone whose ravings should be summarily dismissed by calmer folk. That tactic is *yet another rhetorical device* that has been used nearly endlessly in countless disagreements. As I said, I can have no absolute knowledge of your intent in the use of that phrase to describe my post, but I certainly may illustrate it's hackneyed use as a crass attack by countless others in the past to discredit those who disagreed with them.


----------



## hank (Mar 18, 2007)

I'm confused. Is the "Global Warming Movement" and the "people who benefit from global warming" the Western Fuels lobby's clients, they used to run a website called 'Greening Earth society' -- the people who say 'CO2 is life' and that everything gets better with warming, more plants, bigger crops? Or is it the people saying it's wrong to profit from it because it's doing damage to people?


----------



## DonShock (Mar 18, 2007)

Josey said:


> .......We have hundreds of thousands of years of data. Air bubbles trapped in ice tell us what was in the atmosphere for the past 650,000 years. We also have tree rings and fossil tree rings and fossil pollen, etc......


This is one of the areas I have the biggest problem with, and it's the main foundation of the GW argument. It assumes that the proxy data is a proven and accurate representation of past CO2 levels. Then this data is compared to current actual CO2 measurements of levels and isotopes to prove that human produced CO2 is now higher than ever. And yes, most of the summary reports do draw the conclusion that GW is at an all time high and caused by humans.

However, when you go beyond the summaries and actually start looking at the raw data and the methodologies, there is a lot of questionable manipulation of the data that has been used to produce the results. And it's the response to those questions that is most worrying. Instead of providing the research and testing that support the reasoning for the data manipulation; they just try to discredit the questioners instead. Usually by pointing out that their studies were funded by certain sources while ignoring the fact that the GW researchers themselves receive more funding in proportion to the severity of their predictions.

Some of the assumptions and data manipulation, justified or not, necessary to produce the GW results:

1. Assume that the air trapped in ice cores is a pristine sample of historic air. But even this assumption produces some "anomalously high readings" for some more recent data points, so:

2. The upper areas of the ice are assumed to be permeable, so the air bubbles are assumed to be XX years younger than the ice in order to get the sample data to correspond to actual measurements in recent history.

3. Ice below a certain depth is assumed to be impermeable and thus representative of the air at that time even though experiments that have attempted to verify this "impermeability" using trace gases have failed.

4. Gas samples from the "air pockets" in the ice are assumed to be unchanged, with the ice acting as a perfect seal for the sample. But just like CO2 goes into solution in your soda under pressure and then comes out again when you release the pressure; the same thing can occur with ice. Gases can be forced into, out of, and move through the ice and water.

5. And this occurs even if the ice is perfectly smooth and intact. But in reality, there are lots of microscopic cracks that occur as the ice is compressed and decompressed multiple times through the deposition, burial, drilling, retrieval, and sampling processes.

6. When determining the average CO2 levels prior to the current industrialized period since WWII, only select data points were included in computing the average. These were all on the low end so the average was low. If all data are included in the average, it rises from 290ppm to 335 ppm, much closer to current measurements.




7. The very high current CO2 levels usually cited, 380 ppm IIRC, seem to be taken from Mauna Loa measurements. However, rather than use an average for the entire year, they use the data from the one month each year that is consistently the highest, May IIRC. So if you use an "average" sample from the past and a "peak" reading from the present, it will amplify the differences.

8. Large time spans of data are based on proxy data gathered from only one tree for some periods and only two trees for others. And other areas of the data used to produce the conclusions weren't based on actual data from any source. The "trends" from a few data points were just used to extrapolate data into the past to cover a time when there was no data.

9. The current IPCC report is not the actual report produced by the scientists, it is a "preview summary" prepared by bureaucrats. There have been some worrying statements reportedly made by those preparing the actual report about some changes being made to "clarify" the actual report in response to some of the criticisms of the preview.

10. Based on some of the info that came out after the 2001 IPCC report, it's clear that even the full report will need careful scrutiny. After the 2001 IPCC report it came out that there were numerous errors that when found and corrected invalidated some of the conclusions. And some participants in the original preparation of the report had their sections deleted from the report when they contradicted the conclusions that ended up in the report.

These were some of the things that stuck in my head after doing a lot of looking into the issues raised by this thread over the last several days. A lot of the references were just too long and too boring to try to quote directly and I didn't keep full track of all the links. But here are the two that I bookmarked because they were fairly understandable and had references that led me to a lot of the details.
Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2
(This was the source of the chart above)
Replication of the Mann Hockey Stick


----------



## greenLED (Mar 18, 2007)

hank said:


> the people who say 'CO2 is life' and that everything gets better with warming, more plants, bigger crops?


A little "science nugget" on the "CO2 is life" argument:

More atmospheric CO2 has the potential to, _in the short term_, promote autotrophic (plants and phytoplankton) productivity. The story gets a little more complicated than that, though. Sooner or later other resources necessary for plant growth will become limiting. What that means is that plants will initially benefit from more CO2, but will quickly "run out of fuel" on other things they need to sustain that initial increase in growth; "simple" things such as water, nitrogen, phosphorus, iron in oceans, etc.

Also, plants can become CO2 saturated. That is, it doesn't matter how much "extra" CO2 plants may have available for growth, they simply cannot use it (or they can, but less efficiently which, in turn, reduces growth). 

So, whoever tells you CO2 is good, is not telling you the whole story.


Don, just let me point out that there are several independent proxy data sets used to construct paleoclimatic records. These are not limited to "bubbles" in ice; they also include tree rings, coral rings, boreholes, stable isotope studies, stratigraphy, etc. I'm not saying any of these are "perfect", but taken as a whole, they do provide a much more reliable picture of paleoclimatic conditions (with the advantage that being independent from each other, they can be used to check each other and reinforce or weaken trends observed separately in other proxies).


----------



## BUZ (Mar 19, 2007)

Mark Levin! :thumbsup:

http://marklevinfan.freepgs.com/Audio/MarloLewisJr.wma


http://marklevinfan.freepgs.com/Audio/RamDownThroats.wma


http://marklevinfan.freepgs.com/Audio/CoalPowerPlants.wma








.


----------



## DonShock (Mar 19, 2007)

greenLED said:


> ........Don, just let me point out that there are several independent proxy data sets used to construct paleoclimatic records. These are not limited to "bubbles" in ice; they also include tree rings, coral rings, boreholes, stable isotope studies, stratigraphy, etc. I'm not saying any of these are "perfect", but taken as a whole, they do provide a much more reliable picture of paleoclimatic conditions (with the advantage that being independent from each other, they can be used to check each other and reinforce or weaken trends observed separately in other proxies).


I don't question that there can be imperfections in science and still have it be valid and verifiable by other means. But the way much of this data has been changed doesn't seem to be in response to new and better information. Instead, the changes appear to be designed to produce a predetermined result by creating, eliminating, or just plain ignoring the data which contradicts the pre-determined conclusion. If these changes are the result of other science that provides a tested reason for the changes, why not provide the appropriate data and references to support the changes. Instead, the response is often to question the motives of the person asking why the changes were made. It's this behaviour that I find curious. If the GW deniers were just saying "it's not perfect" and "they're only trying to get more grants", I would probably just blow them off. But when they point out the contradictory data or show how the data used has been changed with little or no explanation, the response is not more science but questions about their motives. Right now, I see one side fighting science with more science. But I see the other side fighting science with the media and politicians. Since it is nearly impossible for anyone to fully investigate all the scientific claims and arrive at an independant judgement of their validity, I'm siding with the ones who seem to rely on science for their defense instead of those who just try marginalize their questioners. At least until more solid verifiable scientific evidence comes along to show definitively which side is correct.


----------



## Sub_Umbra (Mar 20, 2007)

greenLED said:


> ... :thinking: In all honesty, and with all due respect, I read your posts with great interest, but the way you phrase them raises a "conspiracy theorist" flag, and my skepticism radar lights up all over. Pardon my disbelief, but "Greens" intent on dominating the world? Hitler and Lenin? :shrug: Replace "GW movement" with "oil companies", "UN", or whatever, and the argument would fly with equal ease. If I were to discuss policy, I'd probably present my arguments in other ways. If I were to use the skeptics labels I referred to before, you'd fall onto the Randi modus operandi, and you've lost a listener in me...



GreenLED,

Just what is it about the way I've phrased my posts that makes you think I'm writing about any kind of conspiracy? Show me through quotes from my posts that your "conspiracy theorist" claim is valid -- or take it back. I took the time to answer your cheap ad homonym attack and you have not responded:



Sub_Umbra said:


> I am no "conspiracy theorist," to use _your phrase._ In fact, I am the opposite. I totally concur with a statement made by Historian and Philosopher Thomas Molnar when he said (paraphrase):
> *...Conspiracies are almost always the product of lazy historians. History is complicated. Current events are so distorted that it is often very difficult to find out the truth about what has happened today. History is much more difficult to make sense out of. If you take shortcuts you will get the causal relationships wrong...*​So, give me a chance to show you that I was not referring to conspiracies in *any* of my posts.
> 
> One of my major points of concern with the GW Movement is that the recommendations if and when implemented will create the opportunity for corruption and socialization on an unprecedented scale in the history of humankind. Note that at no time am I saying that there are a bunch of guys in a smoke filled room that are pulling the strings. *I am not and have not said or implied that in any of my posts.* For decades the FBI textbooks listed *opportunity* as one of the six major motives for all crime. Most of my arguments are about the opportunities presented by what the Movement proposes -- and ignoring them won't make them any less threatening to civil society.
> ...


I do not appreciate your groundless assertion that I am a "conspiracy theorist", to use your exact words. Your distortions and heavy handed characterizations of statements made in my posts constitute *an ad homonym* attack on my person and my credibility _instead of questioning the merits of the statements I've made in my posts._

In spite of your high post count you appear blissfully unaware of the CPF adage, "Attack the post and not the poster." 

Then you add the following line in a lame attempt to hold me responsible for something I have never written:


greenLED said:


> ...Show me published papers, verifiable data obtained through rigorous, repeatable methods and I may be interested...


Well, GreenLED, if that is the standard of proof that you would hold *me* to, it will be a fine standard to hold *you* to as well. You surely have no problem with me holding *you* to the same standard *you've already demanded of me in writing* have you? By all means show me any quotes from my posts that indicate that I ever implied _even one_ conspiracy in our discussion on Global Warming. Yes, *verify* that your attack on me was based _on something I actually wrote_ and not _just an uncalled for cheap shot to discredit me._ 

It's now been roughly a *day and a half* since I rebutted your post and yet you have neither apologized for your personal attack nor have you provided any quotes from any of my posts to lend credence to *your assertions about me personally.* How is it that you find it so easy to demand proofs from me and yet you expect to be allowed to make any claims you like without ever being asked to prove that what you have written is true? I am not responsible for anything you write in your posts -- you are. If your intent was to ignore me you most certainly could have done so _at any time_ in the past without staging an *ad homonym, hit and run attack* first. It is interesting that you should choose to ignore my posts *only* while I'm responding to your personal attack. 

This thread is interesting in that it is quite representative of the broader GW debate going on outside CPF. You have demonstrated, up close and *personal* the numerous tactics that some Global Warming advocates fall back on in the broader, worldwide, day to day struggle when their carefully crafted rhetorical tactics aren't enough to bring their points home. I guess if *name calling* is one of the tactics you'll stoop to the rest of us should at least be forewarned.

Then, at the end of the very same post you write:


greenLED said:


> ...You know, it's actually refreshing to see this thread not being shut-down; this must be a CPF first. Kudos to y'all participating.


Nice touch, GreenLED.


----------



## greenLED (Mar 20, 2007)

Sub, an _ad hominem_ attack on my part would require me to call you names or undermine your persona. Trust me, IF (and that's a big IF) I wanted to call you a conspiracy theorist, I would've said it loud and clear: "Sub, you are a conspiracy theorist". I did no such thing, and please don't take the above statement to mean that I think you are one; it is merely an example of what I would've said if I really thought that.

I _questioned the phrasing of your message_, not your person, your beliefs, nor your motives. I'm sorry that you misinterpreted my poorly written statements as a personal attack.

Since you talk about standards by which to gauge assertions... all of what I present can be found in peer-reviewed scientific journals. I have already provided links to specific published papers, e-mailed the associated .pdf files to interested parties, and would be happy to continue to do so. 

If you could please provide (I don't demand things from people) the references to some of your assertions, it'd make my task of judging _the information in your posts_ easier. That's all I respectfully ask; all I'm doing is asking for "developed sources" to learn more and gauge the value of the arguments being presented. For example, from the post you quoted yourself saying:



> ...they are dwarfed in scale by what has been proposed. Socializing the whole world all at once is way too dramatic for me. Some might think that this will be done without socializing the world and changing virtually every aspect of our everyday lives. I would answer that no information that would counter my fears has any part of The Movement's dogma. They normally rarely even weakly deny the socialization and they never talk about any measures that may be taken that will actively prevent it.



Could you please direct me to the GW Movement's statement of purpose? Any sources where I can learn more about their socialization plans? I see you mention "my fears"... That signals, in my mind, what your views are about a subject (which is a perfectly valid and sensible thing to do, and I can respect that), but does nothing to provide me with verifiable information about this intent of the GW Movement you talk about. People's feelings and opinions are very valid, but that doesn't imply the information on which those are based is. I just want to understand more about what you're talking about and where you're coming from.

You may be surprised, but I do understand and agree with some of the things you are saying. However my mindset urges me to ask for further verifiable information - that's simply how my mind works. If I were to talk about my own feelings, I'd say I feel you are projecting your socio-political frustrations onto me.





> Right now, I see one side fighting science with more science. But I see the other side fighting science with the media and politicians. Since it is nearly impossible for anyone to fully investigate all the scientific claims and arrive at an independant judgement of their validity, I'm siding with the ones who seem to rely on science for their defense instead of those who just try marginalize their questioners.


Don, I completely agree with what you're saying (and sometimes they take turns at role-playing). :green: It's a tough task to navigate through the rough waters of pseudoscientific politics, watered-down science, and outright misinformation (as if the science by itself weren't complicated enough sometimes). It's even harder to separate one's feelings, personal biases and beliefs, from what data are showing - some simply cannot do that. Even those trying their best to see the greater picture and not take sides will be questioned.


----------



## Sub_Umbra (Mar 21, 2007)

greenLED said:


> ...I'm sorry that you misinterpreted my poorly written statements as a personal attack.
> 
> Since you talk about standards by which to gauge assertions...


It is you who keeps bringing up standards. You're the one who is continually requesting I supply documentation that meets your standards to prove points that were never asserted in my posts. I posted your quote to that effect this morning -- look it up. If you can't read my posts and interpret them correctly you could at least make a half hearted attempt to read your own and at least glance at the post you're answering once in a while as you write. Try to pay attention.


greenLED said:


> ...If you could please provide (I don't demand things from people) the references to some of your assertions, it'd make my job of judging _the information in your posts_ easier. That's all I respectfully ask; all I'm doing is asking for "developed sources" to learn more and gauge the value of the arguments being presented. For example, from the post you quoted yourself saying:
> 
> 
> SubUmbra said:
> ...


For the life of me I have no idea why you would profess interest in this subject at this time. If you are interested in this kind of information you should go back and read the posts where I covered much of this over and over while you just kept answering by posting that you were only interested in *the science:*


greenLED said:


> ...I'm not here to talk politics or convince anyone to think like me (the world would be a screwed-up place)...





greenLED said:


> ...Sub, yes, climate change is both a political and economics issue. I prefer not to comment too much on those because I am only marginally familiar with those fields...





greenLED said:


> ...Finally, I just want to say that SubUmbra's posts are, like you say, "well thought out and well spoken." They are very valid concerns and I read them attentively. If I've chosen to ignore them (for the most part), it's because his arguments are mostly political...


The answers to your questions are in my posts. If repeating a point three or four times in detail failed to sink in I doubt that reposting any of it again tonight will have more impact on your comprehension. I know you said repeatedly you're not an expert in politics but it's not that tough. A great deal has been written about the nuts and bolts of Socialism in the last 90 years or so. This would probably be a poor place to start teaching a class on it. You seem to be having more trouble with it than anyone else. Some here have PMed me and I know that at least they understood what I wrote about. Reread my posts. Don't be so obsessed with the structure. Try to think more about opportunity. I posted quite a bit about opportunity in the last few days -- even in my last post. Don't dwell on structure. I haven't posted about conspiracies or movements with master plans. That's what you've been posting about and it has nothing to do with my posts. It's all there. Anyone interested may go back and read them anytime.


greenLED said:


> Could you please direct me to the GW Movement's statement of purpose? Any sources where I can learn more about their socialization plans? I see you mention "my fears"... That signals, in my mind, what your views are about a subject (which is a perfectly valid and sensible thing to do, and I can respect that), but does nothing to provide me with verifiable information about this intent of the GW Movement you talk about. People's feelings and opinions are very valid, but that doesn't imply the information on which those are based is. I just want to understand more about what you're talking about and where you're coming from....


I think you are reading too much into my use of the word *"Movement".* Without going to a bunch of dictionaries in an attempt to 'cherry pick' a definition for you I went to Google and typed in, *define:movement*. Google spit out many definitions and one of them matched the context of my intent pretty well:


> _• a group of people with a common ideology who try together to achieve *certain general goals;* "he was a charter member of the movement"; "politicians have to respect a mass movement"; "he led the national liberation front"_


 Emphasis mine.

Grass roots movement -- Arts & Crafts movement -- there are many kinds of movements that are covered by that definition and some of them are not even political in nature. Do you think that the Impressionist Movement had a "statement of purpose"? So as far as your request for some "statement of purpose" goes, I don't have any knowledge of anything even remotely like that. If you thought I was referring to some secret document for world domination hidden somewhere in Al Gore's jet -- I wasn't. With many movements Historians write down things like that only after the movement has faded. Whether you approve of the word movement of not is of no import. I chose it because I thought it would work. When I looked it up in the easiest place I could copy and paste it into this post I found a usage that matched my meaning perfectly. Now I've spelled it out and you should have some idea of what I meant when I used it in the context of the post. As I said, don't get too hung up on structure that is not built into the word I used. Most of the questions you ask about my posts have to do with assumptions you make about things that are not even part of what I've said. Read the posts if you want the answers. 

Try not to make my posts something they are not and there will be a better chance of understanding them -- if understanding them is what you want. These things that you bring up are not even issues. Life is too short. Just try harder.


----------



## greenLED (Mar 21, 2007)

Speaking of _ad hominem_! :laughing:


Thanks for taking the time to type such a passionate reply, Sub. I wouldn't want to waste any more of your precious time, so I'll be under my rock drinking some of Darell's beer. :wave:



_Edit to add:_
In case somebody does want a primer on global warming politics, consider reading Chapters 10-12 in Barrie Pitock's book "Climate Change; Turning up the Heat". The ISBN is 0 643 06934 3. Of course there are many other published works on the subject.

I do read and keep up on the politics of climate change as well, but don't tell anyone.


----------



## pedalinbob (Mar 21, 2007)

greenLED said:


> Speaking of _ad hominem_! :laughing:
> 
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to type such a passionate reply, Sub. I wouldn't want to waste any more of your precious time, so I'll be under my rock drinking some of Darell's beer. :wave:



Does Darrell's beer have tiny batteries and a solar panel? ;o)

If you are ever in the Southeast Michigan area, there are some pretty cool micro-breweries--such as Frog Island beer, and Arbor Brewing--that make some really unique brews.

Oops..back on topic!


----------



## Sub_Umbra (Mar 21, 2007)

greenLED said:


> ...Thanks for taking the time to type such a passionate reply, Sub.


It's always worth the effort to help someone get on the right track. No charge.


----------



## Sub_Umbra (Mar 22, 2007)

A message from the Department of Redundancy Department...


----------



## ringzero (Mar 23, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



Josey said:


> CO2 levels are not only extremely high, but the CO2 is tagged so scientists can prove that the increase comes from manmade sources...Exxon has been very aggressive about hiring scientists to promote its point of view, but the vast majority of independent scientists acknowledge that global warming is real, is caused by human activity and is a threat to our future and the future of our children.



Read this excellent newspaper piece by well-known author Orson Scott Card, which debunks the Global Warming Scam in a very convincing manner:

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html

Card makes the point that some of the so-called scientists promoting this scam are utterly cynical - they falsify the data and tinker with software until they get the results they want. They are perpetrating scientific fraud in the name of ideology.

.


----------



## bwaites (Mar 23, 2007)

Wow, Card says basically what I have been saying all along, (that the data and it's extrapolation do not support what global warming activists keep saying) and he provides the information from which he reached his decision, something that I haven't taken the time to track down, although I have read both the primary sources he quotes.

Why is it imperative to some of these people that global warming MUST be tied to CO2 levels? 

I pointed out earlier that the rise began nearly 200 years ago and that at that point our use of fossil fuels was not high enough to have caused the problem, Card uses the actual data to point that out again.

CO2 levels are rising, but are they changing global climate? That issue still leaves a lot to be determined. That medieval warming period is what allowed the colonization of Greenland by the Vikings, and we, as yet, have not reached the point were Greenland would support the agriculture that it supported during that time frame, even though, as Josey and GreenLED have pointed out, CO2 levels are higher now than then.

Should we conserve fossil fuels? OF COURSE! But can we blame the people in developed countries for Global Warming? NOT ON THE BASIS OF CURRENT DATA!

Bill


----------



## Josey (Mar 23, 2007)

The arguments Bill and Ringzero refer to have been popularized by Patrick J. Michaels, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, an extreme right-wing think tank. Michaels views have been regularly and soundly refuted by other scientists and research journals.

Michaels receives massive funding from the coal industry. He has lied about his credentials. He has been proven to fudge data to fit the narrow point of view of the coal industry. In order to tamp down criticism, Michaels sues or threatens to sue scientists who disagree with him, and he has the big-coal money behind him to make those threats stick. He makes laughable claims, such as Kyoto was designed to impose such severe restrictions that developing countries will never rise out of poverty, when in fact those countries are exempt from Kyoto rules.

The IPCC and almost the entire mainstream of credible scientists who subject their research to published and peer-reviewed journals have shown that global warming is real and caused primarily by human activities, mostly the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. 

The global-warming skeptics on this thread have yet to point to any meaningful body of published and peer-reviewed research that disputes the scientific concensus. Even Bush's own hand-picked panel of experts came to the conclusion that global warming is real and caused mostly by man-made CO2. For that reason, the Bush administration has been forced to hire energy-industry lobbyists to change the government's own scientific recommendatoins and force government scientists to lie or remain silent.

What the global-warming skeptics on this thread have pointed to is a range of right-wing skeptics who say 1) there is no global warming or 2) there is global warming but it is caused by the sun or 3) there is global warming but it is caused by cosmic rays or 4) there is no global warming and in fact we are going into an ice age.


----------



## bwaites (Mar 23, 2007)

If that is true, and I have no doubt that Josey has done his research, (I have always found him to be well read!), I still find it interesting that the GW group refuses to acknowledge that the greatest global warming took place BEFORE the rise in CO2 levels.

I have pointed that out several times, and yet, no one addresses it. 

I have NO problems with the CO2 level rise being real, I have REAL problems with it being the cause of climate change. 

What caused the climate change that allowed the cultivation of crops in Greenland for hundreds of years before the Little Ice Age changed things? It certainly wasn't CO2 levels! 

Once again, the data doesn't support the extrapolations made by GW supporters.

I agree with Josey's viewpoint on fossil fuels, we simply are stupid for continuing to use and abuse them. (Although coal is found in such abundance that we have at least hundreds of years of reserves here in the US).

That said, science by consensus is poor science, and the numbers are NOT being credibly reviewed and discussed. (That is probably true on both sides of the argument!) The old adage, "figures don't lie, but liars can figure" seems especially apropos here!

Bill


----------



## Josey (Mar 23, 2007)

Bill: I remember the Austrialian (I think) doctor who found that ulcers were caused not by stress but by helicobactor (sp?), basically a germ in our guts. His point of view was ridiculed by mainstream science, and he had to swallow some of these germs to give him self an ulcer and then cure the ulcer by killing the germs. He proved he was right. Mainstream science was wrong, but now mainstream science has been corrected, as it usually does when given enough time. 

I'm not sure about the Greenland warming. There are other things that cause global warming. We have had periods of great warming and ice ages back when man-made CO2 was not an issue. So it is a complicated issue, especially when other factors such as air pollution are mitigating CO2 warming.

But for me, when the scientic consensus is so strong and has been growing for such a long period (time to self correct) and when the consequences are potentially so severe and when we have so little time, I think we have to take global warming seriously and do something quickly. But I don't think we will.


----------



## ringzero (Mar 23, 2007)

Josey said:


> Bill: I remember the Austrialian (I think) doctor who found that ulcers were caused not by stress but by helicobactor (sp?), basically a germ in our guts. His point of view was ridiculed by mainstream science, and he had to swallow some of these germs to give him self an ulcer and then cure the ulcer by killing the germs. He proved he was right. Mainstream science was wrong, but now mainstream science has been corrected, as it usually does when given enough time.



Excellent analogy. Two Australian doctors stood alone against the overwhelming scientific 'consensus' of that time. They were called cranks, crazy, and corrupt by some of those in the medical establishment. However, they also turned out to be right.



Josey said:


> But for me, when the scientic consensus is so strong and has been growing for such a long period (time to self correct) and when the consequences are potentially so severe and when we have so little time, I think we have to take global warming seriously and do something quickly. But I don't think we will.



Science doesn't operate by consensus. 99.999% of doctors believed the consensus view of stomach ulcer causation - and they were all dead wrong. Two doctors refused to accept the consensus and were eventually proved right.

The overwhelming consensus among physicists in the early 1900s was that Einstein was a crackpot. It took years of argumentation and careful experimentation before most physicists grudgingly began to accept his Theory of Relativity.

Many eminent physicists never did accept Einstein's theory. They retired, and eventually died off, freeing up space for younger physicists.


.


----------



## Josey (Mar 23, 2007)

Bill: I looked up the warming period in Greenland from 800 to 1200. You are right, it was warmer and people could easily grow crops, until the Little Ice Age. Greenland appears to be very responsive to changes in global climate. Erik the Red settled in Greenland in about 982 after being expelled from Iceland. But there was not a lot of "green" land, and the Vikings settled where people are settled today. Greenland is warming fastest along the edges, where the glaciers are melting fast. Some of the interior glaciers are actually getting thicker because of increased moisture caused by global warming, according to scientists.

In just the last 30 years, the growing season on Greenland has increased by 120 days. I can't yet find any reason for the Medieval Warming Period in Greenland and northern Europe, but some scientists speculate that it was due to sun cycles or volcanic activity. Global warming is expected to cause a rise in tempertures twice as high in Greenland as in Europe.


----------



## DonShock (Mar 23, 2007)

Josey said:


> The arguments Bill and Ringzero refer to have been popularized by Patrick J. Michaels, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, an extreme right-wing think tank. Michaels views have been regularly and soundly refuted by other scientists and research journals.
> 
> Michaels receives massive funding from the coal industry. He has lied about his credentials. He has been proven to fudge data to fit the narrow point of view of the coal industry. In order to tamp down criticism, Michaels sues or threatens to sue scientists who disagree with him, and he has the big-coal money behind him to make those threats stick. He makes laughable claims, such as Kyoto was designed to impose such severe restrictions that developing countries will never rise out of poverty, when in fact those countries are exempt from Kyoto rules.
> 
> ...


Yet again, all the GW supporters are respected and credible and the questioners are all paid hacks. But still a lack of answers about the apparent manipulation of the data to produce the predetermined conclusion.

 As for the scarcity of publication, many of the skeptics have detailed their attempts to get publicized only to be totally shut out. They seem to welcome the idea of having their work peer-reviewed since they know that would eliminate a lot of the criticism. But the publishers seem to fear the attacks of "How dare you lend them credibility" that they know would follow. To me, it seems like the GW proponents would welcome the chance to prove the science is as faulty as they claim it is. I checked out a lot of the websites, especially the RealClimate.org areas, where they "debunk" a lot of the skeptics, but it seemed to be just a lot of the same claims and original studies and no links to any real proof. If the skeptics claims are wrong, where are the quotes to prove they are lying or the follow up studies investigating their claims and showing them to be wrong.

I checked out some of the links provided by the GW supporters in this thread. Here's some of the phrases that the GW supporters use to describe the claims of the skeptics before they attempt to debunk them:

"True but not relevant..."
"....say the models and basic theory. As indeed it does......"
"Not quite as true as they said, but basically correct; however they misinterpret it."

That doesn't sound like liars that are totally unsupported by science to me. The complaint seems to be that they didn't put the proper "spin" on the data.

Here's some excerpts from a scientist's response to his his quotes being used to support the skeptics views:

"The science of climate change remains incomplete."
"Other elements remain more uncertain, ........."
"I am on record in a number of places complaining about the over-dramatization and unwarranted extrapolation of scientific facts."
 "The science is not sufficiently mature to say which of the many complex elements of such forecasts are skillful."

Jeez, I don't know how those skeptics could have gotten the idea that this guy doesn't consider the science settled and irrefutable as the GW supporters claim.


----------



## DonShock (Mar 23, 2007)

Josey said:


> Bill: I looked up the warming period in Greenland from 800 to 1200. You are right, it was warmer and people could easily grow crops, until the Little Ice Age. Greenland appears to be very responsive to changes in global climate. Erik the Red settled in Greenland in about 982 after being expelled from Iceland. But there was not a lot of "green" land, and the Vikings settled where people are settled today. Greenland is warming fastest along the edges, where the glaciers are melting fast. Some of the interior glaciers are actually getting thicker because of increased moisture caused by global warming, according to scientists.
> 
> In just the last 30 years, the growing season on Greenland has increased by 120 days. I can't yet find any reason for the Medieval Warming Period in Greenland and northern Europe, but some scientists speculate that it was due to sun cycles or volcanic activity. Global warming is expected to cause a rise in tempertures twice as high in Greenland as in Europe.


I don't get it:

Global Warming is the cause when glaciers are melting AND when they are getting thicker?

So solar activity caused the Medieval Warming Period IN THE PAST, but the the current increase in solar activity isn't the cause of Global Warming NOW?

I must be stupid.


----------



## hank (Mar 23, 2007)

No, it's really complicated. 

People with an agenda will feed you only part of the known info, and handwave away what's still being studied. Certainty is one clue that you're talking to an advocate instead of a scientist (grin).

Who told you about "the current increase in solar activity" for example? Did they point to the numbers on the Y-axis? It's an increase of about 3 in 1300 --- measurable, but known to be tiny compared to the other also measured forcings. 

# Total radiative forcing from the sum of all human activities is a warming force of about +1.6 watts/m2
# Radiative forcing from an increase of solar intensity since 1750 is about +0.12 watts/m2

So, did they give you the full info? Or did you get only an arguing point without the numbers?

None of us is stupid. All of us are easy to fool. That's why comparing notes and checking for real footnotes, then checking the footnotes, is important.

Especially when what the science turns up conflicts with what we really _want_ to believe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report

is worth reading; and check the history of changes, of course, as always with Wikipedia.
Open info, lots of eyes to find the bugs in what's presented.


----------



## DonShock (Mar 23, 2007)

Man, I really need to work on getting my sarcasm through in my posts better!

It's not complicated, it's twisting your argument to get the conclusion you want. GW cannot be the cause of of glaciers getting both bigger and smaller. Yes, there is a certain logic you can propose to get to one conclusion or the other. But if the science and logic is correct, it will produce that result consistently. Not sometimes produce one one result and sometimes the exact opposite. Following that logic, I guess if GW continues we can expect snowstorms in July here in Texas eventually.

And again, if there was enough variability in solar activity in the past to produce enough GW that it made Greenland into GREEN land, then it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that it may be the cause of the current observed GW. And your numbers argument has a big flaw. You state:


hank said:


> # Total radiative forcing from the sum of all human activities is a warming force of about +1.6 watts/m2
> # Radiative forcing from an increase of solar intensity since 1750 is about +0.12 watts/m2
> 
> So, did they give you the full info? .......


But you are comparing a Total number to a change. I suspect if you put the Total watts/m2 from the Sun, you would see just how puny our Total human watts/m2 is in comparison. Or looked at the other way, if you are going to look at the change in the Sun's force; you should be looking at the change in the Human's force also, not the total.

This kind of thing is why I look at how the sides argue and how they respond to criticism to sway my decision. Any side can snow you under with numbers, create logic chains that seem reasonable, and tell you it's just too complicated for normal people to understand. But those are just ways to deflect criticism, not answer it. I don't remember where I heard it, but a phrase has always stuck in my mind:
There is no idea so complicated that it's principles cannot be explained on a single cocktail napkin with a crayon.

* EDIT:* I decided to see if I could locate the TOTAL solar flux info myself.
Several sources all had around the same value and here's a quote from one in plain english:

_ "Thus, only about 70% of the incoming solar flux, that is, about *239 W/m2*, is absorbed within the Earth-atmosphere system."_

That sure makes us human's 1.6 W/m2 that was mentioned seem pretty insignificant (0.67%).


----------



## jayflash (Mar 24, 2007)

It couldn't hurt to keep an open mind.


----------



## Josey (Mar 24, 2007)

DonShock:

Obviously you are a skeptic of global warming science, and it doesn't appear from what I see that you are going to change your mind.

So here's an honest question: 

How should we respond, given that the vast majority of climate scientists -- with a consensus that continues to grow stronger and stronger after decades of peer-reviewed study -- say we must act IMMEDIATELY to reduce mankind's CO2 emissions if we are to have any chance of avoiding potentially massive destruction to our civilization, to the future of our children and grandchildren and to most higher life forms on this planet?


----------



## DonShock (Mar 24, 2007)

The problem is that I am old enough to remember a time when similar doom and gloom predictions were being made. Back in the late 70's when I was a teenager living outside Buffalo NY, there had just been one of the worst winters on record and a crippling gas crisis. We had gas rationing, only being able to get gas on odd/even day rotation, predictions that we were running out of oil, and that we were starting to enter another ice age. The President was on TV telling us how our way of life needed to change: cut back, learn to live a simpler life, drive slower, start wearing coats and sweaters indoors. There was a flurry of government regulations, price controls, etc. We did all that the "experts" recommended and it didn't make things any better.

As it turned out, once the government got out of the way, people found their own solutions. Gas prices rose temporarily, making it profitable to find and produce oil in areas and by means previously thought impractical. In the end, instead of running out of oil, we had more sources than ever before and prices were even lower. Instead of wearing sweaters and standing in line for gas, we started making our homes, vehicles, and industry more energy efficient. And after few bad winters, things got better. And as technology improved, the air and water got cleaner.

I lived in Niagara Falls at the time the Love Canal story exploded. It was a local story before it went national. And it was the same thing, the potential consequences are so dire that we can't wait to act. By the time we have scientific proof, it will be too late and widespread death will occur. We spent millions, if not billions, digging up contaminated dirt from one spot, trucking it to another spot, and reburying it. I remember asking my mother at the time as I noticed the orange dirt splashed up on the snowbanks along the routes the trucks took: "Isn't this just spreading everything around?" In the end, once all the proper scientific studies had been conducted, all the hype about Love Canal being a "hotspot of disease" where people were dropping like flies was shown to be false. People living there had no higher likelyhood of any particular disease than anywhere else in the country. But it was too late, the money was spent, peoples lives were ruined, and the public already "knew the truth". And no amount of science produced after the fact was going to change their minds.

I guess I was at just the right age for this experience to have been a real influence. Because of my love of science, I followed the story even after leaving the Falls and after the story stopped getting national headlines. And it got me questioning the media, the government, and the experts. Now, I try to look behind the hype and find the facts.

So what do we do about Global Warming now? Just what we've been doing! We study it further, try to nail down exactly what are the causes, find and fix the errors in the science. We continue to develop less polluting technologies and refine them until they become practical for widespread use. For example, when I built my home, I tried using the early compact fluorescent bulbs in all my fixtures, but they were impractical because they kept turning my TV on and off and changing the channels because they interferred with the remote signals. But as the technology got better, I was able to install them in more places without the unintended bad consequences. We keep trying to help the third world develop their own economies so that they can raise their standard of living to our own more productive one. As they do so, they will be able to afford to replace their current high pollution ways of living with more efficient, low pollution, modern ways of life.

What we don't do is cripple ourselves. You don't implement the Kyoto protocols which penalize the developed nations, who are already generating the least pollution per unit of production than anyone else, while allowing the less developed nations to pollute unchecked. This will just cause production to shift from nations which have controls on pollution to nations which have no controls. That might make sense if your goal is transfer of wealth, but not if your goal is to stop Global Warming.
We also don't impliment arbitrary regulations like CAFE standards. You can't just make up numbers for industry to meet if the technology isn't there to support the goals. Just look at how bad toilets performed after the 1.6 gallon fush limit was started. Only recently have they begun to approach the reliability of the older toilets.

Personally, I am suspicious when I am being told that I have to act NOW, there's not time to think about the issue or check things out. That applies whether it's a car salesman telling me that the price is good for today only, or if it's the President telling me Texas will be uninhabitable in 1000 years if we don't act now. That technique has been used to hide the truth many, many times more often than it has been shown to BE the truth. I'm suspicious, that's all. I don't reject the idea of Global Warming, I just want more information before I agree to take drastic action. If the only response I get to my questions is continued insistance that there's not time to answer them, the more convinced I am that my suspicions are correct and that the salesman is trying to sell me a lemon. But if more detailed and convincing information comes along, I'll gladly check it out and change my mind if it's warranted. After all, it's hot enough here in Texas already!


Josey said:


> DonShock:
> 
> Obviously you are a skeptic of global warming science, and it doesn't appear from what I see that you are going to change your mind.
> 
> ...


----------



## MarNav1 (Mar 25, 2007)

Al Gore recently said the earth (his mother) had a fever and needed a doctor. So I
said Al, give her 2 aspirin and have her call you in the morning.


----------



## Pellidon (Mar 25, 2007)

I am old enough to remember the alarms in the 60's and 70's too about the coming Ice Age. The Glaicier will return to Indiana, "they" claimed. When the events did not match the doom and gloom, they shifted to the earth is boiling/melting. This has followed a 30 year cycle of freeze/fry predictions back to at least 1900. 

Presently "Global Warming" has nothing to do anymore about climate changes. It has become a religion. As stated recently by many of the "rogue" experts who decry the mania. One viewpoint is mentioned here. An official from one of the Baltic nations also likened "Global Warming" to having replaced communism, hiding under every stone to be feared and vilified. 

There is global warming. There can also be global cooling. Ignoring cool year cycles (most of the 1990's) to make things look hotter on average is not good science. It is political and monetary pandering. Ignoring that we don't have credible data beyond 40 years, let alone thousands is also bad and irresponsible science. There are too many historical variables we will never know that may have influenced the past and may influence the future. 

What was the tilt of the earth's axis relative to the sun? What was the polarity of the poles? Where were the pole's centered at? What was the core temperature? What was the local space atmosphere's composition ten thousand years ago? One thousand? Did we pass through a cloud of hydrogen? or are we in one now compared to then? Space is a near vacuum, not an absolute one. What was the core temperature of the sun? How stable is our orbit? Was the asteroid belt between us and the sun once, only to spread to it's current orbit? Where-when-how did the Moon appear in our skies? How did it get blasted with all those craters? What climate effect would that pounding have done to us then? Where is the Indiana Glaicier now? When did it receede and why? Has it finished that cycle of recession? 

There are more things in Heaven and Earth than in a "Global Warming" alarmist's philosophy. To misquote the Bard. 

Should we recycle? Yes. Should we seek out better fuel systems for cars and such? Of course. Not for the hole in the ozone but for our pocketbooks. Actually I don't prefer to recycle. That just masks the problem. I take the plastic packaging that things love to be wrapped in back to the stores where they were purchased from. If everyone took that junk back to wally world and such to make them pay for it's disposal then the mass quantities of trash packaging material would dissapear and we would not have to recycle it. It would not get made in the first place. Recycling merely passes the consumption buck to a user that is an unwitting stooge to it's needless production, IMO.

For "Global Warming", not to be confused with the real climate warming/cooling cycles, follow the money. If tons of cash were not to be made off the sky is falling mania it would not be such an industry. The money side has blinded the money grubbers to keep it afloat at all costs. This mania has the potential to bankrupt more things than a dozen Enrons could ever hope too. 

I have said my $0.02 now to quote Johnny Storm: "Flame ON"

P.S. Most of the "peer reviewed" reviews are not done by those outside the cult of Global Warming. Many names on the list of endorsing scientists have also noted their names were added without their consent/permission. Sometimes after they requested they not be included. They are now cast out as heretics and unbelievers. Shunned and scorned because they took 2+2 and got 4, not 5.


----------



## ringzero (Mar 25, 2007)

Josey said:


> How should we respond, given that the vast majority of climate scientists -- with a consensus that continues to grow stronger and stronger after decades of peer-reviewed study -- say we must act IMMEDIATELY to reduce mankind's CO2 emissions if we are to have any chance of avoiding potentially massive destruction to our civilization, to the future of our children and grandchildren and to most higher life forms on this planet?



We should respond by demanding that scientists funded by public money produce HONEST science.

Jump-on-the-bandwagon, get-with-the-consensus 'science' isn't science - it is the prostitution of science.

It is designed to pander to politicians and attract research money. At its very core, it is dishonest and fraudulent.

Scientists caught using phoney data sets and cooking their results, like Mann, should lose public funding, be removed from their jobs, and be exposed to widespread ridicule as the cheap prostitutes they are.


.


----------



## Casual Flashlight User (Mar 25, 2007)

Good post ringzero...I see global warming as a new religion, any who argue against man-made climate change are rounded on and accused of wanting to kill the planet or being in the pocket of oil companies and such-like.

----------------

Pellidon, I remember there was a BBC documentry called "the weather machine" that was aired in the late 70's...it promised us "a new ice age" and lots of other cold-*** gloom and doom...


CFU


----------



## Josey (Mar 25, 2007)

Wow! What a chorus of people who think that the vast majority of scientists are dishonest crooks and that large coal and oil corporations and the politicians they hire are the only people we should listen to. However, the fact remains that the global warming skeptics on this thread have no credible evidence of their own. Instead of refuting the actual evidence, the only consistent argument the skeptics make is that scientists have formed some kind of conspiracy for various conflicting reasons.

The Love Canal thing really got to me. Love Canal was an incomplete canal, a long deep trench, that was used by industry and governments to dump tens of thousands of tons of toxic chemicals and pesticides. The local school district thought it would make a wonderful place to build a school, and developers thought it would make a wonderful place to build houses. Really cheap land. The politicians got the land to build the school, plus a lot more, for just $1. Then all these toxic chemicals began to seep into homes and schools. People became sick. Babies were born with defects. Cancers rose. The victims had to fight industry, crooked local politicians and other residents who took the side of industry and tried to deny the victims the right to redress. The EPA took blood samples of the residents and found chromosome damage. Tests proved that people were being exposed to multiple carcinogens, including benzene. Occidental Petroleum was forced to pay $129 million. Most of those chemicals remain in place, sealed by the EPA. But to you skeptics, it was just a case of a few whiners taking advantage of honest chemical companies and politicians who said that heavy exposure to carcinogins is no problem at all. And all those toxic chemicals were not "spread around," but instead sealed in place. The chemicals that were moved to other sealed landfills were chemicals that had escaped from the original comtamination site. Do you guys actually read the evidence?

Everytime I investigate the arguments of the global warming skeptics, all I find is evidence to the contrary and the the skeptics are misleading the public. 

People are tribal first, rational second. Breathing and ingesting carcinogens doesn't cause cancer? Yeah, right. Global warming is a hoax? Yeah, right.


----------



## BUZ (Mar 25, 2007)

Josey said:


> Wow! What a chorus of people who think that the vast majority of scientists are dishonest crooks and that large coal and oil corporations and the politicians they hire are the only people we should listen to. However, the fact remains that the global warming skeptics on this thread have no credible evidence of their own. Instead of refuting the actual evidence, the only consistent argument the skeptics make is that scientists have formed some kind of conspiracy for various conflicting reasons.
> 
> *Please posts your so called undisputable facts for all of us to see!
> 
> ...



*MY replies are in bold text BUZ! *

...


----------



## Josey (Mar 25, 2007)

Buz:

Would you please correct your post so it doesn't look as though I use foul language and to separate your point of view from mine. Thanks.

Josey


----------



## Pellidon (Mar 25, 2007)

I am not a member of the GW cult. I don't know the answers to my questions that i posed above. Neither do any of the so called high priests of the cult have the answers. I do know that as a doubting Thomas I can postulate valid questions that poke holes in their wailing wall. My questions are not just mine, others have posed them to the high priests as well. We are castigated and called heretics by them and are accused of being shrill and uncaring. 

Academic science and science in general is less about science and more about fund raising. It was so when I was in college and probably more so today. I knew professors who were fired for wanting to teach rather than do the song and dance to pull more money into the school system via research grants. This cult has the potential to be more devastating due to the huge dollar amounts being bandied about like golden carrots. 

If you really want to stop the pollution that is running amok on the planet then do what I have done. Stop eating meat. The resources to produce the quarter pounder with cheese are stunning. Sixteen pounds of feed to make a pound of ground beef. Do you know how many meals that 16 pounds of grains and veggies make? I have a spread sheet somewhere where I figured it out. 2500 gallons of water. Waste that dwarfs that of humans by a ratio of 2:1 or more. Unregulated waste, full of antibiotics, growth hormones and resistant strains of super E-Coli. Plus the fuel to plant the grain, apply the toxic chemicals, harvest, process it into animal feed, get it back to the animals. Then you have to haul Bessie to the stockyards and have her hauled out to the processing plant. Packed in petroleum based packaging and trucked back to your supermarket. We won't get into the bits that don't either go into your belly or around it as a belt. I drove by a genetic research field the other day, next to a big agri business producer of that "safe" mutant food. Don't know if it was the manure or the mutant seeds but the ground had an unearthly glow. It did not look like healthy good earth like we used to have on the farms here.

Basically I am not the stereotype that the GW cult paints skeptics as. I am not an uncaring capitalist big oil ultra right conservative. I am a moderate to slightly right wing conservative, I don't trust any politician on either extreme of the scale. Far left kooks less so. I tried to understand the cult of GW but in all my years of looking at the claims and data I just can't see any real "there" there. I have seen ten year planetary destruction dates come and go with clockwork. Even Mr. Gore has moved his ten year to Armageddon start date so many times he must have it penciled in on a dry erase board by now. 

There is one good benefit of the bickering congress is doing about GW. It keeps them from messing with the Second Amendment.

Plus this big ol planet has been adapting for millions of years now. She will adjust if things get too out of balance. I have not read her manual so I don't know her design parameters.

Another thing to consider that implies that this is not a new or short term development. Once upon a time, the Sphinx was now known to be in a green zone that had regular floods. It has a water ring around the base. Now considered to be 2500 years older than it was postulated because of that evidence. The region has been going into desertification ever since. They know it has been growing steadily over the centuries. That to me implies long term global warming (small letters not the cult) that is natural and cyclic in nature. just as a good planet should do.


----------



## BUZ (Mar 25, 2007)

Josey said:


> Buz:
> 
> Would you please correct your post so it doesn't look as though I use foul language and to separate your point of view from mine. Thanks.
> 
> Josey




Foul language give me a break! If people cannot tell that my answers are in bold text well they need help! 

BTW can you post your actual evidence?


----------



## Empath (Mar 25, 2007)

*Re: Global Warming...the true facts.*



Sasha said:


> This is a good topic... worthy of discussion. _BUT!_... it has the potential to get nasty. Keep it civil guys... attack the post... not the poster... and we'll keep it open. Anyone deliberately trying to get it closed will have their post removed and they will be banned. Yes... that's a warning.



I haven't noted anything I'd call "deliberate" attempts to get it closed, but the philosophy of "attack the post... not the poster" has long been abandoned. The discussion can continue if you like _in the Underground_. It's closed here.


----------

