Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Go Back   Dallas-Mavs.com Forums > Everything Else > Political Arena

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-11-2007, 07:06 PM   #41
Dr.Zoidberg
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Decapod 10
Posts: 4,149
Dr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant future
Default

Natural there are many opinions in science and that’s good, otherwise no progress would be obtained. Of course has the warming also something to do with the raised sun activity, which I mentioned in one of my posts before, but the opinion that this is the main reason for the warming is a little bold and doesn´t find many supporters under the climate scientists at the moment. Nevertheless this is a very interesting field of research and you always have to be open to new ideas.

Global warming is without a question a topic you can excellent argue about. But in my opinion it´s a big gamble to be that hesitant, wait which theory is right and do nothing. If the leading prevalent feeling in science, that a big fraction of the global warming is man made because of the increased emission of CO2, the consequences could be much more worse than a lower GDP.

The argument of Mr. Steyn that to do something “…could destroy the planet's economy, technology, communications and prosperity. And ruin the lives of millions of people.”, is a little far-fetched as there are many countries which do something for the environment without having that bad influence. And don´t forget that USA is responsible for a fifth of the entire CO2 emission and contrary to the developing countries the US has the economic power and the technical knowledge and possibilities to do something.

If the US claims to be a leading world power, they also have the duty to be a paragon on the subject of environment protection (not only to prevent global warming) and it´s very sad that the government don´t care much about it.
__________________

"Talk to the claw."

"They're getting 15, 16 assists some games. I dream about getting 15 assists. It's just not possible with the team I'm on." - Devin Harris about top-notch point guards and him playing with the Mavs

"For me, it’s like a kid in a candy store." - Jason Kidd on playing with the Mavs
Dr.Zoidberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 02-11-2007, 08:17 PM   #42
FishForLunch
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,011
FishForLunch is a glorious beacon of lightFishForLunch is a glorious beacon of lightFishForLunch is a glorious beacon of lightFishForLunch is a glorious beacon of lightFishForLunch is a glorious beacon of lightFishForLunch is a glorious beacon of lightFishForLunch is a glorious beacon of lightFishForLunch is a glorious beacon of light
Default

UN should demand that cosmic rays do not interfere with the earth. Meanwhile Al Gore blamed the bush administration for ignoring the ravages of cosmic rays. Is Henrik Svensmark any how connected to BIG OIL?
FishForLunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 09:02 PM   #43
Dr.Zoidberg
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Decapod 10
Posts: 4,149
Dr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant future
Default

Bush definitely has the power to deny the cosmic rays to interfere with the earth. The basis is prepared as he has signed a new National Space Policy: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101701484.html

__________________

"Talk to the claw."

"They're getting 15, 16 assists some games. I dream about getting 15 assists. It's just not possible with the team I'm on." - Devin Harris about top-notch point guards and him playing with the Mavs

"For me, it’s like a kid in a candy store." - Jason Kidd on playing with the Mavs

Last edited by Dr.Zoidberg; 02-11-2007 at 09:04 PM.
Dr.Zoidberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2007, 12:18 AM   #44
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

I believe that the US has continued to drop the amount of greenhouse gases per GDP over the last 15 or so years.



If so what more do you want? We continue to invest in cleaner technology. If you really want to make even more of a dent get the enviro-wackos to get behind Nuclear Energy in a big way. However from what I've read even that won't take the place of oil as there isn't enough nuclear material to supplant oil/coal.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’

Last edited by dude1394; 02-12-2007 at 12:18 AM.
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2007, 03:25 AM   #45
purplefrog
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: state of eternal optimism
Posts: 2,840
purplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond repute
Default

I have two comments.
First, I am not sure why you would want to graph Carbon and GHG as a function of GDP because the data can be potentially misleading. It seems to me that if the economy is growing in sectors that are not using much in terms of fossil fuels then you would see a decline (as shown in your graph) even though there is no net reduction in emissions. For example, in the nineties along came the dot.com boom and much was invested in computer software development. The economy grew and there was no concommitant increase in emissions because these industries do not require much in terms of energy consumption. I admit that I am not sure if this really explains the chart, but it might be worth checking out.

My second comment is that from 2000-2005 the graph shows projections and not actual data collected. It would be interesting to know if the projections were accurate.

I would like to see data on net C02 emissions over the past 15 years. It wouldn't surprise me if there was also a small decrease and I will see if I can find those data later. You are right in saying that we are investing in cleaner technologies and I have heard the 'N' (nuclear) word being brought up again (and I am not so sure that it would be such a bad idea). What concerns me is that we are still building coal plants to generate electricity. The coal plants that TXU is planning to build in Texas will generate alot more CO2. They should be required to use the existing technology to capture the CO2, but Perry doesn't it see this as important. Without Federal regulations on CO2 we will continue to invest in dirty energy and imo that's a really bad energy plan.
__________________
"Truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it. Ignorance may deride it. Malice may distort it. But there it is." - Winston Churchill
purplefrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2007, 10:01 AM   #46
Dr.Zoidberg
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Decapod 10
Posts: 4,149
Dr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant future
Default

That’s also my opinion purplefrog. Furthermore the GDP of USA from 1990 (5.803,3 billions US Dollar) till 2000 (9.824,7 billions US Dollar) has a much bigger growth than the gain of greenhouse gases (look here: http://www.grida.no/Emissions.aspx?m=36&countryiso=US) and because of that the chart logically will go down. This doesn´t surprise me as this is a statistic from the US government.

Following, some stats of the development of emissions for USA and worldwide:

Distribution between Oil, coal and gas of the CO2 emissions in a chart: http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/co2_...lected_regions

CO2 emission per capita relating to the income average: http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/nati...ons_per_capita

CO2 emission per country and the change of emission: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/environme..._emissions.htm

Greenhouse gas emission per country and the change of the emission: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/environme..._emissions.htm

It´s not the point to find alternative energy sources, despite this is very important (would be nice to find something, but at the moment there is no alternative technology to cover the whole need of energy). So the best way to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases is to cut the consumption of energy and use emission reducing technologies.
__________________

"Talk to the claw."

"They're getting 15, 16 assists some games. I dream about getting 15 assists. It's just not possible with the team I'm on." - Devin Harris about top-notch point guards and him playing with the Mavs

"For me, it’s like a kid in a candy store." - Jason Kidd on playing with the Mavs
Dr.Zoidberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2007, 10:47 AM   #47
jacktruth
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: TX
Posts: 1,868
jacktruth has much to be proud ofjacktruth has much to be proud ofjacktruth has much to be proud ofjacktruth has much to be proud ofjacktruth has much to be proud ofjacktruth has much to be proud ofjacktruth has much to be proud ofjacktruth has much to be proud ofjacktruth has much to be proud ofjacktruth has much to be proud ofjacktruth has much to be proud of
Default

Global Hot Air
By Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, February 13, 2007

The political left's favorite argument is that there is no argument. Their current crusade is to turn "global warming" into one of those things that supposedly no honest and decent person can disagree about, as they have already done with "diversity" and "open space."

The name of "science" is invoked by the left today, as it has been for more than two centuries. After all, Karl Marx's ideology was called "scientific socialism" in the 19th century. In the 18th century, Condorcet analogized his blueprint for a better society to engineering, and social engineering has been the agenda ever since.

Not all the advocates of "global warming" are on the left, of course. Crusades are not just for crusaders. There are always hangers-on who can turn the true believers' crusades into votes or money or at least notoriety.

Whether the globe really is warming is a question about facts -- and about where those facts are measured: on land, in the air or under the sea. There is no question that there is a "greenhouse" effect. Otherwise, half the planet would freeze every night when there is no sunlight falling on it.

There is also no question that the earth can warm or cool. It has done both at one time or another for thousands of years, even before there were SUVs. If there had never been any global warming before, we wouldn't be able to enjoy Yosemite Valley today for it was once buried under thousands of feet of ice.

Back in the 1970s, the environmental hysteria was about the dangers of a new ice age. This hysteria was spread by many of the same individuals and groups who are promoting today's hysteria about global warming.

It is not just the sky that is falling. Government money is falling on those who seek grants to study global warming and produce "solutions" for it. But that money is not as likely to fall on those skeptics in the scientific community who refuse to join the stampede.

Yes, Virginia, there are skeptics about global warming among scientists who study weather and climate. There are arguments both ways -- which is why so many in politics and in the media are so busy selling the notion that there is no argument.

If you heard both arguments, you might not be so willing to go along with those who are prepared to ruin the economy, sacrificing jobs and the national standard of living on the altar to the latest in an unending series of crusades, conducted by politicians and other people seeking to tell everyone else how to live.

What about all those scientists mentioned, cited or quoted by global warming crusaders?

There are all kinds of scientists, from chemists to nuclear physicists to people who study insects, volcanoes, and endocrine glands -- none of whom is an expert on weather or climate, but all of whom can be listed as scientists, to impress people who don't scrutinize the list any further. That ploy has already been used.

Then there are genuine scientific experts on weather and climate. The National Academy of Sciences came out with a report on global warming back in 2001 with a very distinguished list of such experts listed. The problem is that not one of those very distinguished scientists actually wrote the report -- or even saw it before it was published.

One of those very distinguished climate scientists -- Richard S. Lindzen of MIT -- publicly repudiated the conclusions of that report, even though his name had been among those used as window dressing on the report. But the media may not have told you that.


In short, there has been a full court press to convince the public that "everybody knows" that a catastrophic global warming looms over us, that human beings are the cause of it, and that the only solution is to turn more money and power over to the government to stop us from our dangerous ways of living.

Among the climate experts who are not part of that "everybody" are not only Professor Lindzen but also Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, whose book "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years," punctures the hot air balloon of the global warming crusaders. So does the book "Shattered Consensus," edited by Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, which contains essays by others who are not part of "everybody."



Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.

Last edited by jacktruth; 02-13-2007 at 10:48 AM.
jacktruth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2007, 11:13 AM   #48
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Thomas Sowell is a great man.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2007, 02:56 PM   #49
purplefrog
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: state of eternal optimism
Posts: 2,840
purplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Science is one of the premier scholarly journals that represents all areas of scientific research. The abstract below describes a paper that supports the view that the there is scientific consensus on the issue of global warming and that it is, in part, related to human activity. The editorial board of another premier journal, "The National Academy of Sciences", also states there is consensus. It is not difficult to find a few scientists who are dissenters to the consensus. Some of them are even going to have lofty credentials. As I stated in another post, there is always some dissent in the scientific community. But the fact remains these reputable journals along with numerous scientific organizations agree that a consensus exists. That is a fact. Consensus does not mean unanimity. You can certainly agree with the minority opinion if you like, but just realize that most scientists consider it wrong. Could the minority eventually be proven correct? Absolutely, but is simply less likely to be true.
__________________________________________________ ____
Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes

Policy-makers and the public who are not members of the relevant research community have had to form opinions about the reality of global climate change on the basis of often conflicting descriptions provided by the media regarding the level of scientific certainty attached to studies of climate. In this Essay, Oreskes analyzes the existing scientific literature to show that there is a robust consensus that anthropogenic global climate change is occurring. Thus, despite claims sometimes made by some groups that there is not good evidence that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities, the scientific community is in overwhelming agreement that such evidence is clear and persuasive.
__________________
"Truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it. Ignorance may deride it. Malice may distort it. But there it is." - Winston Churchill
purplefrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2007, 10:51 AM   #50
Dr.Zoidberg
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Decapod 10
Posts: 4,149
Dr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant future
Default

Maybe Thomas Sowell might be a great man, but he is an economist and because of that it´s no surprise that he is on side of the global warming critics. But I can´t hear it anymore that doing something for the protection of the environment will ruin the economy. Look at europe and you will see many countries which do a lot for the environment and have additionally very strict environmental regulations without spoiling the economy.

The experts he names in his article are not even known as neutral as they are connectet with heavy idustrie companies (mostly oil industry), which need them to deny the facts and statistics of the mainstream opinions in science, to protect theire business.

Here a link about Richard S. Lindzen and Fred Singer and their connections with the industry: http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Ri...S_Lindzen.html

Here something interesting about Dennis Avery and Fred Singer. Both work for the Hudson institute which is financed by many heavy industry companies (among others Exxon Mobile):
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...dson_Institute
and a list of the funding:
http://www.mediatransparency.org/rec...grants.php?160


Here a interesting article of the book: “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years
”: http://blogs.chicagoreader.com/daily...ange-quackery/


And last but not least something about Patrick J. Michaels and his connections with the hevavy industry companies:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...ck_J._Michaels
and here: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/per...sheet.php?id=4
__________________

"Talk to the claw."

"They're getting 15, 16 assists some games. I dream about getting 15 assists. It's just not possible with the team I'm on." - Devin Harris about top-notch point guards and him playing with the Mavs

"For me, it’s like a kid in a candy store." - Jason Kidd on playing with the Mavs
Dr.Zoidberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2007, 12:01 PM   #51
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

I'm not so sure he's on the side of global-warming critics as much as he's not willing to allow the global-warming industry make this debate off-limits to discussion. The global-warming industry want's to make this as accepted as gravity and it's just not.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2007, 12:03 PM   #52
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg
[COLOR=#283a5e][FONT=Tahoma]The experts he names in his article are not even known as neutral as they are connectet with heavy idustrie companies (mostly oil industry), which need them to deny the facts and statistics of the mainstream opinions in science, to protect theire business.
Who's paying the enviromentalists? So I'm supposed to take an enviromentalists WORD for this when they've been wrong about this for the last 100 years? Sorry...no sale.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2007, 12:35 PM   #53
Dr.Zoidberg
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Decapod 10
Posts: 4,149
Dr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant future
Default

That´s something I also like to know. I don´t know any company which has as big influence as the ones who are against the opinion of man made global warming. The most industries don´t benefit from supporting the opinion that a global warming will happen. The companies which profit are in distinctly minority.
__________________

"Talk to the claw."

"They're getting 15, 16 assists some games. I dream about getting 15 assists. It's just not possible with the team I'm on." - Devin Harris about top-notch point guards and him playing with the Mavs

"For me, it’s like a kid in a candy store." - Jason Kidd on playing with the Mavs
Dr.Zoidberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2007, 12:35 PM   #54
Dr.Zoidberg
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Decapod 10
Posts: 4,149
Dr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant future
Default

That´s something I also like to know. I don´t know any company which has as big influence as the ones who are against the opinion of man made global warming. The most industries don´t benefit from supporting the opinion that a global warming will happen. The companies which profit are in distinctly minority.
__________________

"Talk to the claw."

"They're getting 15, 16 assists some games. I dream about getting 15 assists. It's just not possible with the team I'm on." - Devin Harris about top-notch point guards and him playing with the Mavs

"For me, it’s like a kid in a candy store." - Jason Kidd on playing with the Mavs
Dr.Zoidberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2007, 03:44 PM   #55
purplefrog
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: state of eternal optimism
Posts: 2,840
purplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jacktruth
Global Hot Air
By Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, February 13, 2007


What about all those scientists mentioned, cited or quoted by global warming crusaders?

There are all kinds of scientists, from chemists to nuclear physicists to people who study insects, volcanoes, and endocrine glands -- none of whom is an expert on weather or climate, but all of whom can be listed as scientists, to impress people who don't scrutinize the list any further. That ploy has already been used.

Then there are genuine scientific experts on weather and climate. The National Academy of Sciences came out with a report on global warming back in 2001 with a very distinguished list of such experts listed. The problem is that not one of those very distinguished scientists actually wrote the report -- or even saw it before it was published.

One of those very distinguished climate scientists -- Richard S. Lindzen of MIT -- publicly repudiated the conclusions of that report, even though his name had been among those used as window dressing on the report. But the media may not have told you that.


In short, there has been a full court press to convince the public that "everybody knows" that a catastrophic global warming looms over us, that human beings are the cause of it, and that the only solution is to turn more money and power over to the government to stop us from our dangerous ways of living.

Among the climate experts who are not part of that "everybody" are not only Professor Lindzen but also Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, whose book "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years," punctures the hot air balloon of the global warming crusaders. So does the book "Shattered Consensus," edited by Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, which contains essays by others who are not part of "everybody."



Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.
This is where Sowell loses credibility on this issue. To imply that the scientists that support global warming are not distinguished environmental scientists and climatologists is just wrong. Among the organizations that support the global warming argument are The American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union. I am confident that the scientists that make up these organizations are in fact trained in the relevant disciplines. I wish that Sowell and other political writers would refrain from making grandiose statements about this issue when they are not experts especially if their position goes against the facts. IMO, the real question is not "does global warming exist", but rather what are its consequences and what type of timeframe do we have to correct the problem that we have helped to create. It may be that once the media and public accept the idea that C02 and Greenhouse gases are affecting our climate, a more clear-headed approach can be taken that doesn't involve extreme statements which suggest the threat of imminent catastrophe. It also may be the case that when pushed the experts will admit they do not really know what the consequences of global warming WILL be, but rather only that it exists. This is a healthy debate that should and will eventually take place. Indeed just yesterday an executive working for Exxon Mobil stated that they will no longer attack the science behind the idea of global of warming but rather participate in the debate on how to deal with it. In my opinion, this is the smart approach... agree to what is obvious (there is scientific consensus), gain some credibility in so doing, and then attempt to affect policy in a way that has minimal effect on your corporation.
__________________
"Truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it. Ignorance may deride it. Malice may distort it. But there it is." - Winston Churchill
purplefrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2007, 03:44 PM   #56
purplefrog
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: state of eternal optimism
Posts: 2,840
purplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jacktruth
Global Hot Air
By Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, February 13, 2007


What about all those scientists mentioned, cited or quoted by global warming crusaders?

There are all kinds of scientists, from chemists to nuclear physicists to people who study insects, volcanoes, and endocrine glands -- none of whom is an expert on weather or climate, but all of whom can be listed as scientists, to impress people who don't scrutinize the list any further. That ploy has already been used.

Then there are genuine scientific experts on weather and climate. The National Academy of Sciences came out with a report on global warming back in 2001 with a very distinguished list of such experts listed. The problem is that not one of those very distinguished scientists actually wrote the report -- or even saw it before it was published.

One of those very distinguished climate scientists -- Richard S. Lindzen of MIT -- publicly repudiated the conclusions of that report, even though his name had been among those used as window dressing on the report. But the media may not have told you that.


In short, there has been a full court press to convince the public that "everybody knows" that a catastrophic global warming looms over us, that human beings are the cause of it, and that the only solution is to turn more money and power over to the government to stop us from our dangerous ways of living.

Among the climate experts who are not part of that "everybody" are not only Professor Lindzen but also Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, whose book "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years," punctures the hot air balloon of the global warming crusaders. So does the book "Shattered Consensus," edited by Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, which contains essays by others who are not part of "everybody."



Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.
This is where Sowell loses credibility on this issue. To imply that the scientists that support global warming are not distinguished environmental scientists and climatologists is just wrong. Among the organizations that support the global warming argument are The American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union. I am confident that the scientists that make up these organizations are in fact trained in the relevant disciplines. I wish that Sowell and other political writers would refrain from making grandiose statements about this issue when they are not experts especially if their position goes against the facts. IMO, the real question is not "does global warming exist", but rather what are its consequences and what type of timeframe do we have to correct the problem that we have helped to create. It may be that once the media and public accept the idea that C02 and Greenhouse gases are affecting our climate, a more clear-headed approach can be taken that doesn't involve extreme statements which suggest the threat of imminent catastrophe. It also may be the case that when pushed the experts will admit they do not really know what the consequences of global warming WILL be, but rather only that it exists. This is a healthy debate that should and will eventually take place. Indeed just yesterday an executive working for Exxon Mobil stated that they will no longer attack the science behind the idea of global of warming but rather participate in the debate on how to deal with it. In my opinion, this is the smart approach... agree to what is obvious (there is scientific consensus), gain some credibility in so doing, and then attempt to affect policy in a way that has minimal effect on your corporation.
__________________
"Truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it. Ignorance may deride it. Malice may distort it. But there it is." - Winston Churchill
purplefrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2007, 04:58 PM   #57
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

You mean sowell cannot cite these folks below? Are they not distinquised climatologists and environmental scientists? What about the climatologist up in Oregon I believe who is standing by their guns that the science isn't "settled".
All really Sowell is doing is refuting the idea that there is no more discussion to be had, but only GDP to be reduced.

Quote:
Among the climate experts who are not part of that "everybody" are not only Professor Lindzen but also Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, whose book "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years," punctures the hot air balloon of the global warming crusaders. So does the book "Shattered Consensus," edited by Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, which contains essays by others who are not part of "everybody."
Quote:
Siegfried Frederick Singer (born September 27, 1924 in Vienna) is an atmospheric physicist. He is best known as President and founder (in 1990) of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, which disputes the prevailing scientific opinion on climate change.
Here is a list of some skeptics...let's look at a few of these "laymen".
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...hange_sceptics

Quote:
Sallie Louise Baliunas received her M.A. (1975) and Ph.D. (1980) degrees in Astrophysics from Harvard University.

She is Enviro-Sci Host for James K. Glassman's Tech Central Station, and a astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Baliunas received in 1997 the Petr Beckmann Award for her "devastating critique of the global warming hoax." [1]

She sits on the boards or committees of:

* George C. Marshall Institute
* Greening Earth Society
* Scientific Alliance
* Statistical Assessment Service
Quote:
Tim Ball
From SourceWatch

Dr. Timothy Ball is Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP). [1]

Previously, Ball has been identified as a Canadian climate change sceptic who is a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science. [2] Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian think tank. [3]
First three on the list. The whole climate stuff looks like someone trying to use peer pressure to silence their critics.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2007, 05:56 PM   #58
purplefrog
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: state of eternal optimism
Posts: 2,840
purplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond repute
Default

These dissenters don't change the fact that the relevant scientific organizations and journals agree there is a consensus. Again, consensus does not mean unanimity, nor does it mean that there is absolutely no doubt. It simply means that a significant majority of scientists believe that the earth is getting warmer and that CO2 and GHGs are in part the cause. In previous posts I said that some of the dissenters would likely have lofty credentials. This is the way science works on just about every issue. There are always individuals that for whatever reason see a problem in a different way. The Science article I referred to in an earlier post (and I posted the abstract) did a survey of the literature in the top journals in the past 10 years and found only studies that either supported global warming (75%) or studies that took no position (25%). According to the author, no study could be found that stated global warming was clearly not occuring. None. Is the author of this paper a liberal sympathizer?.... Maybe. Are all of these scientists part of a grand conspiracy...I can't prove otherwise. I realize that science and grant getting and publishing can be a political game. But what I would like you to consider is that while there are likely to be left wing nut jobs that are promoting this idea, there are also likely to be right wing extremists that are trying to fight it. Sowell might fit into this category as well as Mark Steyn (who has hosted the Rush Limbaugh show from time to time). I don't know... its hard to say. In the end, I think all we can do is to accept the fact that there is a consensus (as judged the acceptance of the idea from journals and organizations) and now ask the question, "What do we do about it". And when we answer that question we should take into account that while some doubt does in fact still exist the preponderance of the data support global warming and therefore it is best to act in thoughtful and responsible way that has a minimal effect on our economy.
__________________
"Truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it. Ignorance may deride it. Malice may distort it. But there it is." - Winston Churchill
purplefrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2007, 05:56 PM   #59
purplefrog
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: state of eternal optimism
Posts: 2,840
purplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond repute
Default

double post.
__________________
"Truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it. Ignorance may deride it. Malice may distort it. But there it is." - Winston Churchill
purplefrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2007, 06:35 PM   #60
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

I think I'll stack up Thomas Sowell against just about anyone, left or right.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2007, 07:02 PM   #61
purplefrog
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: state of eternal optimism
Posts: 2,840
purplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Strange title for this article. It is not clear where the shift really is because there is a little bit of encouragement in this article for those on either side of the debate.


______________________________________
Debate Over Global Warming Is Shifting
****By John Donnelly
****The Boston Globe
****Thursday 15 February 2007

Some skeptics resolute, others revisiting views.

****Washington - With Democrats controlling the environmental agenda in Congress, a panel of international scientists saying there's a greater-than-90 percent chance that humans contribute to global warming, and former vice president Al Gore calling climate change a moral issue, many besieged global warming skeptics are starting to tone down their rhetoric.

****Some, though, are sticking to aggressive tactics, even contending they are gaining momentum. And they have influential allies: some scientists, conservative think-tank pundits, a minority of Republicans in Congress, and a sympathetic White House that has rejected attempts to force companies to curb carbon dioxide emissions - even though the vast majority of scientists say those emissions are heating up the earth.

****Still, both sides acknowledge that the global warming debate has changed significantly in recent weeks. The biggest factor is the Feb. 2 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC - a review of scientific literature by hundreds of scientists who determined that it is more than 90 percent certain humans contribute to global warming.

****That seemingly irrefutable conclusion helped shift the position of ExxonMobil, which had taken the strongest stance among oil companies against global warming policy.

****Last week, Rex W. Tillerson , ExxonMobil's chief executive, acknowledged that greenhouse gases from car and industrial exhausts are factors in global warming, a stark reversal in the company's long-held position. For years, ExxonMobil has funded several Washington think tanks that have questioned the science - and whether national policies would be effective.

****Scott Barrett , a global warming believer and director of the International Policy Program at Johns Hopkins' School of Advanced International Studies , said ExxonMobil's about-face is significant. "They accepted the responsibility to do something, and that could change the debate" from uncertainty about climate change to finding solutions to a fast-approaching crisis, he said.

****Other oil giants, including BP and Shell, had made the shift much earlier; both are aggressively promoting fossil-fuel alternatives such as solar and wind power.

****"A lot of the focus is going to shift into how much effort you should put into reducing emissions versus adapting to climate change," Barrett said. Adapting to a warmer global climate, he said, could include anything from building farther inland to guard against rises in sea level to investing in a malaria vaccine, anticipating that disease-carrying mosquitoes could spread northward from the tropics.

****The debate shift has been felt elsewhere as well. The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington think tank that had offered $10,000 last year to scientists to challenge the IPCC report, is rethinking the project, said Kenneth Green , who is overseeing the effort.

****"There is a backlash growing against skeptics, a kind of climate inquisition," said Green. "What do people do if they have alternative ideas and they don't have independent institutions to back them up? They will be attacked."

****Global warming skeptics say they believe the media and Congress aren't interested in hearing their side of the debate.

****"The size of the megaphones for the other side is very large," said Myron Ebell , director of energy and global warming policy at Competitive Enterprise Institute, one of the leading doubters of the issue. "On our side we are using bare voices without amplification."

****But those who don't believe humans contribute to global warming have some scientists, and an influential lawmaker, on their side.

****Senator James M. Inhofe , the Oklahoma Republican who famously declared global warming a "hoax," said this week that the skeptics were gaining momentum. He said President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic and scientists from France and Israel, among others, are now among the doubters.

****Writing in the Sunday Times of London this week, Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist magazine, suggested that the IPCC's main conclusion - that there is more than a 90 percent certainty humans are contributing to global warming - means there's a 10 percent chance that man is blameless, "a wide-open breach for any latter-day Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works."

****Dr. Willie Soon , a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who believes that variations in the sun's energy might be the chief reason for a warming planet, agrees. Speaking for himself and not the center, Soon accused mainstream scientists of "attacking me. But as a scientist, you just ignore them."

****Meanwhile, Christopher C. Horner , published a book this week called "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism," a primer for doubters that yesterday was ranked 33 d on Amazon.com's best-sellers' list. Horner, a fellow at Competitive Enterprise Institute, has denounced Democrats in Congress, alleging that they are delaying action on global warming to preserve it as a presidential campaign issue in 2008.

****But Representative Henry A. Waxman , a California Democrat, has said he doubts any comprehensive global warming legislation will emerge until 2009 for a different reason: Though Democrats control Congress, they don't have the votes to override a likely veto by President Bush.

****Bill McKibben , the author of "The End of Nature," which in 1989 warned about global warming, said skeptics "at best are taking pot shots around the edges" of the debate. Still, McKibben sees a great irony as he listens to their arguments: "There is nothing I would rather see than these guys be right."
__________________
"Truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it. Ignorance may deride it. Malice may distort it. But there it is." - Winston Churchill
purplefrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2007, 07:39 PM   #62
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

My belief on this is that the companies have decided that the climatologists have the media behind them and have decided that there is no use in debating it anymore. WHETHER THEY ARE CORRECT OR NOT.

They will now just make money on it, put carbon based tax on their products and go forward. They have the money, expertise and technological wherewithal to invest in clean technologies, always have but felt it was bull****. I expect they still do in most cases, but see the PR battle has been either won or isn't worth the effort.

They gain more good public will by agreeing with the climatologists, no matter that our energy prices will now increase. They'll just pass those costs along to the consumer now, whereas they couldn't before.

I wonder if the same climatologists are going to be calling for a windfall profits tax on the increased price of energy. When will the first evil ethanol company be criticised. Pretty soon I imagine.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2007, 11:01 AM   #63
mcsluggo
Golden Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: McLean, VA
Posts: 1,970
mcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394
You mean sowell cannot cite these folks below? Are they not distinquised climatologists and environmental scientists? What about the climatologist up in Oregon I believe who is standing by their guns that the science isn't "settled".
All really Sowell is doing is refuting the idea that there is no more discussion to be had, but only GDP to be reduced.





Here is a list of some skeptics...let's look at a few of these "laymen".
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...hange_sceptics





First three on the list. The whole climate stuff looks like someone trying to use peer pressure to silence their critics.
I'm sorry dude, but this logic is really a crock of shit, and whiny to boot!

yes out of the thousands of climate experts you can find some that disagree with what is largely scientific concensus. And there are probably really good scientists that disagree too... that is the way to become a good scientist, question what everyone else is taken for granted and poke holes where you can. That is what makes science strong, and that sort of peer review is what helps science stumble (asymptotically) towards the corect answers.

HOWEVER "looks like someone trying to use peer pressure to silence their critics" is just whiny boohoohoo!!! it is simply FACT that more scientists in the debate are lined up on one side of it than the other. It it just is. To try to frame that as "the bad old PC majority is twying to cower the noble true thinkers" is just sour grapes. Perhps the majority will be proven wrong, it wouldn't be the first time. But whether or not they prove to be correct in the long run or not is irrelivant to the FACT that most climate scientists today believe that man is a large contributer to what they perceive to be a trend toward increasing global temperatures.

As far as Thomas Sowell goes. He isn't an idiot. But some of his articles make him look that way sometimes. Since we KNOW that he isn't an idiot, I have to question whether or not he thinks his readers are? In his editorials, he sometimes takes SUCH simplistic tacks ... he must really think that sometimes what is important is beating home an over riding theme, rather than convincing through (dare I say it) logic and reasoning. I see Paul Krugman doing the same damn things in HIS editorials sometimes. Both men are capable of logical and reasoned arguments... and yet they don't always do it in their editorials (though they DO in their scholarly writings). Why not? what does this say about the incentives structure in today's "editorial marketplace"? its disheartening.
mcsluggo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2007, 12:15 PM   #64
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

More consensus.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-atd021207.php
Quote:
Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions

COLUMBUS , Ohio – A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.

This comes soon after the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that strongly supports the conclusion that the Earth's climate as a whole is warming, largely due to human activity.

It also follows a similar finding from last summer by the same research group that showed no increase in precipitation over Antarctica in the last 50 years. Most models predict that both precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a warming of the planet.

David Bromwich, professor of professor of atmospheric sciences in the Department of Geography, and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, reported on this work at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at San Francisco.

"It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now," he said. "Part of the reason is that there is a lot of variability there. It's very hard in these polar latitudes to demonstrate a global warming signal. This is in marked contrast to the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula that is one of the most rapidly warming parts of the Earth."

Bromwich says that the problem rises from several complications. The continent is vast, as large as the United States and Mexico combined. Only a small amount of detailed data is available – there are perhaps only 100 weather stations on that continent compared to the thousands spread across the U.S. and Europe . And the records that we have only date back a half-century.

"The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica .

"We're looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment," he said.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2007, 04:33 PM   #65
Dr.Zoidberg
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Decapod 10
Posts: 4,149
Dr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant future
Default

That "Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions" isn´t right!

This circumstance is easy to explain, and you don´t quote the essentially reason for a nearly constant temperature of this region and the cooling(!) of Antarctica mainlad:

At first the temperature of the mainland of the Antarctica was not rising over the last decades. This is right. But at the same time, the peninsula Graham Land, the most northern region of the Antarctica, belongs to the continents with the highest rising temperatures (about 2,5°C in the last 50 years). Beside the (likely) global warming, the west winds, which carry a lot of heat, have increased at this time and are in this way one of the reasons for the higher temperatures they´ve measured at Graham Land.

The mainland of the Antarctica isn´t as much affected of west winds as Graham Land. Although the ozone hole is direct above the Antarctica mainland. The hole in the ozone layer is getting bigger and bigger and the decreasing concentration of ozone will lead to a decreasing absorption of the UV-light. This circumstance entails an abated warming of the stratosphere, the outer part of the Earth´s atmosphere, and because of that the interior of the country will get colder!

In conclusion, the above named facts, which you left from quoting, are leading to a neutralize of warming and cooling in that region. So this occurrence doesn´t prove anything at all. As Bromwich said: "We're looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment."

Here an interesting treatise of the correlations at the Antarctica and the accumulation and decline of the ice, written by Prof. Dr. David Bromwich:
http://polarmet.mps.ohio-state.edu/j..._J_Climate.pdf
__________________

"Talk to the claw."

"They're getting 15, 16 assists some games. I dream about getting 15 assists. It's just not possible with the team I'm on." - Devin Harris about top-notch point guards and him playing with the Mavs

"For me, it’s like a kid in a candy store." - Jason Kidd on playing with the Mavs

Last edited by Dr.Zoidberg; 02-18-2007 at 04:44 PM.
Dr.Zoidberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2007, 05:16 PM   #66
purplefrog
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: state of eternal optimism
Posts: 2,840
purplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond repute
Default

In response to Sowell's suggestion (see previous posts) that the scientists that support global warming are not trained in the relevant disciplines, or as he put it: "There are all kinds of scientists, from chemists to nuclear physicists to people who study insects, volcanoes, and endocrine glands -- none of whom is an expert on weather or climate, but all of whom can be listed as scientists, to impress people who don't scrutinize the list any further. That ploy has already been used. Professor Sherwood Rowland's work on ozone depletion is very relevant to this topic. He shares his views on global warming in the interview pasted below:

______________________________________________
Professor Rowland is Bren Research Professor, Earth System Science, School of Physical Sciences at the University of California. In 1995 he shared the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for work in atmospheric chemistry.He is a Foreign Member of the Royal Society. This piece was written in April 2006.

The melting of ice and permafrost in the North Polar region and the shrinking of the tropical glaciers are signals that "global warming" is no longer solely a warning about the future, but changes which have already arrived. The initial effects of this warming are noticeably present already, and the concerns are now of substantial climate change in the near future.

The ongoing accumulation of the greenhouse gases will continue to alter the Earth for long periods after stabilization of their atmospheric concentrations has been attained.


Professor Rowland
Changes have already begun and adaptation will be necessary. However, the same preventive prescriptions which might have postponed the current effects for some decades (had they been adopted earlier) are now needed even more urgently. This pace of change becomes critical because the physical forces, primarily the ongoing accumulation of the greenhouse gasescarbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, tropospheric ozone and the otherswill continue to alter the Earth for long periods after stabilization of their atmospheric concentrations has been attained. These real concerns about the future of our planet are now felt throughout the scientific world.


I remember testifying before a U.S. Senate committee twenty years ago, and hearing the Democratic senator saying, "The problem of global warming brings another round of scientists before us decrying the folly of waiting until it is too late to prevent irreversible damage", and his Republican colleague, concurring, "We ought to do what we can and set an example." Unfortunately, the U.S. government was unwilling then even to accept that global warming was a problem, even in the future. Denial of the problem is still a popular attitude among many of our politicians. The U.S. executive branch had now grudgingly admitted that the greenhouse effect is real, but promotes a business-as-usual approach' toward solving the problem.

Two decades have passed, the globe is about one degree Fahrenheit warmer, the future has become the present, and action is even more obviously and urgently needed.

The atmospheric concentrations of methane, the second most important contributor to the greenhouse effect over the past two centuries, have been relatively unchanged for the past five or six years at a level about 2.5 times that which prevailed before the industrial revolution. The explanations for this slowdown from the 1% per year increase characteristic of the 1980s are under debate. Still, the slowing effect on methane suggests that a more directed effort may be able to cause its global burden to decrease.

The Montreal Protocol ban on the further manufacture of chlorofluorocarbons, and especially of methylchloroform, has caused an actual reduction in their contributions to the greenhouse effect. Tropospheric ozone, however, continues to increase and the growth in the number of urban vehicles is the primary driver of these ground-level ozone increases.

Concentrations of carbon dioxide, the dominant greenhouse gas in the planet's atmosphere reached their highest ever-recorded levels in 2004 (377.1 parts per million). Most importantly, the increases in carbon dioxide are approaching 2 parts per million per year. That's DOUBLE the rate of increase recorded by the late David Keeling in the 1958-1968 decade. Without a major effort to throttle carbon dioxide emissions, the planet is on course to see 400 parts per million level for about the year 2016, with 500 parts per million possible by the middle of the century.

Perhaps the most widespread effect of warming is the rising sea level of the world's oceans, which affects low-lying countries everywhere. The threat increases especially when combined with stronger storm surges from more intense typhoons and hurricanes. More subtle changes are being observed in ecological systems where the causative effects are not just higher daily maximum temperatures.

The long predicted special warming of the polar north due to positive feedback from the lessened reflectivity of water and rock versus snow and ice is strongly confirmed by the larger temperature increases there. With the warming of north polar nights, some insect populations no longer "winter-kill", as with the spruce bark beetle which destroyed 10,000 square kilometres of forest in the Alaskan Kenai peninsula several years ago. Similar insect problems have now cropped up with the Canadian Lodgepole pine forests which stretch from coast to coast. The expected consequences in California include an elevation of the winter snow line, with less accumulation of this key water source for release in the very dry summer months. There are regular reports of melting permafrost and tundra.

Such specific regional effects will depend very much on particular circumstances, but in almost every instance, slowing the pace of change will allow more time for adjustment to the new conditions.

The actions now urgently needed are the same ones which have been developed over the past several decades, starting with a strong emphasis on conservation. Industrial energies need to shift away from coal, gas, and oil to the renewables and to a revived nuclear option. This will not be an easy path, but the alternative of abrupt climate change could represent a catastrophic future.
__________________
"Truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it. Ignorance may deride it. Malice may distort it. But there it is." - Winston Churchill

Last edited by purplefrog; 02-18-2007 at 06:00 PM.
purplefrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2007, 04:51 PM   #67
FishForLunch
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,011
FishForLunch is a glorious beacon of lightFishForLunch is a glorious beacon of lightFishForLunch is a glorious beacon of lightFishForLunch is a glorious beacon of lightFishForLunch is a glorious beacon of lightFishForLunch is a glorious beacon of lightFishForLunch is a glorious beacon of lightFishForLunch is a glorious beacon of light
Default

China, India Smile as West Overpays for Climate: Andy Mukherjee

By Andy Mukherjee

Feb. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Governments in rich nations are spending billions of dollars to buy a clearer conscience over climate change. Are they getting their money's worth?

Enlightened individuals, those who stay awake at nights wondering what they can do to prevent the polar caps from melting, at least have a growing menu of choices.

Sydney-based Easy Being Green says it will mitigate your cat's flatulent contribution to global warming for A$8 ($6). The same company could also make your granny ``carbon-neutral'' at A$10 a year, according to a report in the Australian newspaper last weekend.

Then there's Carbon Planet Pty, another company cited in the article. If you are hopping on a short-haul flight between Sydney and Canberra, and feeling bad about the damage you are doing to the ecosystem, you can buy credits worth A$23, for which the Adelaide-based company will guarantee to keep 1 ton of carbon dioxide out of the air for 100 years.

By comparison, the governments that have undertaken to cut greenhouse emissions under the United Nations' Kyoto Convention on Climate Change have chosen a tougher -- and more expensive -- route to guilt reduction.

Michael Wara, formerly of Stanford University's Program in Energy and Sustainable Development and now a lawyer at Holland & Knight LLP in San Francisco, made that point in a much-publicized article in the science journal Nature this month.

Countries that must purchase emission credits to atone for their higher-than-mandated production of carbon dioxide are paying a tiny group of chemical manufacturers in China and India massive sums to reduce industrial gases and methane, which are rather inexpensive to capture and destroy, Wara says.

China and India

The improvement that can be obtained by spending just $31 million on incinerators could cost developed nations as much as 750 million euros ($986 million) through the elaborate trading mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol, and even then only two-thirds of the problem would go away, Wara estimates.

China and India are getting a prize for producing lots of hydrofluorocarbon-23, one of the six greenhouse gases under the Kyoto Protocol. One ton of it is considered the equivalent of 11,700 tons of carbon dioxide.

Six Chinese companies have consented to be paid to destroy this toxic byproduct of a gas used as a common refrigerant and a Teflon feedstock. Their total commitment is more than 43 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per annum. India, with two registered projects, is second with about 7 million tons. Thus, barely eight chemical plants in China and India control about 44 percent of the existing annual supply of emission credits.

That's a very high level of concentration, considering there are 506 projects in more than 40 nations that are currently registered under the Kyoto Protocol's trading system, known as the Clean Development Mechanism.

Kyoto Protocol

The total greenhouse reductions taking place through the trading system are expected to exceed the combined annual emissions of Canada, France, Spain and Switzerland.

All of this is making politicians optimistic.

A caucus of lawmakers from developed and developing countries agreed in Washington last week on the need to replace the Kyoto Protocol after it expires in 2012. There is a good chance the U.S., which hasn't accepted a binding commitment so far, may also change its mind.

U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair told the British Broadcasting Corp. that the Group of Eight industrialized nations has a real chance to have the outline of a new agreement in June.

A new accord will be good news if it leads to the planting of trees, commissioning of wind farms or other projects that directly make a difference to carbon-dioxide levels. That's where the developed world's money ought to go.

Reforestation, Energy Savings

So far, just one reforestation project -- in China's Pearl River basin -- has come under the ambit of emissions trading. It would cut the equivalent of 26,000 tons of carbon dioxide annually. A hotel in the eastern Indian city of Kolkata has sold to the U.K. government an even more humble 3,000 units of carbon dioxide savings, derived from the replacement of electric heaters by solar-powered ones. We need thousands of such projects.

Otherwise, emission trading would continue to represent a disproportionately high subsidy from the developed to the developing world to clean up industrial byproducts. These are so harmful that they ought to be captured by chemical companies without any incentives being given to them.

Perverse Incentive

These gases have ceased to be a problem in rich nations where companies such as DuPont Co. do a good job of destroying them at their own expense, Wara says.

Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd., the first company from India to join the Clean Development Mechanism, reported earlier this month that it had tripled its revenue in the quarter ended Dec. 31 from a year earlier.

Shareholders have earned 662 percent on the stock since March 2005, when Japan, the Netherlands, Italy and the U.K. agreed to pay the company to destroy hydrofluorocarbon-23.

Italy may pay 12.8 billion euros over the next four years to buy emission credits, the newspaper Finanza & Mercati reported last week. That's about the equivalent of the annual gross domestic product of Iceland.

That kind of money may be a beginning, though it's very doubtful that we will be breathing a lot easier because of it.

(Andy Mukherjee is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Andy Mukherjee in Singapore at
FishForLunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2007, 08:59 AM   #68
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

That bastion of right-wing conservatism...the National Geographic Society reports on global warming....

Quote:
GLOBAL WARMING -- on Mars? National Geographic reports:

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human- induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

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. Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2007, 10:43 AM   #69
Dr.Zoidberg
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Decapod 10
Posts: 4,149
Dr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant future
Default

This can´t be deemed seriousness from Abdussamatov. It´s hard enough for scientist to understand the climatic processes on earth, and this "scientist" presum to understand the climate of Mars?!? LOL
__________________

"Talk to the claw."

"They're getting 15, 16 assists some games. I dream about getting 15 assists. It's just not possible with the team I'm on." - Devin Harris about top-notch point guards and him playing with the Mavs

"For me, it’s like a kid in a candy store." - Jason Kidd on playing with the Mavs
Dr.Zoidberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2007, 11:28 AM   #70
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

I guess he's just not part of the consensus crowd, so he must be wrong.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2007, 12:19 PM   #71
Dr.Zoidberg
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Decapod 10
Posts: 4,149
Dr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant future
Default

The atmosphere of Mars consits to 95% of CO2! So I could also argue that the warming on Mars is because of the number one greenhouse gas CO2. Although there was a big sandstorm on Mars which cause a warming of 30°C of the atmosphere in a timeframe of one month.

So to compare this with the climatic processes on the earth, which also has a much more complex atmosphere than Mars, is a very daring speculation without great significance.
__________________

"Talk to the claw."

"They're getting 15, 16 assists some games. I dream about getting 15 assists. It's just not possible with the team I'm on." - Devin Harris about top-notch point guards and him playing with the Mavs

"For me, it’s like a kid in a candy store." - Jason Kidd on playing with the Mavs

Last edited by Dr.Zoidberg; 03-02-2007 at 03:01 PM.
Dr.Zoidberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2007, 08:18 PM   #72
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

More "consensus" at work. Those MIT professors are idiots anyway, dontcha' know.

http://www.channel4.com/science/micr...dle/index.html
Quote:
Al Gore had his moment to shine at The Academy Awards last week and was given an Oscar for his fraudulent schlockumentary. That was the highlight of his week. The next day, he was exposed as a hypocrite and it's been all downhill since. Now a group out of the U.K. is set to present The Great Global Warming Swindle.

The film argues that the earth's climate is always changing, and that rapid warmings and coolings took place long before the burning of fossil fuels. It argues that the present single-minded focus on reducing carbon emissions not only may have little impact on climate change, it may also have the unintended consequence of stifling development in the third world, prolonging endemic poverty and disease.

The film features an impressive roll-call of experts, including nine professors – experts in climatology, oceanography, meteorology, environmental science, biogeography and paleoclimatology – from such reputable institutions as MIT, NASA, the International Arctic Research Centre, the Institut Pasteur, the Danish National Space Center and the Universities of London, Ottawa, Jerusalem, Winnipeg, Alabama and Virginia.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2007, 11:19 PM   #73
purplefrog
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: state of eternal optimism
Posts: 2,840
purplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Dr. Robert Jahn, Ph.D in physics from Princeton; Dean Emeritus Princeton School of Engineering and Applied Science

Dr. Jessica Utts, Ph.D. from Penn State in Mathematics and Psychology; Professor at U Cal Davis

Dr. Daryl Bem, Ph.D. from Stanford in Psychology, Professor at Cornell

Dr. Hal Puthoff, Ph.D. from Stanford in Physics

Dr. Edwin May, Ph.D. from University of Pittsburgh in Nuclear Physics

What do these people with lofty credentials have in common? They all believe in psychokinesis, telepathy and the paranormal? Does anyone here agree with them? My point is that the scientific consensus is that the paranormal is bunk, but these people of some merit disagree and have done research in the area for years. Their contention is that the mainstream is ignoring the facts and there is a significant body of research that supports the existence of psychic phenomena. Who’s right and who’s wrong? Hard to tell ... or is it? Do we have a controversy? Does this sound familiar?

dude, I respect your opinion and that of the scientists that reject global warming. However, finding a bunch of scientists with great credentials that don't agree with the consensus does not change anything... at least not yet. Maybe the tide will change and if there is in fact a majority out there that reject the concept but have been ignored for some reason then we should definetly accept the new consensus. Or maybe with the intense focus on the issue we will see an increase in research that might prove today's conventional wisdom to be false. In the long run, I have faith that the scientific community as a whole is objective when it comes to shaping public policy. Today there is a consensus and we should start moving forward and limit C02 emissions at some level.
__________________
"Truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it. Ignorance may deride it. Malice may distort it. But there it is." - Winston Churchill

Last edited by purplefrog; 03-04-2007 at 11:21 PM.
purplefrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2007, 12:19 AM   #74
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

I have many problems with global warming hysteria.

1. The proponents are aggresively trying to halt any discussion on the issue. They shout down anyone who disagrees as tools of industry while they themselves are tools of other interests that are profiting from the catastrophe. They are not honest brokers imo.

2. The science is the science of the hysterical. Armaggedon. The folks who believe this have changed their prognostications for the last 30 years or so. First it was CFC's, got rid of those and now it's just humans in general.

3. Somehow I'm supposed to believe that they know what they are talking about when 30 years ago it was global cooling. Even the latest report (which now is "consensus") halved their own predications. You call that accurate or even science?

I have no problem in finding and using alternative energy and having cleaner technologies. But in general I don't trust liberals to get past their feelings to make intelligent decisions. They don't do it with respect to trade, unions, education, welfare and just about every other issue. If they would come out and honestly support nuclear energy I might have a little more interest in believing that it's just not another trumped up scare tactic to force more government oversight.

Kyoto is just such an example. It is an idiotic treaty but somehow anyone who opposes it is a oil tycoon or someone who wants to ravage the earth. They moralize the science instead of making their case clearly and irrecovably, which they cannot do since their own models are so inaccurate.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’

Last edited by dude1394; 03-05-2007 at 12:22 AM.
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2007, 12:24 AM   #75
chumdawg
Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cowboys Country
Posts: 23,336
chumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394
I have many problems with global warming hysteria.

1. The proponents are aggresively trying to halt any discussion on the issue. They shout down anyone who disagrees as tools of industry while they themselves are tools of other interests that are profiting from the catastrophe. They are not honest brokers imo.

2. The science is the science of the hysterical. Armaggedon. The folks who believe this have changed their prognostications for the last 30 years or so. First it was CFC's, got rid of those and now it's just humans in general.

3. Somehow I'm supposed to believe that they know what they are talking about when 30 years ago it was global cooling. Even the latest report (which now is "consensus") halved their own predications. You call that accurate or even science?

I have no problem in finding and using alternative energy and having cleaner technologies. But in general I don't trust liberals to get past their feelings to make intelligent decisions. They don't do it with respect to trade, unions, education, welfare and just about every other issue. If they would come out and honestly support nuclear energy I might have a little more interest in believing that it's just not another trumped up scare tactic to force more government oversight.

Kyoto is just such an example. It is an idiotic treaty but somehow anyone who opposes it is a oil tycoon or someone who wants to ravage the earth. They moralize the science instead of making their case clearly and irrecovably, which they cannot do since their own models are so inaccurate.
Bravo.

I have the certain conviction that people fifty years from now will look back on this whole global warming thing and laugh uncontrollably.

I know the earmarks of a scam, and this is a scam.
chumdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2007, 12:26 AM   #76
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

I really miss Steven Den Beste's take on most things. If the left can convince me that they aren't just anti-globalization, I might be more receptive.

http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entrie...06/Kyoto.shtml
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2007, 04:07 AM   #77
LRB
Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,057
LRB is a splendid one to beholdLRB is a splendid one to beholdLRB is a splendid one to beholdLRB is a splendid one to beholdLRB is a splendid one to beholdLRB is a splendid one to beholdLRB is a splendid one to beholdLRB is a splendid one to beholdLRB is a splendid one to beholdLRB is a splendid one to beholdLRB is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by purplefrog

However, finding a bunch of scientists with great credentials that don't agree with the consensus does not change anything... at least not yet. Maybe the tide will change and if there is in fact a majority out there that reject the concept but have been ignored for some reason then we should definetly accept the new consensus. Or maybe with the intense focus on the issue we will see an increase in research that might prove today's conventional wisdom to be false. In the long run, I have faith that the scientific community as a whole is objective when it comes to shaping public policy. Today there is a consensus and we should start moving forward and limit C02 emissions at some level.
Consensus among the world's scientists is vastly overrated. In the past scientific consensus thought we were entering another ice age (30 years ago), scientific consensus once thought the earth was flat, scientific consensus once thought that the sun revolved around the earth, scientific consensus once thought that the atom could not be split, scientific consensus once thought that applying leaches to sick patients was the best treatment, and the list goes on on the huge blunders that sceintific consensus has brought us over the ages.

The truth is that the we don't know enough to accurately predict the weather tomorrow a good portion of the time. The earth's climate is incredibly complex and is affected by millions of variables that we know of, and who knows what we don't know of. Any prediction of that causes is to tade drastic measures with our economy is just plain stupid. In all likelyhood we probably have as much chance of "damaging" the climate as we do of "improving" it. Most likely any effect we humans have is neglible.

The said part about global warming is it is based on junk science and group think. To make matters worse a powerful political element has espoused it and turned it from a scientific problem into a political one. I think we should continue to study it. I think we should be open to new scientific theories that disagree with global warming as well as though that do agree with it. I think we need lots more data. And I think the politicians should stay the hell away from it. And most definitely we shouldn't make any serious financial or far reaching economic decision based upon this unproven theory.

Scientific consensus is just a fancy name for acting like sheep.
__________________
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
LRB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2007, 04:22 AM   #78
Dirkadirkastan
Diamond Member
 
Dirkadirkastan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,214
Dirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Scientific consensus never said the earth was flat. That's an urban legend. (point still valid)
Dirkadirkastan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2007, 07:22 AM   #79
purplefrog
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: state of eternal optimism
Posts: 2,840
purplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond reputepurplefrog has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan
Scientific consensus never said the earth was flat. That's an urban legend. (point still valid)
And I think you will find that there was no scientific consensus that a "New Ice Age" was coming in the 1970s. My memory is that there were a couple of provocative reports by scientists that triggered a media frenzy on the topic but that the scientific community at large (once again, scientific organizations, journals) actually stated there was evidence for extreme variations in temperature that were likely due to pollutants and low cloud cover. I believe there was some mention of GHGs in those early reports, but the scientific community was not sure of their impact. It is possible (and I am not sure, but it is worth looking into) that the foundation for global warming and climate change were actually put on the table at this time. My point is that the views of the scientific community 30 years ago are largely misunderstood. Today 100 Nobel Laureates, many of the relevant scientific organizations, and several scientific journals have all come out in agreement on global warming/climate change. Not true 30 years ago.
__________________
"Truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it. Ignorance may deride it. Malice may distort it. But there it is." - Winston Churchill
purplefrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2007, 12:33 PM   #80
Dr.Zoidberg
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Decapod 10
Posts: 4,149
Dr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant futureDr.Zoidberg has a brilliant future
Default

It really is ridiculous how Americans again and again try to quibble by the argument their economy will be destroyed and that although there are enough examples (Europe) that this will not be the case. Is it too much required that USA, which represents a share of approximately 4% of the entire world population but is accountable for 25% of the world wide CO2 emission, would do a little more to protect the environment?

Even if you ignore all the facts for a (whether man made or not) global warming and the consequential effects, it wouldn´t be harmful to do something for the environmentalism. And you wouldn´t have to reproach later for not having done anything. It´s not the point to stop global warming completely, because this is impossible anyway. You have to curb the emission of CO2 and their effects as much as possible.

But as I know, the powerful American economy couldn´t come to terms with this.
__________________

"Talk to the claw."

"They're getting 15, 16 assists some games. I dream about getting 15 assists. It's just not possible with the team I'm on." - Devin Harris about top-notch point guards and him playing with the Mavs

"For me, it’s like a kid in a candy store." - Jason Kidd on playing with the Mavs

Last edited by Dr.Zoidberg; 03-05-2007 at 06:46 PM.
Dr.Zoidberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
"your wrong" irony, global fluffing, got a bit fluffy in here

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.