How in the world is "global warming" at all related to CNC?
Sure, sometimes members want to talk about things other than CNC, but isn't that what areas like the Club House are for?

I could remotely see, that if global warming was a re-occurring or hot topic among the members here, that this area would be created for an open exchange of information and ideas, but the title: "Stop Global Warming Discussion Forum" already denotes a bias opinion that Global warming exists and should be stopped.

Did I miss something? :)
Colin

I thought it was kind of strange myslef.

actually cnc manufacturing has a large impact on the environment , the impact that mining has is substantial , something we as machinists and consumers need , as a whole cnc metal working machines hold a large amount of coolant ,and consume large amounts of lube oils , the fact they call the coolants environmentally friendly is a joke , someone should see the shrubs around our chip dumpster
where do these oils and coolants go after guys are done mopping the floors ,

then we get back to recycling the scrap material which is a green idea but is it ,its another dirty process
most companies are honest but what is the impact of the one that aren't


plus the key factor to the new forum is the man who owns the site wants it:D

plus the key factor to the new forum is the man who owns the site wants it:D[/QUOTE]

Q: who does the company owner turn his vacation request in to?
A: no one. :D

How in the world is "global warming" at all related to CNC?
Sure, sometimes members want to talk about things other than CNC, but isn't that what areas like the Club House are for?

I could remotely see, that if global warming was a re-occurring or hot topic among the members here, that this area would be created for an open exchange of information and ideas, but the title: "Stop Global Warming Discussion Forum" already denotes a bias opinion that Global warming exists and should be stopped.

Did I miss something? :)
Colin


Let me answer that for ya....IT'S MY SITE AND I CAN DO AND SAY WHAT EVERY I WANT ...hope that helps.

actually cnc manufacturing has a large impact on the environment , the impact that mining has is substantial , something we as machinists and consumers need , as a whole cnc metal working machines hold a large amount of coolant ,and consume large amounts of lube oils , the fact they call the coolants environmentally friendly is a joke , someone should see the shrubs around our chip dumpster
where do these oils and coolants go after guys are done mopping the floors ,

then we get back to recycling the scrap material which is a green idea but is it ,its another dirty process
most companies are honest but what is the impact of the one that aren't


plus the key factor to the new forum is the man who owns the site wants it:D


Excellent points!

As an aside.. I used to work at a large Defence company here in the UK. Well, with all the legislation concerning environmental stuff they brought in ISO14000 which means you have to (as much as possible) produce your product with minimal environmental impact.

We made missiles... environmentaly friendly missiles? I thought they were meant to blow the blinking environment up!

:)

Let me answer that for ya....IT'S MY SITE AND I CAN DO AND SAY WHAT EVERY I WANT ...hope that helps.

30203


30204

...already denotes a bias opinion that Global warming exists and should be stopped.

Did I miss something? :)



Apparently so. ;)

Let me answer that for ya....IT'S MY SITE AND I CAN DO AND SAY WHAT EVERY I WANT ...hope that helps.

Thanks for clearing it up. :rainfro:

Global Warming...... ask the people in the mid west that just got slammed by one of the worse ice storms in their recent history.... ask them where global warming is when you need it! And just for the uninformed the planet has been steadily warming since um..... I don't know..... hmmmm......THE LAST ICE AGE. Liberal yee-haws. Stick to what you seem to know best. CNC machines

Respectfully,

John

P.S if anyone wants to have an informed debate about the topic, I will be more than willing to wax that butt both factually and philosophically.

I live in the Midwest. And let me tell you, winter took a long time to get here. I wasn't even close to having a White Christmas. It was depressing almost, how warm it was for a while. Mentioning single examples of outlying weather is bunk (and manipulative and irritating too), and it goes against what the definition of a "climate" really is - an average. Even besides that, "global warming" is a broad statement for what really adds up to "climate change." Some parts might warm, some parts might cool, but generally, we're changing our environment way too quickly, with some ruinous effects (e.g. ecosystems). The uncertainty of what's going to happen is really the worst part.

After using my father's TAIG MicroMill to make countless circuit boards for power electronics designs, I decided to build my own custom CNC mill for less money than one could be bought. I used threaded rod from Home Depot coupled with rollerblade bearings and angle brackets held together with JB-Weld, $5 surplus stepper motors, and my own custom control box. I used no plans - everything was totally from scratch, with no help from anyone. It isn't completed yet, but I've got one-axis movement right now, and plan to finish it sometime soon. It's not super-accurate but it's what I need for PCBs.

What would I use these PCBs for, you ask? I'm building an AC induction motor controller for my grandfather's electric car. [My grandfather helped restore Mrs. Henry Ford's personal electric car for the Henry Ford Museum.] It's currently been a six-year project, and the car does run right now, but I need to make some further improvements in the electronics (a multilevel converter if any of you has any clue what that means).

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/awmatt/lab.html
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/awmatt/pcbdev.html

I also used my great-grandfather's lathe to machine some other parts:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/awmatt/mech.html

Obviously, I find EVs a fun hobby. But my convictions to renewable energy are very strong. I try to be a logical person (my mind is technical, as you can tell), and I also have learned, through my renewable energy interest, to see past the cover some individuals put up to confuse or manipulate me.

I have no doubt human-activity-induced global warming is occuring right now - in fact I don't see how it could be avoided given the huge amount of greenhouse gases we're emitting. We're just putting the earth back to the way it was to begin with - hot and with a thick atmosphere (read uninhabitable). Having 2005 be the warmest year on record (almost tied with 1998) frightens me. The second link below says, "Astonishingly, every single year since 1992 is in the current list of the 20 warmest years on record." There is just no way this is due to something random, and no large volcanoes have gone off recently either. I don't see how this could be more obvious; I really don't. Being a jerk about it and denying it doesn't make you any smarter - researching it might. I personally don't get too much pleasure from having power to say whatever I want, no matter how ridiculous, on "my own forum," but if some people do, I guess that's fine (though irresponsible at best). I do like to share my ideas and successes when they're backed with a lot of hard scientific research and hands-on development.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/recordtemp2005.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/Fingerprints.html

In addition to my personal EV hobby, and also building a DC motor controller for someone else as a semi-open-source project, I'm the president of the Michigan State University Solar Car Team. On Thursday we're planning to inherit the GM EV1 from the University's storage facility. I personally plan to restore the car's electronics and get it to run. Lots of students are excited about this - it's a very positive experience, and the wave of the future (as we're quickly running out of oil, since we're so wasteful with it). This is between my other duties as a Master's EE candidate; I graduated BSEE with high honors last May.

One of my publications towards my BSEE, in case you still doubt my logical ability:
http://www.egr.msu.edu/~mattes12/appnote3.pdf
[I was recommended by one of the vice presidents of Texas Instruments to work a consulting job that pays nearly $50/hour. Still think I'm not logical about global warming?]

- Arthur Matteson

look at stuff like pcb's , man made , can t get rid of it , insinerate it and the dioxide is worse than the product to begin with
pcb doesn t break down
animals were tested in the antarctic practacally untouched by man , the animals have high levels of pcb in their bodies (try testing average joe)
i saw a program where scientists are working to produce a type of molecule that will attack and destroy pcb's ,wonder how thats going to turn out

Where on this earth is incontrovertible proof that WE (humans) are causing "global warming" or climate change?

I am going to take this apart piece by piece for you.

What we can agree on?

1.) Climate change is most definitively a more accurate term. I merely used the nomenclature previously specified in the forum title.

2.) Recent history (20 years or so) have been warmer than say the previous 20 years. (In areas where temperature has been recorded)

3.) A non-polluting, plentiful, renewable energy source would be ideal and should be researched. (But as with all research, there may not be a realistic tangible success based on current levels of technology and the lack of funding for said research, that said, I encourage everyone to try)

What do I take issue with?

1.) The website, you cite, has an agenda. The article does use good sources; however, they use a narrow scope of focus to make a broad claim.

2.) The relevance of your education (not barring a degree with practical experience in environmental science), the amount of money you "could" make(absurd by the way, if you knew my hourly contract rate) and the ability to write an engineering paper (I must admit I didn’t read) has no bearing on your ability or qualifications to debate this issue. I personally don't care if you are a rocket scientist. Stick to the facts and only the facts and we will get along famously.

3.) Lack of continuity and focus:
In order to keep this debate focused (global warming and or climate change); please refrain from going off on tangents (e.g. hobbies, non-relevant publications, general ranting, etc.).

It also makes an easier read with less fluff to sort through.

4.) Making the following statement;

"I have no doubt human-activity-induced global warming is occurring right now - in fact I don't see how it could be avoided given the huge amount of greenhouse gases we're emitting."

This is a whopper! Let me introduce you "to my little friend" doubt!

I am going to ask you read this page. I am going to preface this article by telling you, that what you are going to read was generated by an agenda driven group, however, the article is well written and sites scientific journals and leading scientists, and I couldn't say it any better than they do (with out considerable effort). I am only asking that you take under consideration the facts of the article; not the conclusions drawn.

http://bruderheim-rea.ca/warming6.htm (http://bruderheim-rea.ca/warming6.htm)

If this does not blow a huge hole in your rhetoric, please let me know and I will be happy to provide more facts to do so.

5.) "...I also have learned, through my renewable energy interest, to see past the cover some individuals put up to confuse or manipulate me."

Facts are not confusing. The only cover being put up here is in your head. I am not trying to manipulate you. It is not a big conspiracy. Now look at my pocket watch... your getting sleepy.... global warming does not exist..... When you awake you will be a Liberal Environmental Wacko.... oh damn too late.

"A bit of levity never hurt any debate." This is a direct quote from the guy being a Jerk.

To Arthur,
I sincerely wish you well. It sounds like you are involved in many wonderful things and I hope they bring you joy. My objective is that this debate will be informative, and if at the conclusion you still hold your misguided views, so be it. I will respectfully agree to disagree. All I ask is that you keep an open mind and focus on the facts, even when these facts are directly in opposition to your beliefs.

To all others,
It is obvious that Arthur is an educated and logical person, however, I would like to point out that even logical and learned people are susceptible to propaganda. Understand that Arthur and I probably are not too far off from one another ideologically (so far). We just disagree on what is fact and what is fiction.

There is no shame in admitting; the world is round and that the sun is the center of our solar system. Sooner or later the truth will emerge. I hope this debate will help you find your truth.

John

Thanks for the link, I'll add it to my list of "Evil Big Oil" (EBO) URLs. .... Along with my list of "Humans Are Killing The Penguins" URLs.

There's a couple of points you make that I think are really critical to keep in mind, and one of those is agenda. It's clear that EBO's agenda is to ensure continued growth and sales. Since I wanna drive my Hummer that drags along a boat, 4 ATVs, and a pair of dirt bikes (all of which spew GHGs in spades), I'll go along with that agenda with a smile.

Arthur here, bless his heart, is actively working to change the planet and protect us from ourselves. His agenda is noble.

But what of Al Gore's agenda? And Michael Mann and James Hansen?? AlGore flies all over the world to teach us we shouldn't fly all over the world spewing CO2!! Me thinks there's agendas on the other side of the equation.

One agenda, as I've posted in the sibling thread here, is that of the insurance companies, in whose best interests it is to spread fear....and raise premiums. The more convinced we are of impending doom, the more they can charge. (I accept that there is a measure of validity to that from a practical standpoint)

AlGore's agenda? Get elected on a platform that he's building?

There's another agenda that's sneaking up on us very quietly, one that has a very simple and direct agenda, that of money. There's a new stock market in town, and it's called ''Carbon Credits".

It won't fly without gubbmint regulation and mandates, and those won't happen unless we're all alarmed.

All that notwithstanding, the question is still "is the earth warming?" It well may be. The climate is definitely changing on a global scale, but our climate is hardly in equilibrium, and never has been.

Is it changing outside the range of 'normal' (if there is a norm) variability? Maybe, but the influence of human forcing is incredibly small given all the different and powerful factors at work.

Some big Hollywood star says one thing, and some young unknown says another. Who's right? Same thing is happening in science right now. Mann and Hansen are claiming they're right, but there's a host of other scientists who are publishing, in peer reviewed journals, diametrically opposed conclusions.

Arthur, keep doin' what you're doing. It's a good thing. John, keep showing that there's more to this than what makes a well produced movie and scares the crap out of everybody.

Me? I'll shut up now.

Fizzi,
Most if not all of what you say is true (I didn't fact check). We have no real understanding of the climate changes we are now experiencing. Is it normal? Are we in an upward cycle? What is "normal"? These are my points exactly.

I become discouraged when educated and logical (let’s not forget logical, sheesh...) people say with conviction or state as fact, that we (evil humans) are responsible for climate change. The fact is there just isn't enough information to say definitively that we are responsible and it is absurd to state as much.

Let’s pose a question to the masses;


Who among us want to polute anything on our planet?

Who among us is against clean, plentiful and renewable energy sources?

Answer: No one!

I don't want to discourage Arthur from his environmentally friendly pursuits. I would like to encourage them; however, let’s not run around spewing miss information in the process. Lets have an intelligent debate not one filled with rhetoric and bull poo.

Incontrovertible fact:

1.) There is not a significant body of research, (emphasis on NOT) that hands down, demonstrates that climate change is anything more than "NORMAL".

I encourage scholars and scientists to continue the evaluation the global climate. We obviously don't know enough about it yet. But until then; drop the alarmist attitude and focus on being productive. For you Arthur that might be engineering the next generation electric car. For you Fizzi; it might be pointing out Al Gore (our beloved inventor of the Internet... Thank God for Al Gore!) is full of dog poo!


I am looking forward to more stimulating debate.

I am also taking contributions to fund my new, well produce movie to entertain the masses; Title? "Global Warming and you!" Why you don't necessarily have to buy a house on the coast of Florida to have beech front property.


Respectfully,

John

Well fizzissist nailed it by saying that even the mighty expert scientists come to opposing conclusions.
Regarding global warming iam certainly a noob but in fact many history changing inventions were made by dilettants because most of the complex scientific issues are mostly bases on a simple idea and most simple ideas can be explained with complex scientific theories.

And my theory about global warming is that i dont care if the pollution will be reduced because people believe in global warming or another theory, pollution is bad and thats not a theory, thats a fact.

As i said iam not an expert regarding global warming but as i get it, the point of the bruderheim article is that they are saying that its not really getting warmer or at least that there is not enough proof but i didnt see one word about "global dimming".

Global dimming more or less counters the effects of global warming. Dimming means that tiny particles (also caused by pollution!) in the atmosphere are reducing the ammount of sunrays reaching the earth, like a layer of fog.
The scientists who came up with this theory also made experiments to prove it and they claim if the whole world would stop the pollution instantly we would experience a sudden (within weeks/months) jump in temperature and would be exposed to the real grade of our global warming.

Nice scenario for a hollywood blockbuster.

Well in this case the temperature charts and diagrams in that article would be immediately in need of a update.

I too don't believe the hype on global warming. You may want to listen to this wisconsin public radio show earlier this week that just seemed to make more sense to me then most of the other stuff coming at us.
----------------------------
http://wpr.org/webcasting/audioarchives_display.cfm?Code=jca

Tuesday
1/23/2007
8:00 AM
Joy Cardin - 01/23C
According to Joy Cardin's guest, global warming is a natural phenomenon that occurs approximately every 1500 years, and is not caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases.

Guest: Dennis T. Avery, senior fellow, Hudson Institute. Co-author, "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield)

i haven t totally bought into global warming either but we really are messing things up

to more or less quote George Carlon the comedian ,

what makes us so arrogant to think we can save the planet , the world is forever changing and replenishing itself , and it will be 100% again once it rids itself of us

i think we are only helping our own demize

C'mon, Climate change is happening. Even if, say, personally, you would prefer to listen to Limbaugh and O'Reilly belaboring "liberal conspiracies" and quoting limited and highly questionable "research" funded by corporations to cast doubt over the findings of say, every scientist on the planet, it's getting harder and harder to do when even our decider-in-chief is mentioning climate change as a problem in the State of the Union address.

This simply isn't a partisan issue. It's a fact. Now, HOW we react to it, and what needs to be done - if anything at all - or if we are even the cause of it, may be a partisan issue, but to say climate change just isn't happening at all is beyond stupid at this point.

Now while liberals always have a problem getting thier head out of the clouds long enough to accomplish anything realistically practical whatsoever, it is even harder lately to get neo-cons to pull thier heads out of the sand and acknowledge any basic reality not pre-approved by thier political dogma. Especially self-apparent obvious realities, as then they require complex layers of conspiracy and jingoism to deny.

Of course, this post won't actually accomplish anything, as the Ann Coulter worshippers just ignore any unapproved viewpoint as unamerican terroristic propaganda anyway.

"...as the Ann Coulter worshippers just ignore any unapproved viewpoint as unamerican terroristic propaganda anyway."

...speaking of unapproved.....

"The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists. "
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528

There is no question climate change is happening. The questions are do we (evil humans) have anything to do with it? Is the climate change we are experiencing anything out of the norm?

The rest of you post is pure rhetoric and crap. If you want anyone to take you seriously... try citing an example of what O'Reilly or Limbaugh has said that you believe to be inaccurate and then cite a factual example that contradicts their argument. Other than your power of observation; "climate change is happening..." Duh....) you are uninformed or incapable of factual debate. Example statement below.

"Even if, say, personally, you would prefer to listen to Limbaugh and O'Reilly belaboring "liberal conspiracies" and quoting limited and highly questionable "research" funded by corporations to cast doubt over the findings of say, every scientist on the planet..."

The above is an example of a non truth. This is how you can tell it's a non truth. The author offers no substantiation, no real world proof, and no facts to support his claim. This is a perfect example of someone stating opinion as fact.

"..highly questionable "research"...". What research? Where is it? How did you come to the conclusion that it is questionable? Where is the support for your statement?

"..every scientist on the planet...” This one is an unintelligent statement. If every scientist could agree on why there is global temperature change this forum wouldn't exist. This debate wouldn't exist. Again I ask; where is the support for your statement?

Could it be there is no support for your position? How can your views be taken seriously, if you are unwilling or unable to support them?

To all Environment Wackos,
Keep it coming. I would ask that you guys step it up a little and bring your "A" game. The recent posts by your friends have been lacking of substance; dismal attempts of persuasion at best. Let’s try not to make it too easy for me.

Respectfully,

John

John,
Sorry, but I have to correct you on a few points....

1) The word 'crap' is a euphemism, but I understand it's choice due to the political correctness requirements of the forum

2) He states "..every scientist on the planet..". Yes, it's a 'non-truth', but to be more accurate, it's an example of an absolutely ridiculous claim. Dr. Naomi Oreskes, Professor of History and Science Studies at UCSD was the one who initiated the idea that 1000 scientists are in consensus, and Dr. Benny Pieser promptly ripped the claim apart.

Of the 200 or so 'scientists' who's work comprise the IPCC's TAR, only about 33 are actually climate scientists. (ref: Dr. Patrick Michaels, research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia)

His claim is flat out ignorant and not researched AT ALL!

3) You're letting him off the hook on the "highly questionable research" statement.
We need only look at Mann's Hockey Stick (MBH98) and the subsequent battle between he and Stephen McIntyre & Ross McKitrick. Here's a perfect example of the LACK of scientific consensus, and questionable research on the part of the PRO-AGW camp!!

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004GL021750.shtml

Dr. Stephen Schneider of Stanford, who brought us the scare of an impending ice age back in the early '70s is now taking the side of Mann et. al. and exaggerating the claims of impending global warming doom....exaggerating by his own admission!!

"To capture the public imagination,
we have to offer up some scary scenarios,
make simplified dramatic statements
and little mention of any doubts one might have.
Each of us has to decide the right balance
between being effective,
and being honest."

- Leading greenhouse advocate, Dr Stephen Schneider
( in interview for "Discover" magagzine, Oct 1989)

I hope I haven't been too harsh on you John, I know you have good intentions. But sometimes you just gotta take these idiots to the woodshed.

---------------------------------------------------
Consensus? Not Hardly....

For AGW
....We endorse the conclusions of the IPCC assessment that
“There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50
years is attributable to human activities” ....
http://www.cfcas.org/LettertoPM19apr06e.pdf

Anti AGW
..."Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise."
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605

You forget Fezzi, I am an evil conservative. We have no heart therefore, we can not feel. You can always tell who we are. We're the ones that back up our statements with more than just rhetoric.

I thought my response was measured and accurate and had a good chance of raising Monkey Boy’s ire. I need one of these bozos to stand up and fight (I didn’t want to chase him off with those annoying facts of yours, Thanks a lot by the way… sarcastically!).

They (Leftist Wackos) are simply making it a one sided debate. There is the true injustice.

To address "...letting him off the hook" I am going to let the next one (misguided Wacko) "have it". If for no other reason than to redeem myself in your eyes (laughing uncontrollably).

To All others,
Please step up to the plate and take a swing. I hate to have to beg, but damn! If you are willing to have an intelligent conversation and SUBSTANTIATE your statements Bring It On!

In the immortal words of Michael Buffer....

“LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLLLLLE!"

Respectfully,

John

You gotta read this!!!
I had no idea we was so bad off!

A Methodology Critique in Defense of Those Wascally Wepublicans
January 16, 2007

"You may have heard the news by now. People who hold conservative political opinions are suffering from a syndrome in need of a cure. How do we know this? Because a professor of psychology has demonstrated it to be so. The news has been getting a lot of press lately....."

http://ironshrink.com/articles/070116_political_conservatism_study_methodology.php

...being pretty much a libertarian myself, I shouldn't be so offended, but it smacks of 'if you're not a liberal, you ain't @#$!'

i haven t totally bought into global warming either but we really are messing things up

to more or less quote George Carlon the comedian ,

what makes us so arrogant to think we can save the planet , the world is forever changing and replenishing itself , and it will be 100% again once it rids itself of us

i think we are only helping our own demize

dertsap you are being too reasonable; I don't know whether to be pleased or annoyed :) , if everyone was like this there would be no entertainment in these posts.

I simplify the global warming controversy down to three answers:

Yes

Maybe

No

But I suppose someone who is being tedious will ask what are the questions.

Is Global Warming occurring?

Is Human activity contributing to it?

Can we slow it down, stop it, or reverse it?

There is another question: Should we figure out how to adapt to it?

Perhaps someone would like to provide an answer.

And a related question: How?

I don't know how much your link contributes to the topic, but it was a most enjoyable read.

Thank you.

John

To all Environment Wackos,
Keep it coming. I would ask that you guys step it up a little and bring your "A" game. The recent posts by your friends have been lacking of substance; dismal attempts of persuasion at best. Let’s try not to make it too easy for me.

Respectfully,

John

:LMFAO:

I like your style! :D

but I think you scared everyone (wackos) away though!

Geof, I'd like to answer those questions for you.

Is Global Warming occurring? Probably. According to most of what I read, yes.

Is Human activity contributing to it? Undoubtedly. We're also causing cooling.

Can we slow it down, stop it, or reverse it? Picture yourself as riding on a 100 car locomotive traveling at 60mph. Stick your hand out the window like you did as a kid while riding in the car. Divide the effect by 100million.

There is another question: Should we figure out how to adapt to it?

...And THAT is the single most important and effective approach. Work to reduce pollution, work to adapt to a constantly changing climate, and be more responsible in our use of land.

What can we, as machinists do? Optimize chip loads. Optimize feeds and speeds. Recycle our tooling as much as possible. Reduce or eliminate coolant or cleaners. Become more efficient. Work towards lights out manufacturing. Live closer to work. Use colored anodized strings of aluminum chips as Christmas decorations.

And drink weaker coffee.

And drink weaker coffee.


Man you had me going for a while.............

Man you had me going for a while.............


Originally Posted by fizzissist View Post
And drink weaker coffee.

Yep! ..... He is insane!(nuts)

Thought you guys might like some newspaper scans showing us the scientists' warnings of impending ice-age doom!!

http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html

I whole heartedly offer my sincerest apology to the Wackos for scaring you off (Maybe that will help). Please come back. I will keep Fizzi off your back for at least the first few posts. "Trust Me" Really.

I am still waiting for some intelligent debate from the other side.

Bueller...Bueller...Bueller...Bueller...





John

i grew up northern ontario , winter is cold and to the extremes at points , and no shortage of snow , i remember christmas morning trying on my new skates with the hope of going to the local outdoor rink and trying them out ,it rained all day , dec was mild , jan typically brutal , no big deal ,

last year i was reading in the paper how the same thing happened in quebec ,and the blame was global warming
funny how people can t remember anything past last year
the problem is propiganda from the media , they need to pump up the storys ,
they need to exagerate the issues to make the story interesting for people ,
for example the david suziki foundation was pumping up the issue that fish farming here is responsible for sea lice and other deseases that have been hitting the natural fish stocks , huge uproar over that ,
one day i was reading the paper and in a small area was a letter sent in from one of the top guys from green peace , he more or less said it was all a bunch of crap , there were no research finding that prooved it was happening ,
who do you beleave?
and why wasn t his letter blown up so that it was quite clear that he disagreed with it ,simple because it won t create anymore interesting hard hitting news
we all know the sky is blue , but if propigated thru the media we were told it was pink ,we would say no way , after a number of years we may start to question our own beleafs , after time it will be beleaved the sky is pink ,be it takes a week or 100 yrs

my personal obsearvation is the weather has been different , and getting to the points of extremes in some places , something is happening , is it global warming ,who knows maybe aliens are messing with us

my point is i don t beleave everything i'm told especially when it comes to conspiracy theories which are THEORIES dreamed up by other people

we need to do what we can environmentally to ensure our survival

its like letting your kid play with your old shotgun , you know its not loaded but what happens that time you go out hunting and forget to remove the shells and the kid blows his head off

why take the chance

....:rainfro: I'm still waiting for an answer from the ALGore camp as to WHAT WARMED THE PLANET UP FOR 800YEARS!!

....but while I'm waiting, I promise to be nice for the first few posts.....:)

For the sake of simplicity, it would appear that there are two camps for causes of climate change:
1 Its a natural cycle
2 We are causing it
Ok. If its a natural cycle, then it occurs on a time scale so vast, that we, as homo sapiens can't really relate to it, and there is nothing we can do about it. Hold on for the ride.
If we ARE causing it, then we can do something about it (albeit drastic).
For the sake of argument, i propose the following; we all know that as we age, we gain weght. You do not weigh at 45 what you did at 18. A 45 year old man goes to the doctor, in the past year he has gained 50 lbs. It is determined by the doctor that the man has developed a serious doughnut addiction in the past year, consuming 6 doughnuts per day. Now, being reasonable types, we know that there could be many other causes for this weight gain (cancer, Thyroid etc) however, laying off the doughnuts would be a reasonable first step whilst other possibilites are ruled out.
Simplified? Very. However, you probably get my point.
Fizzissist (phoenetics works for me dude), as you pointed out, pollution is bad, and reducing it if not eliminating it, is a worthy goal. If for nothing else, air pollution kills millions world wide, so why not.
Now i'm not for a second asserting that WE are the cause of global warming/climate change, what i am saying is that given its the only one of the theories on the plate that we can have an affect on, would it not be prudent to take action on this? After all, IF the scientist's involved with the Kyoto protocalls are right (i am assuming that they are intelligent, have integrity, and are only acting out of humanitarian interests) then we only have a short time frame to enact change.
I am convinced that climate change is happening, and not by any of the rhetoric spewed out by the green side (who like the "other" side have their own agenda). My reasons are all based on first hand experience. Where i live, the winters are not what they were even 15 years ago. Even into the '80s, ice roads could be relied upon to be useable by November, now, you are lucky to be using them for hauling by late December. Areas of the globe that have more variable seasons are the ones who are going to experience the biggest swings in "normal" values. Like any system that becomes unstable, you start to get bigger swings above and below the mean as the system seeks stability. We had the coldest November on record, yet we have had some of the hottest summers on record recently. Anyway, i am getting off topic a bit, as it seems we all agree that climate change is happening.
So, what do we (the global we) do? As i stated above, why not try and control what we can, it wouldnt hurt, and if the human caused camp is right, at least we have a start on it.

Ice skaters hit Donner for first time in years
JEFF DELONG
RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL
Posted: 1/25/2007

"....The lake froze for the first time in years, which brought out ice skaters, hockey players and warnings from the local fire department to be careful on the ice.

"This is the first time in 20 years we have skated on Donner," said Truckee-area resident Buck Beddie, who was playing hockey on the frozen lake surface with friend Heather Simon and was among dozens frolicking on the ice Tuesday afternoon.

"We came out because it is such a rare occasion that Donner freezes over and there is ice," Beddie said...."

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070125/NEWS10/701250334/1002

Global warming: undetermined at this point so ignore "probable causes" until such time as a "cause" presents itself to be "probable".

As far as helping out, I think most people wouldn't choose to throw away 5 cans of trash a week but until someone stops packaging my 1.50 toothbrush in plastic/cardboard that in all probability cost more than the tooth brush, I won't be able to help.

On the other hand we could recycle as is being done more and more around the world. Sounds good but individuals don't need to recycle but communities do. So in actuality the trash companies are the ones that need to conform.

A lot of people are pushing the burden on the individual, it needs to be on the community not the individual. The individual's role has to be to get the community to do it as a whole.

If people as groups were more coordinated we could boycott products that didn't conform to a specific goal in recycling, But people are typically weak as a group, So realistically it takes years for any movement to get started one way are another.

And I totally agree with the Derstap on the news thing, they have to hype with bad new or no one wants to watch.

Here is another angle for the conservationist:

The earth doesn't care what we do to it, as its billions of years old and it will be the same so far into the future that we can't relate to it.

We are the only ones who care, and its because WE have a vested interest in it.

Life sprang up after the planet cooled from molten rock and I am sure that life will spring forth after we have Humanely and conservatively turned it back into molten rock!

Your experience (as far as climate change goes) is irrelevant. Since you like analogies let me give you one of my own.


I drive to work everyday. At various points during my trip my vehicle is in some "state" of motion. Possible states include stopped, accelerating, decelerating or maintaining a constant speed.

If you were to materialize in my vehicle for the thirty seconds or so as I accelerate hard to from 0 to reach 65 mph and dematerialized shortly before my acceleration tapered off, you would only have a small frame of reference by which to frame a conclusion. From your experience; it is possible to conclude that I continued to accelerate in to the next dimension. (Seems unlikely doesn't it)

The same is true for your experience with climate change. From your experience the climate is warming. I'll tell you what; call me back in a few thousand years and let me know if you still think anything out of the norm is going on.

You’re going to have to bring more than personal experience to this forum.

More fluff from the masses. I love it.

Respectfully,

John

miljnor,

Let's not be to hasty, to abandon personal responsibility when it comes to being responsible for ones own pollution. It is not the communities place to go through my garbage and sort it, just as it is not their place to tell me how much energy I can consume or the motor vehicle I can drive. I am always leery of a communal philosophy governing behavior or choice (If you want to be a Branch Davidian than you have to have sex with David). Smells of communism and so far that hasn't worked out so well.


Respectfully,


John

I am not saying that we should relieve anyone of personal responsibility (maybe I should have worded my post differently)

Here is an analogy:

There are certain modes of transportation available.
1 walking
2. Riding bike
3. Scooter
4. Motorcycle
5. Car/truck
6. Public transportation

These are a few of them.

I can chose any of them but tend to use the car/truck solution as it fills these needs: gets you there in a timely manner, can carry what I need to carry and I have one.

Now as far as responsibility goes, you could choose any mode of transportation, but the one you pick is usually based off of convenience.

One could argue that driving a huge SUV is irresponsible if a 2 door Spec will do or that riding a scooter when walking will get the job done. But if you have no ego and don’t care about status or maybe the ephemeral “quality of life” then you will undoubtedly walk everywhere because you are very concerned about “the environment”.

All this of course is BS, people want things and status is important and I will drive my v10-powered viper (I wish) whatever speed I want (until I get a ticket). Hell I would fly a helicopter to work everyday if I could. Human nature ALWAYS comes into play except in these nifty little discussions.

Would I throw a wrapper on the ground, No Do I recycle, yes when I can would I go to the trouble of separating all of my trash and drive it to the appropriate recycling center, HELL NO! I don’t have the time and/or the inclination. Does this make me a bad person, maybe, maybe not?

But what it comes down to is everyone will do what the can when they can (human nature dictates: to do the most for the least) and only your personal upbringing/view on life will make you do more. So with that in mind people will do what it is that is common to civilization, ie. Throw their trash in the trashcan, recycle when forced or convenient and buy those pre-packaged goodies because they want them not because they think they should conserve so the landfills don’t get filled. Its just human nature!

So when you talk about changing the world or even you community you have to think on the society or group as a whole (no this isn’t communism, yuk!) Its called outsmarting human nature (which some refer to as laziness but in actuality its to get the most for the least). If you don’t design a system that takes this into account it is doomed to failure (like most governments).

Hopefully this rant will clear things up a little (like mud)

-

recycling and what ever you so choose should be done in self consiousness rather than self rightiousness ,

i know a few people who feel they are DOING their part ,they also eat organic food only ,
its a self rightious kick for some void in their miserable life , just do it , i don t want to here about it ,unless it s valid
as far as organic food goes , Ya i hate eating rock too , not enough salt and they hurt my teeth

i agree with miljnor about everything being far too over packaged , the stacks of plastic and cardboard left over from christmas was rediculous

Do you buy your food from those bulk bins after all the sniffly kids have been rifling through it with their grubby hands?

Or would you prefer nicely packaged food that is virtually guaranteed not to be contaminated, even if the packaging costs as much as the product?

The consumer has spoken on this one.

Toothbrushes are probably the best example of a way to inoculate yourself with germs that are almost guaranteed to get into your bloodstream. I'll take mine sterile, thank you. It's worth an extra dollar to me.

--97T--

Some grist for the mill:

Scientists wanting government money and the press have always had your best interests at heart --

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp

Since we all like to look at trends and discern patterns from them,

“A global central planning authority is implicit in all potential international efforts to combat alleged global problems,” explains economist George Reisman. Environmentalism is socialism revived; the Greens are the Reds incarnated.

In his seminal work, Capitalism, Reisman elaborates on the philosophical affinity between these maniacal movements: The Reds argued that “the individual could not be left free because the result would be such things as ‘exploitation,’ ‘monopoly,’ and depressions. The Greens claimed that the individual could not be left free because the result would be such things as the destruction of the ozone layer, acid rain, and global warming. Both claim that centralized government control over economic activity is essential. The Reds wanted it for the alleged sake of achieving human prosperity”; the Greens for the alleged sake of avoiding environmental damage.”

Blatantly lifted from Ilana Mercer's article at
http://www.ilanamercer.com/ReincarnationOfTheReds.htm


My summation: The common man has abused his freedom, he can't be trusted with it, he needs to be controlled before he blows up the world with his unrestrained production and consumption. If you can't stand over him with a gun to control his activities, tax and ration his carbon use. He won't understand what that really means until it is too late.

Do you buy your food from those bulk bins after all the sniffly kids have been rifling through it with their grubby hands?

Or would you prefer nicely packaged food that is virtually guaranteed not to be contaminated, even if the packaging costs as much as the product?

The consumer has spoken on this one.

Toothbrushes are probably the best example of a way to inoculate yourself with germs that are almost guaranteed to get into your bloodstream. I'll take mine sterile, thank you. It's worth an extra dollar to me.

--97T--

I personally like my stuff wrapped as well but the issue is what to do about the waste?

I am sure we could come up with something the fits a more thrift use of materials but its not necessary if you change the way trash is dealt with.

It all comes back to recycling which is a must but I think that you have to think of recycling on the community scale not individually.


My summation: The common man has abused his freedom, he can't be trusted with it, he needs to be controlled before he blows up the world with his unrestrained production and consumption. If you can't stand over him with a gun to control his activities, tax and ration his carbon use. He won't understand what that really means until it is too late.

I disagree with this statement wholeheartedly! I think humans as a whole work way better with very little restrictions and a lot of freedoms.

Every system has checks and balances, name a few things that we haven't been able to recover from and I might agree with the "until its too late" jargon. Even the most die hard selfish capitalistic self centered egomaniac knows that breathing Carbon monoxide isn't good for you and will want to fix the problem and probably compromise to get the air to be clean again.

A system of government should provide guidelines for mutual cooperation and survival and place great penalties on any transgression. Most societies tend not to have clearly defined penalties or crimes and if they are clearly defined, they have a muddled system of prosecution of said crimes.

I personally don't know everything we need to do to fix our society, but I could make a few good guesses at some of the fundamental changes that someone would have to make. One of the first ones would to be: When you make a constitution of rules and law they should be immutable and unchanging, and should any governmental agency that tries is guilty of the highest crime and prosecuted accordingly!

But you can never get rid of the politics and politics always leads to misinformation for the purpose of gain, by one party or another. If you could find a way to "Vulcan" the political process to "just the facts" then you would be well on your way to a more Utopian government.

Did anyone else watch An inconvenient Truth? You guys are talking as if this is a normal state for our climate. Did the 650,000 year chart of carbon dioxide levels not show otherwise? What about the numerous 30-year before and after satellite photos. Is there a global warming trend? No doubt in this man's mind yes.

Now, are we causing it? We as in human industry. Well, did we cause the hole in the ozone layer? Did banning CFC's fix it? I'm told we did, and and I'm told it did. But I can't become an expert on what causes things. I have to trust what I'm told and I do that with sources I trust. It is my opinion that Al Gore presented data that shows the last 30 years show a marked increase in CO2 levels and a historical correlation of rising temperatures. Do I believe the individual has to do something. I do personally yes. I'm not going to get into a debate as these are my views based on what I have learned from sources I trust. I don't plan to say "oh hell I guess I'm wrong and I'm wasting my time recycling, buying a more fuel efficient car, turning off unused lamps, changing to CFL's, and donating monies to environmental causes and buying green power." I tend to err on the side of caution.

I would say that even if your not driven to do something to make a difference in CO2 levels for the environment, do something for your wallet. It is a fact that you can save money by switching to CFLs in your home. Walmart changed all of the lamps in their ceiling fans in their stores and quoted a large (I want to say $1 Billion but I can't recall for sure ... it was an article in Business 2.0) in energy costs. My recent trip to Lowes confirms they are a believer too. Buy at the warehouse stores for bigger savings too.

See my next post for some on my questions.

Jay

My summation: The common man has abused his freedom, he can't be trusted with it, he needs to be controlled before he blows up the world with his unrestrained production and consumption. If you can't stand over him with a gun to control his activities, tax and ration his carbon use. He won't understand what that really means until it is too late.

Speak for yourself. There are many of us that are not part of your little scenario...I'll take EVERY DROP of my sovereignty, thank you very much.

The PROBLEM is corporation & government. NOT US!!!! If you want to do something about pollution and being responsible, try shutting down stupid wastes of energy like the space shuttle et al, that spew TONS of pollution into our atmosphere...and for what? Not your butt, nor mine (or ANYONE YOU PERSONALLY KNOW) will EVER be going on any space trip....but they will sure let you pay for it. How about all of the munitions exploded EVERY DAY? Aside from killing PEOPLE directly, it is killing the environment. (nuts)

I agree with John that 'global warming' is not proven. It's yet another buzz phrase to scare the sheeple. If you travelled the world and went to just about ANY country and met the common folk there, you would QUICKLY come to the realization that people are people...that it isn't US & THEM...and that people are generally good & hard working. You can't take a country's FORCED policy and say that 'we the people' voted for it and we all agree. If you think that a president is actually voted into office, then I guess I can understand that type of perspective...BTW, there is no Easter Bunny in real life...and if you think that any human on this planet is 'free', you're living in fantasy land.

Every creature under the sun knows what is RIGHT & WRONG. Period. I believe that the majority of people will do the right thing if given an honest way to do it. Touting that pollution from cars is causing global warming & pollution is getting out of control is RUBBISH. The environment is MUCH cleaner than it was 20 yrs ago. THAT is a FACT!!! The people have been doing their best, it's GOVERNMENT & COMMERCIAL entities that grease each other's palms, look the other way, and spew FAR MORE crap into the environment than anyone else!

The earth is a living thing (as Carlin so eloquently pointed out) and it will flush all of us out of existence if it has to. And..what if it did? We are all going to die sooner or later. Get over it. Is this the BIG FEAR that has people all upset? Worried about dying? As if the human race is the crown jewel in the universe? LOL!!!! Those who believe that, have some soul searching to do...

-B

Question: Why do Ford and GM continue to pump out less efficient vehicles in a time where fuel prices are at an all time high? Toyota and Honda are killing them in sales.

Why did we really invade Iraq?

Would it really be that bad to produce less polluting cars that comply with an agreement everyone else in the world (save Australia and US) signed? Who would lose? Why?

These are questions I have but haven't researched. Why, because there are more interesting things like my family, CNC, robotics, and Krav Maga. again I guess it all comes down to who you trust.

FWIW,
Jay

Did anyone else watch An inconvenient Truth? You guys are talking as if this is a normal state for our climate. Did the 650,000 year chart of carbon dioxide levels not show otherwise? What about the numerous 30-year before and after satellite photos. Is there a global warming trend? No doubt in this man's mind yes.

Now, are we causing it? We as in human industry. Well, did we cause the hole in the ozone layer? Did banning CFC's fix it? I'm told we did, and and I'm told it did. But I can't become an expert on what causes things. I have to trust what I'm told and I do that with sources I trust. It is my opinion that Al Gore presented data that shows the last 30 years show a marked increase in CO2 levels and a historical correlation of rising temperatures. Do I believe the individual has to do something. I do personally yes. I'm not going to get into a debate as these are my views based on what I have learned from sources I trust. I don't plan to say "oh hell I guess I'm wrong and I'm wasting my time recycling, buying a more fuel efficient car, turning off unused lamps, changing to CFL's, and donating monies to environmental causes and buying green power." I tend to err on the side of caution.

I would say that even if your not driven to do something to make a difference in CO2 levels for the environment, do something for your wallet. It is a fact that you can save money by switching to CFLs in your home. Walmart changed all of the lamps in their ceiling fans in their stores and quoted a large (I want to say $1 Billion but I can't recall for sure ... it was an article in Business 2.0) in energy costs. My recent trip to Lowes confirms they are a believer too. Buy at the warehouse stores for bigger savings too.

See my next post for some on my questions.

Jay

Jay,
We haven't been recording data on this rock long enough to know ANYTHING about the complexities of the earth's climate. Period. 200 years of data on record (eye witness) and who knows HOW they can 100% for sure verify that radio carbon dating or measuring CO2 levels from a core sample is accurate. What's the reference? Just cause they say so?

Retail stores that 'embrace green' have done some good in the world. But the primary reason that they do all of these green things is nothing more than window dressing & PR stunts. It's like advertising that you did what you were supposed to be doing right in the 1st place and expecting a trophy or kudos for it...

Ozone? Styrofoam? Yeah OK...try doing some research into HAARP...and then tell me THAT hasn't cooked the entire earth's atmosphere...If you buy the styrofoam story, that's like buying the green monkey AIDS story...

-B

I put "An Inconvenient Truth" right up there with the classics, like Peter Pan and Rug Rats, the Movie.

Jay C, to address your points...

Wally World, UltraK, and all the other super stores providing you with your energy efficient products....care to look where they're made??? Hmmmmm......let me guess....China?

A country with NO environmental standards or consciousness. Need to get rid of that bucket of mercury or spent toluene? Dump it in the yard out back. Oops, it's time to smog the company cars! NOT!!

You're getting your 'cheap' products from places that are polluting more than you're saving, and YOU'RE the bad guy, according to AlGore. Better yet, you just saved yourself out of a job. Not to mention the environmental impacts of the shipping alone.

I just flew over the seas of southeast asia, and the number of container ships I saw was brain numbing. All that stuff for you to save money on, produced in countries with no pollution standards. And we're the bad guys.

Why didn't we sign Kyoto? Because it wasn't fair and didn't result in a level playing field.

Why don't we all drive energy efficient vehicles? Good question. Why don't you ask Honda why I can't buy a Honda Wave (AKA Innova, NF) in this country. They build 'em in Viet Nam with a base price of about $770, and sell 'em in Thailand for around $1200. That same bike is over $3600 in the UK.
Can't buy 'em in the US.

Why did we invade Iraq? To ensure there's oil to fire the electricity for the power to give you internet access.

Every time you start your car, no matter what you drive, you're the reason we invaded Iraq.

Ozone? Styrofoam? Yeah OK...try doing some research into HAARP...and then tell me THAT hasn't cooked the entire earth's atmosphere...If you buy the styrofoam story, that's like buying the green monkey AIDS story...

-B

Yeah, wasn't going to mention HAARP ... might sound to conspiracy theorist :)

Couldn't pass up posting this....

Hypocrisy of the Stars
http://www.tmz.com/2006/10/18/celebs-who-claim-theyre-green-but-guzzle-gas

Yeah, wasn't going to mention HAARP ... might sound to conspiracy theorist :)

Thing is, there are no conspiracy theories...only conspiracies ;)

-B

Let me answer that for ya....IT'S MY SITE AND I CAN DO AND SAY WHAT EVERY I WANT ...hope that helps.

Well that tells me alot about you, Paul.....let me flush the commode. *kerflush*

Random thoughts on the above:

Back to toothbrush wrappers, if it weren't against the law, you could burn them and use the heat to heat your house.

The reason why free men would get together to form a government that has a monopoly on the use of force can be found in the American Declaration of Independence.

Re carbon dioxide and warming -- the warming came before the carbon dioxide in this century. Cause and effect? That's a tough one.

Ozone holes -- remember when NASA claimed there was an ozone hole over Kennebunkport, Maine? CFC's are used as refrigerants because the chemical is one of the most inert chemicals ever produced by man. So inert, that it makes a superior fire extinguisher. Supposedly, the molecule breaks up from an ultraviolet photon, releasing chlorine, which then reacts with an ozone molecule. These molecules can get from your hair spray can into the upper atmosphere and cause everyone to die of skin cancer. Now the whole thing is a pretty nice theory, even though a lot of the basics are a huge stretch of the imagination. What wasn't imaginary, however, was that right about the time of all this fanciful hullabaloo, Mt. Pinatubo was spewing huge amounts of hydrogen chloride into the stratosphere. Which of course is denied by the CFC crowd as not possibly having anything to do with atmospheric chlorine levels, despite the tremendous amounts released. And certainly, it can't react with oxygen radicals, like the almost inert CFC's do. Even if there are huge amounts of it getting blown sky high, it can't get into the upper stratosphere like your hair spray does. Ever notice how the replacement for freon is a chemical cousin, but somehow isn't supposed to be harmful, and it costs a lot more? It was not a little surprising to discover that just when patent protection was running out on Freon, DuPont was funding the groups that were pushing the loudest for a ban on it. Then lo and behold, a newly patented compound! Whaddaya know!

Re My Summation -- I was sarcastically putting words in the statists' mouths. I have the feeling that if they successfully disarm the population, they will get their way. And then, pollution won't be the big social issue...

Re an agreement everyone else in the world (save Australia and US) signed -- It would require us to regulate and tax our industries right out of existence. The government doesn't want to do that too fast, because it would make revenues fall. Of course the tinpot dictators around the world would love to deny us our energy, which is the engine of our civilization. If it hurts America, just show them where to sign up. Let's see how many of them actually cut their own carbon use in the long run. No matter that the whole thing is built on a pack of lies. Make it sound scientific, and the unwashed masses will buy it, is the theory. Which seems to be working. I wonder whether coming in at the bottom of the list in math and science scores will ever have any important effects on our nation?

I like the idea of HAARP -- it reinforces the idea that the earth's weather is precariously unstable, subject to runaway influences of positive feedback mechanisms, and moreover, can be controlled by a mad scientist cackling gleefully as he pulls his lever to launch his diabolical plan to control the world. Too bad none of the physics for the story work out. But I like the story.

Re Flushing -- I hope we are not taking advantage of our gracious host here. I really like the entire website and the people on it. I'm sorry we might not agree on this subject in particular, but the give and take is fun. And it might be worthwhile, as well as therapeutic. Hopefully people will read some of the links and decide for themselves. If all you had to go by were newspapers and TV news, there wouldn't be any chance to see the real data for yourself in order to make your own decision. I give my thanks for the forum and I hope I've not worn out my welcome. I came here looking for information on mills, found out about Tormach here, and I bought one along with a copy of Artsoft Mach Mill. I do support the advertisers with real money.

--97T--

...Ozone holes .... Supposedly, the molecule breaks up from an ultraviolet photon, releasing chlorine, which then reacts with an ozone molecule. These molecules can get from your hair spray can into the upper atmosphere and cause everyone to die of skin cancer. Now the whole thing is a pretty nice theory, even though a lot of the basics are a huge stretch of the imagination......

97T you may know a lot of things but clearly a good knowledge of chemistry is not one of them. You are ranting on here, incorrectly, like the best of the conspiracy theorists. The link between CFCs, ozone, the ozone hole and increased UV levels at higher latitudes especially is real. It is a display of ignorance to deny it or if you do have the background in chemistry to understand it then the display is not something excusable.

Geof, I don't have the background in chemistry. But I'll be happy to look at the proof. Got a link?

--97T--

Geof, I don't have the background in chemistry. But I'll be happy to look at the proof. Got a link?

--97T--

No, just nine years at university studying chemistry ending in a doctorate degree.

Thank your for most informative response. I find it very convincing.

I like your style 97t! :D

When dinosaurs roamed the earth 65 million years ago palm trees grew at the North and South poles. 15 thousand years ago what is now New York City was covered with ice 2 miles thick.

You bet there's climate change. The earth has always done what it wants to do.

This debate reminds me of the story of a flea having carnal relations with an elephant and asking afterwards "Was it good for you too?" Where did we get the arrogance and self-importance to believe our fleeting 200-year old technological history has any effect on a planet that measures time in billions of years? What is needed is some sense of humility of just how insignificant we are; get a grip, SUVs weren't around 65 million years ago or 15 thousand years ago.

What saddens me is seeing the progression of the leftist cancer through the hard sciences now. It corroded the soft sciences (sociology, psychology, political science, history, etc.) and is now beginning to eat its way thru what was formerly immune reasoned human knowledge.

I read where now free thinking meteorologists are being threatened with scientific exile unless they toe the global warming theologists line. This is antithetical to all that is scientific discourse. It says "We don't care about facts or contrary scientific evidence, believe as we believe or suffer the consequences. Heretics will not be tolorated."

This is a religion. Be sure of that. It cleverly does not call itself that but it has all the attributes of a new, fulminating and virulent religion.

It hates and destroys all other competing, established religions. It gains control by naming and condemning sinful behavior (driving SUVs, living well thru technology). It shames, causes fear and uncertainty in the unconverted pagans. It offers salvation by cleansing the earth in the name of the religion of enviromentalism. It is zealous by not tolerating divergent views from its orthodoxy and it punishes heretics. It seeks converts from other beliefs to its belief, first by persuasion, later by force. It is a religion. It is not science.

It is a cancer eating its way thru the sciences because it needs the the empty husks left afterwards to dress itself up in to give itself legitimacy and authority to convince and convert the remaining pagans.

Math will be the last holdout. When math goes, the most reasoned pinnacle of human knowledge and the mother of all the sciences, the victory will be complete. Then welcome the new Dark Ages when the religion of enviromentalism conquers. This mud-hut theology will prevail unless we all work to laugh at it. It claims to be science. It is not science when it seeks to silence good men that only seek the truth nature reveals with fear and professional exile. That is religious zealotry.

This pernicious enviromentalist theology cannot stand the ridecule it so richly deserves. I personally have utter contempt for it and I do laugh at it.

Mariss

Thank your for most informative response. I find it very convincing.

That is what I expected which is why I phrased it that way. I do not know what your field of expertise is. But if I posted a question which fell within your field of expertise and you gave an answer would you feel it necessary to post links to prove you are correct? Why do you not trust an answer from someone who has no interest in misleading you and is knowledgeable in the subject area.

Alternatively why don't you go and obtain the knowledge that will enable you to understand and evaluate the details.

That was very well said, Mariss.

Taking your concept a little farther, the most virulent forms of this cancer seem to be established where there is a symbiosis between politicians and researchers. This symbiosis springs up from the need for growth-oriented government and its servile State Science arms to establish and protect us all from the Next Big Scare.

The Next Big Scare must be something that the common man cannot understand, it must have apocalyptic consequences, and it must be something that can only be solved by expanding the power of government and placing the High Priests of State Science in powerful positions. To be really successful, it must also have as a side benefit a requirement to heavily bleed the most successful sectors of the economy.

The science journals will publish a few test balloons to see if a theory that fits the mold will take hold. Others will join the chorus. Before long, the politicians must fund research to establish the legitimacy of it, or they will be branded as uncaring, even dangerous. The researchers must generate an avalanche of data to support it, or they will not get this funding. If the drumbeat in the popular press continues for long enough, it becomes the new dogma, having been firmly established beyond question by the consensus of State Science and the popular opinion they have so carefully crafted.

The common man, who has been educated to believe all such things are beyond his comprehension, soon spouts the new dogma with authority, joining in to contemptuously deride anyone who dares question the Official Truth. If the chorus doesn't silence the questioner, then a high priest might deign to step in and shush the questioner with authority. Truth by consensus will be reinforced by truth through edict. It isn't necessary to silence by force, it is only necessary to palliate whoever else can hear, to silence their doubts by relieving them of the burdensome task of reasoning for themselves by ostracizing the errant questioner. As long as you are with the crowd, you are safe.

The environmental scheme is but one of these lesions. The scheme is being tried on various fronts in the life sciences as well, but on a smaller scale. The biological scares meet all of the requirements except that they are lacking a moneyed victim to vilify and tax into oblivion, therefore there is a limit to their longevity and scope.

When people lose interest in these scares, government will cast aside the researchers with a swipe of the pen, or worse, and resort to the older and more reliable tactic of foreign intrigue and petty wars.

In the meantime, the result of a diet of government money is a contempt for reason throughout the educational establishment. Theoretical mathematics might be immune from being co-opted as the other branches of science have been, partly because much of the reasoning involved is based on axioms, and partly because nobody has figured out a way to bend it to the service of a Big Scare. This has not stopped other branches from taking liberties with statistical methods and making huge leaps of reason based on uncertainties. But, being based on axioms and reason, mathematics has in fact been under attack from the department down the hall, from the beginning. That attack comes from the philosophy department, where there has been a concerted effort going on for centuries to undercut the very concepts of existence, axioms, and reason. This attack on reason is a crucial underpinning of the entire enterprise. It serves to plant a seed of doubt in the minds of everyone, so that only someone with special powers of intellect, like a High Priest, can really comprehend reality. It gives them the ultimate fall - back argument in any debate where a questioner tries to tie their logic back to axioms. They just dismiss the axioms! And this is the hallmark of any religion. It needs people to suspend their own reason.

The ultimate goal isn't to get any but the most gullible to believe completely, but to get most people to compartmentalize their reasoning. Leaving the basis of their knowledge to the experts, and confining their reasoning ability to their own field of expertise, where the results are beyond question. This results in all but a few being pragmatists by default, able to have wildly conflicting vague premises by ignoring the contradictions through self-doubt about their own capacity to understand. Fear, uncertainty, and guilt will serve to shunt thoughts onto more comfortable subjects.

Now, I suppose I've said too much. Time to go produce some more, the tax man is always hungry.

--97T--

Geof,

Since you asked,

If you asked me a question about something in my field, I would answer it if I were able, and not ever ask anyone to accept my conclusions on authority. If someone wanted more information, I would provide it myself or point them to the best source I know.

If I make an assertion, it is open to refutation or question. The burden is then mine to provide reasoning and evidence to back it up, if my purpose in making the assertion was persuasion. And if that were my purpose, it would not be served by dismissively suggesting that you go find out for yourself.

It's not about being trusted, it's about sharing data and the reasoning that leads to a particular conclusion.

Why should anyone trust me, a semi-anonymous internet wanderer, on faith alone? Would they trust me more if I asserted my authority?

I don't understand why you asked me this.

--97T--

Mariss & 97T,
You are absolutely spot on...and if you think back, this is how it has ALWAYS been with 'religion' & government, whether it includes a 'god' in the equation or not. The control of popular belief and information have always been manipulated...and always will be as far as I can see.

For a brief time in history, after WWI, people had access to some of the information in universities. I mean, real science, real knowledge. As time has gone by, access to any useful information has been dumbed down, taken away and compartmentalized (through the guise of specialization AND so IQ70 Joe can 'play too') to the point that a college educatation today is hardly worth the paper it is printed on. Want the piece of paper to prove you know something? Pay thru the nose...and you still won't know squat. As MANY of the more successful people on here know, real knowledge and education comes from doing your life's work and passion...not by being institutionalized...(some need outside validation to prove they know something...quite frankly, I don't.)

This issue (global warming) is the same with all of the other alarmist views & topics. What does it REALLY accomplish? Fear. Nothing more. When you scare people, you can conveniently offer them a 'solution' (your planned agenda anyway) and that usually means people giving up even more freedom. The best advise I ever got was from a retired chief of police in a very large town in NJ...He told me that whatever everybody else is doing, do just the opposite. If people are running to the left, you run to the right. It has proven to be the best advice I have ever received...and has helped me to steer clear of the herd mentality and seek my own truth.

I notice with this issue and most others, how many people are quick to point out how we 'humans' are so horrible and that we need more control. If there is a widespread phenomenon that is killing the planet, the responsibility lays on the king's shoulders to set it right...they were the ones that set the condition in motion to begin with. This is not to alleviate personal responsibility, but to acknowledge that we pretty much follow whatever is put forth in motion by government and big business. Since this wheel is just going to keep on turning as it always has since the beginning of 'civilization', just live your life, do the best you can, and die like we are all going to do anyway...Too much worry, not enough peace on this rock...mostly due to people getting stirred up and worrying about things that they CANNOT and NEVER WILL BE ABLE TO CHANGE!!!

-B

Taking your concept a little farther, the most virulent forms of this cancer seem to be established where there is a symbiosis between politicians and researchers. This symbiosis springs up from the need for growth-oriented government and its servile State Science arms to establish and protect us all from the Next Big Scare.

--97T--

sure ! the world revolves around your government and its ideals in twisting peoples ideas and beliefs

the world doesn t stop at the salty waters on each of your shores ,
or for you maybe it does , maybe thats all the government let you know ,
just keep an eye out for the sea serpent if you ever decide to roam those shores

I'm old enough to remember the "Coming Ice Age" scare of the early '70s. Maybe Global Warming and the Coming Ice Age will synthesize into "Global Tepid".

Mariss

regarding the claims of "CFC" being inert.

Which CFC are you talking about? Chloroflourocarbons area group of chemicals sharing some of the same atoms but they are NOT chemically identical.

Do you know what you get when you heat Freon? (which again, is a family of chemicals, not a single chemical). Think chemical warfare : phosgene gas. Using freon as a fire extinguisher would work (it displaces oxygen), but the chemical warfare agents released would be deadly.

A member of the CFC family, Halon, was briefly marketed as a superior fire extinguishing agent (I know, I used them in the Navy) but were quickly discarded because of health effects when used on real fires.

CFCs can be "broken up" or converted into other forms of chemicals in a large number of ways - not the least of which is ultraviolet radiation. Sure, they are stable at room temperature when kept in a container, but in almost any other environment, all bets are off.

I'm assuming your claim that Pinotubo spewed massive amounts of CFCs into the air was made in the same vein as Reagans assertion that Mt. St. Helens must have produced a lot more sulphur dioxide in one eruption than all the cars could in a year. Well, Reagan was full of crap (good thing he prefaced his statement with "I'm no scientist but"). The amount put out by the volcano paled in comparison to what the united states put out in a single year.

..... And if that were my purpose, it would not be served by dismissively suggesting that you go find out for yourself...I don't understand why you asked me this...

--97T--

Why ask? To find out what your answer is of course. You want me to back up my statement that the chemistry behind ozone depletion caused by CFCs is correct but you don't have the chemical knowledge to understand a detailed explanation. You are the only person who can acquire that knowledge. I was not being dismissive but suggesting a practical alternative which is quite feasible. Or does this quote from your own post describe you?

"The common man, who has been educated to believe all such things are beyond his comprehension, soon spouts the new dogma with authority, joining in to contemptuously deride anyone who dares question the Official Truth."

the one argument that Ive heard (and I am no chemist) is that volcano's are the one source of chlorine that can actually get into the upper atmosphere and the CFC and chlorine are heavier than air and thus need some vehicle to make them get the the ozone layer

just curious if this is a trueish statement or I was fibbed to?

GEOF,
How do I say this gently? If you have a doctorate, then you wrote a thesis to achieve that degree. I have never read a thesis that did not substantiate its premise with real research.

You write with so much conviction; much the way I do. The difference is I can back up what I say with hard cold facts. You have chosen to hide behind your credentials. Isn’t going to fly my friend.

Note: Saying you have a doctorate is NOT proof that your statements or conclusions are valid. If I had a dollar for every time a DOCTOR has given some hair brained diagnosis of a given situation......or better yet drawn a conclusion from inconclusive information...... I think you get my point.

Your doctorate is irrelevant. Pretend I'm from Missouri "SHOW ME!" that your statements/conclusions have validity. I will say it as simply as I can; that was a horrific cop-out.

I would still like to see the proof for your side of the debate though.

Respectfully

John

Freon is a brand name. Refrigerant or R-12, R-22 and others is the correct term for what you call Freon.

Simple and common mistake.

John

Freon is a brand name. Refrigerant or R-12, R-22 and others is the correct term for what you call Freon.

Simple and common mistake.

John

"Freon" has become a generic name for group of CFC refrigerants, just like ski-do, while a brand name, is also used as a generic name to describe a snow mobile. I know, I've been working with refrigeration since 1980 - first in the Navy as a Marine engineer and now in the civilian world as a stationary equipment service worker and power engineer.

Jay,
We haven't been recording data on this rock long enough to know ANYTHING about the complexities of the earth's climate. Period. 200 years of data on record (eye witness) and who knows HOW they can 100% for sure verify that radio carbon dating or measuring CO2 levels from a core sample is accurate. What's the reference? Just cause they say so?


We have far more than 200 years of data. We have data going back many centuries from eye witnesses. Writing has existed for a long, long time you know and part of what people wrote was about weather.

The basis for carbon dating is radioactive decay rates which we understand quite well. If the science behind carbon dating were flawed then atomic clocks would not work and nuclear power plants would be uncontrollable.

Carbon dating has been verified in many ways including historical records. For instance, we can take a sample of wood from an Inca ruin where we know the exact age of the youngest buildings because the Spanish that destroyed the place recorded everything. From that we compare the dates to the results of the carbon dating tests to verify the result. Multiple tests are done to determine how much variance there is to determine the maximum amount of error in the testing, which is actually quite small considering the time spans involved.

<snip>


Ozone? Styrofoam? Yeah OK...try doing some research into HAARP...and then tell me THAT hasn't cooked the entire earth's atmosphere...If you buy the styrofoam story, that's like buying the green monkey AIDS story...

-B

HAARP, thats another scary thought. Forget what the conspiracy researchers say, just looking at the official statements is enough to make me cringe. But thats another topic entirely.

Ok, after re-reading the posts and giving it some more thought I am less confident that humans are causing the record CO2 levels. However I wish to amend my statements to reflect my true wish ... that everyone would pick up after themselves and leave the planet a cleaner place than what they found. Not so much to combat global climate but to live in a leave a healthier environment. Secondly to look after your fellow man. No not hand outs, but common courtesy. Just a conscious effort to consider how your actions might affect others ... that's all.

Thank you all for keeping it civil, none of us really need the extra stress some of these topics seem to foster.

FWIW,
Jay

You want me to back up my statement that the chemistry behind ozone depletion caused by CFCs is correct but you don't have the chemical knowledge to understand a detailed explanation. "

Geof,
As you yourself put it in an earlier post to me, if you understand it, then why don't you put in layman's terms, so we can all understand it.

Btw, if you had read through the links I have posted in the "more links" thread, you'd have found that there were in fact several with direct discussions of aerosols, cosmic rays (one in fact was specifically to that factor), etc...

Perhaps you'd be so gracious as to share with us your understanding of how sulphate aerosols provide the 'seed' for cloud formation, and which types of clouds, at which altitudes.....and how each type of cloud, at it's respective altitude traps UV or reflects UV...at their respective wavelengths, of course.

After you've shared with us your knowledge of the chemical mechanisms, you'd be so kind as to expand on just how much water vapor there is in the atmosphere, and what percentage of that is formed into what types of clouds? It is, after all, chemistry, isn't it?

You want me to back up my statement that the chemistry behind ozone depletion caused by CFCs is correct but you don't have the chemical knowledge to understand a detailed explanation.

Translation: You should just believe me because I'm smarter than you are and you're too stupid to understand.

Yes, I was repeating what I'd read elsewhere when I made those admittedly ill-advised assertions. But, I'm willing to examine evidence to the contrary, that's why I asked for it.

I could point to places where other (perhaps mistaken) people have written what I repeated. You, on the other hand, see no need to bother with an exchange of information. We should just recognize your superiority and accept your bald assertion with nothing to back it up. I'm educable. I've learned to be cautious of bald assertions. Your statement above makes two of them. I'll not make judgement on either of them without evidence.

I'm not surprised at your response, except that I was expecting you to pull out the 'pearls before swine' metaphor. There being no information exchanged in our conversation, I believe we have finished it.

--97T--

Rhodan,

Thanks for the information.

I'll read into it further before I shoot my mouth off on the subject any more.

The wiki on phosgene states that it decomposes at temperatures over 200 degrees C. Credible? I don't know.

The MSDS on Freon 22 states "Decomposition products are hazardous. FREON 22 can be decomposed by high temperatures (open flames, glowing metal surfaces, etc.) forming hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acids,
and possibly carbonyl halides.

The MSDS on Halon makes you wonder why you would ever use it where it could be inhaled. Nasty decomposition products, and not good to inhale at any appreciable concentration.

I believe Halon is still used on aircraft, if I'm not mistaken. It would definitely be a 'last resort' option. (But a fire on an airplane is a dire emergency.)

It's not as 'inert' as I thought it was.

--97T--

97T,
Since you've been around this series of threads for awhile, you may remember back when Geof asked me to 'splain it in layman's terms....if I understand it. Thinking that he may not have been clear on the subject, I did.

LIttle did I know he was merely having me jump through his hoops. He tells me to relax, and suggests the tone of my posts is, well shall we say, less than cordial.

Now he's telling you that you're without the intelligence, resources, or fortitude to find the understanding within his technical explanation. I find that most amusing for one simple reason....

The most brilliant people I have ever known or worked with have ALWAYS been able to reduce complex principles to terms a 15yr old could understand.

To presume anyone is, or is not capable of understanding something (especially something as critical to our very existence as the issue of global warming/cooling and the environment) is intellectual arrogance. The most noble thing one can do is to aid in someone's understanding, regardless of their level of comprehension.

-------------------------------------
From Johann Hari....

".....For most of us, the biggest contribution we make to destabilising the planet's climate is through flying. If one person flies one way, one time to Miami, you emit more greenhouse gases than the average SUV driver in a year. You could cycle, recycle and use energy-saving light bulbs for the rest of your life, and it's all cancelled out by a single weekend break by the beach..."
http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/johann_hari/article2162826.ece

Funny, isn't it...that he and ALGore are on the same side???

I don't know Johann Hari but Al Gore is a politician and is on any side that make him win.

Sometimes posts are inflammatory because they want to stimulate debate/argument or just to be amusing.

So remember that you are typing on a computer, and don't get too caught up in the emotional content (or lack there
of) because some of us like to argue for arguement sake. (ask my wife she probably wouldn't remarry me again! :) )

Okay I will be halfway reasonable; here.

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/17994/

Translation: You should just believe me because I'm smarter than you are and you're too stupid to understand....

No I made no claim to be smarter than anyone; I do make the claim of having a higher level of education and knowing more than many people in some particular areas.

I have tried explaining chemical concepts to people with no knowledge of chemistry and it is difficult to impossible to do it effectively; some level of knowledge of the technical terms is needed. It does not matter whether it is chemistry, electronics or programming if the listener does not have enough background the explanation is not any help.

Anyway read the link I did post. My post #58 was on the topic of CFCs and high level atmospheric ozone depletion. The chemistry is valid and it is occurring.

the one argument that Ive heard (and I am no chemist) is that volcano's are the one source of chlorine that can actually get into the upper atmosphere and the CFC and chlorine are heavier than air and thus need some vehicle to make them get the the ozone layer

just curious if this is a trueish statement or I was fibbed to?

These are trueish statements, actually depending on how you define 'vehicle' they are true not just trueish. But they really do not have any bearing on whether CFCs are causing ozone depletion.

Take the second one: It is correct that the molecular weight of CFCs and Chlorine are greater than those of nitrogen and oxygen. If the atmosphere was perfectly still then it is likely that these molecules would sink. However, the atmosphere is in constant motion and there is a net circulation that has air rising in equatorial regions and sinking in polar regions so the CFCs are carried aloft. This circulation can be considered the 'vehicle' mentioned above.

It is also true that volcanoes can inject things into the upper atmosphere. I cannot comment whether the chlorine would be in the form of Cl, Cl2 (the chlorine molecule which is its natural state) or chloride, which is non-reactive. But this is not relevant to the question of whether chlorine from CFCs is having any effect. In the upper atmosphere ozone is being constantly created in a reaction between the oxygen molecule O2 and UV photons; the O2 is split into two oxygen atoms. If the two separated oxygen atoms bumped into each other they would simply re-form O2 however, it is more likely they will bump into another O2 then ozone O3 is formed. When two ozone molecules bump into each other then they react and three oxygen molecules and re-formed; ozone is constantly made and removed and the amount existing at any one time is more or less constant. To explain why chlorine from volcanoes is irrelevant to the CFC issue consider a simple analogy: Take a tall bucket with a hole in the bottom and a steady stream of water pouring in the top; the level will rise until the rate of escape at the bottom matches the rate coming in and will stabilize. Now punch another tiny hole; this represents the ozone removal resulting from volcanic chlorine. Yes the level will drop but volcanoes are sporadic so you have to slowly make the hole representing the volcanic chlorine get smaller until it closes off because the volcano's contribution diminishes. Now punch another hole but do not ever close it off; this is the removal as a result of chlorine from CFCs. Now go back to calling it the ozone level rather than the water level in a bucket. Eventually, if the level of CFCs remains constant, the ozone concentration levels off at a new lower value. Naturally if the CFCs go up the ozone continues to go down and the opposite occurs also. I have read that it is possible that the ozone decline has stopped but it is not possible to make a firm conclusion because there is some fluctuation from year to year. And this is where the slow transport of CFCs into the upper atmosphere comes in. CFCs had been in use for a long time before the initial effect on the ozone was hypothesized and even longer before their manufacture was banned in some countries. Even if the escape of CFCs was totally stopped it is unrealistic to expect any significant recovery of the ozone for a long time because all the CFCs at present in the lower atmosphere have to be transported up and reacted away. CFCs are pretty much non-reactive in the lower atmosphere and can be expected to persist for a long time.

Some people are gentle souls and don't like contention. They are peacemakers and are troubled by controversy and strong feelings. I respect them.

Other people like the give and take of a subject being discussed vigorously. Feelings and insults sometimes fly. It comes with the passion of the arguement; the participants know and expect this. They take it in stride without hurt feelings. It's like vigorous mental aerobic excersize versus a quiet walk around the block. To each his own.

Most argements (attempts at persuading others to your point of view) are largely unsucessful. Why? Because the opponent either firmly believes what he does and will not be dislodged or if he is persuaded, cannot stand the loss of face to acknowledge your superior argument. Either way it is quest without a payoff at the end.

Knowing that, why bother? The best reason lies with the defence of your argument. The best you can expect is to formulate what you know in words that persuade yourself primarily. This is a worthile exersize, it concretely states your beliefs in a way you hadn't bothered to form before.

The argument is essentially a religious one as I mentioned before. There are believers that kindly seek to convert the unbelievers and less kindly deal with the heretics. Look at the way "facts" are recieved if you have any question about the premise.

Mariss

John,

I'll be more than happy to take you and with facts.

Why don't we start with a few. I will happily supply the peer-reviewed scientific papers to back these up.

1) The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is directly correlated to the temperature of our planet. The more carbon dioxide that there is in the atmosphere the warmer our planet is. I don't any serious scientist in this field debates this and CO2's role as a greenhouse gas.

2) Scientists have not gone back 650,000 years with detailed temperature and carbon dioxide measurements. The correlation between the two is direct and is just one of the many empirical pieces of evidence that backs up #1 above. This also shows that the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere over the past 50 years has gone from the normal range to higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years.

3) With the rapid rise of carbon dioxide to levels not seen in at least the last 650,000 years has occurred a corresponding rise in temperature. This rise in temperature nicely matches the what the scientists have modeled to be the expected rise in temperature for this amount of carbon dioxide. The temperature of the earth is measured in many ways. Its not just measured by land stations (so your article about the urban heat island effect does not even hold up). The various ways (but I don't believe an exhaustive list are) satellite imagery, ocean temperatures, ice core isotopes and land stations. All of shown consistent and equivalent warming. In fact our skeptic friends up until 2006 claimed that satellite records were not inline with the expected modeled temperature. However a very robust, peer-reviewed paper published this year showed that registration errors amount the various satellities used to produce the composite, temporal data caused this problem. When they corrected for these registration errors it fit the model perfectly. And the skeptics were silent.

4) Papers published in 2006 show that Greenland and Antartica are melting faster than expected. The skeptics love to say that "but ice cover has actually increased in the center of antartica". Of course they have no peer-reviewed papers to back this up. I will say however that it may be the case that snow/ice cover has increased in some areas. Ice cover just as temperature will not uniform decrease/increase everywhere as the planet warms. The earth is a complex, non-linear system. There has been increased snowfall in antartica over the past 10-20 years. So ice/snow cover can increase in some areas even while warming occurs. Afterall, it is still plenty cold enough for it to snow in those areas. Back to the melting there have been quite a few papers in the past 2 years that have robustly documented the melting - esp. in Greenland.

5) Lets also rebut the skeptics claim that the warming will be so gradual that we don't have to worry about it. There is evidence that we can count on this. As mentioned above the earth's climate is complex. A major piece of the puzzle though is the ocean currents. The major ocean currents are what for example keep Britain fairly warm even though its more north than Maine. A n important part of the current system is the relative density of water. Warm water is less dense than cold water. Salt water is more dense than fresh water. When the last ice age retreated there is direct evidence (again a peer reviewed paper can be produced) that it left an extremely large lake in Canada. The great lakes are believe to be the remnants of this. The fresh water from this lake was help back from the ocean by a huge ice damn in the St Laurence seaway area. When this broke and the fresh water lake emptied into the north atlantic it decreased the density of the water there and shut down the major ocean current that warms northern europe. This shutdown lasted for hundreds of years. Northern europe got extremely cold. So climate changes may not be so gradual. There are trigger events. If Greenland did substantially melt this could have the same effect in the northern atlantic. In fact the salinity of the water in the northern atlantic has decreased it the gulf stream current is not 30% weaker than it was 30 years ago.

So John bring it on. I can bring on many more facts. I would like to see peer-reviewed papers from you from reputable journals. Not just links to psuedo-science web articles.

Tim

Global Warming...... ask the people in the mid west that just got slammed by one of the worse ice storms in their recent history.... ask them where global warming is when you need it! And just for the uninformed the planet has been steadily warming since um..... I don't know..... hmmmm......THE LAST ICE AGE. Liberal yee-haws. Stick to what you seem to know best. CNC machines

Respectfully,

John

P.S if anyone wants to have an informed debate about the topic, I will be more than willing to wax that butt both factually and philosophically.

ScopicSoftware,

Wow! ScopicSoftware, I'm really impressed with your cited references. I really like your "appeal to authority" method of argument. It scares me half to death based on the cited authorities. The world is truly going to hell if we all buy into that.

Instead how about if I buy your premise; everything you promise comes to happen. I've been threatened with floods and drought simultasously. Nothing good is ever mentioned about "global warming". It is disaster and gloom all around.

Even the strongtest adherents allow the tropics will be no warmer than they are now. All the effects will be at the higher latitudes. Palm trees may grow at Barrow Alaska and Starvinger Norway.

Please tell me the negative effects of that? The earth becomes more fertile at latitudes above 50-degrees North and South. Growing seasons expand from 3 months to 6 months or beyond. Droughts and floods? How about the predictions hurricanes were to ravage the coasts this year? How did that work out? How about the idiots that predicted it?

The problem with the leftist green envioremetal religion is their catachemism requires a negative outcome to every scenario. Their cause is to sow fear. Its purpose is to underminie technology. You are a sucker to belive it.

I will welcome global warming. I will buy coconut palm tree festooned tropical property in Barrow Alaska and rent it to surfers that want to surf an 80-degree Artic Sea. I will buy property above 60-degrees North to grow sugar cane,:-)

Jeez, doesn't the pervasive negativism of the leftist green philosophy and religion get to you? Everything is negative, bad and makes you feel sinfull. Happy religion that. Don't you want to get out from under that? Do you really want to live life as a negative and pessimistic person? Do you feel in your heart of hearts you are better than that?

All it takes is to reject all the BS you have been feed an live as a free thinking person. Join with me.

Mariss

ScopicSoftware,

Statement's #1-3 1) The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is directly correlated to the temperature of our planet. The more carbon dioxide that there is in the atmosphere the warmer our planet is. I don't any serious scientist in this field debates this and CO2's role as a greenhouse gas.

My original question as to the initial 800 year warming forcing factor still stands.....and I'd STILL like to see the peer reviewed reference that shows temperature LAGS CO2 in all time scales. I'd like to see the peer reviewed reference which shows what the "NORMAL" CO2 level is and just exactly how it is derived.

You've got the papers? I'd honestly like to see them.

Statement #4 4) Papers published in 2006 show that Greenland and Antartica are melting faster than expected.
They do?

RENO, Nev. – Current estimates indicate that sea level worldwide is increasing due to global warming and shrinkage of terrestrial, or land-based, ice. In a new study appearing in this week’s online edition of Science, research led by the Desert Research Institute in Nevada and the University of Missouri-Columbia found that the interior of the East Antarctic ice sheet is actually gaining mass and that this increase is likely due to increased accumulation of snowfall. The mass gain is enough to slow sea-level rise by 0.12 millimeters per year.

This conclusion was based on two key results. First, Curt Davis, MU professor of electrical and computer engineering, and his team of researchers used satellites to observe changes in elevation for 7.1 million square kilometers of the Antarctic ice sheet from 1992 to 2003. They discovered that the ice sheet’s interior was gaining mass by about 45 billion tons per year. The researchers used radar altimeters from the European Space Agency’s ERS-1 and ERS-2 satellites to make 347 million elevation-change measurements during the study period.

Second, Joe McConnell, DRI professor of hydrology, and his team compared the elevation change results with modeled precipitation in the region. This work suggests that the mass gain in East Antarctica is likely due to increased precipitation during the study period, a finding consistent with the most recent report from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
http://news.dri.edu/nr2005/may_icesheets.htm

Hmmmm...........

When dinosaurs roamed the earth 65 million years ago palm trees grew at the North and South poles....Mariss

Aquatic Palm trees I guess considering there is no land at the North Pole.

Come to think of it I am not sure that the Antarctic continent was at the South Pole 65 million years ago. Wasn't it still have a thing going with Australia and India in a continent called Pangea or had they just recently split? I am sure someone will set me straight.

Geof,

I can't say that the bucket analogy is very applicable, or that I agree with it, but it's a good stab at it.

Now that we're into the meat of the discussion, I've had a question that has yet to be answered to my satisfaction. Maybe you can explain this one.

If the chlorine bound in CFCs can migrate into the upper atmosphere, is it not true that chlorine not bound can also?
What about sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl)? We know that it has a relatively low vapor pressure, and it does outgas from aqueous solutions. Does it not also migrate upwards, and would it not also interact with O3?

ChipSweeper,

Did you even read my post? I stated in my post that the interior of Antarctica has gained some ice/snow cover due to increased snowfall. Please read a post before you respond. Thank you for backing up what I said though. Increased ice/snowcover due to increased precipitation is an entirely different matter than the shrinking of the perimeters (i.e., circumference) of the Greenland and Antarctic icesheets due to warming. There is no debate about this.

Regarding the 800 year warming I'm not sure what you are talking about.

I will send you the papers shortly.

Tim
---------------
ScopicSoftware,

Statement's #1-3 1) The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is directly correlated to the temperature of our planet. The more carbon dioxide that there is in the atmosphere the warmer our planet is. I don't any serious scientist in this field debates this and CO2's role as a greenhouse gas.

My original question as to the initial 800 year warming forcing factor still stands.....and I'd STILL like to see the peer reviewed reference that shows temperature LAGS CO2 in all time scales. I'd like to see the peer reviewed reference which shows what the "NORMAL" CO2 level is and just exactly how it is derived.

You've got the papers? I'd honestly like to see them.

Statement #4 4) Papers published in 2006 show that Greenland and Antartica are melting faster than expected.
They do?

RENO, Nev. – Current estimates indicate that sea level worldwide is increasing due to global warming and shrinkage of terrestrial, or land-based, ice. In a new study appearing in this week’s online edition of Science, research led by the Desert Research Institute in Nevada and the University of Missouri-Columbia found that the interior of the East Antarctic ice sheet is actually gaining mass and that this increase is likely due to increased accumulation of snowfall. The mass gain is enough to slow sea-level rise by 0.12 millimeters per year.

This conclusion was based on two key results. First, Curt Davis, MU professor of electrical and computer engineering, and his team of researchers used satellites to observe changes in elevation for 7.1 million square kilometers of the Antarctic ice sheet from 1992 to 2003. They discovered that the ice sheet’s interior was gaining mass by about 45 billion tons per year. The researchers used radar altimeters from the European Space Agency’s ERS-1 and ERS-2 satellites to make 347 million elevation-change measurements during the study period.

Second, Joe McConnell, DRI professor of hydrology, and his team compared the elevation change results with modeled precipitation in the region. This work suggests that the mass gain in East Antarctica is likely due to increased precipitation during the study period, a finding consistent with the most recent report from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
http://news.dri.edu/nr2005/may_icesheets.htm

Hmmmm...........

[QUOTE=fizzissist;249742]ScopicSoftware,

Statement's #1-3 1) The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is directly correlated to the temperature of our planet. The more carbon dioxide that there is in the atmosphere the warmer our planet is. I don't any serious scientist in this field debates this and CO2's role as a greenhouse gas.

My original question as to the initial 800 year warming forcing factor still stands.....and I'd STILL like to see the peer reviewed reference that shows temperature LAGS CO2 in all time scales. I'd like to see the peer reviewed reference which shows what the "NORMAL" CO2 level is and just exactly how it is derived.

You've got the papers? I'd honestly like to see them.

www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/650000-years-of-greenhouse-gas-concentrations/
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060824222330.htm
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060810212358.htm
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060630100735.htm

The above are links to articles about the papers. Its late so it will take until tomorrow sometime for me to get your the actual papers. Note the first link. Go to the bottom graph and it shows you the correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature. There is a robust correlation. Also note that in the past 650,000 years (the furthest back we can measure in a highly accurate way so far) the highest carbon dioxide level was 300 parts per million. We stand as of 2006 at 380 parts per million so almost 30% higher than anytime in the past 650,000 years and rising rapidly. The other links reference some of the other statements I made including about Greenland melting.

Tim

www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/650000-years-of-greenhouse-gas-concentrations/
I refer you to comments #3 & #4 of this link, and the following link (from the same group):
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13
...and:
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

My question still stands. WHAT drove the temperature UP for the first 600-1000 yrs?

From your second URL...
"...Our inability to predict trends in the NAO/NAM means that, even if we could predict global warming very well, a large degree of uncertainty will remain in any forecasts of the decadal-centennial trajectories of the Arctic freshwater balance."
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060824222330.htm
Well, that certainly gives me a lot of confidence in their work.

I get an error on this page, resulting in nothing.
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060810212358.htm

This link was interesting, but had to do with catastrophic incidents that caused sudden COOLING, and don't explain what caused temperatures to rise....as if the system were in equilibrium, and there was some force standing by to return it to that state???
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060630100735.htm
...Ok, maybe the dilution of the fresh water over millenia allowed the system to come back to 'normal'...but with attendant lower CO2 levels, exactly how is it possible for the climate to warm....if CO2 is the first order forcing factor responsible for warming???

i have to question the fact about the ancient lake that once covered parts of manitoba and ontario was indeed 100% fresh water , i grew up in northern ontario , the damaged remnants ,and deposits from the ice age are quite clear , the ranges where mountains once stood (leveled)and the many lakes (kettles) that resulted ,
the james bay frontier the area is called because everything flows up to james bay
when i was a kid out in the woods working as a tree planter , the area was a large clay belt ,i sat on my butt for a smoke break and chipped away at the ground with the shovel and came across a chunk of fossil which was hollow inside and it was full of sea shell fossils , they are by far no fresh water clams
that land was under water at one time and that is clear thru satilite images but i 'd like an explaination as to why i would have found such a thing so far from any salt water ? glacial deposit ? or was the area covered in salt water rather than fresh water , which would blow out any theory about the fresh water mixing with the salt

edit

Reading Mariss' thread brought me to the conclusion that after all of this mental masturbation is done, what are we going to get at the end? I mean, let's say Global Warming is true, along with all of the doom and gloom that comes with it....and that we ALL agree that it is a FACT and true. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? Hmmm???

What positive ACTION are you going to take to correct and reverse global warming? Will your positive ACTIONS be as passionate and free flowing as your opinions? How can you be so SURE that any 'corrective action' would even work? What the solution...to put catalytic converters on cow's butts in an effort to reduce CO2 levels???!!!

The sheer arrogance of humans never ceases to amaze me. To think first of all that the common man has completely ruined this planet in the past few hundred years is ridiculous...even more proposterous is the notion that he has the GOD LIKE power to fix it. (remember what Katrina did...that was just ONE storm) If you really want to change the world, stop acting like a lemming and start thinking for yourself...then again, most have NO IDEA what thinking for themselves really means because they have never done it...that is the biggest tragedy of all! People who think for themselves never allow themselves to be branded with political team names or hide behind credentials that came from an institution (know where the word 'institutionalized' comes from right?)...

Just live your life and be nice to people...all of this BS about global warming is a distraction. Do you think you are going to live forever??? Who would want THAT? And here? LOL!!! Now THAT's funny!!!! Kindness matters. All the wankin' about things we can't change doesn't.

-B

Derstap...

Maybe a caveman went for a walk one day and had it in his rucksack for a bit to eat for his lunch :)

Or! thinking about it.. perhaps aliens hid it there as part of the continuing galactical conspiracy to keep us humans confused hehe.

Geof,

I can't say that the bucket analogy is very applicable, or that I agree with it, but it's a good stab at it.

Now that we're into the meat of the discussion, I've had a question that has yet to be answered to my satisfaction. Maybe you can explain this one.

If the chlorine bound in CFCs can migrate into the upper atmosphere, is it not true that chlorine not bound can also?
What about sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl)? We know that it has a relatively low vapor pressure, and it does outgas from aqueous solutions. Does it not also migrate upwards, and would it not also interact with O3?

Why is the bucket analogy not good? Do you disagree that ozone is generated and lost in the upper atmosphere; actually the primary loss is slightly lower. What simple analogy would you use to describe and equilibrium situation which can be perturbed to a different level by an outside influence?

Rgerading the NaOCl situation the big difference is that the chlorine is in a reactive state. It does not get very far before reacting with something but CFCs do not react in the lower atmosphere.

....that land was under water at one time and that is clear thru satilite images but i 'd like an explaination as to why i would have found such a thing so far from any salt water ? glacial deposit ? or was the area covered in salt water rather than fresh water , which would blow out any theory about the fresh water mixing with the salt

It was mentioned in another thread that the land under the ice was depressed during the last Ice Age. When the ice melted the land was under sea water for a few thousand years because the rebound was slow. There are raised beaches up Howe Sound that formed the same way.

Chip Sweeper,

It seems you don't even read the articles that you cite.

1) The "800" year lag
You keep pointing this out. But the article you cite says
[I]"Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming."

2) Antarctica melting
Here you keep throwing studies at me that says the the interior areas of Antarctica are gaining ice cover. I've already agreed with this BUT they are gaining ice cover due to increased precipitation. This is even predicted by global warming models. However the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are melting faster than expected from their edges. This is what you would expect from a melting piece of ice.

I see you made no comment about the 650,000 record. I figured as such.


Tim

...........and now to really get the pot boiling!

Most fundemental Christians would adhere to the idea that man is not really responsible for the stated damage to our atmosphere. With that said, I would like to use a quote from the oldest book in the world, and this quote very specifically speaks to this issue of global warming, but of course from a completely different point of view.

Revelation chapter 16 beginning with : 8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire. 9 And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory. 10 And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain, 11 And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds. (bolding added)

I realize that most will probably ridicule or laugh, but itsn't it odd that a book
containing this has been around for nearly 2000 yrs and it has recorded a very plausible result of intense global warming?

Mike

Software Says:
"It seems you don't even read the articles that you cite.

1) The "800" year lag
You keep pointing this out. But the article you cite says
[i]"Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data."

Yes, I did read the articles, AND the comments. And other discussions of the lag. (We all should note that RealClimate.org has a decided bias......"one tree ring a hockey stick doth make")

My question still stands....(I'm going to yell now, since I'm not getting through....)

WHAT INITIATED AND CONTINUED THE WARMING THAT LASTED FROM 600 TO 1000 YEARS BEFORE THE CO2 HAD IT'S EFFECT?????

In one response it's stated that it's 'no simple one line answer'. Funny, ain't it.....it's a simple one line answer as to what causes global warming now....

You say I'm not reading your links? Well, you're not reading mine. Neener, neener.

..My question still stands....(I'm going to yell now, since I'm not getting through....)

WHAT INITIATED AND CONTINUED THE WARMING THAT LASTED FROM 600 TO 1000 YEARS BEFORE THE CO2 HAD IT'S EFFECT?????



You seem to practise the technique of posing questions that cannot be readily answered. Then when your interrogatee cannot answer what is maybe an unanswerable question you use this as a reason to discount anything else they say. This is somewhat analogous to the Straw Man technique and is not entirely valid. By the way you can Google straw man if you need to I am not going to explain.

I have not been following the posts you are referring to in detail and am not entirely clear what time interval you are referring to. Are you talking about 1000 to 600 years before present or some earlier period?

Turmite,

I've read a bunch of the religious arguments, and one of 'em is that global warming is man's fault, not God's. (not my god, anyway....my god is the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and the FSM would NEVER do anything to compromise his creation of mountains, trees, or midgets.)

Here's one example.... http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/global-warming

Here's another 'religious influenced' site's view that inserts the cosmic ray theory.....of which there is some hard evidence...

Ice ages linked to galactic position
From: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/25/MNGCIDSL4R1.DTL&type=science

Study finds Earth may be cooled by movement through Milky Way's stellar clouds

Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer

Monday, July 25, 2005

"It might sound preposterous, like astrology, to suggest that galactic events help determine when North America is or isn't buried under immense sheets of ice taller than skyscrapers. But new research suggests the coming and going of major ice ages might result partly from our solar system's passage through immense, snakelike clouds of exploding stars in the Milky Way galaxy.

Resembling the curved contrails of a whirling Fourth of July pinwheel, the Milky Way's spiral arms are clouds of stars rich in supernovas, or exploding stars. Supernovas emit showers of charged particles called cosmic rays.

Theorists have proposed that when our solar system passes through a spiral arm, the cosmic rays fall to Earth and knock electrons off atoms in the atmosphere, making them electrically charged, or ionized. Since opposite electrical charges attract each other, the positively charged ionized particles attract the negatively charged portion of water vapor, thus forming large droplets in the form of low-lying clouds.

In turn, the clouds cool the climate and trigger an ice age -- or so theorists suggest...."
http://www.meta-religion.com/Astronomy/Other_subjects/ice_age_linked.htm

The ONLY supporters of Global warming are those who earn from it. I have heard no experts other than researchers whom profit from grant $$ say there is any PROOF!

Geof says:
"You seem to practise the technique of posing questions that cannot be readily answered. Then when your interrogatee cannot answer what is maybe an unanswerable question you use this as a reason to discount anything else they say. This is somewhat analogous to the Straw Man technique and is not entirely valid. By the way you can Google straw man if you need to I am not going to explain."

No, Geof, I'm practicing the technique of posing questions that YOU cannot answer. Not intentionally, merely a function of discussing a topic a bit over your head it would seem.

Btw, I find your response to the chlorine question rather incomplete, and without substance. sorry.

:) (the smiley face indicates a very cordial tone, and demonstrates that I'm not talking down to you)

------------------------------------
Meanwhile, my question of the initiation of the warming that lasts 600-1000yrs after the end of an ice age that has lasted some 80,000 ( That's EIGHTY THOUSAND ) years....in a cycle that supposedly takes 5000yrs....still stands unexplained. So far, the only explanation given seems to be having to do with the thermohaline cycle. I'm not buying it.

arg!

someone is trying religionize the thread!

ignore him! ;)

or all is lost.

Thanks for the explanation Geof that was very incitefull and I understood it fairly well, although some didn't like it.

Some people are gentle souls and don't like contention. They are peacemakers and are troubled by controversy and strong feelings. I respect them.

Other people like the give and take of a subject being discussed vigorously. Feelings and insults sometimes fly. It comes with the passion of the arguement; the participants know and expect this. They take it in stride without hurt feelings. It's like vigorous mental aerobic excersize versus a quiet walk around the block. To each his own.

Most argements (attempts at persuading others to your point of view) are largely unsucessful. Why? Because the opponent either firmly believes what he does and will not be dislodged or if he is persuaded, cannot stand the loss of face to acknowledge your superior argument. Either way it is quest without a payoff at the end.

Knowing that, why bother? The best reason lies with the defence of your argument. The best you can expect is to formulate what you know in words that persuade yourself primarily. This is a worthile exersize, it concretely states your beliefs in a way you hadn't bothered to form before.

The argument is essentially a religious one as I mentioned before. There are believers that kindly seek to convert the unbelievers and less kindly deal with the heretics. Look at the way "facts" are recieved if you have any question about the premise.

Mariss

Mariss the electronics wizard/philosopher, I like it.

I also totally agree that most arguments are more to get you point out than to convince someone of anything. But then I like to argue! ;)

Well said!

Even the myans new a couple of thousand years ago with out the use of high tech gadget the earth runs in cycles. Global warming hole in the ozone. Pick your poisons the libs are back to scare tactics. So far the me and my brothers who are Amish arn't afraid. Hey I have to unplug Graber is knocking on the door. He thinks windows xp is something you put on a barn to keep the cows from peeing on the windows. See ya.

...No, Geof, I'm practicing the technique of posing questions that YOU cannot answer. Not intentionally, merely a function of discussing a topic a bit over your head it would seem....

Well of course it is you ninny; I am not really tall enough to have my head in the upper atmosphere.

P.S. To anyone else reading if you want serious answers to any answerable questions posed by this contributor they will need to be reposted. He is proving the point that I made in a different post that it is not possible to explain things to someone who does not know and does not want to know the background required.

Ah common guys Global warming just has to be real. He watch this for proof. The weather guy on chanel nine one week in advance can't hit his butt with both hand tied behind his back for accuracy. Using that for futrue prediction I would say if they say we will have global warming starting tomorrow at noon, with the past track record at best you have 50/50 chance. With that being said there was a guy on the discovery channel doing ice boring and found an amazing discovery, it only been on once that I've seen it. He discovered the earth goes through something amazing called cycles (wow somebody get Al G.). And his discovery was nothing has been out of cycle for 10s of thousands of years. Now for something even cooler today we keep records with digital thermometers, and they are calibrated instruments (I'll give them a break and say the last 30 years). Are you going to sit there on your bean sprouts and tell me Doc, Marty McFly, and Al Gore went back in time with a calibrated digital and took readings to map this? Are you going to belive a they can predict with 100% accuracy. Please circle one
A. 5 min in advance
B. 1 week in advance
C. 1 year in advance
D. 10 years in advance
E. None of the above.

I will stick with E. every time just because of daily forcasting. Seems like to me I would belive a 10 or 100 year prediction only after you hit the daily crap 100% for a year or 2 in a row. Come on guys wake up and smell the crap your shoveling over there. Oh well come on Hillary is here to save us with stupid question on health care on the internet that Al invented. Hey yall have a good day. I am 400 lbs and shaving tonight and straping on my camo thong in preperation for Global warming day tomorrow.
See ya.

'nuff aready 'bout sheepskins. Mt little sister is a MD specializing in Psychiatry plus a phd in clinical psychology. No common sense. Just to keep her happy I call her Dr. Doctor.

Okay I will be halfway reasonable; here.

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/17994/

I'm not sure that's quite halfway. The article's main thrust is advice on how to overcome the political difficulties involved in getting the government's armed coercive power involved in the global warming issue, using the Freon issue as an example!

As an introduction to that main theme, we are treated to a recap of the history. In brief, the two chemists from UC Irvine calculated that Freon was being destroyed in the upper atmosphere. A description of the reaction is given. It states that the following decade was a contentious one, until

"In 1985, Rowland and Molina were vindicated. British scientists using ground-based instruments spotted a gaping "hole" in the ozone layer above the Antarctic. Subsequently, NASA reported that there was a thinning of the ozone layer over the populated areas of the Northern Hemisphere. These findings proved that Rowland and Molina's chemistry had been correct. They also provided startling evidence that industrial chemicals, emitted largely over the industrialized population centers of North America and Europe, could change the atmosphere on a global scale."

From then on, the article lauds the victory of the left over industry, and suggests similar tactics in the war on energy.

Halfway reasonable would have been giving some evidence in support of your assertion. This is not evidence.

This link shows somebody's idea of the history of human awareness of ozone: http://www.albany.edu/faculty/rgk/atm101/o3histor.htm (it's edu so it must be right).

From reading this you can see that man's ability to measure ozone is very recent. The fluctuation in ozone concentrations is known over only a very short time period. Myself, I don't know from this whether ozone concentrations are variable. I don't know what they were historically. I don't know how often or for how long there have or haven't been ozone holes, whether over Kennebunkport or elsewhere. I don't know what evidence ties the observation of the ozone holes using our newfound measuring ability to ozone destruction on a huge scale by CFC's.

I wasn't going to respond unless there were some information given. You provided a link, but unfortunately, that's not information. It's just somebody else's assertions, buried in a political article with advice about tactics for swinging public policy, mainly by locking in advantages for large corporations. An old and dirty trick that would have Mussolini nodding in approval.

The payoff? "The effectiveness of any strategy on global warming will depend on how well it creates new markets. That much was learned from the Montreal Protocol. But perhaps the greatest lesson is also one of the simplest: when science shows us a looming environmental disaster, we need to act quickly and decisively, regardless of the economic or technical uncertainties."

Translation: Use government to promise rewards for industry (technically, this is fascism) to milk the public. Sell the scare tactic well enough, and you won't have to justify the costs or prove whether the sky really is falling or not.

This kind of bunkum was not intended for the unperfumed; it was written by and to people who figure that their protected positions in government-funded academe will always provide them with a warm place to stay and everything else they ever need within walking distance. Let everyone else go without jobs, without automobiles, without heat. The paragraph above is codespeak for what I said before, "The common man has abused his freedom, he can't be trusted with it, he needs to be controlled before he blows up the world with his unrestrained production and consumption. If you can't stand over him with a gun to control his activities, tax and ration his carbon use. He won't understand what that really means until it is too late."

I had hoped for better information. Likewise, the bucket analogy doesn't give evidence of cause and effect. Sorry my response didn't have any usable information in it either. But the burden of proof is on the one that makes an assertion. It's impossible to prove a negative.

Must be I'm not intellectually qualified to understand the complex mechanisms involved.

--97T--

Fizz,

Going through all your posts and looking at the core of your argument against global warming being man made, it seems your thesis is that because you personally don't know how things work, they cannot be true.

Geoff is quite correct when he saying trying to explain the chemistry involved would be pointless. He said its because you wouldn't be able to understand the explanation without a lot of background knowledge, and its true. You imply that he's lying because you think that a person that knows their stuff should be able to give a quick summary in layman's terms. Well, thats true of certain topics but, isn't that exactly what you were using as a reason not to believe the scientists? So in reality, you are asking him to explain how it works in a form that you've already claimed is invalid.

You are arguing that ignorance of a topic is proof that the topic is false.

Do you know what co-valent bonding and ionic bonding are? Do you know the difference between the two? Do you know what atomic weight refers to? Do you know the difference between an ion and a cation? Do you know anything about thermodynamics? Do you know what the Hiesenberg uncertainty principle is?

I took chemistry in the Navy (had to, to learn about corrosion) but before I could take chemistry I had to take thermodynamics, physics, and electricy. Without those background courses chemistry would have been a hell of a lot harder to understand since chemistry encompasses them all.

As part of my job I have to teach people swimming pool chemistry and I've had several years to work on getting the explanation as simple as possible. The best I've managed to do is get it down to six pages of text and even then I spend hours and hours talking people through the process. Even university students who have taken chemistry (not as a major) get bent out of shape trying to understand it to the point of being able diagnose problems and it doesn't even require chemical formulae, just cross referencing values on a chart. The "official" book on pool chemistry by Dr. Lowery is some 40 pages long, and that is just one very simple chemical process.

You aren't the only person to argue utter conviction from a position of ignorance - we've all done it and will do it again. The important part is to recognize when you are ignorant of a topic and either give the nod to those with greater knowledge in that area or set about learning more about it yourself.

Oh, one other tip for the folks that doubt. Look up "demagogue" then listen carefully to whomever it is that is convincing you mankind is not the cause of our rapid climate change.

97T;

Do you read posts thoroughly? My assertion, as you phrase it, many posts back, was that the chemistry involved in the removal of ozone by CFCs was chemically correct. It is chemically correct and it is foolish, ignorant or stupid to deny this. I did not comment on the politics surrounding the first postulates put forth in the seventies or things like that I merely asserted, correctly, that the chemistry is valid.

Geof,

I may be all those names you call me, except I wasn't arguing with the formula. I was looking for evidence to support the extrapolations therefrom, and finding advocacy-as-science instead.

--97T--

Geof,

I may be all those names you call me, except I wasn't arguing with the formula. I was looking for evidence to support the extrapolations therefrom, and finding advocacy-as-science instead.

--97T--

What extrapolations? What is advocacy as science? As I said I was only commenting on the chemistry. If you are not arguing with the formula why are you arguing with me? If you accept the formulae then you are not denying it so I am not calling you names.

[QUOTE=fizzissist;249888]Software Says:
"It seems you don't even read the articles that you cite.

1) The "800" year lag
You keep pointing this out. But the article you cite says
[i]"Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data."

Yes, I did read the articles, AND the comments. And other discussions of the lag. (We all should note that RealClimate.org has a decided bias......"one tree ring a hockey stick doth make")

My question still stands....(I'm going to yell now, since I'm not getting through....)

WHAT INITIATED AND CONTINUED THE WARMING THAT LASTED FROM 600 TO 1000 YEARS BEFORE THE CO2 HAD IT'S EFFECT?????


Ok Fizz lets answer your question because that is the one you seem to be holding onto. Please look at the link below. There are 3 major reasons why this supposed "lag" is not much to hang to for you skeptics.
1) The measurements do over the period of the last 3 ice ages or so do not have a high temporaral resolution. So the margin of error over a 400,000+ year period is in the vicinity of 500 years or so. This means that 500-1000 years is perhaps not even outside the margin of error.
2) CO2 measurements are global whereas temperature measurements are local. As the temperatures do not warm/cool uniformly across the earth temperatures in one area can warm before CO2 globally starts to rise in a significant way.
3) However the major rebuttal to this "lag" is the amazing correlation between CO2 and temperature. Greenhouse gas theory predicts and the empirical evidence (see the chart) confirms. Just go visit Venus if you want to see what greenhouse gas will do. If you take your argument that CO2 is not primarily responsible then one would have to believe that temperature or some other factor (that science cannot yet explain) drives this direct correlation between temperature and CO2. There is zero evidence for some other factor driving this correlation.

http://www.noe21.org/dvd2/Global%20Warming%20FAQ%20-%A0%20temperature.htm

Also please backup your statement about realclimate.org being biased with credible information other than just you say so.

Tim

Geez Rhodan, I don't think you have to have a know about co-valent bonding, thermo, or ion-bonding, or the bond angle of the common dihydrogen monoxide molecule, to understand a politically motivated argument.

Yha, I may have a MSEE and my wife may have a PHD in Chemistry, but that doesn't mean anything. I know more PHD's than you can shake a stick at, but the smartest guy I know doesn't even have a degree.

I'd like someone to answer the earlier question, what's wrong with global warming? I mean, look what it's done for us, melted away the pesky glaciers, reduced heating bills in the north. What, did you already buy beach front property in Florida, and don't want to move north of the artic circle. You make it sound like there's some majic temperature where we all spontainously combust or something. Personally, I think humanity would suffer greater from a ice age than a slight warming trend. Bring on the CO2.

I'd like to see data that shows what percentage of responsiblity CO2 bears for the temperature increase, and what output reduction rate (of CO2) can reasonably be obtained, considering a growing world population rate; if we all buy into this.

Plus, do you realize what your advocating, Nuclear Energy. In the late 80's, that's what was going to end us all. And, don't go into photovoltaic, unless your perpared to demonstrate the total life cycle cost/damage of such a system.

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

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Gee. I didn't know yuz guys was so much smarter than me.

I'd bet you guys could even measure stuff like spectral dependence of the angular distributions of photoelectrons, when you cross a laser beam and a aluminum, phosphorus, or silicon anion (that's the negative one, I know, I Googled it..) beam and get single-photon detachment, and measure 'em at 5 discrete wavelengths too!

I'm certain I can ask Friedwardt Winterberg if he can explain the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to me.

So much to learn.....

Nobody has yet to answer this simple question:

IF global warming is real and the scientific proof is irrefutable...

What ACTION are you going to take to correct it?

One would think that the age old 'Chevy vs. Ford' type argument could be overshadowed by a SOLUTION. Despite all of the 'accredited' and 'non-accredited' intellectuals offering opposing points of view, nobody has posted a solution to this proposed global conundrum.

Why is that?

-B

http://www.junkscience.com/Ozone/ozone_seasonal.html

Hey I have a good one. About a year ago a guy was working for me (2nd generation hippy vegian). Nice guy, fun to debate with. Went to a some anti polution bike ride 10 miles from his house. Got in his 85 cutlass with a hopped up big block he rebuild. Chucked his bike in the back and parked 5 blocks away where nobody would see he drove pulled out the bike and went to the event. When he told me all I could do was laugh my butt off. He though I was being very harsh. I had to ask if that was like setting a brush fire to save the trees. Oh I forgot to tell you he has a leather coat. Don't ask about drugs it's ok to rip the environment to pieces for that purpose you know risk blowing up a neighbor hood to make Meth, you know all the safe gasses there are not hurting nothing. But God forbid you crush one styrofoam cup and destroy one cubic inch of ozone. I wait for the comments on this.

Rhodan,

Surely in all that education you mention, there was at least one class where a professor remarked that the burden of proof is on the one who posits a scenario, and that trying to prove a negative is a pointless exercise.

Pointing out that correlation does not necessarily imply causality, and pointing out that effects don't occur before the purported cause is not demagoguery. Pointing out that there is not enough information given to make a definitive conclusion is not the same as claiming it can't be true if someone doesn't understand it.

The accusations of demagoguery and arguing from a position of ignorance cut both ways.

Claiming that something is so complicated that it is beyond everyone else's understanding is a religious argument. It might intimidate most people into silence. But it should be used carefully -- if you fall for the premise that everyone else is irredeemably corrupt and stupid, you might run across someone who is not, leaving you vulnerable to the same attack -- and it is a singularly bad tactic for persuasion, convincing and impressing none but the most gullible.

It amounts to a personal attack instead of information and reasoning. How about we trade information and lines of reasoning instead?

We are all fallible, and that is all the more reason to be careful with epistemology, lest we make very expensive mistakes. At the least, we should be willing to share the information that leads us to our conclusions.

The argument from authority instead of reason always comes from 'the man behind the curtain'.

--97T--

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Ouch!

Great debate, guys!

Ninerseventango Wow my mouth wont stretch that far. I was trying to read what you said, and man...you know I move my lips when I read and well, first I tore my lip, and then I threw my jaw out! Canundrum..? is that a drum with a 40mm round in it. Ninerseventango I just had to add some fun. Don't take it personal I agree with you I think. Rekd I have strict rules on what goes in my sippy cup. W. C. Fields I drink nothing stroger than Gin before noon. Any thing more than that and my sippy cup melts.

Rhodan,

Surely in all that education you mention, there was at least one class where a professor remarked that the burden of proof is on the one who posits a scenario, and that trying to prove a negative is a pointless exercise.


Correct, and 20 years ago the scientific community said "Not enough proof". Today, thats turned around and the scientific community says "climate change is real and is most likely due to human activity.


Pointing out that correlation does not necessarily imply causality, and pointing out that effects don't occur before the purported cause is not demagoguery. Pointing out that there is not enough information given to make a definitive conclusion is not the same as claiming it can't be true if someone doesn't understand it.


Dismissing evidence out of hand then claiming there is not enough evidence to support the assertion and claiming that presenters of such evidence are politically, religiously, or financially motived for thier own gain is demagoguery.


The accusations of demagoguery and arguing from a position of ignorance cut both ways.

Claiming that something is so complicated that it is beyond everyone else's understanding is a religious argument. It might intimidate most people into silence. But it should be used carefully -- if you fall for the premise that everyone else is irredeemably corrupt and stupid, you might run across someone who is not, leaving you vulnerable to the same attack -- and it is a singularly bad tactic for persuasion, convincing and impressing none but the most gullible.

It amounts to a personal attack instead of information and reasoning. How about we trade information and lines of reasoning instead?


Show me where I said this is so complicated that it is beyond everyone elses understanding. I said no such thing. I said if someone didn't understand then they should either give the nod to those that do OR learn the topic themselves.


We are all fallible, and that is all the more reason to be careful with epistemology, lest we make very expensive mistakes. At the least, we should be willing to share the information that leads us to our conclusions.

The argument from authority instead of reason always comes from 'the man behind the curtain'.

--97T--


And for the other folks using the "if you're so much smarter than me then" dodge - show me where I said any such thing? If the word "ignorance" is confusing you, try looking it up at an online dictionary. Ignorance means lack of knowledge. Being ignorant of a topic means lack of knowledge of a topic and has nothing to do with lack of intelligence. If you choose to be insulted that is unfortunate but, that's your choice.

Nobody has yet to answer this simple question:

IF global warming is real and the scientific proof is irrefutable...

What ACTION are you going to take to correct it?

-B

In post 26 I implied an answer, which in my opinion is: Nothing because there is nothing I, you or anybody can do. Anybody who denies global warming is being foolish; the folks in the Northern States and Canada would be living under or above a few thousand feet of ice and Miami would be many many miles from the coast due to lowered sea levels if global warming had not occurred over the past many thousands of years. Yes it overshot around 5000 or 6000 years ago and then possibly went a bit lower than at present but oscillations in any complicated feedback system are not unusual.

Anybody who claims it is due to human activity and can be corrected by anything we do is dreaming.

Geof,
Thanks for chiming in...I forgot about the 'entertainment' aspect of this thread that to me, is analogous to coporate meetings I used to attend when I worked in the saltmines...I keep forgetting that most would rather whine, complain and just talk about problems rather than solving them, because they get something out of it...This is of course if the problem is actually solvable. Mountain climbing over molehills that we cannot change is just a waste of time.

I guess now that I run my own business, there is no time for peanut galleries...only time for solutions that work and taking action.

-B

...I guess now that I run my own business, there is no time for peanut galleries...only time for solutions that work and taking action....-B

If you only have time for solutions that work to quote Kipling 'you're a better man than me Gungha Din'. I always seem to find the time to come up with two or three solutions that don't work first. But I do find tme for peanut galleries.

Slow down.

Literally. High travel speeds waste energy stirring the air, and all for the sake of shortening the 'time dimension'.

Travel should be slow and leisurely, train systems reactivated, whatever it takes. Air travel should become rare if it cannot compete on an energy per pound-mile moved.

We all say "I can't afford to take x hours to get to work", or 3 days to get to my favourite vacation destination.

Maybe so in the old paradigm.

Maybe work 3 twelve hour days a week and that is it for travel for the sake of work.

Cut 7 day a week retail shopping back to 5: this "always open will make us more money" is a bullsh!t mentality that just encourages a lack of planning, wasted travel, and costs a lot of extra employee travel.

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

Great link. This helps me understand. But doesn't this run counter to your argument ... or "Did I miss something"? :)

Slow down.

Literally. High travel speeds waste energy stirring the air, and all for the sake of shortening the 'time dimension'.

Travel should be slow and leisurely, train systems reactivated, whatever it takes. Air travel should become rare if it cannot compete on an energy per pound-mile moved.

We all say "I can't afford to take x hours to get to work", or 3 days to get to my favourite vacation destination.

Maybe so in the old paradigm.

Maybe work 3 twelve hour days a week and that is it for travel for the sake of work.

Cut 7 day a week retail shopping back to 5: this "always open will make us more money" is a bullsh!t mentality that just encourages a lack of planning, wasted travel, and costs a lot of extra employee travel.

My time on this planet is short enough, I ain't gonna waste it travelling in the slow lane, I've got too much stuff I wanna do. :cool:

Scientific Consensus that global warming is anthropogenic?

Naomi Oreskes says there is:
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Benny Peiser (and Dennis Bray) say it ain't so:
RE: “The scientific consensus on climate change”
The letter Science Magazine refused to publish
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm

...A web site that says it's so:
http://www.realclimate.org/

...A web site that says it ain't:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/

I love this JunkScience site. Not too fond of Fox New per se, but...

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

Great link. This helps me understand. But doesn't this run counter to your argument ... or "Did I miss something"? :)

I can't figure that out.:confused:

The logic they display seems to be: Human generated CO2 is too insignificant to have any influence on global warming or the influence is negligible, therefore global warming is not occurring.

Which, when you think it through, is equally as arrogant as the 'Humans cause all bad things' side and equally unrealistic.

I watched a documentary program the other day where it was again stated that the USA accounts for 4% of the world's population and uses 26% of the annual global energy consumption. Some might say "well that's because we're more productive here in the US and to be more productive requires more energy consumption". The program went on to say that China has 1.5 billion people and a rapidly rising standard of living. Within the coming years, the average Chinese family will expect to have at least one car in the driveway or garage (as opposed to the 2 - 3 per family there are in the West). It is only fair that they have this however, the environment will not be able to withstand this. And this is only talking about China and doesn't take into account places such as India. I only bring up this up to show another point of view, that of the reporter/producer of the program.
By the way, Australia is the skin cancer capital of the world allegedly due to it being located directly under the hole in the Ozone layer. Me, I've had eight removed so far and was never a sun or beach person. The general public in Australia are convinced that the cause is the hole in the Ozone layer but who knows? In case you didn't notice, I purposely didn't add any personal opinions to the post.

Quote: "Human generated CO2 is too insignificant to have any influence on global warming or the influence is negligible, therefore global warming is not occurring."

I come to a different conclusion: It very well may be occurring but we can't do a thing about it because our contribution is so insignificant.

Greenland is named that because it was green when discovered during the last "global warming" episode peaking at 1,000 AD. The Little Ice Age that followed rendered it as we know it today.

Has anyone read anything good about global warming? No? I haven't either. I can with little effort imagine a few good consequences. How about a growing season extended by another 30 to 60 days at the high latitudes? An awful lot of land in the Northern Hemisphere would become arable.

Floods and droughts are threatened. How about instead what lies between those two extremes? The oracles that promise floods and droughts are the same ones that promised devestation for last years hurricane season.

Not all change is bad unless you are a pessemist or have a hidden political axe to grind.:-)

Mariss

My time on this planet is short enough, I ain't gonna waste it travelling in the slow lane, I've got too much stuff I wanna do. :cool:

That's an apt statement, Rekd. I imagine it sums up very succinctly why nothing is going to change unless it were actually possible to change human nature.

Skippy; regarding skin cancer and Sydney surely you have heard the Noel Coward song; "Mad Dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun". I guess it must also apply to Ozzies.

Mariss; I think even if it was caused by human activity it would not be possible to do anything within a generation or two. If human generated CO2 emissions stopped totally today there is certain to be a lag before the global system responded. And chances are doing something like this would cause a lot more disruption than adapting to changes that do occur with warming. Not to mention it would be a tad difficult to run CNC equipment without electricity.

Not to mention it would be a tad difficult to run CNC equipment without electricity.

Not to mention without people! If you stop all co2 production you would have to eliminate the people. Don't we breath out Co2?

I don't like that solution! :D

Not to mention without people! If you stop all co2 production you would have to eliminate the people. Don't we breath out Co2?

I don't like that solution! :D

Some people are so literal!!!!!

I do what I can! :bat: :cheers:

On reflection I realised that, of course, humans are not a net source of CO2. Everything humans exhale has been derived from CO2 fixed by plants from the atmosphere. Really humans are quite irrelevant; but there is a way in which humans could contribute to reducing emissions of green houses gases, on a very personal level. Recently there has been publicity about carbon sequestration and we can all do our little bit!!!! During human growth carbon is being sequestered within the human body; after death this carbon is released by decay or cremation. Overall no net effect, however if cremation was banned and burial was only permitted in a hermetically sealed crypt this carbon would not be released. Furthermore, because fat has a higher level of carbon per unit weight than carbohydrate or protein, it would become our patriotic duty to die as fat as possible. And since government grants and tax write-offs are a favourite way to encourage 'responsible' behaviour a system of grants payable to our heirs and dependent upon our weight at death could be instituted.

Just a modest proposal.

...it would become our patriotic duty to die as fat as possible...

Have you had a look around lately? Patriotism is at an all-time high...lol!

I love this JunkScience site. Not too fond of Fox New per se, but...

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

Milloy not only holds a B.A. in Natural Sciences, he also is (or has been) a lobbyist for Dow Chemical, The American Petroleum Institute, RJR Reynolds, and others. In fact, RJR Reynolds actually did revisions to his site themselves.

edit: Oops, missed a link Senate Lobbyist database (http://sopr.senate.gov/cgi-win/m_opr_viewer.exe?DoFn=3&LOB=MILLOY,%20STEVE&LOBQUAL==)

See Thier own activity report (http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/cgi/getdoc?tid=syq70d00&fmt=gif&ref=results&title=ACTIVITY%20REPORT.%20R.J.%20REYNOLDS%20TOBACCO%20CO.%20DECEMBER%201996%20(19961200).&bates=520526642/6643)

During his tenure as a fox pundit, he was also on RJR Reynolds payroll, a fact which Fox says he did not disclose. http://www.freepress.net/news/print.php?id=13581


Now, none of that means he is lying or even that he is wrong in his assertions. It could be that these companies are paying him in order to help with his research. But myself, I'll be taking anything he says with a large dose of salt and if it comes down to a contest between a government funded non-partisan research group and Mr. Milloy, I'll have to side with those that aren't being paid by those with vested interest in the status quo.

Nobody has yet to answer this simple question:

IF global warming is real and the scientific proof is irrefutable...

What ACTION are you going to take to correct it?

One would think that the age old 'Chevy vs. Ford' type argument could be overshadowed by a SOLUTION. Despite all of the 'accredited' and 'non-accredited' intellectuals offering opposing points of view, nobody has posted a solution to this proposed global conundrum.

Why is that?

-B

I'm doing what I know how to do.

- I drive the best mileage vehicle I could afford (transit is not an option for me since my employer requires me to use my own vehicle).
- I actually use the recyling program my city has in place.
- I replaced my furnace (~76% efficient) with a high efficiency furnace a few years ago (~88%). I would have gone for a condensing furnace had I known they existed at the time. This replacement wasn't voluntary really, my crawlspace flooded and the controller board fried. It was either pay out ~$300 to get the old one fixed or spring for the high efficiency.
- I replaced just about all my incandescent bulbs with compact flourescents
- I replaced my standard thermostat with a programmable one and run the house at 62F overnight and during the day when we're at work.
- I finally replaced my CRT monitor with an LCD monitor

That is what I have done so far. In the future, I plan on adding Solar panels to supplement my grid power. This isn't just because of climate change though, there is an ulterior motive. My province is hell bent on privatizing our hydro-electric system and the cost per gigawatt is going to rise at least fourfold(according to the people who want to run it) and as much as 14x (according to those that oppose privatization). Either way, solar panels become economically viable.

Rhodan says: "I'll have to side with those that aren't being paid by those with vested interest in the status quo."

Perhaps we should keep in mind that there are financial interests in climate alarmism too......

"...The financial backing for the issuing and verification of these forecasts has in part been supported by the National Science Foundation and by the Research Foundation of Lexington Insurance Company (a member of the American International Group). We also thank the GeoGraphics Laboratory at Bridgewater State College for their assistance in developing the Landfalling Hurricane Probability Webpage...."
http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/Forecasts/2006/dec2006/

Don't suppose you'd like to show us what AIG's net Q3 profits were in '04, '05, and '06???? (a period that includes Katrina payouts)

Anyone viewing that resides in FLA? You're familiar with the current efforts by the Florida gov't to curb hurricane insurance rates that have increased between 10 and 40% (according to AIG's own releases).

It seems that the more extreme the forthcoming hurricane predictions are, the higher the justification for raising rates. And that's exactly what the insurance companies have done. EvilBigOil isn't the only outfit with a vested interest in a preferred outcome in the research.

edit: This just in TODAY..
TALLAHASSEE -- Florida adopted an emergency order today freezing home insurance rates and preventing policy cancellations and nonrenewals.

The order was sought by Gov. Charlie Crist, who contended insurers would attempt to thwart legislation he signed last week the tightens regulation of state insurers while making the state's insurance pool, Citizens Property Insurance, competitive.....
http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070130/INSURANCEPROJECT/70130023/1003

Fizz writes:
Meanwhile, my question of the initiation of the warming that lasts 600-1000yrs after the end of an ice age that has lasted some 80,000 ( That's EIGHTY THOUSAND ) years....in a cycle that supposedly takes 5000yrs....still stands unexplained. So far, the only explanation given seems to be having to do with the thermohaline cycle. I'm not buying it.[/QUOTE]


I answered this yesterday but Fizz seems to ignore the answer and keep posting the question. So I guess I'll keep posting the answer.

There are 3 major reasons why this supposed "lag" is not much to hang on to for you skeptics.

1) The measurements over the period of the last 3 ice ages or so do not have a high temporaral resolution. So the margin of error over a 400,000+ year period is in the vicinity of 500 years or so. This means that 500-1000 years is perhaps not even outside the margin of error.
2) In the studies that authors usually make it clear that CO2 measurements are global whereas temperature measurements are local. In a rising CO2 environment the earth does not warm uniformly - at least over a shorter term. For instance (as what happened when we came out of the last ice age) ocean currents changed for a period of time and Europe actually cooled again before it again resumed warming.
3) However the major rebuttal to this "lag" is the amazing correlation between CO2 and temperature. Greenhouse gas theory predicts and the empirical evidence (see the chart) confirms. Just go visit Venus if you want to see what greenhouse gas will do. If you take your argument that CO2 is not primarily responsible then one would have to believe that temperature or some other factor (that science cannot yet explain) drives this direct correlation between temperature and CO2. There is zero evidence for some other factor driving this correlation. Of course the skeptics don't need science to back up their claims.

Tim

I don't know what to think about this debate. It reminds me of Mass Hysteria (http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-05/delusions.html) of things past. Whether it is an Inconvenient Coincidence, or Truth seems for the most part to belief by faith. Since all the Science and World Historians have yet to get so many to comprehend core Biblical teachings, let alone secularists to even look at them for fear of being judged, damned or offended.

http://www.cnczone.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=30679&d=1170219041

I couldn't help but get a chuckle out of the word Demagogue and the resulting definition. Everything this man says seems to exude with "playing on our fears!" or braggadocios zealotry. It's not like they picked the most credible spokesman for the cause! Selected as the Neo-Lefts Prophet now is he?


For now, I'd just as soon see where this goes. It's not like commerce is going to stop for a warming trend. Only time will tell when we are all long gone who was right. The trend started years ago, so even if it was all stopped today, my tomorrows won't look any better during my life time.

This whole issue has become the next hate mongering no different than any other pro/anti-whatever. Both sides will still beat each other over the head with facts and figures, then go do totally unnecessary fun things, as if it is not their immediate problem.

Kinda like the useless burning of power to discuss global warming?:bs:

DC

Mariss writes:
Greenland is named that because it was green when discovered during the last "global warming" episode peaking at 1,000 AD. The Little Ice Age that followed rendered it as we know it today.


This is where your statements get a bit dangerous. I hope you are not implying that Greenland had no ice when it was "discovered". Greenland's ice sheet is a mile thick the interior and it has been around for tens of thousands of years.

Has anyone read anything good about global warming? No? I haven't either. I can with little effort imagine a few good consequences. How about a growing season extended by another 30 to 60 days at the high latitudes? An awful lot of land in the Northern Hemisphere would become arable.


Well let me think. What is the population of the Yukon or Siberia where all this benefit will come? A few million people? The amount of people that might be flooded out of their homes in Bangladesh along would dwarf this number.

Floods and droughts are threatened. How about instead what lies between those two extremes? The oracles that promise floods and droughts are the same ones that promised devestation for last years hurricane season.


No one promised devastation from the last Hurricane season - at least no serious scientist that I know of. Where are you getting your information. I bet you don't even know why the hurricane season of 2006 was so subdued.

Sorry Tim, but even Jeff Severinghaus, Professor of Geosciences Scripps Institution of Oceanography University of California, San Diego disagrees with you on this point.

He acknowledges the lag, and even offers an explanation.

And he's even on your side.

i find it funny that every conspiracy theory revolves around money and power
has everyone underestimated the power of the extremist groups , in particular the tofu , grass eating frog licking tree huggers , their whole tactic is fear mongering ,the pure destruction of the earth the endangered lists environmental issues , they feed on that stuff ,
when they claim to have scientific evidence and get backing from some of the many groups like green peace , david suzuki foundation etc ,they can create a whirlwind , and the media loves an underdog

i don t beleave any of the conspiracy crap ,probably because i'm not paranoid !!
if i did ,i would say its the environmentalists !!

i never took global warming seriously or even gave it a thought until now ,
but i find the literature to be interesting and somewhat convincing ,
much more so than the thought some fat cats are rubbing their hands together conspiring on how to make their next million bucks off faking global warming ,
though i beleave the hogs are feeding from many other troughs they shouldn t be

Quote:

"Just go visit Venus if you want to see what greenhouse gas will do. If you take your argument that CO2 is not primarily responsible then one would have to believe that temperature or some other factor (that science cannot yet explain) drives this direct correlation between temperature and CO2."

Ah,.. How about that Venus being 67 million miles from the sun gets nearly twice (1.92) the solar radiation the earth does at 93 million miles?

Mariss

Sorry Tim, but even Jeff Severinghaus, Professor of Geosciences Scripps Institution of Oceanography University of California, San Diego disagrees with you on this point.

He acknowledges the lag, and even offers an explanation.

And he's even on your side.

Can you please post a link to his paper that talks about this? I would like to read it.

Quote:

"Just go visit Venus if you want to see what greenhouse gas will do. If you take your argument that CO2 is not primarily responsible then one would have to believe that temperature or some other factor (that science cannot yet explain) drives this direct correlation between temperature and CO2."

Ah,.. How about that Venus being 67 million miles from the sun gets nearly twice (1.92) the solar radiation the earth does at 93 million miles?

Mariss

Well unfortunately 1.92x time radiation does not explain why the average temperature on the surface of Venus is 855 F right? If it was only the solar radiation it would be say 120 F. So I think you helped make my point here :-)

Tim,
Actually, Mariss is closer than you are on this. Dahl-Jensen et al. (1998), Lassen et al. (2004), Chylek et al. (2004), Taurisano et al. (2004), and Hanna and Cappelen (2003) all discuss Greenland's climate history. Greenland does have a big bunch 'o ice that's been around for a real long time.....but Vikings had farms there not all that long ago (geologically speaking).

I get Mariss' point, and you're just being picky. Like the point about "devastation". The prediction of landfall hurricanes for the '06 season (contained quite coincidentally in the link of one of my recent posts) does, in itself, infer devastation.

The devastation is what justifies higher premiums. But you knew that, right?

Tim,
Actually, Mariss is closer than you are on this. Dahl-Jensen et al. (1998), Lassen et al. (2004), Chylek et al. (2004), Taurisano et al. (2004), and Hanna and Cappelen (2003) all discuss Greenland's climate history. Greenland does have a big bunch 'o ice that's been around for a real long time.....but Vikings had farms there not all that long ago (geologically speaking).

I get Mariss' point, and you're just being picky. Like the point about "devastation". The prediction of landfall hurricanes for the '06 season (contained quite coincidentally in the link of one of my recent posts) does, in itself, infer devastation.

The devastation is what justifies higher premiums. But you knew that, right?

I don't see how Mariss is "closer" at all. I'm sure around the time of the Viking landings there was nice green parts along the coast and perhaps inland a bit. However Greenland is huge and even at that time well over 90% of the landmass was covered with ice.

The initial prediction of land falling hurricanes for the 2006 season - which was not that large of a number - was made by William Gray. He does this every year and he is infact an ardent skeptic of global warming. So if you are implying that a leading global warming skeptic was being an alarmist that seems strange. BTW, most scientists think Dr. Gray is a 70 year old nut.

Tim

How sad you don't remember your own posts.

Let me give you a hint.....From YOUR post....."Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no."

the link is in my post, #94

If you're really clever, you'll put 2 & 2 together.

BTW, most scientists think Dr. Gray is a 70 year old nut.


LOL!!!
My point exactly...on a couple of fronts.

Apparently the largest insurance company in the world, whether they thought he is/was a nut or not was perfectly content with his research efforts for the '06 hurricane season.

Previously, in YOUR post #101:
It seems you don't even read the articles that you cite.

1) The "800" year lag
You keep pointing this out. But the article you cite says
[i]"Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming."

You seem to confuse yourself with multiple....and conflicting arguments. You take Jeff's explanation to counter my argument, then later you give an explanation contrary to your own, AND JEFF'S earlier explanation.

....and apparently, you don't even read the articles YOU cite!!!

Which is it, Tim? Do you even have a clue what you're talking about???

1) Greenland was certainly green enough to sustain settlements for several hundred years (medival warming period 800 - 1300) before the Little Ice Age (1400 - 1850) made them uninhabitable. Greenland was not named "Greenland" as real-estate scam to fool settlers into migrating there.

Greenland ice cap core samples go back over 400,000 years, not "tens of thousands of years".

2) So, millions of newly verdant and fertile square kilometers will lie fallow? Only the occasional Siberian, Inuit and Sierra Club member will notice? We sattelites to catch that kind of oversight now.

Meanwhile millions in Bangladesh will drown because it will never occur to any of them to move? How many millions drowned when the seas rose at the end of the last Ice Age to cover the land bridge between Siberia and Alaska and all else that are shallow seas now (up to 120 meters deep)?

The sea level rose 120 meters in the past 12,000 years as the Ice Age ended. If all the ice left today were to melt, the seas would rise only another 60 meters.

3) Google "Dr. William Gray". Add him to the list of "serious scientists you know".

The eminent scientist Al Gore took Dr. Gray's predictions for the 2006 season and made the vital connection to global warming in speech to the Sierra Club in Sept 2005 saying "Now, the scientific community is warning us that the average hurricane will continue to get stronger because of global warming."

Just a little more "dangerous misinformation".:-)

Mariss

"BTW, most scientists think Dr. Gray is a 70 year old nut."

Aw jeez.. That is exactly what I'm talking about, a perfect example of the politicization of science into junk-science. An ad-hominem attack on anyone considered a heretic to the "true religion", a belief science is consensus instead of objective reality and a hostility to any opinion that is contrary to dogma.

Would you have applied the same quote to Einstein? He was an independent thinker too. Would you have gleefully tormented Galileo and Copernicus were you to have lived then?

I am truly afraid of the leftist's dedication to the goal of debasing science and oppressing free thought in the pursuit of knowledge. The Court of the Inquisition had the power to make Galileo recant on pain of death. I suspect that power would be excercised as well were it available today. The mindset is already there amongst the zealots and their adherents.

Mariss

I wonder. I read alot of stuff here about conspericy's, if it's true or not.
And i just have seen the movie by all gore the other day.

Is it that bad just to live a little greener?
I (think) the reason of this sub forum should be sharing our "greener" cutting oil, less energy using drivers, optimizing (= make cheaper!) the G code to produce a part... Instead of debating wheater if it's true or not.

Reply to the navy guy who thinks brand names can be substitted for the correct name (intelligently).

My point is that Freon has mistakenly become a common name by those that don't know any better. Much in the same way ski doo has been misused. They are both brand names... not the correct name for the product.


John

Try me pinheads. How arogant do you have to be to assume that you would be the only one capable of understanding your explanation?

I am quite confident that the refusal to back up your position is a not to cleverly deguised attempt to hide the fact the you can not!


John

Hrm.

government funded non-partisan research group and

Thanks for this; I nominate it for the phrase of the day.

I'll have to side with those that aren't being paid by those with vested interest in the status quo.

When did 'science as handmaiden of the state' become impartial?

--97T--

Over 17,200 Holes In The Consensus

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

Over 17,200 scientists were willing to publicly sign this petition.

Perhaps the overwhelming consensus in the 'scientific community' is obtained by only counting the ones who get paid to advocate the Official State Truth.

(The above is for those who believe in Truth By Consensus or Truth By Authority of Lettered Men.)

--97T--

How do you tell when a politician is lying?

Answer: When his lips are moving!


How do you tell when a study (scientific or otherwise) is true?

answer: When you read it and find out what they were really studying and if their study proves there conclusion! (better be able to understand the technical jargon or you will be lost)

You can slant most studies to read anyway you want them too, the trick to reading them is in the details.

Poor studies are like the example in the elementary school textbook for physics that shows a Martian watching cavemen burning logs, then makes the deduction that all cylindrical objects burn.

While the conclusion isn't unfounded that Martian didn't have enough details to support the conclusion. And this is the problem with most non-scientific studies and even some of the more scientific ones that I've seen.

Global warming yes or no, or Ozone hole getting bigger yes or no, may not be the question that needs answering.

I was treating all this controversey quite flippantly, stirring the pot now and then to have a bit of fun BUT THIS IS SERIOUS.

Frog population declines continue
Amphibian mortality linked to climate change

David Strauth, Oregon State University, 04/04/01


CORVALLIS, Ore. - Toad embryos in the Cascade Range of Oregon appear to be dying due to a chain of events that's ultimately linked to climate change, a new study suggests, demonstrating both the importance of large-scale global trends and the complexity of their impact on individual species.

The report by scientists from Oregon State University and Pennsylvania State University will be published Thursday in the journal Nature.

It traces one link to another in a pattern that begins in the southern Pacific Ocean and ultimately results in masses of dead, rotting toad eggs in a small alpine lake many thousands of miles away, which are those of an amphibian species in decline.

"This study suggests a causal explanation for problems with one amphibian species in the mountains of Oregon," said Andrew Blaustein, a professor of zoology at Oregon State University. "But in a larger sense it shows that if we want to understand the complex ecology of the world around us, we must start looking at the big picture. There will not be simple or easy answers for all of our problems." ....

From: http://www.anapsid.org/frogdecline.html

Jim Henson tried to warn us...Could Doc Hopper and the 'Frog Killer' be euphemisms for global warming? :)

Kermit never shoulda driven to Costa Rica.

“Widespread Amphibian Extinctions from Epidemic Disease Driven by Global Warming,” by J. Alan Pounds

There ya have it. Proof.

Almost.......

He doesn't address the probable introduction of the chytrid fungus by researchers, eco-tourist, exploration crews, etc.,... and the temperature range he offers was a smooth transition and not all that large, which amphibians are actually rather adept at adjusting to....

Patrick Michaels, in his book Meltdown, addresses the issue of the 'declining' frogs.

Honest, Geof, you can relax a little. You'll still have plenty of frogs.

The climate has change continuously for millenia, with temps going up and down....and we've still got frogs.

I'm personally more concerned about the impact of our pollution (with CO2 emissions being rather low on the list) on frog, butterfly (oh lookey! we found a NEW hybrid species in the Sierra!!), rat, and (insert favorite warm and fuzzy creature here...) populations.

We've found MTBE in alpine lakes where there was NO motorized anything. How'd it get there????

Again, I'm not claiming that the earth isn't experiencing a net increase in temp....I am claiming that it's net increase from CO2 AGW is negligible. We need to be focusing on land use, and the vast array of other pollutants we're spewing.

...Honest, Geof, you can relax a little. You'll still have plenty of frogs...

But Australia won't have a Barrier Reef!!!!!:eek: I read it in today's newspaper.

Global Cool's Dan Morrell says:

"....Over the next 10 years he hopes to motivate up to one billion people to get into the often routine business of saving energy and so cutting carbon emissions, by such means as turning off televisions and mobile phone rechargers."
http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&subsection=United+Kingdom+%26+Europe&month=January2007&file=World_News2007013113242.xml

Dammit! I've been trying to save the planet by using soup cans and waxed string.....but global warming is MELTING MY STRING!!!!

I read somewhere that the average adult watches 6 to 8hrs of TV a DAY...that is pretty sick when you think about it. Plus, how many (edit) have to have a BIG TV for nothing more than bragging rights...Go buy a better pair of glasses & get a freakin' hobby!!!

-B

Your so called levity and and confrontational posts only make you appear closed minded and hurt any rational argument that you may have. Right or wrong global warming is at least something that may need to be studied. I prefer to err on the side of caution and try to reduce my carbon emmisions.

For those of you that are genuine about reducing your carbon emissions......use the internet less.

Since methane is >an order of magnitude more powerful a greenhouse gas....stop farting. Do your part.


As for me, I bought a 40"LCD TV, but by moving my couch from 11ft awy to 8ft away, I've DOUBLED the apparent viewing size, saving myself thousands of dollars, and the planet at the same time!!

Global Cool's Dan Morrell says:

"....Over the next 10 years he hopes to motivate up to one billion people to get into the often routine business of saving energy and so cutting carbon emissions, by such means as turning off televisions and mobile phone rechargers."
http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&subsection=United+Kingdom+%26+Europe&month=January2007&file=World_News2007013113242.xml

Dammit! I've been trying to save the planet by using soup cans and waxed string.....but global warming is MELTING MY STRING!!!!

Are you getting better reception with waxed string? I've been using regular string.

Each spring, a fresh new coat of antenna wax on my 80/40 fan dipole!!!

(NO parafin [don't wanna support Big Oil].....only the finest organic beeswax!!)

...(NO parafin [don't wanna support Big Oil].....only the finest organic beeswax!!)

You do of course walk or ride bicycle everywhere and use only the best lubricants derived from jojoba oil (gotta save thos sperm whales).

Frog population declines continue
Amphibian mortality linked to climate change

David Strauth, Oregon State University, 04/04/01

CORVALLIS, Ore. - Toad embryos in the Cascade Range of Oregon appear to be dying due to a chain of events that's ultimately linked to climate change, a new study suggests, demonstrating both the importance of large-scale global trends and the complexity of their impact on individual species....

...It traces one link to another in a pattern that begins in the southern Pacific Ocean and ultimately results in masses of dead, rotting toad eggs in a small alpine lake many thousands of miles away, which are those of an amphibian species in decline.....

From: http://www.anapsid.org/frogdecline.html

The authors suggest the frequency of El Nino has been altered by AGW, and is causing the demise of toads in the Pac. Northwest....and the world. This is based on insufficient rainfall for the eggs to be shielded from UV-B radiation by water depth.

One minor problem with the theory.....the rainfall in Oregon for the period of study...and the rainfall for the period from 1890-2002 as published by NOAA.

Here's the statewide....
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2002/dec/Reg035Dv00Elem01_12122002_pg.gif

In fact, the trend during the Oct-March period from 1910-~2000 in the Cascade Mountains is positive.

So, why didn't the frogs reach extinction after the protracted dry spells of the '30s and '40s????

In the case of Pound's Costa Rican frogs, the population decline was attributed to the wrong human activity. Pounds, Fodgen, and Campbell
used the "lifting cloud base hypothesis" (approved by Stephen Schneider...you remember him?) to correlate cloud cover (using infamously poor GCMs that don't even have realistic clouds!) and the decline.

It was human activity allright. It was deforestation for farmland.
(if anyone cares to argue the point, just remind me to look at pg. 91....)

The Golden Toad was replaced with carrots. Or whatever the hell they grow in Costa Rica.

My personal "global warming" favorite was a AP headline about a week ago that screamed "Global Warming Linked to Increased Suicide Rates". I'm sorry; I couldn't stop laughing long enough to actually read that drivel.

My previous favorite was "Global Warming Can Lead to New Ice Age" Same excuse; I couldn't stop laughing long enough to read that either. I did enjoy the unintentional irony though.

What's next? "Global Warming Linked to Acne"? "Child Molester Uses Global Warming Defence"? "Leftists Linked to Global Warming"?

Well, the last one is true enough and it made me suddenly stop laughing.

Mariss

http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/causes04.jsp

It's supposed to be below zero here this weekend -- I think I'll have a burger for lunch today, to do my part.

--97T--

Edit -- maybe we could hang little lanterns on the cows to act as a pilot light. Oh, then we'd have CO2. Oh, well. I guess it's life that's the problem, not which life form.

....My previous favorite was "Global Warming Can Lead to New Ice Age" Same excuse; I couldn't stop laughing long enough to read that either. I did enjoy the unintentional irony though....
Mariss

Back in the 1950s the Soviets had a proposal to spread coal dust on the Arctic sea ice to melt it faster so they could have a longer shipping season to Murmansk. I seem to remember it created quite a controversy because back then one postulated trigger for Ice Ages was greatly increased snow fall in northern latitudes as a result of more open water or the complete lack of Arctic ice cover. A mechanism somewhat analogous to the 'lake effect' that is noticed downwind of the Great Lakes where the wind picks up moisture passing over the open water. In the Arctic prevailing winds blow toward the surrounding land. There was a hypothesis that Ice Ages had been triggered on a continual basis by this mechanism: Warm flow from the Gulf Stream passes under the ice and gradually melts it away. This results in increased snow fall in northern latitudes; so much that it does not all melt during the summer and gradually accumulates. This increases the albedo of the Earth resulting in global cooling. The northward flow of warm water slows allowing the Arctic sea ice to reform, cutting off the source of moisture for the enhanced snowfall and gradually everything melts away and the cycle repeats.

Considering that it is fairly well established that the Arctic sea ice is thinning and there is more open water persisting later in the year in these areas we might find out in a few decades whether there was any merit at all in this mechanism. It is not yet proven that the quote Mariss shows is wrong.

And to save someone telling me that the current theory about recurring Ice Ages is based on Milankovitch cycles and that the sequence that seems to have started millions of years ago might have been initiated by the closing of the Darien Gap and that the migration of the Antarctic Continent to its present position of thermal isolation from the rest of the globe may have had some effect also I will conclude this overly long sentence and say save yourself some time and effort.

Whether the climate changes we are currently experiencing is caused by us humans or not, is to me pretty irrelevant (not to the discussion at hand, but keep reading).

Everybody can acknowledge that pollution is bad, and is destroying our way of life at an accelerating pace. Why bother bickering over whether climate changes is our fault? I say let's jump on the global warming bandwagon for all that it's worth, and make the general public as environmentally minded as possible. -There can't possibly be any downside to this.



Say yes to Thorium power plants, and no to DRM.:)

Whether the climate changes we are currently experiencing is caused by us humans or not, is to me pretty irrelevant (not to the discussion at hand, but keep reading).

Everybody can acknowledge that pollution is bad, and is destroying our way of life at an accelerating pace. Why bother bickering over whether climate changes is our fault? I say let's jump on the global warming bandwagon for all that it's worth, and make the general public as environmentally minded as possible. -There can't possibly be any downside to this.



Say yes to Thorium power plants, and no to DRM.:)

If you don't mind sacrificing everything in the name of something we know nothing about, go for it.

Me? I'll continue doing a little here and there, but I'm not about to change my entire lifestyle and spend all my money on something like this when it's painfully obvious we don't know the cause or effect, or even if we can do anything about it.

And I damn sure ain't going to give those money hungry grubs more money for something they're clearly lying about. Lying about the cause and effect, I mean, not that it's actually happening. I don't doubt it's happening. I do doubt why, and to what effect.

...And say NO to football!!!

"...Power for the game and fuel for generators at the adjacent NFL Experience Super Bowl theme park, along with its more than 1,200 vehicles, will emit about 500 tons of CO2 on Super Bowl Sunday, according to the U.S. Oak Ridge National Laboratory..."
http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_read.asp?id=121659212007

...And say NO to football!!!

"...Power for the game and fuel for generators at the adjacent NFL Experience Super Bowl theme park, along with its more than 1,200 vehicles, will emit about 500 tons of CO2 on Super Bowl Sunday, according to the U.S. Oak Ridge National Laboratory..."
http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_read.asp?id=121659212007

I'm going to turn on every light and TV in the house for the game, and flush every toilet every 5 minutes during halftime. :D

OH NO!!!!
You're going to kill all the unicorns!!!

Wait!

their already dead!

must have happened at a previous super bowl event!

Wait!

their already dead!

must have happened at a previous super bowl event!

You're wrong!


It's "they're" not "thier" :D

Roflmao!!!!

Wait!

their already dead!

must have happened at a previous super bowl event!

They pined away because they couldn't find any virgins.

If you don't mind sacrificing everything in the name of something we know nothing about, go for it.

Me? I'll continue doing a little here and there, but I'm not about to change my entire lifestyle and spend all my money on something like this when it's painfully obvious we don't know the cause or effect, or even if we can do anything about it.

And I damn sure ain't going to give those money hungry grubs more money for something they're clearly lying about. Lying about the cause and effect, I mean, not that it's actually happening. I don't doubt it's happening. I do doubt why, and to what effect.

I ain't talking about sacrificing everything - a little here and there is better than nothing - and pretty much all i do.

What scares me though, is that a lot of the sceptics on here seem to have an attitude that say "Until it's proven I ain't doing nothing different". Altough very adept at rhetorics and logic, they seem to forget that the scientific method can't really prove anything, only disprove.

And now for a little rant (with overtones of "doing my part"):
My government (Norway), along with most other countries in the world, (save maybe India some time in the future) refuses to see the point of investing in research into Thorium power plants - I mean this is the sh|t.
The quantitys known in Norway alone could probably power the world for decades or more - not to talk about the bucketloads of it known in India and the US. It can even burn nuclear waste to the point it will only have to be stored for a fraction of the time associated with nuclear power at present. Also Thorium is about 250 times more efficient with respect to the amount of waste actually produced.
On top of that it's a completely stable process, that can be shut down at any point. Estimated price tag for researching the needed substance to hold liquid lead at 700deg C and more efficient and larger cyclotrons: 0.5 bill Euro (~0.6 bill $) Sure it's a lot, but it's gotta be worth it.

On a completely unrelated note:
Remember to say no to all Digital Rights Management-schemes - or we'll all regret it in a decade. This paradigm shift in consumer technology is taking place NOW, and if the big bucks get it the way they want it will be to late in few years.

Google both, and spread the word. :)

As you can probably guess these are the two thoughts dominating my mind as of late.

edit: typos and clarity

From message 186: "It is not yet proven that the quote Mariss shows is wrong."

You can see where this creates a real problem; if the quote is correct then the conclusion drawn is greenhouse gasses cause global cooling. I'd hate to be the salesman that has to sell that idea; greenhouse gasses cause global warming and global cooling.

Reminds me of the movie "Chinatown" where Faye Dunaway says while Jack Nicholson is slapping her "She's my sister! She's my daughter!" This causes the same cognative dissonance.

Mariss

From message 186: "It is not yet proven that the quote Mariss shows is wrong."

You can see where this creates a real problem; if the quote is correct then the conclusion drawn is greenhouse gasses cause global cooling. I'd hate to be the salesman that has to sell that idea; greenhouse gasses cause global warming and global cooling.

Reminds me of the movie "Chinatown" where Faye Dunaway says while Jack Nicholson is slapping her "She's my sister! She's my daughter!" This causes the same cognative dissonance.

Mariss

No cognitive dissonance needed if you are of the opinion that (added, i.e. human generated) greenhouses gases don't have a significant effect.

Rolf,
There are many tongue in cheek comments on here that don't necessarily represent the true pulse of what people really think, and more importantly what they really do. Generally speaking, people do the best that they can...take a look at food for instance. People thought organic food was for granola munching hippies, but most of the better supermarkets are moving in this direction...Why? Because the food tastes cleaner/better, they don't pollute the water with chemicals and humans reduce the number of chemicals that we put in our bodies...It's a start in the right direction.

Alternatives to the internal combustion engine & power generation...I'm all ears. I used to work for a leading solar cell manufacturer...and came to the realization that it wasn't getting cheap enough to fully embrace for years to come. Changes ARE being made. Motor vehicle emissions are a FRACTION of what they were 20yrs ago. At 1st I thought a catalytic converter was a joke, but guess what, I kinda like not having my eyes burn at a stop light with the windows down...plus since switching to unleaded, our water supplies are not teaming with lead runoff. Now if we can just get these animals to stop flouridating our water supply in justification for dumping their flouride industrial wastes, we'd really be getting somewhere.

There are ANY NUMBER OF ARGUMENTS/ISSUES equally important or relevant to the well being of all us 'earthers' (earthling is an alien condescending term BTW...call yourself what you will)...GW is just ONE of the issues. If you look at YOUR average life, ask yourself what YOU can give up. Personally, I life a simple life and try to be as frugal and sensible as I can. I think a lot of us do. The Escalade dub sportin' MTV FANTASY lifestyle isn't REAL (at least it wasn't real until wannabees believed it was)...and we are ALL working hard, doing the best we can to fulfill our dreams while doin' our time here on this rock. If we COULD do better, we would. There simply isn't the time, energy or thought process to do any better OR WE WOULD. Think about this, before the little voice in your head interjects with something like: "...yeah but it isn't me being wasteful/polluting etc...it's THOSE people!"

Some think that we should turn off all the lights...and live an 'organic life'...yeah right mmm-kay put down the pipe. Very few people on this rock would be willing to give up all of the modern conveniences to go back to a 'green' lifestyle. You'd be so busy chopping wood, tending to the garden and riding the bicycle to generate power that your whole life would become about survival with ZERO time for spiritual, technological or social experience or advancement. Contrary to popular belief, we are not just here to consume, pop out a couple of kids and look forward to 'retirement'...No religion in what I just said either. So just because I don't believe that global warming is a REAL phenomenon, doesn't mean that I don't have respect for the earth and my fellow man. If you really want to make the world a better place, start by being an example. WE make up the population and believe it or not, WE the people make the choices as to whether we want to participate in the latest 'drama' or alarmist perspective or not. You change things by ACTION not by complaining about them or pointing the finger at someone else.

As far as DRM schemes go...if we weren't so greedy, they wouldn't have to implement them. While I hate the idea of it as a customer, I like the idea when it comes to selling my training materials. Imagine seeing your hard work uploaded to eDonkey and downloaded by unpaying customers. If that's one way you make a living, it's not so fun when the shoe is on the other foot, is it? But...I doubt that there will be any technology that a human can create that a bunch of us can't hack or break down. Long live the hackers!

Mariss
I wonder how many people had to look up the term cognitive dissonance...

-B

You're wrong!


It's "they're" not "thier" :D


I aint no learned person! I an just a hillbilly! :D:D:D

Rolf,
can...take a look at food for instance. People thought organic food was for granola munching hippies, but most of the better supermarkets are moving in this direction...Why? Because the food tastes cleaner/better, they don't pollute the water with chemicals and humans reduce the number of chemicals that we put in our bodies...It's a start in the right direction.

-B

now we get into con game money grabs , organic food ! to even use the term organic is rediculous ,i can understand people don t want pesticides ,but fertilizer's are made from what? organic materials , seaweed is one of the best for consentrated fertilizers , fish emulsions etc ,fertilizers are consentrated nutrients ,
also "true hippies" aren t granola munchers and they like to grow their finest herbs with "organic" fertilizers

organic food is more for the self rightous yuppie

organic food is more for the self rightous yuppie

Maybe so, but if your taste buds can't tell the difference, then...ya don't need it! :)

Maybe so, but if your taste buds can't tell the difference, then...ya don't need it! :)

it s more the strain that is grown than than anything , most foods that are in the stores are highbids which are designed to grow fast ,most times sacrificing the flavour for quick growing bulky food ,
which still can t justify so called organics
beef that is chained by it s neck and feed grain all day isn t going to compare to a cow thats at pasture , till its shot out in the field and gutted
how do you justify calling the later organic
best steaks ive ever eaten were off the family's farms

theres a definite difference between mass produced and quality produced foods ,
it just doesn t make one organic and one not
rocks are inorganic

Wasn't even thinking of the beef...was thinking about vegetables...I agree, homegrown is the best. :) Organic beef (since you don't know the difference) is certified not to be raised with steroid injections, antibody injections and all other kinds of nasties that screw with your body. I didn't say 'free-range', I said organic. There is a difference in quality of the product and defintely in the taste...but you can't be eating McDonalds and slurp down diet soda if you expect to be able to taste it.

Some like ribeye...some like filet mignon. It's just a matter of choice...and I am glad that there is a choice.

-B

There's two things money can't buy. True love, and home growed tomatoes.

"The first law of physics: Anything fun costs at least 8 bucks."
--Cartman

homegrown is the best. :) -B

are we talking about herbs again:D

Organic beef (since you don't know the difference) is certified not to be raised with steroid injections, antibody injections -B


i know the difference i just wasn t going to keep rambling

I ain't talking about sacrificing everything - a little here and there is better than nothing - and pretty much all i do.

Oops, my bad. I thought when you said

I say let's jump on the global warming bandwagon for all that it's worth,

..that you really meant "for all it's worth". :drowning:

Organically fertilized produce just made a whole lot of people sick. Although it was unintentionally fertilized that way.

It's modern chemistry that allows us to have clean fertilizer on a tremendously huge scale.

Pesticides are a boon to mankind as well.

--97T--

...Pesticides are a boon to mankind as well...--97T--

But not bees and other insects that are essential for pollination. Doesn't help much to keep the bad bugs away and pour on lots of synthetic fertiliser if your plants don't set seed. That is the part we eat!

Organically fertilized produce just made a whole lot of people sick.--97T--

1) One time (and it was a media circus)...I kept eating spinach and lived to tell about it.
2) It wasn't certified organic produce that got people sick...you are stretching there by implying it was (just because you piss on it doesn't make it organic fertilizer...k?)
3)How many out of the 6 BILLION died from it? I assure you it was far less than those who will die or get sick from undercooked pork products this year alone.

-B

Mariss,

No its not an attack its just the truth. Many top scientists (younger ones and more "up to date") do thing Dr. Gray has lost it for several years now. Not an attack because he disagrees but just because he's not competent.

Tim

"BTW, most scientists think Dr. Gray is a 70 year old nut."

Aw jeez.. That is exactly what I'm talking about, a perfect example of the politicization of science into junk-science. An ad-hominem attack on anyone considered a heretic to the "true religion", a belief science is consensus instead of objective reality and a hostility to any opinion that is contrary to dogma.

Would you have applied the same quote to Einstein? He was an independent thinker too. Would you have gleefully tormented Galileo and Copernicus were you to have lived then?

I am truly afraid of the leftist's dedication to the goal of debasing science and oppressing free thought in the pursuit of knowledge. The Court of the Inquisition had the power to make Galileo recant on pain of death. I suspect that power would be excercised as well were it available today. The mindset is already there amongst the zealots and their adherents.

Mariss

Fizz writes:
Sorry Tim, but even Jeff Severinghaus, Professor of Geosciences Scripps Institution of Oceanography University of California, San Diego disagrees with you on this point.

He acknowledges the lag, and even offers an explanation.

And he's even on your side.

So this "lag" seems to be your big argument against CO2 causing global warming and even that global warming is happening. You keep referencing this article by Jeff Severinghaus. Lets show the relevants parts of the article below and talk about it because you argument makes no sense.

Jeff S writes:
It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.

From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.

So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.]


Ok Jeff is asserting the following:
1) There are things other than CO2 that cause warming.
2) CO2 does not cause the first 1/6th of warming during "warming cycles" which he also asserts means that CO2 does not initiate the warming and that there must be some other unknown factor that does.
3) CO2 may be an amplifier for the remaining 5/6th of the warming.
4) The lag does not tell us much about global warming.
5) The lag time he asserts is about the same amount of time as is required to flush out the deep ocean through its natural ocean currents.

So lets say that Jeff is correct and lets even say that the scientific consensus is behind him. I actually don't know if either of these are true (although could easily find out) but lets say it is. Even if this is all true it does not refute global warming theories/models at all.

So lets just go Jeff S's CO2 as an amplifier theory (which I don't buy into but lets go with it) and take it further. So the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 380 ppm. This almost 30% higher than has ever been recorded (and the recordings go back 650,000 years). The concentrations of CO2 are increasing rapidly. So what warming amplification do you think is going to happen when the CO2 level gets to say 500ppm or 750ppm?

Tim

Previously, in YOUR post #101:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScopicSoftware View Post
It seems you don't even read the articles that you cite.

1) The "800" year lag
You keep pointing this out. But the article you cite says
[i]"Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming."
You seem to confuse yourself with multiple....and conflicting arguments. You take Jeff's explanation to counter my argument, then later you give an explanation contrary to your own, AND JEFF'S earlier explanation.

....and apparently, you don't even read the articles YOU cite!!!

Which is it, Tim? Do you even have a clue what you're talking about???

Fizz - so please tell me are my mutiple and conflicting arguments? Can you please enlighten me?

1) Greenland was certainly green enough to sustain settlements for several hundred years (medival warming period 800 - 1300) before the Little Ice Age (1400 - 1850) made them uninhabitable. Greenland was not named "Greenland" as real-estate scam to fool settlers into migrating there.

Greenland ice cap core samples go back over 400,000 years, not "tens of thousands of years".

Yes Mariss I was trying to be nice to you since you thought that when the Vikings were there that Greenland was completely without ice. So I did not want to totally blow your mind by informing you that Greenland's ice goes back hundreds of thousands of years.

2) So, millions of newly verdant and fertile square kilometers will lie fallow? Only the occasional Siberian, Inuit and Sierra Club member will notice? We sattelites to catch that kind of oversight now.

No I'm sure someone will farm that land Mariss. Perhaps the 60 million Bangladesh refugees.

Meanwhile millions in Bangladesh will drown because it will never occur to any of them to move? How many millions drowned when the seas rose at the end of the last Ice Age to cover the land bridge between Siberia and Alaska and all else that are shallow seas now (up to 120 meters deep)?


Yes Mariss I'm sure they will move after there homes are destroyed. I'm sure you will send your $25 check to a charity to help them.

The eminent scientist Al Gore took Dr. Gray's predictions for the 2006 season and made the vital connection to global warming in speech to the Sierra Club in Sept 2005 saying "Now, the scientific community is warning us that the average hurricane will continue to get stronger because of global warming."


I don't believe everything Al Gore says. However I rather doubt he use Dr. Gray himself to bolster his arguments. Can you point me to the text of this speech to back up your assertions?

Just a little more "dangerous misinformation".:-)
Mariss - I don't think you've state one thing that is true since you started posting. At this point I doubt anyone considers what you write to be information or misinformation.

OK. Good to learn "70 year old nut" is no longer an ad-hominem attack. I shall address my amiable 70ish but slightly incompetent next-door neighbor that way when I see him next. I'll keep your clarification handy should he take exception to this very modern salutation.

I trust these "many top scientists (younger ones and more "up to date")" who "do thing [sic] Dr. Gray has lost it for several years now" have names and perhaps some are even meteorologists. I would love to read how young, hip and "up to date" scientists differ with Dr. Gray.

Mariss

Tim,

Please try www.commondreams.org/views05/0912-32.htm

About charity: My anonymous charitable contributions were in the mid 5-figure range last year, not $25. More than half of that went into the CNC community.

I bow to your clearly superior knowledge and I am humbled by your solicitous concern with keeping my mind unblown. Further, I thank you for thoughtfully putting words into my mouth. I appreciate you pointing out some of my manifold character flaws such as my untruthfulness; I will endeavor to work hard at mending these flaws.

Maybe one day after I have learned more, I too will be able to persuade without having to offer internally consistent logic to buttress my arguments. Clearly passion, conviction and feelings trump skeptical and dispassionate inquiry in our brave new world.

Mariss

It's not CO2, I have in my possession incontrovertible proof of what is causing global warming.

Gentlemen BEHOLD!

http://www.logicpaintball.com/pirategraph.jpg

Coincidence? I think not. ;)

Reply to the navy guy who thinks brand names can be substitted for the correct name (intelligently).

My point is that Freon has mistakenly become a common name by those that don't know any better. Much in the same way ski doo has been misused. They are both brand names... not the correct name for the product.

John

You know, you convinced me. I'll be sure to tell all the tradesmen I run into that they're stupid because they use Freon(tm) instead of chloroflorocarbon based refrigerant. I'm sure they'll see it your way one I tell them you said so.

While I'm at it, I'll also correct them when they call thier adjustable width open ended wrench a Crescent(tm) wrench.

After work I'll hit the beaches and the parks to enlighten those stupid people that call their toy spinning airfoil throwing disks Frisbees(tm). Can't have them lowering the IQs of the kids playing in those areas now can we.

Just for fun, I think a Descarte type "what am I'm absolutely sure of" beginning is in order here. Go with me here for a bit.

I am a human being. There is nothing else on the planet like my kind. I am fundementally different from all the creatures that slither, creep, crawl, walk and share this planet with me. My kind have no equals close or distant. I DO NOT fit the "a rat is a dog is child" template some of my unfotunate kind like to form.

My kind burst on the scene about 200,000 years ago. They remembered the past like all other animals did, but unlike them, my kind contemplated and tried to guess the future. They were the only to develop that ability. Being aware of the future meant they were aware of their own mortality. They developed the concept of God to help them with that horrible knowledge. Unlike any animal, they knew they were going to die one day.

About 40,000 years ago my kind started to store knowledge outside of their own bodies. They began to draw pictures on cave walls in what is now France. People go there to see them.

My kind developed language to move thoughts from one mind to another. My kind developed writing to store externally all what couldn't be kept in a single brain. Those were the greatest innovations of all time; the easy transfer and storage of knowledge. My kind cut its last connections with all other animals on this earth with that.

Worms, dogs and chimpanzees have been worms, dogs and chimpanzees for millions of years without change. My kind has been changing more rapidly than any worm, dog or chimpanzee ever has.

My kind 3,000 years ago developed philosophy and ethics. It formed the basis of all Western intellectual tradition and laws today.

My kind changed and accelerated again during the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution. The Renaissance first plowed the ground to make it fertile for science, the Industrial Revolution made what science produced available to all men in quantity.

My kind also sacrificed. Many explorers died in pursuit of exploration and adding to human knowledge, the ones that survived endured hardships we can't imagine while we use the fruits of what their endurance wrought. These were geograhical explorers as well as scientific ones.

My kind has 40,000 years of bravery, courage to dare and sacrifice. Balls basically. These are brave men whose names I don't know if they are past 3,000 years ago. All contributed their all to us to be here where we are today.

That is the history of my kind. It brings us up to date. The biggest thing about my present time is the emphasis on safety and the preservation of your own personal ass at all costs. My thoughts are that is not worthy of what my ancestors worked at and died to accomplish.

It is also a time for a little dirty linen. 3,000 years ago the resistance to human change were the Sophists in ancient Greece. later it was the Nhilistists that stood in the way. Luddites came much later after that. Today we have the Environmentalists. Each over the ages have mutated into different forms. Environmentalists have mutated into an arm called Global Warming Alarmists. It makes no difference in the long run.

They scare people with "awful things will happen if you don't see things our way" but that's about it. The sky will not fall and the earth will keep turning. It always has. My kind is way to resourceful, it marginalizes the throwbacks.

I am a human being. I am a part of nature because this planet nurtured me to be who I am. I am not apart from nature and everything I do is natural. There is nothing I can do that is not natural.

About 2 billion years ago blue-green aglae evolved. The earth skies were pink instead of blue because that is the color of methane. It selfishly excreted oxygen without a care about it's impact on the envirioment. The algae modified the earth forevever. The sky is blue now forever for the oxygen the atmosphere contains now. It also made us possible.

My grandfather had 746 Watts (1 HP in the form of one horse) available to him. I convert (not consume) 100 to 1,000 times that into useful things other people can use. I have every expectation my children and grandchildren will consume a 1,000 times more than I do. It is the destiny of my kind. I would keep a hundred 100W light bulbs burning all night and I have no regrets. I am not an eviromentalist, I hate them like cockroaches.

Don't fear change. Change is inevitable no matter what we do or don't do. If change is due to us being here, have comfort we are a part of nature. Just like the blue-green algae 2 billion years ago. The earth is no worse for it.

My oblication in this 60,000 generation chain? Produce children to forge the next link the chain and to work as hard as my anscestors did. It's my obligation to them. I have and I have the T-shirt to prove it .:-)

Mariss

...My grandfather had 746 Watts (1 HP in the form of one horse) available to him. I convert (not consume) 100 to 1,000 times that into useful things other people can use. I have every expectation my children and grandchildren will consume a 1,000 times more than I do. It is the destiny of my kind....Mariss

You certainly wax eloquent but the above is a bit ridiculous. Taken to its (il)logical conclusion this implies that eventually all the energy in the universe is going to be dedicated to serving your descendants. Now I have come across arrogant assumptions but this kind of takes tha cake!!!

I kinda liked it!

I kinda liked it!

I guess I don't like being equated to blue green algae.:D

The whole problem with the global warming debate is there are so many intellectually and morally bankrupt individuals supporting the claim. I wouldn't consider myself an enviornmentalist, but I do think we are supposed to have some common sense on how we treat our home. In this case home being all that space outside the walls of our living quarters.

Until we demand unbiased truth based on complete facts from news outlets, politicians, scientists, etc, there will be no intellectually honest debate that will serve mankind. Each decade of my 54 years society continues to accept more and more opinion as fact, and many only spew a portion of fact that supports their bias.

To me global warming in context, I ask myself one questions how much energy and polution do we humans and our toy's put out in comparison to our sun's output? Not much....

From what I have read, human related C02 production is only 2% of the totaly c02 production. Again not much impact.

But on the flip side, why not at least be kind to our world, do those things that are reasonable to take care of it? Why do we want the govenrment(s) to respond. I mean, what government program can you site that is smart, and efficient?

Gee Geof,

I kind of miss your point. I don't beleive I mentioned "all the energy in the universe" anywhere in what I wrote and I am completely confused what you mean by it. I guess "the above is a bit ridiculous" would be fine if only I could fix in some context where I can address it in. What I have is a little like pipe-smoke if you know what I mean.:-) Give me a little help here.

Mariss

Coolhand,

I really like your graph. I think it summarizes the best data as to cause and consequence as I have ever seen. Kudos to you!

Mariss

That was a fun departure from reality, but..... as we gain technology, we do get a bit more efficient and so has our power consumption although there are more things to power up. Why would it take 100-1000 times more per person than today?

I can just hear the counter arguments coming.

Somewhat simplistic given we attempt to control our immediate environmental comfort level and take action in the face of obvious conflicts of interest in most situations if we can foresee the threat. The Environmentalists instead, viewing it as impending doom that they can feel self-righteous someone else created the problem.

Now reading that from the Darwinian perspective. That these changes in environment will force changes in the survival of the stronger species really ticks them off that they cannot evolve at a faster pace to out run change. Even Cancer is a mutational change. To bad it can kill the host. Since we cannot cure all disease, can't we all just hurry up and LEARN to live with it?

As the Spiritual side stands by knowing several warning signs had been written long ago and not many listened then either.

Pick your poison? Maybe that natural selection stuff has it's benefits after all. Whatever the Meek shall inherit might at last be free of the destructive id rotting ego's of the past. As if their source of knowledge was far superior to the subjects they demand total obedience from.

DC

Please gather more information from the past thousands of years of temperature records including the past ice ages in order to get the proper data required to conduct a real study.


BTW it is -6 degrees F here at this moment. When does this global warming start? Looking forward to it.

Gee Geof,

I kind of miss your point. I don't beleive I mentioned "all the energy in the universe" anywhere in what I wrote and I am completely confused what you mean by it. I guess "the above is a bit ridiculous" would be fine if only I could fix in some context where I can address it in. What I have is a little like pipe-smoke if you know what I mean.:-) Give me a little help here.

Mariss

There is a finite amount of energy/mass in the universe. You say you use 1000 times more than a generation (or so) before and expect the next generation to use 1000 times more than you. Either you have chosen these three generations to be particularly favored so subsequent ones remain constant in your energy usage or, your descendants are going to keep on multiplying their energy use 1000 times per generation. Exponential growth gets big quick; I suppose it would be possible to calculate which generation needs the whole universe for their needs.

I did say (il)logical conclusion. I also maintain 'a bit ridiculous' applies. You put out many valid points in your posts but spoil the effect by going too far sometimes.

I don't recall seeing Mariss project an infinite progression in all succeeding generations.

Perhaps humanity will need to suffer through the need for a 2nd renaissance before we can see another quantum leap in the standard of living of humans. That might take a few generations, or longer.

So perhaps he has been overly optimistic. But negative expectations have a way of becoming self-fulfilling. Striving towards the positive goal is admirable. It is not for me to speak for him, but I believe it was meant in that context, not as a prediction that we would flare up in a supernova - like release of energy.

--97T--

Geof,

I fly to places I need to be. The 757 aircraft I'm on works out to over 500 HP per passenger. I could have walked or rode a horse and used about 1,000 times less power but it would have taken a little longer. Those were my grandfather's only options. I have the option to trade time for power.

Maybe my descendents will want to travel to the Moon or Mars or someplace further and more interesting. That will maybe take 1,000 times more power than is at my disposal today.

No arrogance at all.

Mariss

I've scanned through some of these replies and just have to ask .... Do we really believe in Global Warming? Come on. We are now screaming Global Warming! The same scientists/climatologists were screaming The Next Ice Age is Here in the 70's and 80's. ( Take a look at the Scientific journals ) Earlier in the century ... Global Warming was the scariest thing we had to accept! Even step back one more segment .... in the late 1800's and early 1900's we were worried about Global Cooling. Ofcourse we all have to be conscience about polluting the Earth but .... the Earth has a way of taking care of itself throughout history. Ice Age ... Global Warming ... Ice Age ... Global Warming ... Just another scam that these scientists CAN NOT back up their theories so they can continueto be funded. If Global Warming is not accepted ... these scientists all don't get funded!!!!

Let's all watch ... in the 2030's - 2040's ... The Next Ice Age is back!


Just a common sense thought for all of us.

...Maybe my descendents will want to travel to the Moon or Mars or someplace further and more interesting. That will maybe take 1,000 times more power than is at my disposal today.

No arrogance at all.

Mariss

If you seriously believe that it will be possible to travel in space to Mars or further I agree and withdraw my appellation of arrogance. In my mind you are now in the same category as Freeman Dyson, John Archibald Wheeler and a few other physicists.

There is a finite amount of energy/mass in the universe.

Regardless of how many theory's are presented and how reasonable this sounds, it is still just pure speculation.

Humans can't comprehend infinity and thus are limited in understanding the universe. A question that can be asked if everything is finite is what is beyond the end of this "finite" universe?

Alas but that is a different discussion! ;)

In my opinion burning things to produce energy is coming to an end anyway because we will eventually run out of things to burn. Long before that happens nuclear energy will replace it as the serious energy source. I remember reading somewhere that each gallon of seawater contains the energy equivalent of 300 gallons of oil in the form of Deuterium. Just give it another hundred years and see what will transpire.:-)

Mariss

In my opinion burning things to produce energy is coming to an end anyway because we will eventually run out of things to burn. Long before that happens nuclear energy will replace it as the serious energy source. I remember reading somewhere that each gallon of seawater contains the energy equivalent of 300 gallons of oil in the form of Deuterium. Just give it another hundred years and see what will transpire.:-)

Mariss

Eh, ever heard of RENEWABLE resources? Just a thought.

Here is a link to an authority on the subject complete with bonafide certificates.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Eh, ever heard of RENEWABLE resources? Just a thought.

Here is a link to an authority on the subject complete with bonafide certificates.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

I remember reading that California has planted more trees than they've cut down

America, all of it, has more trees now than when Columbus landed. But then TREES are a source of polution and one can never satisfy these nuts because the object is POLITICAL POWER, read that to say taxpayer dollars.

Follow the money!!

..<snip>...Follow the money!!

Yes. Let's follow the money. Scientists are funded by whatever will put money in their pockets. Hmmm. SETI (Search for Intelligent life) is another good one. Not to hi-jack this thread, but money controls results they produce. It takes intelligence to understand politics and the corruption that results from funding wild left wing ideas.

BTW: It is -4 degrees F here today. This global warming better start soon. I am freezing my b***z off.

On point with 'following the money',

An embarassing stain is darkening, growing in size, and giving off a tell-tale odor as the scientific establishment fouls itself in the public eye.

A few pages back, I said, "In the meantime, the result of a diet of government money is a contempt for reason throughout the educational establishment. Theoretical mathematics might be immune from being co-opted as the other branches of science have been, partly because much of the reasoning involved is based on axioms, and partly because nobody has figured out a way to bend it to the service of a Big Scare. This has not stopped other branches from taking liberties with statistical methods and making huge leaps of reason based on uncertainties. But, being based on axioms and reason, mathematics has in fact been under attack from the department down the hall, from the beginning. That attack comes from the philosophy department, where there has been a concerted effort going on for centuries to undercut the very concepts of existence, axioms, and reason. This attack on reason is a crucial underpinning of the entire enterprise. It serves to plant a seed of doubt in the minds of everyone, so that only someone with special powers of intellect, like a High Priest, can really comprehend reality. It gives them the ultimate fall - back argument in any debate where a questioner tries to tie their logic back to axioms. They just dismiss the axioms! And this is the hallmark of any religion. It needs people to suspend their own reason."

The concerted attack on reason from down the hall in the philosophy department has been going on from the beginning. It seeks to poison the foundation of all knowledge. The poison pervades the universities, then eventually all public schools.

A generation ago, there was still a perceivable connection between the scientific method, personal integrity, and survival itself. If you tried to cheat reality, you might starve, or enemies who wanted to kill you might get the upper hand. There was a survival aspect to having a careful epistemology. Consequently, at least among those who chose to work in technical fields, there was a disdain for intellectual laziness. Although there have always been charlatans who seek the unearned, it was inconceivable to most members of that generation that a day would come when the majority of a free society would substitute consensus for proof, blindly accepting fantastic theories without examining the evidence themselves.

The scientific method is not a difficult process to grasp. It is the embodiment in specific concepts the recognition that our understanding of the truth is fallible; it formalizes methods by which we can discount theories or provisionally accept them. Itself, the scientific method rests on even more basic implicit assumptions about epistemology, the study of how we know what we know. It is the fundamental basis for all reasoning.

The attack on epistemology basically consists of indoctrinating young minds with the idea that they are not capable of comprehending such concepts, that it is too difficult and confusing to work out, that someone else has figured it all out for them and will tell them what to think. Before the advent of the internet, most anyone who started to actively look for information on the subject was most likely to find active disinformation; it was only by remote chance that anyone would ever stumble upon important works in the field, and the most important works in the field were carefully ignored in the university setting. The inversion is almost complete -- where in the past there was contempt for intellectual laziness and the desire for the unearned, nowadays there is contempt for reason, ambition, integrity, and any admiration for heroic qualities. There are many disgusting examples available to illustrate this point.

The attack on epistemology has diminished the relevance of the scientific method in the minds of many. When we turn out a nation of pragmatists, they are fully capable of looking at history and seeing who gets funded, who gets recognition and fame, and how the actual pioneers in most fields get treated by the society around them. Give them a bandwagon loaded with money and prestige to jump on, and there will be a scramble to climb the highest and pronounce the loudest.

The result has been a decline in the credibility of scientists in general. And a decline in the public perception of the relevance of science to their lives in general. Science as the handmaiden of statists is a double-edged sword. As fewer and fewer men of integrity are willing to submit to this process, preferring other fields instead, the ranks will be filled with those who will generate whatever data is politically palatable. The basic truth is that statists want tools to restrict freedom, enrich themselves, and control the lives of others. One of those tools is public perception. While the pronouncements from the scientific community become increasingly shrill and strident, helping to sway the public perception in a direction that increases the power of statists, their usefulness to the state will be assured. But when these pronouncements get so hysterical that it is plain to even the indoctrinated common man that truth and integrity have been cast aside in a plain power grab, then the disgrace will be complete. When the public no longer trusts anything coming from the scientific community, all that funding and prestige will dry up. The only jobs left will be those which expand weapons and surveillance technology.

What brought this to mind for me is this book review, about the abandonment of the scientific method in the physics field.

http://physicsweb.org/articles/review/20/2/1/1

--97T--

97T; One simple comment is that scientists are human after all. Your essay is really good but I am puzzled by the way you phrased this; Before the advent of the internet, most anyone who started to actively look for information on the subject was most likely to find active disinformation; it was only by remote chance that anyone would ever stumble upon important works in the field, and the most important works in the field were carefully ignored in the university setting.

Should it not be After? Before the internet the source of scientific information at pracically any level in the education system information was predominantly refereed journals.

Geof,

Thank you for your kind words. "The field" I was referring to is philosophy and epistemology, not 'scientific information' in general.

I won't deny that a diatribe such as this would bear more careful forethought and explanation of context. I am fallible as well, and my time is limited.

The general point was that in some cases, brick and mortar institutions and the peer review process can be a barrier to knowledge. The advent of the internet has blown away these controls on information, allowing both credible and incredible ideas to gush forth without filter by authority. It is my contention that this is a positive development, irrespective of the fact that we have to think and learn for ourselves whether the information has value.

--97T--

.....The general point was that in some cases, brick and mortar institutions and the peer review process can be a barrier to knowledge. The advent of the internet has blown away these controls on information, allowing both credible and incredible ideas to gush forth without filter by authority. It is my contention that this is a positive development, irrespective of the fact that we have to think and learn for ourselves whether the information has value.

--97T--

I would not have thought to describe what you wrote as a diatribe. The only section I could not agree with was the one I quoted and I see we are completely on opposite sides of the fence there. I agree that the peer review process can be a barrier to knowledge but once the barrier has been overcome the knowledge was generally reliable. (Note I am talking about well before the internet; these days peer review seems to have degenerated to the biggest wallet or the loudest voice.) What you consider a virtue of the internet I view as a fault because it is very difficult to filter fact from nonsense. This is compounded because for decades now the education systems in many countries have not taught students to think critically and learn for themselves or expected students to put un the effort and time to learn.

Most people don't have the time or the resources to verify or confirm any information on the internet.

So yes the "Peer review barrier" is down but now you have a bunch of information and theories that on the whole are unverifiable and thus not worth the screen time they are written on.

Of course this is generally on a problem on theoretical information and less the problem on mundane public information (like gossip) do to the fact that the public information has always been censored or doctored to some degree.

Now if your doing some sort of prototyping or development then the internet is a great source of information because you can take the wildest claims that suite your purpose and verify them (given the time), and possible come up with something completely new. (of course this in itself is a theory, as I haven't seen it happen yet! ;) )

You say we are on opposite sides of the fence, but your subsequent statements indicate that we are in agreement about the present state of affairs.

The unfiltered noise of the internet is full of faults. Misinformation, disinformation, emotional rants, idiotic unsolicited commercial traffic, spyware, adware, etc. I embrace it all. Perhaps we will discover that we do in fact have the intellectual equipment to discern truth from falsehood, and gain information we would not otherwise have access to . Or, perhaps we will only find comfort from others who share our own brand of insanity to some measure.

But what is the alternative? Who should decide whether you and I should be able to correspond like this, and what we should say?

One thing the internet with its pseudo-anonymity brings, along with its many faults, is the removal of force from the marketplace of ideas. If we seek to persuade, our ideas must be consistent, logical, and open to question or attack from anyone else. Of course it will get used to play to popular misconceptions. But advocates of reason can still raise unpopular questions without being silenced, for the most part. Observe the reasoning behind the Chinese government's attempts to censor the internet. I am not willing to grant that kind of power to any state.

The faults of the internet only prod me to be very careful. Perhaps this, too, might be good for society. There is the potential for unraveling the work of subjectivism in the service of the state on an unprecedented scale. And in the future I foresee the brick walls of institutions becoming irrelevant as barriers to information for entire classes of people formerly locked out. I see that as perhaps our best hope for the future.

--97T--

Here is a shocker for you! We, the unenlightened, do not NEED the SYSTEM to teach us to think. It is the system that tries to channel thought in impossible directions.
Ergo, we need to discard much of this corrupt system!

Here is a shocker for you! We, the unenlightened, do not NEED the SYSTEM to teach us to think. It is the system that tries to channel thought in impossible directions.
Ergo, we need to discard much of this corrupt system!


power to the people!


Had to say it! :D:D:D

Quote: "Should it not be After? Before the internet the source of scientific information at pracically any level in the education system information was predominantly refereed journals."


That's a little like saying knowledge should only be controlled by priests because the average layman cannot interpret it for themselves. There were as many scientific charlatans before the advent of the internet as after. The biggest difference is the internet gives easy access and democratic exposure to the works of charlatans and honest scientists equally.

Let's not blame the internet; it lessens the opportunity to suppress dissenting observations; all are given a fair and open airing. In this exchange wrong conclusions will be proven wrong, those that are true will stand the test.

Mariss

You say we are on opposite sides of the fence, but your subsequent statements indicate that we are in agreement about the present state of affairs...--97T--

We are only opposite in that very narrow area; what you view as a strength I view as a weakness. The puzzling thing is we can understand the opposite point of view,I think, I can't speak for you but your responses lead me to this conclusion.

miljnor's comment: Most people don't have the time or the resources to verify or confirm any information on the internet. I think is quite correct and I think it unethical, immoral or in bad taste for people who do know something is technically or scientifically incorrect to deliberately post misleading or confusing information.

mariss equates my comment about the general better reliability, in scientific terms, of information in refereed journals with: That's a little like saying knowledge should only be controlled by priests because the average layman cannot interpret it for themselves. If the 'priests' denied the average layman the opportunity to access the knowledge that would be the case. In 1969 I was an average layman working as a machinist and getting bored with things; no one impeded my access to an advanced university education. True I had to come up with some significant sums of money and make sacrifices of time which could have been spent on flippant activities. Things are not much different today; maybe the sums of money are larger but so are wage levels, maybe the range of distracting flippant activities is larger but neither of these constitute an external limitation on access to knowledge.

Still I suppose we could, as suggested, discard our corrupt system: Think about this though. Our corrupt system includes all the knowledge and techniques that make life a lot easier than scrabbling for an existence in subsistence agriculture. That makes it very very unlikely that maybe 20% of newborns will die before the age of five years. That makes it possible to survive disease and injury which two generations ago would have been a sentence to a painful death. That in any collection of 100 hundred people of random age, there are around 30 who two generations ago would not be there due to infant, accidental death or fatal illness. In the absence of 'our corrupt system' and all it entails, I have no idea whether I would be among the 30 or remaining 70 so I prefer things the way they are.

Actuall, we only need to sift and reject all the P.C. c@%$# that the loony toon left has been propagating even within the universities starting in the mid sixties. I've had this growing feeling that we should take a few pages from the French Revolution and apply it to the "intellectual elite" as applies to the left and other assorted Commies!!

Actuall, we only need to sift and reject all the P.C. c@%$# that the loony toon left has been propagating even within the universities starting in the mid sixties. I've had this growing feeling that we should take a few pages from the French Revolution and apply it to the "intellectual elite" as applies to the left and other assorted Commies!!

Ah, now we come down to it. You want to set yourself up as one of "the priests" to do the selecting. NO THANK YOU; as you point out it happened in France, it happened in Russia nearly a century ago, it happened in China a bit less than half a century ago. Perhaps the 'system' that prevails in the US and some other countries is the worst possible, however, I think it has proven better than the alternatives.

Well, I studied history BEFORE the left took charge. What happened in Russia and China was that the Commies removed all the professors and teachers who would not spout the party line. Not unlike what the left has done here with our educational system with the exception that here the left has just politically assassinated them, much as you just attempted to do to me, while the Commies had the courage to physically do the deed. I suspect that will come later as Pellosi, Gore, Sorros et al gain power.
As far as setting myself up? Wasn't suggested, however we the people sit on juries all the time and make life and death judgments. See, the left want to herreisy of the cause a crime (as with the weather lady who wants to remove meteroligy certs and condemns global warming deniers) and I'm saying that fraud on the public should be a very serious mater indeed.
(you tipped your hand when you leapt to insult, tipical lib. next will come name calling ect)

Geof,

I acknowledged the weaknesses. Again, what would you propose as an alternative?

--97T--

Knowledge based on PROVABLE facts, not inuendo, not therum, not the quasi religion of mother earth. Fully debated public discourse rather than the "shut up and sit down" treatment desenters are given today. Viable solution to polution rather than the NIMBY approach of Ted Kennedy (no windmills where I can see em) or the no drilling anywhere on American soil attitude of thoswe who demand energy independance (as in off shore Florida in spite of 50 miles away the Mexican Govt is drilling) How about a few new refineries because, after all, we need to keep our economy runnig till answers are found. I would deep six any politico who would "take prifits from private business to fund research" (can anyone say "hogo Chaves) as Ms Klinton suggested!
In short the best of America form the 50's and without the obvious dark side applied with a LOT of common sense.
O.K. I had enough nerve to make myself vulnerable. Your turn. Let's see if you will offer creative, honest solutions or just criticize any percieved weakness you may spot!!

Geof,

I acknowledged the weaknesses. Again, what would you propose as an alternative?

--97T--

You mean an alternative to our current free society? There isn't a practical one in my opinion. Read different posts all that it would be replaced by is a sort of mirror system.

I did not live in North America in the 1950s but I am not sure then was an improvement over now. Some people were on top some on the bottom; different people are in these different positions now.

And I find it refreshing to now be labelled a 'tipical lib'. Normally the perjorative applied to me is more of the money sucking, working class exploiting, capitalist pig, kind.

I didn't think capitalist and "lib" could be used in the same phrase. ;)

Normally the perjorative applied to me is more of the money sucking, working class exploiting, capitalist pig, kind.

HEY! That's ME!!!

You mean an alternative to our current free society?

Uuhhh... I forgot, is that what we were discussing as having weaknesses vs being a great thing? I thought we were talking about something else.

--97T--

You mean an alternative to our current free society? There isn't a practical one in my opinion. Read different posts all that it would be replaced by is a sort of mirror system.

I did not live in North America in the 1950s but I am not sure then was an improvement over now. Some people were on top some on the bottom; different people are in these different positions now.

And I find it refreshing to now be labelled a 'tipical lib'. Normally the perjorative applied to me is more of the money sucking, working class exploiting, capitalist pig, kind.

capitalist is a term libs apply to themselves when they want to go undercover. sort of like The Peoples Democratic Republic of China, Not democratic (possibly Democrat, tho) and not a Republic. Probably the same type who pelted me with baggys of excrement when I came home in bandages in another time from another war. The ones who took charge in the sixtys and who still are fighting to ruin a once free nation. One who knows nothing of the time but is ready to criticize non the less.

I (and my generation) felt whipped by our own people back then. We hunched our shoulders and tried to hide. No more! We are back and with a fury! We will meet you in the streets this time and give back double what we are dealt and this time we couldn't care less if you are not apreciative of our sacrifice. I wasn't for you, you just happen to be here "sucking money" and what ever other benifits our land may make opportune.

Just know that you won't "take" anything without getting your nose bloodied.

[QUOTE=Geof;254228]What you consider a virtue of the internet I view as a fault because it is very difficult to filter fact from nonsense. QUOTE]

Dear Geof'

Do you include yourself?

Best wishes,

Martin

[QUOTE=Geof;254228]What you consider a virtue of the internet I view as a fault because it is very difficult to filter fact from nonsense. QUOTE]

Dear Geof'

Do you include yourself?

Best wishes,

Martin

Under which category?

I think he is asking if you find it difficult to filter fact from fiction on the internet.

Geof,

There is very little in your posts I can disagree with. Your ideas are carefully thought out and clearly presented; I wish I had done as well. Let me try again:

Up until 200 years ago an educated person could comprehend the entire body of science as it was known at the time. That has changed since then because of the nature of the subject. An educated person today can only interpret the conclusions drawn by scientists because the specialized knowledge to draw the conclusions now takes a lifetime of dedication to perfect .

If the conclusions are contradictory then a layman can judge veracity only from the persuasiveness of the arguments presented to support these opposing conclusions. This then gets into the nature and strength of the presented arguments.

An awful lot of science is performed today but very little of it is real science. Most of what passes for science is finding correlations between events. The mischief starts when conclusions are drawn for the cause of the relationship between events.

A correlation is "weak" science because it inherently offers no explanation for the perceived relationship particularly when the correlation coefficient is substantially less than unity. Secondly, there is no guarantee all related interacting events are included.

Someone cleverly pointed this out by showing the relationship between pirates and 'global warming'.

To me, 'real' science is when experimental scientists record a phenomena (correlation) and theoretical scientists offer a mathematically rigorous models to account for the relationship. These models not only account for current observations but also predict new ones. The correct model (and theory) is the one where the predictions are repeatedly verified by experimental scientists again.

The classic example to me is the transition from Newtonian physics to Einsteinian physics. It was the minute variations between predicted and observed science that brought down Newton Laws and replaced it with Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. The discrepancies that caused this were less than parts per million. Einstein's work made unexpected predictions in unexpected areas. Experimental scientists measured and tested predictions and the theory held.

None of this has been done with the 'science' of global warming apart from observing a correlation. The rigorous and testable theory is not there, the assertions and their effect cannot be measured and scientific dissention is not tolerated.

None of this would matter to me except for the fact draconian economic measures are proposed to solve 'global warming'. The solution curiously meshes with discredited leftist political dogma. Am I wrong in smelling a hoax here?

Mariss

Mariss I wholeheartedly apologise for jumping down your throat a number of posts back and/or in other threads. Everything you have written above I agree with and I think we are both very close together on this issue. Particularly I agree with your points in paragraphs two, four and seven.

But I do think at the end you are being too generous. Smelling a hoax implies you think the imputed hoaxers are intelligent enough to conspire in a hoax. I think it is largely rampant self interest. Scientists are only human, if they can fill their research coffers, and top up their personal salary, by toeing a particular line many humans will yield to the temptation.

Hehehe!

December, 1997

Air Force II's Global Warming Express features an itinerary that takes the
vice president from Washington to Florida to Washington to Alaska to Japan
and back -- all in just 72-hours.

Saturday, December 6, 1997

9:45 a.m. Air Force II departs Andrews AFB enroute Fort Myers, Fla.

12:05 p.m. Air Force II arrives Southwest Florida Regional Airport. Gate 69-A.

2 p.m. Vice President Gore addresses the 50th Anniversary/Rededication,
Everglades Municipal Airport, Everglades National Park.

6:40 p.m. Air Force II departs Florida en route AFB.

8:35 p.m. Air Force II arrives at Andrews Air Force Base.

9:45 p.m. -- Air Force II departs Andrews Air Force Base en route Elmendorf
Air Force Base

Sunday, Dec. 7

1:15 a.m. -- Air Force II arrives Elmendorf Air Force Base, Anchorage, Alaska

2:45 a.m. -- Air Force II departs Elmendorf Air Force Base en route Osaka, Japan

Monday, Dec. 8

5 a.m. -- Air Force II arrives Osaka International Airport, Osaka Japan


11:15 p.m. -- Air Force II departs Osaka, Japan en route Elmendorf Air Force
Base

12:35 p.m. -- Air Force II arrives Elmendorf Air Force Base, Anchorage, Alaska

2:05 p.m. -- Air Force II departs Elmendorf Air Force Base en route Andrews
Air Force Base

Tuesday, Dec. 9

12:45 a.m. -- Air Force II arrives Andrews Air Force Base

----

"The extra heat which cannot escape is beginning to change the global
patterns of climate to which we are accustomed. Our fundamental challenge
now is to find out whether and how we can change the behaviors that are
causing the problem."
--Al Gore

Gore's plane, a Boeing 707 gas guzzler burns on average 4.1 gallons a mile.
The complete Washington to Florida to Washington to Alaska to Japan and
return to Washington trip calculated from commercial air mileage tables is
just over 16,000 miles total. Gas gallons needed for AIR FORCE II to go
16,000 miles: 65,600. Applying the average price of $2.01 per gallon of
Jet A to the 16,000 mile r/t -- the fuel cost alone passes $131,000.00.
There are 6.7 pounds per gallon of jet fuel. Total pounds of fuel burned on
Gore's Global Warming Express -- 439,500.

Unprecedented Leadership.

Fizz,

A mere mortal wanting to fuel up at KDET today would pay an astounding $6.70 per gallon of Jet A. Gotta love those pirates at Signature Flight Services!

--97T--

Scientists are only human, if they can fill their research coffers, and top up their personal salary, by toeing a particular line many humans will yield to the temptation.

Geof,

It is here that perhaps you are being too generous.

This kind of poltroonery discredits the entire field and the university system that encourages it.

Scientists are human, but they are not 'only' human. They are part of an intellectual elite, which most 'only humans' do not have the capacity to join, and therefore they have a responsibility and a tradition of being very careful in their conclusions, in accordance with the scientific method. They are wasting this heritage built by the pioneers of human knowledge. They are selling 'perceived truth' to the highest bidder. They trade the prestige, honor, and integrity of the field, built by previous generations of intrangisent truth - seekers, for a handout from thugs.

It is already coming to the point where political correctness determines the believability of a scientist's conclusions. No objective rules of evidence are required any more.

The perversion is that the lowest scum of all, political operatives, are determining not only what is truth, but what kind of 'human' will make it as a scientist.

This is a Bad Thing for humans in general.

--97T--

I agree that the Scientist SHOULD hold themselves to a higher standard but I also agree that they are only human and don't allot of the times.

With this logic you are being too generous to the politicians (who I agree are the scum sucking bottom dwellers of our society) if any job class or type of person SHOULD hold themselves to a higher standard, its politicians. Of course as soon as Hell freezes we will get what we want.

Fizz,
A mere mortal wanting to fuel up at KDET today would pay an astounding $6.70 per gallon of Jet A. Gotta love those pirates at Signature Flight Services!
--97T--

As of today jet A is $4.05 from Jet West at RNO. 100 low lead is $4.55 for your Pitts.....

WORST case scene: 0.7 degree increase over 100 years

Sept 11.: Twin towers down, Pentagon flamed and citizens smoked aboard an aircraft in Penn........ ONE DAY!!

WHERE is the REAL threat?

Geof,

It is here that perhaps you are being too generous.

This kind of poltroonery discredits the entire field and the university system that encourages it.

Scientists are human, but they are not 'only' human. They are part of an intellectual elite, which most 'only humans' do not have the capacity to join, and therefore they have a responsibility and a tradition of being very careful in their conclusions, in accordance with the scientific method. They are wasting this heritage built by the pioneers of human knowledge. They are selling 'perceived truth' to the highest bidder. They trade the prestige, honor, and integrity of the field, built by previous generations of intrangisent truth - seekers, for a handout from thugs.

It is already coming to the point where political correctness determines the believability of a scientist's conclusions. No objective rules of evidence are required any more.

The perversion is that the lowest scum of all, political operatives, are determining not only what is truth, but what kind of 'human' will make it as a scientist.

This is a Bad Thing for humans in general.

--97T--

What you say is correct and I think the difference is, more or less, that I apply the same standards to almost anyone. But of course this means that the standards, or expectations, have to be normalized; everyone has a responsibility to fill the role they have chosen, or are best suited for, to the best of their ability.

"...The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite...."

--Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

"....Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite...."--Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

Well this one did not come totally true. Unless you consider the over-educated twerps pushing AGW to constitute 'a scientific technological elite'. I would characterize them more as a group of self-serving manipulators. But then maybe some would equate that with Eisenhower's description.

Originally Posted by NinerSevenTango View Post
Geof,

It is here that perhaps you are being too generous.

This kind of poltroonery discredits the entire field and the university system that encourages it.

Scientists are human, but they are not 'only' human. They are part of an intellectual elite, which most 'only humans' do not have the capacity to join, and therefore they have a responsibility and a tradition of being very careful in their conclusions, in accordance with the scientific method. They are wasting this heritage built by the pioneers of human knowledge. They are selling 'perceived truth' to the highest bidder. They trade the prestige, honor, and integrity of the field, built by previous generations of intrangisent truth - seekers, for a handout from thugs.

It is already coming to the point where political correctness determines the believability of a scientist's conclusions. No objective rules of evidence are required any more.

The perversion is that the lowest scum of all, political operatives, are determining not only what is truth, but what kind of 'human' will make it as a scientist.

This is a Bad Thing for humans in general.

--97T--

Scientists are NOT scientists when they abandon the scientific methods and tests for truth but in fact are political thugs and criminals

Her ya go, a little MORE warming!

A letter to CARB regarding seal evels, or sea levels, whichever dataset suits your side of the argument best... :)

"...Lyman et al. (2006) also provides evidence that contradicts the analysis in Hansen et al.
(2005), another paper Staff plans to present to the Board. Hansen et al. (2005) claim their
climate model output is confirmed by “precise measurements of increasing ocean heat
content over the past ten years.” But as Lyman et al. (2006) show, ocean heat content
began a sharp decrease after 2003. As Colorado State climate scientist Roger Pielke, Sr.
recently wrote, “There is a clear mismatch between the model predictions reported in
[Hansen et al. (2005)] and the observational results in [Lyman et al. (2006)]” (Pielke Sr.
2006). Pielke Sr., along with John Christy of the University of Alabama also wrote a
letter to the journal Science pointing out problems with the Hansen et al. (2005) analysis,
but Science elected not to publish it (Pielke Sr and Christy, 2005)....."

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:U5RFxlOQxd0J:www.joelschwartz.com/pdfs/Schwartz_CARBclimate_012407.pdf+Holgate,+S.+J.,+2007.&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us

Just a couple of observations...

Look at how quickly physical technology has expanded in ONLY the past 100 years. This in itself is nothing short of absolutely amazing when you think about it...conversely, notice how little has come about in terms of social evolution. There seems to be such an emphasis on science & technology to 'save the day'...meanwhile we are still bombing people, people are still starving and the stress of the average person seems to increase as each day goes by. Global warming is probably one of the very LEAST of our problems. Maybe the pharmeceutical companies will come out with a pill for global warming...I'll have to ask my doctor :violin:

I'm still waiting for that projected future fantasy of being able to go play all day while robots do all the work and everybody gets rich...I've got all the robots, but somehow I still have to work...lol!

-B

Ya and I want my rocket pack and silver suit too!!! :D

Global warming is a money grab by scientists (i use that term loosly when I call weathermen scientists) who *finally*appear to be getting some street cred now that *they* have a doom and gloom prediction for the world.

Before that is was the medical community yelling that we are all gonna die from SARs or Bird Flu. Before that the space geeks were yelling the earth is gonna get hit by a 'planet killer asteroid' and *THEY* need money for a detection grid. The eco-nuts still havent shut up about pollution or land fills.

Whats the parallel? They were all wrong, they all wanted money (federal of course, no private business was gonna dump money into thier shenanigans) AND THEY WERE ALL WRONG.

Just like monthly tidal cycles the earth warms up, the earth cools down. To think that humans can stop the process is man simply not understanding nature as a whole... the circaduim rythym of the planet is doing fine.

For the Ed Bialey eco-nuts in your electric cars: where does that electricity come from? How many tons of coal per day do you burn trying not to pollute the air?

Wanna solve pollution? Start putting nuclear reactors in every city. Clean, power. When Fusion finally goes prime time we will have no need for internal combustion engines. All we have to do it convince the eco-nuts (who oppose nulcear power) to let us build plants so we can do as they wish... clean up the environment.

Wait, you want to clean up the environement and stop using the oil/coal thats polluting it?

Thats like telling the army to win a war but telling them they can shoot anyone!

Oh wait we already do that! My bad! :D:D:D

go nuclear!

Wait, you want to clean up the environement and stop using the oil/coal thats polluting it?

Thats like telling the army to win a war but telling them they can shoot anyone!

Oh wait we already do that! My bad!

go nuclear!

OH NO! You CAN"T do THAT!...........The half life is..........etc, etc yadayadayada!!!!
According to the other side the ONLY answer is to go stone age. (Of course, THEY are too refined for that. The great unwashed must sacrifice!)

You know, starve to death in the (cold) dark!

I fly blackhawks for the US army. They usually burn about 150 gallons per hour. Tomorrow, I will resign.

Thank you for clearing this all up for me.

I fly blackhawks for the US army. They usually burn about 150 gallons per hour. Tomorrow, I will resign.

Thank you for clearing this all up for me.

Thank you for keeping me free, Sir.
From an old veteran to a young one, non carborandum illigitimus. (don't let the bast#$rds wear you down. You are doing Gods work with the undying gratitude of all REASONABLE Americans.

Soldier on, GI!

Looking for a substitute for oil as a fuel? Try clathrate hydrates. Ice with methane trapped in it. We have many times the worlds resources in this round the globe. From the Gulf of Mexico to the permafrost. Like natural gas. Not as clean as hydrogen but much better than oil. Ways to clean it up too! IF we LOOK for them.
NO energy crisis, thank you! NEXT crisis please!

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Clathrate+hydrate

We can also do our part to reduce emissions by never again ordering parts that have to be shipped (i.e. ball screws, linear motion components, spindles, servo amplifiers, etc.) We can take up an environmentally friendly hobby, like bird watching or roadside cleanup...

Right! And the Pope can give up being a Catholic just for Lent!!

Wanna solve pollution? Start putting nuclear reactors in every city. Clean, power. When Fusion finally goes prime time we will have no need for internal combustion engines. All we have to do it convince the eco-nuts (who oppose nulcear power) to let us build plants so we can do as they wish... clean up the environment.

This won't happen as long as Americans think it's OK to elect presidents who say "Nuculer".

--97T--

This won't happen as long as Americans think it's OK to elect presidents who say "Nuculer".

--97T--

You are blaming the wrong side for that. The anti-nukes include all prominent Dems.

Hmmmmmmmm.............................

A Deserter in the EU! OMG!!!

You are blaming the wrong side for that. The anti-nukes include all prominent Dems.
Ya mean like Nancy Pelosi??? Who voted against it before she was for it..........

There seems to be a big gap between the amount of net CO2 produced (for all those who think that CO2 is THE forcing factor) in a knewkyaler power system....I'm reading between 20% all the way to 120%.

That's when you figure in the fossil load for construction, maintenance, distribution, etc., as compared to coal, natural (or unnatural) gas,....nothin's free. Even hydro has it's downside, as evidenced by the recent study showing the potential expectation for methane emissions as a result of the 3 Gorges project in China. (I referenced that in a previous post..)

As far as flying a Blackhawk, many of those are green. They don't emit nothin' but respect.
--------------------------------
"Speak softly, but carry a big carbon footprint."
--Matt Bailey

Richard Branson has committed 3 billion dollars to stop global warming. and he has a 25 million dollar prize for anyone who can develop a practical way to remove greenhouse gases.

Richard Branson has committed 3 billion dollars to stop global warming. and he has a 25 million dollar prize for anyone who can develop a practical way to remove greenhouse gases.

Yeah, 3 billion dollars to stop global warming by aquiring more jets, expanding and adding routes, buying railroads,.....LOL!!! Rides into space too!!!

A regular champion of the people.

You are blaming the wrong side for that. The anti-nukes include all prominent Dems.

Yeah, I knew that. My point was, what kind of argument can he make for the affirmative position? Doesn't bode well for the future, does it?

--97T--

On point with 'following the money',

An embarassing stain is darkening, growing in size, and giving off a tell-tale odor as the scientific establishment fouls itself in the public eye.



The attack on epistemology has diminished the relevance of the scientific method in the minds of many. When we turn out a nation of pragmatists, they are fully capable of looking at history and seeing who gets funded, who gets recognition and fame, and how the actual pioneers in most fields get treated by the society around them. Give them a bandwagon loaded with money and prestige to jump on, and there will be a scramble to climb the highest and pronounce the loudest.



[

--97T--

Dear NinerSevenTango,

Thank-you for that eloquent, and brilliant post.

Utterly beautiful.

Best wishes

Martin

there is no direct evidence supporting global warming and proving it to be true, to enough of a degree where anyone should be throwing the kind of money at it in the sums that politicians might throw.

I frown upon the use of this highly viewed website to push these views, our PM already said that the liberals are going to make this idea as big as possible in public eyes because it was the only flaw the current minority government has that can be picked.

I'm surprised that the professionals that run this site would entertain this sort of crap, no matter how much truth there is to it it doesn't belong on CNC zone.

I'm surprised that the professionals that run this site would entertain this sort of crap, no matter how much truth there is to it it doesn't belong on CNC zone.

PUBLIC FORUM!

Although I do find it odd that it has its own forum! Most public forums have a "clubhouse" or "outhouse" for Off topic rants/humor/discussions.

I'm surprised that the professionals that run this site would entertain this sort of crap, no matter how much truth there is to it it doesn't belong on CNC zone.

You're right. We'll all stop now.

there is no direct evidence supporting global warming and proving it to be true, to enough of a degree where anyone should be throwing the kind of money at it in the sums that politicians might throw.

Actually, there is a huge effect it will have on the CNC industry.

What's missing is the hard evidence that it is man made. At least to any controllable/important degree.

I frown upon the use of this highly viewed website to push these views, our PM already said that the liberals are going to make this idea as big as possible in public eyes because it was the only flaw the current minority government has that can be picked.

This is Paul's site and he is allowed to do what ever he wants with it. I was against the idea at first, but there are very bright minds that visit this board, and bring much to the discussion.

I'm surprised that the professionals that run this site would entertain this sort of crap, no matter how much truth there is to it it doesn't belong on CNC zone.

I think the Zone is a great place for it. It has already brought out a huge amount of data supporting both aspects of the issue.

Personally, I think global warming is real and is part of a natural cycle. I have no idea how it will impact our children, and I don't believe we should sacrifice everything to try to stop it.

That's not to say we shouldn't do anything. Polution is bad, period. Looking down at San Bernardino from the mountains is sickening. But to take a chance on completely destroying our current economy is not the answer until we know for sure we're the main problem.

Actually, there is a huge effect it will have on the CNC industry.........

Looking down at San Bernardino from the mountains is sickening. But to take a chance on completely destroying our current economy is not the answer until we know for sure we're the main problem.

I worked for an R&D section of a record company, and our shop was in Fawnskin, at Big Bear Lake....We were building a recording channel at MGM in Culver City, so the periodic drives down the hill gave me a pretty good look at the smog being pushed by the winds up against the San B mountains. That was almost 30 years ago. Today, there's smog in B.B. Lake regularly that was ever so rare then.

The CNC industry uses big horsepower motors, and LOTS of electricity, and chemicals, and materials, and...and...and....

We better know what's going on, because we're going to be paying higher taxes on power as regulators want offset our impact on Climate Change. As you want to increase your charge/hr for spindle time because of increased power rates, more and more work will migrate to China and India because their costs are cheaper....and THEY aren't subject to the same emission standards as we are!!

The issue of Global Warming is every bit as pertinent to CNC as anything else I've seen discussed in the CNCZONE.