Global Warming: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » Science » Global Warming » Global Warming

Global Warming

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Global Warming

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2608

Posted 03/06/07 - 05:33 AM:	#101
Gramm wrote: Let me help you Kwalish. This is the post in question. http://forums.philosophyforums.com/comments.php?i... Note that there are two separate quotes on that page. The first I posted from a site that I no longer have a link to. It is in reference to disputation surrounding some NASA statements. My apologies. I merely assumed that the link was to the image and I could not find the document on the main website. So, the source of the graph is a non-scientific publication. Good to know. Mann has come in for plenty of criticism alright. You must have been living under a rock not to have noticed. How could I not have noticed? Oh, right, I might not have noticed if I had been reading scientific papers. But, fortunately, some guy names McKitrick was paid by an oil company to distribute skeptical information in the public rather than through scholarly, peer reviewed channels. From the moment his infamous graph came out, he came under fire from many independent professionals with no particular Global Warming axe to grind. He even came in for close scrutiny and censure from numerous IPCC scientists, as is attested in the following reproduced report. Below are quoted excerpts from the report by Ross McKitrick : Department of Economics : University of Guelph Oh, I see you know him. It's a good thing that he got the money from the oil companies so that he could get his information to you. McKitrick & Mann Article wrote: We have neither sought nor received funding for this work. For McKitrick, undertaking the project has required considerable time away from his own economics research. For McIntyre, undertaking this project has required an unpaid leave of absence from his career in mineral exploration financing, at the cost of over a year’s foregone earnings so far. Let's say that these guys are well meaning scientists. Would we ever hear about their work without the PR firms hired by oil companies? Not in a million years. Without the ability to publish a scientific paper justifying their work, they would stay in obscurity. Of course, these guys aren't climatologists, so maybe they expect to play by different rules. However, as a reasonable person, I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that two people writing on the fringe of a scientific field are denied publication because of a conspiracy of academic journals. Of course, according to your uber~paranoid world view, these people are all working for the CIA and are being paid to spread lies and confusion amongst the proletarian rank and file.. Aren't you the person here setting up the conspiracy? Why else are there no scientific papers that deny global warming?
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein [This is included for the irony.]

enkidu
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 1111

Posted 03/06/07 - 07:59 AM:	#102
Gramm wrote: (I notice that you didn't reply to the point I made about lower Co2 levels in the Permian period) I did in post 84, by writing that lower CO2 in the permian period allows for a thriving of life including mammals life and then when the concentration rose there was mass extinction, later followed by a new kind of life with higher CO2. I don't have any explanation for this, I can just see that mammals during this period were rather rare and very small in comparison to current times, and no human being may want to return to these times, except one who want the end of humanity, to be sure, there is no certainty here, but the risk is just too high. As for the IPCC and the medias, I grant you all you say, I am not interested to enter such a debate. Obviously medias are sensationalist, and the IPCC, being so linked to political life, does certainly have problems of its own, such things are even seen at the level of a single university so no doubt that they also exist at the level of IPCC. But once again, that does not dismiss GW. And as the site wherefrom you got the chart, I don't think it is a very serious one. When for instance I read: "CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide." from http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ag... I can't help questioning the validity of all the other things from these authors, if really all lfe benefit from more of CO2, I suggest them to get isolated in an airtight container and to slowly increase CO2 level, to fully appreciate all the benefits of it. This is simply ridiculous. And if they mean (as is likely) that with more CO2, plants will create more O2 so that animals can thrive as well, they have to demonstrate this by providing a detailed model with a detailed account of how much CO2 is absorbed and how much O2 is produced by the plants, and which will be the resulting concentration and how this will further animal life. In the absence of such a study, their assumption amounts to nothing and is mere propaganda. At best anyway, this view can be deemed over-simplistic, and that is still a very generous judgement. And again, even if GW does not exist, there are very real benefits in decreasing CO2 emissions from human. There exist many other ways to produce energy, which are cleaner and more efficient, even cost-efficient, and there strictly is no risk in developing them. So if a sensationalist press, and a bunch of politicians can help to move into this direction, even though they employ arguable means, I don't mind, as long as I don't have to agree with all they say. So is the society we are living in, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, my enemy in this case are current energy conglomerates which destroy human society wherever they are involved, resorting to every means, including corruption and crimes to achieve purely individual benefits at the cost of the welfare of millions. Furthermore, in terms of risk assesment, the situation is pretty clear, anthropegenic GW may be unlikely and presents a low risk, but decrease of carbon emissions does not present us with any measurable risk, and on the contrary, provide a load of improvement in terms of economics (that is clearly apparent from the last Davos, people there have no interest in a global recession), politics and quality of life, so the sensible thing to do is to decrease them. Edited by enkidu on 03/06/07 - 02:41 PM
"The difficulty in philosophy is to say no more than we know." L. Wittgenstein - The Blue Book "Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes" - you know who

Cadrache
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada
Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 835

Posted 03/06/07 - 02:29 PM:	#103
The acid rain thing was actually just starting the phase 1 at 1996 and 'showed' a reduction in acid rain supposedly. The info seems to stem in results from studies in the 1980+ range. Instead of stating that CO2 was recognizable as being reducable, this study pointed towards sulfer oxides being reducable. http://www.geog.uvic.ca/geog370/370_lab3_precipla... Gives you a table of precipitation around a 'Sooke Lake Reservoir' for 1980-1996. note an increase in rainfall average by about 63 mm. or a 7% increase in average rain for the area. (not sure if this would be same indication globally of increased rain) http://www.epa.gov/air/airtrends/aqtrnd96/brochur... Points towards the reflection of the reduction caused a lessening of acid rain, or was it just due to greater rainfall which increased dilution? http://earthtrends.wri.org/features/view_feature.... If I remember correctly, China is getting less rain now then in the past, and they may be increasing in acid rains. Interesting site, portraying a bit of information concerning US, Europe and Asia trends.

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 256
Total Posts: 4919

Posted 03/07/07 - 05:05 AM:	#104
Kwalish Kid wrote: My apologies. I merely assumed that the link was to the image and I could not find the document on the main website. No problems. We all make mistakes. Kwalish Kid wrote: So, the source of the graph is a non-scientific publication. Good to know. Well good of you to be skeptical, but actually it is a reproduction of an earlier graph entitled GEOCARB 111 which was created by Berner, R.A. and Kothavala, Z., 2001, Gand and was entitled A revised model of atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic time as submitted to American Journal of Sciences.) http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~berner/ I also traced it through its use by Robert Rohde : a self proclaimed supporter of 'climate change' and of Global warming. He used it here in his own wikipedia graph called "Phanerozoic Carbon Dioxide" for which the link is here... http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Phaner... And here is a link to the graph I posted. http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/PageMi... Now, do me a favor. Drag copies of both of them to your desktop. Unfortunately because they are in reverse direction to each other you will have to flip one horizontally. For the sake of what follows. pelase flip the second of the two..ie image2777.gif Take a close look at the orange line. On Robert Rohde's graph look for the orange line called Goecarb 111. I think you will find the same sets of curves are in both graphs. Most especially, did you notice the spikes and fall carves drop in exactly the same points? Kwalish Kid wrote: Oh, I see you know him. It's a good thing that he got the money from the oil companies so that he could get his information to you. Kwalish even though you and I obviously disagree, please let me give you some friendly advice. You had better be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that McKintrick has been directly paid by oil companies. And I mean directly, and not through association with some university or some other affiliation. Not only that, you'd better be able to prove again beyond a shadow of doubt, how such alleged oil company funding was used by them to either deliberately influence, falsify or to distort his investigations into Mann's Hockey stick graph. Otherwise I strongly suggest you withdraw the remarks, before his lawyers read what you posted. Remember, the laws of libel and defamation on the internet have now got teeth. http://www.cyberlibel.com/liabilit.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/story/0,,1737445,00.html Kwalish Kid wrote: Let's say that these guys are well meaning scientists. Would we ever hear about their work without the PR firms hired by oil companies? For the record. I repeat, McKitrick and McIntyre stated categorically that they were not paid by anyone to do there research in regards to Mann. I even went to the trouble to reproduce their statement as far as I am concerned, that is good enough for me. Gramm Ps Enkidu and Cadrache, my apologies for not getting back to you straight away. I will reply, as I am able. Edited by Gramm on 03/07/07 - 05:38 AM
Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2608

Posted 03/07/07 - 06:22 AM:	#105
McKitrick works for the Fraser Institute. Some of their money comes from oil companies. Their purpose is to generate political research. But where did you hear about the McKitrick and McIntyre publication?
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein [This is included for the irony.]

Cadrache
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada
Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 835

Posted 03/07/07 - 04:45 PM:	#106
=) No rush. Question. Why would oil companies want to support universities and suchlike in relation to Global pollutant levels that are above and beyond simple tax cuts and ensuring possible adequate funds to supply for the education required for some subjects required by oil companies?

fish rising
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 20, 2007
Location: uk
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 72

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 03/07/07 - 05:15 PM:	#107
Global Warming all seems a bit of a distraction, the argument is invalid for either side to claim - one way, the question is how long we can breathe and survive our toxic output, or suffer some other harmful effect... the seas rising won't really matter when the everywhere stinks of our own excement and rotten waste we never managed.
Future is a feeling you just haven't had enough

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 256
Total Posts: 4919

Posted 03/07/07 - 06:24 PM:	#108
Kwalish Kid wrote: McKitrick works for the Fraser Institute. Some of their money comes from oil companies. 1. Correct. The Fraser institute has recieved a small mount of funding from Exxon on a number of separate occasions. However, Mckitrick has not ever received any funding from any oil company, (either directly or indirectly) to continue his research and lecturing work in field of enviro~economics. 2 The Fraser institute refuses to accept government funding or to take public money from tax payers. Furthermore, the amount of money contributed by Exxon has only ever been a small percentage of the overall total donation stream. By comparison. any reader of this debate,would have to ask where all the money being poured into the IPCC and other global warming advocacy groups comes from? Answer, (for the most part), it comes straight out of the tax revenues of a large number of working people. Furthermore, it is interesting to note, while the IPCC and other enviromental groups attempt to smear global warming skeptics, they themselves are never held up for scrutiny or asked where all their funding comes from? Why is that ? 3 McKitrick is connected with the Fraser institute. He was invited and became a contributing member in 2002. http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp... after he published his book "Taken by Storm"... http://www.takenbystorm.info/id1.html . He receives no payment from the Fraser institute. For your information, I emailed him this afternoon. 4 McKitrick does not receive any payment from any industry. Other than his income as a professor of economics. On the otherhand, his co-writer and fellow researcher, Stephen McIntyre has openly admitted he does research work with a mineral exploration company, not an oil company...big difference Kwalish. Nor has he ever disguised or hidden such a connection. 5 Mckitrick did not receive any research funding or oil money through his affiliation with the Fraser institute to produce the research on the Mann Hockey stick matter. This he has pointed out on his own internet site. That is the background...Now to the matter at hand. You still have not retracted these following statements or issued an apology. Kwalish Kid wrote: McKitrick was paid by an oil company to distribute skeptical information in the public rather than through scholarly, peer reviewed channels*. ...... . Oh, I see you know him. It's a good thing that he got the money from the oil companies so that he could get his information to you You are wrong. No, if's and or but's. Now, I appreciate you may have read such remarks on some other Global warming advocacy site; but to perpetuate them, (most particularly when they have been clearly shown to be unsubstantiated), leaves you in something of a vulnerable legal position. It is still not too late to withdraw such un~substaniated remarks. In all fairness, and in the light of what evidences have been presented, you should withdraw your claims. It is both the decent and honest thing to do. Remember also, as a Philosopher, (more than anything), you own an allegiance to truth. Respectfully Gramm Edited by Gramm on 03/12/07 - 11:58 PM
Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 256
Total Posts: 4919

Posted 03/07/07 - 07:02 PM:	#109
enkidu wrote: I did in post 84, by writing that lower CO2 in the permian period allows for a thriving of life including mammals life and then when the concentration rose there was mass extinction, later followed by a new kind of life with higher CO2. I don't have any explanation for this, I can just see that mammals during this period were rather rare and very small in comparison to current times, and no human being may want to return to these times, except one who want the end of humanity, to be sure, there is no certainty here, but the risk is just too high. My apologies. I re~read your post. enkidu wrote: As for the IPCC and the medias, I grant you all you say, I am not interested to enter such a debate. Obviously medias are sensationalist, and the IPCC, being so linked to political life, does certainly have problems of its own, such things are even seen at the level of a single university so no doubt that they also exist at the level of IPCC. But once again, that does not dismiss GW. Enkidu, please allow me to gently remind you that I have not denied the possibility of Global warming...or for that matter Global Cooling. What I have denied is the claim in respect to the anthropogenic aspect and just how much we actually are the cause of such GW or even GC. enkidu wrote: And as the site wherefrom you got the chart, I don't think it is a very serious one. When for instance I read: "CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide." from http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ag... I can't help questioning the validity of all the other things from these authors, if really all lfe benefit from more of CO2, ...... At best anyway, this view can be deemed over-simplistic, and that is still a very generous judgement. Enkidu, it is not nor was it ever meant to be an academic site. In hindsight I regret having posted a link, but at the time I was having difficulty (memory wise) locating the actual source of the original GeoCarb 111 Graph. And again, even if GW does not exist, there are very real benefits in decreasing CO2 emissions from human. There exist many other ways to produce energy, which are cleaner and more efficient, even cost-efficient, and there strictly is no risk in developing them. I wish it were so. Unfortunately even the most optimistic supporters of alternative green and clean energy sources are having great difficulty in matching the price of conventional fossil fuel energy sources. enkidu wrote: So if a sensationalist press, and a bunch of politicians can help to move into this direction, even though they employ arguable means, I don't mind, as long as I don't have to agree with all they say. That would be wonderful, but I don't trust politicians very much. Case in point, in my state of South Australia....the government is seriously looking at the idea of charging us a rain tax for the rain that falls onto our own house roofs...regardless of whether or not we store it or not... enkidu wrote: Furthermore, in terms of risk assesment, the situation is pretty clear, anthropegenic GW may be unlikely and presents a low risk, but decrease of carbon emissions does not present us with any measurable risk, and on the contrary, provide a load of improvement in terms of economics (that is clearly apparent from the last Davos, people there have no interest in a global recession), politics and quality of life, so the sensible thing to do is to decrease them. Given that the IPCC has issued statements back in February saying its all too late, we're all doomed regardless of what we now do. Canada Free Press, Canada - 7 Feb 2007 UN Report: Humans are to Blame for Global Warming Not only are scientists saying they believe global warming is man-made, they're also saying it's now too late, it's all unstoppable. So according to such a hysteria ridden claim by the IPCC themselves, it shouldn't really matter one way or another. But in anycase, as long as the cost of reducing Co2 emmisions doesn't cripple economies, then I have no issue with it. But here i have my own political viewpoint. That is, I am in favour of green and clean, most especially if it means we wash our hands of all middle eastern and opec driven embargoes and threats. Respectfully Gramm Edited by Gramm on 03/07/07 - 07:14 PM
Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 256
Total Posts: 4919

Posted 03/08/07 - 05:43 PM:	#110
Lucretius, Thankyou for your balanced thinking. If it is alright with you, I would love to discuss the matter of 'over~population' with you, but fear it would side track the GW thread. Is there any chance you would set it up as a new topic? Cheers Gramm
Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 256
Total Posts: 4919

Posted 03/08/07 - 11:53 PM:	#111
Fellow PF posters, below is the reply I received from Dr McKitrick in regards to some of the claims beeing thrown around by Kwalish Kid. My question is in in bold black. I originally posted this email and then thought better of it, because as a courtesy to Ross, Dr McKitrick, I wanted to ask his permission before reposting it here. That permission was received this afternoon. So here is the email reply from Ross. Dear Rod Thanks you for your email, and thanks for being out there on my behalf. Question : " Ross, one of the forums that I attend claims you were paid by Exxon to alter your research into the Mann Hockey stick." This is absolutely untrue. I have never been paid by Exxon, hired by Exxon, employed by Exxon, under contract to Exxon, etc. My appointment to the Fraser Institute as a Senior Fellow was in 2002. It is an unpaid position, and I am hardly ever at the Institute, which is in Vancouver (I live near Guelph). The Fraser Institute is, I believe, Canada's largest economics think tank, and has 3 Nobel Laureates on its advisory board. My role is to provide occasional advice on research, program development etc. The idea that we 'altered' our research is bizarre. Our work is published in journals, and all the data and code are available on-line. Many people have examined our work and reproduced our arguments, including the National Academy of Science panel, which on page 91 of their report presents their own numerical example of the biasing effect of Mann's algorithm, such that random numbers generate a hockey stick. Steve McIntyre and I never sought money for our hockey stick research. Steve paid thousands of dollars from his own pocket to fund the work. In the papers we published we stated that no funding was sought or received for the research. People desperately want to believe that the hockey stick was the victim of a savage, unfair attack by evil corporate forces. Inevitably, the people who say this haven't the most elementary clue about the technical issues involved. When Steve and I traveled to Washington one year ago to present our research to the panel of the National Academy of Sciences investigating the the issue, all this garbage about Exxon funding, distorted findings etc. just didn't get in the front door. They invited a series of expert witnesses, most of whom were sympathetic to Mann's position, and the panel was stacked with people who had previously been supportive of his position. We had one speaking slot at the end of the day to present our findings. In the end the final report accepted all our claims and agreed that Mann's results were based on a biased methodology; lacked statistical significance; depended on the use of contaminated bristle-cone data; etc. Like I say, their own panel statistician was easily able to reproduce a numerical example of the mathematical flaw in Mann's method. Likewise the Wegman panel, which focused intently on the statistical and mathematical details, completely upheld our findings, not only in their initial report but in several subsequent submissions to Congress in response to the ensuing hearings and criticisms from Democratic congressmen. My web page http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html ... makes this material available should the people with whom you interact decide they are ready to move beyond the internet rumour mill and read the evidence. And of course they are free to email me if they want to ask for themselves. I don't bite, but like anyone else I prefer polite emails to abuse, so I expect ordinary civility. Yours truly, Dr. Ross McKitrick (I have edited out a part of Dr McKitrick's email to me, which is of a more personal nature and nothing to do with the matters in hand.) As far as I am concerned, Dr McKitrick, strikes me as a man of honesty and integrity. As such I have no reasons to doubt anything he has to say over the Mann Hockey stick matter or allied issues.. I trust this puts an end to any more dubious claims to the contrary. Respectfully Gramm Edited by Gramm on 03/10/07 - 04:49 AM
Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

perseus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 536

Posted 03/10/07 - 11:24 AM:	#112
fish rising said Global Warming all seems a bit of a distraction, the argument is invalid for either side to claim - one way, the question is how long we can breathe and survive our toxic output, or suffer some other harmful effect... It may interest you then to know that it is some of our toxic waste in the form of aerosols has been what has been keeping the planet cooler by acting as nuclei to form clouds which reflect solar radiation. Getting rid of this causes a double whammy for the Western hemisphere which has largely cleared up its act. This may explain why the warming is more prounounced there than in SE Asia the seas rising won't really matter when the everywhere stinks of our own excement and rotten waste we never managed. It may also interest you that pouring urea, a component of excrement, into the sea is being investigated as a method of encouraging the growth of algae to fix carbon. What makes you think that toxic output in the form of air or water pollution is getting any worse in the West? Most trends are down.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

perseus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 536

Posted 03/10/07 - 11:44 AM:	#113
Taking of excrement, did anyone see the global warming swindle http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/grea... They showed a graph which indicated that the temperature was warmer in the Middle ages than now. It turns out this referred to Britain, Greenland and parts of Europe only. Measurements of ice from the poles on which the skeptics place great reliance for other arguments (see table) show it did not happen worldwide. The programme claimed that the sun is the main cause of global warming. Increased solar flares, cuts down on cloud formation and raising temperatures on Earth. This activity correlates well with warmer periods over the past several hundred years. However the evidence suggests that recent solar increases are too small to have produced the present warming, and have been much less important than greenhouse gases since about 1850. for a background to the director of this programme http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2007/3/6/8814/25388 http://community.channel4.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/...
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

fish rising
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 20, 2007
Location: uk
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 72

Posted 03/10/07 - 11:52 AM:	#114
Perseus you seem to be under the illusion that this matter matters not to all but science, the smell, the rottenness, the overpowering sense of other people's mess... what do you expect you'll do when that happens, do you begin cleaning or screaming about the mess we're all in? The science is insignificant
Future is a feeling you just haven't had enough

perseus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 536

Posted 03/10/07 - 03:13 PM:	#115
Fish rising I'm not unsympathetic to the issue of toxic pollution. The problem is that people demand ever more stringent levels. It used to be OK to conduct atmospheric nuclear tests, use lead in gasoline and water pipes, and install asbestos in building insulation and few thought very much about it. These were genuine concerns which needed to be addressed and they were. However, once these were dealt with someone finds something else, so another standard is either introduced or lowered. The latest craze is fine particulate. Consider the massive improvements in air quality since the London smogs of the 50s were thousands died during particular acute episodes. Subjectively as well air quality has improved enormously since these days, but people adjust their expectations. Air pollution is still a serious problem in developing countries. If a fraction of the money spent in reducing vehicle pollution in the West was redirected in reducing the particulate levels ingested caused by wood fuel they would be able to save thousands as many lives and extend typical lifetimes by tens of years. Similarly we need to have priorities for global warming. Why bother with micro turbines and solar cells whilst forests are being burnt for plantations and livestock. By attending to this it is possible to reduce serious pollution levels and reduce global warming at the same time. Where is the political will, to prosecute companies which buy timber and food from these locations? These should pay the bulk of the carbon taxes or if the host country does not intervene tariffs on their exports.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 256
Total Posts: 4919

Posted 03/10/07 - 04:25 PM:	#116
perseus wrote: Taking of excrement, did anyone see the global warming swindle http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/grea... They showed a graph which indicated that the temperature was warmer in the Middle ages than now. It turns out this referred to Britain, Greenland and parts of Europe only. Any chance you can find a copy of the chart ? perseus wrote: Measurements of ice from the poles on which the skeptics place great reliance for other arguments (see table) show it did not happen worldwide. Proof please. perseus wrote: The programme claimed that the sun is the main cause of global warming. Increased solar flares, cuts down on cloud formation and raising temperatures on Earth. This activity correlates well with warmer periods over the past several hundred years. This is basically correct. However there is also the question of cosmic rays. Recent findings by Svensmark and his team suggest that cosmic rays, other than those produced by the sun, also have an significant effect in relation to the atmosphere. His experiment and consequent date still need to be independently reproduced and verified. That said, it is too early to dismiss it or accept it without further testing. For a more detailed over~view of Dr Senskmarks' work, along with material that gives it contextual relevance; read the quoted passages below. A NEW THEORY OF CLIMATE CHANGE February 26, 2007 Remarkable results of research on cosmic rays and climate at the Danish National Space Center are summarized this month in a review for the Royal Astronomical Society in London. The leader of Sun-climate research at the Danish National Space Center, Henrik Svensmark, puts together the findings reported by him and his colleagues in a dozen scientific papers, to tell how the climate is governed by atomic particles coming from exploded stars. These cosmic rays help to make ordinary clouds. High levels of cosmic rays and cloudiness cool the world, while milder intervals occur when cosmic rays and cloud cover diminish. The review paper entitled "Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges' appears in the February issue of Astronomy & Geophysics. Here are some of its salient points. For more than 20 years, satellite records of low-altitude clouds have closely followed variations in cosmic rays. Just how cosmic rays take part in cloud-making appeared in the SKY experiment, conducted in the basement of the Danish National Space Center. Electrons set free in the air by passing cosmic rays help to assemble the building blocks for cloud condensation nuclei on which water vapour condenses to make clouds. Cosmic ray intensities -- and therefore cloudiness -- keep changing because the Sun's magnetic field varies in its ability to repel cosmic rays coming from the Galaxy, before they can reach the Earth. Radioactive carbon-14 and other unusual atoms made in the atmosphere by cosmic rays provide a record of how cosmic-ray intensities have varied in the past. They explain repeated alternations between cold and warm periods during the past 12,000 years. Whenever the Sun was feeble and cosmic-ray intensities were high, cold conditions ensued, most recently in the Little Ace Age that climaxed 300 years ago. On long timescales the intensity of cosmic rays varies more emphatically because the influx from the Galaxy changes. During the past 500 million years the Earth has passed through four "hothouse' episodes, free of ice and with high sea levels, and four "icehouse' episodes like the one we live in now, with ice-sheets, glaciers and relatively low sea levels. Nir Shaviv of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, together with Ján Veizer of the Ruhr University and the University of Ottawa, links these changes to the journey of the Sun and the Earth through the Milky Way Galaxy. They blame the icehouse episodes on encounters with bright spiral arms, where cosmic rays are most intense. More frequent chilling events, every 34 million years or so, occur whenever the solar system passes through with the mid-plane of the Galaxy. In Snowball Earth episodes around 700 and 2300 million years ago, even the Equator was icy. At those times the birth-rate of stars in the Galaxy was unusually high, which would have also meant a large number of exploding stars and intense cosmic rays. Earlier still, the theory of cosmic rays and clouds helps to explain why the Earth did not freeze solid when it was very young. The Sun was much fainter than it is now, but also more vigorous in repelling cosmic rays, so the Earth would not have had much cloud cover. While calculating the changing influx since life began about 3.8 billion years ago, Dr Svensmark discovered a surprising connection between cosmic-ray intensities and a variability of the productivity of life. Near the end of his review Dr Svensmark writes: "The past 10 years have seen the reconnaissance of a new area of research by a small number of investigators. The multidisciplinary nature of cosmoclimatology is both a challenge and an opportunity for many lines of inquiry.' Even the search for alien life is affected, because it should now take into account of the need for the right magnetic environment, if life is to originate and survive on the planets of other stars. "Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges', Henrik Svensmark, Astronomy & Geophysics, Vol. 48, Issue 1, pages 1.18-1.24, February 2007 Astronomy & Geophysics is published for the Royal Astronomical Society by Blackwell Synergy:www.blackwell-synergy.com/toc/aag/48/1 Dr Svensmark has also written a plain-language book on the same theme, jointly with the British science writer Nigel Calder. Entitled The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change. In relation to this matter, it seems that independent studies of Mars, are showing that it is going through a relatively warming period that is coinciding with that on Earth. Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming. Says Kate Raviliousfor. Press release . National Geographic News.February 28, 2007 Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural--and not a human-induced--cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory. Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts".) New Mars Pictures Show Signs of Watery "Aquifers" (February 16, 2007)* Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures. In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun. "The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars." he said. Solar Cycles Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets. Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories. "Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance." Abdussamatov said. By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars. http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warmin... (Please note, one of the link to the National Geographic News site is down.) perseus wrote: However the evidence suggests that recent solar increases are too small to have produced the present warming, and have been much less important than greenhouse gases since about 1850. Proof please. In the meantime, you might like to read through some more of what you dismissively call "Excrement". Seems like the wheels are starting to fall off the IPCC gravy~train. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction... Gramm Edited by Gramm on 03/10/07 - 04:30 PM
Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

fish rising
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 20, 2007
Location: uk
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 72

Posted 03/10/07 - 06:31 PM:	#117
Ok I certainly agree about the lack of clarity or systemic view in finding a solution. Two issues leave me in no doubt about the green movement. Big business determines the nature of common politics Profit. The whole concept operates on exploitation. Nothing these days has value in itself, only the executive reap rewards, they even get someone else to count the cost! The ignorant bliss that keeps the workforce happy can be excluded from this example, happiness at any price isn't the good life. Joni Mitchell said it better than I ever could...
Future is a feeling you just haven't had enough

perseus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 536

Posted 03/12/07 - 01:32 PM:	#118
The programme does not reference the information. There is plenty of data regarding global temperature estimates from the Middle Ages. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html A wider range of estimates are here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png According to New Scientist 10^th March edition it appears as if the politicians are still firmly in charge of the global warming agenda. There are accusations of political pressure watering down the conclusions of the latest IPCC report. The reference to the possible acceleration of climate change, and water vapour leading to a strong positive feedback were removed along with references that global warming is also accelerating the discharge of ice from major ice sheets.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

Cadrache
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada
Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 835

Posted 03/12/07 - 02:21 PM:	#119
Also note that supposedly the origins of the idea of global warming originated from the idea that we are currently 'suppose to be' in an ice age that was 'suppose to' have begun about 100 years ago. At least that is the claim from a friend of mine, and is the reason why the temperature is higher then what it should be.

perseus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 536

Posted 04/30/07 - 08:49 AM:	#120
Here is a more detailed article on the claims in the 'Global warming Swindle' and the scientific evidence (or not) behind them. It also discusses the contributors motives. http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propa...
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 256
Total Posts: 4919

Posted 05/01/07 - 01:01 AM:	#121
perseus wrote: Here is a more detailed article on the claims in the 'Global warming Swindle' and the scientific evidence (or not) behind them. It also discusses the contributors motives. http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propa... Oh sweet. You forgot to mention that the two editors are politically biased left wingers. David Cromwell writes for the Guardian and the Independent, while his sidekick... David Edwards writes for the New Internationalist, Znet, The Big Issue and others. Furthermore, both admit they are inspired by Naom Chomsky and John Pilger. And to top it all off, these self appointed S.N.A.G editors go on to outline their concerns and solutions...stating... We accept the Buddhist assertion* that while greed and hatred distort reason, compassion empowers it. Our aim is to increase rational awareness, critical thought and compassion, and to decrease greed, hatred and ignorance. Our goal is not at all to attack, insult or anger individual editors or journalists but to highlight significant examples of the systemic distortion that is facilitating appalling crimes against humanity: - The failure to communicate the truth of exactly who is responsible for the slaughter of 500,000 Iraqi children under five. - The silence surrounding the motives and devastating consequences of corporate obstruction of action on climate change; the true nature, motives and consequences of 'globalisation' the corporate degradation and distortion of democratic society and culture. - Our hope is that by so doing we can help all of us to free ourselves from delusions. In the age of global warming and globalised exploitation these delusions threaten an extraordinary, and perhaps terminal, disaster - they should not be allowed to go unchallenged "Our hope is that by so doing we can help all of us to free ourselves from delusions.**" Oh Brother.... Since when has reciting Buddhist teachings, or quoting Pilger & Chomsky, become a substitute for Hard Science? Gramm http://www.medialens.org/about/ Edited by Gramm on 07/03/07 - 06:16 PM
Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

perseus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 536

Posted 05/01/07 - 09:35 AM:	#122
Gramm wrote: You forgot to mention that the two editors are politically biased left wingers. David Cromwell writes for the Guardian and the Independent, while his sidekick... David Edwards writes for the New Internationalist, Znet, The Big Issue and others. What better independent information is there than from the Independent? The Murdoch Media, or perhaps these guys shown on the program supported by neo conservative groups which are in turn funded by Exxon http://www.exxonsecrets.org/index.php?mapid=831 (click ‘Launch’ then click ‘skip intro’)
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 256
Total Posts: 4919

Posted 05/01/07 - 06:00 PM:	#123
perseus wrote: What better independent information is there than from the Independent? The Murdoch Media, or perhaps these guys shown on the program supported by neo conservative groups which are in turn funded by Exxon. http://www.exxonsecrets.org/index.php?mapid=831 (click ‘Launch’ then click ‘skip intro’) First off, the Murdoch press, is covering both sides of the argument. Your accusation that they are funded or biased in favor of anti-global warming forces...is palpable nonsense. Now onto the big one...the supposed ...Exxonsecrets.. presented by none other than that loopy left organization "Greenpeace". (Remember, one of the founders of Greenpeace, resigned because of what he called the take~over of the organization by Left-wing power groups). Even if we believe Greenpeace's accusation for one second; according to their blurb, the 'evil' Exxon corporation has funded 'anti-global' warming forces to the tune of $12,071,973. since 1998... That works out to a paltry $1,341330. per year. Thats just over One & a Quarter million spread out across the world... By comparison....as of 2004: Greenpeace International a 'Tax-free' organization, weighs in at approximately 134,000,000 Euros or $A: 360,000,000. or approx $US:280,000,000. http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/internation... On average, Greenpeace spends almost three times Exxon's global warming budget in setting up its own web of disinformation services. The USA office of Greenpeace alone has an annual budget of $10,000,000 that it can spend on various forms of Junk-Science disinformation. http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview... Furthermore, the biggest gravy train of all...the IPCC is very coy about letting people know how much money it gets from various funding bodies. In fact it is almost impossible to get any information on the internet. What have they to hide ? Plenty. Try digging through the quagmire...of reports.. and you'll find garbage like this that has been released as"Not protectively marked for Publication" http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/com_reg_october06v2.pdf. This merely lists names, and offers nothing of audit-able substance. This 'doctored' pdf invariably indicates that the IPCC have plenty of "protected" reports (read hide) including all their funding reports. But no matter how you divvy up the cake, the IPCC, Greenpeace, etc are all using lies, disinformation pressure, and threats of retaliation to extort money from governments, communities, organizations, charities, and individuals..and their budgets far outstrip anything the likes of Exxon can come up with in relation to these sorts of propaganda battles. http://www.scientific-alliance.org/opinions/opini... So as far as I am concerned, Greenpeace, IPCC etc, are the biggest lying thieves in town. Gramm Edited by Gramm on 05/02/07 - 01:34 AM
Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

perseus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 536

Posted 05/03/07 - 02:38 PM:	#124
Gramm wrote: First off, the Murdoch press, is covering both sides of the argument. Your accusation that they are funded or biased in favour of anti-global warming forces...is palpable nonsense. Gramm Try typing 'global warming Fox news' for an indication of the independence of the Murdoch Media. http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=fox+ne... I expect the reason why the IPCC have a greater spend than the sceptics is due to the extensive evidence they need to gather before governments will even start to consider any alternative course. It takes time and resources to generate evidence but very little to debunk it using doctored and selective data to confuse people who want to believe them. With regards to Greenpeace, they are a political group with a flag to wave just like world governments and I agree both groups have to be treated with Scepticism at times. In fact it could be argued that Greenpeace's idealogical stance against nuclear power is self defeating. However their campaigning covers a large range of environmental criteria not just global warming so their spend doesn't look extravagent.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 256
Total Posts: 4919

Posted 05/03/07 - 05:39 PM:	#125
perseus wrote: In fact it could be argued that Greenpeace's idealogical stance against nuclear power is self defeating. I am no supporter of conventional Nuclear energy powerstations; but that said, I am open to the idea of Fusion powerstations. Unfortunately, even this non polluting form of energy appears to be off the agenda as far as Greenpeace is concerned. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0506/S00487.htm Their argument being that the money is better spent on Windfarms. It is an interesting proposal that merits consideration, but I don't think it should be at the expense of Fusion research. Gramm Ps : Incidently, as an alternative energy person, you might like to read this... It allegedly provides energy from the wind, with the side benefit of extracting water from air. (an exceptionally important matter for drought ridden countries such as Australia). http://www.alternate-energy-sources.com/Whisson-w... http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,2086... PPs : As you will note, the "Australian" is a Murdoch 'News Corp' press newspaper, and Philip Adams, the reporter is a self confessed socialist. He also works for the ABC. The fact that he is a significant writer for the Australian, tends to undermine the accusation that News corp is anti Global Warming or biased one way or another.
Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.