Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor

[Sailor Steve]

you cannot deny it :arrgh!:
Of course I can. I can deny anything. Watch me.
:rotfl2:

[Onkel Neal]

That's really damning because, as we all know, Newsweek is a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms

No, not at all. But Newsweek (and other sources of reporting) is how 99% of the "informed masses" get their opinions fed to them. ;) Good video, btw, Thanks!



i think this shows the real reason for the rise in temperature
http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/piratesarecool.jpg

you cannot deny it :arrgh!:

Ha, good one, Morts :up:

[Respenus]

For the sceptics:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00656/Cartoon_656336a.jpg

For the supporters:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00657/TTM093311CC_RGB_ONL_657173a.jpg

Or is it the other way around?

[UnderseaLcpl]

That's really damning because, as we all know, Newsweek is a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms

Slow down there, turbo. I think you're jumping to conclusions.

Newsweek may not be an accredited and peer-reviewed scientific journal, but that is no reason to discount the findings of scientists it interviewed. In fact, we should look at the findings of the dissenters more carefully than those of the majority.

Think about it. How often has humanity been mislead by the scientific majority? I think that you will find that it has done so more than you may realize.

Scientists are people, just like any others. As people, they are subject to the biological programming they were born with. Like anyone else, they seek wealth, prosperity, peer respect, and certain associated benefits on some level. Given the nature of their profession, it is only natural that they might seek to support findings most inclined towards their own benefit. Scientists who identify problems are given grants or payed to find a solution, especially when support from a fiat power with fiat funding and a vested interest in public opinion is involved. Scientists who identify non-problems are given very little. The free market is at work even when monetary gain is not a purported goal.

Ask yourself how often it has been that the scientific majority ever discovered anything of significance. It is always the few and the brilliant that have dicovered and invented things that changed the views and the lifestyles of the multitudes. The rest are simply "on the bandwagon" so to speak, and they are often associated with "backwards" ideas. Do you suppose that the theory of climate change has heralded a complete reversal of this tendency?

Of course, there are a number of scientists who refuse to compromise their beliefs for the promise of influence and wealth, but most of them do not make headlines. They continually strive to make a better life for everyone, despite the fact that they are largely ignored by the press and therefore the people and the government, but you don't hear about them very often as a result. They also get less funding.



Anthropoligic climate change is a myth, and those who support the silly, misguided, and plutocratic agenda of somehow managing to control the Earth's climate to any significant degree have been fooled by the time-tested practice of witch-doctery. Do you not see how politicians and corporations alike are taking advantage of this belief? Are you so blind as to suppose that their vested interest is due to concern for future generations or the rest of the planet's inhabitants? Can you point to an example of anything, ever, that suggests that the entities in question might act in an altruistic fashion?

Can you imagine the drastic measures it would take to reverse anthropologic climate change if it were real? I hate to break it to you, but the average human exhales 22lbs of carbon dioxide per day, to say nothing else of every other oxygen-breathing lifeform on this planet. That amounts to more CO2 than all machines on the planet can produce.... every day.

I find it ironic that so many atheists support the theory of climate change and actually think there is something we could do to prevent it. The idea of beliefs based upon faith comes to mind.

The fact of the matter is that there is no realistic solution to global climate change, even if it was caused by humans. What are we going to do? Kill a bunch of people? Reverse or hinder industrial and therefore technological progress by letting the government, of all things, dictate economic policy? I laugh at the thought.

Our best bet is to stay the course and simply allow industry to become cleaner and more efficient through satisfying consumer demand. Has it ever done otherwise? I have no problem with environmental awareness; In fact, I think environmental awareness is a good thing and I think that consumers often reflect that desire in their purchase choices, but where I draw the line is at letting a state-business complex design and appropriate funds for an imaginary climate-saving agenda. That's a recipe for disaster and I can't make it any more simple than that.

How silly would you have to be to believe the promises of politicians that we all know lie to us, financed by businesses seeking state-enforced monopoly, based upon the predictions of a scientific majority with demonstrable self-interest, as opposed to free-market businesses that literally beg for our patronage and that are more than happy to emulate our values and interests so long as we trade with them -Businesses that spend untold billions on consumer research every year, just to engage in mutually beneficial trade with consumers and employees?


Fight for the anti-climate change agenda or environmentalism or whatever you want, but for the love of God do not co-opt the state in your efforts. There is no surer path to abuse, mismanagement and waste than to freely give power to anyone or anything.

[Skybird]

Fight for the anti-climate change agenda or environmentalism or whatever you want, but for the love of God do not co-opt the state in your efforts. There is no surer path to abuse, mismanagement and waste than to freely give power to anyone or anything.
As always I ask the inevitable question: does this include or exclude economic lobbies? ;)

You are dealing with two devils: unregulated market propagators, and politicians. Why you declare the one a devil and the other a saint, probably always will escape me. All I see is two devils both doing a maximum ammount of damage.

Your image of sciences, btw, is not really unbiased, is it. While there are problems in the academic business routines, you put them to extremes, declare them a rule, and by that diffame everything they produce. listening to you makes me wonder why we should even want to have any science done independently from business interests anymore at all. and that results in what we have with the pharmacuetical industry: just inventing something that promises profit, and then inventing a fictional wide spread public suffering or disease that needs this drug. Or to add a non-effective meaningless substance to a drug that is short before loosing patent protection so that cheaper generica can be produced, by that new addition making it in legal context a new drug that enjoys full time patent protection again. And this is what is called science in business context. I hear no criticism of that, nor criticism on the fabrications in which the email "scandal" is basing on despite its now more and more obvious distortions and manipulative misquotes.

[OneToughHerring]

"You Americans"? America is hugely divided on this question. I agree consumption should be cut by any reasonable means. I agree that we need to react as if every single claim about warming and greenhouse gasses is true. And I also think Al Gore is an idiot.

And I also see the need not to blind ourselves to the possibility that some folks are indeed lying about the numbers. Dishonesty in a noble cause is still dishonesty.

I don't think the US is really that divided on this issue or indeed other issues. In the end what matters is what happens on the concrete level. The US is very much into their religion of consumption and producing of garbage and pollution.

Also, plenty of imperialist stuff in the Danish text (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/12/09/danish.draft.climate.text/index.html).

[Onkel Neal]

Of course, there are a number of scientists who refuse to compromise their beliefs for the promise of influence and wealth, but most of them do not make headlines. They continually strive to make a better life for everyone, despite the fact that they are largely ignored by the press and therefore the people and the government, but you don't hear about them very often as a result. They also get less funding.

Good point!

I find it ironic that so many atheists support the theory of climate change and actually think there is something we could do to prevent it. The idea of beliefs based upon faith comes to mind.
http://antinuclearinfo.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/atomic-bomb-l.jpg





Anthropoligic climate change is a myth, and those who support the silly, misguided, and plutocratic agenda of somehow managing to control the Earth's climate to any significant degree have been fooled by the time-tested practice of witch-doctery. Do you not see how politicians and corporations alike are taking advantage of this belief? Are you so blind as to suppose that their vested interest is due to concern for future generations or the rest of the planet's inhabitants? Can you point to an example of anything, ever, that suggests that the entities in question might act in an altruistic fashion?

Can you imagine the drastic measures it would take to reverse anthropologic climate change if it were real? I hate to break it to you, but the average human exhales 22lbs of carbon dioxide per day, to say nothing else of every other oxygen-breathing lifeform on this planet. That amounts to more CO2 than all machines on the planet can produce.... every day.


The fact of the matter is that there is no realistic solution to global climate change, even if it was caused by humans. What are we going to do? Kill a bunch of people? Reverse or hinder industrial and therefore technological progress by letting the government, of all things, dictate economic policy? I laugh at the thought.


Exactly, that's something that always comes to mind for me; how many GW believers will actually take proactive steps in their own lives to "reduce GH gasses"? Some do, but most just want govts to mandate changes for everyone. I tell ya, if GW is man-made and real (and despite some misguided people who think I am prejudiced and biased, I do not claim it is or is not real), and if we have to take steps to reverse it, they won't be easy fixes. How many people here are willing to limit themselves to 1 day on the Internet a week to save electricty?

[August]

I don't think the US is really that divided on this issue or indeed other issues.

Yeah because you'd certainly know better sitting in your little ice palace up there in Finland than Steve would living smack dab in the middle of the US. :roll:

[OneToughHerring]

Yeah because you'd certainly know better sitting in your little ice palace up there in Finland than Steve would living smack dab in the middle of the US. :roll:

That's right because living in a country makes a person expert in everything concerning said country. :doh:

[AVGWarhawk]

Exactly, that's something that always comes to mind for me; how many GW believers will actually take proactive steps in their own lives to "reduce GH gasses"? Some do, but most just want govts to mandate changes for everyone. I tell ya, if GW is man-made and real (and despite some misguided people who think I am prejudiced and biased, I do not claim it is or is not real), and if we have to take steps to reverse it, they won't be easy fixes. How many people here are willing to limit themselves to 1 day on the Internet a week to save electricty?

Here is the thing, people have not been forced to change. Car manufactures have been forced to change as well as factories. Cars of 20 years ago were belching CO2 like no tomorrow. The manufactures were advised that CO2 belching cars can not happen anymore. So the air pump/catalytic convertor were invented. Great, reduced emissions. But that was not good enough. Big government wanted more reduction. Computers (ROM) are jammed under the dash. MAF, MAP, coolent, throttle position sensors are created reducing emissions even further. The infamouse 'check engine' light! Then to get to the ultimate 14:1 air/fuel mixture, that magic number, carbs were tossed and fuel injection inserted. Now direct injection is used...20% more efficent and cleaner. The cars today are just about spitting only water out of the tailpipe. Yet we still warm!?! What gives? So, some only changed by purchasing a better more efficient car. In reality, all new cars are more efficient the cars of yester-year. We therefore are not told to change a thing. We are only beaten into submission over an ever warming climate and told we are the cause yet the cars and factories are much more efficient. We are ASKED to recycle but never forced. Do we continue on that path without reduction and or a temp that is staying constant? Does anyone really think the warming would stop if every car on the road was kept from running?

[AVGWarhawk]

That's right because living in a country makes a person expert in everything concerning said country. :doh:

Maybe not the expert but certainly has a hand up. Then again, if you ever been to Walmart here in the states you would...well never mind.

[Respenus]

You would be to remember that there are other people in the world than the USA and/or Europe. There are billions in Asia and they are getting more consumer good by the day. Goods that need to be made. Resources which have to be mined and smelter. It is the whole process which emits, not just the cars, although transportation plays an important part in human CO2 emissions.

I have the answer for you free-market loving American. Technological singularity. Then we let it decide what to do. Hopefully it will understand that reason is more than 2+2=4 (if that is even true in the first place). Otherwise, it will do what we will have to do to ourselves in due time. Malthus is rolling in his grave, laughing at the idiots who did not take him seriously.

Something extra (http://www.viruscomix.com/page503.html) to sink you mind into.

[AVGWarhawk]

You would be to remember that there are other people in the world than the USA and/or Europe. There are billions in Asia and they are getting more consumer good by the day. Goods that need to be made. Resources which have to be mined and smelter. It is the whole process which emits, not just the cars, although transportation plays an important part in human CO2 emissions.

I have the answer for you free-market loving American. Technological singularity. Then we let it decide what to do. Hopefully it will understand that reason is more than 2+2=4 (if that is even true in the first place). Otherwise, it will do what we will have to do to ourselves in due time. Malthus is rolling in his grave, laughing at the idiots who did not take him seriously.

Something extra (http://www.viruscomix.com/page503.html) to sink you mind into.

Well, us fun loving free market American purchase cars from foreign manufactures that are required to meet the emission requirements set by the US government. Others need to follow suit. Why do I get the feeling the GW is being dropped in the USA lap soley as the cause for the problem? Why do I get the feeling in the very thread other around the globe believe this is the fault of the USA?

[Respenus]

If you misunderstood, I apologise. It was newer my intention to claim that it is America's fault. It is primarily Europe's for it is Europe that developed that train of though that lead to industrialisation. Yet the difference between Europe and the USA, is that Europe and its people are more willing to accept change, even if that borders on self-destruction than remain in one single spot and newer move away.

Now, this was again an over-generalisation for which I apologise. Yet the argument, when reduced to individuals and maybe even society proper is the same. Who's populace is most against climate change and the actions that have been taken to fight it (although I agree that they are far from being the most efficient ones)? The anglo-saxons and their former American colonies. Free-market. I am not saying that you are the only ones. Far from it. You're just the most entrenched ones.

[AVGWarhawk]

If you misunderstood, I apologise. It was newer my intention to claim that it is America's fault. It is primarily Europe's for it is Europe that developed that train of though that lead to industrialisation. Yet the difference between Europe and the USA, is that Europe and its people are more willing to accept change, even if that borders on self-destruction than remain in one single spot and newer move away.

Now, this was again an over-generalisation for which I apologise. Yet the argument, when reduced to individuals and maybe even society proper is the same. Who's populace is most against climate change and the actions that have been taken to fight it (although I agree that they are far from being the most efficient ones)? The anglo-saxons and their former American colonies. Free-market. I am not saying that you are the only ones. Far from it. You're just the most entrenched ones.

No, it was only your post that spurned the thought that this thread leans towards the US as the sole provider of this GW issue. I was not suggesting you did. :up: May I inquire as to why you say the US is the most entrenched?

[UnderseaLcpl]

As always I ask the inevitable question: does this include or exclude economic lobbies? ;)

And as always, I prodvide the same answer. If there is very little state power to seek, who would waste their time lobbying? :DL

You are dealing with two devils: unregulated market propagators, and politicians. Why you declare the one a devil and the other a saint, probably always will escape me. All I see is two devils both doing a maximum ammount of damage.
I have never advocated an unregulated market, and you know that, Sky. I am not an anarchist or an anarcho-capitalist, and I've said on numerous occassions that I think a reasonable tax on industrial effluents would be in order, not to mention stiff state penalties for fraud.

Until you produce a third form of government that doesn't involve handing fiat power over to people and trusting them to do what is right, or transforming basic human nature, I'll stick with minimally-regulated capitalism.

Your image of sciences, btw, is not really unbiased, is it. While there are problems in the academic business routines, you put them to extremes, declare them a rule, and by that diffame everything they produce.
I neither attributed a rule to science nor defamed it in any way that was not already apparent. Given your prediliction for questioning spoon-fed state propaganda, I would have thought that you have arrived at the same conclusions I have.

You know as well as I do that scientists are people, Sky. They do not magically transcend human nature in the process of obtaining their degree. As a student of psychology, no matter what school you follow, you should know that.


listening to you makes me wonder why we should even want to have any science done independently from business interests anymore at all and that results in what we have with the pharmacuetical industry: just inventing something that promises profit, and then inventing a fictional wide spread public suffering or disease that needs this drug.
You're thinking backwards, my friend.

What you should be asking yourself is why pharmaceutical companies get away with that kind of crap. The answer is simple; there is not enough competition. The reason for the lack of competition is the state-mandated tax and licensure requirements that make the pharmaceutical market a "closed shop", so to speak.

We see this phenomenon everywhere, but we rarely recognize it. Licensures, labor unions, regulations...etc etc - all are presented in the guise of protecting the consumer or the worker, but their actual purpose is to defeat market mechanisms. Established business and labor do not like having to compete, and who does, really? Thus, they simply outlaw the competition.

Pharmaceutical companies are no different. It takes nearly a decade to get a drug approved by the FDA and it takes millions of dollars. Entrepeneurs cannot compete with that. They often have to get investment just to develop their drugs, and their investors often want to see a return on their investment in fairly short order. They often end up selling their formulas to companies that can finance development.

Only the rich can develop and market drugs, so it is no surprise that the pharmaceutical market is less than efficient. Even so, people get killed by bad medicine all the time. The FDA does nothing to help that, other than to serve as a buffer between consumers and the indutsry. Where consumer outrage and litigation should provide a rapid and furious end to bad drug companies, the FDA simply serves to provide a legal barrier to natural market processes, especially when the bad drug in question has been FDA approved.


Or to add a non-effective meaningless substance to a drug that is short before loosing patent protection so that cheaper generica can be produced, by that new addition making it in legal context a new drug that enjoys full time patent protection again. And this is what is called science in business context. I hear no criticism of that, nor criticism on the fabrications in which the email "scandal" is basing on despite its now more and more obvious distortions and manipulative misquotes.

No, that is not science in business context. Business expects profits, and it gains profits by satisfying consumers. Thus, it expects real results from the researchers it selects in the form of marketable and effective products and solutions. If the researchers fail to deliver, they are a waste of capital and they are fired.

Government science, on the other hand, gets funding by presenting problems. If there are no problems, there is no funding, see?

Sure, marketing does present people with goods they do not need from time to time. Hell, let's assume that everything private industry produces is not actually needed by anyone. Nonetheless, that model sure beats the crap out of the state's modus operandi of supplying funding to people who invent problems. At least the private model produces real and usable economic benefit, rather than pages upon pages of worthless justification for continued funding.

[OneToughHerring]

Maybe not the expert but certainly has a hand up. Then again, if you ever been to Walmart here in the states you would...well never mind.

The US is the no. 1 polluter of the world, I'd say that tells more about US then something someone has said. Actions speak louder then words, as they say.

[August]

That's right because living in a country makes a person expert in everything concerning said country. :doh:

So now you're claiming that you know more about the US than Steve does? Here's a hint, you don't. Not even close.

[August]

Maybe not the expert but certainly has a hand up. Then again, if you ever been to Walmart here in the states you would...well never mind.

I'd say that if Herring were American he'd be a Walmart regular... :DL

[OneToughHerring]

So now you're claiming that you know more about the US than Steve does? Here's a hint, you don't. Not even close.

:doh:

The US is the no. 1 polluter of the world, I'd say that tells more about US then something someone has said. Actions speak louder then words, as they say.

[Fish]

Think about it. How often has humanity been mislead by the scientific majority? I think that you will find that it has done so more than you may realize.


'Hi Underseal, you think?
When knowing, care to share it with us? :-?

[August]

The US is the no. 1 polluter of the world, I'd say that tells more about US then something someone has said. Actions speak louder then words, as they say. :doh:

Except that, just like in most of the other things you post, you're wrong. :salute:

[AVGWarhawk]

The US is the no. 1 polluter of the world, I'd say that tells more about US then something someone has said. Actions speak louder then words, as they say.

Try this list first as the large polluters:

CO2 Emissions (per capita) (most recent) by country
#1 Qatar: 40.6735 per 1,000 people
#2 United Arab Emirates: 28.213 per 1,000 people
#3 Kuwait: 25.0499 per 1,000 people
#4 Bahrain: 20.0253 per 1,000 people
#5 United States: 19.4839 per 1,000 people

Waste generation (most recent) by country
#1 Denmark: 560 kgs per person per year
#2 Netherlands: 530 kgs per person per year
#3 United Kingdom: 480 kgs per person per year
#4 United States: 460 kgs per person per year
#5 Belgium: 450 kgs per person per year
Pollution > Carbon dioxide 1999 (most recent) by country
#1 United States: 1,499,850
#2 Russia: 392,287
#3 Japan: 315,274
#4 India: 293,938
#5 Germany: 216,213
Pollution > Nuclear waste (most recent) by country
#1 United States: 2,100
#2 Canada: 1,340
#3 France: 1,130
#4 Japan: 964
#5 United Kingdom:
And here the countries that work on being green the most..
Environmental agreement compliance (most recent) by country Rank Countries Amount (top to bottom)
#1 Finland: 6.72
#2 Denmark: 6.67
#3 Sweden: 6.54
#4 Austria: 6.33
#5 Germany: 6.27

10 most polluted places in 2006:

Linfen, China, where residents say they literally choke on coal dust in the evenings, exemplifies many Chinese cities;
Haina, Dominican Republic, has severe lead contamination because of lead battery recycling, a problem common throughout poorer countries [image (http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=061018_haina_batteries_02.jpg&cap=According+to+a+report+by+Battery+Council+Inter national%2C+the+U.S.+consumed+over+12+billion+poun ds+of+lead+in+batteries+from+1999+to+2003.+A+porti on+of+these+batteries+end+up+in+primitive+recyclin g+facilities+like+this+depot+in+Haina%2C+Dominican +Republic.+Credit%3A+Blacksmith+Institute)];
Ranipet, India, where leather tanning wastes contaminate groundwater with hexavalent chromium, made famous by Erin Brockovich, resulting in water that apparently stings like an insect bite [image (http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=061018_Ranipet_river_02.jpg&cap=Water+contaminated+with+toxic+chemicals+flows+ in+an+open+trench+in+Ranipet%2C+India.+Credit%3A+B lacksmith+Institute)];
Mailuu-Suu, Kyrgyzstan, home to nearly 2 million cubic meters of radioactive mining waste that threatens the entire Ferghana valley, one of the most fertile and densely populated areas in Central Asia that also experiences high rates of seismic activity;
La Oroya, Peru, where the metal processing plant, owned by the Missouri-based Doe Run Corporation, leads to toxic emissions of lead;
Dzerzinsk, Russia, one of the country's principal chemical weapons manufacturing sites until the end of the Cold War [image (http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=061018_dzerzhinsk_sludge_02.jp g&cap=In+Dzerzhinsk%2C+Russia%2C+waste+from+190+chem icals+has+turned+the+groundwater+into+a+dangerous+ toxic+sludge.+Life+expectancy+there+is+42+for+men+ and+47+for+women.+Credit%3A+Blacksmith+Institute)];
Norilsk, Russia, which houses the world's largest heavy metals smelting complex;
Rudnaya Pristan, Russia, where lead contamination resulted in child blood lead levels eight to 20 times maximum allowable U.S. levels;
Chernobyl, Ukraine, infamous site of a nuclear meltdown 20 years ago; and
Kabwe, Zambia, where child blood levels of lead are five to 10 times the allowable EPA maximum [image (http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=061018_Kabwe_lead_02.jpg&cap=Young+men+look+for+metal+at+the+site+of+an+aba ndoned+lead+mine+in+Kabwe%2C+Zambia.+Lead+poisonin g+of+children+in+the+area+is+endemic.+Credit%3A+Bl acksmith+Institute)].


And the new winner:

AUSTRALIA!
http://www.inhabitat.com/2009/09/11/australians-are-the-worst-polluters-in-the-world/


It’s official. While Americans had long had the honor (or, in this case, dishonor) of being the world’s biggest individual producers of carbon dioxide, Australians have overtaken them to claim the top spot (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090911/wl_asia_afp/australiaenvironmentclimatewarming). In a recently released report, British risk consultancy Maplecroft placed Australia’s per capita CO2 output at 20.58 tons a year, which is about four percent higher than the United States. The other three top five biggest losers were Canada, the Netherlands (quite surprisingly) and Saudi Arabia. To Australia’s credit, it has committed to cutting greenhouse gas emissions by up to 25 percent by 2020 compared to 2000 levels, meaning that Americans could once again be labeled “World’s Worst Polluters” if we don’t get our acts together. To be fair, many individual Aussies, like our very own Jorge Chapa (http://www.inhabitat.com/author/jorge/), are extremely green, and hopefully offset some of their homeland’s unsustainable ways.

[OneToughHerring]

Except that, just like in most of the other things you post, you're wrong. :salute:

By what definition, per capita or absolute figures? Or perhaps both?

[UnderseaLcpl]

'Hi Underseal, you think?
I do think, therefore I am:DL
When knowing, care to share it with us? :-?

Sure, where shall I begin? The nature of Earth and the Solar system? Mathematics? Magnetism? Human anatomy? Newtonian Physics? Psychology? Electromagnetic theory? Relativistic theory? Waveform propogatation? Atomic theory? Gene theory?

Pick one of the above or select any field you choose and I will show you how one (or a few) brilliant minds succeeded in changing the world's view forever.

[AVGWarhawk]

By what definition, per capita or absolute figures? Or perhaps both?


Does it matter? Well no. Pollution is pollution.

[Sailor Steve]

I don't think the US is really that divided on this issue or indeed other issues. In the end what matters is what happens on the concrete level. The US is very much into their religion of consumption and producing of garbage and pollution.

Also, plenty of imperialist stuff in the Danish text (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/12/09/danish.draft.climate.text/index.html).
My argument isn't with claims the US is the worst in just about every category. My argument is with your ongoing blanket claims about Evil Americans. There are huge discussions and debates going on here about that concrete level you mention. We fight about it constantly.

Yes, we're number one in per capita CO2 pollution. Guess who's a fairly close number five?
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_pol_car_dio_per_cap-pollution-carbon-dioxide-per-capita

And guess who cuts down more timber per capita than any other nation in the world?
http://atlas.aaas.org/natres/intro_popups.php?p=top

I don't disagree that something should be done, and I don't disagree that America has problems in this area. It just seems to me that you would rather call us names that have an honest discussion of the situation.

[OneToughHerring]

Does it matter? Well no.

Of course it does. I mean, China has about 4 + times the population of the US so it's not that big of surprise if they produce more pollution in absolute figures then the US. And a small country like Qatar may produce more in terms of per capita but a lot less in absolute figures.

[SteamWake]

Overheard a story about a picture being presented to the Summit.

Its a rather graphic portrayal of a Polar bear with the dead carcass of a young bear firmly clamped in its mouth. A grisly portrayal to say the least.

They then went on to say that Polar Bears natural diet has been disrupted by climate change and have turned to canabilisim.

Hey Mr. Scientist you may want to do a little research into the behaviour of adult male polar bears. They do tend to eat their young given half a chance.. global climate change or not.

The point is that there is alot of blatent falsehoods being presented as factual.

Added link to avoid the inevatible

http://blogs.reuters.com/photo/2009/12/08/exclusive-photos-polar-bear-turns-cannibal/

[AVGWarhawk]

Of course it does. I mean, China has about 4 + times the population of the US so it's not that big of surprise if they produce more pollution in absolute figures then the US. And a small country like Qatar may produce more in terms of per capita but a lot less in absolute figures.


China does not practice any type of pollution control at all as well as other countries. So, no it does not matter one ioda. You stated the US is number one in pollution. Flat out. Nothing about per capita or absolute figures. So in your mind it does not matter for the US. The US is just the biggest offender.

[OneToughHerring]

China does not practice any type of pollution control at all as well as other countries. So, no it does not matter one ioda. You stated the US is number one in pollution. Flat out. Nothing about per capita or absolute figures. So in mind it does not matter for the US. The US is just the biggest offender.

Biggest offender? How is that different from being the biggest polluter?

Even if China doesn't employ much environmental standards it's pretty telling that they have only recently caught up with the US in terms of absolute figures despite having 4 + times the population.

Plus, it's the US corporations that have moved their factories into places like China where there are lax environmental codes just so they can cut costs and also to ignore worker rights.

[AVGWarhawk]

Overheard a story about a picture being presented to the Summit.

Its a rather graphic portrayal of a Polar bear with the dead carcass of a young bear firmly clamped in its mouth. A grisly portrayal to say the least.

They then went on to say that Polar Bears natural diet has been disrupted by climate change and have turned to canabilisim.

Hey Mr. Scientist you may want to do a little research into the behaviour of adult male polar bears. They do tend to eat their young given half a chance.. global climate change or not.

The point is that there is alot of blatent falsehoods being presented as factual.


Lions eat their young also. Been going on for centuries. The more the climate peddlers talk the more ridiculas this seems.

[AVGWarhawk]

Biggest offender? How is that different from being the biggest polluter?

Even if China doesn't employ much environmental standards it's pretty telling that they have only recently caught up with the US in terms of absolute figures despite having 4 + times the population.

Plus, it's the US corporations that have moved their factories into places like China where there are lax environmental codes just so they can cut costs and also to ignore worker rights.


Nice twist with the last sentence. This is not about worker rights. :doh: Back to what you stated. US is biggest polluter/offender/a-holes...please do not throw that out there without some supporting documentation or links.

[OneToughHerring]

Nice twist with the last sentence. This is not about worker rights. :doh:

Oh yea that's right because pollution has no effect on workers. You're absolutely right there. :doh:

[Respenus]

It primarily about the method and the attitude that you have. No offence, yet most responses that I see from both side (one has to be truthful), is one of the old division between the free market and the "bloody commies" that we Europeans have come to represent. And this is what is irking us the most, the fact that you put everything down on the level of economics. Or on the other hand, on the level of religion, with "Jesus Christ, our only Lord and Saviour". I'm not claiming that this is how the whole of the USA act, yet you're not giving us a better picture, are you? The more Skybird focuses on the issue of the rationalistic method, the more he is attacked for being bias, even though he always presents both sides of the argument. We are not blameless ourselves, yet we do see things from the alternative, non-economic point of view, between GDP and what can be defined as "right".

The USA/Europe argument is the same as the human right/Islam arguments. Both sides use quasi rational methods to support their views. And while neither is correct in doing so, Europe is ready to accept different views and try to solve the difference without too much violent conflict, while Islam is still deeply entrenched in the Quran and the Shari'ah and reason forbid that it should be any different.

I'm finished with this. Since this moment, I'm happily waiting for the Singularity. Whatever it may bring us. It will at least stop the constant bickering about who's stone is stonier and solve the issue for us. With us or without us.

Oh and this (http://www.viruscomix.com/page433.html).

[AVGWarhawk]

Oh yea that's right because pollution has no effect on workers. You're absolutely right there. :doh:

Changing subjects to a coverall statement :hmmm: Come on OTH, you debate better than that! Workers rights was not in question nor in the conversation. Just a blanket OTH statement concerning pollution and the US as the number one polluter.

[OneToughHerring]

Changing subjects to a coverall statement :hmmm: Come on OTH, you debate better than that! Workers rights was not in question nor in the conversation. Just a blanket OTH statement concerning pollution and the US as the number one polluter.

Pollution has no borders and it doesn't acknowledge class distinctions. However it seems that people lower down the social ladder feel the brunt of the ill effects of pollution.

[Skybird]

I do not really understand why clima sceptics are even discussing here, just because of the Kopenhagen conference is taking place. It is very clear that Kopenhagen is not about trying to do as much as possible, not to mention: to do as much as is needed. Kopenhagen is about how to get away with having done as little as possible. Kopenhagen is an alibi event. If I were a member of the sceptics' band, i already would be happy and celebrate.

[AVGWarhawk]

Pollution has no borders and it doesn't acknowledge class distinctions. However it seems that people lower down the social ladder feel the brunt of the ill effects of pollution.

What, folks in the US do not get the ill affects of pollution? Physical wellness knows no boundries either. Economic or otherwise.

[OneToughHerring]

What, folks in the US do not get the ill affects of pollution? Physical wellness knows no boundries either. Economic or otherwise.

Sure they do but as production is being outsourced into the Far-East the brunt of the pollution problems is felt by Far-Eastern societies.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I do not really understand why clima sceptics are even discussing here, just because of the Kopenhagen conference is taking place. It is very clear that Kopenhagen is not about trying to do as much as possible, not to mention: to do as much as is needed. Kopenhagen is about how to get away with having done as little as possible. Kopenhagen is an alibi event. If I were a member of the sceptics' band, i already would be happy and celebrate.

Why would we be celebrating? We see the whole thing as a waste of time, money, and the progress that could be achieved with those things.

Are you suggesting that just because we have not wasted the amount of time and money that we could have on climate change agendas that we should be happy? A money pit is a money pit, no matter how much money is thrown into it. You might as well say that we should be pleased with spending $5,000 instead of $10,000 on a car insurance policy for a car we do not and may never have.

What you do not see, Sky, is the potential of all that capital. The resources that could have been used and the jobs that the associated industries could have created with that capital are now gone. That portion of economic production has been sucked into a political black hole that will never yield anything beneficial. Rather than alowing those monies to fuel commercial progress, we have chosen to steal and then waste them on political nonsense and the special interests that govern that nonsense.

We can crunch the numbers if you like, but I think that you already know that the money spent on climate whatever-happens-to-be-the-popular-term has not yielded satisfactory results. Emissions reductions in participating countries can't even keep pace with worldwide population growth rates, to say nothing of the increasing emissions of nations in the process of industrialization.

What would you have us do? Would you impose a global standard on emissions? Would you seek, in any way, to control societal and/or economic development? People do not work that way, my friend. The consequences of such actions would be disastrous. There is simply no way to impose a singular will upon a species of social individuals.

Our best bet as developed nations is to set an example that cannot be ignored. We must embrace free minds and free markets, in order to develop the kind of societal and economic prosperity that leads to lower birth rates and more efficient products. Some nations may follow and others may not, but those that do not will quickly find themselves outclassed and faced with civil unrest, and will soon be begging for the aid of free nations. Even then, we must offer them nothing but trade.

Slowly but surely, all nations will come to realize and implement the benefits of free trade, so long as we treat them with dignity and respect. There will be blood and tears in the process, but at least they will be ultimately accomplishing something, unlike what they have heretofore been practicing.

[Skybird]

Free market, your celebrated ones, are what has polluted out planet, Lance.

Free market'S economies are the pkayers sending lobbyists to manipulate politicians - that kind of manipoulation you blame politicians for.

It's exactly like I said. You see two devils dancing, but one you call a devil, and the other a saint. God may know why you do that, I do not. I think you are too fixiated on ideology in your thinking, and reject realities over it, wanting to have more of the old recipes that have brought us right to where we are. All you get by that is just this: more power to economic tycoons and monopolists. And both are not about free markets, don't be mistaken about that. capitalism is not driven by the desire to form free markets, but is driven by the desire to prevent them, and deny newcomers equal chances at the starting line. This is what means maximum profit, not to allow as many rivals as possible. Monopolism is the most natural - and only real - attractor of capitalism. Your more romanticised image of it only works in small communities where everybody knows everybody else and feel personally related to him, and every member iof the community sees all the community's propserity and possessions dirctly, so that everybody directly sees how anyone's deeds directly influence these ressouces for the worse or the better. Take away these preconditions and you have the ruling of greed and envy and egoism and monopolism. You cannot avoid it.

[Torpex752]

Artificial growth, created by artificial interest rates, swawned by the Greed of the International Bankers who own the (the private bank) federal reserve. One could almost say that the worlds population was "grown" with money and cheap energy as its fertilitizer. Billions of consumers were grown to create the machine that destroys them. Irionic no?

Bottom line for me is; is it our fault and should we be held accountable? Not saying that once we know of a problem we shouldnt take responsibility, two different approaches. I do not believe that taxing us while China & India (who are exempt btw because they are a "developing nation") pay nothing. Last time I checked we all are on the same "ride".
Either tax everyone or no one.

One last thought - can you PLEASE tell me one instance where putting a Goverment in charge of anything EVER produced efficient and economical results??? Please......show me, tell me!! :rotfl2:

[Sailor Steve]

Mussolini made the trains run on time.:p2:

[Stealth Hunter]

Mussolini made the trains run on time.:p2:

Actually, he did improve railroad infrastructure significantly compared to what it had been. For that matter, Hitler's takeover and nationalization of previously private industries in Germany eventually led by 1936 to unemployment rates dropping from nearly 30% to less than 10%. He took power in 1933; in the course of three years that's quite an achievement. Germany's overall economy improved under the government's control as well:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/BSPDRWeltkriseEngl.PNG/800px-BSPDRWeltkriseEngl.PNG

Price controls by the government also prevented inflation from stacking up again. And although wages were lowered by about 1/4, taxes were kept extremely low. Yet even so, the German economy blossomed. And when large trade deficits seemed inevitable, Hitler simply moved from all free marketeering to economic self-sufficiency, as the Italians had done before him. Really, Hitler himself was a management genius, and the people he appointed to deal with economic affairs (men like Hjalmar Schacht, Michal Kalecki, Alois von Weissnthal, etc.) were of equal skill and determination.

[August]

You guys are getting bogged down with looking for a boogerman but people are people you're not going to change that. So forget blaming one group or another. It's all about simple numbers.

Modern technology has vastly increased the survival rate and longevity of our species to the point that we must start controlling our total numbers or, like any other overpopulated species, we will suffer a really big die off. I think it will happen suddenly and it won't be pretty. War, disease, famine on a global scale.

So if we're to avoid that fate what do you think is the best way to limit total human population and do it fairly?

[Stealth Hunter]

I actually agree with August. Aside from controlling pollution, we need to control our population as well. The two go hand-in-hand really. I'm moderately in favor of the system China has: one child per household (unless the first one's a female or suffers from some kind of disease/disability), you pay extra taxes if you have more and can , you can only have another child every 3 to 4 years, minorities can be and usually are subject to different rules, twins are acceptable, you get the idea. They've shown it to be astoundingly effective. Discrimination or not, it's a matter of survival in the end. Of the country, of the populace, of our species really. And the planet in the end.

[August]

I actually agree with August. Aside from controlling pollution, we need to control our population as well. The two go hand-in-hand really. I'm moderately in favor of the system China has: one child per household (unless the first one's a female or suffers from some kind of disease/disability), you pay extra taxes if you have more and can , you can only have another child every 3 to 4 years, minorities can be and usually are subject to different rules, twins are acceptable, you get the idea. They've shown it to be astoundingly effective. Discrimination or not, it's a matter of survival in the end. Of the country, of the populace, of our species really. And the planet in the end.


China's system works because it is a single highly regimented nation under a very tight rule. What happens when some countries don't or can't enforce the limits?

[VipertheSniper]

While I wouldn't say that China's one child policy works, because of that much females get aborted (or did they change that (one child policy)? reason being what I write a bit later) because males are preferred, and there already is a shortage of women so to speak, it has the advantage that a part of the populace won't be able to find a partner, and thus won't be able to reproduce.

[CaptainHaplo]

Well - if they can't reproduce - that means fewer people next generation - which is kind of the aim of population control. So that would mean it does work, no?

[Torvald Von Mansee]

I'll just leave this here:

http://climate.nasa.gov/images/normPage-2.jpg

[Stealth Hunter]

Where'd that graph come from? Just curious.

[CaptainHaplo]

I've seen it before - can't recall the place off the top of my head. Course - if you want to believe that 4000 years ago they were measureing CO2... then go ahead and swallow the line. But most people know better.
Oh - and notice thats PPM - Parts per million. So its increased by how much of 1% of that million in 60 years?

Oh fear and horror and panic - the world is coming to an end.

Bullocks... pure bullocks.

[Skybird]

I've seen it before - can't recall the place off the top of my head. Course - if you want to believe that 4000 years ago they were measureing CO2... then go ahead and swallow the line. But most people know better.
Haplo, you seriously need to understand specialised branches of science a bit better, not their details, but what they do and speciliase in. Geologists, for example. Not meant as an offence, but if you argue that if it hasn't been measured by a time traveller back then, then today'S science cannot make educated guesses on past conditions by examining earth layers, conserved seeds, petrified remnants of plants, composition by chemical agents and minerals in the ground etc etc, then you really make yourself vulnerable to quite some ridicule, because you are right then: most people knowing about these fields of science indeed know it better. Than you. ;)

[VipertheSniper]

Well - if they can't reproduce - that means fewer people next generation - which is kind of the aim of population control. So that would mean it does work, no?

The problem here is that the male surplus was an unintended side effect. Natural would be a slight surplus for females, and as long as one child per family is adhered to, the population would decrease anyway, albeit not as fast. I'd have to find numbers as to how high the male surplus is, but as far as I know in some regions it's not just a miniscule amount of men that can't find a partner. I know it's a bit of a stretch, but if those masses of disgruntled men get organized and cause civil unrest that's a force to be reckoned with, even for the Chinese government.

If you want to continue I'd be glad to take it to PM's, because this thread is derailed enough as it is.

[CaptainHaplo]

Skybird - you have finally hit the nail on the head of the crux of the whole debate.

People making "educated guesses". The chart is a perfect example. Nowhere does it say "hey - the numbers prior to X date are educated guesses" - it simply presented as FACT. Just as "climate change" is presented as fact - whien it is simply an educated guess as to what MIGHT happen.

An educated guess is still - at the end of the day -a guess. Or to put it into scientific terms - its a hypothesis in flux. Some data supports it, other data refutes it. But many people - some with an invested interest in the science itself, insist that the entire world modify its behavior on the basis of this guess. Those of us who come to different conclusions based on the data - and reasonably note that pro-climate change scientists often ignore data that hurts their view, resist the demand for change on a guess. For resisting, we are called fools, deniers, and all matter or vileness - over a guess.

I liken the debate to going to an unscrupulous car shop. You want your oil changed. The salesman and service manager come out and start listing all these things they find wrong with your car - as well as extol the virtues of buying a new one. As a guy who has turned a wrench a few time, I know I just replaced the brakes 6 months back. Yet the sales guys don't want to take no for an answer. When I say SHOW ME - they instead refuse to let me go see my car on the rack with the wheels off - claiming their insurance won't let customers inside the service area. When an independant mechanic looks at it and says things are not what they claim - they try to get his ASE certification revoked. Would you buy a car from these people?

This is exactly what has occured - as demonstrated by the contents of the emails mentioned in the OP. Scientists who differ with the guess they want everyone to accept are ostracized and marginalized. Legal requests to see the raw data are stonewalled, even going so far as to delete the requested data so it cannot be reviewed. Data and papers that do not toe the line are rejected out of hand, or hidden using data manipulation.

But you still are buying the car. I - and many like me - see that the costs of the car - the debt it will create - is too high a cost to pay given the questionable science and tactics being used to strongarm us.

[Skybird]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,666175,00.html

With his 1972 book "The Limits to Growth," Dennis Meadows was one of the first to warn about the looming environmental crisis. The US economist spoke to SPIEGEL ONLINE about the need to drastically change our behavior and why he doesn't expect much from the global climate change summit in Copenhagen.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Mr. Meadows, you simulated the future of the Earth back in 1972 with less computing power than a Blackberry. How good was your model on the limits to growth?
Dennis Meadows: Amazingly good, unfortunately. We are in the midst of an environmental crisis, which we predicted then. The difference is that we have lost 40 years during which humanity should have acted.
SPIEGLE ONLINE: You have been one of those warning about the environment ever since the first publication of your book. Now representatives of almost 200 countries are gathering to tackle the environmental crisis. Are you satisfied?
Meadows: Copenhagen? I don't take it seriously. The whole thing is a huge ploy. I am outraged because the situation is outrageous. If we rely on conferences instead of changing our lifestyles then things look bad.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: But the world is now looking to Copenhagen, to see if politicians can bring about a solution to the climate problem.
Meadows: The world? I think 98 percent of humans haven't even heard the word Copenhagen, not to speak of the United Nations Conference on Climate Change there. If people were to come together there with a fresh mind to achieve something then it would look different. This conference is essentially about doing as little as possible, not as much as possible.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: You ask people to make personal sacrifices in order to preserve the environment and resources?
Meadows: I don't ask for it but I say if we don't change our behavior then we will be in serious trouble. People are getting sidetracked if they think that new green technology will solve all the problems. There is no magic button. It is about our lifestyles.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Changing our personal behavior will make everything better?
Meadows: When it comes to oil dependency, yes; but when it comes to climate change, I think we are too late. It might have been possible to prevent serious climate change in the 1970s and 1980s, but it isn't any more. We have pumped enough carbon dioxide already into the atmosphere to cause global warming. We are on a roller coaster at the top of the hill and all we can do is hold on tight.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Then does it make any sense to reduce CO2 emissions?
Meadows: Absolutely, but that will only limit climate change, not prevent it.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: You sound pretty pessimistic.
Meadows: No. We won't die out as a species. Humanity has already survived the Ice Age, and now we will survive an age of warmth. I doubt, however, that in the end there will be billions of us flying around the world in planes and driving huge cars.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: We will live like today's poorest people, those who emit hardly any carbon dioxide?
Meadows: That is not my role model. I lived long enough in a country like Afghanistan to know that I don't want us to have to live like that in the future. But we have to learn to live a life that allows for fulfilment and development, with the CO2 emissions of Afghanistan.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is it possible to have 9 billion people on the planet?
Meadows: No. Even 7 billion is too much -- at least if they are all to have an appropriate standard of living. If you think it is acceptable to have a small elite that enjoys a decent lifestyle and a large majority that is excluded from that, then the Earth can probably sustain 5 to 6 billion people. If you want everyone to have the full potential of mobility, adequate food and self-development, then it is 1 or 2 billion.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: How does one achieve that?
Meadows: I have no idea. I am an ethical person and I wouldn't hurt a fly. The problem is that with our current lifestyle we are hurting the people of the future.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: You don't have a recipe for saving the world?
Meadows: We don't have to save the world. The world will save itself, like it always has. Sometimes it takes a few million years until the damage is repaired and a new balance has been established. The question is much more: How do we save our civilization?
SPIEGEL ONLINE: How do you deal with the fact that your analyses have failed to bring about any real changes?
Meadows: A long time ago I thought we would have to achieve a total utopia in order to avoid total collapse. Today I am somewhat more balanced. For me personally it is enough if I make the world a little better than it would have been without me. Everyone should rethink their own lifestyle, their carbon footprint and try to think one step ahead into the future.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: What has the reaction been to this kind of advice?
Meadows: A fashion editor once asked me about lifestyle changes. I asked her how many pairs of shoes she had. It was 18. I advised her that three pairs would be enough. Unfortunately the article was never published. Many habits are deeply rooted and it takes practice to get rid of them.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: How will the necessary changes come about?
Meadows: Through a series of crises. It is only when there are abrupt climate changes, unpleasant ones, that the willingness will come about to really do something. We have to use these opportunities. We didn't use them during the financial crisis. The opportunity to change something was wasted, despite the crisis.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Some people might regard you as an angry prophet from the Old Testament.
Meadows: Nonsense. Our first book had 13 different scenarios for how the Earth and humanity would develop. Of these, eight or nine were catastrophic, the others were not. But no one was interested in the positive scenarios. They weren't reported upon and people didn't try to live them out. I am not preoccupied with doomsday scenarios. Most other people, however, are.
Interview conducted by Christian Schwägerl

[Skybird]

An educated guess is still - at the end of the day -a guess. Or to put it into scientific terms - its a hypothesis in flux. Some data supports it, other data refutes it.

The question is whether or not the "data" you believe in is good enough in quality that it can refute exsisting opinion majority consensus on theories. and in this regard you give me the impression to just believe anything if it matches your desired conclusions, which in itself is more about ideology indeed, than about a truth in the meaning of an as precise as possible understanding of reality.

[NeonSamurai]

Actually they can measure CO2 pretty accurately going back much further then that. It is called ice core samples. So no its not educated guess work at all but pretty hard data. The only argument that could be made against it would be that it is localized data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

No offense meant, but it usually helps to have some knowledge about the science before you try to criticize it.

[TDK1044]

People on both sides of this argument can produce graphics and experts to justify their position. It's endless and boring.

The GW subject has always been in part about the redistribution of world wealth, by guilting the wealthy into helping the third world. I was present at a meeting 30 years ago where that very scenario was front and center.The 'science' has always been a back drop for that agenda.

You're never going to change the opinion of someone who's been fooled for an entire life time, and truthfully, having this issue debated as fiercely as it is, keeps us all vigilant regarding the health of our planet.

The debate is healthy.....and so is our planet.

[August]

No offense meant, but it usually helps to have some knowledge about the science before you try to criticize it.

Ok so let me ask a couple questions then:

Are Co2 levels evenly distributed world wide?
Are the present Co2 levels mentioned in the chart also drawn from those ice samples?

[Skybird]

People on both sides of this argument can produce graphics and experts to justify their position. It's endless and boring.

The GW subject has always been in part about the redistribution of world wealth, by guilting the wealthy into helping the third world. I was present at a meeting 30 years ago where that very scenario was front and center.The 'science' has always been a back drop for that agenda.

You're never going to change the opinion of someone who's been fooled for an entire life time, and truthfully, having this issue debated as fiercely as it is, keeps us all vigilant regarding the health of our planet.

The debate is healthy.....and so is our planet.


We don't have to save the world. The world will save itself, like it always has. Sometimes it takes a few million years until the damage is repaired and a new balance has been established. The question is much more: How do we save our civilization?



These two are the problems.

I agree so very much with that interview's replies. Could have been replies by me.

[NeonSamurai]

Ok so let me ask a couple questions then:

Are Co2 levels evenly distributed world wide?
Are the present Co2 levels mentioned in the chart also drawn from those ice samples?

No they are not evenly distributed due to air currents and differences in locally produced CO2 (both from natural such as forest fires, and man made causes), which is why i say localized, however ice cores are drawn from areas both in the northern and southern hemispheres. It does though indicate general trends in CO2 concentrations across the globe. To my knowledge though, CO2 tends to concentrate more at the poles, which is why warming there is higher then the global average.

The data should all come from ice core samples only, but it takes a few years for the snow to turn to impermeable ice which permanently traps air, so there is a lag period. Good scientists would not take air samples above the impermeable ice. As for that chart, I can't speak of it as I do not no the source. But the 0 point is 1950 and that area doesn't quite match the information I have (but it does continue to climb). If you like I can dig up some data.

[SteamWake]

I just cant look at any chart, graph, or report anymore without a jaded eye.

One thing I note on that graph is it is quite spread out with hundreds/thousands of years between divisions untill it gets to the end when suddenly the scale shifts to 10 years or so or 1/1000th of the previous scales. That alone would skew the portrayel.

[August]

As for that chart, I can't speak of it as I do not no the source. But the 0 point is 1950 and that area doesn't quite match the information I have (but it does continue to climb). If you like I can dig up some data.

I wouldn't put yourself out to make a point on an internet forum. It ain't like anyone's mind would be changed... :)

[Thomen]

Where'd that graph come from? Just curious.

NASA.. right click and see properties for the picture. =)

[SteamWake]

I wouldn't put yourself out to make a point on an internet forum. It ain't like anyone's mind would be changed... :)

LOL so true but hey that wont stop em from trying :up:

[NeonSamurai]

I wouldn't put yourself out to make a point on an internet forum. It ain't like anyone's mind would be changed... :)

Eh hasn't stopped me in the past though I do not try to go to nuts. ;)

You are right though, I don't think any of these debates have changed any minds really. Which suggests that its a total time waster, and I probably shouldn't bother so much. :yawn:

I just cant look at any chart, graph, or report anymore without a jaded eye.

One thing I note on that graph is it is quite spread out with hundreds/thousands of years between divisions untill it gets to the end when suddenly the scale shifts to 10 years or so or 1/1000th of the previous scales. That alone would skew the portrayel.

Good eye, that is a key reason why I don't like that graph, there is a scale shift (though not as dramatic as you are suggesting, the scale cuts by less then about 1/2). Graphs are great for presenting numbers, but very easily manipulated. For example changing the X scale would make the data seem more or less significant on what way I change the scale. I could make that graph look like massive peaks (or changes), or barely any change at all. One should always look at the numbers both in the graph, and behind them.

Anyhow here is the same graph again, with out that scale error, and a report with full citations too.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

It shows the same trend, but that is not surprising when the scale of the graph is in sub divided 50000 year segments. High levels of man made CO2 production only started in the last 150 years or so. They don't though say the zero point in this graph, though it is probably 0 BP (Before Present) or 1950.

They seem to be blending data sources in that graph however (not just different ice core data, but also are also including direct measurement), which might be problematic. I would have to look into the sources, and the science behind it to draw any conclusions as I am not sure if that is scientifically acceptable or not.

[Respenus]

The GW subject has always been in part about the redistribution of world wealth, by guilting the wealthy into helping the third world. I was present at a meeting 30 years ago where that very scenario was front and center.The 'science' has always been a back drop for that agenda.

I admit it. By your standards I'm a filthy, dirty commie who has to be hunted down in the great fight to support capitalist "liberal" democracy and the free market, God bless its (his?) soul!

While I would like to see more wealth distributed to the poorest of countries, considering that we, the West are throwing out money by the truckloads with stupid, irational activities just to support the consumerist agenda. Hobsbawm wrote in his book The Age of Extremes that consumerism has replaced ideology. Unfortunately for us he was quite right, as we are now unable to look past ourselves and our children are picked up this more and more (See the future of anarcholiberalism thread I posted some time ago).

Yet this does not mean that I, as a (future) member of the academia am willing to degrade my science in the fulfilment of any political goals I may have. I wish prosperity for everyone and changing our lifestyles, which will spend and emit less, while keeping us prosper as newer before seen in the history of men, for this is his future, one I shall see built.

Remind me some time to write a short essay on my views on transhumanism and climate change.
__________________________
Looks like we won't have to convince America with a rational debate. We'll just throw god into the mix and he'll strait everything up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8405108.stm
The candidate who is able to give them one, who can straddle the divide between social conservatism and environmental activism, who can recruit God in the service of the planet, is onto a winner.

[August]

I admit it. By your standards I'm a filthy, dirty commie who has to be hunted down in the great fight to support capitalist "liberal" democracy and the free market

Quit being a filthy, dirty commie drama queen Respenus. There is no way you could arrive at that assumption from what he wrote. Not even close.

[Respenus]

Quit being a filthy, dirty commie drama queen Respenus. There is no way you could arrive at that assumption from what he wrote. Not even close.

My apologies August. I meant how most Americans on this forums have been reacting to the whole climate change issue. While I admit I might had steeped over the line by using just one quote, yet I do have other things to do right now, so I haven't looked at every single sentence that has been written.

[OneToughHerring]

Quit being a filthy, dirty commie drama queen Respenus. There is no way you could arrive at that assumption from what he wrote. Not even close.

Quit being a filthy, dirty fascist drama queen August.

[Morts]

anyone got some popcorn ? this is looking to be quite a fight:rotfl2:

[antikristuseke]

this is retarded.

[Torpex752]

1950..wasnt it around that time when The Aliens crashed at Roswell?

Maybe its their fault..or they left a CO2 bomb and its leaking! LOL :rotfl2:Sorry couldnt resist.

[Onkel Neal]

FYI to all: just because someone says something you don't agree with, is not a green light to hit the Report Bad Post button, many, many times.

[Snestorm]

@Respenus

I had noticed a double-bind in your article. On this one point, the author should have thought a-little more carefuly.

First he complains USA isn't doing enough to control emissions.
Then he goes on to say that USA needs to wean herself off Middle East oil.

USA could easily wean herself off Middle East oil if she returned to fully utilizing coal.
Oil imports would decline, and unfortunately emissions would rise.

That's why I think the author made a big mistake in coupling these two separate issues.

[OneToughHerring]

FYI to all: just because someone says something you don't agree with, is not a green light to hit the Report Bad Post button, many, many times.

I guess this rule doesn't apply to Sailor Steve.

[AVGWarhawk]

Actually they can measure CO2 pretty accurately going back much further then that. It is called ice core samples. So no its not educated guess work at all but pretty hard data. The only argument that could be made against it would be that it is localized data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

No offense meant, but it usually helps to have some knowledge about the science before you try to criticize it.

Yes, I have read about the core samples as great indicators for CO2. You're a smart cookie Neon!:up:

[AVGWarhawk]

anyone got some popcorn ? this is looking to be quite a fight:rotfl2:


http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/avgwarhawk/1.gif

[August]

My apologies August. I meant how most Americans on this forums have been reacting to the whole climate change issue. While I admit I might had steeped over the line by using just one quote, yet I do have other things to do right now, so I haven't looked at every single sentence that has been written.

No apology is necessary. All i meant was you shouldn't assume we Americans think of you as a commie, regardless of your personal hygiene, just because you're from Slovenia.

[Onkel Neal]

I guess this rule doesn't apply to Sailor Steve.


Yes, it does. And he does not report the same post 3 times in one day, either.

[magic452]

Neon Samurai That is just the kind of information I was looking for earlier, thanks for posting it. But I have a problem with it.

That graph still doesn't prove a thing. In the second paragraph it states:

The main significance of the new data lies in the high correlation between GTG concentrations and temperature variations over 420,000 years and through four glacial cycles. However, because of the difficulty in precisely dating the air and water (ice) samples, it is still unknown whether GTG concentration increases precede and cause temperature increases, or vice versa--or whether they increase synchronously. It's also unknown how much of the historical temperature changes have been due to GTGs, and how much has been due to orbital forcing (http://www.joss.ucar.edu/joss_psg/project/oce_workshop/fumages/chapter3.html), ie, increases in solar radiation, or perhaps long-term shifts in ocean circulationWhat they are saying here is that they don't know and it's all an educated guess. And the post 1950 data may just show how wrong that guess was.

It's just as likely that the high CO2 is a result of global cooling, because of the shorter growing cycle of plants and trees. Also cooler oceans will also reduce the CO2 cycle as well. Less consumption of CO2 because of colder temps or more heating because of higher CO2. Take your pick.

Also if the data from 1950 on isn't collected by core samples but by modern interments, it can not be compared to the earlier data or it may show that the core sample data needs to be revised.

There are many good reasons to reduce our use of carbon based fuels but is GW one of them? The jury is still out on that one, as far as I'm concerned. There is just not enough good data to warrant spending trillions of dollars trying to fix something we may not be able to fix.

The Carbon taxes that are being purposed will put a heavy burden on many economies and could do a great deal of harm. The US, the EU and many other economies could handle the extra expense but less developed countries may not. More expensive everything will hurt the poor the most.

Just suppose that out current recession was a permanent situation, there would be far less aid and resources available to the poorer countries.

Before we spend that kind of money let's make sure we are spending it in the right places.

Magic

[OneToughHerring]

Yes, it does. And he does not report the same post 3 times in one day, either.

That's because he doesn't have to, he only has to report a post once. You see he gets special treatment here at SS Radioroom.

[Sailor Steve]

That's because he doesn't have to, he only has to report a post once. You see he gets special treatment here at SS Radioroom.
Actually I've only ever reported one post, and it was a very long time ago, and it wasn't yours.

And if I remember correctly (which I might well not) it was a racist thing.

[OneToughHerring]

Yea well you said this.

I propose that this was an unwarranted attack, and further propose that you be censured.

If it wasn't you it was someone, and it resulted in an infraction.

[NeonSamurai]

Neon Samurai That is just the kind of information I was looking for earlier, thanks for posting it. But I have a problem with it.

That graph still doesn't prove a thing. In the second paragraph it states:
The main significance of the new data lies in the high correlation between GTG concentrations and temperature variations over 420,000 years and through four glacial cycles. However, because of the difficulty in precisely dating the air and water (ice) samples, it is still unknown whether GTG concentration increases precede and cause temperature increases, or vice versa--or whether they increase synchronously. It's also unknown how much of the historical temperature changes have been due to GTGs, and how much has been due to orbital forcing, ie, increases in solar radiation, or perhaps long-term shifts in ocean circulation

What they are saying here is that they don't know and it's all an educated guess. And the post 1950 data may just show how wrong that guess was.

Not exactly. What they are saying is that the data gathering method is not precise enough to determine if greenhouse trace gases (GTG) bring about temperature increases, or temperature increases bring about more GTG, or both at the same time. They also say that they can't be sure by how much temperature increases have been caused by GTGs, due to other influencing factors. No guess work is involved here, they are only showing data. I would also refer you to the third paragraph.
Whether the ultimate cause of temperature increase is excess CO2, or a different orbit, or some other factor probably doesn't matter much. It could have been one or the other, or different combinations of factors at different times in the past. The effect is still the same. Nevertheless, the scientific consensus is that GTGs account for at least half of temperature increases, and that they strongly amplify the effects of small increases in solar radiation due to orbital forcing.

It's just as likely that the high CO2 is a result of global cooling, because of the shorter growing cycle of plants and trees. Also cooler oceans will also reduce the CO2 cycle as well. Less consumption of CO2 because of colder temps or more heating because of higher CO2. Take your pick.

The data does not support your claim as there is a strong positive correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, they just cannot say exactly which came first is all, changes in temperature, or changes in CO2. However science has unequivocally demonstrated that CO2 is a greenhouse gas in that it allows light energy to pass through it, but reflects radiant heat energy. The data also clearly shows low CO2 levels during major global cooling periods. Furthermore oceans tend to absorb more CO2 when cooler, and less when warmer (this is an simplification though).

I am actually more interested in the CO2 data then the temperature data, since the CO2 data is considered solid (where as the potential sources for temperature variation are multiple), and is more relevant to the current debate. However the correlation is very telling, even if we cannot determine which came first, if either did.

Also if the data from 1950 on isn't collected by core samples but by modern interments, it can not be compared to the earlier data or it may show that the core sample data needs to be revised.

I would have to dig into the reports to say if that is true. It should however be directly comparable as long as the direct samples are taken in the same region as the ice core samples. As the ice traps pockets of air, and that is what is measured in the core samples. Ice core samples however are not precise enough to be measured at a yearly rate of change.

There are many good reasons to reduce our use of carbon based fuels but is GW one of them? The jury is still out on that one, as far as I'm concerned. There is just not enough good data to warrant spending trillions of dollars trying to fix something we may not be able to fix.

The Carbon taxes that are being purposed will put a heavy burden on many economies and could do a great deal of harm. The US, the EU and many other economies could handle the extra expense but less developed countries may not. More expensive everything will hurt the poor the most.

Just suppose that out current recession was a permanent situation, there would be far less aid and resources available to the poorer countries.

Before we spend that kind of money let's make sure we are spending it in the right places.

Magic

Well we are potentially facing far worse harm, depending on what string of dominoes gets triggered by global warming (which most of the scientific community believes is happening). But I am not going to re-dredge up that stuff again (gone over that enough times in this thread). I am mainly more interested in presenting the data properly with as little bias as I can, and in dispelling as much of the false, or incorrect stuff I see in the thread.

[NeonSamurai]

If it wasn't you it was someone, and it resulted in an infraction.

Your own actions resulted in an infraction being given, not someone reporting you. Reports at best simply notify us that there may be a problem, but its the moderator staff here that ultimately decide if censure is warranted or not. We also often act with out any reports being received as we patrol the threads. We don't give out infractions unless we think the situation warrants one, regardless of what some members may think.

Anyhow I would suggest you try to calm down a bit and not take things so personally, as your current path is bound to lead to no good for anyone.

[Sailor Steve]

If it wasn't you it was someone, and it resulted in an infraction.

Some time ago I was asked to be a Moderator on the GT forum. I respectfully declined, because I get into a lot of the debates here, and I don't trust myself to be fair with that kind of authority. I may get a little outspoken, but no, I never push any buttons.

I don't have a lot of opinions on the big issues of our time. I'm more concerned with Logic, Argument and Debate. While I do voice some attitudes on subjects, I never pretend to know everything about anything. I'm actually more concerned with how people argue than with the arguments themselves - is the argument valid from the standpoint of reason? Is it consistent? I see no validity in lumping whole groups, races or nations together and insulting them. In political arguments I've objected to Conservatives calling all Liberals "idiots", and I've done the same from the other side. It simply serves no purpose, and it does nothing to advance the debate.

How about this: rather than wait until somebody faults you for something and then saying that others get away with blatant racism, the next time somebody says something you think is racist call them on it. You might find me backing you up. I also might disagree, but you can be sure that, right or wrong, I will be absolutely honest about it.

[magic452]

The data does not support your claim as there is a strong positive correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, they just cannot say exactly which came first is all, changes in temperature, or changes in CO2. However science has unequivocally demonstrated that CO2 is a greenhouse gas in that it allows light energy to pass through it, but reflects radiant heat energy. The data also clearly shows low CO2 levels during major global cooling periods. Furthermore oceans tend to absorb more CO2 when cooler, and less when warmer (this is an simplification though).

If the temperature rise precedes the rise in CO2, than what is the relationship? Higher temps mean higher CO2 or Higher CO2 means higher temps. Is the dog wagging his tail or the tail wagging the dog?

The data shows large peaks and valleys. What is it that starts such extremes in temps and CO2 and what reverses these trends? It wasn't man in either case. Why is it that at peak temps it all of the sudden(or not so sudden) reversed and started cooling with the CO2 levels so high?

My biggest question is. The poles are a rather unique places on earth and not very representative of the earth in general. Is polar data really a reliable source of global climate, has this data been check by some other means, perhaps sea bed core samples?? I know that they can't go back that far but there should enough data to compare with recent ice samples.

And to the point of this thread has the data been presented in a full and truthful way? There has been some question about NASA objectivity in this area. I'm not too sure either way on this.

They wright off the European Warming period as just a localized event, why not polar ice samples the same way? Is this data reliable enough to take the steps that they are talking about?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Core Data
Whether the ultimate cause of temperature increase is excess CO2, or a different orbit, or some other factor probably doesn't matter much. It could have been one or the other, or different combinations of factors at different times in the past. The effect is still the same. Nevertheless, the scientific consensus is that GTGs account for at least half of temperature increases, and that they strongly amplify the effects of small increases in solar radiation due to orbital forcing.

I can't get italic to turn off!!!!!!

The ultimate cause of temperature change is VERY important if your spending trillions to try to effect it. The question at hand isn't warming but what part man plays in itand what we can do about it?

Second if GTGs account for only half of temp change and man is responsible for only a part of these and we can only reduce a small fraction of our part just what can we accomplish with all the trillions of dollars they plan to spend?

Neon you present a good case and I appreciate it, you bring out the facts as you see them. Thank you.

Magic

[TDK1044]

That's because he doesn't have to, he only has to report a post once. You see he gets special treatment here at SS Radioroom.


Nobody gets special treatment here, but if a member behaves like an ass with a chip on his shoulder then that's exactly how he'll be treated.

[Tribesman]

For that special someone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGWqtwhS2KY&feature=related

[AVGWarhawk]

And for that special Tribesman in you group:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivpUBvOeD1s

:D:O:

[Tribesman]

And that is taking the piss in what way exactly?

[Onkel Neal]

That's because he doesn't have to, he only has to report a post once. You see he gets special treatment here at SS Radioroom.


That's your opinion. Can we get back on topic, whatever it was...

[UnderseaLcpl]

Free market, your celebrated ones, are what has polluted out planet, Lance.
I'm guessing at you made this remark with the intention of implying that the free market Exxon Valdez ran aground and spilled about 40,000 tons of crude oil into the waters off the coast of Alaska. Thousands of marine animals were incapacitated and eventually died. Thousands more were saved by diligent volunteers and professionals who were funded in part by Exxon. The cost to Exxon was tremendous. In addition to being ordered to pay expenses for government cleanup efforts, Exxon had to pay millions to try to restore its image and the costs of lost business and investment can't even be calculated, but they were probably high. Believe it or not, some people are still outraged over that spill; Some call for stiffer penalties to be imposed upon Exxon whilst others call for outright nationalization. Exxon has not caused a major spill since.

In 1991, however, the Iraqi government purposely dumped about 200,000 tons of crude oil into the Persian Gulf in an attempt to deter a landing by US Marines. Evidently, no one in the Iraqi government ever met a US Marine. If they had, they would have known that a few thousand tons of crude oil would not stop us from staging an assault. Most Marines I know would have been more than happy to charge ashore with a veneer of slimming and terrifying black goo. Damn, most of the Marines I know probably would have set the stuff on fire so they could look like vengeful wraiths rising from the depths of hell. Then they would have played rock music....

....Man, that would been the coolest sh** ever. It matters little that we would most likely have been incinerated, along with our boom-boxes, in the process. Ah, to trade everything for a few moments of imperishable glory! Or perishable glory. Whatever. A free flag for every man who dies!
Marines are stupid like that.

Unfortunately, Marines have officers to do their thinking for them and the officers decided to simply select another avenue of approach. It wasn't as cool, and there was no rock music to be had, but it worked, and the decision of the Iraqi government to dump nearly a quarter of a million tons of crude oil into the Persian Gulf remained incredibly idiotic. But no one gives a sh** about that. Given the outrage that the Exxon Valdez spill generated, one would think that the Persian Gulf spill, which was an intentional action by a government, would have generated enough anger to rouse an army of environmentalists fixated on invading Iraq (preferably covered in burning oil while rock music plays) and making it pay for all the fish and other soggy animals that the spill killed, but it didn't. I suppose animals are less cute when the state tells you that you should go to war.

Speaking of state-caused maritime environmental disasters, I also seem to remember a certain central European nation that sanctioned the torpedoing of ships carrying God knows how many tons of oil, non-biodegradables, and chemical toxins in the interests of furthering a state agenda. Nobody cares about the environmental impacts of that decision. In fact, I hear that some people actually play simulations that recreate the experience. Imagine that.

Moving on, I should probably also mention the state sanctioned activities of the ethanol industry, the aluminum industry, the energy industry, etc etc.

It may also interest you to know that the single largest polluter on the face of this planet at the time of this writing is the Chinese government, followed closely by the Indian and Russian governments. The largest polluter in the US is the US government. Of course, those facts don't take into account the cumulative pollution generated by the activities of business or those of the people, but it's interesting, nonetheless. People who are not employed by the government outnumber those who are employed by the government by a great degree in every nation, ever. It is hardly surprising that they generate more total environmental impact.

Is the free market mostly responsible for the pollution of our world? You tell me.


Free market economies are the payers sending lobbyists to manipulate politicians - that kind of manipulation you blame politicians for.

Yes, they do that. What would you propose as a solution? We can't eliminate the market because trade is how we advance and develop as a society. If we did not trade, we would be forced to resort to our own personal abilities as a mechanism for survival. We can't control or direct the market because no one is smart enough to do that effectively. Don't believe me? Fine, provide me with a complete synopsis all agricultural trade in Munster, Germany and provide your recommendations as to how it could be made more efficient, and do it before the next update of the consumer and price-driven agricultural futures market. I have 2:36 GMT
on my watch, making it early afternoon where you live. I'll give you a grace period for the time it takes you to see, read, and evaluate this post. Actually, I'll give you a grace period of twenty years to formulate an effective recommendation on agricultural policy for this day alone. Ready? Go!

We cannot eliminate or control the market, but we can control the state that establishes the laws under which the market operates. We cannot predict how the market will be used or abused, but we can penalize fraud and infractions of good laws by using a limited and responsible state.

Of course, states do not become limited and responsible by themselves. They are, after all, comprised of people, and people are not necessarily subject to reason, responsibility, or altruism. Therefore, the state must be chained and bound by a very clear set of laws enforced by an armed populace. A state rendered powerless by these measures has no appeal to capitalists. What's the use in lobbying if there is no power to lobby for? It would be a waste of capital. Business must then turn to the next most viable course of action that will lead to success: competition.

It is one thing to say that people should adopt an enlightened government, it is quite another to actually make it happen. Again, you have fallen prey to the ideal of the philosopher-king, albeit in a slightly different form.

It's exactly like I said. You see two devils dancing, but one you call a devil, and the other a saint. God may know why you do that, I do not.

Have you found religion, Sky? :DL

I think you are too fixated on ideology in your thinking, and reject realities over it, wanting to have more of the old recipes that have brought us right to where we are
That's odd, I often feel the same way about you.

My ideology is that of self-determination. It is moral, just, and proper to allow people to pursue their own goals. It is immoral to prevent them from doing so, especially by force. That goes for everyone, not just states. I am not so presumptuous as to believe that I know what is best for everyone. My beliefs are not representative of those of all other people, and their beliefs are not representative of mine.

No matter how you try, you cannot prove that pure capitalism has ever brought the peoples of any nation to a lower state. Empirical evidence indicates the exact opposite - that people given self-determination will be more prosperous.



All you get by that is just this: more power to economic tycoons and monopolists. And both are not about free markets, don't be mistaken about that. capitalism is not driven by the desire to form free markets, but is driven by the desire to prevent them, and deny newcomers equal chances at the starting line. This is what means maximum profit, not to allow as many rivals as possible. Monopolist is the most natural - and only real - attractor of capitalism. Your more romanticised image of it only works in small communities where everybody knows everybody else and feel personally related to him, and every member of the community sees all the community's prosperity and possessions directly, so that everybody directly sees how anyone's deeds directly influence these resources for the worse or the better. Take away these preconditions and you have the ruling of greed and envy and egoism and monopolism. You cannot avoid it.


Actually, I can avoid it and so can the rest of humanity. We can do so by getting rid of the easy-out business often seeks by co-opting the state.
Show me one example of a harmful, non-natural monopoly that wasn't assisted by the state and I may reconsider my opinion.

Also, I will point out the fallacy that capitalism only works in small communities. You may not have noticed, but capitalism actually fuels the world economy in the form of trillions of transactions made by billions of people every day. There is no need for a governing authority. People engage in mutually beneficial transactions. If the transaction is not mutually beneficial, it will not take place. Governments try to tax, regulate, or otherwise hinder these transactions for their own reasons, but they are never entirely successful. In the most extreme examples, a black market is formed and there is a predictable increase in violent crime.

You have a brilliant mind, Sky, but that does not mean that you can predict the best socioeconomic policy for nations comprised of millions of people. Others have tried, and they have all failed. I'll name Keynes and Marx, but there are many others. Conversely, some of the greatest economists in history simply adopted a policy of doing nothing. Xiaoping abolished price controls and established "special economic zones" where free trade was allowed and encouraged. Those zones have propelled China to the success it enjoys today. Ludwig Erhard brought Germany from the brink of economic collapse after WW2 by simply eliminating the price controls and production quotas that the allies imposed.


I suspect that we may go around in circles on this forever, Sky. You obviously have an inspired view of what the future should be like, but you have yet to show me exactly how it could be accomplished, other than to posit a nebulous theory of neo-feudal government.


Now, I ask you to weigh the progress that humanity has made through the past couple of hundred years through capitalism against the possibly imaginary harms of global climate change posited by the state. What is your verdict?

[NeonSamurai]

If the temperature rise precedes the rise in CO2, than what is the relationship? Higher temps mean higher CO2 or Higher CO2 means higher temps. Is the dog wagging his tail or the tail wagging the dog?

To my knowledge (this is not my area of expertise, though I am trained in scientific methodology), we can't say for sure as we do not have any evidence other then very recent evidence. In our present case CO2 levels are definitely preceding temperature changes, and a large chunk of the CO2 is being generated by us (this is concrete data). However in natural cases of temperature change we do not have any evidence of which came first, as ice core samples can not be dated precisely enough to tell. Personally I would suspect that it is a combination of both at work, feeding off each other.

The data shows large peaks and valleys. What is it that starts such extremes in temps and CO2 and what reverses these trends? It wasn't man in either case. Why is it that at peak temps it all of the sudden(or not so sudden) reversed and started cooling with the CO2 levels so high?What you see are called a positive feedback loop and a negative feedback loop. Feedback loops feed off themselves, forming a cycle that either is ever increasing, or ever decreasing, until it hits some natural limit, it will then eventually reverse. There are many possible triggers for starting a feedback loop of this kind, such as eruptions, drought (forest fires and less CO2 absorption by plants), comet/meteor strikes, increased/decreased activity from the sun, even earth wobble relating to the sun.

Anyhow I'll give you a simplified example of a feedback loop

Lets say that the loop in this case is triggered by the sun increasing it's rate of fusion (energy release), temperature starts to climb a degree or 2 on earth, this eventually warms up the oceans, and causes the oceans to release some stored CO2. The CO2 causes the temperature to increase a little more, and the ice starts to melt. The ice acts as a light reflector, and water as a light absorber, so this means more energy from the sun is being converted into heat, which causes the temperature to climb more, and then we enter the loop of co2 being released, ice melts more, water floods the land giving more absorptive surface area, etc.

Eventually this will peak and stabilize, the chain will break, and sooner or later the sun will start producing energy normally, or under producing it. Then everything will happen in reverse: oceans cool and absorb more CO2, temperature drops a bit more, ice begins to form and the oceans slowly recede, etc.

The reverse of this example is how ice ages can start.

My biggest question is. The poles are a rather unique places on earth and not very representative of the earth in general. Is polar data really a reliable source of global climate, has this data been check by some other means, perhaps sea bed core samples?? I know that they can't go back that far but there should enough data to compare with recent ice samples.It is not a perfect representation of the global climate, as CO2 distribution globally is not at all even, but it does give us a very good idea of what was going on as global CO2 levels do tend to rise and fall by similar rates. Geology can also give us an idea of what was happening, but the margin for error is much larger I believe. The main advantages of ice samples are that they trap the actual air from that period of time, and rock to my knowledge does not. I am sure though that it has been checked against modern readings and models.

And to the point of this thread has the data been presented in a full and truthful way? There has been some question about NASA objectivity in this area. I'm not too sure either way on this.Honestly, I have yet to see anything that proves even remotely close to beyond reasonable doubt, that any funny business took place. All I have seen is emails being taken totally out of context, scientific jargon like 'trick' being misinterpreted (which I find ironic as modern parlance uses the word in a very similar way), and other easily explainable things. Also last I checked NASA had nothing to do with the hacked emails. Is it possible that maybe some funny business did take place? Sure anything is possible, but the chances that the entire scientific community studying global warming were committing scientific fraud is beyond absurd. Mostly what I have seen is a bunch of screaming, yelling, and distorting from the usual media people.

They wright off the European Warming period as just a localized event, why not polar ice samples the same way? Is this data reliable enough to take the steps that they are talking about?I am not very familiar with the European Warming period, other then it has been scientifically debunked. Evidence is that while the summers were warmer, the winters were cooler, which means there was no warming period. Further there is geological evidence backing up the CO2 and temperature evidence from the ice core samples. We can tell that oceans rose during periods of warming/high CO2 levels, and shrank during cooling periods, we can also match up the ice ages with the data.

The ultimate cause of temperature change is VERY important if your spending trillions to try to effect it. The question at hand isn't warming but what part man plays in itand what we can do about it?Honestly I don't believe anything near drastic enough will be done. I have said before we are heading towards very troubled times. We need to dramatically cut back on the number of humans on the planet (loose at least 5-6 billion), if we want to keep reasonable life styles for all and not trash the planet in the process. Also I will add that global warming, if it continues will alone cost vast sums of money, as about 70-80% of the human population live in locations that will be flooded when the ice is all melted. That is excluding the damage that will be caused as the power of storms increases due to the available heat energy. I don't think the world economy has a prayer of surviving it.

Second if GTGs account for only half of temp change and man is responsible for only a part of these and we can only reduce a small fraction of our part just what can we accomplish with all the trillions of dollars they plan to spend?We won't, evidence is we are already started a positive feedback loop, in this case triggered by all the CO2 we are releasing. Which is causing all the other stuff I mentioned in my example. The only way we will break that loop is to either develop technology that can consume massive amounts of CO2 from the environment, or cut back our emissions to extremely low levels (and cut our population down).

Global warming itself isn't going to get us, but it probably will push our overstressed global ecosystem over the edge, which could well take us out with it.

Neon you present a good case and I appreciate it, you bring out the facts as you see them. Thank you.

MagicYou are very kind. I try my best to be as objective as I can be with what I present. For me it is not about belief in one side or another, but simply what the science says about it. If strong conclusive evidence suddenly points in the opposite direction, then that is the direction I would go.

[magic452]

I understand the workings of a feebback loop. That has been well documented as far as global climate is concerned.

You mentioned the increase in storms both in numbers and intensity, would this act as a trigger to reverse the feedback loop at some point? What is the ability of rain or snow to absorb CO2.

1) cutting down population by such large numbers (5 or 6 billion) is not a option, at least short of nuclear war and that doesn’t seem to be a great idea.

2) cutting down on CO2 to a point that will make a real difference without committing economic suicide doesn’t seem to be much of a plan either and with out population control would fail anyway.
People generate CO2 by just being alive. Someone mentioned earlier about 22 lb. per day times 6 billion that is a lot. Possibility more than the use of carbon fuel.

3) That would only leave developing technology that can consume massive amounts of CO2 from the environment as a real option.

Is there an economical way to brake down Co2 to O2 and carbon that may be a better option? If not, would research into the idea not be warranted? I’m sure that some use could be found for the pure carbon thus putting a profit motive in play.

There is no economic gain in limiting CO2 production. The current Cap and Trade idea is non profit one at best and will do little to address the problem and there is no incentive to limit CO2 as the added cost is simply passed on to the consumer who has no choice but to pay. Not to mention that some of the big polluters will simply not play along.

The trick is to make it economically profitable and let private enterprise find the solutions.

The world leaders seem hell bent on spending trillions of dollars on something so why not a vast reforestation program. On the surface that may sound stupid but we cut down all those trees in the first place.

Cutting down the rain forest in South America and Africa is problematic in the first place and replacing them would be beneficial to everybody by providing jobs in some of the poorest countries around. The slash and burn method yields poor farm land and in a few years new fields need to be cleared. Would it not be better to improve farming in these areas and save more forest. Reforesting would than supply the lumber that is needed thus adding a profit motived.

There are vast areas in the western US that would lend themselfs to forest.
Before you laugh I recently flew form Reno, Nevada to Phoenix, Arizona, that’s about 700 miles and the only thing you could see from 30,000 ft. was Las Vegas, everything else was empty land.
The biggest problem is water but there is a solution to that, bring in sea water form the coast. Use solar power to pump the water and desalt it. There is plenty of sun power here in the west. Actually a better idea would be to use the Colorado river water for this and sea water to supply the coast.
If vast numbers of the population are forced to relocate because of rising oceans than a livable habit will already exist inland and we will have done something to help the ecosystem.
Australia is another option and I’m sure there are other suitable locations else where.

The question is how much CO2 would say a hundred square miles of forest consume?

Just some thoughts on what we might do instead of what they are talking about. Putting the money in the right place.

Magic

[NeonSamurai]

I understand the workings of a feebback loop. That has been well documented as far as global climate is concerned.

You mentioned the increase in storms both in numbers and intensity, would this act as a trigger to reverse the feedback loop at some point? What is the ability of rain or snow to absorb CO2.

About the same as gets released when the water converts to water vapor in the other part of the cycle I would expect. Also I did not say storm numbers would go up, but rather that their strength would increase, due to the increase in heat energy available to feed them.

1) cutting down population by such large numbers (5 or 6 billion) is not a option, at least short of nuclear war and that doesn’t seem to be a great idea.

Nope I don't see it happening, at least not until we have burned through most of the available resources, and it becomes fight or starve. Then the population numbers will drop fast.

2) cutting down on CO2 to a point that will make a real difference without committing economic suicide doesn’t seem to be much of a plan either and with out population control would fail anyway.
People generate CO2 by just being alive. Someone mentioned earlier about 22 lb. per day times 6 billion that is a lot. Possibility more than the use of carbon fuel.

I can't argue with that. Anyhow here are the figures: people breathing (2006, 6.6 billion world pop) 2,409,000,000 metric tons. CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use alone (2006) 28,431,741,000 metric tons. That doesn't include CO2 production from our concentrated farming practices (animals breathing), or their byproduct gases such as methane, which are also greenhouse gases. This is partly why human populations need to drop by several billion.

3) That would only leave developing technology that can consume massive amounts of CO2 from the environment as a real option.

Is there an economical way to brake down Co2 to O2 and carbon that may be a better option? If not, would research into the idea not be warranted? I’m sure that some use could be found for the pure carbon thus putting a profit motive in play.

There is a lot of ongoing research into it, including using algae to absorb it then burying the algae. Using it for economic purposes would defeat the purpose as we are trying to reduce the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Eventually it could perhaps be developed into a cycle as a renewable energy source.

There is no economic gain in limiting CO2 production. The current Cap and Trade idea is non profit one at best and will do little to address the problem and there is no incentive to limit CO2 as the added cost is simply passed on to the consumer who has no choice but to pay. Not to mention that some of the big polluters will simply not play along.

I don't see the economic gain in global warming either, I see massive economic losses coming from the problem.

The trick is to make it economically profitable and let private enterprise find the solutions.

Private enterprise is one of several key reasons we are in this mess, they haven't shown any interest in fixing things, unless they can make good money doing it, but that money isn't available.

The world leaders seem hell bent on spending trillions of dollars on something so why not a vast reforestation program. On the surface that may sound stupid but we cut down all those trees in the first place.

Cutting down the rain forest in South America and Africa is problematic in the first place and replacing them would be beneficial to everybody by providing jobs in some of the poorest countries around. The slash and burn method yields poor farm land and in a few years new fields need to be cleared. Would it not be better to improve farming in these areas and save more forest. Reforesting would than supply the lumber that is needed thus adding a profit motived.

The politicians are doing what they always do, trying to make it look like they are doing something, when really they are doing nothing but waste money and line their and their friends pockets in the process. Problem is reforestation is a dead end, as the wood will be re-harvested and the CO2 once again released back into the atmosphere, so it does nothing to solve the problem we are in. I do agree with you though that slash and burn is wasteful. Now if the forests were left to act in a natural way, then CO2 would be put back into the earth, as the wood would only release part of its CO2 when decaying, and the rest becomes part of the earth. But that isnt profitable. Also a lot of the land that did have forests, has been too badly damaged by our actions to replant forests.

There are vast areas in the western US that would lend themselfs to forest.

Before you laugh I recently flew form Reno, Nevada to Phoenix, Arizona, that’s about 700 miles and the only thing you could see from 30,000 ft. was Las Vegas, everything else was empty land.

Those lands are not at all suitable for forests, aside from the lack of water, the soil quality is virtually non existent. We can't turn desert into forests. Most of the land isn't even suitable for farming of any kind.

The biggest problem is water but there is a solution to that, bring in sea water form the coast. Use solar power to pump the water and desalt it. There is plenty of sun power here in the west. Actually a better idea would be to use the Colorado river water for this and sea water to supply the coast.

Problem is clean fresh water reserves are rapidly dwindling, even in the US. We waste vast amounts of it trying to water lawns and golf courses in a desert, use massive amounts of it trying to farm land that isn't well suited for farming (and pollute much of it in the process). Then there is all the water based pollution we cause. There are already concerns that the US is going to run out of fresh water (consumption will surpass production, natural or otherwise). Also global warming will negatively affect this as the weather patterns will change along with many other things (such as no more spring runoff due to no more snow).

If vast numbers of the population are forced to relocate because of rising oceans than a livable habit will already exist inland and we will have done something to help the ecosystem.
Australia is another option and I’m sure there are other suitable locations else where.

Australia is the most unsuitable location you can think of, other then a full desert like the Sahara. There are very few freshwater sources, and those are being used at great cost trying to farm the land, with dismal results. The soil is not suited for farms or forests, and the Australian government has spent piles of money trying to prove otherwise.

The question is how much CO2 would say a hundred square miles of forest consume?

The final answer is none if that forest gets cut down and consumed, the wood will eventually be burned, and the CO2 will go back into the atmosphere.

Just some thoughts on what we might do instead of what they are talking about. Putting the money in the right place.

Magic

I appreciate your ideas, and certainly agree that the money could be put into better use. Personally I support research into finding solutions to the problem, but I still think we will need to cut down on carbon emissions all the same, and we still need to cut down our population size dramatically; I just don't see it happening anywhere near soon enough. Humanity tends only to learn its mistakes, long after the consequences have come home. We then quickly forget them and make them again. I think we have to come to terms though that one way or another, this is going to cost us big time. Skybird wrote a good essay on rationality and human survival if you want to read it, it covers some of this stuff we are discussing.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=159065

[magic452]

My though on reforestation was that soil conditions could be improved by chemical means at first and start a cycle of natural soil building via decaying leaves and trees and underbrush. Properly planted trees would make it very easy to control underbrush by plowing it under and building soil. It would at some point become self sustaining . We are talking about a long term solution to a long term problem.

The soils in the South West are not that poor. There are areas in California that produce tons of alfalfa in vast irrigated fields. It can be done if there is enough economic benefit.

I guess that there are two problems with the idea.
First the use of energy to produce the necessary fertilizer would possibility exceed the benefit.
Second is as you say, the release of CO2 as a result of decaying matter but if that matter was buried then much of the CO2 would be released into the soil.

The final answer is none if that forest gets cut down and consumed, the wood will eventually be burned, and the CO2 will go back into the atmosphere.

At least here Lumber, as opposed to wood, is used as building material and is most often buried in land fills at the compilation of it’s life cycle so the CO2 would be released into the ground.

The idea isn’t that far fetched as it may at first seem, with the proper application of technology it may just be feasible.

Fresh water is going to be a problem in the not too distant future in many areas so the money spent on salt water purification will be spent anyways. I just saw a thing on the news a few days ago about a new method of doing it, wasn’t paying too much attention so I didn’t get any details but apparently it was very efficient. Of course the environmentalist didn’t like it as it sucked up fish.

I appreciate your ideas, and certainly agree that the money could be put into better use. Personally I support research into finding solutions to the problem, but I still think we will need to cut down on carbon emissions all the same


The biggest obstacle to cutting down on carbon emissions is environmentalist. Even if reforestation was feasible there is some small rodent out there that would stop the whole project.

There are several solar projects in California that are on hold because of environmentalist objecting one thing or another. There is a lot of talk about solar power here in Nevada
but I would suspect the same kinds of problems with that.

There was some time ago a large dam project that was scraped because of a Snail Darter, I believe it was. The hydroelectric power and fresh water would come in handy about now.

Skybird wrote a good essay on rationality and human survival if you want to read it, it covers
some of this stuff we are discussing.

I gave it a quick look last night, not so sure I go along with some of what he says but he may be more right than wrong, I’ll read it a little more thoroughly later.

It’s certainly been a interesting discussion so far I’ve enjoyed it.


Magic

[Onkel Neal]

Speaking of climate change and energy consumption, etc. My Favorite British Author, Mil Millington, had a nice short article detailing his energy strategy. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/may/30/mil-millington-anxious-everything-meter) :haha:

[NeonSamurai]

My though on reforestation was that soil conditions could be improved by chemical means at first and start a cycle of natural soil building via decaying leaves and trees and underbrush. Properly planted trees would make it very easy to control underbrush by plowing it under and building soil. It would at some point become self sustaining . We are talking about a long term solution to a long term problem.

It would take many decades for a sufficient layer of soil to form, also the trees need proper soil to start with. The bigger problem though is water leeching, as the soil material (and I use that term loosely, its more sand and rock then vegetative matter) does not hold water. Then there is the problem of too much sun and too high temperatures for most trees to survive.

The soils in the South West are not that poor. There are areas in California that produce tons of alfalfa in vast irrigated fields. It can be done if there is enough economic benefit.Lots of California though is not suitable for growing economic crops. There are also a lot of farms that need government subsidizing to stay economically viable. The government is paying them to grow crops there pretty much, even though it costs more then it produces.


I guess that there are two problems with the idea.
First the use of energy to produce the necessary fertilizer would possibility exceed the benefit.
Second is as you say, the release of CO2 as a result of decaying matter but if that matter was buried then much of the CO2 would be released into the soil.Well a natural forest is a good thing, aside from the general environmental benefits. CO2 does get released by rotting vegetative matter, but a lot of it gets trapped in the ground.

At least here Lumber, as opposed to wood, is used as building material and is most often buried in land fills at the compilation of it’s life cycle so the CO2 would be released into the ground.To save landfill space, most of this stuff is now burned for energy, and then dumped, so the CO2 does get released. Of course then there is the problem of landfill space to begin with, but that is another topic.

The idea isn’t that far fetched as it may at first seem, with the proper application of technology it may just be feasible.Its not a bad idea, but I think it should be done on areas that were once forests at least. There is a natural reason why forests never grew in certain areas, as the ecosystem is totally incapable of supporting them. Also we would be destroying other ecosystems in the process.

Fresh water is going to be a problem in the not too distant future in many areas so the money spent on salt water purification will be spent anyways. I just saw a thing on the news a few days ago about a new method of doing it, wasn’t paying too much attention so I didn’t get any details but apparently it was very efficient. Of course the environmentalist didn’t like it as it sucked up fish.Well killing off fish is a problem yes, especially with the state of the world's oceans. There are some problems though, such as what to do with the excess salt when done in a large scale (can't just dump it directly back in the ocean as that will cause other problems), and other potentially unforeseeable consequences. Right now the technology is still expensive.

The biggest obstacle to cutting down on carbon emissions is environmentalist. Even if reforestation was feasible there is some small rodent out there that would stop the whole project.Reforestation doesn't cut back on carbon emissions from humans. Also biodiversity is something the world needs, as we have been extincting vast numbers of species, which could have major consequences for us later on.

There are several solar projects in California that are on hold because of environmentalist objecting one thing or another. There is a lot of talk about solar power here in Nevada
but I would suspect the same kinds of problems with that.

There was some time ago a large dam project that was scraped because of a Snail Darter, I believe it was. The hydroelectric power and fresh water would come in handy about now.I am not certain solar and wind are going to be solutions or not. On the small scale it doesn't matter much, but done on the very large scale, it brings the potential for causing problems. There is no such thing as free energy, you always take it from someplace. Who knows what the consequence of absorbing large amounts of solar and wind energy in isolated areas will be. Also dams do not generate fresh water, and can be very environmentally destructive, though the energy can be cheap and is fairly clean.

I gave it a quick look last night, not so sure I go along with some of what he says but he may be more right than wrong, I’ll read it a little more thoroughly later.Don't expect you to agree with all of it it, I don't entirely agree with everything either. But the arguments he brings up I feel are worth considering all the same. :DL

It’s certainly been a interesting discussion so far I’ve enjoyed it.

Magic

Good :DL

[magic452]

Well maybe your right , reforestation would be a long shot.

By the way would you be interested in several thousand acres of FINE south west property. :haha:

Magic

[NeonSamurai]

Possibly, that area can be very beautiful as it is, though I don't do heat very well (I sometimes shock people by going between classes with out my jacket on in the middle of winter). :03: At least I hear the nights are cool. :DL

Anyhow I don't think reforestation is a bad idea at all, but it just needs to be done in the right places. Also we do need oxygen producers like trees, particularly with the large scale deforestation going on in the world. Plus trees do help filter out the air.

One of the really dumb things we like to do though is build housing on top of prime farmland and forestland. Most major cities in North America are that way as the early cities needed to stay close to the food production areas or timber resources. Unfortunately though the cities spread out and consume all the good farmland. In Canada the classic example of this is Toronto, which use to all be prime farmland, but most of the farms were sold to housing development.

[August]

I'm in the midst of reforesting 104 acres of Maine wilderness as I type this.

[NeonSamurai]

I'm in the midst of reforesting 104 acres of Maine wilderness as I type this.

:yeah:

[Respenus]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00659/REV_01_659048a.jpg
:rotfl2:

[VipertheSniper]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00659/REV_01_659048a.jpg
:rotfl2:

The cartoonist forgot the unicorn :rotfl2: :haha:

[August]

So where's the ark this time for the climate change believers? :)

[AVGWarhawk]

So where's the ark this time for the climate change believers? :)


I hear the blueprints are in Turkey on Mt Ararat. :hmmm:

[August]

I hear the blueprints are in Turkey on Mt Ararat. :hmmm:


Hmmm, reverse engineering a wooden vessel from biblical times that has not been preserved might be somewhat difficult... :)

[AVGWarhawk]

Hmmm, reverse engineering a wooden vessel from biblical times that has not been preserved might be somewhat difficult... :)


Actually the most difficult part is getting to the top of Mt Ararat. Turkey said no. It is off limits. Photos show there is something up there.

It is easy to see that Mount Ararat is in the
farthest eastern section of Turkey. Look on any
topographical map and you will see that area
adjacent to Armenia in the former USSR is the
highest elevation of the mountain range, and
that Mount Ararat is the highest point at 16,804 feet.

http://www.circlegame.com/jpg/ark1thum.jpg

For the ARK to have landed on the 150th day in this
section of Turkey and NOT see any land, the only
possible place that this could have occured is on the
top of Mount Ararat itself, the highest point. Then,
as we learn from Genesis 8:5 for a period of 74 days
the waters *continued to recede allowing the tops of
the mountain *range to eventually be seen.

Much archeological evidence has been found at this
exact location with the most outstanding being the
wooden beams found by Ferdinand Guevarra in the 1950's,
and the photographs of the late Astronaut Jim Irwin,
(a moon walker) whose photograph of the body of the
ARK taken during a 1990 helicopter expedition to the
region should not be missed. This photograph was
presented in the documentary "The Incredible Discovery
of Noah's Ark.


Interesting findings and it alway facinated me when I was a kid. I'm guessing we will never know for sure.

[antikristuseke]

I am going to need to see a bit more evidence than that to concider it anything other than BS.

[AVGWarhawk]

I am going to need to see a bit more evidence than that to concider it anything other than BS.

Search the net antikristuseke. There is definitely something up there. Why no one is allowed to climb and investigate remains a mystery to me. Perhaps to not allow out it does in fact exist? We can only guess. But, yes, google the ark and Ararat. There is plenty of information on it. Been going on since the 50's or a bit earlier. :up:

http://www.bibleprobe.com/anomaly.jpg

http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/bible/Bible/OT/Law/Genesis/NoahsArk/Quotes%20of%20Seeing%20Noah's%20Ark.htm




Intriging, no? Hiding the truth? Possible.

[antikristuseke]

From what little i have dug up by now, Mt. Ararat is climbable now when accompanied by Turkish travel guide and holding a climbing permit in Turkey, most of the time when it was off limits it was a militarized zone due to its location.

The satellite images and aerial photographs taken over the years do show an anomaly there, but it is believed to be glacial in nature.

Ofcourse there are other sites that claims with absolutely no evidence backing them up other than wishful thinking. But as I said, I only now started to look into this.

Edit: As for the photo you linked, it is too small for me to actually see much anything there.
Edit2: As the site is accessible now, would be nice if some ark hunters would go there and check it out for themselves. The burden of proof rests steadily on their shoulders.

[Stealth Hunter]

Not that such a small ship could even hold such a large number of animals anyway- let alone carry enough provisions to feed a family of 8 and the menagerie for 371 days. Furthermore, the story of Noah's Ark is simply a rip-off of the much more ancient Utnapishtim's Ark from Mesopotamian mythology.

Anyway, nobody has ever discovered a gigantic ancient ship on the mountain as it is. Or anything ancient and man-made for that matter.. There's plenty of religious nutters out there (Evangelicals especially) who claim validity for the stories of such men as William Todd, George Hagopian, etc. Strangely enough, there exists no videos on the Internet of Rolando Reyna's story. Or any documentation of a "Rolando Reyna of Mexico City, Mexico" as of the 1980s, 1990s, or present decade... you hear the story a lot but that's where the trail ends.

What the supporters of those stories are saying is no different from what the supporters of the conspiracy group which says that aliens have been living on the moon for centuries now, NASA has known about it for decades and is covering them up, and they're all going to set us free someday. No- that's not a joke by me. Watch this video series; there ARE people who really believe this concept to be true (and they're not Scientologists):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ3wh2cjekE&feature=related

There's nothing up there but snow, rock, ice, possibly a glacier, some old frozen trees, and a track record of conspiracy theorists dating as far back as the 1700s, earlier if you want to get technical.

[SteamWake]

Al hits an inconvienent truth

In his speech, Gore told the conference: "These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr. [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years."

However, the climatologist whose work Gore was relying upon dropped the former vice president in the water with an icy blast.

"It's unclear to me how this figure was arrived at," Dr. Maslowski said. "I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this."


http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/12/15/inconvenient-truth-gore-claims-dont-add/

[NeonSamurai]

Said it before many times, and going to say it once again.

Gore is a mouthpiece not a scientist, he doesn't really know what he is talking about. You want to understand the science, or criticize it, you look only to the science and the scientists behind it and ignore the mouthpieces.

[TDK1044]

Said it before many times, and going to say it once again.

Gore is a mouthpiece not a scientist, he doesn't really know what he is talking about. You want to understand the science, or criticize it, you look only to the science and the scientists behind it and ignore the mouthpieces.

The science is easily manipulated, just as in any major criminal case where you have two opposing scientific experts stating opposite views based on the same scientific evidence.

With the Global Warming issue, you need to look beyond the mouthpieces and the science as presented by both sides, and look for the real motive behind the issue. :)

[SteamWake]

Said it before many times, and going to say it once again.

Gore is a mouthpiece not a scientist, he doesn't really know what he is talking about. You want to understand the science, or criticize it, you look only to the science and the scientists behind it and ignore the mouthpieces.

Cmon we both know Al is more than just a moutpiece hell he is their leading proponent and poster boy. A few lies and fabrications wont stop him.. no sir ! ;)

[NeonSamurai]

The science is easily manipulated, just as in any major criminal case where you have two opposing scientific experts stating opposite views based on the same scientific evidence.

With the Global Warming issue, you need to look beyond the mouthpieces and the science as presented by both sides, and look for the real motive behind the issue. :)

Valid science is not easily manipulated, but people, particularly the general public are easily manipulated. You will always have two or more opposing scientific views as A) science is not perfect B) science is ever changing and evolving C) complete consensus never ever will exist among humans D) you will always find someone who disagrees, particularly if you offer them money to. Usually though they will each have their own different evidence in a lot of these arguments.

If the science was done correctly, motive is irrelevant. It only becomes relevant if the science was not done properly. If it wasn't done properly, it will show up in the science itself when properly reviewed, or retested. This is why I am waiting till the review is done before passing any judgment on the so called "climategate", as I have not see any significant evidence of any wrong doing.

The talking heads in this stuff is irrelevant, be it Limbaugh, Gore, or that climategate guy who sounds like his voice is going to break from all the extreme and fake emotion. These guys don't know squat, they are not scientists, they haven't read the reports, or if they have they don't really understand it (like the mistake Gore made). Never ever EVER base your own opinions on a subject based on what they say, as they are usually wrong, and heavily biased on the subject.

This is why I said look at the science itself and what the scientists have to say about it, and what areas are most supported by the greater scientific community. If most of the scientific community falls on a particular side, then the theory is highly credible (though never perfect).


Cmon we both know Al is more than just a moutpiece hell he is their leading proponent and poster boy. A few lies and fabrications wont stop him.. no sir ! ;)

Nope, just like it doesn't stop the mouthpieces on the other side of things either. They lie through their teeth, and spout all kinds of nonsense all the time, and make tons of mistakes too.



As a slight aside, I often wonder how many who involve themselves in these discussions actually have real scientific backgrounds and training (and I don't mean high school chemistry or physics). I suspect that only a handful of us have any formal training in scientific methodology and practice at a university level of education. I really get the strong impression that many do not have a thorough understanding of scientific method, as I often see a lot of mistakes and misunderstanding when it comes to scientific matters. I am curious to know how many actual scientists who are members here support each side. My impression is that most of the members who I know are/were scientists, and those that I suspect are scientists, mostly fall on the side of GW. But I could well be wrong too :DL

Myself I am a scientist, though my area of expertise falls under the social sciences (I am however heavily trained in scientific/experimental methodology, and statistics).

I also wonder how many here would be actually willing and able to change their minds on a subject, or if their views are strictly faith/party based (and thus nigh unchangeable). For me to change my view on this subject, the scientific consensus on the subject would have to change to a new theory. Such as if human caused global warming was proven incorrect by stronger evidence or the weight of evidence shifted to a new better theory.

[Sailor Steve]

Cmon we both know Al is more than just a moutpiece hell he is their leading proponent and poster boy. A few lies and fabrications wont stop him.. no sir ! ;)
YOU TAKE THAT BACK! He used "Truth" in the title, and that proves it!

[AVGWarhawk]

Apparently Al was misquoting more facts and figures at Copenhagen. You go Al. Just good back up for accusations of skewing figures.

[Snestorm]

Apparently Al was misquoting more facts and figures at Copenhagen. You go Al. Just good back up for accusations of skewing figures.

Why was he there?
He's no longer represents USA officialy, or does he?
I find his presense there to be very confusing.

[AVGWarhawk]

Yeah, Gore showed up like a rockstar. I think he is representing his wallet. Here is the blunder:


"These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr Wieslav Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years," The Times quoted Gore, as saying.
But Maslowski says that this was never a figure they agreed to.
"I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this," he said.


Nice job Al! You go man!

http://business.rediff.com/report/2009/dec/15/al-gores-copenhagen-blunder.htm

[Snestorm]

I think I'm more used to hearing his name pronounce Algore (like Igore).
This explains why very nicely.

[Skybird]

This German comment points out a certain side effect of some suggested aid programs at Kopenhagen I have extreme difficulties with.

http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article5539925/Klimagipfel-zahlt-Entschaedigung-an-Voelkermoerder.html

Basically it points at the dilemma that some African mass murderes for exmaple from Sudan claim a general historic guilt of the West, see the West agreeing - and accepting compensation - by paying these countries high ammounts of money - to battle climate issues - that are claimed to have been caused by these poor dictatorship's poverty - that has been caused by the West - that this way helped to cause local wars and genocide like in Darfhur.

Of course this is absurd a thinking. The genocide in Dharfhur is somethign that really in no way has been caused by the modern or historic West, not directly and not indirectly. It is a anti-Christian progrom in the main, plain and simple.

One could also point at corruption levels in Kenya. Extremely brutal violence and civil war on Kongo. Mugabe in Simbabwe. And more.

And these thugs and slaugterers could expect to get access to hundreds of millions - our tax moneys, yours and mine. Since the money will be meant to battle climate problems, I'm sure they will immediately turn from Sauls to Pauls, behave like saints and will not even think a second on taking the money for themselves and their clans. Why always be so pessimistic, eh? We are all humans, and climate is important and good intentions are what makes the world go round.

Before we sent money to many African regions, I think we should send an armada of assassins wiping out the whole social class of corrupted politicians' and ambitiously conspirating Colonels' families and tribes first. And since this is almost impossible to be acchieved due to their tribal community structures and blood revenge from generation to generation and all that archaic stuff, I think we should send neither assassins nor money to these countries (and stop delivering weapons as well, I admit). The whole Copenhagen goal, even if they acchieve the most optimal maximum outcome some hope to reach, is set many times too low on a level so that this regional failure in Africa would not make a global difference anymore anyway.

Not kind to say such things, I know. But true. And if the philantropic, all-tolerant consensus crowd feels disturbed in their daisy-picking smile-all-summer-long sit-in: the more annoyed over the disturbance they are the better. :yeah:

[Snestorm]

Foreign Aid (My definition):
Taking money from poor people in a "rich" country
and giving to rich people in a poor country.

[magic452]

Snestorn
Foreign Aid (My definition):
Taking money from poor people in a "rich" country
and giving to rich people in a poor country.

You sure hit the nail on the head with that.

Magic

[SteamWake]

Why was he there?
He's no longer represents USA officialy, or does he?
I find his presense there to be very confusing.

He has a vested interest in the issue. Regardless of wether or not he is in an 'offical' capacity for the United States he is viewed as if he is.

Many view him as if he 'speaks for all of america' which of course is a mistaken impression but a useful one.

[TDK1044]

Valid science is not easily manipulated, but people, particularly the general public are easily manipulated. You will always have two or more opposing scientific views as A) science is not perfect B) science is ever changing and evolving C) complete consensus never ever will exist among humans D) you will always find someone who disagrees, particularly if you offer them money to. Usually though they will each have their own different evidence in a lot of these arguments.

If the science was done correctly, motive is irrelevant. It only becomes relevant if the science was not done properly.

You are incorrect. The motive came first. Then the trick was to work out how to use 'science' to sell the idea convincingly.

Global warming started as a political agenda to address the issue of more fairly distributing wealth and technology across the planet. The tricky part was how to achieve that end result without letting the masses know that that was the real agenda.

Global Warming was the answer they came up with. You blame the wealthy, technologically advanced countries for any extreme climatic changes, even though most of those changes are naturally occurring phenomena as the planet continues to evolve, and then you try and guilt those technologically advanced countries into financially compensating the less advanced countries.

This is not a new idea. As I said in an earlier post, I was present at a meeting 30 years ago where this very scenario was addressed. The only surprise to me was that it took them such a long time to get the idea off the ground. :)

[SteamWake]

Big Al dodges more questions :har:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fooYtalS9Gc

[Morts]

You are incorrect. The motive came first. Then the trick was to work out how to use 'science' to sell the idea convincingly.

Global warming started as a political agenda to address the issue of more fairly distributing wealth and technology across the planet. The tricky part was how to achieve that end result without letting the masses know that that was the real agenda.

Global Warming was the answer they came up with. You blame the wealthy, technologically advanced countries for any extreme climatic changes, even though most of those changes are naturally occurring phenomena as the planet continues to evolve, and then you try and guilt those technologically advanced countries into financially compensating the less advanced countries.

This is not a new idea. As I said in an earlier post, I was present at a meeting 30 years ago where this very scenario was addressed. The only surprise to me was that it took them such a long time to get the idea off the ground. :)
dont forget your tinfoil hat:damn:

[antikristuseke]

http://www.nouvelordremondial.cc/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/its-a-conspiracy.jpg

I had to, for the lulz.
And as a note, the first person to predict warming from CO2 emissions was Svante August Arrhenius, and he published most of his work from 1900 to 1908 on that subject. Your 30 year number is off a bit.

[TDK1044]

In the end, GW is one of those subjects that will still be being passionately discussed many years from now. You have extremists on both sides of the scientific argument, and those who believe that the issue is as much politically based as it is scientifically based.

Personally, I no longer give the subject a moments thought. :)

[SteamWake]

In the end, GW is one of those subjects that will still be being passionately discussed many years from now. You have extremists on both sides of the scientific argument, and those who believe that the issue is as much politically based as it is scientifically based.

Personally, I no longer give the subject a moments thought. :)

Not even when legislation is put into place that will effict your life directly?

[Onkel Neal]

I know, I know, this proves nothing. (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6786561.html)Still, hard to ignore. :hmmm:

In much of the rolling plains of West Texas, a blizzard has never been recorded.

There has been one now.

[Skybird]

that there will be more weather extremes, has been predicted since long. Their is no surprise in that taking place, both in your place, and in ours, too. We over here have much too much rain over the past ten years, for example, and more floodings.

People only are surprised that fate does not save them personally. "How could that be...?"

If there is truth in saying that people only learn if the pain becomes too much, then this might be an answer. :cool:

[SteamWake]

If there is one thing about nature that never changes it is the fact that it is always changing.

[Onkel Neal]

It must be true, "eminent scientists" claimed it (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242202/Could-30-years-global-COOLING.html) :D


Britain's big freeze is the start of a worldwide trend towards colder weather that seriously challenges global warming theories, eminent scientists claimed yesterday.

The world has entered a 'cold mode' which is likely to bring a global dip in temperatures which will last for 20 to 30 years, they say.

Summers and winters will all be cooler than in recent years, and the changes will mean that global warming will be 'paused' or even reversed, it was claimed.


And before anyone gets all uppity with me, I am not saying I know this is true or believe one way or the other... just making a post. :ping:


The research has been carried out by eminent climate scientists, including Professor Mojib Latif. He is a leading member of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
He and his colleagues predicted the cooling trend in a 2008 paper, and warned of it again at an IPCC conference in Geneva in September.
Working at the prestigious Leibniz Institute in Kiel University in Germany, he has developed methods for measuring ocean temperatures



http://media.philly.com/images/20100110_inq_swint10z-a.JPG

[nikimcbee]

An official nikimcbee prediction:
http://www.acus.org/files/images/johnny-carson-carnak.jpg




Just wait Neal, 10 years from now we'll be skiing at your house for the next subsim meeting! Chateau Stevens: Houston's finest ski resort.:woot::haha:

http://www.destination360.com/europe/italy/images/s/italy-ski-resorts.jpg

[Skybird]

Mojib Latif is no unknown to German TV viewers, he is a scientist who can be seen quite frequently on TV. What he indeed is warning of since years, and I saw him saying that repeatedly on TV, is that these MDOs exist, and could file a certain ammount of temperature events on earth. But Latif at the same time says that the effect they cause is not a general drop or climb of temperatures in both the warm and cold seasons of the year, but probably makes the weather extremes within a season more excessive - the winters become colder and the summers become warmer, much like more and more it is assumed for the medieval "cooloig and warming age" that saw no real drop or climb in yearly mean temperatures, but a widening of the gap between the summers and winter temperatures, which is not reflected by yearly means. Latif said that MDOs could cause winter and summer being further apart in temperatures, and still the general temperature over the years in a climb. Latif also warns, and has warned again last year repeatedly, that his measures of glaciers and artic ice show both shrinking, and at a surprisingly much faster rate than was assumed just short time earlier, a finding that other researchers have confirmed over the last year.

Regarding the way he gets quoted in that article, that pretty much gives me the impression that they have taken him out of context, or distorted what he says. If he really would have meant it the way he is quoted, then he would have made a U-turn just within the past couple of weeks - because I saw him once again on TV just short time before christmas, must have been late Novembre or early Decembre, on a local station like SWR or so, and then he gave a very different assessement on global warming than how he is quoted in the article now. at best he agrees with MDOs eventually having a certain "taming" effect, a braking effect on global warming: it still takes place, but happens a bit slower. Nevertheless, and there he leaves no doubt, the trend is: upwards.

I like Latif on TV, because he talks calm and straight and direct and does no verbal pirouettes and politics stuff. I think he knows his matter.

http://www.wetter.info/wetter-aktuell/die-zeit-des-zauderns-muss-vorbei-sein/17865696
Septembre 2009

[Snestorm]

Sorry folks. I believe what my body tells me first and foremost.

I neither see, nor feel, any evidence of Global Warming.

[Skybird]

You are no scientific criterion. That I can't see Japan from Germany does not mean it is not there. Maybe I just have to move a bit in order to see it.

The data and observation results indicating and concluding on global warming taking place, are OVERWHELMING. I leave it to you to learn a bit on it. Regarding your body, only your brain is needed for data processing, memory storage and adding one and one together, the rest of your body - is no argument regarding Global Warming.

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

[Snestorm]

You are no scientific criterion. That I can't see Japan from Germany does not mean it is not there. Maybe I just have to move a bit in order to see it.

The data and observation results indicating and concluding on global warming taking place, are OVERWHELMING. I leave it to you to learn a bit on it. Regarding your body, only your brain is needed for data processing, memory storage and adding one and one together, the rest of your body - is no argument regarding Global Warming.

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

Actualy, whether I buy into Global Warming or not, does not make much difference as it is secondary (and if true is submersive) to the primary problem, which is over-population.
Until the primary problem is corrected, by man or nature, the secondary problem is immaterial.

[Skybird]

We are too many, yes, my talk. Nevertheless, symptomatic problems documenting that are not really immaterial, but real. And that the planet will look different anyway in 400,000 years, does not help that the life at present nevertheless is confronted with like it is now and the flux it is in, and which is much faster than it normally/naturally would be the case. And "life" - includes us, as well as other species who have the same right to live on this planet like we do. We may be the dominant species on this planet, but I do no longer think of us as in terms of "the most precious" species. If we would not be there, our non-existence would be a benefit for all others species, a benefit that by scale and quality only compares to a killer-meteorite not impacting on Earth, but passing it.

[Snestorm]

And "life" - includes us, as well as other species who have the same right to live on this planet like we do. We may be the dominant species on this planet, but I do no longer think of us as in terms of "the most precious" species.

This has always been my perception. We (people) are no more than a part of nature.
There never has been, and never will be, "a most precious" species. Everything is interdependent to some extent or another.

For men to think they can completely dominate Nature, as opposed to accepting their role as a part of Nature, is a big mistake that can, and has had, severe consequenses.

Life is much easier for one who learns to work with Nature, as opposed to one who is determined to fight or exploit Nature.

[Skybird]

Indeed.

[CaptainHaplo]

Skybird - the one problem is that the "overwhelming" data is all originally sourced from the CRU - which then provided its "manipulated" data to various other institutions, along with the UN. It is this data that has been accepted as the foundation of GW.

The facts are that the CRU destroyed original data, and refused to let other scientists verify their models. With bad data, no matter how good the intent - other scientists were going to come up with the same answer.

Stop using this "overwhelming" data arguement until the data that overwhelms is not manipulated. Right now, everything points to GW being a huge hoax,

[Skybird]

No it is not only the CRU, but the NASA and other institutions operating independent from both as well.

Regarding the accusations of CRU, or this silly email blow-up, I would not believe anything the way sceptics try to claim it. ;)

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

[TDK1044]

Such a polarizing issue, it's a waste of time discussing it. No opinions are going to be changed on either side. Both sides will keep posting links of articles from alleged experts, and both sides will continue to cherry pick the data in order to make their case.

Read credible information from both sides of the argument and form your own opinion.

[AVGWarhawk]

Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr..... .....................I'm cold!

[SteamWake]

Hrm I thought this thread had died....or froze to death :haha:

[Onkel Neal]

Hey, at least I recycled :cool: