The Cold Sun

Skybird · 02-08-12, 07:17 AM

At the time the IPCC released its infamous series of reports, the debate went high on whether global warming exists or not, whether it is man-made or not, whether CO2 affects it to a hugh degree or a small one, and whether sun cycles have something to do with it.

I used to side with the camp saying that global arming is a fact, and I still stand to that. I also said that man had a dominant influence in causing it, and I tend to stick to that also. I never claimed that CO2 is the primary worry. What I became aware pof in recent mon ths where I need to reconsider my position is regarding sun's effect on global climate.

That is becasue when the sun-aergumenbt started to become published en mass ein the media some years ago, almost exclusively it were payed lobby organsiations and payed propagandists bringfing the issue up in defence of socalled climate scepticism. Such a repuation of authors doe snot help, doesn't it, and even more, the data they gave often was distorted, uncomplete, and more or less tailored and manipulated to support their agenda. Pseudo-science of the finest kind, biased towards certain business interests, an d not hiding that.

But since a couple of months, more reasonable and methodologically correct - as far as I can judge that - arguments in support of the sun-thesis have been given and published, and a no longer just small and silent hidden minority of nobody's give it some thought or even chosed to publicly support it. In other words, I think I no longer deal with a proaganda coup by sceptics, but with scientific data and argument that needs to be given much closer attention.

By that I mean NOT that there is no global warming. There is, of this I am 100% sure, and my primary indix for that is no even the series of data on measuring temepratures or models projecting climate chnage into the future, my porimary indix is the the spreading patterns of biological species, species that moved into regions that before where too cold for them, also spreading patterns of germs, plants, and changes in the ecospheric homeostasis of the oceans.

What I mean is that I see myself forced to con sider the possibility that sun-induced cooling effects to some big or small degree counter warming effects of global warming.

The big unknown variable here is the effect of the growing release of methane from the ocean's seabeds and the thawing permafrost regions in the arctic circle. We know that these methane hydrates reservoires hold that ammount of methance and carbvon that at least once has been responsible for killing almost all life on Earth when it was more or less completely dissolved in the atmosphere. If the dynamic of the "methanisation" is such that it overcompensates sun-induced cooling, than it is just that: global warming no longer countered by cool sun cycles.

The IPCC I see as heavily discredited today. Not becasue of the socalled email scandal (I still tend to see that as a staged scandal), and not even becasue of the "Himalaya-ooops", because in such a huge data project like the IPCC effort it is not only possible but needs to be expected that human error leads to mistakes. My scepticism is due to the fact in the time since the reports were released I needed to realise to what degree the boards of authors were dominated by lobby groups with specific ideologic and monetarianj interests. In the interviews I link to below, the guy is saying that over 30% of the distrubuting authors were members or got payed by Greenpeace, and that the vast majority of authors represneted nations which would massively benefit from financial transfer payments - but only when a massive climate collapse would be agreed on to be seen as a basis for future acting of "rich nations" (well, say that in the EU or the US these days...) regarding their aid for emegering industrial countries and thrid world countries. In other words: it appears as if the data selection and interpretation has been object of massive failure regarding implementation of basic principles of scientific criterions and counter-control, peer reviewing, and basic scientific methodology - the one I am so obsessed with.

Hobby-Vulcan that I am, I hate scientific methodology being abused, distorted and raped like this.

Not that Greenpeace staff cannot show up with scientifically skilled personell. They have some good people. But they allow to compromise that by also having many ideology-driven people who usually lead the public debate and who do not shy away from scare-mongering unfounded by scientiifc data, if that helps them to posh their agenda. Correct scientific argument corrupted by ideology still is corrupted argument that does not represent the original scientific argument or data.

This all is not meant to free us from any responsibility for not finding ways to reduce our mateiral conummation of natural resources, becaseu their limited avialability is not touched by the global climate debate. Nor is the poisening of the environment and the extinction of species, global population levels and mega-cities something that gets chnaged in urgency by seeing sun-cacles as a possible and effective variable in the climate developement formula of the next handful of decades. Even withoiut global watrming taking palce it should be obvious to every sane mind that we cannot continue like we did in the past two centuries without killing our civilisatipon and devastating huge parts of thre world, leaving nothing for later generation on which to build a new civilisation. We consume more than nature can replace, and we pollute more than nature can clean - that is the problem.

However, I get to all this by reading an interview yesterday in a German newspapper, a former RWE director who releadsed a book and who admitted that he changed his positions fundamentally. Today, The English edition of the Spiegel released another interview, in English this time. It is two different interviews, but in the same issue. He made some areguments, especially on the questionable reputation of the IPCC, that I have concluded myself before, too, and what else he says makes sense, imo, too.

2nd English interview in Der Spiegel

1st German interview in Die Welt

02-08-12, 07:17 AM	#1
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,625 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	The Cold Sun At the time the IPCC released its infamous series of reports, the debate went high on whether global warming exists or not, whether it is man-made or not, whether CO2 affects it to a hugh degree or a small one, and whether sun cycles have something to do with it. I used to side with the camp saying that global arming is a fact, and I still stand to that. I also said that man had a dominant influence in causing it, and I tend to stick to that also. I never claimed that CO2 is the primary worry. What I became aware pof in recent mon ths where I need to reconsider my position is regarding sun's effect on global climate. That is becasue when the sun-aergumenbt started to become published en mass ein the media some years ago, almost exclusively it were payed lobby organsiations and payed propagandists bringfing the issue up in defence of socalled climate scepticism. Such a repuation of authors doe snot help, doesn't it, and even more, the data they gave often was distorted, uncomplete, and more or less tailored and manipulated to support their agenda. Pseudo-science of the finest kind, biased towards certain business interests, an d not hiding that. But since a couple of months, more reasonable and methodologically correct - as far as I can judge that - arguments in support of the sun-thesis have been given and published, and a no longer just small and silent hidden minority of nobody's give it some thought or even chosed to publicly support it. In other words, I think I no longer deal with a proaganda coup by sceptics, but with scientific data and argument that needs to be given much closer attention. By that I mean NOT that there is no global warming. There is, of this I am 100% sure, and my primary indix for that is no even the series of data on measuring temepratures or models projecting climate chnage into the future, my porimary indix is the the spreading patterns of biological species, species that moved into regions that before where too cold for them, also spreading patterns of germs, plants, and changes in the ecospheric homeostasis of the oceans. What I mean is that I see myself forced to con sider the possibility that sun-induced cooling effects to some big or small degree counter warming effects of global warming. The big unknown variable here is the effect of the growing release of methane from the ocean's seabeds and the thawing permafrost regions in the arctic circle. We know that these methane hydrates reservoires hold that ammount of methance and carbvon that at least once has been responsible for killing almost all life on Earth when it was more or less completely dissolved in the atmosphere. If the dynamic of the "methanisation" is such that it overcompensates sun-induced cooling, than it is just that: global warming no longer countered by cool sun cycles. The IPCC I see as heavily discredited today. Not becasue of the socalled email scandal (I still tend to see that as a staged scandal), and not even becasue of the "Himalaya-ooops", because in such a huge data project like the IPCC effort it is not only possible but needs to be expected that human error leads to mistakes. My scepticism is due to the fact in the time since the reports were released I needed to realise to what degree the boards of authors were dominated by lobby groups with specific ideologic and monetarianj interests. In the interviews I link to below, the guy is saying that over 30% of the distrubuting authors were members or got payed by Greenpeace, and that the vast majority of authors represneted nations which would massively benefit from financial transfer payments - but only when a massive climate collapse would be agreed on to be seen as a basis for future acting of "rich nations" (well, say that in the EU or the US these days...) regarding their aid for emegering industrial countries and thrid world countries. In other words: it appears as if the data selection and interpretation has been object of massive failure regarding implementation of basic principles of scientific criterions and counter-control, peer reviewing, and basic scientific methodology - the one I am so obsessed with. Hobby-Vulcan that I am, I hate scientific methodology being abused, distorted and raped like this. Not that Greenpeace staff cannot show up with scientifically skilled personell. They have some good people. But they allow to compromise that by also having many ideology-driven people who usually lead the public debate and who do not shy away from scare-mongering unfounded by scientiifc data, if that helps them to posh their agenda. Correct scientific argument corrupted by ideology still is corrupted argument that does not represent the original scientific argument or data. This all is not meant to free us from any responsibility for not finding ways to reduce our mateiral conummation of natural resources, becaseu their limited avialability is not touched by the global climate debate. Nor is the poisening of the environment and the extinction of species, global population levels and mega-cities something that gets chnaged in urgency by seeing sun-cacles as a possible and effective variable in the climate developement formula of the next handful of decades. Even withoiut global watrming taking palce it should be obvious to every sane mind that we cannot continue like we did in the past two centuries without killing our civilisatipon and devastating huge parts of thre world, leaving nothing for later generation on which to build a new civilisation. We consume more than nature can replace, and we pollute more than nature can clean - that is the problem. However, I get to all this by reading an interview yesterday in a German newspapper, a former RWE director who releadsed a book and who admitted that he changed his positions fundamentally. Today, The English edition of the Spiegel released another interview, in English this time. It is two different interviews, but in the same issue. He made some areguments, especially on the questionable reputation of the IPCC, that I have concluded myself before, too, and what else he says makes sense, imo, too. 2nd English interview in Der Spiegel 1st German interview in Die Welt __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.