Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
L.1011
Posts: 2172
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 7:46 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Sat Apr 07, 2007 2:03 pm

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 97):
As for Kyoto, I believe it is flawed policy for several reasons. The Clinton Administration even thought it was flawed policy.

Agreed. Kyoto is a very bad excecution of a very good idea.

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 97):
You are probably too young to remember that.

I know plenty about the War of 1812, doesn't mean I remember it.

Quoting David L (Reply 98):

I think your signature says it best.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 99):
I'm quite sure that they said that back in middle ages as well.

Again, you're missing the point. There's a reason that little to no progress in the methods of science has been made since the late 1600s, alongside the blistering expansion of our knowledge in every other facet of science. There is little more progress to be made. The way science was conducted prior to the Renaissance was just as flawed as Ptolemy's solar system. But Ptolemy's solar system was replaced by those of Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler. Planets were added into the 1930s, and plenty of progress has been made in better predicting the motion of the planets and better explaining their genesis. But the methods of science have remained unchanged because unlike say Newtonian mechanics or intelligent design, they cover all of the bases. Newtonian mechanics falls apart at scales and speeds greater than those common on Earth. Intelligent design falls apart right from the get go. The scientific method does not. It holds true regardless of what you're testing, because it's correct.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 99):
And they were used as examples of that. What you aren't taking into account are evolutions of the planet that make those events look very small in comparison and they have happened with frequency, over 4 billion years, in our planets past.

Once again you're missing the point. I'm not disputing that those disasters are small in comparison to what's actually changing the planet. I'm saying that change on the planet is the result of gradual change (uniformitarianism) while you're saying it's the result of occasional, singular, catastrophic events (discredited catastrophism). As I said before, there are less than 50 singular events that could be defined as Earth-changing, or one every 92 million years or so.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 99):
And where is the technology? Is it ready for day to day usage and will it compete price wise with existing technology? If it isn't then what good is it today?

Private companies are investing in it heavily. In this case, as in many, government is the problem. NIMBYs are, as 767Lover pointed out, holding up progress in this area and discouraging big energy companies from investing in development of or trying to implement these technologies. As always, the economies of scale will assist in cutting costs dramatically, and this technology has proven its worth in plenty of other countries.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 99):
And is beginning to start big time concerns in third world countries as well as make it's mark here in this country as the price of corn and other staple foods goes through the roof.

Which is why, as I said, I don't support corn-based biofuel. It's extraordinarily efficient, and its essentially a handout to farmers that can't let go of the New Deal. As has been said many times by anti-environment groups, corn-based ethanol costs more energy to produce than you get out of it. Sugar and plant waste is a different story. Brazil is doing fantastically with sugar cane, and we could use stuff as simple as grass clippings as well. If anybody's using sugar or plant stems, leaves, roots, and clippings as a staple food, I'd like to meet them.
 
allstarflyer
Posts: 3264
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:32 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Sat Apr 07, 2007 5:48 pm

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 95):
If you quoted the rest of that sentence, you'd see that I advocate biobutanol, another plant-based internal combustion fuel that simply works better than ethanol.

You're right, you did say that.

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 77):
We can replace petroleum as a transportation fuel with, rather than inefficient, ineffective corn-based ethanol, biobutanol based on sugar or plant waste.

But you also said this before that.

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 77):
With real leadership and real vision, we can convert to fully renewable electricity

So, how do you get off saying this . . .

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 95):
Electric cars are yesterday's news.

. . . when you mention wanting a Suburban or BMW and then making your remark about converting to electricity? Is it the biobutanol or electricity or both?

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 77):
I want my cheap, processed foods, my unnecessarily large house, and my Chevy Suburban or my high-powered BMW just as much as any other good American. With real leadership and real vision, we can convert to fully renewable electricity.

-R
Living the American Dream
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Sat Apr 07, 2007 5:49 pm

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 100):
Quoting David L (Reply 98):

I think your signature says it best.

That's It? That's your scientific assessment of the issue?  rotfl 

Perhaps my signature should read: "Stop fumbling in the dark and telling lies and look at the science - LOOK AT THE SCIENCE". I was going to change it right now but I want people to see how lame your argument is. Until you can address the fundamental flaws in the theory, you're just spouting political propaganda.
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:30 am

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 50):
Oil companies are all for it. Big revenue generating opportunity, better shareholder value, etc. and bragging rights. Problem is that consumers won't pay more for it.

Maybe if Oil companies bit a bullet a researched more of their own investment such that consumers won't have to pay so much...it is possible just pushes the ROI farther out that those paying the tab would like -- its all about money. I think that is why the US doesn't invest much in the environment, why put many busineses in bankrupcy because they couldn't sell their products with the added environmental fee?

I'm saying Oil companies do the research on the side, as PR; if they actually believed in the stuff, they would funnel billions into it to get a product out. Part of any product development is faith in that technology, belief it has more worth. Not just oil companies, it seems most people in general do not believe in 'green technologies', giving the impression of no market, hence why businesses aren't interested in environmental regulations. Those in power will voice those opinions to the government, hence their stance.

In my experiences, the majority of people are ignorant to the facts. All people expect change to be short-term (or obvious) whether they want it or not. When that doesn't happen, somehow the subject matter as opposed to the way they have viewed it, becomes wrong to the point where we must give up. Very few people question the possibility that the way they view things could be wrong.

Similar to the FAA coming up with new regulation only after a major accident, I do not think this country will make a big deal about the environment until something horrendous occurs. Historically, that is how the human species is. Maybe way back in the day, we early humans didn't think an animal was dangerous until it attacked us. Until it would, we wouldn't see a problem being around it. There must have been those few who may watch the animal and determine its behavior has the potential for attacking us -- I suppose those people are our pro-environmental buddies of today. But I hope they didn't just make their decision on one rabid animal.  Wink
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8592
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Sun Apr 08, 2007 2:15 am

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 103):
Similar to the FAA coming up with new regulation only after a major accident, I do not think this country will make a big deal about the environment until something horrendous occurs. Historically, that is how the human species is. Maybe way back in the day, we early humans didn't think an animal was dangerous until it attacked us. Until it would, we wouldn't see a problem being around it. There must have been those few who may watch the animal and determine its behavior has the potential for attacking us -- I suppose those people are our pro-environmental buddies of today. But I hope they didn't just make their decision on one rabid animal. Wink

Thing is, they haven't even looked at the animal. They are doomed to starve out of fear.

I am all for protecting the environment. But there is no evidence that CO2 drives climate change, in fact it points to the contrary.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
Joni
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 11:05 pm

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Sun Apr 08, 2007 3:49 am

Quoting David L (Reply 64):

All the scientific evidence suggests we're witnessing completely natural variations in the earth's climate.

This is certainly not true, as the overwhelming balance of evidence suggests the opposite - as you must know.

Quoting David L (Reply 80):
Time and time again the real science is swept under the carpet and the announcement is made that "the debate is over".

You're defining the "real science" in a peculiar way here. You can imagine how any climatologist would give almost anything to be the one to deliver the scoop and expose this enormous charade you appear to assume exists in the field. I take it you're not a climatologist - and if the "real evidence" is that obvious to you it must be bleedingly obvious to any climatologist wirth his salt.

Quoting David L (Reply 89):
You really believe that the fact that CO2 levels lag behind temperature levels by up to 800 years shows that CO2 levels drive temperature levels? Remember, that's not just the portion man's responsible for, that's all of it.

I don't think anyone here has claimed that such a lag would show that CO2 drives higher temperatures. If the concentration of CO2 was claimed to be the only factor affecting the climate, then you'd have a point there. However, it isn't and you don't.

That CO2 is a greenhouse gas isn't AFAIK in any doubt.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 96):
Higher CO2 concentrations DO NOT yield higher temperatures. Look at the graph. Temperature peaks first, then several years later CO2 peaks.

See above.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 99):
Because vanity is what drives the global warming alarmists.

Again, if this was the case then these scientists would be falling over each other to expose the obvious flaws in their colleagues' theories that you seem to find so easily.
 
Halcyon
Posts: 1622
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 4:47 pm

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Sun Apr 08, 2007 5:20 am

Quoting Joni (Reply 105):
Again, if this was the case then these scientists would be falling over each other to expose the obvious flaws in their colleagues' theories that you seem to find so easily.

Several have, and have been fired. I'm sure if you read the whole thread you'll find links to the articles and even videos. However, Joni, a lot of real scientists aren't being paid to say it's happening because of CO2, and they say it's a bunch of bull...indeed, they have more primary and secondary evidence than the doomsday crowd!

But that doesn't make good news, and you can't tax it or get elected by it, so you never hear about it. Your argument is flawed because you haven't researched (Or possibly have not read the whole thread...and if you have, you've ignored what you don't like.), because there are plenty of people like this (And this one was just in the news so I picked it off the front page!) http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070407/D8OBK1DG0.html

I'll let the others do the rest, because we've been through what you're saying already.

Cheers,  Smile

Lucas
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Sun Apr 08, 2007 6:23 am

Quoting Joni (Reply 105):
I take it you're not a climatologist

Here we go again. For the benefit of those who haven't seen Joni's tactics before... neither is he yet he feels he is somehow qualified to comment on other people's work while those who disagree are not.   

Quoting Joni (Reply 105):
and if the "real evidence" is that obvious to you it must be bleedingly obvious to any climatologist wirth his salt.

Such as those scientists who have said so? I'd also be careful using the word "climatologist" as it tends to include "government climate experts", e.g. social scientists, politicians, administrators, etc. Al Gore is even considered to be a "climate expert" by many.

Quoting Joni (Reply 105):
You're defining the "real science" in a peculiar way here. You can imagine how any climatologist would give almost anything to be the one to deliver the scoop and expose this enormous charade you appear to assume exists in the field.

Such as the ones mentioned above? They seem to be having a hard time getting their views across. The media gives much more coverage to the scare mongers and planet saviours.

Quoting Joni (Reply 105):
I don't think anyone here has claimed that such a lag would show that CO2 drives higher temperatures. If the concentration of CO2 was claimed to be the only factor affecting the climate, then you'd have a point there. However, it isn't and you don't.

Who said they had? What I said was that in spite of the fact that CO2 levels lag temperature levels by up to 800 years, "government experts" still say CO2 levels drive temperature levels. That anomaly is simply glossed over.

Quoting Joni (Reply 105):
That CO2 is a greenhouse gas isn't AFAIK in any doubt.

   Who said it isn't?

Quoting Joni (Reply 105):
If the concentration of CO2 was claimed to be the only factor affecting the climate, then you'd have a point there.

It's the most important aspect of the theory, the one that gets priority when their point is being made, and it is wrong. How can you call those who can't grasp that "experts".

Since you seem to have jumped in without reading the thread, here's a reminder of the scientific objections:

Quoting David L (Reply 53):
If the IPCC is so sure their "science" is sound:
  • Why do they dismiss the real evidence that CO2 levels lag temperature levels. I.e. CO2 levels cannot be responsible for temperature levels but the reverse may be true.
  • Why do they ignore the fact that solar activity levels correlate much more closely to temperature levels?
  • Why does their list of "2500 scientists who agree" include non-scientists, such as reviewers and administrators?
  • Why does their list of "2500 scientists who agree" include scientists who stated their disagreement, had their comments removed from the report but still had their names included as agreeing?

Some further questions still awaiting a response:

Quoting David L (Reply 53):
Why is it that any scientist who tries to use the unpoliticised science is dismissed as biased and obviously paid by the energy industry, with no evidence required?

Why is it that those who've jumped on the bandwagon are accepted as obviously unbiased, even though there's clearly huge political and even financial gain to be made by doing so?

How much funding and political mileage is there in saying the world's coming to an end and it's our fault but... if you give me loads of funding and a secure job for life, I'll find a way to save mankind?

How much funding and political mileage is there in saying it's just the way the world is, there's not a lot we can do about it?

Watch The Great Global Warming Swindle (a handy starting point for those who keep their eyes shut and their fingers in their ears so they can claim such science doesn't exist) and tell us what's wrong with the science.

Tell us why those scientists are biased and your "government experts" are not. Perhaps you'll still claim they don't exists... who knows?

Edit: typo.

[Edited 2007-04-07 23:32:14]
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8592
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Sun Apr 08, 2007 12:08 pm

Quoting Joni (Reply 105):

This is what I wrote on another thread:

Quote:
C02 is still a greenhouse gas, and while graphs show a spike in CO2 levels, they do not show temperature change in any abnormal fashion. Perhaps it will in the future years, but that is pure speculation, and a bad one at that - recent CO2 levels are much higher than they used to be, yet temperatures remain within normal levels.

You can suggest that CO2 will affect earth climate in the future, but you can't support that with evidence from the past because that clearly hasn't happened.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Sun Apr 08, 2007 3:34 pm

Hope this guy has his flame suit on because the globe will definitely start to get warm for him. Big Al doesn't like it when you question him.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070407/ap_on_sc/hurricane_conference
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Sun Apr 08, 2007 5:54 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 109):
Big Al doesn't like it when you question him.

No doubt that will be dismissed as someone betraying a lifetime of experience just to get a dig at someone for personal reasons.

The big problem is that people like Joni will promote anything said by the likes of Al Gore and anyone associated with a government body (whose "inconvenient" views aren't eliminated from their reports, that is) because the "solutions" they offer to "save the world" suit their political agendas. Any real expert who disagrees is simply dismissed as being "obviously biased" without evidence. There is plenty of scientific objection - it just doesn't get the time of day in the media. As asked in the Great Global Warming Swindle: how many "environmental journalists" who report on man-made global warming are going to publicise the fact that their jobs aren't required?

What gets me is that both sides use the same data. The difference arises because one side tries to make sure we don't get a close look at the data while the other side insists we should zoom in and take a closer look at the detail.

If you don't trust the views of anyone linked to the energy industry, just ignore them - you can find plenty more scientific objection elsewhere if you're honest enough to open your eyes.

If I thought there was a realistic chance the propaganda was true, I'd change my view in the blink of an eye. The political views I have aren't strong enough for me to want to sacrifice the planet. What I feel very strongly about is the extent to which politics is distorting science. We've been through the same fiasco with religion, e.g. earthquakes and volcanoes being signs that God/gods are angry "so stop doing what you're doing and do what we tell you".
 
Joni
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 11:05 pm

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Sun Apr 08, 2007 9:10 pm

Quoting Halcyon (Reply 106):
However, Joni, a lot of real scientists aren't being paid to say it's happening because of CO2, and they say it's a bunch of bull...indeed, they have more primary and secondary evidence than the doomsday crowd!

So where is this evidence, and why hasn't it convinced the majority of scientists? The "sceptics" seem to think there's some kind of conspiracy to create poorly paid jobs and programs to support the scientists, as if they wouldn't otherwise have anything to study. And obviously, the media is in on it too. Sorry but that's simply not credible. If the scientists just wanted money, they could take the USD10.000 from the American Enterprise Institute (see below) and join the "sceptics".

Check these out:

Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/cl...atechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html

Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_rel...onMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study:
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/cl...atechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html

Recently however, the conspiracy has apparently succeeded in persuading even ExxonMobil to believe their products may be a key part in a global problem:

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Files/Corporate/climate_ad.pdf
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/...rate/OpEd_addressing_the_risks.pdf

Why would ExxonMobil say that they want to "dramatically lower emissions" (and thus their own revenues)?

Quoting Halcyon (Reply 106):
But that doesn't make good news, and you can't tax it or get elected by it, so you never hear about it.

Are you perhaps under the impression that scientists get to tax people, or that they run for office? If this were so, how do you explain Bush's dismissive attitude to global warming? Rove isn't smart enough to realize that telling people they need to cut down their lifestyles would get more votes than telling them they can drive whatever they like?

Quoting David L (Reply 107):
Here we go again. For the benefit of those who haven't seen Joni's tactics before... neither is he yet he feels he is somehow qualified to comment on other people's work while those who disagree are not.

I'm not a climatologist, true, but I do have a master's degree in physics and know how the scientific world works. And how it doesn't.

Quoting David L (Reply 107):
Such as those scientists who have said so?



Quoting David L (Reply 107):
Such as the ones mentioned above? They seem to be having a hard time getting their views across. The media gives much more coverage to the scare mongers and planet saviours.

I think that instead of the individual persons opposing the consensus you should take the time to read, say, the recently published new IPCC documents.

Quoting David L (Reply 107):
Quoting Joni (Reply 105):
That CO2 is a greenhouse gas isn't AFAIK in any doubt.

Who said it isn't?

Can you say for the record, do you consider that CO2 is a gas that traps heat in the Earth's climate? Because if you do consider it so, then it isn't a long logical leap to the point where a rising concentration of it would have a warming effect.

Quoting David L (Reply 107):
It's the most important aspect of the theory, the one that gets priority when their point is being made, and it is wrong. How can you call those who can't grasp that "experts".

Do you consider the point to be wrong based on the 800-year lag? If so, please read through this text:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

Quoting David L (Reply 107):
Why is it that any scientist who tries to use the unpoliticised science is dismissed as biased and obviously paid by the energy industry, with no evidence required?

Here you appear to define "unpoliticised" as something that's against the prevailing view that human activity is causing global warming. Word-games like that aren't interesting or useful, and just give the impression you're bitter.

Quoting David L (Reply 107):
Why is it that those who've jumped on the bandwagon are accepted as obviously unbiased, even though there's clearly huge political and even financial gain to be made by doing so?

What are these huge political and financial gains? Do you think that scientists are well paid and/or have political power? For the record, submissions to peer-reviewed journals are reviewed based on the methods, not results. There are certain exceptions (IIRC one of the major physical-sciences papers has recently stopped accepting papers that question climate change) but that's basically the way things work.
 
Halcyon
Posts: 1622
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 4:47 pm

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Sun Apr 08, 2007 9:35 pm

Quoting Joni (Reply 111):
And obviously, the media is in on it too. Sorry but that's simply not credible. If the scientists just wanted money, they could take the USD10.000 from the American Enterprise Institute (see below) and join the "sceptics".

Whoo! 10,000 USD and some other benefits! That's be out the window in a second...or four transoceanic flights later. What's better, 10,000 or your job?

Quoting Joni (Reply 111):
Are you perhaps under the impression that scientists get to tax people, or that they run for office?

If your powers of perception are really this lackluster...  Yeah sure

Quoting Joni (Reply 111):
If this were so, how do you explain Bush's dismissive attitude to global warming?

In case you aren't aware, Bush can't be elected as President again.

Quoting Joni (Reply 111):
Rove isn't smart enough to realize that telling people they need to cut down their lifestyles would get more votes than telling them they can drive whatever they like?

It's been changed not into that, but into something along the lines of "this planet will burn in hell if you don't stop your evil ways and convert to green power!" Purely alarmism. And what is a drive for humans? Fear. We're having predictions of the near extinction of the human race in less than a hundred years, and I would say that it's all BS.
 
galapagapop
Posts: 864
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:15 pm

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Sun Apr 08, 2007 11:17 pm

Quoting Joni (Reply 111):

Do you consider the point to be wrong based on the 800-year lag? If so, please read through this text:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

Wow that was conviently explained, wait we've proven the first 800 years weren't caused by CO2, but conviently we know the next 4200 years were driven by CO2, blah blah blah, do you actually read and believe this drivel?? Funny how the science seems to contort and keep it's shape perfectly to their cause, unlike every other known theory with give and takes, Global warming is flawless, seems to take every science in contradiction as proof of it's existance, I mean how much crack is Al giving these people so they can actually read off stuff like that???
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Mon Apr 09, 2007 12:14 am

Quoting Joni (Reply 111):
Why would ExxonMobil say that they want to "dramatically lower emissions" (and thus their own revenues)?

Perhaps because "dramatically lower emissions" mean they still sell gas and can make even more money by buying into the agri end of the business as well? It beats solar or electrical powered cars for which they will make nothing.

Quoting Joni (Reply 111):
Here you appear to define "unpoliticised" as something that's against the prevailing view that human activity is causing global warming. Word-games like that aren't interesting or useful, and just give the impression you're bitter.

That is not an answer.

Quoting Joni (Reply 111):
What are these huge political and financial gains? Do you think that scientists are well paid and/or have political power? For the record, submissions to peer-reviewed journals are reviewed based on the methods, not results. There are certain exceptions (IIRC one of the major physical-sciences papers has recently stopped accepting papers that question climate change) but that's basically the way things work.

They may not have political power, but what are their politics? Or would you have us believe that just because a scientist believes in global warming that they are all unbiased and politically neutral?
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8592
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Mon Apr 09, 2007 2:12 am

And Joni, what's with the dramatically conservative approach to the subject?

Quoting Joni (Reply 111):
Do you consider the point to be wrong based on the 800-year lag? If so, please read through this text:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13



Quoting PPVRA:
The article trying to explain the lag looks like an act of desperation by some climate organization deeply immersed into the politics of the issue. So no one explains the graph properly until some scientists disagree and go public with it? What happened to the peer-review process? Is it that corrupt? Even at such basic and obvious levels? Not even in the IPCC report? What kind of scientists are these?

Sorry, but until some more people (outside of the Inter-Politicized Panel on Climate Change as well) state otherwise, I can't help but think that this is nothing more than a vein attempt at gaining some traction against the skeptics.

Again, looking at the graphs directly from Antarctica: most warming happened prior to WW2, temperatures have not shot up like CO2 has to this date.

Yet an evident increase of output from this guy:



. . . keeps being ignored.  sarcastic 
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
galapagapop
Posts: 864
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:15 pm

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:12 am

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 115):
Yet an evident increase of output from this guy:



. . . keeps being ignored. sarcastic

Remember it's gotta look like this before anyone will want to notice:
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:39 am

Quoting Joni (Reply 111):
but I do have a master's degree in physics

So do I - big deal.  sarcastic 

Quoting Joni (Reply 111):
What are these huge political and financial gains? Do you think that scientists are well paid and/or have political power? For

Who mentioned scientists? I was talking about "climate experts", such as environmental journalists, politicians, UN/IPCC officers, and their assistants, and those in the alternative energy industries. Those people for whom new jobs and opportunities exist.

Quoting Joni (Reply 111):
I think that instead of the individual persons opposing the consensus you should take the time to read, say, the recently published new IPCC documents.

The IPCC documents? Are you kidding? They are an abomination.

Quoting David L (Reply 53):
If the IPCC is so sure their "science" is sound:
  • Why do they dismiss the real evidence that CO2 levels lag temperature levels. I.e. CO2 levels cannot be responsible for temperature levels but the reverse may be true.
  • Why do they ignore the fact that solar activity levels correlate much more closely to temperature levels?
  • Why does their list of "2500 scientists who agree" include non-scientists, such as reviewers and administrators?
  • Why does their list of "2500 scientists who agree" include scientists who stated their disagreement, had their comments removed from the report but still had their names included as agreeing?

Read the thread  banghead 

I'll also add to that list the fact that many, many scientists refused to take part.

You can add another climate scientist to the list of objecters: Bob Carter, research professor at James Cook University, Australia. Also former chair of the Earth Sciences Panel of the Australian Research Council. Referring to the IPCC reports in today's Sunday Telegraph (yes, it's right of centre but they're his words), "in no case yet has any climate-sensitive environmental parameter been shown to be changing at a rate that exceeds its historic natural rate of change" and yet the IPCC manage to tell us it's "90 percent probable" that the current warming is due to an increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. These numbers may be impressive to politicians, journalists and the public but they appear to be completely arbitrary.

IT IS NOT SCIENCE

It's also interesting to note that their prediction of temperature rise by the year 2100 has gone from 1.6 - 5.8oC in the third assessment to 1.1 - 6.4oC (i.e.less accurate) in the latest and yet they've gone from could be largely due to... natural variability" in 1990 to "90 percent probable" last week.

Joni, let us know when you've watched The Great Global Warming Swindle so we can prepare for your answers concerning the fundamantal flaws and the alleged lack of unbaised scientific opposition to the Master Plan.
 
Joni
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 11:05 pm

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Mon Apr 09, 2007 7:53 am

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 114):
That is not an answer.

Perhaps that's because the comment I was responding to didn't contain any information.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 114):
They may not have political power, but what are their politics?

Again, what's your point?

Quoting Galapagapop (Reply 113):
blah blah blah

This is perhaps the way you respond to any representation of logical thinking.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 115):
Again, looking at the graphs directly from Antarctica: most warming happened prior to WW2, temperatures have not shot up like CO2 has to this date.

Can you provide these graphs for us to see, and also explain why they would contradict the IPCC's graphs?

Quoting David L (Reply 117):
Quoting Joni (Reply 111):
but I do have a master's degree in physics

So do I - big deal.

Somehow I doubt that.

Quoting David L (Reply 117):
Joni, let us know when you've watched The Great Global Warming Swindle

I had a look at this "Great Global Warming Swindle", and, well.. it's a TV program. In other words, it isn't peer-reviewed and bringing it up here isn't as helpful as you appear to think. In fact, that you rather cling to a TV program saying that nothing needs to be done rather than the IPCC saying something needs to be done, strongly hints that you're subscribing to a "feel-good" mentality. I didn't bother to watch the program to the end, but as far as I saw it didn't appear to contradict the IPCC's (actual) conclusion that modelling both natural and human activity is the best way to understand the recent development of the climate.

Quoting David L (Reply 117):
The IPCC documents? Are you kidding? They are an abomination.

I think that snugly wraps up your end of the discussion.
 
Halcyon
Posts: 1622
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 4:47 pm

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Mon Apr 09, 2007 7:59 am

Quoting Joni (Reply 118):

Now you seem to be very dismissive, and it's because you didn't like what you saw. You have shown that you're not open minded at all really, so it's not worth discussing.

Take care!

Lucas  Smile
 
galapagapop
Posts: 864
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:15 pm

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Mon Apr 09, 2007 8:02 am

Quoting Joni (Reply 118):
This is perhaps the way you respond to any representation of logical thinking.

Of coarse a person who actually believes in such drivel would quote me out of complete context, next time I'll just put ect or ..... seeing as your only defense seems in misquoting responses and contorting them to your belief, fact is the link you posted was absolute pure conjecture and mindless BS designed to accomodate to that instance and that instance only.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8592
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Mon Apr 09, 2007 9:15 am

Quoting Joni (Reply 118):
Can you provide these graphs for us to see, and also explain why they would contradict the IPCC's graphs?



http://www.climatecrisiscoalition.org/images/CO2_and_Temp2.gif

The first graph shows how current temperature levels have not propotionaly followed CO2 levels, and the second one shows that by 1800AD the temperature has been rising significantly.

There are a multitude of graphs on google so it's hard to find a single good graph.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Mon Apr 09, 2007 9:48 am

Quoting Joni (Reply 118):
Quoting David L (Reply 117):
Quoting Joni (Reply 111):
but I do have a master's degree in physics

So do I - big deal.

Somehow I doubt that.

Oops - OK, I misread. I do have a BSc in Physics, however. Strathclyde University, 1990. My masters was in another field.

If I say I doubt you even passed elementary physics, do I win?  sarcastic 

Quoting Joni (Reply 118):
Quoting David L (Reply 117):
The IPCC documents? Are you kidding? They are an abomination.

I think that snugly wraps up your end of the discussion.

How childish.

Quoting Joni (Reply 118):
In other words, it isn't peer-reviewed and bringing it up here isn't as helpful as you appear to think. In fact, that you rather cling to a TV program saying that nothing needs to be done rather than the IPCC saying something needs to be done, strongly hints that you're subscribing to a "feel-good" mentality.

Utter nonsense. Nobody said it was conclusive proof of the other side of the story.

It is extremely strong evidence that the alleged SCIENCE of the IPCC is fundamentally flawed.

It's extremely strong evidence that their "conclusive findings" are nothing more than speculation.

It's extremely strong evidence that the notion that "most scientists agree" is baloney.

It's extremely strong evidence that their "findings" have been highly manipulated by politicians.

It's extremely strong evidence that the "peer review" the IPCC claims is not entirely honest.

It's extremely strong evidence that dissenting, independent scientists are trying to make their voices heard against considerable political resistance.

So, what's actually wrong with what those scientists in The Great Global Warming Swindle are saying? "I just don't believe them" won't cut it.
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Mon Apr 09, 2007 9:48 am

Quoting Joni (Reply 118):
Perhaps that's because the comment I was responding to didn't contain any information

Yes it did but you obviously have no logical answer to why scientist that present an opposing view of the lefts are somehow instantly branded schill of the energy companies or somehow just sadly mistaken. The left never even attempts to address their questions as you have not here.

Quoting Joni (Reply 118):
Again, what's your point?

Liberal politics...liberal assesment of the data. Conservative politics...conservative assesment, or do you really believe none of them have a political bone in their bodies?
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8592
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Mon Apr 09, 2007 11:35 am

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 121):
and the second one shows that by 1800AD the temperature has been rising significantly.

whoops. . . no it doesn't. The 1800AD is CO2. have been looking at too many graphs today. I'll look for another one. . .

[Edited 2007-04-09 04:35:48]
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
Joni
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 11:05 pm

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Mon Apr 09, 2007 12:04 pm

Quoting Halcyon (Reply 119):


Now you seem to be very dismissive, and it's because you didn't like what you saw. You have shown that you're not open minded at all really, so it's not worth discussing.

I admit I'm a bit dismissive here, but it's simply because I've heard these points many times before and today they don't contain much new material.

Quoting Galapagapop (Reply 120):
link you posted was absolute pure conjecture and mindless BS designed to accomodate to that instance and that instance only.

How so? It was a simple exercise in elementary logic and not anything far-fetching.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 121):
The first graph shows how current temperature levels have not propotionaly followed CO2 levels, and the second one shows that by 1800AD the temperature has been rising significantly.

Ok, so here is a graph. now you can proceed to explaining, how it goes against what the IPCC has said.

Quoting David L (Reply 122):
If I say I doubt you even passed elementary physics, do I win?

No.

Quoting David L (Reply 122):
It is extremely strong evidence that the alleged SCIENCE of the IPCC is fundamentally flawed.

How is it evidence of that? I've (unfortunately) seen TV programs on telepathy and astrology. I don't have the time to check who the people they were interviewing really are, and whether anything they said makes any kind of sense. It's a bit unfortunate that the small minority of "climate change sceptics" gets so much media attention, as people get an incorrect impression on the state of the art.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 123):
Liberal politics...liberal assesment of the data. Conservative politics...conservative assesment, or do you really believe none of them have a political bone in their bodies?

In the IPCC, even Saudi Arabia has a veto on the final text. Here's a reprint from an article in the LA Times:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/07/363/
 
allstarflyer
Posts: 3264
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:32 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Mon Apr 09, 2007 1:58 pm

Quoting David L (Reply 117):
Quoting Joni (Reply 111):
I think that instead of the individual persons opposing the consensus you should take the time to read, say, the recently published new IPCC documents.

The IPCC documents? Are you kidding? They are an abomination.

 checkmark  Like said previously.

Quoting Joni (Reply 125):
Ok, so here is a graph. now you can proceed to explaining, how it goes against what the IPCC has said.

Difficult to recognize the reports of the IPCC when several members - scientists - of that panel refused to recognize the final report and requested/demanded to have their names removed from the report.

Quoting Joni (Reply 125):
I've (unfortunately) seen TV programs on telepathy and astrology.

Next time, do your homework. Pitiful the only source material you brought to buttress your argument also inaccurately references the IPCC.

-R
Living the American Dream
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Mon Apr 09, 2007 2:02 pm

Quoting Joni (Reply 125):
Here's a reprint from an article in the LA Times:

There are a tremendous amount of "ifs" "coulds" in that report. Again they cite years on record, which equals about 130 years out of how many million that the planet has been in it's latest phase? That's just ridiculous. Nothing new about the sky is falling there.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
Joni
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 11:05 pm

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Mon Apr 09, 2007 3:36 pm

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 126):
Difficult to recognize the reports of the IPCC when several members - scientists - of that panel refused to recognize the final report and requested/demanded to have their names removed from the report.

Some scientists were indeed frustrated by attempts from the oil-producing countries (and the US) to water down the summaries-for-policymakers. AFAIK these attempts were more successful in the 2001 reports than the more recent ones.
 
allstarflyer
Posts: 3264
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:32 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Mon Apr 09, 2007 3:49 pm

Quoting Joni (Reply 128):
Some scientists were indeed frustrated by attempts from the oil-producing countries (and the US) to water down the summaries-for-policymakers. AFAIK these attempts were more successful in the 2001 reports than the more recent ones.

Nice slant, Joni.

Quoting Joni (Reply 111):
I'm not a climatologist, true, but I do have a master's degree in physics and know how the scientific world works. And how it doesn't.

And my brother, from whom I received the information concerning the faulty IPCC reports, has a doctorate in mathematics and teaches at one of the best engineering institutes in the U.S. So, I'd say his grasp on the topic probably exceeds yours and possibly that of several of your contemporaries.

One day you'll realize that being politically correct or simply elitist in your views doesn't equate to having views of lasting value.

Edited for content

-R

[Edited 2007-04-09 09:08:50]
Living the American Dream
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:47 pm

Quoting Joni (Reply 125):
It's a bit unfortunate that the small minority of "climate change sceptics" gets so much media attention, as people get an incorrect impression on the state of the art.

 rotfl 
Now I know you're just yanking everyone's chain. You keep saying there is no scientific objection! Many even question the existence of such opposition! Almost everyone I know believes there's no scientific objection.

Quoting Joni (Reply 125):
I admit I'm a bit dismissive here, but it's simply because I've heard these points many times before and today they don't contain much new material.

The same can be said for your argument that it doesn't matter what the details say, it doesn't matter how many scientists disagree, it's "been decided".

Quoting Joni (Reply 128):
Some scientists were indeed frustrated by attempts from the oil-producing countries (and the US) to water down the summaries-for-policymakers. AFAIK these attempts were more successful in the 2001 reports than the more recent ones.

Yet you believe it was OK to exclude the findings of IPCC scientists who tried to state their disagreement in the report while still listing them as agreeing. I confess I'm not familiar with any instances of what you allege but I certainly won't follow your logic and take it as proof that it didn't happen. You still maintain that scientists, journalists and politicians who make their living from studying the "problem" and finding a "solution" to save mankind and the planet are beyond doubt... just because. The IPCC is as biased as it gets.

No-one's saying man is in no way responsible. What the dissenters are saying is that there is very little evidence, if any, that man is responsible, that the matter has not been "proved beyond doubt" and that the debate is far from "over". On the other hand, you simply accept the views with which you agree and dismiss all with which you don't - hardly scientific.

Quoting Joni (Reply 125):
Quoting David L (Reply 122):
If I say I doubt you even passed elementary physics, do I win?

No.

 sarcastic  I guess you missed the point.
 
Joni
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 11:05 pm

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Mon Apr 09, 2007 11:13 pm

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 129):
And my brother, from whom I received the information concerning the faulty IPCC reports,

Perhaps I should exchange these messages with him then?

Quoting David L (Reply 130):
Yet you believe it was OK to exclude the findings of IPCC scientists who tried to state their disagreement in the report while still listing them as agreeing.

Again, is your source for this the TV program you're advertising here? If you're willing to believe a TV program rather than the science academies of the G8 nations, Russia, China and Brazil, then you've placed yourself outside the reach of my help.

I've seen TV programs on telekinesis and faith healing. Filming and airing a TV program is not the same thing as having the aforementioned science academies decide to air a common statement. I can't help but get the impression that contrary to what you claim you haven't looked at the evidence, you've just looked at the telly.
 
allstarflyer
Posts: 3264
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:32 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Mon Apr 09, 2007 11:33 pm

Some of the arguments for global warming are just blantantly ridiculous. This article keeps harping on the fact that the Amazon rain forest can handle only so much CO2. I thought there were more trees on the planet than just in the Amazon.
http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/articles/2_global_warming.htm

It seems like reports for years about global warming has been the same ol' hash. Talk about nothing new.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2004-03-21-co2-buildup_x.htm

This article states from the top that CO2 in the atmosphere due to man's influence is small compared to other natural occurences.
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html

If the Earth was that fragile (according to the rest of that article), wouldn't we be feeling the effects of it by now? If everything is so dire, then why in the past 25+ years have only 3 of the states in the U.S. recorded record highs in temperature? And two of them were Nevada and New Mexico - where it's hot all the time!
http://ggweather.com/climate/extremes_us.htm
And from this article we see that 10 states recorded record lows in that same time span, as well as Hawaii recording such less than 30 years ago.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061218130705.htm
Notice the slant from NOAA - reporting the above avg. highs in Europe (all over?), Asia (again, all over?), parts of the U.S. and parts of Brazil, etc. They then go on to say that there were below average temps recorded in parts of the U.S. and in parts of Saudi Arabia (I thought it was always hot there    ). Are we to conclude that where they didn't find above average highs that there were actually below average temperatures - as in, the rest of the world?

The evidence, unfortunately for global warming proponents, in inconclusive.

Edited to include link.

-R

[Edited 2007-04-09 16:42:23]
Living the American Dream
 
allstarflyer
Posts: 3264
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:32 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Mon Apr 09, 2007 11:35 pm

Quoting Joni (Reply 131):
Perhaps I should exchange these messages with him then?

With your inability and/or unwillingness to listen here, his efforts would go even farther over your head.

-R
Living the American Dream
 
allstarflyer
Posts: 3264
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:32 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Mon Apr 09, 2007 11:40 pm

Quoting Joni (Reply 131):
If you're willing to believe a TV program rather than the science academies of the G8 nations, Russia, China and Brazil, then you've placed yourself outside the reach of my help.

I'm willing to believe that the "science academies" are conflicted with themselves, and your unwillingness to address that undermines the foundation of your global warming premise.

Quoting Joni (Reply 131):
Filming and airing a TV program is not the same thing as having the aforementioned science academies decide to air a common statement.

Common or conflicted? Have you even given an ear to these dissenting scientists or do you fear that doing so would undermine your faith in global warming?

-R
Living the American Dream
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Tue Apr 10, 2007 2:29 am

Quoting Joni (Reply 131):
Again, is your source for this the TV program you're advertising here? If you're willing to believe a TV program rather than the science academies of the G8 nations, Russia, China and Brazil, then you've placed yourself outside the reach of my help.

Ah yes, the old "saviour" technique. There were some Mormons at the door the other day - they told me the same thing. Who asked for your "help"?  sarcastic 

Quoting Joni (Reply 131):
I can't help but get the impression that contrary to what you claim you haven't looked at the evidence, you've just looked at the telly.

You don't remember any previous discussions? You continue to ignore the fact that the program was not meant to prove the other side, it was meant to show that there is scientific objection to the IPCC's "findings". It was meant to illustrate that the debate is far from "over". It was a summary of issues that have been brought up here many times, before that programme appeared on TV, issues you claimed didn't exist. The point is that there is bias on both sides.

1/10 for your comtinued attempts at flamebaiting.  biggrin 
 
Joni
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 11:05 pm

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Tue Apr 10, 2007 5:04 am

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 134):
I'm willing to believe that the "science academies" are conflicted with themselves, and your unwillingness to address that undermines the foundation of your global warming premise.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, but judging by the way you place science academies in quotation marks you may not know yourself.

Quoting David L (Reply 135):
Ah yes, the old "saviour" technique. There were some Mormons at the door the other day - they told me the same thing. Who asked for your "help"? sarcastic

Good to hear the Mormons have taken up spreading information on climate change.

Quoting David L (Reply 135):
You don't remember any previous discussions? You continue to ignore the fact that the program was not meant to prove the other side, it was meant to show that there is scientific objection to the IPCC's "findings". It was meant to illustrate that the debate is far from "over".

I get it, you really believe in the TV show and think it's the second coming. Sorry, but I don't agree. There's a reason why scientific journals have peer review, and that is to guarantee quality and prevent everyone in the field from having to go through an enormous mass of incorrectly conducted research. As it is, the flood of peer-reviewed stuff is pretty overwhelming in itself. The TV show wasn't reviewed, and you should take everything it says with a pinch of salt. If you want to read some critiques of the show, have a look on Wikipaedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gre..._Swindle#Reactions_from_scientists

Here is also a quote from Wikipaedia, where the feedback system is explained more clearly than I've been able to get through:

"Warming sometimes leads CO2 increases

The ice core record shows that on some occasions temperature starts rising hundreds of years before CO2 increases.[1] [2] This confirms that factors other than increased CO2 concentrations have triggered warming and cooling processes at certain times in geological history. (See Orbital forcing, for instance.) It also provides evidence that the relationship between CO2 and climate can go in both directions: changes in CO2 concentrations affect climate, while changes in climate can affect CO2 concentrations. One proposed mechanism for this effect is increased release of sequestered CO2 from oceans as circulation patterns shift in response to climate change.[3] [4]

A more speculative and polemical inference sometimes drawn is that the causal relationship between temperature rises and global CO2 concentrations might be only one-way, that historical increases in CO2 have been nothing more than the product of independently rising temperatures.[23] However, a strictly "one-way" view of the relationship between CO2 and temperature would contradict basic results in physics, specifically that the absorption and emission of infrared radiation by CO2 increases as its atmospheric concentration increases. Such first principles as well as empirical observation would suggest that positive feedbacks from CO2 concentrations amplify warming initially caused by other factors:"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribu...ming_sometimes_leads_CO2_increases
 
travelin man
Posts: 3242
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2000 10:04 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Tue Apr 10, 2007 6:24 am

Whenever people begin going on about global warming, I always wonder:

What caused global warming (and cooling) before humans arrived on scene? After all, we know (from fossil records) that the Earth was once covered by tropical jungles (for the most part) and was much warmer than it is today. And we also know that the Earth was also much colder, with glaciers covering much of what is now the US and Europe.

So, to all those that say man is definitely the cause of global warming, what was the cause of it in prior eons?

Sometimes I think mankind has a much too high opinion of itself and its ability to control something like the climate.

(Note, I am not doubting global warming, just expressing doubts about man's ability to "do" anything about it.)
 
allstarflyer
Posts: 3264
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:32 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:42 am

Quoting Joni (Reply 131):



Quoting Joni (Reply 136):
Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 134):
I'm willing to believe that the "science academies" are conflicted with themselves, and your unwillingness to address that undermines the foundation of your global warming premise.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, but judging by the way you place science academies in quotation marks you may not know yourself.

Had you been more attentive, you would have realized that the quotation marks were simply referencing your remarks from reply 131.

Quoting Joni (Reply 131):

Aside from our biting, yet (mostly) civil, retorts, I have issue with you Joni on a few things . . .

Quoting Joni (Reply 131):
Again, is your source for this the TV program you're advertising here?

In this post, you question David L's source for his findings concerning the faults of the IPCC (which goes beyond a simple TV program, even as referenced earlier in this thread). Yet, you found it necessary to reference the most superficial of websites - wikipedia - in your last post. That's not even the last place that should be referenced as a source (it shouldn't even be on the list). Perhaps some of the source material from which editors of wikipedia draw would be alright, but not wikipedia itself.

You didn't address this little nibble of evidence against the position of global warming . . . .

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 132):
If the Earth was that fragile (according to the rest of that article), wouldn't we be feeling the effects of it by now? If everything is so dire, then why in the past 25+ years have only 3 of the states in the U.S. recorded record highs in temperature? And two of them were Nevada and New Mexico - where it's hot all the time!
http://ggweather.com/climate/extremes_us.htm
And from this article we see that 10 states recorded record lows in that same time span, as well as Hawaii recording such less than 30 years ago.

Also, here's a quick bio on one of the dissenters. I didn't find it on a TV program, either.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm

Now, here's an explanation on his position against the IPCC reports.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...9809EC588EF21&pageNumber=2&catID=2
And even in the Scientific American, which has all but concluded that global warming is absolute truth, admits towards the end of the 2nd page that there is "uncertainty", regardless as to whether said uncertainty is being reduced. You may or may not understand this, but the burden for proof rests on those who believe there is global warming. The aforementioned article basically admits that there is uncertainty about global warming.

Think Lindzen isn't enough? How about Hendrik Tennekes?
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/...y-and-balance-by-henkrik-tennekes/

Finally, on the flipside, how about Robin McKie from UK's Observer, who adheres to the global warming argument?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1995348,00.html

This journalist was brilliant enough, by the way, to reference the science-fiction film "The Day After Tomorrow", widely panned by meteorologists at the time of its release (for example, weather underground calling it "fiction with a capital F" and saying "laws of meterology get seriously abused here"). McKie is one of the 1st hits on google when referencing global warming links. And she references this? If hers is one of the first articles to reference, just what are we going to find when we dig deeper?

And you're concerned that David L (or me, or, perhaps anyone who disagrees with you) could be

Quoting Joni (Reply 131):
outside the reach of my help.

 scratchchin 

-R
Living the American Dream
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8592
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:06 am

Oh, and let's not forget the SKY experiment. The cosmic rays and cloud formation connection, which had been blindly dismissed by man-made GW believers, was proven through experimentation. So this is less theoretical than the CO2-theory.

From the Danish National Space Center:
http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/sky
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:22 pm

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 138):
And you're concerned that David L (or me, or, perhaps anyone who disagrees with you) could be

Quoting Joni (Reply 131):
outside the reach of my help.

... doomed to wander as lost souls for all eternity.

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 138):
but the burden for proof rests on those who believe there is global warming.

And yet dissenters are having to put a lot of effort into simply proving that the debate is not over. The point is that there is some dishonesty on both sides - I fail to see how it can be acceptable for one side to be dishonest but not the other.

I know it's very uncharacteristic of me but I'm actually a bit pushed for spare time just now. Fortunately there are others doing a better job of this than I am.  Smile
 
Joni
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 11:05 pm

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:20 am

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 139):
Oh, and let's not forget the SKY experiment. The cosmic rays and cloud formation connection, which had been blindly dismissed by man-made GW believers, was proven through experimentation. So this is less theoretical than the CO2-theory.

Cosmic rays are not blindly dismissed, on the contrary their contribution to the climate's development is known. According to the Danish site you've discovered, it will take millions of years for the cosmic rays to force as large a change in the climate as our fossil fuels do in 100 years.
http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/s...ogy-a-new-theory-of-climate-change

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 138):
In this post, you question David L's source for his findings concerning the faults of the IPCC (which goes beyond a simple TV program, even as referenced earlier in this thread). Yet, you found it necessary to reference the most superficial of websites - wikipedia - in your last post.

You'll realize that the points I referred to in Wikipaedia were borrowed from the IPCC and other mainstream sources. The "Swindle" TV show again is a topic which will sadly not be discussed in peer-reviewed journals  Wink and even if it was, it wouldn't be possible to link from here since the subscriptions to those can be very expensive.

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 138):
You didn't address this little nibble of evidence against the position of global warming . . . .

These local temperature measurements don't have bearing on global warming. To have a look at global average temperatures, look e.g. here
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 138):
Also, here's a quick bio on one of the dissenters. I didn't find it on a TV program, either.

Nice.

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 138):
Now, here's an explanation on his position against the IPCC reports.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...9809EC588EF21&pageNumber=2&catID=2
And even in the Scientific American, which has all but concluded that global warming is absolute truth, admits towards the end of the 2nd page that there is "uncertainty", regardless as to whether said uncertainty is being reduced. You may or may not understand this,

What the article really says is "Looking back at the past decade of climate science, many researchers say computer models have improved, estimates of past climate are more accurate, and uncertainty is being reduced.". I don't know how it's possible to accidentally misquote something like that, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was a mistake.

I thought about this for a minute and you may be referring to uncertainty that's always present in any physical knowledge. There is uncertainty as to what the mass of the proton is, and (especially) to what the gravitational constant is. These are expressed by confidence intervals, like the IPCC does, and they're normal. No-one doubts that the electron has mass, even though we don't know the exact number what it is.
 
mham001
Posts: 5745
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Wed Apr 11, 2007 5:16 am

Paul Harvey today reported that in the last 4 years, the US had reduced co2 emissions by 7% compared to Europes 4%. Of course, he provided no source and he is notoriously inaccurate so I went searching and could find nothing. I am not a good searcher however and I"m wondering if anybody knows of studies for real time reductions?
If the news is true, it would certainly shut up the ridiculous critics who claim nothing is being done on this side of the pond.
As an aside, there is a litany of projects that our best scientists working for the national labs have been working on and completed. One of the worst attributes of this administration however, is poor communications. I suppose one could say they at least don't blow their horn excessively. It does leave them wide open to those who take their silence as inaction.
 
mham001
Posts: 5745
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Wed Apr 11, 2007 5:33 am

As a followup, here is some of what we've been up to for some time. For more information, go to http://www.lbl.gov/Tech-Transfer/techs/index.html. Each point on this list is clickable and will give you specific details of the project.

Energy Efficient Technologies

* Aerosol Sealing:
o Aerosol Remote Sealing System
o Clog-free Atomizing and Spray Drying Nozzle
* Aerogels
* Electrochromic Device Controlled by Sunlight
* Energy Efficient Laboratory Fume Hood
* Energy Efficient Lighting:
o High Performance, Energy Efficient Table Lamp
o Lighting Control System - Phase Cut Carrier
* EnergyPlus:Energy Simulation Software for Buildings
* Gas Filled Insulating Panels
* Hydrocarbon Oxidation for Manufacturing Chemicals
* Improved GaN MBE-Growth using Bismuth as a Surfactant
* Lean Flame Stabilization Ring Converts Natural Gas Burners to Burn Lean
* Low Cost, Stable Switchable Mirrors
o Lithium Ion Mirrors with Improved Stability
o Transition Metal Switchable Mirrors
* Novel GaN Thin Film Growth Procedure on Lattice Mismatched Substrates
* Solid Oxide Fuel Cells
* TRAMS: A New Tracer Gas Airflow Measurement System
* Ultraclean Low Swirl Combustion

Return to Table of Contents
Environmental Technologies

* Adsorbing Filter Media for Carbon Mass Balance Measurements in Airborne Particles
* Aerogels
* Biomimetic Agents for Replacement of NAD+/NADH in Enzymatic Reactions
* Bioreactor for Treating Mixed Waste without Releasing Radioactivity
* Carboxylic Acids
* Coplanar Electrode Configuration Improves Radiation Detector Performance
* Cost Effective Method for Removing Arsenic from Water
* Diesel Particle Scatterometer
* Gas Filled Insulating Panels
* Hydrocarbon Oxidation for Manufacturing Chemicals
* In Situ Optical Sensor for Measuring Particulate Inorganic Carbon in Seawater
* In Vitro Model for Bioavailability of Chemicals in Humans
* Miniature Airborne Particle Mass Monitors
* Nested Type Coaxial Neutron Generator
* PhoSNOX: Yellow Phosphorus for Flue Gas Scrubbing
* Source-independent Full Waveform Inversion of Seismic Data
* Subsurface and Remediation Technologies:
o Direct-Measure Water Flux Meter
o Electrical Resistivity Monitoring Borehole Array
o Ferrofluids for Subsurface Barriers Flow Control and Imaging
o High Frequency Electric Field Measurement Using a Toroidal Antenna
o High Resolution, Low Frequency, Electromagnetic Field Imaging
o Identification, Imaging, and Monitoring of Fluid Saturated Underground Reservoirs
o Lightweight, Portable X-Ray Core Scanner
o Omni-Depth, Direct Measurement Fluxmeter for New Applications in Agriculture and Remediation
o Software-Integrated System of Waterflood Surveillance and Control
o Tube-wave Seismic Imaging and Monitoring Method for Oil Reservoirs and Aquifers
o Wellbore Procedure Characterizes Groundwater Contamination
* Pozone: Ozone Generation Using Yellow Phosphorus
* Recyclable Sorbent Coating for Organic Pollutant Sampler

Return to Table of Contents
Fuel Cells and Batteries

* Batteries with Orthorhombic Sodium Manganese Oxide Cathodes
*
Electrically and Hydraulically Rechargeable Zinc-air Battery
*
High Conductivity Single-ion Cross-linked Polymers for Lithium Batteries and Fuel Cells
* Solid Oxide Fuel Cells:
o Braze for Robust Seals with Ceramic
o Durable Joining of Dissimilar Materials
o Fail-Safe, Inexpensive Electrochemical Device Stack Design
o Fuel Cell Housing for Rapid Start-Up Auxiliary Power and Gas Separation
o High Quality, Dense Thin Films Using Metal/Metal Alloy Additives
o Improved Electrode-Electrode Structures for Solid State Electrochemical Device
o Inexpensive Production of High Density Thin Ceramic Films on Rigid or Porous Substrates
o
Low Cost Fabrication of Thin-Film Ceramic Membranes for Nonshrinking Substrates
o
Metal Current Collector Protected by Oxide Film
o
Method for Making Flat, High Performance Thin Membrane Structures on Porous Substances
o
Novel Support Structure for Ceramic Electrochemical Device
o
Robust, Multifunctional Joint for Large Scale Power Production Stacks
o
Single-step Infiltration for Improved Low Temperature Cathode Performance
o
Support for Planar Solid State Electrochemical Devices
o Surface Additives for Enhanced Electrode Performance

* Zinc-Nickel Oxide Battery

All of this, and more is research paid for and developed by the US government through Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos Labs. It is all available for commercial use.

Some excerpts from a newspaper last year:

National labs pursue green uses of technology

By Dean Takahashi

San Jose Mercury News

From burying greenhouse gases deep underground to finding solutions for truckers who pollute the air while idling, scientists at federal national laboratories are coming up with lots of ideas for environmentally friendly uses of technology.
The sprawling labs in places such as Livermore and Los Alamos, N.M., have been known for their role in developing and maintaining stockpiles of nuclear weapons. But in recent years they've also been developing ''clean'' technologies -- which minimize or prevent environmental pollution -- that they hope will be adopted by commercial interests.


The labs involved included the Livermore lab, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley and Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. Each of the labs has invested millions of dollars in developing basic technologies that could help the environment.
Since the labs have invested tens of millions of dollars in equipment and employ top researchers, they say that licensing the inventions can be a bargain for would-be entrepreneurs who don't have to incur the research-and-development expense on their own. The ideas range from better batteries to alternative fuels.

Livermore researchers have also created a compact solar power dish that could be used in a single-family home. The hope is to make solar power more affordable with the contraption, which resembles a big satellite dish and tracks the movements of the sun. One entrepreneur has already licensed that technology.
Livermore scientists have also designed trucks that have better aerodynamics. They calculated that 65 percent of a truck's engine power goes toward overcoming the drag from wind and air while driving down the highway. By designing trucks with sloped roofs, they believe they can make the vehicles more fuel-efficient and run on less powerful motors.
Another group is working on ways to reduce emissions from trucks while idling. Truckers often have to keep trucks idling just to keep their air conditioning and other electronics working in the cab. A single truck can release 8 to 80 tons of pollution into the air while idling during a single year of operation.
At Los Alamos, researchers are working on a way to store carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in underground pens. And at the Lawrence Berkeley lab, projects include a windmill that can operate and adjust to wind changes automatically.

[Edited 2007-04-10 22:58:18]
 
allstarflyer
Posts: 3264
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:32 am

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Wed Apr 11, 2007 10:45 am

Quoting Joni (Reply 141):
What the article really says is "Looking back at the past decade of climate science, many researchers say computer models have improved, estimates of past climate are more accurate, and uncertainty is being reduced.". I don't know how it's possible to accidentally misquote something like that, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was a mistake.

That would be generous of you, assuming I misquoted it.

Quoting Joni (Reply 141):
There is uncertainty as to what the mass of the proton is, and (especially) to what the gravitational constant is. These are expressed by confidence intervals, like the IPCC does, and they're normal. No-one doubts that the electron has mass, even though we don't know the exact number what it is.

Yet the mass media (and perhaps you as well) would have us to accept that the "facts" of global warming are absolute, which means there is no uncertainty. That is the reason I brought up the word itself (and in the manner in which I did), is because of posts like these from early in this thread . . .

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 8):
Let's talk again when London, NY and LA are under 30ft of water shall we? At least then you'll be sure the connection with human activities has been adequately substantiated.



Quoting Springbok747 (Reply 14):
The Earth is screwed whether we act now or not...

. . . as people have stated with certainty that global warming is such a dire thing. Like RJ said . . .

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 20):
And of course anyone who would dare question the science is automatically treated to name calling and ridicule.

. . . when the very position of global warming itself is at least questionable.

Quoting Joni (Reply 141):
These local temperature measurements don't have bearing on global warming. To have a look at global average temperatures, look e.g. here
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

This is interesting, but I'm so tired after coming back and forth, I'll have to study it later. Thanks for being civil (probably more than I have been).

-R
Living the American Dream
 
galapagapop
Posts: 864
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:15 pm

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:24 am

Quoting Joni (Reply 125):

How so? It was a simple exercise in elementary logic and not anything far-fetching.

 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: US 'has To Act' On Climate Report

Wed Apr 11, 2007 1:59 pm

Quoting OzGlobal (Thread starter):
I would have thought with the impact of Global Warming in Australia, 'level 5' water restrictions (still defining what that means as things have never been so bad as now after a 10 year drought) that the fool Howard government would smell the coffee? (Oz citizen so no need to flame me).

They've had 100 year droughts before. What's your point?

Look. I know France wants to sell nuke plants and trains now that the airplane business isn't so hot, but can you get off your global catastrophy soap box for half a second and think about how insane you sound?

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 8):
Let's talk again when London, NY and LA are under 30ft of water shall we?

For the record... That's happened before too. Chuck in the entire State of Florida as well.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 18):
Your "standards" are worth exactly nothing if they still lead to a massively higher average consumption and exhaust production.

Speaking of standards... You still drive that BMW at 160 k/ph down the Autobahn?

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 27):
Original 2001 report; Current IPPC report undergoing final drafting with present conference

Only in the world of politically driven "so-called" science can a report take 6 years to see its fruition.

[Edited 2007-04-11 07:09:59]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BaconButty, bpatus297, LCDFlight, MILakes, phugoid1982, Reinhardt, tommy1808, victrola and 30 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos