Not entering the debate, just posting an article

[allbimyself]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

[chulainn2]

ty allbi, I read this early this morning and decided not to post it because I did not want to start another piss off thread.
as always my friend you are on top of things... oops wrong expression, forgot this was a bi site

[chulainn2]

btw, this article supports my idea that this whole man-made global warming is a political money grab as in carbon taxes and soley centered on destroying american capitalism.

[12voltman59]

Well-I don't know how to evaluate what that person quoted in the argument is being correct or not.

I have decided--strictly for my own purposes--to contact people in the scientific community doing research that relates to environmental science and find for myself from them where things stand according the understanding of current best evidence.

I used to know someone who was a very highly placed researcher--he had advanced degrees like Emelda Marcos had shoes. He was affiliated with a number of top universities here in the US and abroad--he did primary research, design and the like for some of the US Air Force's major projects like the stealth aircraft, cruise guided missiles, and unmanned aerial recon and attack craft among many things--he left working with the AF and retired from academic life as well a few years ago and I haven't seen him much since since he hardly ever sits still.

At the time I had contact with him until a few years ago---he was very much of the mind that global warming is very real and very much a result of mankind's mucking things up---his attitude about his colleauges in the scientific community who did not believe such was they were either "a fool or a hack!"

But since I lost touch with him---I don't know how he might feel now--it might take me a few months--but I am going to find some people who do this kind of work and try to get to the bottom of this for myself.

It is hard to know what to think---for in the past we had all kinds of scientists who said things like "tobaccco harmful--no way!!" and "Asbestos---perfectly safe!!"

Both of those things were pretty damn well convincingly proven to be total bullshit of the highest grade!!

I will keep an open mind of this subject-but I do have to say-that with my former acquaintance and several others who were scientists, engineers and other techincally oriented people who convinced me that global warming was indeed real--and that the human race plays some major role in it---I am going to now have to be strongly convinced otherwise--but as a fictional character--Gill Grisham of CSI: Las Vegas likes to say--"follow the evidence" and if the evidence does indeed now show that global warming is not happening and not caused by man--then I will go with that.

I will let ya all know when I finally get this done----maybe the site will post up the article I plan to do on this subject since we all do seem to have a strong interest in it.

[allbimyself]

That's very good of you, volt. I am more inclined however to give a bit more credibility to the scientist that worked in the field for 6 years over one that spent his time developing aircraft, missiles and weapons in this matter. I'm not being critical of your friends choice of work, just that I'm sure he hasn't examined the data as closely as the other.

The claims made in the article, if true, are damning. The desire to ignore data that doesn't fit the theory is all too common among "scientists," especially when there is money, prestige and tenure at stake. Institutional scientists have been known to be denied such things in if they buck popular opinion.

Do I think this proves the case either way? No. I don't think anything has been proven either way. Too much data has been maligned, denied or simply not gathered by both sides of the debate. The current administration has shelved projects that could help gather the necessary evidence one way or the other for fear that they wouldn't like the outcome. The proponents of human influenced climate change on the other hand didn't raise much fuss over that fact either for the same reasons.

Make no mistake, there is a lot of money and influence involved in both sides.

"The people," for the most, haven't done much to change their ways until the problem hit their wallets. It's easy to claim that car companies didn't give us more fuel efficient cars, but the fact was, people didn't buy them, they bought SUVs. I find it humorous that many claim that corporations should lead the way in these issues. Yes, the greedy corporations they hate should dictate what we buy. If people had bought the most fuel efficient cars made, paying a premium to get what was popular, instead of paying the premium to get the actually popular gas hogs, the auto makers would have made more fuel efficient cars. See, they are in business to make money, just like the rest of us go to work to make money. They will produce what the marketplace demands. For the past 20 years the marketplace demanded bigger and bigger SUVs. We have no one to blame but ourselves for that fact.

Yes, I realize that vehicles are only part of the pollution problem, but it's that way everywhere.

And don't get me wrong, I think conservation of resources, finding cleaner alternatives for energy production, etc. is important for their own sake. But before we rip apart an economic system that was brought a better quality of life to more people than at any time in human history, I think we better be damn sure we KNOW what we are doing.

Seeing what is wrong in our world and working to correct it is a good thing. Making things worse in the process isn't.

[bigregory]

I do not know what to say.
If you do not think we are f ing this planet the get in your suv and go see the space shuttle take off

[chulainn2]

I do not know what to say.
If you do not think we are f ing this planet the get in your suv and go see the space shuttle take off
obviously another product of our public education. may i ask have you ever have had an original thought?

[chulainn2]

volt, its all become a big money grab on junk science and its our country and our quality of life that they are after. now is not a time to turn a deft ear

[vittoria]

'quality of life'....

i have some pearls... i'd rather keep them. never thought arnold from green acres looked good in them anyhow...

;)

[FerociousFeline]

Did yall see this in the news?



Scientists in Peru discover new link between behavioral patterns.

Scientists in Peru makes connection between behavior patterns demonstrated as an overt affinity for the theme of "plausible denial" with the physical condition of overcrowding in the vas deference.

Dr. Wakett has reported a definitive link between excessive congestion in the vas deference and that of increased oracular light insensitivity.

"It appears that although this condition initially manifests itself as a temporary one, chronic attacks eventually do apparently lead to an overall cumulative effect. Over time the effect appears to generate a condition which appears to affect not only light sensitivity, but also depth perception and visual cognition."

[allbimyself]

I do not know what to say.
If you do not think we are f ing this planet the get in your suv and go see the space shuttle take off

Did you even read what I wrote? I would be amazed if my carbon footprint were anything near as large as yours.

That said, your remarks are exactly why someone in another thread said people like you treat this topic like a religion. One can easily see the parallels between what you wrote and "If you don't believe in God the same why I do then you are going to hell!"

BTW, if global climate change is being contributed to by man, we aren't "f ing<sic> the planet," we are fucking ourselves.

[allbimyself]

Did yall see this in the news?



Scientists in Peru discover new link between behavioral patterns.

Scientists in Peru makes connection between behavior patterns demonstrated as an overt affinity for the theme of "plausible denial" with the physical condition of overcrowding in the vas deference.

Dr. Wakett has reported a definitive link between excessive congestion in the vas deference and that of increased oracular light insensitivity.

"It appears that although this condition initially manifests itself as a temporary one, chronic attacks eventually do apparently lead to an overall cumulative effect. Over time the effect appears to generate a condition which appears to affect not only light sensitivity, but also depth perception and visual cognition."

If you are going to post a fake article as some sort of poor attempt at humor you should at least use spell check.

See how it works? When one can't support one's beliefs with facts, evidence and empirical data, or have an educated, reasonable debate, one falls back on name calling and suggestions that other's are "unenlightened" because they aren't getting laid regularly. Much like one defends one's religion.

[FerociousFeline]

If you are going to post a fake article as some sort of poor attempt at humor you should at least use spell check.

See how it works? When one can't support one's beliefs with facts, evidence and empirical data, or have an educated, reasonable debate, one falls back on name calling and suggestions that other's are "unenlightened" because they aren't getting laid regularly. Much like one defends one's religion.

Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn what your opinion is.

Or, isn't that abundantly obvious to your empirical mind?

Get over yourself.

[allbimyself]

Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn what your opinion is.

Or, isn't that abundantly obvious to your empirical mind?

Get over yourself.

Thank you for providing more evidence.

[wolfcamp]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

I have never heard of this greenhouse signature that the article talks about. I have never seen it in any of my textbooks. I googled it, and I only get circular references back to this article. I would like to know who came up with this theory and how many legitimate scientists buy into it? What is the mechanism that supposedly drives it? I am going to check into this further, but it sounds pretty suspicious to me.

I don't buy his other arguments either. He wants to throw out ground based temperature readings in favor of satellite readings. Why? Is it because the ground readings don't fit his ideas? This is selective use of data. Chu, you keep talking about pseudo-science. Well, this is it.

Natural glacial cycles are probably driven by the eccentricity of the earth's obit. His cause/effect argument in point number 4 is based on a false premise. In natural glacial cycles, CO2 is more likely an amplifier and not the trigger itself. If you look at it that way, then the peaks of temperature and CO2 make plenty of sense. He tries to make us believe the scientists are telling us something that they are not.

This guy is a clever writer, but if you look closely, you see big holes in his arguments. Just because he worked on a project, doesn't make him the end-all, be-all expert.

[allbimyself]

I have never heard of this greenhouse signature that the article talks about. I have never seen it in any of my textbooks. I googled it, and I only get circular references back to this article. I would like to know who came up with this theory and how many legitimate scientists buy into it. I am going to check into this further, but it sounds pretty suspicious to me.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17698

This speaks to that. The question is why do weather balloon measurements differ from satellite measurements of the troposphere?


I don't buy his other arguments either. Natural glacial cycles are probably driven by the eccentricity of the earth's obit. His cause/effect argument in point number 4 is based on a false premise. CO2 is more likely an amplifier, and not the trigger itself. He tries to make us believe the scientists are telling us something that they are not.

Is he? I don't see that. He didn't mention glacial cycles at all. He was talking about what evidence existed in ice core samples. Specifically that atmospheric carbon increased AFTER previous planetary warmings.


Just because he worked on a project, doesn't make him the end-all, be-all expert.
Good point but I didn't say that. If you read what I wrote, my point was that it lends him a bit more credibility than a scientist that hasn't.

[FerociousFeline]

Anyone so obtuse as to cite a difference of opinion as direct evidence to support his "holy" argument, isn't worth listening to in the first place.

WHOOPS~!

<jabbing allbi with a stick>

[allbimyself]

Anyone so obtuse as to cite a difference of opinion as direct evidence to support his "holy" argument, isn't worth listening to in the first place.

WHOOPS~!

<jabbing allbi with a stick>You're right. For you, I'm not worth listening to because you lack the capacity to understand.

[chulainn2]

'quality of life'....

i have some pearls... i'd rather keep them. never thought arnold from green acres looked good in them anyhow...

;)

for you my dear pearls would be an insult, your worthy of diamonds.

[FerociousFeline]

Gives Allbi a look, contemplates mauling him, and decides he doesn't want or need to.

[BronzeBobby]

Thank you, Allbi, for this article.

As an Independent, I always try to look at debates as an outsider. I am not a scientist, but from what I can surmise, the truth about the environment is probably somewhere between the extremes represented by this article and the ideas promoted by Al Gore.

I think there have to be some negative effects from dumping so much carbon dioxide into the air, and cutting down so many of the world's trees. But I do not think it is nearly as extreme as Al Gore points out. And I think other issues are more urgent: Poverty, infant mortality rates, famine, economic underdevelopment.

Unfortunately, to alleviate world poverty, you need bustling economic activity, which will require the use of coal, petroleum, and other carbon-producing fuels -- unless you want to return to a massive system of chattel slavery and expect 85% of the world to replace energy sources with pure physical labor. Somehow I don't think Al Gore would be happy with a world in which ricksaws replaced the gas-driven automobile.

I cannot blame India and China for wanting to build an economic base as a first priority, rather than avoiding the use of petroleum or encouraging people to build windmills and ride bicycles.

Alternative energy will come, but there will be environmental issues with whatever energy we come up with. And in the meantime, we have to deal with our energy prices given the conditions we live in. I guess that's why I am voting for John McCain rather than Obama. I acknowledge that we should build more nuclear power plants and figure out ways to tap solar energy, but I also think we have to drill for more oil and natural gas now, rather than wait another seven years and then say we don't know what to do (which is what the Democrats seem to be saying). Most recently the Democrats have taken to blaming speculation, but that is a canard. Speculators would not be able to charge the prices they charge, if there were not market demand. And in Europe, where there is heavy corporate regulation, gas prices are higher than in the United States, where we have not had rules about speculation yet (at least not many rules). The regulation simply makes it harder for oil companies to accumulate profits, which makes it harder for them to take risks on new oil sources (which is part of speculation), which just ends up resulting in less oil to trade and higher prices.

[frenchvikki]

At last. An argument against mankind beind the cause of or contributing to the severity of climate change. I may not agree with the conclusion but it does give food for thought and should be considered more.

[chulainn2]

BronzeBobby,
Very well said!!!!

[frenchvikki]

Thank you, Allbi, for this article.

As an Independent, I always try to look at debates as an outsider. I am not a scientist, but from what I can surmise, the truth about the environment is probably somewhere between the extremes represented by this article and the ideas promoted by Al Gore.

I think there have to be some negative effects from dumping so much carbon dioxide into the air, and cutting down so many of the world's trees. But I do not think it is nearly as extreme as Al Gore points out. And I think other issues are more urgent: Poverty, infant mortality rates, famine, economic underdevelopment.

Unfortunately, to alleviate world poverty, you need bustling economic activity, which will require the use of coal, petroleum, and other carbon-producing fuels -- unless you want to return to a massive system of chattel slavery and expect 85% of the world to replace energy sources with pure physical labor. Somehow I don't think Al Gore would be happy with a world in which ricksaws replaced the gas-driven automobile.

I cannot blame India and China for wanting to build an economic base as a first priority, rather than avoiding the use of petroleum or encouraging people to build windmills and ride bicycles.

Alternative energy will come, but there will be environmental issues with whatever energy we come up with. And in the meantime, we have to deal with our energy prices given the conditions we live in. I guess that's why I am voting for John McCain rather than Obama. I acknowledge that we should build more nuclear power plants and figure out ways to tap solar energy, but I also think we have to drill for more oil and natural gas now, rather than wait another seven years and then say we don't know what to do (which is what the Democrats seem to be saying). Most recently the Democrats have taken to blaming speculation, but that is a canard. Speculators would not be able to charge the prices they charge, if there were not market demand. And in Europe, where there is heavy corporate regulation, gas prices are higher than in the United States, where we have not had rules about speculation yet (at least not many rules). The regulation simply makes it harder for oil companies to accumulate profits, which makes it harder for them to take risks on new oil sources (which is part of speculation), which just ends up resulting in less oil to trade and higher prices.
Just a little point. Actually in Europe the higher the price of oil and petroleum the more profits oil companies make. It has always been thus and recent increases in the price of oil and at the pump have ensured that the companies are raking it in at an even greater rate than before. Odd isnt it?

Also many of the arguments made by you can equally be made by people taking my point of view so while we differ in conclsion we do share some very definite views on how the world should be. Not all, but then arguments would not be quite so much fun would they?

[TaylorMade]

At last. An argument against mankind beind the cause of or contributing to the severity of climate change. I may not agree with the conclusion but it does give food for thought and should be considered more.

Yup . . . All sides should be considered in this.

*Taylor*

[wolfcamp]

David Evans makes some arguments that are believable to many people and probably should be considered. He makes some statements though, that I can't buy in a wholesale way.

Let me point out that Evans is a mathematician and a computer scientist. He isn't schooled in the physical sciences like chemistry and physics, or their applications like meteorology or climatology.

He makes the following statement:


"If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming."

Nobody can say that so emphatically. There are explanations that account for this temperature discrepancy, yet Evans and many people here are ready to throw out those explanations completely. If you read the second article link provided by albi (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17698), it concludes that the hot spot in the troposphere WAS found.



Scientists discovered, however, that the satellites carrying the microwave instruments had drifted in their orbits over time, so that more recent measurements were taken at a different time of day than older measurements. Once scientists accounted for this bias and other differences between the individual instruments, the measurements showed a warming trend in the troposphere, consistent with surface observations of rising global temperature.


Evans says that ground temperatures validate global warming but upper level temperatures (supposedly) do not, so we should throw out ground level temperatures. Evans says there is no evidence that greenhouse gases cause global warming, but that is because the critics refuse to accept the evidence that is offered.

As Taylor says, All sides should be considered in this.

So, maybe David Evans has eased some of our minds about this problem, and maybe not, but here is one niggling issue that concerns me. The CO2 that we put in the atmosphere stays there virtually forever. It will take over 100000 years, more than a thousand lifetimes, for nature to remove all human induced CO2 from the atmosphere. If we find that global warming is real- that the signature is really there buried in the background noise- that it becomes pronounced and obvious as CO2 levels continue to rise, we can't change our minds. We will be stuck with the problem. We have no way to take the CO2 out of the atmosphere. There is no going back.