| Author |
Message |
    
Gsilvernale
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 12:07 am: | 
|
No it isn't |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 12:20 am: |
|
I'll try and make myself more clear.
It's not the concept of anthro-CO2-runaway greenhouse gas that bothers me, it's the movement. It's become a religion, where the musings of a semi-retired politician ( what other job do you take after veep? ) garner accolades. And large sums of cash.
The idea that discussion of both cause and effect, and possible solutions to the potential civilization threatening problem is not relevant, is frightening.. There is no discussion because it is over?
That's not science, that's Faith. The extreme reaction of the ones that scream "denier" as if, and the word choice is deliberate, you were a slope headed neo-nazi? The very use of the term "heretic"? That's not science, that's prime Saul Alinsky manipulation technique and deliberate religious recruiting.
Let us skip the extreme view that either "global warming deniers are in the pay of the evil oil companies" ( sometimes true ) or "It's a planetary conspiracy of the old Soviet Union to destroy us with Green Power" ( also partly true )
It's obvious that the term "crisis" is stuck on anything has a real high probability of being crap politicians or other manipulators of men want to put over on you.
Far too many of the people who are pushing the specific agenda of todays "Global warming" "crisis" have provably lied through their teeth.
The science is not there yet to give us the answers we need to decide on the best course of action. Computer models are models. Pretty, but how close to the real thing? They spend a jillion $$ to run computer models on the stock market! How good are they with that? The WSJ said "less than a dozen" experts predicted the current conditions. You think the weather is simpler?
I'm all for terraforming experiments. But not on the planet I live on! 
Now, the obvious solution to the eco-issues to me, is a combination approach involving replacing all coal, oil, & natural gas plants with nuclear. Build solar power satellites to take over from the Fission plants as Fusion goes online. Make & offer dirt cheap ( tax incentives, rebates, etc. ) solar, wind, etc. Do coal to gasoline, biomass, garbage methane reclamation, electric cars, hybrid vans, cool shit I don't know about, etc...
Just don't tell me I have to put cowtalytic converters on my herd! Or give up the 21st century for the 19th. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 12:28 am: |
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
2nd wiki hit with "earth orbit changes".
I'm not sure if we are just about to have a pole flip, magnetic, or just sometime sorta soon. It's being watched by guys with fancy magnets, go look it up. It's not high on MY list of global disasters to maybe happen in my lifetime. I rank it behind "yellowstone supervolcano" and ahead of "nearby supernova explosion". "Comet Impact" and "Soviet Bioweapon accident" seem more likely, don't you think?
But that wobble stuff is real, & I'm betting ice age soon, just hoping it holds off a bit more.
Notice that it's not a proven theory with no dissent accepted and the issue is settled. Seems like real science to me. ( though I knew about the cycles from a book on orbital dynamics. }
(Message edited by aesquire on January 31, 2009) |
Diablobrian
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 12:41 am: |
|
Yes, when universities start supporting anything other than the chicken little
theories you'll see that, unfortunately the greens are entrenched and tend to fail
students that question their religion/orthodoxy.
What do I know about it? I just took a social Sciences class on "conspiracy theories"
at MU. I disagreed with the professor and made my argument via a 15 page paper. His response
was one letter long....F. No comment, no explanation of where I went wrong. This is not
uncommon in many areas of academia.
You are talking about a field of endeavor where the instructors get to discredit and destroy
the future of those that think independently. These same instructors have a lot of
pull when it comes to funding of research and can prevent funding of studies that they
do not agree with.
So hold your breath waiting for equal time from dissenting opinions from inside the scientific
community.
I also love the freon debate. This stuff is heavier than air. Scientifically proven, I
had 2 friends "drown" on dry deckplates in the shipyards in 1989 due to a freon leak in a
confined space on a lower deck. The freon did NOT fly away to the ionosphere to break
down in 20 years as has been theorized (never proven) but laws are still being passed
based on a 30 year old theory that should be easy to prove. Once again, anyone looking to
disprove is quickly ostracized by the established elites.
I guess we should all give up our Buells too...after all the "experts" claim our bikes
are ill handling, unreliable and underpowered. Should we blindly follow those experts
too? |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 01:33 am: |
|
NONE of this is based upon direct, provable evidence.
It's based upon multi-variable prediction models missing at least half the pertinent variables.
So the defining factor in science is whether your theory is popular or not?
Sounds like science to me.  |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 01:41 am: |
|
What are you even talking about? Of course the greenhouse effect is permanent. It's what makes our planet habitable!
If you are referring to global warming being permanent, it isn't. When the percentage of greenhouse gasses is reduced, the global temperature will eventually follow
We have these really efficient machines called PLANTS. They take CO2 out of the atmosphere. Odd, I know. When you place them into a hyper charged atmosphere where CO2 is REALLY high, they grow enormous. In fact, it takes a little while for them to catch up, but when they do, look out!
Where, pray tell, did all this carbon come from?
Give you a hint, it was in the atmosphere before. The plants pulled it out of the atmosphere. They died, along with the dinosaurs (that ate plants as well as other dinosaurs that ate plants). What is being burned as coal and petroleum products was once plants and animals. They pulled CO2 out of the atmosphere and converted it to biomass. We are releasing what they built up. |
Blake
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 01:49 am: |
|
"Give you a hint, it was in the atmosphere before."
+1,000,000 Ft_B! |
Danger_dave
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 02:36 am: |
|
The biggest naysayer I know is a Scientist.
Says it's not happening very loudly.
He also works for a coal fired generation power company. |
J2blue
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 03:10 am: |
|
I spent some time tonight reading the Schneider website. He is actually a very good source for an overview and comes as close as I might imagine to being objective in his presentation of what we know about "global warming". In fact he does a good job of not saying with certainty that the science proves man made global warming, but that it does support it, and, in his highly qualified scientific opinion he believes it to be true based on the evidence. I like that honesty. Further, he outlines how it is much more than a scientific debate. He has decided to go along with the various models which "project" a man made global warming through the date 2100 will likely occur and will likely have definite impacts on our habitat. But he doesn't declare it as a verdict. More importantly he acknowledges what the remaining sources of uncertainty are. A key uncertainty is the amount of radiative forcing that may occur for a doubling of CO2 concentrations. From this near term uncertainty the models must project with ever greater uncertainty across time. By the year 2100 the amount of uncertainty about how much warming will occur and what impacts it will have is enormous. To begin to speculate on what policies we must adopt now to avoid these long range "problems" runs the risk of unintended consequences on a large scale. In my humble opinion it would be imprudent to act on any of these models as if they were fact and inevitable. On the other hand such studies are very useful and worthwhile, but I would prefer that they remain in the realm of scientific debate and research for much, much longer before any "verdicts" are issued.
The contrarians actually serve a useful purpose in the application of the scientific method. I find it disturbing that there isn't more "controversy" about the subject among scientist. Even if they are fools in the employ of big oil each contrarian forces scientist to falsify another hypothetical avenue. That would actually help eliminate the uncertainty we currently face over global warming.
Now, after all that hot air from me, I still say "who cares?" Adaptation to either a substantial increase or decrease in surface temperature is much more important. To me that is where the true usefulness of the current models exists. We are in the system, and until we experience, say, an increase in the system temperature and see how we react we cannot know what the feedback does to the overall equilibrium. My hunch is that any sharp rise in temperature due to anthropogenic warming will alter its source in a negative way, and thus become self-extinguishing. That negative feedback will likely extend over several centuries, maybe even a millenia or two. I'll take my chances that we can adapt and find a new sustainable equilibrium. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 07:10 am: |
|
If we get 7 degrees F warmer, we are back at the happy days of 1000 a.d. when crops grew well, grapes in England, and "perhaps" Rush L's Florida house floods. This could be a disaster for billions of people living at 2 feet above sea level.
If we get 7 degrees cooler, my pipes freeze, crops fail, civilization probably falls, and we get bad days for the millions that live in the tropics as rich people from the North move in, and demand the easy living they are used to. Billions die as the crops fail.
You pick. I'll take warm, but I'm betting on cold.
It's more sane to better your insulation, improve your heat efficiencies, and consider alternative energy, ( 10 year payoff solar water heater, darn it ) than to demand the government socialize the economy, impose draconian rules on us all, ( remote control thermostats? bans on motorcycles? ) and rule with an iron fist to "save us all".
Besides, the sane/smart way saves you money, the other way is gonna cost $$ and freedom.
If J.Danforth Quail told you the sky is falling and he sold certificates that freed you from guilt at making the sky fall, and ran an investment company that preyed on stupid people that are afraid of the sky falling, would you listen?
Conservation is smart. |
Danger_dave
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 07:48 am: |
|
'Coalition of Old People for Global Warming' |
Alchemy
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 10:50 am: |
|
It is a fact that the CO2 level in the atmosphere is rising.
We can argue about what that means but the rise is factual. Maybe it is connected with climate change or maybe it has little consequence but it highly unlikely that it has NO consequence.
CO2 is certainly not the only factor in climate change but it is possible that it is a factor at some level.
It would seem to me to be wise to mitigate CO2 rise and begin to study the b'jesus out of it. It seems to me this a thoughtful approach lacking politics, faith or hysteria.
I have experienced LA before we began to clean up auto pollution. I like it much, much better today.
One thing is for sure, we will not get it right without a lot of expensive mistakes along the way. I would rather do something than nothing. I would particularly like to do something now, since that our economy is cratering. |
Ferris_von_bueller
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 11:55 am: |
|
Until a person has a basic understanding of science and the scientific method, they will always be ready to buy into a totally discredited crackpot diatribe like the one that started this thread in the first place.
Ah ha, you still didnt answer my question and so far, neither has anyone else. Water vapor is the chief ingredient of "greenhouse gases". The list of dissenters is growing with each passing record setting cold day.
Oh, yea, Aesquire is correct. The most diversity this planet has ever seen occurred during it's warmest period. Cold is anti-life, unless you're polaromonas vacuolata
(Message edited by Ferris_von_bueller on January 31, 2009) |
Ferris_von_bueller
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 12:17 pm: |
|
One thing is for sure, we will not get it right without a lot of expensive mistakes along the way. I would rather do something than nothing. I would particularly like to do something now, since that our economy is cratering.
It really boils down to money, let's be honest. If it cost us nothing to change our way of life then no one would bitch about it but, the fact is, it's going to cost a fortune and it WILL lower everyone's standard of living. The way I see it, government's have embraced this scheme because it transfers even greater power to them. It's like red light cameras - they are not put in place for safety but for revenue. Give me a f'n break !! Someone explain to me how carbon trading is going to reduce greenhouse gases? I pay Al Gore "x" amount and I can continue to pollute?..huh? Then take a look at the Kyoto Treaty. We have to reduce our emissions but China and India, etc can continue to pollute? Again, wtf? Bill, you get everyone to share the responsibilities and costs equally and then we can talk |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 12:30 pm: |
|
Not to mention that we are unilaterally going to hamstring ourselves economically while India and China have NO restrictions what so ever.
All of this based upon "I'd rather do something than nothing."
So if someone had a theory with accompanying computer models that indicated that giant space chickens were going to fall from the sky and we, as a nation, decided that we were going to devote 100% of our resources to developing a defense mechanism for these chickens, would that be wise?
We don't KNOW that these giant space chickens are coming, but we should do something just in case.
As a result of our decision, we neglect roads, bridges, infrastructure. We lower the entire population's standard of living. We reduce our economic ability to compete in the global market (because India and China don't believe in space chickens). We decrease our military capacity to defend ourselves.
All of this just so we can take SOME action, even if it's wrong, based upon sketchy and inconclusive faux science. |
M2nc
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 01:05 pm: |
|
CO2 levels are not controlling out climate today and the climate has been cycling up and down since the beginning of time. In the early 1980s the earth was going into the next mini-ice age. In the 1990 we were all going to die due to radiation from the sun because of the Ozone layer. In 2000 it's global warming. I credit all this false science based predictions to the pressure researchers are under to produce something, be it true or false, that generates funding.
As time passed the 1980s "scientific" prediction of the next mini-ice age did not come to pass. Proof that man's mind can not conceive the climate cycle that this planet revolves around. The same problem we are having today.
As time passed and more study was done it was found that the hole in the ozone is a natural event that new technology allowed man to see for the first time. The entire panic over aerosols was base on incomplete data costing man millions.
In time the belief that climate change is caused by man's emission of CO2 will be proved to be false as all the other Chicken Little theories that have tried to cause mass hysteria and more importantly generate funding for study extending a way of life for researchers.
(Message edited by M2nc on January 31, 2009) |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 05:46 pm: |
|
As I walk around today, I'm guessing that the mini ice age is here. It's cold out.
just one thought.
It makes no difference how many scientists think that the moon is made of cheese. It can be well known about the lunar cheese. Preachers can tell sermons on the lunar cheese, and the media can warn us the cheese is an issue that must be solved by our tax $$ or the mice will rule the moon.
Great ( or crappy ) movies can be made about moon cheese. Prizes awarded for the movies on the true nature of moon cheese.
It still is not science.
Science has a process. You look at facts, form a theory, and TEST that theory. Most theories are wrong. You learn from testing the theory, right or wrong. sometimes you learn even more when you disprove your theory.
How does a theory become accepted as a good fit for reality? Other scientists test the theory. If they get the same results, they agree with you, and the theory is accepted. If not, they write papers telling the world you are full of crap.
Scientist argue, hard and mean over pet theories they have emotional attachment to, but it makes no difference if you are a major famous scientist or an unknown. If others test your theory, & it proves good, it will eventually overcome the "establishment" mentality & become accepted as a GOOD FIT TO REALITY. No theory is a 100% perfect description of the real world.
The idea that the moon is rock & dust tests as more correct than Cheese.
It makes no difference how many nay sayers or supporters of "Anthro-Global-Warming-etc." there are. Is it a better fit to reality than the previous theory?
Haven't seen that yet. |
Alsza
| | Posted on Sunday, February 01, 2009 - 07:47 am: |
|
Have any of you ever shared a room with OZ? The amount of flatulence and the odorifusness is absolutely amazing. Ask him to tell the story about the green gas and his dog. It's not the cows, it's OZ. |
|
