It sure has been getting warmer lately. I also heard from my friends abroad who report of record breaking temperatures. It seems we really are now experiencing global warming. But is this warming man made, or is it due to a natural cycle of the sun and our planet? As we are now starting to hear about proposed global warming taxes, I thought it might be a good time to look into what the scientists are saying. I've come across some documentaries on the subject, and I thought I'd share them with you.
Global Warming Doomsday Called Off (Canada)
https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295
The Great Global Warming Swindle (UK)
https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=220010842208417568
Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told (Canada)
https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4468713209160533271
Green House Conspiracy (Australia)
https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5949034802461518010
ARTICLE: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
https://infowars.net/articles/august2007/300807Warming.htm
d-cat
09-02-2007, 01:45 PM
Hi,
Sorry but I'm not sure I understand your point. The article is by Steve Watson, a British writer for Info Wars and is not put out by the Dept of Energy as you state. The survey is by Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte and was submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, and Daily Tech has a pre-publication copy:
You have a link to the Dept of Energy but I'm having trouble understanding what the connection is. Do you have any info that Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte's survey was not scientific?
Just to be clear, the article does not state that global warming isn't real, but that it being man made is a fraud.
Thanks.
LOL, the 'Definitive proof' (ARTICLE: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory) that global warming is a fraud comes from a publication put out by the Department of Energy whose goals are "to advance the national, economic, and energy security of the United States."
https://www.netl.doe.gov/about/index.html
The 'survey' they cite is not scientific, and is not a peer reviewed study, and isn't even available for review.
d-cat
09-02-2007, 08:39 PM
The Journal of Energy and Environment is a DOE publication, and the 'survey' cited has not been peer reviewed, because it isn't a scientific study.
Thanks for the clarification Clancy. I see that 'The Journal of Energy and Environment' is a DOE publication, but what was mentioned in the article is the journal 'Energy and Environment' which is in the UK.
From what I understand, Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte's survey involved looking at 500+ peer reviewed scientific research papers, written between 2004 and 2007. What is the significance of whether his survey of scientific papers was peer reviewed and how does it relate to the subject at hand?
Thanks again.
d-cat
09-02-2007, 10:48 PM
Yes, I can understand the confusion.
According to Wikipedia (btw it was revealed recently that they can't be trusted), "Energy and Environment is an interdisciplinary journal aimed primarily at social scientists, published by Multi-Science. The journal's editor is Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, a global warming skeptic[1][2] and reader in geography at the University of Hull in England and researcher in the political aspects of climate change." Is this pretty much the same as The Journal of Energy and Environment?
One thing though, I am also a skeptic of the man made catastrophic global warming theory, and also have interest in the subjects they published which you listed, but I do not serve the oil industry (I in fact hate them and drive a veggie oil car :):)
Do you have a link to something that would show me that the UK's Energy and Environment serves the oil industry?
I do understand the purpose of a peer review for a scientific paper, but in this case I understood that Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte's survey of peer reviewed scientific papers was more of a count of yays and nays. I respectfully have to disagree with you in regard to not knowing how he came up with the results (he got it from the 500+ peer reviewed research papers), and disagree about having no way of checking them (it's just a matter of checking the research papers). I was under the impression that the delay of the publication was due it was being reviewed.
You are right, but the journal Energy and Environment is the UK equivalent of The Journal of Energy and Environment, and since their names are almost identical, and they serve an identical purpose, you may understand the confusion. Both publications serve the oil and gas industries, they don't publish scientific, peer reviewed studies. This is from their home page;
Some recent papers in Energy and Environment
The politics of fuel pricing in Latin America and their implications for the environment
Jorge Rogat (Denmark)
Market diffusion of new renewable energy in Europe: explaining front-runner and laggard positions
Per-Ove Eikeland and Ingvild Sáéverud (Norway)
Voluntary agreements for energy efficiency: review and results of European experiences
Paolo Bertoldi & Silvia Rezessy (Italy, Hungary)
The economics of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Emily Schaeffer & Walter Block (USA)
Viewpoints and Technical Communications China's hunt for oil in Africa in perspective
Zhongxiang Zhang (USA)
The impact of energy policies on the development of renewable energies
Martin Gastal (Switzerland)
Problems with publishing scientific information on the web: how unusual were temperatures in Svalbard, Norway?
Willis Eschenbach (Alaska)
An economist looks at recent energy policy statements
John Gault (Switzerland)
https://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm
And to answer your question "What is the significance of whether his survey of scientific papers was peer reviewed and how does it relate to the subject on hand?"
The significance is, you don't know how he came up with the results, and you have no way of checking them.
Clancy
09-02-2007, 11:17 PM
You are being amazingly obtuse about this. What the guy pretended to do is called a meta-analysis, here's an explanation
https://wilderdom.com/research/meta-analysis.html
When you can show us a meta-analysis that supports his claim, it will be front page news, and the entire scientific world will sit up and take notice.
Yes, I can understand the confusion.
According to Wikipedia (btw it was revealed recently that they can't be trusted), "Energy and Environment is an interdisciplinary journal aimed primarily at social scientists, published by Multi-Science. The journal's editor is Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, a global warming skeptic[1][2] and reader in geography at the University of Hull in England and researcher in the political aspects of climate change." Is this pretty much the same as The Journal of Energy and Environment?
One thing though, I am also a skeptic of the man made catastrophic global warming theory, and also have interest in the subjects they published which you listed, but I do not serve the oil industry (I in fact hate them and drive a veggie oil car :):)
Do you have a link to something that would show me that the UK's Energy and Environment serves the oil industry?
I do understand the purpose of a peer review for a scientific paper, but in this case I understood that Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte's survey of peer reviewed scientific papers was more of a count of yays and nays. I respectfully have to disagree with you in regard to not knowing how he came up with the results (he got it from the 500+ peer reviewed research papers), and disagree about having no way of checking them (it's just a matter of checking the research papers). I was under the impression that the delay of the publication was due it was being reviewed.
d-cat
09-03-2007, 11:59 AM
Clancy,
This exchange seems to be going off on tangents and getting nowhere. I guess you believe that Dr. Schulte's survey is not reliable as you believe that he is pretending to do meta-analysis. I have not yet seen the survey so I'll withhold judgement.
I asked you to back up your claims because so far, you have stated that the "Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory" was an article put out by the Dept of Energy (it was put out by Info Wars), that the two journals serve an identical purpose (you wouldn't answer my question about that), and that the journal 'Energy and Environment' serves the oil industry (which you wouldn't substantiate).You started this exchange with an LOL (about something you were wrong about) and now you call me obtuse.
I don't know if you watched the documentaries or not but if you did, you might understand why I question the politicians' and corporate media's version of global warming. This exchange has been time consuming and confusing, with no new knowledge gained for me. So I hope you'll understand why I do not wish to continue this exchange any further.
I put up this thread because I have come across an alternative explanation to global warming, and I thought open-minded people would find it interesting. I'm looking for answers; I'm not looking to be right.
OrchardDweller
09-03-2007, 12:13 PM
d-cat, thanks for the links. Very interesting!
Clancy
09-03-2007, 12:14 PM
I focused on the fake study because you don't even seem to be able to understand that if it were true, the myriad economic interests that have a stake in 'debunking' global warming due to carbon emissions would already have sponsored a scientific meta-analysis of the data, it would be huge news, and you'd be posting IT instead of hearsay about a 'survey' that no one can look at.
As for the journal Energy and Environment, they've pulled a similar stunt before and been caught.
https://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/124642_warming02.html
Clancy,
This exchange seems to be going off on tangents and getting nowhere. I guess you believe that Dr. Schulte's survey is not reliable as you believe that he is pretending to do meta-analysis. I have not yet seen the survey so I'll withhold judgement.
I asked you to back up your claims because so far, you have stated that the "Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory" was an article put out by the Dept of Energy (it was put out by Info Wars), that the two journals serve an identical purpose (you wouldn't answer my question about that), and that the journal 'Energy and Environment' serves the oil industry (which you wouldn't substantiate).You started this exchange with an LOL (about something you were wrong about) and now you call me obtuse.
I don't know if you watched the documentaries or not but if you did, you might understand why I question the politicians' and corporate media's version of global warming. This exchange has been time consuming and confusing, with no new knowledge gained for me. So I hope you'll understand why I do not wish to continue this exchange any further.
I put up this thread because I have come across an alternative explanation to global warming, and I thought open-minded people would find it interesting. I'm looking for answers; I'm not looking to be right.
OrchardDweller
09-03-2007, 02:34 PM
I focused on the fake study because you don't even seem to be able to understand that if it were true, the myriad economic interests that have a stake in 'debunking' global warming due to carbon emissions would already have sponsored a scientific meta-analysis of the data, it would be huge news, and you'd be posting IT instead of hearsay about a 'survey' that no one can look at.
As for the journal Energy and Environment, they've pulled a similar stunt before and been caught.
https://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/124642_warming02.html
Is Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, who conducted the recent, yet to be published survey, connected to this 2003 study? If he is, I think you might be on to something. I don't find his name mentioned in the article.
Your article does mention Ross Gelbspan:
Ross Gelbspan, a former Boston Globe reporter and editor whose 1997 book, "The Heat is On," details industry efforts to discredit climate change science, said conclusions that greenhouse gases are causing the planet to heat up are the result of the "most rigorously peer-reviewed scientific collaboration in history.
"The contradictory statements of a tiny handful of discredited scientists, funded by big coal and big oil, represent a deliberate -- and extremely reckless -- campaign of deception and disinformation."
I thought you might be interested to know that The Boston Globe for which Ross Gelbspan was an editor, is owned by the New York Times. On their board of directors are members of the Carlyle Group (with connections to arms and oil via James Baker and Bush Sr.). Bush Sr and James Baker were shareholders and advisors of the Carlyle Group, until they "retired" since the start of the Iraq war.
OrchardDweller
09-03-2007, 02:41 PM
I had posted something about the NYT/Carlyle Group connection on another thread a while back: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?t=23567
"I did a little snooping on the NYT and was pretty surprised to see some major corporate players on the board of directors."
"Their board of directors consist of members of the Carlyle Group, Big Pharma, and ex-Proctor and Gamble execs, to investment bankers and a handful of other corporations that have interests to protect.
Sorry to be the one to tell you, but this isn’t front page news folks.
Corporations have been using their money to influence what we read in the newspaper from the beginning.
Freedom of the press, the guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, wasn’t for the corporations or the government, it was for us.
Wm. Kennard, board director and member of the Carlyle Group once said, ”When hundreds of stations are owned by just one person or company, service to local communities and coverage of local issues lose out.”
I guess his allegiances changed once he joined the firm.
Newspapers owned by the NYT
The Boston Globe
The Courier (Houma, LA)
The Daily Comet (Thibodaux, LA)
The Dispatch (Lexington, NC)
The Gadsden Times (AL)
The Gainesville Sun (FL)
International Herald Tribune
The Ledger (Lakeland, FL)
The New York Times
The Press Democrat (Santa Rosa, CA)
Petaluma Argus-Courier (CA)
Sarasota Herald-Tribune (FL)
Spartanburg Herald-Journal (SC)
Star-Banner (Ocala, FL)
TimesDaily (Florence, AL)
Times-News (Hendersonville, NC)
The Tuscaloosa News (AL)
The Star News (Wilmington, NC)
The Worcester Telegram & Gazette
Controlling what we know about the issues and framing it in a way that serves their corporate masters is the name of the game.
d-cat
09-04-2007, 08:15 AM
Very interesting. With Saudi Arabia's biggest oilfield Ghawar now in decline (https://www.theoildrum.com/node/2325), could the corporate elite be looking for new ways to supplement their future income? Keeping the public scared can be very profitable (https://houston.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2007/07/23/daily2.html?jst=s_cn_hl). And government money does not always go (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eootfzAhAoU) where it's supposed to.
(underlined words above are links)
ARTICLE: Green taxes 'are making billions'
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6972759.stm
.
d-cat
09-04-2007, 05:23 PM
here are some interesting articles I've found:
Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming
https://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
Climate change hits Mars
https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece
MIT researcher finds evidence of global warming on Neptune's largest moon
https://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html
Pluto is undergoing global warming, researchers find
https://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html
d-cat
09-04-2007, 05:33 PM
and these!
Scientists threatened for 'climate denial'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml
Death Threats for man-made-global-warming-doesn't-exist scientist
https://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031207.htm
OrchardDweller
09-05-2007, 12:54 AM
d-cat, I've come across this video where it appears that Al Gore misrepresented a photo of polar bears to falsely illustrate the effects of global warming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKAC4kfHruQ
I don't know if Al Gore was misinformed, or if he was truly being deceitful, but if Dr. Schulte's survey of 528 peer reviewed scientific research papers is published and proves that the IPCC was indeed lying about there being a consensus among scientists about global warming being man-made, I certainly will think that something really fishy is going on.
Thanks for all the info!
OrchardDweller
09-05-2007, 06:06 PM
The dumbing down of America has been a fantastic success.
Sure looks like it! I guess you are familiar with Charlotte Iserby's book "The deliberate dumbing down of America". You can download it for free here:
https://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/
I was educated in Europe. Where in America were you educated, Clancy?
OrchardDweller
09-05-2007, 06:41 PM
LOL, so, you believe science when you think (erroneously) that it supports your ideology but you doubt it when it doesn't. Sorry, your preferences are irrelevant to science.
The same scientific process that has shown that Venus experienced runaway global warming is the same scientific process that shows that man's carbon emissions are causing earth's current global warming.
Is someone here doubting the science as you claim? It's not the science that is in question here. It's the IPPC's claim of a consensus among scientists that is in question. It's what the scientists are really saying that is of interest here.
This is the second time you use LOL and then not make any sense afterwards. Is LOL your way of saying that you're Leaving Out Logic?
d-cat
09-05-2007, 10:58 PM
The first reaction to truth is hatred. - Tertullian
Every truth passes through three stages before it is recognized. In the first, it is ridiculed, in the second it is opposed, in the third it is regarded as self-evident. - Arthur Schopenhauer
Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. - Aldous Huxley
The truth is not for all men, but only for those who seek it. - Ayn Rand
The beginning of wisdom is found in doubting; by doubting we come to the question, and by seeking we may come upon the truth. - Pierre Abelard
There is nothing to fear except the persistent refusal to find out the truth, the persistent refusal to analyze the causes of happenings. - Dorothy Thompson
The search for truth is more precious than its possession. - Albert Einstein
Most of the greatest evils that man has inflicted upon man have come through people feeling quite certain about something which, in fact, was false. - Bertrand Russell
The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear. - Herbert Sebastien Agar
The modern susceptibility to conformity and obedience to authority indicates that the truth endorsed by authority is likely to be accepted as such by a majority of the people. - David Edwards
Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. - Buddha
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act. - George Orwell
Braggi
09-06-2007, 08:42 AM
Let's see, global warming or not? Who really cares? It's not an issue worth arguing about in my opinion.
All the things we can do to curb "greenhouse" gases are things we should be doing anyway!!!!
Things like: conserving energy and water, limiting population size, preserving nature, preventing desertification, reducing pollution, cleaning up environmental disasters, saving forests, cleaning up air and water, etc., etc..
There is nothing to argue about.
-Jeff
mykil
09-06-2007, 02:02 PM
In one mans opinion, it doesn’t matter if it's man made or a natural reoccurring cycle, were all going to get wet! We need to prepare for this it is coming. We can whine all we want, that isn’t going to stop us from getting wet! Just like a squirrel prepares for winter gathering all it’s nuts and berries, there are things we can do for the whole, slowly draw back from the oceans to a safe distance. Move back from rivers and streams that are going to see double or triple the rainfall in the coming seasons. Focus all our energies into prevention of disasters for mankind and work as a team to prepare instead on playing the blame game… soooo annoying and stupid!!!<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
mykil
09-06-2007, 03:34 PM
Yes the blame game! Preparation is our only chance clanc
If it were naturally occuring, there'd be nothing we could do about it, and that's what the oil industry wants us to think.
The fact is that it's due to greenhouse gases being released by humanity, so there's obviously things we can do about it, but it means making some big changes.
d-cat
11-25-2007, 09:26 PM
Global Warming Doomsday Called Off (Canada)
https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295
The Great Global Warming Swindle (UK)
https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=220010842208417568
Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told (Canada)
https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4468713209160533271
Green House Conspiracy (Australia)
https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5949034802461518010
Some coverage on US television on the subject:
20/20 Stossel- GMAB - Al Gore Global Warming Debate
https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5120762744733742246
.
Zeno Swijtink
11-25-2007, 11:46 PM
Some coverage on US television on the subject:
20/20 Stossel- GMAB - Al Gore Global Warming Debate
https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5120762744733742246
.
I don't like videos on complicated topic like this. Esp. when they seem to be the only sources you marshall to support your point of view.
They have no footnotes that allow you to do follow-up on claims. They have no dates when they were created. They pass by quickly without you having the opportunity to take in and ponder ideas and information.
[The Gore film came at least with a book with transcript and references.]
Why do you guys base your views always on videos?? Don't you know how to read?
I think the most interesting website on global climate change, both because of the scientists who contribute, the references to peer reviewed literature, and the comments from the lay public, is
I don't like videos on complicated topic like this. Esp. when they seem to be the only sources you marshall to support your point of view.
I don't really have a concrete opinion on the subject one way or another. The 'global warming is man-made and we must tax you' argument gets a lot of press; I post here the other view that doesn't get much fair press coverage by mainstream corporate media. I do find the close-mindedness of some people here on the subject very interesting.
Why do you guys base your views always on videos?? Don't you know how to read?
Yes, I know how to read. Do you know how to read threads? If you did, you would have seen that there are many articles on this thread. Including ones about other planets experiencing warming.
I think the most interesting website on global climate change, both because of the scientists who contribute, the references to peer reviewed literature, and the comments from the lay public, is
Thanks for the links. If you haven't yet, try watching one of the documentaries posted here for a different explanation and see what other scientists have to say about the hockey stick. That is, if you have an open and curious mind.
Zeno Swijtink
11-26-2007, 08:26 PM
I don't really have a concrete opinion on the subject one way or another. The 'global warming is man-made and we must tax you' argument gets a lot of press; I post here the other view that doesn't get much fair press coverage by mainstream corporate media. I do find the close-mindedness of some people here on the subject very interesting.
Yes, I know how to read. Do you know how to read threads? If you did, you would have seen that there are many articles on this thread. Including ones about other planets experiencing warming.
Thanks for the links. If you haven't yet, try watching one of the documentaries posted here for a different explanation and see what other scientists have to say about the hockey stick. That is, if you have an open and curious mind.
I am sorry, and I need to apologize: I missed some of the written articles you have referred to in this thread.
The scientific issues around long term climate are very complicated and the main tool that integrates the many factor that determine future climate development, computer modeling, makes climate theory into a science unlike anything we have seen before: highly complex and multidisciplinary.
The stakes are high: our society is in a "carbon lock-in" (Gregory Unruh's term) and to reverse our near total dependency on fossil fuels will take an enormous effort. On the other hand fossil fuel use has caused many negativities: from lung disease to environmental collapse to population explosion (thru fertilizers used in food production). It has also created unprecedented wealth and prosperity for us. Can we preserve our prosperity, have the billions of poor and destitute people in the world increase their prosperity, and phase out our dependency on fossil fuels in a manner that is democratic and does not depend on topdown, draconic, and dictatorial measures?
How is someone like you, who may not have expertise in any of the scientific fields that make up this multidisciplinary science, but who wants to form his own opinion about the validity of it all, to proceed?
If you have not done so I suggest that you start with a general book on the aspects of climate science. In my class at SSU called "Philosophical Problems of Global Climate Change" I use as required text
John Houghton, Global Warming: the complete briefing, 3rd edition, Cambridge University Press, 2004
My course covers epistemological and ethical issues, such as "What kind of science is this? How does it compare with other sciences? Given the complexities and uncertainties how can a lay person decide on a response? What are the moral issues involved and what stand is each of us taking in response to our studies?
It is a challenge for me to teach this course in such a way that all students, independent of their personal opinions, feels comfortable to discuss the material and questions we raise in class.
I also suggest that you depend less on the partisan articles and videos, either pro or con: they are mostly written by people with no expertise in the matter who approach the issues from a predetermined political point of view and who look for scientific, or what they think as scientific, papers that support their point of view. This goes against the basic principles of critical thinking where we always want to test our opinions against possible refutations.
In the end though, as lay persons, we cannot check scientists completely in what they analyze, measure, etc. Some measure of depending on trust is unavoidable. I myself gravitate towards trusting scientific credentials and peer reviewed literature.
Willie Lumplump
11-26-2007, 10:43 PM
Some coverage on US television on the subject:
20/20 Stossel- GMAB - Al Gore Global Warming Debate
https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5120762744733742246.
In principle, every argument should be evaluated on its own merits, but just for your information, Stossel is a notoriously unreliable propagandist for right-wing causes.
Willie Lumplump
11-26-2007, 10:52 PM
I don't really have a concrete opinion on the subject one way or another.
You don't have a concrete opinion about a claim that is supported by the entire world community of professional climatologists? Are you reserving judgment until you hear from all the CEO's of the major oil corporations and their hirelings who try to pass themselves off as legitimate scientists?
d-cat
11-26-2007, 11:13 PM
You don't have a concrete opinion about a claim that is supported by the entire world community of professional climatologists?
that's one of the things in question Willie. That's one of the things people are saying is not true. You may be convinced but I'm watching what both sides have to say.
Are you reserving judgment until you hear from all the CEO's of the major oil corporations and their hirelings who try to pass themselves off as legitimate scientists?
no
Willie Lumplump
11-27-2007, 12:01 AM
that's one of the things in question Willie. That's one of the things people are saying is not true. You may be convinced but I'm watching what both sides have to say.
The word "sides" is the trick part of your sentence. It is true that there are two sides to every question. One side thinks that the world was created 4.2 billion years ago, while another side thinks it was created in 4004 B.C. One side thinks that germs cause disease, while another side thinks that disease is caused by sin. One side thinks that rape is a crime against women, while another side thinks that generally women are responsible for their own rape by tempting men beyond their limits of self-control. My point is that the willingness to impartially consider both sides of a question is not necessarily a sign of a rational mind. In fact, the opposite may be true. If you could present a list of respected climatologists who disbelieve in global warming, there would be two sides to consider. But if all you've got to go on is a list of hirelings of the petroleum industry whose job it is to misconstrue the findings of legitimate scientists, then keeping an open mind is not a good sign. In fact, it is a very bad sign. Let's take a specific case. James M. Taylor has been in the news a lot recently "debunking" global warming. Who is he? What are his academic credentials? Who pays his salary? What are his professional affiliations? What research papers has he published and in which refereed journals? Or maybe your own professional credentials qualify you to analyze the data yourself so that you don't even need to depend on the opinions of internationally recognized experts?
Braggi
11-27-2007, 06:48 AM
d-cat, what is your personal aim with this thread?
Why did you start it?
What behaviors would you like to see changed as a result of Waccobb members reading what you're posting here?
What do you stand to gain by us changing our behaviors in these ways?
Thanks,
-Jeff
Zeno Swijtink
11-28-2007, 12:48 PM
d-cat, what is your personal aim with this thread?
Why did you start it?
What behaviors would you like to see changed as a result of Waccobb members reading what you're posting here?
What do you stand to gain by us changing our behaviors in these ways?
Thanks,
-Jeff
I don't want to talk for d-cat, but what I see happening with some people is this:
For a long time, we have been campaigning to get the attention from the public and from the politicians for global climate change. Some people started working on this more then twenty years ago.
We complained that the "mainstream" media did not cover this, or covered it as a controversy between two groups of scientists. All the time the urgency of lowering green house gas emissions became more and more a very pressing problem in the eyes of scientists and environmentalists.
Now the situation has changed dramatically and the government - especially here in California - and the media have started to give a lot of attention to the issue, causes, consequences, what can be done about it, how, where, when.
This attention in the press has gotten the attention of a new group of people who had not been following the problem. Some of these people are suspicious of "corporate," or "mainstream media," many have a libertarian or anarchists leaning.
They are rightly upset since the most obvious "solutions" to slow down or reverse global warming seem to be topdown and dictatorial. Successful action in this area seems to reduce freedom and individual choice.
So we need these people to come up with other solutions. Unfortunately many of them have chosen to deny human caused climate change or believe nothing can be done about in.
d-cat
12-01-2007, 05:23 PM
Braggi,
No personal aim - the title of the thread pretty much sums it up. I've come across this info and find it interesting. I've shared it with others and they found it interesting. So I put it up here. No one has to agree with it, or even look at it if they don't want to.
d-cat, what is your personal aim with this thread?
Why did you start it?
What behaviors would you like to see changed as a result of Waccobb members reading what you're posting here?
What do you stand to gain by us changing our behaviors in these ways?
Thanks,
-Jeff
Sonomamark
12-01-2007, 06:41 PM
Absolutely, Zeno. I remember presenting arguments on "greenhouse effect" when debating energy policy on my high school debate team, in (mumble, cough) 1978. There was pretty good science and there were credible voices sounding the alarm even then. I couldn't get anyone to buy the possibility and ended up dropping it as an approach to contending against fossil-fuel-dependent energy policy proposals by opposing teams because no one was willing to believe it was true.
It has taken nearly three decades for the mounting evidence finally to tip the scales. Does that mean that every last person is convinced? No, and it never will. But the kinds of people who aren't convinced are of the flat-earth, creationist, no-moon-landing school of critical thinking. They are the kinds of people who get some kind of psychological charge out of denying the "mainstream reality", whatever it might be.
They're a tiny, contrarian minority, and they are just wrong on the evidence. Listening to them endangers our very survival.
SM
I don't want to talk for d-cat, but what I see happening with some people is this:
For a long time, we have been campaigning to get the attention from the public and from the politicians for global climate change. Some people started working on this more then twenty years ago.
We complained that the "mainstream" media did not cover this, or covered it as a controversy between two groups of scientists. All the time the urgency of lowering green house gas emissions became more and more a very pressing problem in the eyes of scientists and environmentalists.
Willie Lumplump
12-01-2007, 11:29 PM
But the kinds of people who aren't convinced are of the flat-earth, creationist, no-moon-landing school of critical thinking. They are the kinds of people who get some kind of psychological charge out of denying the "mainstream reality", whatever it might be.SM
I think this is a good point. You find "denialists" in every field, and who knows what kinds of experiences go into the making of a denialist?
Zeno Swijtink
12-02-2007, 09:29 AM
I think this is a good point. You find "denialists" in every field, and who knows what kinds of experiences go into the making of a denialist?
Mark and Willie, I need to quote you here: "[Calling someone a denialist] is what is known as an ad hominem attack: an insult. Saying this makes no case for your position--it just insults the person you disagree with. It's fallacious and doesn't contribute to arrival at truth."
Sonomamark
12-02-2007, 10:56 AM
Zeno, I didn't use that word, but I don't think your critique applies to my post. Here's why:
An ad hominem attack is fallacious because it doesn't speak to the issue at hand--it replaces evidence and analysis with negative characterization of the progenitor of the competing position.
That isn't what I did. I started with "credible evidence" back in the 70's, went to "mounting evidence tipping the scales" except for a small, fringe population of disbelievers among climatologists, then drew some analogies to other positions similarly clung to by small minorities in the face of overwhelming evidence and, finally, made a conjecture about the reasons why someone who is intelligent and has access to good information clings to an indefensible position. While not exactly complimentary, that's not ad hominem--the argument I was making was about evidentiary standards and critical thinking.
SM
Mark and Willie, I need to quote you here: "[Calling someone a denialist] is what is known as an ad hominem attack: an insult. Saying this makes no case for your position--it just insults the person you disagree with. It's fallacious and doesn't contribute to arrival at truth."
Willie Lumplump
12-02-2007, 11:33 AM
Mark and Willie, I need to quote you here: "[Calling someone a denialist] is what is known as an ad hominem attack: an insult. Saying this makes no case for your position--it just insults the person you disagree with. It's fallacious and doesn't contribute to arrival at truth."
If a person weighs evidence differently from me, we can have an honest disagreement about how to interpret the evidence. But that can't happen if one side has all the evidence and the other side has none. Let's switch momentarily to another example: The evidence for the holocaust is incontrovertible. There are documents, film footage, many thousands of eyewitness accounts, confessions, court convictions, burial sites, architectural structures, and just about every other type of evidence that's possible. Nevertheless, there are people who deny all this and claim that the holocaust didn't happen. Such people are rightly called "denialists." They aren't necessarily "demons" or "Satan incarnate" or anything of the sort. They are simply called what they are--denialists. It's a useful concept.
When the entire world community of climatologists has adopted the opinion that global warming is a real phenomenon and that the chances that it is anthropogenic exceed 90%, laymen can attempt to understand as best they can how climatologists reached that conclusion (which ultimately is based on very sophisticated mathematical modeling that is far beyond the ability of a non-specialist to comprehend). But if a layman pops up and says, "Well, I don't believe it," and if he persists in this opinion even after he is informed of the facts, I'd say that that person qualifies as a denialist, and if he is a denialist, I see nothing wrong in saying so. Now, some would prefer to argue the case with the doubter and eschew the use of the word "denialist," and I have no problem with that. But, along with Mao, I say, "Let a thousand flowers bloom." And this blooming flower says "denialist."
Zeno Swijtink
12-02-2007, 02:26 PM
Zeno, I didn't use that word, but I don't think your critique applies to my post. Here's why:
An ad hominem attack is fallacious because it doesn't speak to the issue at hand--it replaces evidence and analysis with negative characterization of the progenitor of the competing position.
That isn't what I did. I started with "credible evidence" back in the 70's, went to "mounting evidence tipping the scales" except for a small, fringe population of disbelievers among climatologists, then drew some analogies to other positions similarly clung to by small minorities in the face of overwhelming evidence and, finally, made a conjecture about the reasons why someone who is intelligent and has access to good information clings to an indefensible position. While not exactly complimentary, that's not ad hominem--the argument I was making was about evidentiary standards and critical thinking.
SM
Right, you did not use the term "denialist" but wrote: "They are the kinds of people who get some kind of psychological charge out of denying the "mainstream reality", whatever it might be" which is a definition of "denialist," isn't it?
Quoting Wikipedia:
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject."
So, even though your posting made good points, you ended with an ad hominem argument I would say.
Zeno Swijtink
12-02-2007, 02:43 PM
If a person weighs evidence differently from me, we can have an honest disagreement about how to interpret the evidence. But that can't happen if one side has all the evidence and the other side has none. Let's switch momentarily to another example: The evidence for the holocaust is incontrovertible. There are documents, film footage, many thousands of eyewitness accounts, confessions, court convictions, burial sites, architectural structures, and just about every other type of evidence that's possible. Nevertheless, there are people who deny all this and claim that the holocaust didn't happen. Such people are rightly called "denialists." They aren't necessarily "demons" or "Satan incarnate" or anything of the sort. They are simply called what they are--denialists. It's a useful concept.
When the entire world community of climatologists has adopted the opinion that global warming is a real phenomenon and that the chances that it is anthropogenic exceed 90%, laymen can attempt to understand as best they can how climatologists reached that conclusion (which ultimately is based on very sophisticated mathematical modeling that is far beyond the ability of a non-specialist to comprehend). But if a layman pops up and says, "Well, I don't believe it," and if he persists in this opinion even after he is informed of the facts, I'd say that that person qualifies as a denialist, and if he is a denialist, I see nothing wrong in saying so. Now, some would prefer to argue the case with the doubter and eschew the use of the word "denialist," and I have no problem with that. But, along with Mao, I say, "Let a thousand flowers bloom." And this blooming flower says "denialist."
I am surprised you want to see thousand flowers bloom. I got the impression you were interested in stamping out some bad smelling ones!
What is you project to teach scientific and critical thinking to college students all about, I now wonder?
I may have lost a friend here!
Where you write: "one side has all the evidence and the other side has none" I see another possible lapse in CT.
In an issue that is as causally complex as the anthropogenic character of global climate change, to think that one side has all the evidence and the other side has none, is implausible.
Such issues are decided on the preponderance of evidence, which is, I agree with you, on the side of a very inconvenient truth.
Willie Lumplump
12-02-2007, 07:23 PM
In an issue that is as causally complex as the anthropogenic character of global climate change, to think that one side has all the evidence and the other side has none, is implausible.
Evidence on one side (i.e., the side of the world community of climatologists)supports the conclusion that the probability of an anthropogenic cause of global warming exceeds 90%. If someone wants to argue that the probability is less than 90%, let him publish his arguments in a reputable, refereed journal. But it's ludicrous for some layman to pop up and say "I think the probability is less than 90%."
Such issues are decided on the preponderance of evidence
Suppose that I show you a six-cylinder revolver with only one round in it. I then spin the cylinder, point the gun at you, and ask you to decide whether or not I should pull the trigger based on a preponderance of evidence. Will the single round be fired or not? What would be your reasoning process?
Zeno Swijtink
12-02-2007, 07:50 PM
Evidence on one side (i.e., the side of the world community of climatologists) supports the conclusion that the probability of an anthropogenic cause of global warming exceeds 90%. If someone wants to argue that the probability is less than 90%, let him publish his arguments in a reputable, refereed journal. But it's ludicrous for some layman to pop up and say "I think the probability is less than 90%."
You raise several issues: one whether lay people may question expert judgment. What do you think yourself?
Earlier you spoke of "all the evidence," as if you had in mind various pieces of evidence coming from different fields of investigation. Now you have aggregated the evidence just as "evidence on one side." Different conceptual model!!
What do you think is meant by "the probability is less than 90%?" Do you understand what that means?
Suppose that I show you a six-cylinder revolver with only one round in it. I then spin the cylinder, point the gun at you, and ask you to decide whether or not I should pull the trigger based on a preponderance of evidence. Will the single round be fired or not? What would be your reasoning process?
This problem is underdetermined. What's in this for me? As stated why would I bother with this gun? Are you dangerous? Reminds me of the serial killer in No Country for Old Men.
Willie Lumplump
12-03-2007, 08:06 PM
You raise several issues: one whether lay people may question expert judgment. What do you think yourself?
Your question seems too generalized. Laymen are entitled to question expert judgment in only three cases that I can think of: (1) When experts are speaking out of their field of expertise, (2) when they are speaking about a field that overlaps the body of knowlege held by educated laymen (history or politics would be examples), or (3) when the experts themselves are divided and laymen are called upon to side with one expert opinion or another.
Earlier you spoke of "all the evidence," as if you had in mind various pieces of evidence coming from different fields of investigation. Now you have aggregated the evidence just as "evidence on one side." Different conceptual model!!
First I said "po-tay-toe," and then I said "po-tah-toe."
What do you think is meant by "the probability is less than 90%?" Do you understand what that means?
An interesting question. Certainly it doesn't have a formal statistical meaning because there is only one earth to be considered, and the anthropogenicity of global warming is either true or not. So 90% must be merely a numerical expression of the subjective level of confidence that climatologists feel in their analysis.
This problem is underdetermined. What's in this for me? As stated why would I bother with this gun? Are you dangerous? Reminds me of the serial killer in No Country for Old Men.
My point was that most decisions are based not on a preponderance of evidence but on the notion of risk. A "preponderance" of evidence is a statement of probability. Risk has an additional component--the seriousness of the consequences.
Willie Lumplump
12-03-2007, 11:48 PM
What do you think is meant by "the probability is less than 90%?" Do you understand what that means?
I need to revise my opinion. The percentage figure probably isn't as subjective as I previously supposed. Climatological estimates are based largely on mathematical models, and whatever figure comes out of a model can be subjected to sensitivity analysis. I imagine that climatologists play around with the variables, assigning them different values, some values being more likely than others to correspond to reality. I suppose that if you do that enough times with enough of the variables you could end up with a range of output values to which you could legitimately assign probabilities. Something of this sort may be behind probability estimates such as "90% probability that global warming is anthropogenic." This is way out of my field, so I may be talking through my hat, but this is my best guess.
Lorrie
12-04-2007, 10:22 AM
Geeesh Willie!!
Where do you store it all? You really do use your brain for thinking!!!...
What did you do when you were younger like say 25-35 years old?
I am amazed and probably would be even more amazed if I were inside your brain seeing it working. Like a factory of answers!!
First you have the left and right sides, which to me both are fully functional, I am surprised you haven't developed any kind of 6th sense...
Thinking of your brain as a office building I can only imagine that you have at least 1000 offices maybe more with all the brain sparks. Think of it! Each office contains an answer to problems with the little sparks figuring it out rapidly... And then the questions... new one's coming in all the time. (Well will call those temps)
There are art offices, writing offices, big word offices, math offices (and sub offices) then there is the not so known fact offices... about 400 of those...and the complex problem offices...and the simple solution offices...the yes offices...the no offices...
Oh my gosh Willie, How big does your office grow?
With all the info in your brain, how do you fit more in?
Or everytime you answer a question...do you make more room in there?
:hmmm:
I need to revise my opinion. The percentage figure probably isn't as subjective as I previously supposed. Climatological estimates are based largely on mathematical models, and whatever figure comes out of a model can be subjected to sensitivity analysis. I imagine that climatologists play around with the variables, assigning them different values, some values being more likely than others to correspond to reality. I suppose that if you do that enough times with enough of the variables you could end up with a range of output values to which you could legitimately assign probabilities. Something of this sort may be behind probability estimates such as "90% probability that global warming is anthropogenic." This is way out of my field, so I may be talking through my hat, but this is my best guess.
Willie Lumplump
12-04-2007, 01:46 PM
With all the info in your brain, how do you fit more in?
Or everytime you answer a question...do you make more room in there?
:hmmm:
This is a serious question. I think the current opinion is that our brain kind of fills up, and every time we want to stuff something new in it something else has to go out the window to make more room. This sifting through old and new information and deciding which to retain goes on during sleep and probably is the primary purpose of sleep. As I age, I notice that more is going out than coming in. But not all my faculties are affected equally. Short-term memory of language, music, and events has taken a terrible beating, but long-term memory and analytical skills seem intact so far. I say, long-term memory and analytical skills seem intact so far. I mean, long-term memory and analytical skills seem intact so far.
lynn
12-06-2007, 01:29 AM
sonomamark:
But the kinds of people who aren't convinced are of the flat-earth, creationist, no-moon-landing school of critical thinking. They are the kinds of people who get some kind of psychological charge out of denying the "mainstream reality", whatever it might be.SM
willies response:
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->I think this is a good point. You find "denialists" in every field, and who knows what kinds of experiences go into the making of a denialist?
------
BS!...NOT a good point AT ALL!!...There are plenty of people doubting...'global-warming-is-man-made'...or, fence sitters...and they are NOT 'flat-earth', creationist types at all!!...Absolutely nothing of the sort!!...
Geez, I get sick of this stereotyping...So many of the 'global-warming-is-man-made' people in this county sure seem to be full of it!!...
OrchardDweller
12-06-2007, 11:12 AM
British Court Rules 'Inconvenient Truth' Represents 'Partisan Political Views,' Requires School Disclaimer
WASHINGTON (AP) — For the first time, more than 200 of the world's leading climate scientists, losing their patience, urged government leaders to take radical action to slow global warming because "there is no time to lose."
"It's a grave crisis, and we need to do something real fast," said petition signer Jeff Severinghaus, a geosciences professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif. "I think the stakes are way way too high to be playing around."
The unprecedented petition includes scientists from more than 25 countries and shows that "the climate science community is essentially fed up," said signer Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria in Canada. It includes many co-authors of the intergovernmental climate change panel reports, directors of major American and European climate science research institutions, a Nobel winner for atmospheric chemistry and a winner of a MacArthur "genius" award.
This is a press release from the Heartland Institute.
The Institute was a member organization of the Cooler Heads Coalition which questioned the impact of global warming and felt that climate control policies hurt consumers.
Not the first place I would look for an accurate rendition of this court case.
Reaclimate.ord ran an analysis of this courtcase and how it was portrayed in the media:
Last week, a UK High Court judge rejected a call to restrict the showing of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth (AIT) in British schools. The judge, Justice Burton found that "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate" (which accords with our original assessment). There has been a lot of comment and controversy over this decision because of the judges commentary on 9 alleged "errors" (note the quotation marks!) in the movie's description of the science. The judge referred to these as 'errors' in quotations precisely to emphasize that, while these were points that could be contested, it was not clear that they were actually errors (see Deltoid for more on that).
sonomamark:
But the kinds of people who aren't convinced are of the flat-earth, creationist, no-moon-landing school of critical thinking. They are the kinds of people who get some kind of psychological charge out of denying the "mainstream reality", whatever it might be.SM
willies response:
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->I think this is a good point. You find "denialists" in every field, and who knows what kinds of experiences go into the making of a denialist?
------
BS!...NOT a good point AT ALL!!...There are plenty of people doubting...'global-warming-is-man-made'...or, fence sitters...and they are NOT 'flat-earth', creationist types at all!!...Absolutely nothing of the sort!!...
Geez, I get sick of this stereotyping...So many of the 'global-warming-is-man-made' people in this county sure seem to be full of it!!...
I agree, stereotyping gets us nowhere. These are complicated and frightening matters and it's understandable that some reasonable people are sitting on the fence of are doubting.
Wish though that they all read more widely on this issue rather than just searching for articles that confirm their point of view. At least this is my impression. Correct me if I am wrong.
Zeno Swijtink
12-06-2007, 12:14 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) — For the first time, more than 200 of the world's leading climate scientists, losing their patience, urged government leaders to take radical action to slow global warming because "there is no time to lose." /snip/
According to this PD Editorial from today, Sonoma County Supervisor Paul Kelley is off to attend the global warming conference in Bali.
For years, Kelley, a Republican, has been doubting this problem, and was often the single vote against global climate change measures in front of the Board of Supervisors.
Kelley now says, "Global climate change is something that we all need to deal with. I've definitely shifted."
EDITORIALS
Bali quest
Why is a county supervisor headed for Indonesia tonight?
As a rule, local government officials have no business attending overseas conferences. Their time -- and taxpayer dollars -- are better spent locally. That brings us to the issue of Sonoma County Supervisor Paul Kelley, who is attending a global warming conference in Bali.
Kelley, who is flying to the conference tonight, was not always a believer in climate change. In an interview two years ago, he expressed strong doubts about the science behind global warming. But reports by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have convinced him. Kelley says, "Global climate change is something that we all need to deal with. I've definitely shifted."
Kelley's newfound conviction, coupled with the fact that he is one of the county's most prominent conservatives, could help change the minds of other climate-change skeptics. But that still leaves the question of whether it's worth public funds -- and the carbon emissions generated by his flight -- to attend a meeting halfway around the world. We wait to be convinced.
These aren't only questions for Kelley, but for many of the more than 10,000 people attending the conference, where delegates will negotiate a process to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The UN, which is hosting the event, estimates that 47,000 tons of greenhouse gas pollutants will be generated from the conference.
It might seem a contradiction for delegates to be contributing to a problem they are supposed to be solving, but by meeting face-to-face, they have an opportunity to share information and develop trust. Also, by meeting in Indonesia -- a low-lying country predicted to be severely impacted by rising oceans -- delegates get a clear picture of what's at stake unless nations act aggressively.
As to whether a Sonoma County elected official should attend, Kelley says local governments are "most able to implement the recommendations. We need to make sure they're practical and realistic."
So, junket or opportunity? Time and carbon emission measurements will be the ultimate judge, but at least Kelley has landed on the right side of the issue.
--
NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use," without permission of the copyright owner. For more information go to: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Willie Lumplump
12-06-2007, 12:24 PM
There are plenty of people doubting...'global-warming-is-man-made'...or, fence sitters...and they are NOT 'flat-earth', creationist types at all!!...Absolutely nothing of the sort!!...Geez, I get sick of this stereotyping...So many of the 'global-warming-is-man-made' people in this county sure seem to be full of it!!...
But who in this thread has claimed that all people who doubt the anthropogenicity of global warming are denialists? I haven't. Nor do I remember anybody else having said that. What I have said is that people who have been informed of the facts but still deny anthropogenicity are denialists. I'm sure that the vast majority of people who doubt anthropogenicity have not been informed of the facts. The oil corporations have launched a whole industry of denying global warming or minimizing its importance. They have set up entire institutes, staffed them with propagandists, and spent millions upon millions of dollars promoting lies. The media pick up on this because it's controversy, and controversy is what attracts audiences and sells advertising. And money, not truth or public service is the media's bottom line. Politicians have sold their souls to the oil corporations because they need that money to get re-elected. So the corporations and the media and the politicians have all entered into a dirty conspiracy against the interests of the American people--in fact, against the people of the entire world. Is it any wonder that so many people are confused? I think not.
The problem is even much worse that I've described, because, when you think about it, it's not inevitable that Americans swallow the lies they hear. During the time of the Soviet Union, Soviet citizens were well aware of the lies being told to them. Yet, generally speaking, Americans are not. Why is this? It's because almost from birth we are taught how not to think. Americans are in a kind of trance caused by the absence of a reasoning mind. That's the underlying reason for the fence-sitting by many, perhaps most, Americans. The facts are easily available. But to make use of them you have to recognize when you are being scammed, and you have to have some sense of the whole scientific enterprise, and you have to have intellectual skills so you can weigh evidence. Our schools carefully deprive students of the experience they need to learn to make responsible decisions. Think about it! The executive branch of our government recently deprived us of the right of habeus corpus, a right that has been the mainstay of democracy everywhere for 800 years. Congress made no objections. The American people made no objections. Why? Because we are all in a trance. Wake up! Wake up!
Willie Lumplump
12-06-2007, 01:41 PM
I agree, stereotyping gets us nowhere. Correct me if I am wrong.
I've placed two of your sentences together that you yourself didn't place together, but I like the juxtaposition.
To expose my views to the fullest scrutiny, I have to be open about what my views are. For example, in my dispute with Christine, I could have just done my best to educate her and let it go at that. Instead, I made statements that revealed, eventually even to my own eyes, that in a certain regard I was a bigot. Even worse, I had developed my bigotry from watching television. I probably would never have realized that if I hadn't made harsh judgments of Christine that she could respond to by taking me to task. By being fully honest and open I learned something about myself (with a little help from my friends). I could give a similar example of my interactions with Lorrie.
My primary goals here are to speak the truth as I see it and to consider people's reactions. In doing this, I'm sure that I'll learn something. If other people also learn something, that's icing on the cake, but I'm not counting on it.
Zeno Swijtink
12-06-2007, 01:56 PM
My primary goals here are to speak the truth as I see it and to consider people's reactions. In doing this, I'm sure that I'll learn something. If other people also learn something, that's icing on the cake, but I'm not counting on it.
Don't count us out, yet :):
d-cat
12-14-2007, 09:51 AM
Consensus?
The following is a list of scientists who are signatories to this open letter (https://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002) dated Dec. 13, 2007, to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, questioning conclusions of the IPCC report that are contradicted by recent major scientific studies (https://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908).
Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia
William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000
Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg
Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment journal
Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.
Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin
Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta
R.M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand
David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma
Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University
Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia
Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands
Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario
David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak,' Australia
William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame
Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia
R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa
Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey
Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany
Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay
Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden
Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand
William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project
Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut
Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia
Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona
Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA
Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis
Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia
Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia
Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia
David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand
Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007
William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology
Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands
Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands
The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.
Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary
David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand
William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.
Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors
Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia
Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia
Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany
John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand
Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.
Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph
John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia
Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand
Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University
Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University
Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia
Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden
Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia
David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University
Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia
Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia
R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University
Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota
Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan
Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences
Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force
R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.
Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway
Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA
S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service
L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario
Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville
Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden
Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC
Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia
Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia
Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany
Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia
Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia
A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy
Sonomamark
12-14-2007, 11:02 AM
Yes: consensus of the overwhelming majority of the most qualified climatologists and other studiers of the question of climate change. This list may look long, but you probably couldn't scroll through a similarly formatted list of all the scientists involved in the IPCC if you sat scrolling for two solid hours. Your list is a tiny, tiny minority. And if you removed those who are completely or partially funded or employed by energy industries, I'll bet your list loses 3/4 of its members.
"Intelligent design" advocates produce similar lists. They don't mean anything.
SM
Consensus?
Willie Lumplump
12-14-2007, 11:38 AM
Consensus?
I counted 99 names on your list. Since the list included only names and titles, in many cases one can't be sure of the exact fields of specialization. However, taking titles as an indication, I counted 1 social scientist, 9 economists, 13 engineers, 9 physicists, 4 biologists, 3 geographers, 12 geologists, 1 wildlife biologist, 3 mathematicians, 2 chemists, 1 combination, and 2 unstated. There were also two others in non-meteorology/climate fields whose specialties I didn't record. That adds up to 62 scientists who have no clear connection to meteorology or climatology, or 64% of the names on the list. That whittles the meaningful part of the list down to only 37 names. I echo SonomaMark in wondering how many of these 37 are either direct hirelings of the petroleum industry or grant recipients who have made their careers dependent on that industry.
d-cat
12-14-2007, 01:04 PM
I counted 99 names on your list. Since the list included only names and titles, in many cases one can't be sure of the exact fields of specialization. However, taking titles as an indication, I counted 1 social scientist, 9 economists, 13 engineers, 9 physicists, 4 biologists, 3 geographers, 12 geologists, 1 wildlife biologist, 3 mathematicians, 2 chemists, 1 combination, and 2 unstated. There were also two others in non-meteorology/climate fields whose specialties I didn't record. That adds up to 62 scientists who have no clear connection to meteorology or climatology, or 64% of the names on the list. That whittles the meaningful part of the list down to only 37 names.
Not sure why you're eliminating all these fields. I would think these fields are related to the issue of global warming. For example, man-made catastrophic global warming advocates state things like the polar bear population is declining, sea level is rising, etc. I would think opposing arguments would come from geographers, wildlife biologists etc.
I echo SonomaMark in wondering how many of these 37 are either direct hirelings of the petroleum industry or grant recipients who have made their careers dependent on that industry.
If you come across info that this is the case for these scientists, please share them here. Thanks.
Zeno Swijtink
12-14-2007, 02:11 PM
Not sure why you're eliminating all these fields. I would think these fields are related to the issue of global warming. For example, man-made catastrophic global warming advocates state things like the polar bear population is declining, sea level is rising, etc. I would think opposing arguments would come from geographers, wildlife biologists etc.
/snip/
Thanks for bringing to our attention this paper in the Int. J. Climatol. (2007), "A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions" by David Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson and S. Fred Singer.
It's certainly somewhat of a coup to see Fred Singer have a peer reviewed paper in this publication from the British Royal Meteorological Society!
I have had a look at this paper, and although the math and modeling are beyond me, it struck me that the claims in this paper (pointing to an apparent discrepancy between some data and the standard climate models) are much weaker than the rhetoric of the press release. Also it seems to me that the quotations from the different authors in the press release are contradicting each other, some agreeing that CO2 has added to extra forcing but that there are negative feedbacks such as increased cloud cover that make the total forcing small, others who are not agreeing to CO2 having added to extra forcing.
Online it still says that the paper is an advance, and has not appeared yet in print. For us lay people we need to see how this paper stands up to the scientific discussion it will attract, before we can do much with it.
As to why the opinions of not all of these scientists are that scientifically relevant:
The issue right now is not whether climate change is happening (all these authors agree with that) but whether it is mostly anthropogenic, is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions.
Polar bear population declining, sea level rising, all these things are effects of a warming world and would happen whether it was anthropogenic or not. So the studies of these scientist cannot form evidence one way or another.
The list of signees is interesting. I am not so much in favor of saying that these people are bought even though some of them receive grant money from the fossil fuel industry which compromises their authority. Freeman J. Dyson certainly does not receive such monies. He is well known Princeton physicist with a wide ranging interest who publishes also for the general public in such magazines as the New York Review of Books. He likes to take on unpopular positions, he supports the biotech industry and genetic modification, as well as nuclear disarmament. He does not believe that the climate models are good enough. His wikipedia entry gives lots of interesting links to follow.
Anyone who wishes to see the Int. J. Climatol. article please write me privately.
Willie Lumplump
12-14-2007, 07:14 PM
The following is a list of scientists who are signatories to this open letter (https://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002) dated Dec. 13, 2007, to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, questioning conclusions of the IPCC report.
The letter begins with the assertion that "it is not possible to stop climate change." But what is being claimed? That it is not possible to stop all climate change or that it is not possible to stop any climate change? The former claim would be too obvious to need stating, whereas the second seems very dubious and perhaps impossible to substantiate. A person who states that it is not possible to stop any climate change is saying that all attempts are doomed to failure, and how would anyone know that? Plans are being made to study the "fertilizing" the oceans with iron to stimulate the growth of phytoplankton which would absorb CO2 and then sequester it when their dead bodies settle down to the ocean bottom. Do the signatories of this letter know in advance that this wouldn't work?
The letter continues that "Recent observations of phenomena . . . are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of natural variability." But the hottest years on record have all come in the last decade, and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is now the highest it's been in about 420,000 years.
Freeman Dyson has a reputation as a great physicist, but he has notably squirrelly ideas about some things. For example, he accepts paranormal phenomena as fact, but not on the grounds of scientific evidence because there is no such evidence.
lynn
12-15-2007, 12:41 AM
Hey Zeno....
According to this PD Editorial from today, Sonoma County Supervisor Paul Kelley is off to attend the global warming conference in Bali.
I wish Kelley would stay there - permanently...He's an a-hole of a typical politician...
...Kelley's newfound conviction, coupled with the fact that he is one of the county's most prominent conservatives, could help change the minds of other climate-change skeptics. But that still leaves the question of whether it's worth public funds -- and the carbon emissions generated by his flight -- to attend a meeting halfway around the world. We wait to be convinced.
Waitin'?...I sure aint' waitin'...I think just-another-corrupt-politician Kelley got 'convinced' when he noticed he could take some junket's to ooooh, someplace like Bali maybe!...My goodness, how could he leave himself out of all the hoopla!!...
Goodness knows, he sure hasn't cared about draining more water out of the rivers around here - and still doesn't...and now he's concerned about rising oceans?...Yeah, right...geeez ya' think it could be free trips, and hobnobbing around?....
These aren't only questions for Kelley, but for many of the more than 10,000 people attending the conference, where delegates will negotiate a process to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The UN, which is hosting the event, estimates that 47,000 tons of greenhouse gas pollutants will be generated from the conference.
Oh yeah, I love that!...Creating TONS more greenhouse gas so they can sit around on their duffs yackin' about creating less greenhouse gas!!...And the local 'climate-protection' groups want little ol' workin' folks to drive less...Oh, puuuuullleeeeaase!!...
It might seem a contradiction for delegates to be contributing to a problem they are supposed to be solving, but by meeting face-to-face, they have an opportunity to share information and develop trust. Also, by meeting in Indonesia -- a low-lying country predicted to be severely impacted by rising oceans -- delegates get a clear picture of what's at stake unless nations act aggressively.
SEEM a contradiction?!...Ya' don't say!!...Oooooooh, I guess that video-conferencing lost it's lustre!....
And when the h*ll haven't 'low-lying' areas been 'severely' impacted by rising oceans?...That is, 'severly impacted' if it's an area pretty darn overpopulated, and we are around to experience it and define it that way...
So, I'm wondering...When the h*ll HASN'T the climate changed on this planet??...
Zeno Swijtink
12-15-2007, 06:31 AM
Hey Zeno....
According to this PD Editorial from today, Sonoma County Supervisor Paul Kelley is off to attend the global warming conference in Bali.
I wish Kelley would stay there - permanently...He's an a-hole of a typical politician...
One wouldn't wish this on the good people of Bali.
Braggi
12-15-2007, 07:58 AM
Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Willie Lumplump wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=44824#post44824)
I echo SonomaMark in wondering how many of these 37 are either direct hirelings of the petroleum industry or grant recipients who have made their careers dependent on that industry.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
If you come across info that this is the case for these scientists, please share them here. Thanks.
This has been a pattern ever since global warming appeared on the public's radar. Read up d-cat. You've been had.
Here's the latest from that liberal bastion, CNN Money: https://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news/companies/exxon_science/
-Jeff
"Mad" Miles
12-15-2007, 09:14 AM
We need a new term for this kind of awfulness, something like 'traitor to the planet' but expressed in a single word.
We English speakers don't, but Spanish speakers do, and it's a word that has migrated to political Left English.
"Comprador" i.e. someone bought and paid for by the powers that be to be their agent and mouthpiece, while lording it over the rest of us.
Literally "bought off".
And there's always Red Forman's, from "That Seventies Show", favorite.
"DUMBASS!"
Or quisling, hack, liar, tool, etc., etc., etc.,
"Mad" Miles
:burngrnbounce:
Willie Lumplump
12-15-2007, 11:30 AM
We English speakers don't, but Spanish speakers do, and it's a word that has migrated to political Left English."Comprador" i.e. someone bought and paid for by the powers that be to be their agent and mouthpiece, while lording it over the rest of us.
I've learned a new word today, and I'll add it to my working vocabulary.
Willie Lumplump
12-15-2007, 11:58 AM
And when the h*ll haven't 'low-lying' areas been 'severely' impacted by rising oceans
Because so far sea level is rising slowly, at the rate of about .07 inches per year. The reason for this slow rate is that most of the ice that's been melting has been floating in the Arctic Ocean, and when floating ice melts, it doesn't cause a rise in sea level.
So, I'm wondering...When the h*ll HASN'T the climate changed on this planet??...
The fact that climate has changed naturally in the past can't be taken as evidence that man is not the cause of the present change, and that's a matter of logic, not empirically determined fact.
saysni
12-16-2007, 11:52 AM
Isn't this all just a lot of sound and fury signifying...nothing? Aren't humans a part of this earth? In some admittedly deterministic way aren't we as a species acting out our own fate as prescribed from the moment we alighted here? Isn't this just our collective karma to be facing the knowledge that we have the power to anihilate the planet's environment for most living things in the relative blink of an eye? I do know this: From dust we came and to dust we do surely return. And, some say, all of this (earth) came from space dust. So that means we are all of "us" from somewhere else. We are intergalactic interlopers checked in but for a short time here at the Milky Way Hotel.
In this our "modern" culture all seems all about money: If it don't make a buck it won't fly. We manipulate the environment for better or worse, usually for worse, and deserve what we create. Skeptics, keep on being skeptical and call out the dominant paradigm. Believers, keep on believing and share with us your knowledge. The world will keep on turning, but who knows for how long? It could be only for 4 more minutes or the 4 billion years astronomy suggests.
No, nothing is certain, nothing is written. Except for the fact(?) that all roads lead to the death - as far as i can see - of these our bodies here on this physical plane, beyond that...? Perhaps we may one day "know".
Meanwhile, down here on the ground...Live and love as best you can. Take care of one another. Take care of yourself. Nothing really matters and what if it did?
Take it easy. And if you can't take it easy, take it as easy as you can.
[with apologies and thanks to Stevie Wonder, T.E. Lawrence, John Cougar, and a - name forgotten - KPFA radio host]
-s
Zeno Swijtink
12-16-2007, 12:58 PM
Isn't this all just a lot of sound and fury signifying...nothing? (...) In some admittedly deterministic way aren't we as a species acting out our own fate as prescribed from the moment we alighted here?
Maybe. But then, you writing your message and hitting the "Submit Reply" button: tell me, in doing so don't you express some hope on making a difference?
And doesn't that hope mean you're not completely sold on determinism?
Willie Lumplump
12-16-2007, 08:04 PM
Isn't this all just a lot of sound and fury signifying...nothing? Aren't humans a part of this earth? In some admittedly deterministic way aren't we as a species acting out our own fate as prescribed from the moment we alighted here?
This view is characteristic of some Eastern civilizations, and civilizations that hold this view are dangerous to the planet. The Japanese figure that since they are a part of nature, anything they do (like hunt whales to extinction) is natural, and nobody should complain about it. The Western view (setting aside for a moment the gross distortions of capitalism), is that nature belongs to man and therefore man is the steward of nature.
From dust we came and to dust we do surely return.Yes, in the long run we are all dead. And in any case, in another 500 million years the sun will begin to feel a shortage of its hydrogen fuel and become hot enough to make Earth uninhabitable. This is the dilemma of existentialism. The universe provides no meaning. If there is to be meaning, we ourselves must provide it.
"Take it easy. And if you can't take it easy, take it as easy as you can." [a - name forgotten - KPFA radio host]Jennifer Stone, in "A Stone's Throw."
Zeno Swijtink
12-16-2007, 08:41 PM
This view is characteristic of some Eastern civilizations, and civilizations that hold this view are dangerous to the planet. The Japanese figure that since they are a part of nature, anything they do (like hunt whales to extinction) is natural, and nobody should complain about it. The Western view (setting aside for a moment the gross distortions of capitalism), is that nature belongs to man and therefore man is the steward of nature.
This is a rather quick and dirty gloss of cultural differences. The Japanese Edo perios is sometimes held up as an example of sustainable living. Whereas capitalism is a Western invention, isn't it?
https://www.energybulletin.net/5140.html
While stewardship has been open to many takes: "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it."
The post by Willie and saysni both make the mistake of identifying Indian, Chinese and Japanese philosophies as inherently irrational.
A book by Frits Staal, Exploring Mysticism: A Methodological Essay (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975) that I had translated into Dutch when I was an undergraduate in philosophy at the University of Amsterdam in the 1970s shows how wrong that is. A precis of the ideas is at
the depth and breath of your life continues to astonish me.
many people become cynic or skeptic but most of all myopic,with all your knowledge but you remain youthful and inspiring!
This is a rather quick and dirty gloss of cultural differences. The Japanese Edo perios is sometimes held up as an example of sustainable living. Whereas capitalism is a Western invention, isn't it?
https://www.energybulletin.net/5140.html
While stewardship has been open to many takes: "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it."
The post by Willie and saysni both make the mistake of identifying Indian, Chinese and Japanese philosophies as inherently irrational.
A book by Frits Staal, Exploring Mysticism: A Methodological Essay (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975) that I had translated into Dutch when I was an undergraduate in philosophy at the University of Amsterdam in the 1970s shows how wrong that is. A precis of the ideas is at
Willie...
The fact that climate has changed naturally in the past can't be taken as evidence that man is not the cause of the present change, and that's a matter of logic, not empirically determined fact.
And I find the current 'logic' that humans can actually try and 'protect' climate from changing...rather insane...The climate - mother nature, is going to do her thing whether we like it or not...
As humans we can't even provide housing for the homeless, and give decent living conditions for 1 billion people on the planet...It's rather nutty that people have recently started to think they can stop the globe from 'warming' or 'cooling'...
Shooot...We are barely going to get cars that get 35 miles to the gallon here in the states...
And I bet in the Mid West right now, they wish there was a whole heck of a lot more 'warming' going on...
Willie Lumplump
12-17-2007, 11:24 AM
Willie...
The fact that climate has changed naturally in the past can't be taken as evidence that man is not the cause of the present change, and that's a matter of logic, not empirically determined fact.
And I find the current 'logic' that humans can actually try and 'protect' climate from changing...rather insane...The climate - mother nature, is going to do her thing whether we like it or not...
The complex motions of the earth that are responsible for long-term climatic cycles are going to continue, so the cycles themselves will probably continue (although not even that point is assured). However, the current climate change is not due to motions of the earth, it is due to man's pollution of the atmosphere. What is insane about believing that man can reduce his pollution? Should we take our failure to provide housing for the homeless as a sign that we should give up all attempts to avoid global disaster? If we don't avoid this disaster, the number of homeless people will grow by hundreds of millions.
And I bet in the Mid West right now, they wish there was a whole heck of a lot more 'warming' going on...The term "global warming" is a short, convenient phrase, but it is misleading if taken literally. What's going on is that more energy is being added to a hugely complex system of energy exchanges involving land, sea, and atmosphere. Some of these energy exchanges will result in local increases in temperature while others will result in local decreases in temperature. One fear is that melting ice in the Arctic Ocean will shut down the North Atlantic thermo-haline exchange belt that allows Europe to be warmed by the Gulf Stream. If that happens, Europe will be plunged into an ice age. And that ice age will be caused by what we refer to casually as "global warming."
Willie Lumplump
12-17-2007, 11:30 AM
This is a rather quick and dirty gloss of cultural differences. The Japanese Edo perios is sometimes held up as an example of sustainable living. Whereas capitalism is a Western invention, isn't it?
Evidently I need to go slower and cleaner. Thanks.
Willie Lumplump
12-17-2007, 11:32 AM
If you actually believed that, you'd have no need for a chimney for your fireplace.
Another jewel from the pen of Clancy.
Zeno Swijtink
12-17-2007, 05:05 PM
And I find the current 'logic' that humans can actually try and 'protect' climate from changing...rather insane...The climate - mother nature, is going to do her thing whether we like it or not...
As humans we can't even provide housing for the homeless, and give decent living conditions for 1 billion people on the planet...It's rather nutty that people have recently started to think they can stop the globe from 'warming' or 'cooling'...
Shooot...We are barely going to get cars that get 35 miles to the gallon here in the states...
I agree the issue is overwhelming. It touches everything - we are in "carbon lock-in" -, and it can only, if at all, be dealt with by the world working together.
Now, how likely is that? This is certainly a situation of Gramski's "Pessimism of the intellect, but Optimism of the will (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism)."
We don't want to fail for lack of trying to reduce our GHG emissions. It's just to right thing to do, and many paths towards solutions are there already.
My off-the-shelf car goes 60+ m/G. But that's just one tiny example. Look at these reports for the Sonoma County Water Agency that show how to save on both energy and water, the work of Ned Orrett and Peter Gleick referred to at
****
Total global human GHG Emissions 2004: 49.0 gigatons equivalent CO2 (CO2e, includes CO2, methane, N2O and HFC/PFC/SF6)
Sectoral Share of Total GHG
Transport = 13.1%
Agriculture = 13.5%
Forestry = 17.4% (includes deforestation)
Energy Supply, Industry, Buildings, Water/Wastewater = 59%
Direct Emissions Sources
56% of this is CO2 from fossil fuel use
17.3% is CO2 from deforestation/biomass decay
14.3% is methane (from agriculture/enteric fermentation/manure and fossil fuel use)
7.9% is N2O (mostly from agriculture/crop cultivation)
3.9% is F-gases and other CO2
From The IPCC in the AR4 Synthesis Summary for Policymakers
<https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf>https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
lynn
12-17-2007, 06:04 PM
Willie...I asked a science teacher how he would respond to this statement you had written earlier..."The fact that climate has changed naturally in the past can't be taken as evidence that man is not the cause of the present change, and that's a matter of logic, not empirically determined fact."
He wrote back...
"perhaps the statement should read...The fact that climate has changed naturally in the past can be taken as evidence that man is not the cause of the present change, and that's a matter of empirically determined fact, and not a matter of logic."
-------------------------
Clancy wrote...If you actually believed that, you'd have no need for a chimney for your fireplace.
I don't find that particular example convincing - in regards that as humans we can now dramatically change climate patterns on a global scale...
Zeno Swijtink
12-17-2007, 06:35 PM
Willie...I asked a science teacher how he would respond to this statement you had written earlier..."The fact that climate has changed naturally in the past can't be taken as evidence that man is not the cause of the present change, and that's a matter of logic, not empirically determined fact."
He wrote back...
"perhaps the statement should read...The fact that climate has changed naturally in the past can be taken as evidence that man is not the cause of the present change, and that's a matter of empirically determined fact, and not a matter of logic."
I can agree to some extend with this science teacher: If in the past some phenomenon has been caused by X it's prima facie evidence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie) that when it happens again it's caused by X.
It's a matter of logic though, broadly so, it's a logical principle, and there I depart from your science teacher. (Although it's a matter of empirically determined fact that the climate has gone thru many "natural" changes before there were humans.)
But it's not conclusive evidence, and the effect of total evidence can be turned around by other evidence. That's what is the case according to studies published in peer reviewed journals by climate scientists.
FWIW, I have a PhD in the foundations of statistical reasoning from Stanford University (1982). Please put him online if he wishes to discuss this further with us!
"Mad" Miles
12-17-2007, 06:42 PM
Zeno,
Great stats, but a spelling correction. It's Gramsci, not,
Gramski's "Pessimism of the intellect, but Optimism of the will (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism)."
I also like F.H. Bradley's, "Where everything is bad, it must be good to know the worst."
(As quoted by Theodor Adorno in Minima Moralia. I have it on my personal card. Note the irony of the most articulate articulator of Negative Dialectics, quoting the Father of English Positivism.)
I also like, "No matter where you go, there you are!"
All is Flux - Heraclitus (Can one get that on a vanity plate?)
Cheers All, Happy Holly Daze,
"Mad" Miles
:burngrnbounce:
P.S. See "Atonement"! You'll thank me!
Zeno Swijtink
12-17-2007, 06:55 PM
Clancy wrote...If you actually believed that, you'd have no need for a chimney for your fireplace.
I don't find that particular example convincing - in regards that as humans we can now dramatically change climate patterns on a global scale...
I agree it requires a shift in vision. We feel so small and insignificant in the face of a tornado, or swept away by floodwater. How can humans affect the climate?
It's a matter of cumulative impacts. The drops of water that can erode the hardest rock, given enough time and enough drops.
Subscribe to NASA Earth Observatory. "Once a week you will receive a short notice from the Earth Observatory telling you about the latest stories, data, and other points of interest that have been added to the site."
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/subscribe.php3
They published regularly pictures from space showing the evidence of human impact on the atmosphere!
Zeno Swijtink
12-17-2007, 07:14 PM
Zeno,
Great stats, but a spelling correction. It's Gramsci, not,
Gramski's "Pessimism of the intellect, but Optimism of the will (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism)."
I also like F.H. Bradley's, "Where everything is bad, it must be good to know the worst."
(As quoted by Theodor Adorno in Minima Moralia. I have it on my personal card. Note the irony of the most articulate articulator of Negative Dialectics, quoting the Father of English Positivism.)
I also like, "No matter where you go, there you are!"
All is Flux - Heraclitus (Can one get that on a vanity plate?)
Cheers All, Happy Holly Daze,
"Mad" Miles
:burngrnbounce:
P.S. See "Atonement"! You'll thank me!
You are right about Gramsci. I made him sound Russian. People sometimes misspell my name as Switnik, making me sound Polish.
I need to take exception however with you making Bradley the "Father of English Positivism". Bradley was an idealist metaphysician, a British Hegelian.
ALLSFLX is still available!!!! https://vrir.dmv.ca.gov/ipp/ippMain.jsp
lynn
12-17-2007, 07:35 PM
Zeno..."I can agree to some extend with this science teacher: If in the past some phenomenon has been caused by X it's prima facie evidence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie) that when it happens again it's caused by X.".....FWIW, I have a PhD in the foundations of statistical reasoning from Stanford University (1982). Please put him online if he wishes to discuss this further with us!"
Thanks Zeno for responding...I passed it along...I only 'know' the guy from another board...I don't know if he'll want to come on this one and 'debate'...we'll see...
FWIW, I have a PhD in the foundations of statistical reasoning from Stanford University (1982). Please put him online if he wishes to discuss this further with us!"
lynn
12-17-2007, 07:51 PM
Zeno...It's a matter of cumulative impacts. The drops of water that can erode the hardest rock, given enough time and enough drops.
Subscribe to NASA Earth Observatory. "Once a week you will receive a short notice from the Earth Observatory telling you about the latest stories, data, and other points of interest that have been added to the site."
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/subscribe.php3 (https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/subscribe.php3)
They published regularly pictures from space showing the evidence of human impact on the atmosphere!
Yes, Zeno...I understand that humans have quite an impact on lots of things...Obviously...But, I'm not convinced that we can do that much about climate change....
If we need to do something about pollution, overpopulation, overconsumption, deforestation, garbage, plastic pollution in the oceans...etc. etc...In other words...improving quality of life for humans and the rest of the natural world...Then let's do it...
Once we do those things...THEN we might see if that will have an affect on climate...
lynn
12-17-2007, 08:01 PM
Clancy...If you agree that we can dramatically change climate patterns then obviously we can choose not to do the things that are making the changes.
------
No, at this point in time...I do not agree that humans can dramatically change climate patterns...<!-- / message --><!-- Waccco: reduce Top Margin <div style="margin-top: 10px" align="right"> -->
"Mad" Miles
12-17-2007, 08:40 PM
"I need to take exception however with you making Bradley the "Father of English Positivism". Bradley was an idealist metaphysician, a British Hegelian."
I sit corrected. The "Father of English Positivism" is Adorno's reference. Too bad you can't argue the point with him, but he's dead.
"ALLSFLX is still available!!!! https://vrir.dmv.ca.gov/ipp/ippMain.jsp"
Good to know, thanks for the info. (per usual)
My brush with Positivism was as an undergraduate UCI Philosophy (and History) major. I could'nt reconcile to myself to a world composed solely of "facts".
It's been quite a while, so my recall is fuzzy.
I drifted into the swamps of Critical Theory/Frankfurt School and Post-Structuralism/Deconstruction. Crawled out in '87 when the repetition of the debates was no longer interesting to me, and no one was going to pay me to engage in them without a Ph.D.
Wisps of memory come drifting back...
I had to check the spine of my copy of Prison Notebooks to verify the spelling for Gramsci, but I knew yours wasn't correct.
Do you think while he was writing in prison that three or four generations later his legacy would be reduced to an aphorism? Albeit a great and useful one.
"To sleep, perchance to dream,"
"M"M
:burngrnbounce:
Willie Lumplump
12-17-2007, 08:43 PM
I can agree to some extend with this science teacher: If in the past some phenomenon has been caused by X it's prima facie evidence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie) that when it happens again it's caused by X.
Suppose that I step out in front of a car while crossing the street against a red light. Bam! I spend a month in the hospital. After leaving the hospital, I again cross a street against a red light. Bam! Another month in the hospital. The second time I leave the hospital, I'm careful to respect the signal lights. Bam! A car hits me and puts me back in the hospital for another month. I had three accidents. The cause of the first two was X (crossing a street against a red light). Therefore, according to the rules of inductive logic, the cause of my third accident was also X, and I can conclude that I am color blind and can't tell the difference between red and green. What's wrong here?
Your logic (prima facie evidence and so on) holds only so long as no new information becomes available that might change your conclusion. A vast amount of evidence points to man as the cause of the present global warming. Therefore it isn't reasonable to conclude that the natural factors that caused past global warmings are causing the present one, and the fact that there might have been a thousand previous natural warmings is irrelevant.
Willie Lumplump
12-17-2007, 08:46 PM
He wrote back...
"perhaps the statement should read...The fact that climate has changed naturally in the past can be taken as evidence that man is not the cause of the present change, and that's a matter of empirically determined fact, and not a matter of logic."
Funny guy.
Willie Lumplump
12-17-2007, 08:57 PM
I'm not convinced that we can do that much about climate change. Once we do those things [take care of overpopulation, overconsumption, etc.] THEN we might see if that will have an affect on climateA new study is underway to determine the feasibility of reducing atmospheric CO2 by fertilizing the oceans with iron. Iron is typically the factor limiting populations of planktonic organisms. Provide the iron and the plankton will bloom, absorbing vast amounts of CO2. After they deplete the iron supplies, they will die and sink to the bottom of the ocean, carrying with them the CO2 that they have incorporated into their bodies. Once on the ocean bottom, the CO2 will take hundreds of years to make its way back into the part of the carbon cycle that affects us. We might do a lot of things if we try, and the worse the crisis gets, the more incentive there will be to try. It would be nice if citizens would support those who try.
Zeno Swijtink
12-17-2007, 09:04 PM
Suppose that I step out in front of a car while crossing the street against a red light. Bam! I spend a month in the hospital. After leaving the hospital, I again cross a street against a red light. Bam! Another month in the hospital. The second time I leave the hospital, I'm careful to respect the signal lights. Bam! A car hits me and puts me back in the hospital for another month. I had three accidents. The cause of the first two was X (crossing a street against a red light). Therefore, according to the rules of inductive logic, the cause of my third accident was also X, and I can conclude that I am color blind and can't tell the difference between red and green. What's wrong here?
Your logic (prima facie evidence and so on) holds only so long as no new information becomes available that might change your conclusion. A vast amount of evidence points to man as the cause of the present global warming. Therefore it isn't reasonable to conclude that the natural factors that caused past global warmings are causing the present one, and the fact that there might have been a thousand previous natural warmings is irrelevant.
I don't disagree with you here as you can see by reading the details of my post. "Prima facie evidence" is a legal term imposing burden of proof, considering order in which evidence is considered, and such. See the reference I gave in the posting.
I added that detail to try to explain how differences of opinion between you and unnamed science teacher can be shown to be, at least partially, semantic.
Zeno Swijtink
12-17-2007, 09:16 PM
If we need to do something about pollution, overpopulation, overconsumption, deforestation, garbage, plastic pollution in the oceans...etc. etc...In other words...improving quality of life for humans and the rest of the natural world...Then let's do it...
Once we do those things...THEN we might see if that will have an affect on climate...
That's good enough for me. All the issues you mention affect our influence on the atmosphere and working on these is, for me, working on reducing our GHG emissions.
I am wary of climate engineering ideas, such as the one mentioned by Willie, seeding the oceans with iron dust. These are not something to rush into. See cutting below.
Ian Christie casts a weather eye over the promises of the technical fix brigade. Can it really ride to the rescue for the Earth's climate? Is this the end of the beginning, or the beginning of the end? A year after the expiry of Kyoto I in 2012, there's still deadlock on a successor agreement on cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Worse still, climate fatalism is setting in. The future that seems to be in store is so alarming that many people think it's now too late for changes in lifestyle, renewables and energy saving schemes to make any difference.
The time seems ripe for a big new idea - something to persuade us that we can actually achieve the kind of cuts in emissions that we so badly need. And, apparently seizing the time, along come the 'climate engineers', the technical fix brigade, the new breed of entrepreneurs and technologists who see great opportunities in the fact that we've let climate change grow from a threat to an emergency.
Which, to be blunt, is what the world did under Kyoto I. Cast your mind back over that initial agreement's 2008-2012 'commitment period'. That was the crunch time for the faltering first steps by signatories from the industrialised world to cut emissions, and for all of us to get wise to low-carbon technology, real energy efficiency, lifestyle changes and mechanisms like emission trading.
"Entrepreneurs and technologists see great opportunities in the fact that we've let climate change grow from a threat to an emergency."
There was some good news. Led by the UK and Germany, a core of EU countries took some determined, if patchy, action to show international leadership. And the latest figures show that half a dozen countries did actually meet their Kyoto obligations by the end of 2012. So take a bow, the British, the Germans, the Danes and other pioneers. But even in this select group no-one has yet dared to introduce annual carbon allowances for households - the very idea was shot down in flames in the EU - and the business lobbyists and populist media have strongly resisted both carbon taxes and tougher emissions trading schemes. Nor did all those industrialised countries who missed even their modest 2008-2012 Kyoto commitments set much of an example to inspire the rest of the world.
Not so splendid isolation Who could forget ex-prime minister Tony Blair, in that 2007 TV special on his 10 years in office, repeatedly coming back to his greatest regret - his key failure to persuade the then US President George W. Bush to make more than token gestures in tackling global warming? Six years on, there is still no sign of the US even joining the tortuous negotiations on a 'Son of Kyoto' treaty. True, many US cities and states have taken a lead and developed impressive climate policies of their own, regardless of the denial and indifference in Washington DC. But many more have yet to act seriously. The rise and rise of the fundamentalist 'religious Right' has focused political energies much more on cultural struggles than on the environment and energy, while yet more land in Alaska is opened up for drilling with each successive surge in world prices for oil and gas.
Finally, the big developing countries - crucial to the talks currently stagnating in Geneva - have become ever more energy-hungry and fossil fuel-intensive in the past decade. China, India, Brazil, Indonesia and the newly unified Republic of Korea are all still growing their economies as fast as they dare. Although renewable fuels, especially biomass, are increasingly important, these new industrial giants are just as badly carbon addicted as the West.
So it looks bad for Son of Kyoto. But surely, eventually, the mounting evidence of severe climate disruption must add a proper sense of urgency? We've had three sudden surges in the last decade in the increase of carbon dioxide parts per million in the atmosphere. We're now up to 397 ppm, and well on course for 450 by 2030: it's uncharted territory for civilisation and our environment. Hurricanes have devastated the Caribbean every year since 2004, the extreme thinning of Arctic ice is changing the polar ecosystem irreversibly, much of Bangladesh has been submerged - and so it goes on. It can't go on.
But leading NGOs and climate scientists have been issuing the same warnings and drawing the same conclusions from weather disasters and computer models for a long time now. Familiarity has bred indifference, except when people are jolted by a new disaster or spell of 'weird weather'. Even the weirdness becomes more 'normal' each year! In the savagely competitive media market, getting attention for 'the environment' is harder than ever - except when exciting disasters hit, like last year's Great Storm which flattened forests all across northern Germany, or the annual battering of Florida by hurricanes (and ensuing patch-up operations, with generous funding from ex-governor President Jeb Bush).
Enter the new climate engineers. Last month they made headlines with their first global conference - also held in Geneva, as a pointed contrast with Kyoto II. The Climate Technology Coalition (CTC) had arrived in town, and media interest was huge.
Big Bucks for quick fixes So what's the sales pitch for the CTC? Simple: it is now too late for renewables, energy conservation and long-term shifts in values and lifestyles to allow us to stabilise the climate. And since we have a climate emergency on our hands, only urgent technical fixes can help us now. Luckily, these will generate enormous wealth and innovation all around the world and allow us all to live the affluent industrial lifestyle while stabilising the climate, buying time for longer-term solutions, and helping us cope with the effects of the warming that is inevitable.
"The climate engineers have a strong strapline: International Rescue - new technology for a safe climate."
And just what is being proposed? The CTC has a strong brand and strapline: 'International Rescue - new technology for a safe climate'. It's a broad church, full of corporations, business alliances and technologists who once thought they'd fallen foul of public opinion forever, or were too far-out to be taken seriously. The nuclear industry, for instance, began to rebrand itself and rehabilitate its image politically as long ago as 2004, presenting nuclear as a key part of any low-carbon energy strategy. Since then, the GM crops business has seen a similar opportunity for rebranding. And the so-called 'exotic technologies', such as orbital sunlight deflectors and 'virtual ice' reflectors, have grown in appeal for powerful lobbies who don't like global warming but don't want to see global business-as-usual have to make too many concessions to environmentalists.
Will the 'rescue technologies' prevail? Predictably, perhaps, the reaction from environmental NGOS and the sustainability world has been largely scathing.
Madness or marketing? The CTC has a rival, the Climate Action Now! (CAN) coalition, set up by Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and pro-renewables businesses to lobby for strong action post-2012. CAN argues that CTC is run by many of the very interests that have resisted early action on climate change, and who are now shamelessly pushing for technical fixes on the grounds that action has not been radical enough to avoid a climate emergency. "CTC is a bunch of corporate lobbies and wild-eyed R&D people from the US military-industrial complex," says Al Moore, the spokesman of the US's own CAN network. "We should know by now that every technical fix creates a whole load of unintended consequences. In this case the technical fixes could finally wreck the climate, not stabilise it."
But there is far from a united front against CTC, despite the scorn it has attracted for posing as a modern-day version of International Rescue, as in the old Thunderbirds TV show. While the idea of global climate engineering seems mad to many, there are plenty of committed environmentalists and sustainability advocates who share the diagnosis that climate change is now too serious and rapid for us to be able to rely on first-choice solutions like renewables, which are going to take decades to replace fossil fuels. They are beginning to wonder aloud if CTC might have some ideas worth taking seriously - as temporary answers that can buy us time while we build a truly sustainable infrastructure and economy.
This looks like the beginning of a cultural divide and political split among those who have been campaigning for decades for action on climate change. And while their ranks are at risk of being divided, the CTC is looking confident and united. "They only look green," warns Moore. "They just want business as usual, and the threat to the planet is, for them, just a new marketing opportunity." Maybe so; but the new climate engineers are on the march. Watch out for them - they sense that their time has come, and they think they hold the keys to the future.
Freelance sustainable developer Ian Christie, previously deputy director of the think-tank Demos and joint head of sustainability at Surrey County Council, now runs a zero-emission B&B and convenes the Greying Greens Network of environmentalists aged 55-plus.
mykil
12-17-2007, 09:32 PM
How come you guyz aren’t out there cloud seeding???
Zeno Swijtink
12-17-2007, 09:51 PM
How come you guyz aren’t out there cloud seeding???
It's done (by Willie's guys :wink: )
Cloud seeding to fight global warming approved for Australian ski region
https://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=30736
Lorrie
12-18-2007, 10:06 AM
NASA Science News for December 18, 2007
A powerful jet from a supermassive black hole is blasting a nearby galaxy and possibly causing profound problems for planets in the jet's path.
FULL STORY at https://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/18dec_assault.htm?list88053 (https://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/18dec_assault.htm?list88053)
How come you guyz aren’t out there cloud seeding???
lynn
12-18-2007, 11:45 AM
Zeno..."That's good enough for me. All the issues you mention affect our influence on the atmosphere and working on these is, for me, working on reducing our GHG emissions."
I've watched the quality of my life go downhill the last several yrs....Why? bottom line is overpopulation, which drives overdevelopment..And we do not have the water to keep supporting more people coming in...I'm p*ssed and frustrated because people are not focusing on one of these basic bottom line issues that reduces quality of life (if you care about biodiversity of the planet) - overpopulation...Instead, too many people are gettin' their heads stuck up in the clouds yackin' about the weather changes...
No matter how I look at it...Weather changes and disasters are going to happen whether we like it or not, and we do not have much control over that...But, we can make decisions about how we live here on the earth, and how we create life for ourselves here...
Ian Christie casts a weather eye over the promises of the technical fix brigade.
I'm very sick of the techno-fixy types myself...Maybe the 'fixes' sometimes work...But, we humans seem to operate on the assumption that we know what the heck we are doing - when more often than not we are in a state of ignorance about what the h*ll we are doing, and what the outcome of our 'fixes' are going to be...And I feel like screaming every time I have to hear some stupid conversation someone is having on their cell phone while in public, and watching more and more rude drivers on the road...The more 'techy' our culture gets...the more self-centered, selfish, 'garbagey', and fat it seems to become....
------
Willie...We might do a lot of things if we try, and the worse the crisis gets, the more incentive there will be to try. It would be nice if citizens would support those who try.
There are always going to be 'crisis' to deal with...and we cannot stop disasters from happening due to climate - we can only help people to prepare for them...I still think that those who keep focusing on trying to 'protect' climate are 'pissin' in the wind'...
saysni
12-18-2007, 02:38 PM
Maybe. But then, you writing your message and hitting the "Submit Reply" button: tell me, in doing so don't you express some hope on making a difference?
And doesn't that hope mean you're not completely sold on determinism?
I frankly don't hold out much hope whatsoever for humanity to change the course we are on, leading to some manner of imminent global 'catastrophe', whether we induce it first or induce 'nature' to do the deed for us. All of our manipulation of the 'environment' i see as a natural progression of the species and our supposed highly advanced brains. As an amerikan my carbon footprint is HUGE no matter what lengths i go to minimize my impact, and i like to think i go to great lengths relative to some statistical 'norm'. My life experience has brought me to a place where i do what i can to the extent i am able, and i try to savor and appreciate each moment as best i can for what it is.
I like to think i'm not completely sold on ANYTHING, save for the idea that someone needs to quietly and quickly take George Bush AND Dick Cheney out back and put bullets in their brains asap. NSA/CIA/FBI are you there? Copy that? Over.
Melodymama
12-19-2007, 09:16 AM
saysmi said I frankly don't hold out much hope whatsoever
I think it is unfortunate that some have lost hope as I consider it to be an essential part of moving forward with a positive attitude. That is essential for us to think that we are doing some good to undo the harm that we have done to the planet. It is how we feel any sense of responsibility for our future and that of our progeny. If we see the techies as full of bologna, we are saying that science cannot figure a way out of this mess, and I am confident science will find many solutions. And meanwhile...yes I...
do what i can to the extent i am able, and i try to savor and appreciate each moment as best i can for what it is.
And the wonder of what each moment holds is in the beauty of what is around us and the people we touch and who touch us (no, Mykil, not necessarily sexually.) The continuing debating with each other and with the pundits or techies or whomever is educational, but is mostly misunderstanding the context and semantics. It is also keeping to the negative bent. I believe that negativity is detrimental to our psyche, to our environment and to the potential positive action we can take. Is this just an intellectual exercise or are we really ready to do as much as we can as we are enlightened on the ways in which we can effect change? When so much is going wrong, I can only look to myself to change what I can and I can hope other well intentioned humans do the same. And there is so much that is wonderful each day that I want to be alert enough to see and appreciate.
Thanks for reading, and do not correct my spelling or syntax. It is what it is. Laura:meditate::meditate::meditate::meditate::meditate:
handy
12-19-2007, 11:13 AM
from today's Washington Times
Year of global cooling
By David Deming
December 19, 2007
Al Gore says global warming is a planetary emergency. It is difficult to see how this can be so when record low temperatures are being set all over the world. In 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards.
Since the mid-19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn't increased significantly for nearly nine years. Antarctica is getting colder. Neither the intensity nor the frequency of hurricanes has increased. The 2007 season was the third-quietest since 1966. In 2006 not a single hurricane made landfall in the U.S.
South America this year experienced one of its coldest winters in decades. In Buenos Aires, snow fell for the first time since the year 1918. Dozens of homeless people died from exposure. In Peru, 200 people died from the cold and thousands more became infected with respiratory diseases. Crops failed, livestock perished, and the Peruvian government declared a state of emergency.
Unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007. Johannesburg, South Africa, had the first significant snowfall in 26 years. Australia experienced the coldest June ever. In northeastern Australia, the city of Townsville underwent the longest period of continuously cold weather since 1941. In New Zealand, the weather turned so cold that vineyards were endangered.
Last January, $1.42 billion worth of California produce was lost to a devastating five-day freeze. Thousands of agricultural employees were thrown out of work. At the supermarket, citrus prices soared. In the wake of the freeze, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked President Bush to issue a disaster declaration for affected counties. A few months earlier, Mr. Schwarzenegger had enthusiastically signed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, a law designed to cool the climate. California Sen. Barbara Boxer continues to push for similar legislation in the U.S. Senate.
In April, a killing freeze destroyed 95 percent of South Carolina's peach crop, and 90 percent of North Carolina's apple harvest. At Charlotte, N.C., a record low temperature of 21 degrees Fahrenheit on April 8 was the coldest ever recorded for April, breaking a record set in 1923. On June 8, Denver recorded a new low of 31 degrees Fahrenheit. Denver's temperature records extend back to 1872.
Recent weeks have seen the return of unusually cold conditions to the Northern Hemisphere. On Dec. 7, St. Cloud, Minn., set a new record low of minus 15 degrees Fahrenheit. On the same date, record low temperatures were also recorded in Pennsylvania and Ohio.
Extreme cold weather is occurring worldwide. On Dec. 4, in Seoul, Korea, the temperature was a record minus 5 degrees Celsius. Nov. 24, in Meacham, Ore., the minimum temperature was 12 degrees Fahrenheit colder than the previous record low set in 1952. The Canadian government warns that this winter is likely to be the coldest in 15 years.
Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri are just emerging from a destructive ice storm that left at least 36 people dead and a million without electric power. People worldwide are being reminded of what used to be common sense: Cold temperatures are inimical to human welfare and warm weather is beneficial. Left in the dark and cold, Oklahomans rushed out to buy electric generators powered by gasoline, not solar cells. No one seemed particularly concerned about the welfare of polar bears, penguins or walruses. Fossil fuels don't seem so awful when you're in the cold and dark.
If you think any of the preceding facts can falsify global warming, you're hopelessly naive. Nothing creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer. In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained “global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.” In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can't make this stuff up.
Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Deming is a geophysicist, an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis, and associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma.
Zeno Swijtink
12-19-2007, 03:38 PM
from today's Washington Times
Year of global cooling
By David Deming
December 19, 2007
Al Gore says global warming is a planetary emergency. It is difficult to see how this can be so when record low temperatures are being set all over the world. In 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards.
/snip/
David Deming is a geophysicist, an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis, and associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma.
It's hard to believe that such nonsense can be published even in the Washington Times (not to be confused withe the Washington Post). The Washington Times is owned and operated by News World Communications, Inc., the media arm of Reverend Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church.
David Deming confuses weather with climate, just as some people do when they blame every hurricane on global climate change.
Global climate change is an issue of trends, changing averages, changing variations, changing patterns of maxima and minima. It is called Global Warming since the world average temperature is showing an upward trend.
https://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
This image shows the instrumental record of global average temperatures as compiled by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and the Hadley Centre of the UK Meteorological Office.
It does not mean that we cannot have severe cold spells in various parts of the world.
With data through November, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has determined that 2007 will likely be Earth's second-warmest year on record. The strongest warming signal occurred in the Arctic, where temperatures were more than 3°C above the 1951-1980 mean. And the planet's global mean temperature was 0.6°C above the average, despite this year's low solar radiance and strong La Niña phenomena, which both tend to lower Earth's temperature. "Given that both of these natural effects were in their cool phases in 2007, it makes the unusual warmth this year all the more notable," says an analysis GISS provided Science. The six warmest years in Goddard's 128-year record occurred in the past decade, with 2005 leading the list.
Willie Lumplump
12-19-2007, 05:12 PM
In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained “global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.” In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can't make this stuff up. Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.
I've said it before, but I'll say it again: Local cooling is not inconsistent with global warming. The term "global warming" is only a short-hand way of referring to a complex system of enegy exchanges. An increasing amount of energy is being pumped into a system of energy exchanges involving land, sea, and atmosphere. Not every point on the earth's surface will respond to the exchanges by warming to the same degree, and some points will actually get colder. If global warming melts Arctic ice rapidly enough to shut down the North Atlantic thermohaline conveyor belt that moderates Europe's climate, Europe will enter another ice age. Ice will form because of so-called "global" warming. Your problem is semantic. You've taken what is meant to be a convenient, short-hand descriptive term and interpreted it literally. Your literalness makes it easy for you to find contradictions that you characterize as ridiculous. If you stop being literal, the contradictions will disappear.
Willie Lumplump
12-19-2007, 05:21 PM
I like to think i'm not completely sold on ANYTHING, save for the idea that someone needs to quietly and quickly take George Bush AND Dick Cheney out back and put bullets in their brains asap. NSA/CIA/FBI are you there? Copy that? Over.
Ummmm. . . as much as I agree with your sentiments, more indirect expressions might save you a lot of trouble. The fascist thought-police are automated, and one never knows when they are listening. You may go into somebody's files and then, some years later, simply disappear into Kazahkstan never to be seen again.
lynn
12-20-2007, 03:47 AM
Clancy...You continue to contradict yourself. If, as you said in an earlier post, we are altering the climate to our detriment by our own actions, obviously we can stop doing more harm.
No, I never said we are altering the climate...I'm going to assume it's a possiblity that we might have some affect on it...but, the sun along with all kinds of other factors seem to have much more powerful influences on climate than humans currently do...So, I don't believe we are altering it to the extent that we can 'protect' it from changing, or stop some massive global climate catastrophes...
----------------------
saysni...I like to think i'm not completely sold on ANYTHING, save for the idea that someone needs to quietly and quickly take George Bush AND Dick Cheney out back and put -------------------------------------.NSA/CIA/FBI are you there? Copy that? Over.
Uh, oh...You are egging the FBI, NSA on...You are freakin' nuts!...
I suggest you get a hold of yourself and delete immediately!!...