![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dan" wrote: Is this ecologically unsound? I know it's been a few hundred posts back, but I am far from arguing for unmitigated plowing of the ecosystem. What I have been arguing is that the incessant over-the-top predictions of calamity are not proven or assumed by --their own experts --, and that much of the hysteria is driven by politicians and other hucksters who see opportunity ripe for a power grab. Jeez; I got no quarrel with that. Anyone who makes up his mind on this subject solely by listening to Al Gore or James Inhofe is just being lazy--or partisan to the point of debility. My beef is against the campaign of disinformation that is trying to make it all go away by shooting the messenger: science. Consider one of the charges one hears repeated over and over, "The scientists can't be believed; they're all lying to get paid." What becomes of our culture if this idea becomes conventional wisdom? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mar 11, 2:03 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
Anyone who makes up his mind on this subject solely by listening to Al Gore or James Inhofe is just being lazy--or partisan to the point of debility. My beef is against the campaign of disinformation that is trying to make it all go away by shooting the messenger: science. Consider one of the charges one hears repeated over and over, "The scientists can't be believed; they're all lying to get paid." What becomes of our culture if this idea becomes conventional wisdom? In all fairness -- plenty of "scientists" have been paid to lie or support some position. This is no revelation. Case in point -- Jarvik. Anyone who saw those ads and knew anything about him knew they were intentionally misleading. We are bombarded by "scientists" proclaiming all sorts of nonsense. The anti-nuke crowd in the '80s was the genesis of this phenomenon -- groups of "scientists" speaking on things they weren't necessarily qualified to pontificate upon. Yet they did, ad naseum. [Background: The "issue" in the 80s was US deployment of new technology arms, not whether nuclear weapons were harmful if used. The "scientists" demanded that the US unilaterally disarm, assuming that the Soviets would follow suit. This only reinforced the perception of "scientist's" naivety, further reducing their potential for swaying the internal debate] Whenever we hear about GW, the proponents always quote their pod or batch or covey of scientists, when further study find the majority are specialists in something far removed from macro- and paleo- climatology. And you wonder why our "culture" is wary of "scientific pronouncements"? And as far as "campaign of disinformation," it seems to me the NY Times, Time, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, et al all comporting with the Gore view is hardly wilting under a "campaign of disinformation." Dan |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dan" wrote: And as far as "campaign of disinformation," it seems to me the NY Times, Time, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, et al all comporting with the Gore view is hardly wilting under a "campaign of disinformation." Here's the difference between the various bloggers, media talkers and think tanks attempting to debunk AGW, and the National Academy of Sciences, for instance. The former tell lies; repeating them even when they must *know* they are lies. They are good at it, slippery and hard to pin down; masters of the half truth and the cherry-picked fact, but liars nonetheless. So far, no one has shown me that the NAS or NOAA or the USGS is lying about AGW. This is not something new. Some of these same liars were in the service of the tobacco companies, using the same tactics. Some of them also use the same tricks trying to debunk evolution, calling it a "religion" to get creationism equal time in public school science classes. See Worldnet Daily or the Eagle Forum for plenty of examples of the overlap. They are successful as long as the NY Times, Time, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox, et al. continue to give them time. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mar 11, 4:31 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Dan" wrote: And as far as "campaign of disinformation," it seems to me the NY Times, Time, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, et al all comporting with the Gore view is hardly wilting under a "campaign of disinformation." Here's the difference between the various bloggers, media talkers and think tanks attempting to debunk AGW, and the National Academy of Sciences, for instance. The former tell lies; repeating them even when they must *know* they are lies. They are good at it, slippery and hard to pin down; masters of the half truth and the cherry-picked fact, but liars nonetheless. So far, no one has shown me that the NAS or NOAA or the USGS is lying about AGW. This is not something new. Some of these same liars were in the service of the tobacco companies, using the same tactics. Some of them also use the same tricks trying to debunk evolution, calling it a "religion" to get creationism equal time in public school science classes. See Worldnet Daily or the Eagle Forum for plenty of examples of the overlap. They are successful as long as the NY Times, Time, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox, et al. continue to give them time. I don't pretend to speak for bloggers and media types -- simply counting them would be exhausting. However, disagreeing with the conclusions of however august a body of eminences does not make one a liar (see wikipedia entry under "Galileo" -- the "authorities of the time had some pretty compelling evidence that the sun revolved around the earth -- a repeatedly observed phenomenon). There has been and continues to be evidence that compels the aforementioned groups to *qualify* their statements. And getting back to the original point -- there is a long, long stretch between observing and even accepting data that suggests some human induced forcing of atmospheric phenomenon and concluding therefore that disaster is upon us. Dan |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dan" wrote: And getting back to the original point -- there is a long, long stretch between observing and even accepting data that suggests some human induced forcing of atmospheric phenomenon and concluding therefore that disaster is upon us. Thus the wider the bands of uncertainty grow the farther out the models go. But here's what we know: CO2 is the primary persistent greenhouse gas. CO2 makes the planet warmer. If it didn't, the place would be frozen. There's 35% more of it now than at any time in the last 800 thousand years or more. Humans put that extra 35% in the atmosphere in the last 200 years. That is a geological instant. A lot of the effects, especially methane feedbacks, may not even have begun yet. Meanwhile, we are adding more GHGs all the time. Party on dudes! A warmer climate will shrivel glaciers, melt sea ice, magnify drought and flood events, raise sea levels, alter habitats and move agricultural zones. How much? Nobody knows for sure, but we have a pretty good idea what the planet was like the last time it was 3C or 6C hotter than it is now. How lucky do we feel? Lucky enough to just muddle ahead and wait to see what happens? I don't think we should. The only home we've got is getting run down and used up. We need to think about taking better care of it. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mar 11, 5:55 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Dan" wrote: And getting back to the original point -- there is a long, long stretch between observing and even accepting data that suggests some human induced forcing of atmospheric phenomenon and concluding therefore that disaster is upon us. Thus the wider the bands of uncertainty grow the farther out the models go. But here's what we know: CO2 is the primary persistent greenhouse gas. CO2 makes the planet warmer. If it didn't, the place would be frozen. There's 35% more of it now than at any time in the last 800 thousand years or more. Humans put that extra 35% in the atmosphere in the last 200 years. That is a geological instant. A lot of the effects, especially methane feedbacks, may not even have begun yet. Meanwhile, we are adding more GHGs all the time. Party on dudes! A warmer climate will shrivel glaciers, melt sea ice, magnify drought and flood events, raise sea levels, alter habitats and move agricultural zones. How much? Nobody knows for sure, but we have a pretty good idea what the planet was like the last time it was 3C or 6C hotter than it is now. How lucky do we feel? Lucky enough to just muddle ahead and wait to see what happens? I don't think we should. The only home we've got is getting run down and used up. We need to think about taking better care of it. The jury's out on the cause-effect relationship. We see a correlation -- that does not necessarily imply causation, and the IPCC waffles on this point as well. So the first Big Question is -- is CO2 increase anthropogenic? The resounding IPCC answer -- maybe. Nevertheless, for argument's sake, IF we accept the hypothesis that the earth is warming at a steady rate that will result in measurable change to global and regional climates, there is no model that adequately predicts the impact of these changes, long or short term. They may in fact be benign or even salutary. Thee time span for all these cataclysmic results is also in great doubt -- 100 - 400 - 1,00 years? Hardly a hurdle for humans, given our remarkable ability to adapt. As an aside: It's amazing how much more coherent and convincing your arguments appear when you're not sniping. I'm not signing up for the cause, just making an observation. Dan |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The jury's out on the cause-effect relationship. We see a correlation
-- that does not necessarily imply causation, and the IPCC waffles on this point as well. the jury is unlikely to be in until its too late to alter results as usual a decision must be made on incomplete information so instead of preceding in certainity we precede on estimated risks one estimated risks is the water supply of the western united states depends on mountain snow packs persisting into summer (yes we really do have snow in the mountains into june and even july) global warming will likely melt the snow early invalidating the assumptions underlying water management so that the western united states will likely need a completely overhaul of the entire system and water allocation which will be very expensive perhaps bringing economic ruin to farmers and fishers which will be very expensive given the expected costs of doing nothing what is the cost of doing something and preventing this? arf meow arf - i dont like squishy i think i hit a wookie on the expressway nobody could do that much decoupage without calling on the powers of darkness |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dan" wrote: The jury's out on the cause-effect relationship. We see a correlation -- that does not necessarily imply causation, and the IPCC waffles on this point as well. You can call it waffling if you like. I call it caution. So the first Big Question is -- is CO2 increase anthropogenic? The resounding IPCC answer -- maybe. They sound pretty sure, to me: ========================= The increase in CO2 mixing ratios continues to yield the largest sustained RF of any forcing agent. The RF of CO2 is a function of the change in CO2 in the atmosphere over the time period under consideration. Hence, a key question is 'How is the CO2 released from fossil fuel combustion, cement production and land cover change distributed amongst the atmosphere, oceans and terrestrial biosphere?'. This partitioning has been investigated using a variety of techniques. Among the most powerful of these are measurements of the carbon isotopes in CO2 as well as high-precision measurements of atmospheric oxygen (O2) content. The carbon contained in CO2 has two naturally occurring stable isotopes denoted 12C and 13C. The first of these, 12C, is the most abundant isotope at about 99%, followed by 13C at about 1%. Emissions of CO2 from coal, gas and oil combustion and land clearing have 13C/12C isotopic ratios that are less than those in atmospheric CO2, and each carries a signature related to its source. Thus, as shown in Prentice et al. (2001), when CO2 from fossil fuel combustion enters the atmosphere, the 13C/12C isotopic ratio in atmospheric CO2 decreases at a predictable rate consistent with emissions of CO2 from fossil origin. Note that changes in the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2 are also caused by other sources and sinks, but the changing isotopic signal due to CO2 from fossil fuel combustion can be resolved from the other components (Francey et al., 1995). These changes can easily be measured using modern isotope ratio mass spectrometry, which has the capability of measuring 13C/12C in atmospheric CO2 to better than 1 part in 105 (Ferretti et al., 2000). Data presented in Figure 2.3 for the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa show a decreasing ratio, consistent with trends in both fossil fuel CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 mixing ratios (Andres et al., 2000; Keeling et al., 2005). -4AR WG1, 2 ======================== Nevertheless, for argument's sake, IF we accept the hypothesis that the earth is warming at a steady rate that will result in measurable change to global and regional climates, there is no model that adequately predicts the impact of these changes, long or short term. They may in fact be benign or even salutary. I disagree that the hypothesis predicts a steady rate. There are too many other things going on to say that. Thee time span for all these cataclysmic results is also in great doubt -- 100 - 400 - 1,00 years? Here it comes: It Depends. What do you mean by "cataclysmic?" Which result? What level of GHGs at what time? Hardly a hurdle for humans, given our remarkable ability to adapt. One foot sea level rise in 400 years? Not too tough. One meter in 100 years? Colossally expensive and disrupting. And that's only one thing. What about the death of coral reefs, disruption of the Gulf Stream, burning of the Amazon forests? The scariest thing about this to me is the grumbling from some scientists that the IPCC is way too conservative in what it puts in the reports because of over-sensitivity to "alarmist" charges. These folks are saying the there's a chance the **** is *really* going to hit the fan, and sooner than we think. Are they right? I don't know. Hell, *they* don't know. They're just saying, "You better think about this." (Not that any of the pol's at the Bali Conference paid much attention; they were at a cocktail party or something.) So, it depends. As an aside: It's amazing how much more coherent and convincing your arguments appear when you're not sniping. I'm not signing up for the cause, just making an observation. I have a history with this subject. I'm used to being attacked by shrieking political zealots and talk radio zombies in such discussions . You don't fit those categories, but it takes a while to realize that sometimes. Thanks for your patience. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mar 11, 6:13 pm, Dan wrote:
On Mar 11, 5:55 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote: "Dan" wrote: And getting back to the original point -- there is a long, long stretch between observing and even accepting data that suggests some human induced forcing of atmospheric phenomenon and concluding therefore that disaster is upon us. Thus the wider the bands of uncertainty grow the farther out the models go. But here's what we know: CO2 is the primary persistent greenhouse gas. CO2 makes the planet warmer. If it didn't, the place would be frozen. There's 35% more of it now than at any time in the last 800 thousand years or more. Humans put that extra 35% in the atmosphere in the last 200 years. That is a geological instant. A lot of the effects, especially methane feedbacks, may not even have begun yet. Meanwhile, we are adding more GHGs all the time. Party on dudes! A warmer climate will shrivel glaciers, melt sea ice, magnify drought and flood events, raise sea levels, alter habitats and move agricultural zones. How much? Nobody knows for sure, but we have a pretty good idea what the planet was like the last time it was 3C or 6C hotter than it is now. How lucky do we feel? Lucky enough to just muddle ahead and wait to see what happens? I don't think we should. The only home we've got is getting run down and used up. We need to think about taking better care of it. The jury's out on the cause-effect relationship. We see a correlation -- that does not necessarily imply causation, and the IPCC waffles on this point as well. OK, so where is the CO2 coming from? Propose some other sources which can be checked (and do a little searching -- you'll see they have been). So the first Big Question is -- is CO2 increase anthropogenic? The resounding IPCC answer -- maybe. Uh, no. That the CO2 increase is from humans is pretty definite. The IPCC said there's a 95% chance the current warming is caused by humans. Nevertheless, for argument's sake, IF we accept the hypothesis that the earth is warming at a steady rate that will result in measurable change to global and regional climates, there is no model that adequately predicts the impact of these changes, long or short term. They may in fact be benign or even salutary. Well, no, but why take the chance and experiment with our only planet? It's much better to err on the side of caution. If a forest fire is burning a quarter-mile from your house, do you say, "there's no model that predicts the fire will burn my house or if it does, if that will be a bad thing"? Thee time span for all these cataclysmic results is also in great doubt -- 100 - 400 - 1,00 years? Hardly a hurdle for humans, given our remarkable ability to adapt. As an aside: It's amazing how much more coherent and convincing your arguments appear when you're not sniping. I'm not signing up for the cause, just making an observation. Dan |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mar 11, 4:52 pm, Dan wrote:
On Mar 11, 4:31 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote: "Dan" wrote: And as far as "campaign of disinformation," it seems to me the NY Times, Time, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, et al all comporting with the Gore view is hardly wilting under a "campaign of disinformation." Here's the difference between the various bloggers, media talkers and think tanks attempting to debunk AGW, and the National Academy of Sciences, for instance. The former tell lies; repeating them even when they must *know* they are lies. They are good at it, slippery and hard to pin down; masters of the half truth and the cherry-picked fact, but liars nonetheless. So far, no one has shown me that the NAS or NOAA or the USGS is lying about AGW. This is not something new. Some of these same liars were in the service of the tobacco companies, using the same tactics. Some of them also use the same tricks trying to debunk evolution, calling it a "religion" to get creationism equal time in public school science classes. See Worldnet Daily or the Eagle Forum for plenty of examples of the overlap. They are successful as long as the NY Times, Time, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox, et al. continue to give them time. I don't pretend to speak for bloggers and media types -- simply counting them would be exhausting. However, disagreeing with the conclusions of however august a body of eminences does not make one a liar It does if you state something that is false. Like "the earth is 6000 years old." Is that a lie? (see wikipedia entry under "Galileo" -- the "authorities of the time had some pretty compelling evidence that the sun revolved around the earth -- a repeatedly observed phenomenon). Oh come on. Science? Scientific authorities? It was church dogma. Do you really think science is just like it was back then? If so, I assume you refuse to use any technology, any modern medicine, etc. There has been and continues to be evidence that compels the aforementioned groups to *qualify* their statements. And getting back to the original point -- there is a long, long stretch between observing and even accepting data that suggests some human induced forcing of atmospheric phenomenon and concluding therefore that disaster is upon us. Dan |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
My Modest Proposal to End Global Warming, Revitalize General Aviation, and End Our Dependence on Foreign Oil | C J Campbell[_1_] | Home Built | 96 | November 2nd 07 04:50 AM |
My Modest Proposal to End Global Warming, Revitalize General Aviation, and End Our Dependence on Foreign Oil | Skylune | Owning | 0 | October 19th 07 10:47 PM |
My Modest Proposal to End Global Warming, Revitalize General Aviation, and End Our Dependence on Foreign Oil | Skylune | Owning | 0 | October 19th 07 09:21 PM |
I have an opinion on global warming! | Jim Logajan | Piloting | 89 | April 12th 07 12:56 PM |
Aviation Conspiracy: CBS Spotlights Aviation's Effect On Global Warming!!! | Free Speaker | General Aviation | 1 | August 3rd 06 07:24 PM |