A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Global Warming The debbil made me do it



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 11th 08, 06:03 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.global-warming
Dan Luke[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 713
Default Global Warming The debbil made me do it


"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  
Old March 11th 08, 06:59 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.global-warming
Dan[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 650
Default Global Warming The debbil made me do it

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  
Old March 11th 08, 08:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.global-warming
Dan Luke[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 713
Default Global Warming The debbil made me do it


"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  
Old March 11th 08, 08:52 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.global-warming
Dan[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 650
Default Global Warming The debbil made me do it

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  
Old March 11th 08, 09:55 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.global-warming
Dan Luke[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 713
Default Global Warming The debbil made me do it


"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  
Old March 11th 08, 10:13 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.global-warming
Dan[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 650
Default Global Warming The debbil made me do it

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  
Old March 11th 08, 10:36 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.global-warming
mariposas rand mair fheal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 82
Default Global Warming The debbil made me do 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.


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  
Old March 11th 08, 11:34 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.global-warming
Dan Luke[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 713
Default Global Warming The debbil made me do it


"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  
Old March 12th 08, 05:59 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.global-warming
Lloyd
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Global Warming The debbil made me do it

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  
Old March 12th 08, 05:56 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.global-warming
Lloyd
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Global Warming The debbil made me do it

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.