| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| wrldtrv |
Posted - 01/23/2007 : 19:46:58
I don't intend to start this battle again, but I couldn't resist pointing out that tonight in Bush's State of the Union speech he actually acknowledged that global warming is a fact! It was hidden in the middle of his comments on energy policy, but he clearly said "...we need to prepare for global climate change..."
If that weren't enough, how about the group of ten large corporations, including GE, that yesterday acknowledged the fact of global warming and urged the administration to do something about it by tightening standards. These are the polluters themselves asking to be regulated!
Okay, if anyone STILL thinks GW is a hoax, he or she must be a "flat-earther" and is not be be convinced by anything. |
| 17 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| h2oskier25 |
Posted - 01/25/2007 : 08:31:40
quote:
Originally posted by tennis tom
I worry about the real calamities that will befall us rather than the crock of sky-is-falling mumbo-jumbo called g.w.
A short list:
Terrorism on our shores if we Pelosi out of Iraq.
Nuclear terrorism by anyone of the rogue crack-pot nations who are trying to build or buy a nuke. Where are all the anti-nuke demonstrators in comfortable shoes who made us dis-arm unilateraly?
Our dear and close allies China and Russia.
The pine-apple faced dictator from Caracas who is trying to fill the shoes of dying Fidel one of the richest and biggest dictators of our time.
The absymal state of race relations that will result in the fire next time.
Our disaffected youth who can't put a sentence together and get high on anything they can get their hands on.
20-30,000,000 illegals running around un-accounted for on our shores.
I'm not saying GW is not an issue but . . .
It's true. How can anyone discount most of the stuff listed by TT above as being a greater threat to our lifestyles. The Chinese outnumber us 5 to 1. As soon as they decide they want California . . .
Beth |
| art |
Posted - 01/25/2007 : 06:22:22
quote:
Originally posted by electraglideman
When did GW ever say there is no Global Warming? I've never heard him say that. Can anyone here show me where he said it?
Yes, I think it was the day he said, "absolutely, we're winning.."
If he did in fact "believe" in gw, that's even more pathetic, that he would be so negligent as to not recommend some counter-measures. I'd almost rather believe that, as in just about everything else, he doesn't have a clue |
| electraglideman |
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 21:13:32
When did GW ever say there is no Global Warming? I've never heard him say that. Can anyone here show me where he said it? |
| alexis |
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 21:00:31
quote:
Originally posted by wrldtrv
It's akin to seeing a large asteroid out in space that seems to be heading our way. Maybe the best prediction the scientists can give for our obliteration is 80%. Or 70%. Or even 50/50. At what point should we act; devise a missle to throw it off course? Sure, that's a very concrete threat everybody can relate to (unlike GW), but I think the analogy fits.
I agree that is a good analogy. Taking into account that the cost of "doing something" may be different from the cost of a missile.
But please don't try to guess from what I've written at my own level of risk willingness or calculations of the risk -- I'm certainly not in the wait for 100% category. |
| tennis tom |
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 20:19:39
WT, I'm blissful in knowing that it's a crock not from ignorance. What rebutal do you have to my limey geologist? did you even read it? I'm not going to spend a lot of energy on this b.s If you want to lose sleep over it be my guest. You and art can enjoy your misplaced parnoia all you want. |
| wrldtrv |
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 20:11:20
One last point on this topic and then I'll call it quits. You had some good pts, Alexis--certainly a more reasonable approach than TT's (ignorance is bliss), but I think inaction, simply because one can't prove 100% that GW is a fact, is irresponsible. I know you were speaking from the standpoint of policy, on what basis decisions are made, but I would think even a scientist would at some point say, "Well, I can't prove it, but most of the evidence points that way, so I would recommend doing SOMETHING as the safer bet." It's akin to seeing a large asteroid out in space that seems to be heading our way. Maybe the best prediction the scientists can give for our obliteration is 80%. Or 70%. Or even 50/50. At what point should we act; devise a missle to throw it off course? Sure, that's a very concrete threat everybody can relate to (unlike GW), but I think the analogy fits. |
| tennis tom |
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 20:02:31
Hi Art'
There's a good chapter in TDM on high blood pressure you should read it.
If the temp goes up, I'll just turn up the air conditioning. G.w. is a well calculated political/academic ruse to divert the populace's attention from real problems that something could be done about but won't until they bite us badly. I worry about the real calamities that will befall us rather than the crock of sky-is-falling mumbo-jumbo called g.w.
A short list:
Terrorism on our shores if we Pelosi out of Iraq.
Nuclear terrorism by anyone of the rogue crack-pot nations who are trying to build or buy a nuke. Where are all the anti-nuke demonstrators in comfortable shoes who made us dis-arm unilateraly?
Our dear and close allies China and Russia.
The pine-apple faced dictator from Caracas who is trying to fill the shoes of dying Fidel one of the richest and biggest dictators of our time.
The absymal state of race relations that will result in the fire next time.
Our disaffected youth who can't put a sentence together and get high on anything they can get their hands on.
20-30,000,000 illegals running around un-accounted for on our shores.
|
| art |
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 14:10:37
Thanks for posting this wrld, though in the interest of my blood pressure I'm assiduously avoiding anything TT has written...
Prediction: WHen the effects of global warming become so obvious even TT won't be able to deny them any longer, he'll deal with being wrong by pretending he just doesn't care. Global warming? Yawn. Better we should discuss how marijuana is bringing civilization as we know it to her knees...
Really pathetic in my view, how Bush, now backed into a corner, is so desperate to curry favor with the opposition that he's actually willing to admit there might be something to it after all...Of course, he's proposed nothing that will in any way help the situation...That of course would be too much to hope for...
I think one of the biggest stories of the first decades of this new century is how badly the effects of global warming have been underestimated...It's probably already too late to do much about this in the medium term anyway..The thing that I find most chilling, excuse the pun, is the worry, based on good science from what I' ve read, that the increase of fresh water due to melting ice will shut down the gulf stream, something that many scientists think will plunge all of europe, as well as our own Northeast, into the deep freeze..
Fun...
|
| alexis |
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 10:28:59
quote:
Originally posted by kevin t
Might I suggest "Paltalk" or "Yahoo Messenger" for you guys ???????? Plenty of chat rooms there discussing Geopolitics.
Thanks
I'm just working on the assumption this topic will be deleted. I figure anything can get tossed in here at this point. Like I kind of need a recipe for green beans and tofu. Anyone? |
| kevin t |
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 10:22:35
Might I suggest "Paltalk" or "Yahoo Messenger" for you guys ???????? Plenty of chat rooms there discussing Geopolitics.
Thanks |
| alexis |
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 08:17:21
The question of whether the earth is currently warming or cooling is, in fact, of relatively little interest to the climatologists I've known. This is a simplification of the issues manipulated by the media, politicians and industry, each for their own ends. [As a disclaimer, I haven't formally studied climatology since grad school, where it was not my main focus -- but it was enough to know that the issues are much more complex than you are going to find in any mainstream media publication.]
As far as I can tell from the current literature that I have read, most climatologists believe we are contributing to both warming and cooling (layered on top of the human-independent climate swings). And posing the question to a climatologist (and really, no other scientists much count here) of whether "we are causing global warming" is not going to yield meaningful answers. One can believe we are influencing the climate without believing that we are currently making the world warmer or colder. Or one may believe that we are, in fact, making the world colder by currently contributing more to global cooling trends. The impact humans have on climate is going to be a balance of both warming and cooling factors and may affect components of our environment which will not impact actual temperatures for years. But media and politics will usually frame their questions in such a way as to get the answer they want.
However, most surveys of the scientific community should be taken with a grain of salt, because the questions they pose are not only scientifically simplistic, but framed in probabilistically simple terms. Such questions require a scientist to express a level of commitment to a belief that you will rarely see in the scientific community. While certainty may be welcomed or encouraged in the religious world, it is not so among scientists. Due to issues of scientific integrity, many in the scientific community will select a "not sure" answer, even when up to 90% (or more) convinced one way or the other.
But risk acceptance is an even bigger issue here. Those who have opposed action against global warming are usually waiting around for something near 100% proof before taking action. Others believe that a 50% or even 30% probability is enough on such an issue. What is the right number? 65%, 85%? 20%? Who is to assign the correct level of risk? But it doesn't necessarily mean that there is a difference of opinion on the science any more than it means that people willing to drive 80mph on the freeway don't realise this carries risk. They are just willing to accept a higher level of risk.
That is usually the case, and there I don't think we can make value judgements one way or another. There are some who don't really understand probability and think that without 100% proof, something is probably not the case. And others who simply believe that "models don't prove anything". These are scientific misunderstandings, but they are usually held by people who, though large in number, are intellectually well outside our sphere of influence.
You know what, -- whatever. Really. None of this talk is going to change anything. Either people with ignorantly reject ideas of climate influence, or they'll ignorantly accept them. Really, you're not going to change anything unless you are in a very specific position of influence. We're pretty much just screaming at the TV right now trying to help our teams win the Super Bowl. I'm out of this one. Maybe it’s not all the same in 100 years, but in 2 billion it is.
|
| tennis tom |
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 07:36:26
quote:
Originally posted by wrldtrv
So, let me get this straight, TT: Bush, the guy you voted for, as well as the CEO's of the ten major corporations that signed onto the letter acknowledging the truth of global warming and our (human) involvement in it, are wrong, and your guy, this so-called geologist in Britain who wrote an article in the paper, is right. Gee, I wonder who is right.
I'm right, in the sense that I don't give a hoot about g.w. the climate kind, not the G.W. the presidential kind. There's nothing I could do about it if it existed or not. It's just another media/politicaly inspired distraction much as psychosmatic pain that serves the purpose of diverting our attention from our collective real problems that we are too afraid to acknowledge and discuss.
If you have done any study of the natural sciences it's obvious that the earth's climate has taken huge temperauture swings, going in and out of ice ages, and that was long before humans drove cars or listened to i-pods. Who or what industry do you blame those climatic variations on?
It's not just my guy, the geologist in England but hundreds of other reputable scientists. I could cite you hundreds of other REAL scientists who agree with my view (in the old gw thread it was 900).
It's a lot like TMS, the reputable scientsits get little or no play in the media, they are busy working and not carrousing around with pop-stars stars, trying to grab headlines. The Good Doctor langusishes in relative obscurity, yet he has discovered a great truth that takes a bit of work to deal with. The media is based on "bad news sells". The headline, "Changes in Climate are Normal", doesn't sell papers, ergo no one reads the adds in the fish-wrap and the merchant hires a kid to jump up and down holding a big sign along the road instead.
So GW and ten CEO's of big corps acknowledge g.w. They aren't scientists. They are politicians. Any CEO of a big corp is a politician. They are just caving in to the politics of the day and waying votes versus dollars which is what politcis is all about. They aren't willing to stand apart from the lemmings and risk the political capital to say this is B.S. I'm not president or a CEO so I don't give a hoot if I'm viewed as a nut job for standing apart from the crowd.
It's interesting WT that you still remember that I voted for GW. You and Art and a few others have used that to demonize me at any opportunity. I'm basicly a contrarian and vote for the lesser of two evils. My theory is that with two parties fighting each other they can do less damage to the general good. I've voted for a lot of diverse pols including Kennedy (would have prefered Adlai instead), H. Ross Perot, Pat Paulsen, Hubert Humphrey, George Miller, Jerry 'moon beam' Brown, and George Mondale.
I've known a number of politicians (if it's possible to know one since they have less substance than a jellyfish) and they are for the most part the desecendants of lawyers therefore master liars. But I don't care if my political views label me a wack-job because I'm not here to win a popularity contest or make friends, just learn about TMS and on occasion rebut some of the OT urban myths that might pop-up on the site (but I don't start them).
If you don't like Bush then why would you believe him or the heads of ten corps on the topic of g.w.? That in itself should tip you off that it's a crock--sounds like a conspiracy by cartels to me. The boys and girls at Davos are trying to figure out how to make money off of g.w. right now. You liberals can't have it both ways, you can't think G.W. is an idiot one minute and a brain the next.
|
| h2oskier25 |
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 06:39:14
Uh, wrdtrv, I think Queensland is actually in Australia . . .
I'm on your side though. I totally believe in global warming. They say never before in history have polar bears drowned, until now. Maybe we just couldn't study this before, but I think we're f*(&ing up our atmosphere.
We're humans, why wouldn't we screw something up?
Beth |
| wrldtrv |
Posted - 01/23/2007 : 23:52:58
So, let me get this straight, TT: Bush, the guy you voted for, as well as the CEO's of the ten major corporations that signed onto the letter acknowledging the truth of global warming and our (human) involvement in it, are wrong, and your guy, this so-called geologist in Britain who wrote an article in the paper, is right. Gee, I wonder who is right. |
| tennis tom |
Posted - 01/23/2007 : 21:45:14
quote:
Originally posted by Stryder
TT said: "GW is nothing more than normal fluctuation of the earth's climate."
Ha ha ha ha, boy is that funny is you read GW as GW Bush :-) -Stryder
Further proof that I am politicaly neutral...er...I mean an anarchist. |
| Stryder |
Posted - 01/23/2007 : 21:41:21
TT said: "GW is nothing more than normal fluctuation of the earth's climate."
Ha ha ha ha, boy is that funny is you read GW as GW Bush :-) -Stryder |
| tennis tom |
Posted - 01/23/2007 : 20:37:41
I don't intend to continue this discussion either but it sure is cold out there except in Florida where I am lucky enough to be right now. And the world is flat, just look outside your window for proof-positive. GW is nothing more than normal fluctuation of the earth's climate. I like global warming, I'm going to burn some more tires. And by the way wear your hard-hat because the sky is falling.
To learn more read the following from the London Daily Telegraph:
"There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
By Bob Carter
For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).
Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.
Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?
Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.
The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported.
Marketed under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the bladder-trembling and now infamous hockey-stick diagram that shows accelerating warming during the 20th century - a statistical construct by scientist Michael Mann and co-workers from mostly tree ring records - has been a seminal image of the climate scaremongering campaign. Thanks to the work of a Canadian statistician, Stephen McIntyre, and others, this graph is now known to be deeply flawed.
There are other reasons, too, why the public hears so little in detail from those scientists who approach climate change issues rationally, the so-called climate sceptics. Most are to do with intimidation against speaking out, which operates intensely on several parallel fronts.
First, most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on contentious issues, their employing organisations instead making use of public relations experts to craft carefully tailored, frisbee-science press releases. Second, scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research. Third, members of the Establishment have spoken declamatory words on the issue, and the kingdom's subjects are expected to listen.
On the alarmist campaign trail, the UK's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, is thus reported as saying that global warming is so bad that Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century. Warming devotee and former Chairman of Shell, Lord [Ron] Oxburgh, reportedly agrees with another rash statement of King's, that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. And goodly Archbishop Rowan Williams, who self-evidently understands little about the science, has warned of "millions, billions" of deaths as a result of global warming and threatened Mr Blair with the wrath of the climate God unless he acts. By betraying the public's trust in their positions of influence, so do the great and good become the small and silly.
Two simple graphs provide needed context, and exemplify the dynamic, fluctuating nature of climate change. The first is a temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. The second graph shows the average global temperature over the last eight years, which has proved to be a period of stasis.
The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.
The British Government urgently needs to recast the sources from which it draws its climate advice. The shrill alarmism of its public advisers, and the often eco-fundamentalist policy initiatives that bubble up from the depths of the Civil Service, have all long since been detached from science reality. Intern-ationally, the IPCC is a deeply flawed organisation, as acknowledged in a recent House of Lords report, and the Kyoto Protocol has proved a costly flop. Clearly, the wrong horses have been backed.
As mooted recently by Tony Blair, perhaps the time has come for Britain to join instead the new Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), whose six member countries are committed to the development of new technologies to improve environmental outcomes. There, at least, some real solutions are likely to emerge for improving energy efficiency and reducing pollution.
Informal discussions have already begun about a new AP6 audit body, designed to vet rigorously the science advice that the Partnership receives, including from the IPCC. Can Britain afford not to be there?
• Prof Bob Carter is a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research
Related articles
Kyoto is pointless
© Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2007."
|
|
|
