Home | Community | Message Board


Cannabis Seeds - Original Sensible Seeds
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore Cultivation Supplies   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Amazon Calcium Carbonate, Portable Greenhouse

Jump to first unread post. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: GazzBut]
    #3804029 - 02/19/05 07:18 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

I actually don't really have an answer to the question. I mean, if we are causing global warming, then it makes sense to stop it, but it won't be cheap, and will necessarily entail some restriction of people's freedoms, and I don't think it's good policy to do that just in case it might be true.


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Silversoul]
    #3804066 - 02/19/05 07:30 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Do we wait for definitive proof before taking preventative measures?

definitive proof may never come. if we hold out for 100% definitive proof. we will have essentially paralyzed ourselves in the face of a potential threat (this is basically what Crichton is surrendering to)

we should act when the evidence overwhelmingly points to human activity as the cause of global warming. I think we're close to that point now.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Silversoul]
    #3804153 - 02/19/05 07:56 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Paradigm said:
I think the big question with global warming is: Do we wait for definitive proof before taking preventative measures?




It would mean waiting for an infinite amount of time...
But I guess that's the plan.


--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Phred]
    #3804223 - 02/19/05 08:31 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
This latest report is no more"proof" than any previous data.




Very true. But it doesn't really matter.

Quote:


Michael Crichton has an excellent lecture on this topic. It's too long to cut and paste, but it is worthwhile reading for anyone who is actually interested in the "science" behind this debate.




I'm glad you put science in quotations, because Crichton doesn't seem to use any. He presents a simple, meandering, occasionally logically coherent list of reasons to be skeptical of global warming research. It's an impressive list. I bet you could make a pretty good one. I assure you I could make a better one. It's not hard to do. This is shaky science. Always has been, always will be. The point is that we're all trying to get better with it.

Because, all things considered, this is important science to study. And I will gladly debate you or Michael Crichton on that. Contrary to what he (and I'm assuming you..?) would want us to think, global climate is worth studying. It's an issue that humans will absolutely have to confront in a very real way within the next few hundred years. The whole world. And our understanding of the science will determine whether it's something we can successfully manage (whether through environment regulation or some sort of advanced technology) or something that will bring catastrophe to our civilizations and economies.

Contrary to what many people and the press seem to think, the consensus of the global climate science community is NOT that 'global warming is absolutely being caused by humans.' It's more like 'there's a probable correlation. But we're not sure. We working our asses off to get a better understanding. We don't want to steal your SUVs. We just want some cash so we can continue our very boring research.' As someone who's spoken with and worked with many PhDs who study this, I can assure you this is really how most of them feel. Occasionally, one gets full of himself and decides he's going to be the new Moses. Then the press runs it, fervent capitalists get ahold of it and make the rest of us look like discredited dipshits. And so it goes.

Quote:


If you've already convinced yourself that human activity is warming the planet, don't bother clicking the link.

Phred




Why exactly?



PS: One thing I absolutely agree with Crichton on is the need to form an independent research system with a anonymous pool of funding.

PPS: Myself and lots of people around me are excited about the sun cycle stuff. Hopefully there will be good answers about this within 10-20 years.


--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Phred]
    #3804862 - 02/19/05 11:28 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

It's too long to cut and paste, but it is worthwhile reading for anyone who is actually interested in the "science" behind this debate.



Quote:

I'd ask you to read Crichton's lecture, then cut and paste the parts of it you have found to be untrue




Michael Crichton writes pop science. he doesn't know the real science behind the debate and that lecture was full of distortions, misconceptions and sophomoric reasoning like this:

Quote:

SETI is unquestionably a religion. Faith is defined as the firm belief in something for which there is no proof. The belief that the Koran is the word of God is a matter of faith. The belief that God created the universe in seven days is a matter of faith. The belief that there are other life forms in the universe is a matter of faith. There is not a single shred of evidence for any other life forms, and in forty years of searching, none has been discovered. There is absolutely no evidentiary reason to maintain this belief. SETI is a religion.




to review:

1)Faith is defined as the firm belief in something for which there is no proof

2)There is not a single shred of evidence for any other life forms

3)The belief that there are other life forms in the universe is a matter of faith

so far I agree,
but from this he concludes:

SETI is unquestionably a religion

???
I don't know where he came up with that

SETI is NOT the belief in the existence of other life forms
SETI is the SEARCH for other life forms

he doesn't make this distinction and he tries to have it both ways
for him a religion is believing things without evidence
and the search for evidence... is also a religion...

this distortion is important because he goes on to compare SETI (or rather, his own delusional view of SETI as a religion) to global warming to "prove" his point that the "belief in extraterrestrials has paved the way, in a progression of steps, to a belief in global warming". and yes, he actually said that.


he also mischaracterizes the Drake equation.

Quote:

This serious-looking equation gave SETI an serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we're clear-are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be "informed guesses." If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It's simply prejudice.

As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless




he says: "Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless"
because "none of the terms can be known".

this is simply not true. those values CAN be known. this is beyond obvious.

from http://www.station1.net/DouglasJones/drake.htm

"In 1961, astronomer Frank Drake proposed a method of estimating the number of civilizations in our Galaxy that could be detectable from Earth. He wrote it as an equation, but it may be more useful to think of it as a series of questions: How many stars are born every year? What fraction of them have planets? How many planets does each such star have? What fraction of those planets can support life, and of those, how many planets actually give rise to life? What fraction of those living planets give rise to intelligent beings? And of all those planets with intelligent beings, what fraction will produce radio transmissions that would allow us to notice them, and how long would they continue to transmit them?

These questions have definite answers; we just don't know what most of those answers are. But the answers to these questions are not beyond our reach. As we build better and better telescopes, and as we learn more and more about our own origins and that of our planet, the answers to these questions will gradually be revealed. We may know many of the answers within the next ten to twenty years.

Even back in 1961, it was obvious that these were answerable questions"



Mr. Crichton is having trouble establishing that he knows anything about SETI or the Drake equation, how is he possibly going to compare SETI to global warming research?

Quote:

This is not the way science is done, it is the way products are sold.




he should know. he sells FICTION for a living

I especially liked his last paragraph. can you imagine Michael Crichton, who writes pop science novels, walking in front of the Caltech audience, some of the most brilliant scientific minds on the planet, and lamenting:

"Is this what science has become?"

:lol:


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: infidelGOD]
    #3804903 - 02/19/05 11:38 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

bumper sticker spotted in a caltech parking lot:

IF THIS SIGN APPEARS BLUE YOU ARE TRAVELING TOO FAST


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineshroommachine
Stranger
Male User Gallery
Registered: 01/03/05
Posts: 1,202
Loc: Florida
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Silversoul]
    #3804966 - 02/20/05 12:00 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Paradigm said:
I think the big question with global warming is: Do we wait for definitive proof before taking preventative measures?




Why would we take preventative measures to stop something that is fully reversable.


--------------------
And I said, I don't care if they lay me off either, because I told, I told Bill that if they move my desk one more time, then, then I'm, I'm quitting, I'm going to quit. And, and I told Don too, because they've moved my desk ...four times already this year and I used to be over by the window and I could see the squirrels, and they were merry, but then, they switched from the Swingline to the Boston stapler, but I kept my Swingline stapler because it didn't bind up as much and I kept the staples for the Swingline stapler and its not okay because if they take my stapler then I'll set the building on fire.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleblacksabbathrulz
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: shroommachine]
    #3805712 - 02/20/05 03:37 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

I stopped reading when the article spelled skeptics as "sceptics"


--------------------
.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: blacksabbathrulz]
    #3805834 - 02/20/05 05:07 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Of course the English dont know the correct way to spell English words....

We should take our language back from you savages...  :smile:


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: GazzBut]
    #3805840 - 02/20/05 05:13 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)



Why don't you go ahead and try?


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: GazzBut]
    #3805845 - 02/20/05 05:15 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

GazzBut writes:

Lets face it, you dont know if this data is in fact proof of global warming or not and nor do I.

Clearly -- if their data is verifiable -- it is proof of the warming of the oceans. What it is not proof of is human-induced climate change.

Furthermore, it is not even proof that the warming of the oceans is due to an increase in atmospheric temperature. It could be discovered that this increase in temperature is due to some relatively new hot spots in the earth's crust on the ocean floor. Surely you caught the article a week or so ago about the enormous rift in the sea floor at the site of the earthquake that caused the tsunami in late December of last year. The earth's crust is not static. And -- as any oceanographer will tell you -- science knows orders of magnitude more about deep space than it knows about what takes place more than a hundred meters below the surface of the Earth's oceans.

"The study involved scientists from the US Department of Energy, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as the Met Office's Hadley Centre."

Hardly a couple of scientist tooting a horn is it? And you say you read the article?


I read the article. You apparently didn't. I'd like to make a correction: even though two scientists were named, it was actually just one of them making the outrageous claims -- Dr. Barnett. Dr. Curry's quoted remarks do not attribute the warming to man's activities.

Dr. Barnett's remarks go so far beyond acceptable scientific method as to approach self-parody. As Gijith says:

"Occasionally, one gets full of himself and decides he's going to be the new Moses. Then the press runs it, fervent capitalists get ahold of it and make the rest of us look like discredited dipshits. And so it goes."

Dr. Barnett's remarks "jump the shark". If any such similarly-phrased commentary appear in the final published paper, that paper will correctly be ridiculed by his peers. He appears to be a classic example (again crediting Gijith) of "some of these guys pour(ing) decades of their lives into a single study. Maybe they want those years to have some immediate and very significant meaninig...?"

Barnett's statements are a perfect example of the bad "science" Crichton skewers in his lecture. Anyone who has taken more than a passing interest in the scientific method (i.e. has had more than a year or two of physics, biology, or chemistry in school) will grasp immediately what Crichton is saying.

It must have been an amazing med school that managed to teach him the intricacies of climate science at the same time as how to remove an appendix.

One needn't know anything about climate science in order to understand that what is being claimed as "proof" isn't in fact anywhere close to being proof. One need merely a basic understanding of what is required to scientifically establish causality. As Gijith points out, nothing discovered to date has established causality. Perhaps some new data may one day do that. I don't dispute that may be the case. But I will point out again (for the umpteenth time in this forum) hat there is not even agreement yet that the global temperature is rising to a statistically significant degree, let alone that such a rise is due to human activity. The most sophisticated available satellite data indicates a very slight drop over the last two decades, for example.

The second link I provided dealt directly with the amusing speech you originally posted.

And the comment I cut and pasted from the same site you linked says it all. A freshly-minted PhD in political "science" takes a clumsy stab at critiquing Crichton's points and misses the target by a mile.

How do you know whether I read the link or not?

You response clearly indicates either --

a) You didn't read Crichton's lecture

or

b) You read it but didn't comprehend it.

I chose the option which would reflect less negatively on you. That's a mistake I won't make again.

So let's see...

We have in your reply flaming, ad hominems, and appeal to authority. What we don't have is any content disputing a single point Crichton has raised. For the record, Crichton is far from the first to point out these exact same errors, and I know that you know this, because I know you have read other threads in this forum covering the same subject matter where I have included links to other scientists making the same points about faulty scientific method that Crichton does. So to let's add intellectual dishonesty to the list as well.

Quite an accomplishment for such a brief post, dear GazzBut. Congratulations.



Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Phred]
    #3805876 - 02/20/05 05:53 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

It could be discovered that this increase in temperature is due to some relatively new hot spots in the earth's crust on the ocean floor.





The article states: "We looked at the possibility that solar changes or volcanic effects could have caused the warming - not a chance. What just absolutely nailed it was greenhouse warming"

The words clutching and straws spring to mind.

I know you cant quite get to grips with the idea but left to its own devices the free market is not a cure all for any problems humankind faces. We must place heavy regulations and restrictions on industry in case, as seems increasingly likely, global warming is being affected by man made factors.

Much of the opposition to an increasing mountain of scientific evidence springs from think tanks sponsored by people like Bush and Cheney. You are being hoodwinked my friend by the greedy piggies who cant bring themselves to even consider that global warming is man made because they are more concerned about the damage this would do to their wallets than the damage it could wreak upon us all.

You will note that no where have I stated I categorically believe man is contributing to global warming although I admit Im around 70% convinced.


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: GazzBut]
    #3805895 - 02/20/05 06:23 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

The article states: "We looked at the possibility that solar changes or volcanic effects could have caused the warming - not a chance. What just absolutely nailed it was greenhouse warming"




That statement alone is the exact confirmation of what Crichton is saying. There is no possible way taking measurements of ocean temperature can show there is "not a chance" that the increase was due to anything other than greenhouse gases.

What Barnett is claiming is that the oceans were warmed not through absorbing increased radiation from above or through increased radiation from below, but through surface contact with air. This alone shows his inherent prejudices have overcome his scientific judgment. Anyone who has ever taken a basic science class knows that it is much, MUCH easier to increase the temperature of a mass of water through heating the bottom of its container rather than increasing the ambient temperature of the air above the water.

I point out again that scientists know far less about the surface of the earth which is covered by ocean than they do about the surface of Earth's moon. There are no thermocouples scattered over the ocean floor recording surface temperature changes. There could be a thin spot in the Earth's crust smack dab in the the middle of the Pacific Ocean the size of Alaska and no one would know it.

As was pointed out earlier in the thread, you did well to put a question mark in the title of the thread, since this is not even being close to "proof" of anything other than (if their data holds up under peer review) that of an increase in temperature of the oceans.

As for your repeated efforts to use ad hominem "argument" to prove your point, Bush and Cheney don't sponsor think tanks. And even if they did, so what? Either the science is good or the science is bad. It doesn't make a difference who funded the science. Science is nothing more than observing and measuring natural phenomena, then hypothesizing an explanation or explanations to explain the observed phenomena. The more data is available, the more theories which can be discarded. At this point in time there is not enough data to discard the theories postulating climate change through increased solar radiation, increased warming of the Earth's crust, orbital precession, and -- yes -- human activity.

This latest study -- which I point out yet again has yet to be even published let alone peer-reviewed -- is not proof that human activity is causing global climate change, despite Barnett's intemperate rhetoric.


Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 25,100
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 34 minutes, 37 seconds
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: GazzBut]
    #3806017 - 02/20/05 08:17 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Personally I do believe that we are driving ourselves to extinction and destroying the lives of marginal (mostly tropical) third worlders who are just keeping themselves alive, via our impact on the climate.


But I still don't see this study being the end all be all of global warming studies.


Personally, I think the atmospheric isotope dating studies were better.


I can't see any study that could possibly ever "prove" "global warming".

The only way we're going to get a real reading is to make a rapid change (either higher or lower, and then see what the results are over the next 100 years.

...and relax. Nobody's going to believe Phred just because he says so.


Nor will they you for that matter.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: shroommachine]
    #3806019 - 02/20/05 08:23 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

shroommachine said:

Why would we take preventative measures to stop something that is fully reversable.




because carbon stays in the air for approximately 100 years.


--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek  + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs :thumbup:


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 25,100
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 34 minutes, 37 seconds
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Phred]
    #3806025 - 02/20/05 08:30 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

I think I heard there was an island in the Caribbean that contains alot of Calcium Oxide. Which of course is a primary source of non-biological Carbon sequestration. The Carbon Dioxide combines with the Calcium Oxide to form Calcium Carbonate which then erodes away and winds up on the bottom of the ocean.


We could just drop a couple hundred megatons of nuclear explosives on it every year for about 50 years and we should be good to go. :thumbup:  :thumbup:  :thumbup:


The people on the island will have to leave of course and will recieve no compensation for their loss of property. :sad:


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 5 months, 29 days
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #3806233 - 02/20/05 11:49 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

> Wow! It must be amazing being you pinky...Never, ever being wrong.

Nah, pinky has been wrong in the past, but he is 100% accurate on this topic.

There is little doubt that the earth is going through a global warming phase... there is a huge amount of data to back up this hypothesis. However, there is absolutely nothing that proves that humans are in any way causal in the warming of the planet.

We know, from different sources, that the Earth has gone through warm and cold cycles throughout its history. We know that the last big cycle, the ice age, happened without the help of humans. We also know that the earth came out of the ice age, heating up, without the help of humans. Only out of ignorance are people certain that humans are causing a climate change.

I am not saying that people are not responsible for global warming. I don't know. Computer models are extrapolations of current data. Extrapolations are guesses by definition. Anybody that says global warming by humans has been proven by computer models is really saying that global warming by humans has been proven by a guess. Perhaps a good guess, but still a guess.

Personally, I doubt that humans have had much impact on the climate. I would suspect things like black roads, shingled houses, and parking lots that heat up in the sun have as much to do with it as greenhouse gasses. My guess, (yes, a guess, just like those computer models), is that the climate changes are natural. Only a humans ego would be so large as to assume that we caused the effect.

Do we wait before taking preventive measures? What if it is 100% natural? What kind of preventive measures are suggested? Spray down the sun with a little water to cool it off?


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
"Global Warming" is a fad, just like the "Coming Ice Age" [Re: GazzBut]
    #3806293 - 02/20/05 12:27 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

30 years ago the econuts were crying that the Ice Age was coming and hell was about to freeze over. Now apparently we are all going to melt away. I predict that 30 years from now we will be worried about the upcoming Ice Age again.

These guys don't get any attention, media minutes, or funding unless they come up with a death scenario for the human race.


http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams082901.asp
---------------------------------------------------------
Envirobamboozled
Walter Williams


TIME MAGAZINE: "Scientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible." U.S. News & World Report chimed in, referring to the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as, "The most definitive -- and scary -- report yet, declaring that global warming is not only real but man-made."


According to the July 2001 Consumers' Research article "Global Warming Science: Fact vs. Fiction," written by Mark LaRochelle and Peter Spencer, the media have it all wrong. The news media have leaped to erroneous conclusions from a summary of a yet-to-be-released 3,000-page report. A follow-up study on global warming was released June 2001 by the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Science.


MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, one of the NRC panelists and lead author of the IPCC report says: "Our primary conclusion was that despite some knowledge and some agreement, the science is by no means settled. We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the Earth. But -- and I cannot stress this enough -- we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future." Adding, "That is to say, contrary to media impressions, agreement with the three basic statements tells us almost nothing relevant to policy discussions."


That conclusion shows just how much confidence we can have in what the media and environmental radicals tell us.


You say, "Williams, are the environmentalist lying and deliberately frightening us?" That's part of their strategy. Consider what environmentalist activist Stephen Schneider said in a 1989 issue of Discover: "We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."


Here's what former Sen. Timothy Wirth, D-Colo., was quoted as saying in Michael Fumento's "Science Under Siege": "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we'll be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."


Dr. Fred Singer, president of The Science & Environmental Policy Project in Arlington, Va., says there are four different independent data sets for measuring temperature. First are thermometers at weather stations around the world. They show warming over the past 30 years, but not in the United States. The second are weather satellites. They show no warming. The third are weather balloons. They show no warming. The fourth are called proxy data -- tree rings, ice cores, lake sediments, etc. They show no warming.


Basing public policy on erroneous observations and predictions can be very costly in terms of human welfare and economic growth. Environmental activist predictions have been dead wrong. In the July 1975 issue of National Wildlife, Nigel Calder warned that "the threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind."


In the same issue, C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization warned, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed."


In 1968, Dr. Paul Erlich, author of "The Population Time Bomb" and environmentalist guru, predicted that the Earth would run out of food by 1977 and that the Earth's 5 billion population would starve back to 2 billion people by 2025.


Erlich also warned Britain's Institute of Biology in 1969, "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."


Why do we listen to these people?

-------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Seuss]
    #3806367 - 02/20/05 12:54 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Seuss,

I think before any preventative measures are considered, there needs to be an effort to revise how the public views the idea of global warming and the research studying it. There are many people on this board - you, baby hitler, phi1618, blaze2, a bunch of people down in science and tech - who have a good understanding of what it's all about. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the general pop aren't so informed and tend to have some wild ideas.

Because various scientists have said so many dumb things over the years, and because their statements have been interpreted by dumb people, there's already been a lot of discussion of the subject. And due to this, a misleading view of global warming has already been cemented into our culture. It seems to go something like this: 'The earth has always had a stable temperature. But now, thanks to fossil fuels alone, it's warming at an unprecedented rate. And if we don't do something about it, we'll be facing an apocalyptic scenario within 30 years.' The chances of any of this being true are incredibly slim. But because it's been so widespread, it's caused a very screwed up state of mind on the topic and elicited such thoughts as 'to even consider the idea of global warming would mean that I endorse what these people are saying. Which would mean that I would have to start driving a car that runs of soybean oil and would have to support kyoto and would have to sell my Exxon Mobil stock. And I don't want to do all that. So instead, I'll poke every hole I can in the theory and paint the entire notion of global warming, and its research, as a scare tactic.' This is all bullshit as well.

It's entirely possible to be supportive of the research while still being against the idea of artificial global warming. It's an important area to study, as the Earth's climate can be fragile. And everyone should just educate themselves on the subject and make their own decisions. And nobody should watch The Day After Tomorrow. And if you decide that you do believe humans are warming the planet, there are many alternatives to kyoto and many cool new hybrids that will save you money. And if you decide that you don't believe humans are warming the planet, do so based on the science alone and try not to smear people who do believe in it.

I think our priority should be getting that message out.

Pinky,

There isn't a rift at the eastern side of Australian-Indian plate boundary. There's a reverse fault subduction zone.

GazzBut,

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. But you debating it with pinky isn't going anywhere.


--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?


Edited by Gijith (02/20/05 08:06 PM)


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 5 months, 29 days
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Gijith]
    #3806507 - 02/20/05 01:44 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

> I'll poke every hole I can in the theory and paint the entire notion of global warming, and its research, as a scare tactic.

It may seem that way, but that is not my intent. If you look at my posts, I almost always include something along the lines of, "I don't know if humans are causing global warming or not..."

I don't poke holes in theories, rather I poke holes in bad science... In other words I can accept, "My computer model indicates that humans are causing global warming.", but I will shoot down every single time, "My computer model proves that humans are causing global warming.". The first statement is accurate, the second statement is bad science.

Again, my gripe isn't against people thinking that aliens blew up the world trade center or that humans are causing global warming. Both of these are valid hypothesis. My gripe is against people that use bad science to prove that aliens blew up the world trade center or that humans are causing global warming. I would never fault somebody for trying to prove a theory, even if the theory seems crazy to me. I will always fault somebody that tries to mislead people into believing that their theory is fact, especially when they are basing their proof on laymen science.

Regardless of humans causing global warming or not, it only makes sense for us to reduce the pollution we are pouring into each others backyards. If the people of Earth continue to trash our planet, we will find out what living in a dump is like for the next few thousand years... if we are lucky.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore Cultivation Supplies   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Amazon Calcium Carbonate, Portable Greenhouse

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Katrina Should be A Lesson To US on Global Warming. lonestar2004 932 11 09/01/05 01:38 PM
by snoopaloop53
* Global Warming?
( 1 2 all )
luvdemshrooms 2,150 37 07/18/03 08:49 PM
by Innvertigo
* A look at global warming.
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
luvdemshrooms 12,613 119 02/27/04 03:07 AM
by EchoVortex
* Global warming nothing but pretend communist conspiracy
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
question_for_joo 9,877 112 08/31/04 09:48 PM
by Gijith
* Surprise CO2 rise may speed up global warming
( 1 2 3 4 all )
GazzBut 4,855 67 10/12/04 01:56 PM
by Innvertigo
* Good article on global warming.
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
luvdemshrooms 4,314 86 06/10/03 06:56 AM
by Innvertigo
* Global Warming, Facts Challenge Hysteria
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Evolving 4,307 75 05/04/03 10:07 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Global Warming May Have More Current Affects than Previously Thought Ravus 630 4 01/16/05 11:53 AM
by greensnake316

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
7,857 topic views. 2 members, 1 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic ]
Search this thread:
Kratom Eye
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.035 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 15 queries.