'Global warming [Archive]

n2ize

03-16-2007, 02:39 AM

Quote[/b] (va7aax @ Mar. 15 2007,19:26)]i really believe global warming is a cycle which the Earth goes into after like 100000 years . if global warming was to happen , it would have happened long back because pollution dates way back in 1800s. what do you think?

73s
If you are interested in learning about this I would advise you to read the peer reviewed scientific litterature on this topic. That will give you a great deal of background and understanding of the CO2 and temperature variations over interglacial periods of the last 400,000 years or more. By all means read into both sides of the debate, including the writings of scientists who disagree that CO2 greenhouse is the primary climate forcer.

Quote[/b] ]
if global warming was to happen , it would have happened long back because pollution dates way back in 1800s. what do you think?

Polution takes time to build up. If it is caused by man's release of CO2 in the air it will obviously take time to notice significant change. It doesn't happen all at once.

It is indeed true. Both CO2 levels and temperature increase and decrease naturally. This has been determined to occur during each interglacial period. The thing is that recent CO2 and temp rise has occured rapidly and over a very short time frame (150 years) coinciding with mans increased use of fossil fuels. Contrast that with past interglacial cycles in which variation occured over a much longer time frame i.e. 10,000 - 20,000 years. This, and other facts lead many scientists to theorrize something other than natural cycles may be fueling present day climate change.

AE6IP

03-16-2007, 03:56 AM

N5NPO

03-16-2007, 04:01 AM

Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Mar. 15 2007,19:28)]Quote[/b] (va7aax @ Mar. 15 2007,21:26)]i really believe global warming is a cycle which the Earth goes into after like 100000 years . if global warming was to happen , it would have happened long back because pollution dates way back in 1800s. what do you think?

73s
I think all the hot air let out in the last dozen global warming threads is causing global warming.

Nice work dude. #You live in a cave or something?
QRZ Disscussion Forums: SO accessable, even a cave man can partissipate.

W5JO

03-16-2007, 01:37 PM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Mar. 15 2007,13:39)]This, and other facts lead many scientists to theorrize something other than natural cycles may be fueling present day climate change.
Are you saying all we have to do is plant more trees?

w5klb

03-16-2007, 02:06 PM

Quote[/b] (W5JO @ Mar. 16 2007,06:37)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Mar. 15 2007,13:39)]This, and other facts lead many scientists to theorrize something other than natural cycles may be fueling present day climate change.
Are you saying all we have to do is plant more trees?
...and *IF* global warming is caused by man-made pollution, can the "Chicken Little Greenies" please explain how Greenland was warm enough to farm by the early Vikings some 10,000 years ago? And also explain the impending "Ice Age" that never occured in the 70's.

W5JO

03-16-2007, 02:22 PM

Quote[/b] (w5klb @ Mar. 16 2007,01:06)]...and *IF* global warming is caused by man-made pollution, can the "Chicken Little Greenies" please explain how Greenland was warm enough to farm by the early Vikings some 10,000 years ago? And also explain the impending "Ice Age" that never occured in the 70's.
In the modern day history re-write since 1968, that didn't happen. Notice how they won't address these facts?

K0RGR

03-16-2007, 02:52 PM

Yes, natural cycles do occur.

Right now, our CO2 concentration and temperature rise is 3 times the maximum level from the last 400,000 some years.
This has now been established by sampling ice cores from various locations on earth, and correlating them. This means that something other than the natural cycle is at work, and the vast majority of scientists believe it is the result of human activity.

However, the great majority of this increase has happened in just the last 30-some years.

Al Gore, and hundreds of scientists, now believe that if we merely return the CO2 levels to those of the 1970's, we can avert most of the potential problems.

That doesn't mean we have to give up driving cars or generating electricity with coal. Indeed, there is existing technology for coal-fired generating plants that generate ZERO greenhouse gases, and these technologies are still cheaper than building nuclear power plants. North Dakota and Montana have a process for converting coal into cleaner-burning diesel fuel, and enough coal to provide all of our diesel for at least 50 years.

What we need to do is convince China and India to adopt these cleaner coal technologies, since much of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere is due to the incredible increase in coal generating plants in Asia. The Chinese are bringing new coal-fired plants online every week, too.

If the USA agreed to the same fuel-mileage goals as the Chinese, we would cut our oil consumption by half, and reduce our CO2 by at least that much.

Then, when you fold in all the non-fossil based energy alternatives, efforts to stop the destruction of the tropical ransforests and the kelp beds in the oceans, and potential new technologies to remove CO2 from the air in bulk, the goals look achievable.

Sadly, our energy industry wants to spend far more money convincing useful idiots that there is no problem, rather than admit that they play any role in the problem that they insist does not exist.

The first category 5 hurricane to hit Baltimore or Manhattan will make us forget all about 9/11. Who's going to build the levees to protect those cities?

I am about as anti-environmentalist as anybody I know. I believe we should nuke the whales and the caribou. And, I've learned not to believe at least 3/4 of everything an enviro-whacko says. But when NASA tells me it's real, and hundreds of the world's leading scientists agree - I believe it's real. I don't care what the flat-earth society thinks.

K5FH

03-16-2007, 03:38 PM

Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ Mar. 16 2007,07:52)]This means that something other than the natural cycle is at work, and the vast majority of scientists believe it is the result of human activity.
Not necessarily. #It could also be error in interpretation of the ice-core samples. #Many climate scientists dispute the accuracy of data obtained from such samples.

The vast majority of scientists do not believe that the rise, if indeed there is one, is solely due to man's activities. #The popular press has interpreted it that way and the politicians, who are for the most part scientifically ignorant, pick up on that and play it for all it is worth. #Al Gore is the best (worst?) example.

What researchers actually are saying is that man's activities contribute to the levels. #There is widespread disagreement on how much of the level is influenced by man's activities. #It's only the alarmists and politicians who say that it's ALL man's fault.

Quote[/b] ]What we need to do is convince China and India to adopt these cleaner coal technologies, since much of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere is due to the incredible increase in coal generating plants in Asia. The Chinese are bringing new coal-fired plants online every week, too.

Good luck. #They're exempt from the unworkable Kyoto treaty. #If they really believed in cleaner technologies they would be building nuke plants. #For that matter, so would we.

Quote[/b] ]The first category 5 hurricane to hit Baltimore or Manhattan will make us forget all about 9/11. Who's going to build the levees to protect those cities?

Hopefully, not the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. #We in the New Orleans area found out the hard way about the quality of engineering and construction of Corps levee designs.

ac3p

03-16-2007, 04:37 PM

Quote[/b] ]if i would be living in a cave , i wouldnt be on these forums LOL . anyways back to topic.......

But you could make a fortune doing insurance company commercials. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

ac3p

03-16-2007, 04:43 PM

Quote[/b] ]The first category 5 hurricane to hit Baltimore or Manhattan will make us forget all about 9/11. Who's going to build the levees to protect those cities?

Hopefully, not the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. #We in the New Orleans area found out the hard way about the quality of engineering and construction of Corps levee designs.

Levees? What levees? Baltimore doesn't have levees.

Baltimore After Isabel 2003 (http://wimsatt.truepath.com/Isabel2003.html)

n2ize

03-16-2007, 05:10 PM

Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Mar. 16 2007,08:38)]Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ Mar. 16 2007,07:52)]This means that something other than the natural cycle is at work, and the vast majority of scientists believe it is the result of human activity.
Not necessarily. #It could also be error in interpretation of the ice-core samples. #Many climate scientists dispute the accuracy of data obtained from such samples.

The vast majority of scientists do not believe that the rise, if indeed there is one, is solely due to man's activities. #The popular press has interpreted it that way and the politicians, who are for the most part scientifically ignorant, pick up on that and play it for all it is worth. #Al Gore is the best (worst?) example.

What researchers actually are saying is that man's activities contribute to the levels. #There is widespread disagreement on how much of the level is influenced by man's activities. #It's only the alarmists and politicians who say that it's ALL man's fault.

Quote[/b] ]What we need to do is convince China and India to adopt these cleaner coal technologies, since much of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere is due to the incredible increase in coal generating plants in Asia. The Chinese are bringing new coal-fired plants online every week, too.

Good luck. #They're exempt from the unworkable Kyoto treaty. #If they really believed in cleaner technologies they would be building nuke plants. #For that matter, so would we.

Quote[/b] ]The first category 5 hurricane to hit Baltimore or Manhattan will make us forget all about 9/11. Who's going to build the levees to protect those cities?

Hopefully, not the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. #We in the New Orleans area found out the hard way about the quality of engineering and construction of Corps levee designs.
Quote[/b] ]
he vast majority of scientists do not believe that the rise, if indeed there is one, is solely due to man's activities. #The popular press has interpreted it that way and the politicians, who are for the most part scientifically ignorant, pick up on that and play it

First and foremost there is indeed a significant rise in both CO2 and temperature which has occurred over the past 150 years. #This is factual and directly measured and indisputable. #Secondly, while the vast majority of scientists feel that while there are other things that affect global climate change the also agree man made activity is at present the most significant. There is widespread agreement on this by the vast majority of the worlds climate scientists.

G8ADD

03-16-2007, 05:41 PM

Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ Mar. 16 2007,07:52)]I am about as anti-environmentalist as anybody I know. I believe we should nuke the whales and the caribou. And, I've learned not to believe at least 3/4 of everything an enviro-whacko says. But when NASA tells me it's real, and hundreds of the world's leading scientists agree - I believe it's real. I don't care what the flat-earth society thinks.
Er - don't you think nukes would cook them too fast?

other wise - applause!

73

Brian G8ADD

k4kyv

03-16-2007, 06:21 PM

Quote[/b] (w5klb @ Mar. 16 2007,14:06)]...and *IF* global warming is caused by man-made pollution, can the "Chicken Little Greenies" please explain how Greenland was warm enough to farm by the early Vikings some 10,000 years ago?
It was due to something called the Mediaeval Warm Period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period).

But I don't think the Vikings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking) extend back as far as 10,000 years. More like 1,000 years.

K5FH

03-16-2007, 06:23 PM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Mar. 16 2007,10:10)]First and foremost there is indeed a significant rise in both CO2 and temperature which has occurred over the past 150 years. #This is factual and directly measured and indisputable.
Define "significant," please.

Quote[/b] ]Secondly, while the vast majority of scientists feel that while there are other things that affect global climate change the also agree man made activity is at present the most significant. There is widespread agreement on this by the vast majority of the worlds climate scientists.

No, there is not any such agreement by the "majority." #The only thing they agree on is that it is a factor; there is widespread DISagreement on how much of a factor it is. #Depending on whose research you want to cite, you can "prove" (to the extent that a politician defines "proof") that it's either all man's fault or that man has an insignificant effect, or most anything in between.

According to some researchers, water vapor is a much more significant forcing than CO2. #Widespread irrigation of formerly arid areas (e.g., California) is contributing to atmospheric water vapor levels. #The cure for this, obviously, is to stop irrigating naturally dry areas. #It's just as obvious that we're not going to stop irrigating dry areas.

It's the old "ain't no such thing as a free lunch" scenario. #If you want technological progress and the comforts associated with modern life, you have to accept that a certain amount of pollution (however that's defined) is part of the price. #No way around it, at least in the Real World. #Some people's mileage obviously varies where they live.

Besides, if the Yellowstone volcano spills its guts into the atmosphere, man's contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere will be miniscule in comparison.

The only problem is, we can't blame volcanic activity on mankind. #But rest assured the liberals will try to find a way.

k4kyv

03-16-2007, 06:35 PM

Quote[/b] ]Besides, if the Yellowstone volcano spills its guts into the atmosphere, man's contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere will be miniscule in comparison.

The only problem is, we can't blame volcanic activity on mankind. But rest assured the liberals will try to find a way.

Yearly averages of global temperatures have steadily increased since the industrial revolution, mid-1700's to mid-1800's in England, addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from industrial processes and the internal combustion engine. Carbon dioxide is abundant in volcanic gases, but not enough to significantly contribute to the greenhouse effect. Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons of carbon dioxide per year while man's activities contribute about 10 billion tons per year.

The problem is complex, for volcanoes can help cool the earth's surface by forming sulfuric acid aerosols that reflect the sun's rays, and also contribute to global warming by giving off carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which contributes to the greenhouse effect.

http://volcanology.geol.ucsb.edu/gas.htm

K5FH

03-16-2007, 06:44 PM

Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Mar. 16 2007,11:35)]The problem is complex, for volcanoes can help cool the earth's surface by forming sulfuric acid aerosols that reflect the sun's rays, and also contribute to global warming by giving off carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which contributes to the greenhouse effect.
Exactly.

The point is that there are too many variables and the variables interrelate in ways that are not well understood in many instances.

This, of necessity, turns what is theoretically a deterministic problem into one of a probabilitistic nature because it is impossible to account for all known, and unknown, factors. #Assumptions must be made in order to construct a practical model. #And the assumptions are where the errors creep in. #It's those assumptions that are the crux of the real arguments.

KE5FRF

03-16-2007, 07:13 PM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Mar. 16 2007,12:10)]Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Mar. 16 2007,08:38)]Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ Mar. 16 2007,07:52)]This means that something other than the natural cycle is at work, and the vast majority of scientists believe it is the result of human activity.
Not necessarily. #It could also be error in interpretation of the ice-core samples. #Many climate scientists dispute the accuracy of data obtained from such samples.

The vast majority of scientists do not believe that the rise, if indeed there is one, is solely due to man's activities. #The popular press has interpreted it that way and the politicians, who are for the most part scientifically ignorant, pick up on that and play it for all it is worth. #Al Gore is the best (worst?) example.

What researchers actually are saying is that man's activities contribute to the levels. #There is widespread disagreement on how much of the level is influenced by man's activities. #It's only the alarmists and politicians who say that it's ALL man's fault.

Quote[/b] ]What we need to do is convince China and India to adopt these cleaner coal technologies, since much of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere is due to the incredible increase in coal generating plants in Asia. The Chinese are bringing new coal-fired plants online every week, too.

Good luck. #They're exempt from the unworkable Kyoto treaty. #If they really believed in cleaner technologies they would be building nuke plants. #For that matter, so would we.

Quote[/b] ]The first category 5 hurricane to hit Baltimore or Manhattan will make us forget all about 9/11. Who's going to build the levees to protect those cities?

Hopefully, not the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. #We in the New Orleans area found out the hard way about the quality of engineering and construction of Corps levee designs.
Quote[/b] ]
he vast majority of scientists do not believe that the rise, if indeed there is one, is solely due to man's activities. #The popular press has interpreted it that way and the politicians, who are for the most part scientifically ignorant, pick up on that and play it

First and foremost there is indeed a significant rise in both CO2 and temperature which has occurred over the past 150 years. #This is factual and directly measured and indisputable. #Secondly, while the vast majority of scientists feel that while there are other things that affect global climate change the also agree man made activity is at present the most significant. There is widespread agreement on this by the vast majority of the worlds climate scientists.
Quote[/b] ]First and foremost there is indeed a significant rise in both CO2 and temperature which has occurred over the past 150 years. #This is factual and directly measured and indisputable.

Golly, I didn't know they were measuring atmospheric CO2 all over the world 150 years ago.

We have been measuring ground level temperatures for longer than 150 years. But 150 years ago 5%* of the ground wasn't covered with asphalt, either.

And please, I sure would like to know how peer-reviewed science got the global cooling scare of the 60's wrong. I have been waiting for an answer for that for a while now.

* I took the liberty of finding a figure at this (http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/enviro6.04.html) link, the lower 48 states were calculated to have 1.5% hard surface coverage in 2003 (which I'm sure has increased a few tenths percent since), so my "guesstimate" was a little more than 3% off to the liberal. I would guess that similarly, Europe and much of Asia is heavily asphalted, as well as much of Brazil, Mexico, Canada, and some African nations.

I can't guess how much of the surface temperature data comes from urban collection points, or even semi-urban, but I know that asphalt surfaces like those at airports can contribute to surface temperature error.
I would think it likely that much of our global data is also being collected in the more urban areas.

I'm sure that recently, some models have taken that into account, but my guess is that it took some of the more "conservative scientists" to bring some of these errors into the discussion. It makes me wonder how many more details will be thought of before the picture is complete.

ac3p

03-16-2007, 07:13 PM

In about 30 years or so, there will be a drop in population as we boomers depart this mortal coil. That should result in quite a drop in manmade the CO2 levels.

But regardless of that, when Apophis hits in 2036 it will all be a moot point anyway.

G8ADD

03-16-2007, 07:30 PM

KE5FRF

03-16-2007, 07:40 PM

Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ Mar. 16 2007,14:30)]Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Mar. 16 2007,11:44)]Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Mar. 16 2007,11:35)]The problem is complex, for volcanoes can help cool the earth's surface by forming sulfuric acid aerosols that reflect the sun's rays, and also contribute to global warming by giving off carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which contributes to the greenhouse effect.
Exactly.

The point is that there are too many variables and the variables interrelate in ways that are not well understood in many instances.

This, of necessity, turns what is theoretically a deterministic problem into one of a probabilitistic nature because it is impossible to account for all known, and unknown, factors. #Assumptions must be made in order to construct a practical model. #And the assumptions are where the errors creep in. #It's those assumptions that are the crux of the real arguments.
OK, Fred, since you clearly understand the problems of modelling better than those researchers presently active in the field, it's time you quit criticising them and instead presented us with your own improved model.

Over to you!

73

Brian G8ADD
Why does your post suggest to me that you would cut off your right earlobe if a scientist told you it would cure cancer?

va7aax

03-16-2007, 09:47 PM

one more thing that popped in my head. is the kyoto protocol any good? or is it another one of those money making ''but sounding like a environmentalist ''scheme?

K5FH

03-16-2007, 10:05 PM

Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ Mar. 16 2007,12:30)]OK, Fred, since you clearly understand the problems of modelling better than those researchers presently active in the field, it's time you quit criticising them and instead presented us with your own improved model.
My comments were about the limitations of the modeling of complex, dynamic systems in general. #This is especially true of models that attempt to predict system behavior far into the future.

The problem is that models of complex, multivariate systems wherein the interrelationships of the variables aren't clearly defined or known, aren't usually very accurate. #

It doesn't follow that because you recognize a model's limitations you have the ability to improve that specific model. #I don't work in the field. #Those who do work in the field recognize the limitations of predictive models of complex systems in general and of their own models in particular.

KE5FRF:
Quote[/b] ]Why does your [G8ADD] post suggest to me that you would cut off your right earlobe if a scientist told you it would cure cancer?

Lemmings is as lemmings does.

VA7AAX:
Quote[/b] ]one more thing that popped in my head. is the kyoto protocol any good? or is it another one of those money making ''but sounding like a environmentalist ''scheme?

AHA! #We have a winner!

When police investigate a crime the first thing they look at is, "Who stands to gain from this crime?" #Similarly, who stands to gain from Kyoto? #It sure ain't the American taxpayer.

n2ize

03-16-2007, 10:26 PM

Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Mar. 16 2007,11:44)]Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Mar. 16 2007,11:35)]The problem is complex, for volcanoes can help cool the earth's surface by forming sulfuric acid aerosols that reflect the sun's rays, and also contribute to global warming by giving off carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which contributes to the greenhouse effect.
Exactly.

The point is that there are too many variables and the variables interrelate in ways that are not well understood in many instances.

This, of necessity, turns what is theoretically a deterministic problem into one of a probabilitistic nature because it is impossible to account for all known, and unknown, factors. #Assumptions must be made in order to construct a practical model. #And the assumptions are where the errors creep in. #It's those assumptions that are the crux of the real arguments.
You are missing the point. You don't reject a scientific theory based on the idea that there are still a lot of variables that are misunderstood or unknown . There are many theories of physics, chemistry, etc that are still not fully understood, that are rife with variables who's interrelationships are not yet clear, yet we construct physical systems based upon these theories and we risk our lives upon them.

The fact is that with regards to global warming there is not a theory, there is fact. It is measured that both CO2 and temperature have been increasing for many decades to the present. The theoretical element comes forward with regards to the cause of these changes. Climatoloogists are not blind to the notion that natural forces as well as man made forces are at work in producing change. They are also not blind to the fact that there are still more to learn. Thus when climate scientists perform modeling they don't do it blindly assuming that their model has no limitiations. Understanding the limitations of any scientific model is paramount in underststanding the useage of any given model as well as the degree of confidence one can have in any results obtained. There are many tests a model must undergo including how well it represents actual data. This is precisely what scientists have done when they use climate modelling as a tool for understanding climate as well as supporting theories such as that of antrhopogenic global warming. Unfortunately the majority of the public and press have verylittle understanding of the inner workings of such #things as climate modeling.

In order to support the idea that the models used by scientists are wrong and they fail to support the notion of anthropogenic climate forcing you need to show WEHRE and WHY. Simply stating that unknowns exist means nothing because there is no context. You need to explain HOW they break down data interpretation and climatemodels in the context of the models themselves.

See the following like for an interesting discussion of the science of climate modelling.

Link (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/is-climate-modelling-science/)

G0GQK

03-16-2007, 10:46 PM

The Two Stooges have now decided the biggest threat to mankind is not them but us !
This business of saving the planet is the religion of the 21st century, best of all they can say its all our fault, and only they can do something to stop it.

This is the way of politicians, divert our thoughts away the crap which they have created in Iraq, they are going to fight terrorism, which they helped to create, by taxing us even more so that they can send armies all over the world to defeat the "insurgents".

We are being bored out of our minds in Britain, every TV news is telling us about "carbon credits " "carbon footprints" saving the planet, its as I have written, The New Religion.

The facts are that the earth goes through cycles in everything, hot one time, cold the next, its been happening for millions of years.
I just wonder what the Two Stooges would have said had they been Vikings in the 12th century when Vikings sailed from Norway in open boats to Iceland and then continued to Greenland where they settled. They took cows, goats, sheep, probably dogs and cats for all we know, grew wheat and were quite contended until the big freeze arrived.

As we all know the big frreeeeze is still in Greenland, the ice in the middle of the country is five miles thick ! So unfortunately for these Viking colonists, it got colder and colder and colder, crops stopped growing, animals died and so did they if they were unable to sail back to Norway, which most of them didn't. So, what could the "save the world " Viking pundits do about the the weather getting colder. Answer, nothing !

All this baloney about carbon from cars, aircraft, you name it will be worth nothing if just one of the biggest volcanoes blows its top. Just think about Krakatoa. when that blew there was so much pollution there were no summers for two years. Read on Google how the people of Connecticut were walking around in thick coats in July, and it snowed as well. Same thing happened everywhere, billions and billions of tons of carbon ash was thrown into the atmosphere, it blocked out the sun. #Remember the big volcanic explosion in the Aleutian Islands the ash was feet deep, all you have to do is read about it on Google. Millions and millions of tons clogging up the atmosphere in a place where there aren't many cars.

In the USA there are forest fires every year, thousands of trees are destroyed the smoke in the atmosphere is enormous. #There has been a forest fire burning in Siberia for years, it can't be put out its burning the trees and peat, and the perma frost is melting, giving off carbon monoxide. The fires are started by lightning. There are now big fires in Australia every year, tons more pollution, what are the Two Stooges going to do about that, and the new power stations which China and India are building which are burning filthy coal.

Never mind, its much easier to tell people its their fault, and they have to pay more taxes, its what politicians do.

G0GQK

n2ize

03-16-2007, 11:18 PM

Quote[/b] (G0GQK @ Mar. 16 2007,15:46)]The Two Stooges have now decided the biggest threat to mankind is not them but us !
This business of saving the planet is the religion of the 21st century, best of all they can say its all our fault, and only they can do something to stop it.

This is the way of politicians, divert our thoughts away the crap which they have created in Iraq, they are going to fight terrorism, which they helped to create, by taxing us even more so that they can send armies all over the world to defeat the "insurgents".

We are being bored out of our minds in Britain, every TV news is telling us about "carbon credits " "carbon footprints" saving the planet, its as I have written, The New Religion.

The facts are that the earth goes through cycles in everything, hot one time, cold the next, its been happening for millions of years.
I just wonder what the Two Stooges would have said had they been Vikings in the 12th century when Vikings sailed from Norway in open boats to Iceland and then continued to Greenland where they settled. They took cows, goats, sheep, probably dogs and cats for all we know, grew wheat and were quite contended until the big freeze arrived.

As we all know the big frreeeeze is still in Greenland, the ice in the middle of the country is five miles thick ! So unfortunately for these Viking colonists, it got colder and colder and colder, crops stopped growing, animals died and so did they if they were unable to sail back to Norway, which most of them didn't. So, what could the "save the world " Viking pundits do about the the weather getting colder. Answer, nothing !

All this baloney about carbon from cars, aircraft, you name it will be worth nothing if just one of the biggest volcanoes blows its top. Just think about Krakatoa. when that blew there was so much pollution there were no summers for two years. Read on Google how the people of Connecticut were walking around in thick coats in July, and it snowed as well. Same thing happened everywhere, billions and billions of tons of carbon ash was thrown into the atmosphere, it blocked out the sun. #Remember the big volcanic explosion in the Aleutian Islands the ash was feet deep, all you have to do is read about it on Google. Millions and millions of tons clogging up the atmosphere in a place where there aren't many cars.

In the USA there are forest fires every year, thousands of trees are destroyed the smoke in the atmosphere is enormous. #There has been a forest fire burning in Siberia for years, it can't be put out its burning the trees and peat, and the perma frost is melting, giving off carbon monoxide. The fires are started by lightning. There are now big fires in Australia every year, tons more pollution, what are the Two Stooges going to do about that, and the new power stations which China and India are building which are burning filthy coal.

Never mind, its much easier to tell people its their fault, and they have to pay more taxes, its what politicians do.

G0GQK
Quote[/b] ]
The Two Stooges have now decided the biggest threat to mankind is not them but us !
This business of saving the planet is the religion of the 21st century, best of all they can say its all our fault, and only they can do something to stop it.

Global warming theory is the work of thousands of climatologists working for decades. research indicates that present day warming is in past significantly due to mans consumption of fossil fuels. Nobody is "blaming man" per se. I think it is more a case of man's ego that he considers it such a deep blow to his pride that some activity he chose to do may be adversely affecting climate. Even though he is not doing it deliberately he would rather deny it, reject the work of the scientists, and live in a state of denial over it.

Quote[/b] ]
worth nothing if just one of the biggest volcanoes blows its top. Just think about Krakatoa. when that blew there was so much pollution there were no summers for two years. Read on Google how the people of Connecticut were walking around in thick coats in July, and it snowed as well. Same thing happened everywhere, billions and billions of tons of carbon ash was thrown into the atmosphere, it blocked out the sun. #Remember the big volcanic explosion in the Aleutian Islands the

And what does this have to do with science ? Yes, it is possible that major anomalies can cause abnormal weather for a period of time. Just the way smoke from a forest fire in Quebec hundreds of miles from my home turned a sunny bright day into a dark seemingly cloudy day with the sun shrowded in a scary looking murky yellowish brown and filled the air both inside and out with the smell of fire. yet, as the fire subsides the smoke cleared and conditions gradually normalized. Same thing with the volcanoes. Now, imagine if that fire or volcanic eruuption never subsided ?? That is more of a parralell to man made global warming. If man made global warming is affecting our climate (and science seems to make that point clear) and if we do nothing to mitigate it and we continue to spew out or increase the billions of tons of CO2 we spew out per year the climate will change, and there will be no point of normalization and, potentially, we may see disastrous results (or at least our children, grand children) will see such results.

So, I fail to see how the possibility of a volcano, or other major natural calamity means we should not pay attention to science nor do anything to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels ? Thats like saying I shouldn't worry about grounding my antenna because if a major bolt of lightning hits my grounding system will look like nothing, or, why put a roof on my house to keep the rain out because a tornado can just rip the roof right off.

K5FH

03-16-2007, 11:36 PM

Quote[/b] (G0GQK @ Mar. 16 2007,15:46)]The Two Stooges have now decided the biggest threat to mankind is not them but us !
Are you talking about IZE and IP or are you talking about Bush and Blair?

(Sorry...that was just too good of an opening to pass up) http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

n2ize

03-17-2007, 12:00 AM

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Mar. 16 2007,12:13)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Mar. 16 2007,12:10)]Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Mar. 16 2007,08:38)]Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ Mar. 16 2007,07:52)]This means that something other than the natural cycle is at work, and the vast majority of scientists believe it is the result of human activity.
Not necessarily. #It could also be error in interpretation of the ice-core samples. #Many climate scientists dispute the accuracy of data obtained from such samples.

The vast majority of scientists do not believe that the rise, if indeed there is one, is solely due to man's activities. #The popular press has interpreted it that way and the politicians, who are for the most part scientifically ignorant, pick up on that and play it for all it is worth. #Al Gore is the best (worst?) example.

What researchers actually are saying is that man's activities contribute to the levels. #There is widespread disagreement on how much of the level is influenced by man's activities. #It's only the alarmists and politicians who say that it's ALL man's fault.

Quote[/b] ]What we need to do is convince China and India to adopt these cleaner coal technologies, since much of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere is due to the incredible increase in coal generating plants in Asia. The Chinese are bringing new coal-fired plants online every week, too.

Good luck. #They're exempt from the unworkable Kyoto treaty. #If they really believed in cleaner technologies they would be building nuke plants. #For that matter, so would we.

Quote[/b] ]The first category 5 hurricane to hit Baltimore or Manhattan will make us forget all about 9/11. Who's going to build the levees to protect those cities?

Hopefully, not the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. #We in the New Orleans area found out the hard way about the quality of engineering and construction of Corps levee designs.
Quote[/b] ]
he vast majority of scientists do not believe that the rise, if indeed there is one, is solely due to man's activities. #The popular press has interpreted it that way and the politicians, who are for the most part scientifically ignorant, pick up on that and play it

First and foremost there is indeed a significant rise in both CO2 and temperature which has occurred over the past 150 years. #This is factual and directly measured and indisputable. #Secondly, while the vast majority of scientists feel that while there are other things that affect global climate change the also agree man made activity is at present the most significant. There is widespread agreement on this by the vast majority of the worlds climate scientists.
Quote[/b] ]First and foremost there is indeed a significant rise in both CO2 and temperature which has occurred over the past 150 years. #This is factual and directly measured and indisputable.

Golly, I didn't know they were measuring atmospheric CO2 all over the world 150 years ago.

And please, I sure would like to know how peer-reviewed science got the global cooling scare of the 60's wrong. I have been waiting for an answer for that for a while now.

* I took the liberty of finding a figure at this (http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/enviro6.04.html) link, the lower 48 states were calculated to have 1.5% hard surface coverage in 2003 (which I'm sure has increased a few tenths percent since), so my "guesstimate" was a little more than 3% off to the liberal. I would guess that similarly, Europe and much of Asia is heavily asphalted, as well as much of Brazil, Mexico, Canada, and some African nations.

I can't guess how much of the surface temperature data comes from urban collection points, or even semi-urban, but I know that asphalt surfaces like those at airports can contribute to surface temperature error.
I would think it likely that much of our global data is also being collected in the more urban areas.

I'm sure that recently, some models have taken that into account, but my guess is that it took some of the more "conservative scientists" to bring some of these errors into the discussion. It makes me wonder how many more details will be thought of before the picture is complete.
Quote[/b] ]
Golly, I didn't know they were measuring atmospheric CO2 all over the world 150 years ago.

Nor were they measuring CO2 levels 650,000 years ago. But that does not mean that scientists cannot gather data from various proxies and piece together relationships between CO2 concentrations and temperature going back so many thousand years. Likewise they can compare past data to what has happened overt the past 150 years. the data is there. Anyone can access it.

Quote[/b] ]
We have been measuring ground level temperatures for longer than 150 years. But 150 years ago 5%* of the ground wasn't covered with asphalt, either.

You are thinking of what is called the "urban heat island"effect. Climatologists and metiorologists are very well aware of the effect of our new "concrete jungles" and take special care to normalize data collected to make sure it is not spoiled by the UHIE. Not that is is easilly spoiled by the UHIE to begin with. I posted links to literature on this several postsback but apparently few people like to read. Nonethless, I post them again below for the benefit of those who maybe inclined to read and, dare I say, comment on what they read.

Link (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=43)

Link (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=44)

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island)

Quote[/b] ]
And please, I sure would like to know how peer-reviewed science got the global cooling scare of the 60's wrong. I have been waiting for an answer for that for a while now.

Actually there was very little scientific support for the global cooling theory of the 1970'sand,if anything is dwarfed in comparison to the widespread scientific consensus regarding global warming. Off the top of my head I am not even sure if there was much if anything written in support of a general theory of global cooling in the peer reviewed journals. It did receive some hype and press in popular magazines, the national geographic and perhaps on some tv shows but, those are not considered scientific sources. Thus, while there was some support for global cooling is was short lived and had little credibility as a theory of climate change. You might find the following links interesting...

Link (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94)

Link (http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/)

KE5FRF

03-17-2007, 12:27 AM

You guys kill me.

Ready to cut that earlobe off yet?

K5FH

03-17-2007, 12:33 AM

Since we're talking about urban heat islands, try this link to the Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., research group:

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/

A lot of good stuff from a well-respected researcher in the field who doesn't necessarily go along with the GW orthodoxy.

KE5FRF

03-17-2007, 01:03 AM

Your second article struck me as funny.

Quote[/b] ]Where does the myth come from? Naturally enough, there is a kernel of truth behind it all. Firstly, there was a trend of cooling from the 40's to the 70's

And there has been a trend of warming from the 70's to the 2000's...what will the 2000s to the 2030s bring?

Quote[/b] ](although that needs to be qualified, as hemispheric or global temperature datasets were only just beginning to be assembled then).

So we're only going by datasets since the 40's? I thought it was datasets since the 1800s and corolations from before that?

Quote[/b] ]But people were well aware that extrapolating such a short trend was a mistake (Mason, 1976) .

And we conveniently lost that awareness for this short trend?

Quote[/b] ]Secondly, it was becoming clear that ice ages followed a regular pattern and that interglacials (such as we are now in) were much shorter that the full glacial periods in between.

and so do the warming periods.

This article reminded me of Porky Pig, stuttering trying to explain himself.

The bottom line is that this is a political issue, a hot button, a money maker. It pits polarizing figures against polarizing figures. It has lesser known scientists standing in line to get grant money to do their "big break" research project to make a name for themselves. Likewise, it has corporations funding other scientists who offer a differing perspective. Only difference is that in the scientific community, getting your name and research published in peer-review journals is kind of like winning the lottery, only acolades are the end goal. (For many, legacy and peer affection/respect is worth more than money) I was never so aware of the religion of science until I started analyzing this issue and started reading about it on QRZ.

I cannot worship science, for science is made up of scientists, and scientists are people. People (especially intelligent people) have ambitions, alterior motives, competitive natures, and an almost blinding desire to make a name for themselves. This allows for a wholesale lack of integrity, and all too often arrogance.

I appreciate science and scientists like a appreciate corporations and businessmen. I know that business transactions that I am not privy to more often than not benefit me. They bring me products, goods, and services that make my life better. Science does the same thing, it advances our knowledge for the greater good. In both institutions, there are ethical principals that are supposed to be followed. I get ethics training every year in my profession. Science likewise has ethics rules. But I keep a suspicious eye on both groups, because I know that both groups are stil made up of people. I know that people have ambitions. Scientists have ambitions and so do corporations. They both have a product to market and sell. And in both institutions, sometimes getting the product sold is more important than the quality that stands behind it.

I honestly do believe that man is influencing our climate to an extent. But I also have considered the "ceiling". I don't think our contributions increase exponentially, and I think there is a natural "plateau" that will be reached. I think our Earth is marvelously well equiped to handle most of it, and what little it can't handle, yes, we affect. But I'll err on the moderate/conservative side instead of the liberal, as moderacy is always where the truth lies, and since I tend to be conservative by nature. I don't think our world is going to come to an end. I don't think the plagues and the locusts and the fire and brimstone will fall. And most importantly, I think the economic consequencies of hitting a panic button outweigh the consequences of our activities.

I do think we should temper our fuel consumption and look for alternatives. I do believe that science can be served in looking for improved anti-pollution techniques. I do think people ought to turn out unused lights and carpool when they can. But I refuse to wrench my hands and pull my hair over the postulizations of other "people

Quote[/b] ]Thus, while there was some support for global cooling is was short lived and had little credibility as a theory of climate change. You might find the following links interesting...

In other words, that fad fizzled out when the Earth started warming up again. Then, it started surpassing the "baseline" and another Chicken Little "fad" came about.

I can't wait till the next cooling period.

I guess the next fad will warn us of the dangers of "Global Cycling"

n2ize

03-17-2007, 02:23 AM

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Mar. 16 2007,18:03)]Your second article struck me as funny.

Quote[/b] ]Where does the myth come from? Naturally enough, there is a kernel of truth behind it all. Firstly, there was a trend of cooling from the 40's to the 70's

And there has been a trend of warming from the 70's to the 2000's...what will the 2000s to the 2030s bring?

Quote[/b] ](although that needs to be qualified, as hemispheric or global temperature datasets were only just beginning to be assembled then).

So we're only going by datasets since the 40's? I thought it was datasets since the 1800s and corolations from before that?

Quote[/b] ]But people were well aware that extrapolating such a short trend was a mistake (Mason, 1976) .

And we conveniently lost that awareness for this short trend?

Quote[/b] ]Secondly, it was becoming clear that ice ages followed a regular pattern and that interglacials (such as we are now in) were much shorter that the full glacial periods in between.

and so do the warming periods.

This article reminded me of Porky Pig, stuttering trying to explain himself.

The bottom line is that this is a political issue, a hot button, a money maker. It pits polarizing figures against polarizing figures. It has lesser known scientists standing in line to get grant money to do their "big break" research project to make a name for themselves. Likewise, it has corporations funding other scientists who offer a differing perspective. Only difference is that in the scientific community, getting your name and research published in peer-review journals is kind of like winning the lottery, only acolades are the end goal. (For many, legacy and peer affection/respect is worth more than money) I was never so aware of the religion of science until I started analyzing this issue and started reading about it on QRZ.

I cannot worship science, for science is made up of scientists, and scientists are people. People (especially intelligent people) have ambitions, alterior motives, competitive natures, and an almost blinding desire to make a name for themselves. This allows for a wholesale lack of integrity, and all too often arrogance.

I appreciate science and scientists like a appreciate corporations and businessmen. I know that business transactions that I am not privy to more often than not benefit me. They bring me products, goods, and services that make my life better. Science does the same thing, it advances our knowledge for the greater good. In both institutions, there are ethical principals that are supposed to be followed. I get ethics training every year in my profession. Science likewise has ethics rules. But I keep a suspicious eye on both groups, because I know that both groups are stil made up of people. I know that people have ambitions. Scientists have ambitions and so do corporations. They both have a product to market and sell. And in both institutions, sometimes getting the product sold is more important than the quality that stands behind it.

I honestly do believe that man is influencing our climate to an extent. But I also have considered the "ceiling". I don't think our contributions increase exponentially, and I think there is a natural "plateau" that will be reached. I think our Earth is marvelously well equiped to handle most of it, and what little it can't handle, yes, we affect. But I'll err on the moderate/conservative side instead of the liberal, as moderacy is always where the truth lies, and since I tend to be conservative by nature. I don't think our world is going to come to an end. I don't think the plagues and the locusts and the fire and brimstone will fall. And most importantly, I think the economic consequencies of hitting a panic button outweigh the consequences of our activities.

I do think we should temper our fuel consumption and look for alternatives. I do believe that science can be served in looking for improved anti-pollution techniques. I do think people ought to turn out unused lights and carpool when they can. But I refuse to wrench my hands and pull my hair over the postulizations of other "people

Quote[/b] ]Thus, while there was some support for global cooling is was short lived and had little credibility as a theory of climate change. You might find the following links interesting...

In other words, that fad fizzled out when the Earth started warming up again. Then, it started surpassing the "baseline" and another Chicken Little "fad" came about.

I can't wait till the next cooling period.

I guess the next fad will warn us of the dangers of "Global Cycling"
Quote[/b] ]I
n other words, that fad fizzled out when the Earth started warming up again. Then, it started surpassing the "baseline" and another Chicken Little "fad" came about.

No, as the article explained, and you would understand if you studied the science behind all this with an open mind, that there was little if any scientific evidence behind global cooling and no read data to back it up. With respect to global warming it is factual. It is not a theory. The temperature of the earth is indeed warming and has indeed warmed considerably over a very short time frame. #The best supporting theory points to billions of tons of CO2 spewed into the air by man each year. The evidence supporting this theory is very strong as you would understand if you studied the science.

So, if you wish to show that global warming is merely a chicken little fad you need to show the following

1) All the data collected and analyzed by thousands of reputable climatologists over the past several decades has been grossly misinterpreted.

2) You need to provide a suitable and alternative theory explaining the dramatic rise in CO2 levels and temperature over the past 150 years has nothing to do with human activity.

3) The presently high CO2 levels have no affect on temperature. #and/or approach a functional limit as CO2 levels continue to rise.

4) The above steps 1 - 3 pass the peer review process

Quote[/b] ]
I cannot worship science, for science is made up of scientists, and scientists are people. People (especially intelligent people) have ambitions, alterior motives, competitive natures, and an almost blinding desire to make a name for themselves. This allows for a wholesale lack of integrity, and all too often arrogance.

Oh this is another tires old skeptics claim. That the scientists have deliberately skewed their results for personal gain. So in addition you need to show clear tangible evidence that thousands of reputable scientists have deliberately staked their reputations and purposly fudged the data and thir conclusions for personal gain over so many decades of research. That is a pretty tall claim and one that I have heard repeated without evidence so many times I smile and roll my eyes when I hear it.
Thus far the only evidence of collaboration with industy and distortion of facts are incidents like this

Linque (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/22/1338256)

Okay, it's your move. I'm waiting. I won't hold my breath though.

KE5FRF

03-17-2007, 02:56 AM

Yeeeeess

I read the article, and Global warming is a fact. It has been a fact ever since time began, and so has Global cooling. The temperature of the Earth has indeed warmed up over a short period of time, and it cooled over a short period of time from the 40's thru 70's. You still aren't presenting anything amazing. I have studied all of this science since it first started being postulated in the 1980's, in fact I had it forced down my throat in High School and College as biblical even then. The world paniced and banned certain aeresols in the early 1990's, I've been keeping up with this subject for a very long time. Each time you arrogantly imply that you know more than I, you drive me further away from your point because I can't stand arrogance. You need to change your tactic. You are the one who has the burden of convincing, not I, and convincing doesn't work when you keep telling your audience they don't get you because they are not as smart as you or not as expert.

You have stated many times that you are a computer network dood or something like that. I am an Instrumentation Technician. Neither one of us are hoofing it in Antartica taking measurements. None of us are on an Andes Mountain with a thermometer. We're both middle-American knuckle-heads sitting at our air-conditioned computer areas, reading internet URLs and beating our chests.

You outlined some "rules" for me. Who elected you the rules-man?

OK

Things I have to prove...

Quote[/b] ]1) All the data collected and analyzed by thousands of reputable climatologists over the past several decades has been grossly misinterpreted.

I can't do that, and you can't prove that it hasn't. Again, we can't do that sitting in front of a computer Googling.

Quote[/b] ]2) You need to provide a suitable and alternative theory explaining the dramatic rise in CO2 levels and temperature over the past 150 years has nothing to do with human activity.

No I don't. I'm not a climatologist. I don't have the money to go get my PHD, and I frankly don't have the time. But that doesn't mean I'm not smart enough to question "The MAN" as self confessed hippies would say and challenge the status quo. Only time will tell, Google won't. As I said, it has been demonstrated that PEOPLE can get tunnel vision. Look at Iraq. If there is any burden of proof that needs to be demonstrated, you need to prove to me that scientists are incapable of error or tunnel vision. You also need to prove to me that they are humble. I don't crumble to the whims of people who tell me "Its this way cause we say so and you don't believe us cause your not as smart as us", as these threads seem to go.

Quote[/b] ]3) The presently high CO2 levels have no affect on temperature. and/or approach a functional limit as CO2 levels continue to rise.

High in reference to what? To last year or thirty years ago? Dood, we have only had equipment capable of measuring CO2 and identifying it for MAYBE 60,70 years, and the equipment of 60-70 years ago was much less accurate. I work in the field of scientific instrumentation. I calibrate and repair the very types of instruments that scientists use in the field. Do you know what a GC or a Mass Spectrometer is? Its a little different than a Linux based server or something like that. I have old equipment, and new equipment, and I know that the newer stuff is more accurate.

Dood, one thing I can gaurantee that I am more familiar on a professional level with is quantitative and qualitative statistical analysis. If there is any expertise that I can fall back on, it is that. And I know that errors and outlyers are all too common. I also know that COROLATION DATA IS NOT AN ADEQUATE SUBSTITUTE FOR DIRECT ANALYSIS. Any CO2 data from before the 1920's is going to be indirect methods, and I trust indirect methods about as far as I can throw this computer. Would you buy gasoline from my company if I told you we quality tested every product with indirect data? NO. Likewise, I'm not selling the farm based on indirect data from scientists.

In this argument, we have about 100 years or less worth of real and hard facts to analyze. Only in the past 20 or so years have we been really looking at Global Warming as a "threat". In the past 100 years, we have experienced some warm,cool, then warm cycles. Yes, the warm cycle we are currently in LOOKS a little sharper than earlier cycles, but at any given moment, a Volcano could errupt and set everything back the way it was. The Earth is about as predictable as Windoze operating systems, and far more complex. If we can't get something simple like that straight, how do you expect me to panic over bumps in the climate cycle?

Fella, I'm not against you over here. I've made it clear that I think we need to curb our appetites with fuel consumption. But I'll tell you that I'm a heckuva lot more worried about what we're going to do about those hungry kids in Africa than I am about this silliness.

KE5FRF

03-17-2007, 03:11 AM

Quote[/b] ]Oh this is another tires old skeptics claim. That the scientists have deliberately skewed their results for personal gain. So in addition you need to show clear tangible evidence that thousands of reputable scientists have deliberately staked their reputations and purposly fudged the data and thir conclusions for personal gain over so many decades of research. That is a pretty tall claim and one that I have heard repeated without evidence so many times I smile and roll my eyes when I hear it.

My skepticism is no different than someone who would claim the Republican government risked its respectability, its legacy, its political reputation, and the lives of brave Americans all for the sake of a few extra bucks in oil revenues and to go start a "Yeehaw Shootem up cowboy" war. I have always contended that our government has had at its core the interest and safety of the American people, despite mistakes and judgement errors. But people like you continue to point fingers and slander, again, based on the biblical wisdom of the media and the agenda of the Democratic National Commitee who stands a lot to gain by making our leaders look like fools.

Is our government crooked? Maybe so. Is our scientific community arrogant? Damn, you betcha! But that doesn't mean they are wrong! But it sure does give me reason to look at the alternative and consider it.

KE5FRF

03-17-2007, 03:34 AM

Honestly, I'm going to admit something here. I couldn't really care less about Global Warming. This ranks down there with my foot fungus problem and what I'm going to have for dinner on July 17th, 2008. I sure am interested in learning as much as I can, and I sure hope we get it all figured out, but I'm not sweating it, just as I didn't sweat Y2K.

What I really get a kick out of is reading the odes and accolades to the wonders of science that get tossed around here. I get visions of people running to their cupboards to throw away their cornflakes because a "new scientific study says eating corn flakes increases your chances of testicular cancer by .03%"...and then three weeks later buying a years worth of cornflakes because another study says corn flakes helps to cure flatulance in males....all the while Kellogs is laughing because they sold you twice as many corn flakes as they would have otherwise.

This is the same chuckle I get when I drive by the yuppie grocery store where they are selling "Pure, chemical free organic groceries" and charging double for it, while I am taking my wal-mart lettuce and holding it under running water for a few minutes.

It reminds me of me ex-father and law, who would jump on the latest fad and run with it, like colloidal water, the end-all cure-all. My ex-father in law is a brilliant man, and so is my ex mother in law. In fact, she has a double masters in nursing and psychology. Both of them crazy as a loon. Sometimes people can be just TOO damn smart for their own good.

Thats what this argument is to me. And I apologize if that offends you. I try to live my life with as much balance as possible. The biggest imbalance I have is QRZ.com, as my post count indicates. But I'll stick to my life-long philosophy that the truth lies somewhere in the middle...and usually the middle is a pretty safe place to be.

KC2ESD

03-17-2007, 03:50 AM

I'v had it with the cold weather here on planet Earth. I'm packing my bags and moving to the Planet Venus were its always warm and the women are awsome. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

AE6IP

03-17-2007, 06:52 AM

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Mar. 16 2007,17:03)]I cannot worship science, for science is made up of scientists, and scientists are people. People (especially intelligent people) have ambitions, alterior motives, competitive natures, and an almost blinding desire to make a name for themselves. This allows for a wholesale lack of integrity, and all too often arrogance.
No one should worship science. It is just another epistemology, albeit one that's been proven to be very good at what it does.

The arrogance, blindness, and self-serving need for fame are an understood part of the process and are a weakness turned into strength by the judicious use of the competitiveness. This is what fuels the peer review process and makes it effective: A can't be right unless B is wrong, so it is in A's interest to show the weaknesses in B's approach as well as the strength in A's.

The problem with lay "debates" over global warming is that they are held at far too general a level of detail. "The planet warms and cools repeatedly" is not a counter argument to the arguments supporting anthropogenic global warming for the simple reason that the way in which the planet is warming this time is quantitatively and qualitatively different than any of the past times.

"The sun is a variable star" is not a counter argument to the arguments supporting anthropogenic global warming for the simple reason that its variability does not correlate very well with the cycle of warming and cooling in the 19th and 20th century.

"volcanoes produce more..." is not a counter argument to the arguments supporting anthropogenic global warming for the simple reason that volcanic production of gases, et cetera, is annually variable and, like the sun, does not correlate very well with the cycle of warming and cooling in the 19th and 20th century.

Among the scientific literate, and that should include lay people familiar with the literature, the following should be considered settled points of science:

That the global climate cycle is varying this time in a way different than in any of the past variations;

That the variation correlates poorly with the known sources of "natural" variation in climate, notably the sun and geothermal sources; and

That the variation correlates strongly with the increase in CO2 in the last two hundred years as a result of human caused emission of CO2.

Reasonable men may disagree, but we are past the point where those three items should be items of debate among reasonable men.

Now is the time to move on to the more difficult and speculative questions and debate those, because they are the ones which may have an impact on human behavior:

Is the planetary weather system capable of mitigating the changes?

Is human intervention capable of mitigating the changes?

If human intervention is capable of mitigating the changes and the planetary weather system is not, how much change is acceptable?

If human intervention is desirable, to what extent is it possible?

If it is possible, how can it best be accomplished with the maximum positive impact on the world's economy?

KE5FRF

03-17-2007, 06:57 AM

Quote[/b] ]"The planet warms and cools repeatedly" is not a counter argument to the arguments supporting anthropogenic global warming for the simple reason that the way in which the planet is warming this time is quantitatively and qualitatively different than any of the past times.

Yes it is.

Quote[/b] ]The problem with lay "debates"

Yes, I agree...so then you'll agree that both of us should quit arguing about this and let the experts work it out.

A few phrases not included in "How to win friends and influence people"

"Among the scientific literate"

This implies that if you disagree, you aren't scientifically literate. Man, I never knew the power of scientific credentials. I should reconsider getting that PhD...If I got one, I could get a nice cool T-shirt made that says "I'm scientifically literate" and become have an excuse to be arrogant and condescending. Maybe I'd pick up lots of chicks.

What in the seaven seas does "scientific literate" mean? I guess it means you understand science. Well, I understand science, and I still am not sold on all of these "unquestionable" facts that get bantered around. The trouble is, I understand all of the facts, it is the conclusions that I'm not in agreement on. And "reasonable men" would agree that simple facts don't always support universal conclusions. FACT: The sun is about to enter a new solar cycle. FACT: There is strong reason to believe that this solar cycle will be a good one for radio communications FACT: Predictions are just what they are, predictions, and predictions based on computer models are only as good as the programmer and the data that is entered in. Leading experts are unsure of when the present solar cycle will precisely begin, and we only can predict that it will be "better" than the last. Solar cycle modeling has STRONG, HISTORIC, DIRECTLY recorded data collected by visual observation and sunspot counting since the telescope was invented, and yet, we can only make educated forecasts and learn from our innacuracies for the next time around.

Solar cycle science is simplistic in comparison to Earths climate cycle. The sun is not much more than a huge nuclear reactor consuming hydrogen mass and turning it into radiation. Yet, here we are, still studying and learning.

This topic doesn't deserve the status that the GW Baptist "congregation" would assign it. It needs a whole lot more study, more TIME, and a decade or two of more data. In the mean time, we look for opportunities to improve our global stewardship.

Quote[/b] ]Reasonable men may disagree, but we are past the point where those three items should be items of debate among reasonable men.

Now, anyone who disagrees is not reasonable.

Reasonable men do not panic themselves over guesswork.

These are just a few more examples of a long, alarming, and frankly tiresome history of arrogance among the scientific (and quasi-scientific) "elitists". The funny thing is, I know of no other profession where you can consider yourself an expert just because you have a degree or experience in a loosely related dicipline. The title "scientist" gives you carte blanche to set yourself as "literate" in every field, just because you call yourself a "scientist". In a way, that is a self demeaning statement, because it sure boils everything down to something simplistic. My ex-wife is a professor of psychology...(oh my God, what I learned about academia)...I suppose this would make her an expert in Oceanography? No, you probably wouldn't say that, but I would laugh at you if you claimed she would be better at understanding it than I. I know my ex...she's not that smart.

I learned all about academia when I helped my wife with her Thesis...(Yes, I wrote parts of her Thesis for her and did her graphs)...I learned all about scientific integrity when she was having problems determining if her research on Gibbons was significant, and her Thesis committee mentor showed her how to fudge her stats. I learned all about Academia when I met one of her professors, who later got busted on possession charges, and another professor in the department was arrested for kiddie porn on his puter. These were published, peer-reviewed scientists, supposed experts on the human mind...people who were supposed to be TEACHING young impressionable college kids how to help others overcome emotional problems. ROTFLMAO. It was quite funny hanging out with these professors at college parties, watching some of them get drunk and hit on their students.

KB5DOH

03-17-2007, 07:24 AM

Quote[/b] (va7aax @ Mar. 15 2007,18:26)]i really believe global warming is a cycle which the Earth goes into after like 100000 years . if global warming was to happen , it would have happened long back because pollution dates way back in 1800s. what do you think?

73s
Keeping it simple: #Man has been a primary factor in "Global warming" starting with cutting of trees and then factorys, autos, nukes, and now according to those that like to dictate smoking which some of the commercials are misleading. Yes man has been the biggest cause of "Global warming", to coin a phrase from the noted "Spock" Logic would be to stop cutting trees and switch to a nother form of fuel for our auto's or better yet do like the anti-smokers get "Ban" Autos, Tree harvesting, Factories, Nuke-testing & Bombs, and shooting space craft in to outer space as that too may be harming the ozone layer.

Allan = kb5doh/kt

G8ADD

03-17-2007, 07:33 AM

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Mar. 16 2007,12:40)]Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ Mar. 16 2007,14:30)]Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Mar. 16 2007,11:44)]Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Mar. 16 2007,11:35)]The problem is complex, for volcanoes can help cool the earth's surface by forming sulfuric acid aerosols that reflect the sun's rays, and also contribute to global warming by giving off carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which contributes to the greenhouse effect.
Exactly.

The point is that there are too many variables and the variables interrelate in ways that are not well understood in many instances.

This, of necessity, turns what is theoretically a deterministic problem into one of a probabilitistic nature because it is impossible to account for all known, and unknown, factors. Assumptions must be made in order to construct a practical model. And the assumptions are where the errors creep in. It's those assumptions that are the crux of the real arguments.
OK, Fred, since you clearly understand the problems of modelling better than those researchers presently active in the field, it's time you quit criticising them and instead presented us with your own improved model.

Over to you!

73

Brian G8ADD
Why does your post suggest to me that you would cut off your right earlobe if a scientist told you it would cure cancer?
Perhaps its because you have an overactive imagination?

Such merry little quips are really a poor substitute for reasoned debate.

73

Brian G8ADD

n2ize

03-17-2007, 08:11 AM

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Mar. 16 2007,19:56)]Yeeeeess

I read the article, and Global warming is a fact. It has been a fact ever since time began, and so has Global cooling. The temperature of the Earth has indeed warmed up over a short period of time, and it cooled over a short period of time from the 40's thru 70's. You still aren't presenting anything amazing. I have studied all of this science since it first started being postulated in the 1980's, in fact I had it forced down my throat in High School and College as biblical even then. The world paniced and banned certain aeresols in the early 1990's, I've been keeping up with this subject for a very long time. Each time you arrogantly imply that you know more than I, you drive me further away from your point because I can't stand arrogance. You need to change your tactic. You are the one who has the burden of convincing, not I, and convincing doesn't work when you keep telling your audience they don't get you because they are not as smart as you or not as expert.

You have stated many times that you are a computer network dood or something like that. I am an Instrumentation Technician. Neither one of us are hoofing it in Antartica taking measurements. None of us are on an Andes Mountain with a thermometer. We're both middle-American knuckle-heads sitting at our air-conditioned computer areas, reading internet URLs and beating our chests.

You outlined some "rules" for me. Who elected you the rules-man?

OK

Things I have to prove...

Quote[/b] ]1) All the data collected and analyzed by thousands of reputable climatologists over the past several decades has been grossly misinterpreted.

I can't do that, and you can't prove that it hasn't. Again, we can't do that sitting in front of a computer Googling.

Quote[/b] ]2) You need to provide a suitable and alternative theory explaining the dramatic rise in CO2 levels and temperature over the past 150 years has nothing to do with human activity.

No I don't. I'm not a climatologist. I don't have the money to go get my PHD, and I frankly don't have the time. But that doesn't mean I'm not smart enough to question "The MAN" as self confessed hippies would say and challenge the status quo. Only time will tell, Google won't. As I said, it has been demonstrated that PEOPLE can get tunnel vision. Look at Iraq. If there is any burden of proof that needs to be demonstrated, you need to prove to me that scientists are incapable of error or tunnel vision. You also need to prove to me that they are humble. I don't crumble to the whims of people who tell me "Its this way cause we say so and you don't believe us cause your not as smart as us", as these threads seem to go.

Quote[/b] ]3) The presently high CO2 levels have no affect on temperature. #and/or approach a functional limit as CO2 levels continue to rise.

High in reference to what? To last year or thirty years ago? Dood, we have only had equipment capable of measuring CO2 and identifying it for MAYBE 60,70 years, and the equipment of 60-70 years ago was much less accurate. I work in the field of scientific instrumentation. I calibrate and repair the very types of instruments that scientists use in the field. Do you know what a GC or a Mass Spectrometer is? Its a little different than a Linux based server or something like that. I have old equipment, and new equipment, and I know that the newer stuff is more accurate.

Dood, one thing I can gaurantee that I am more familiar on a professional level with is quantitative and qualitative statistical analysis. If there is any expertise that I can fall back on, it is that. And I know that errors and outlyers are all too common. I also know that COROLATION DATA IS NOT AN ADEQUATE SUBSTITUTE FOR DIRECT ANALYSIS. Any CO2 data from before the 1920's is going to be indirect methods, and I trust indirect methods about as far as I can throw this computer. Would you buy gasoline from my company if I told you we quality tested every product with indirect data? NO. Likewise, I'm not selling the farm based on indirect data from scientists.

In this argument, we have about 100 years or less worth of real and hard facts to analyze. Only in the past 20 or so years have we been really looking at Global Warming as a "threat". In the past 100 years, we have experienced some warm,cool, then warm cycles. Yes, the warm cycle we are currently in LOOKS a little sharper than earlier cycles, but at any given moment, a Volcano could errupt and set everything back the way it was. The Earth is about as predictable as Windoze operating systems, and far more complex. #If we can't get something simple like that straight, how do you expect me to panic over bumps in the climate cycle?

Fella, I'm not against you over here. I've made it clear that I think we need to curb our appetites with fuel consumption. But I'll tell you that I'm a heckuva lot more worried about what we're going to do about those hungry kids in Africa than I am about this silliness.
Quote[/b] ]
High in reference to what? To last year or thirty years ago? Dood, we have only had equipment capable of measuring CO2 and identifying it for MAYBE 60,70 years, and the equipment of 60-70 years ago was much less accurate. I work in the field of scientific instrumentation. I calibrate and repair the very types of instruments that scientists use in the field. Do you know what a GC or a Mass Spectrometer is? Its a little different than a Linux based server or something like that. I have old equipment, and new equipment, and I know that the newer stuff is more accurate.

GC = Gas chromatography... Been there, done that. HPLC - (I am sure your familiar with) Been there, done that. . Mass spectrometer, been there done that. NMR Nuclear magnetic resonance. Been there done that. Chemistry, quantitative analysis using both wet chemistry and instrumentation methods... been there, done that. Computers ?? I started programming on punch cards and played around with DECS, PDP-11's and Vaxen long before I ever saw a PC or a Mac, Windows, Linux Box./ No, I'm not just a East Village Linux geek who rides a skateboard, gulps down an esspresso, hacks a server or two, and then shoots up on the weekend with some goth/new age girlfriend. I've been a science boy for quite a long time, probably while you were still in grammar school. I have degrees in both chemistry and mathematics and I do know a little bit about data collection and the methodologies of analysis and date reconstruction. . I think I have a reasonable ability to read through the peer review litterature on climate change and gain a reasonable insight into what is reasonably sound science, how climate reconstructions were done and why data from various sources such as borehole measurements, proxies like ice cores is in all liklihood a pretty darned good representation of what has happened in the past and how it compares to the present and when we combine that with recent measurments (over the poast 150 years or so) we get a reasonable picture of where we stand today with respect to the past. Additionally scientists don't rely on one data set but look for correlations between sets of data from various sources. That has been done in the case of climate analysis and has produced remarkable correlation. I also learned enough high school science to understand that in science you don't have proof as you do in mathematics, rather scientific theory is a best logical fit to your dataset. I don't know if you are aware that science frequently relies on indirect measurement and reconstructions as a means of quantifying and reconstructing data, some of our most important theories are based on such sets of data. It is a common method of analysis and without it we'd understand almost nothing about anything.. If you are going to reject such data sets as invalid then you have to start rejecting a hell of a lot more science than global glimate change.

n2ize

03-17-2007, 08:22 AM

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Mar. 16 2007,23:57)]Quote[/b] ]"The planet warms and cools repeatedly" is not a counter argument to the arguments supporting anthropogenic global warming for the simple reason that the way in which the planet is warming this time is quantitatively and qualitatively different than any of the past times.

Yes it is.

Quote[/b] ]The problem with lay "debates"

Yes, I agree...so then you'll agree that both of us should quit arguing about this and let the experts work it out.

A few phrases not included in "How to win friends and influence people"

"Among the scientific literate"

This implies that if you disagree, you aren't scientifically literate. Man, I never knew the power of scientific credentials. I should reconsider getting that PhD...If I got one, I could get a nice cool T-shirt made that says "I'm scientifically literate" and become have an excuse to be arrogant and condescending. Maybe I'd pick up lots of chicks.

What in the seaven seas does "scientific literate" mean? I guess it means you understand science. Well, I understand science, and I still am not sold on all of these "unquestionable" facts that get bantered around. The trouble is, I understand all of the facts, it is the conclusions that I'm not in agreement on. And "reasonable men" would agree that simple facts don't always support universal conclusions. FACT: The sun is about to enter a new solar cycle. FACT: There is strong reason to believe that this solar cycle will be a good one for radio communications FACT: Predictions are just what they are, predictions, and predictions based on computer models are only as good as the programmer and the data that is entered in. Leading experts are unsure of when the present solar cycle will precisely begin, and we only can predict that it will be "better" than the last. Solar cycle modeling has STRONG, HISTORIC, DIRECTLY recorded data collected by visual observation and sunspot counting since the telescope was invented, and yet, we can only make educated forecasts and learn from our innacuracies for the next time around.

Solar cycle science is simplistic in comparison to Earths climate cycle. The sun is not much more than a huge nuclear reactor consuming hydrogen mass and turning it into radiation. Yet, here we are, still studying and learning.

This topic doesn't deserve the status that the GW Baptist "congregation" would assign it. It needs a whole lot more study, more TIME, and a decade or two of more data. In the mean time, we look for opportunities to improve our global stewardship.

Quote[/b] ]Reasonable men may disagree, but we are past the point where those three items should be items of debate among reasonable men.

Now, anyone who disagrees is not reasonable.

Reasonable men do not panic themselves over guesswork.

These are just a few more examples of a long, alarming, and frankly tiresome history of arrogance among the scientific (and quasi-scientific) "elitists". The funny thing is, I know of no other profession where you can consider yourself an expert just because you have a degree or experience in a loosely related dicipline. The title "scientist" gives you carte blanche to set yourself as "literate" in every field, just because you call yourself a "scientist". In a way, that is a self demeaning statement, because it sure boils everything down to something simplistic. My ex-wife is a professor of psychology...(oh my God, what I learned about academia)...I suppose this would make her an expert in Oceanography? No, you probably wouldn't say that, but I would laugh at you if you claimed she would be better at understanding it than I. I know my ex...she's not that smart.

I learned all about academia when I helped my wife with her Thesis...(Yes, I wrote parts of her Thesis for her and did her graphs)...I learned all about scientific integrity when she was having problems determining if her research on Gibbons was significant, and her Thesis committee mentor showed her how to fudge her stats. I learned all about Academia when I met one of her professors, who later got busted on possession charges, and another professor in the department was arrested for kiddie porn on his puter. These were published, peer-reviewed scientists, supposed experts on the human mind...people who were supposed to be TEACHING young impressionable college kids how to help others overcome emotional problems. ROTFLMAO. It was quite funny hanging out with these professors at college parties, watching some of them get drunk and hit on their students.
Quote[/b] ]
er Thesis committee mentor showed her how to fudge her stats. I learned all about Academia when I met one of her professors, who later got busted on possession charges, and another professor in the department was arrested for kiddie porn on his puter. These were published, peer-reviewed scientists, supposed experts on the human mind...people who were supposed to be TEACHING young impressionable college kids how to help others overcome emotional problems. ROTFLMAO. It was quite funny hanging out with these professors at college parties, watching some of them get drunk and hit on their students.

So what ?? I knew a mathematics scholar & professor who was a part time junkie yet despite his high life could convey even the most complex or elusive an idea in the field of mathematics to a student in the most clear, concise and understandable way like nobody else that I have ever seen. I still consider him to be one of the most brilliant mathematicians I have ever met. he was also a jazz #musician. I got a lot of other stories.

The point is so what. So, some professors get drunk. Some trip on acid. Some dig girls. Some dig guys. Most are human. #Dramatics is a nice substitute for reasonable debate, isn't it ?

KB5DOH

03-17-2007, 08:47 AM

"Simple" #Now what takes CO2 and converts it to breathable air/go back to Jr High school and study it is explained and it is "simple"
man cuts the trees that convert the co2 to air and more trees have been cut than replaced, then sum up the other factors Autos, factories, lawnmowers, atvs, Rocket fuel that is burned just to get to space, nucler testing ref: China, Iran, Russia and the United States.

Stop doing these things and we greatly imporve thing to #recovery just plain common sense no fromulas, no guessing, just simple science just stop doing whats doing it. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

KB5DOH

03-17-2007, 08:53 AM

Why do like or be like Congress compicating the issue when it is straight forward and SIMPLE.

KB5DOH

03-17-2007, 08:54 AM

Complicating

KB5DOH

03-17-2007, 08:57 AM

The solution is so easy a 5 year old can do it or a Cave Man could do it. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

KE5FRF

03-17-2007, 09:27 AM

Quote[/b] ]The point is so what. So, some professors get drunk. #Dramatics is a nice substitute for reasonable debate

OMG.

Yet, when a priest or minister comes out of the closet or gets arrested for pedophilia, its a wholesale indictment against the Christian faith.

Not only can we count arrogance and condesencion among the traits of science, we can count hypocracy as well.

You still don't get it do you?

And the "convenient" expertise in my field is transparent as well...Using a piece or three of analytical equipment in some Freshman chemistry lab in college doesn't exactly prove your expertise....but that is neither here nor there, because I wasn't calling your expertise into question...I was presenting my experience, which isn't peanuts. Notice I don't claim any level of expertise, I simply show that I am more than capable of understanding statistical analysis. I'm more than knowledgeable of the failings of methodologies, especially corrolative methodologies. My lab could save a lot of money on equipment and maintenance if we used only Mass Spec techniques to analyze our product. Mass spec is a pretty accurate way of gathering data on the composition and total area of molecular mass of hydrocarbon compounds. It is reasonable that if you know precisely everything that is in a compound and its exact mass, all sorts of other data can be "corrolated"...WELL, there is a problem with that, there are too many variables at work to qualify your product with such a method. When you have a compound of various purities and molecular chains, the physical properties of said chemical can change with only a few components out of proper specification...And with the dozens of components in the product, it isn't predictable what every slight shift or difference will bring or what the effect of every impurity will be(Not with all of the different tests that we are expected to perform liike flash point, viscosity, gravometrics, etc)

Well, my observation is that the Earth is just like one big chemical compound, complex in its structure...but far more so. For such a political and doomsday issue as this, I expect science to tell me exactly what I need to expect. Its not acceptable to hear..."We predict that GW will change average global temperatures by 1 to 5 or more degrees in the next 50 to 100 years"...GAWD....Thats like saying if I aim my shotgun to the north, I might hit a tree if I shoot it enough times....And the hypothetical impact of those extremes is quite variable, from "ho hum" to severe...And it also doesn't say, with certainty, that the trend won't reverse itself in 5 more years...Hell, I've seen a lot of research that shows that if we DID eliminate CO2 emissions, that we would probably see ourselves heading into a mini ice age in about the same time period!

Again, this issue is too politicized, too many reputations at stake, too many asses to cover, too much money on the table on BOTH sides...and probably too much bull-headed stubborness on both sides as well.

Anyway, you expect me to fold to your words, IZE, and I refuse to do that. As I said before, the burden is on YOU (well, not really you, but rather actual experts)...to PROVE without a SHADDOW of doubt that disaster is immenant. No hyped up hollywood movies, no dumb-ass former VPs looking to remain "relevant", no "peer-reviewed" articles...we need "peer-proven" articles. Peer review just means that Joe Science contacted his buddies (who think just like he does) and asked them to comment on his work. The problem with that is that if those scientists are as arrogant as the QRZ peanut gallery, their too arrogant to think "outside the box"...

Again, the problem here is the politicization of the issue. The first mistake of the "scientists" in this field was they went to the wack-o fringe environmentalists to hype up their new science. It started 20 years ago, I remember it well. For a long time, it kind of went along with the rest of these issues, but nobody had hit the panic button just yet. Then, low and behold, the Clinton years came along, and so did the self-professed champion of the environment Al Gore. The guy who's Nashville home burns 20 times more fossil fuels a month than the average American's....But with the POWER of politics, came a whole bunch of money into the pockets of researchers and policy advisors in the scientific circles..yaddayadda...and now we have a whole field of study (with the careers that go with it) begging to keep itself relevant so that the monies don't get cut off. The only way to do that is to ring the armeggedon alarm bells, and thats what is happening right now.

I know how this stuff works...HELL IT WORKS THE SAME IN BIG BUSINESS...companies spend their money where they think they'll make more money. That requires research and study. Different organizations within a company "fight" to keep themselves thought of as profitable (relevant), and clamour to cut costs. Its a survival game. Science is no different.

Here is the bottom line...If this were happening 50 or more years ago, I might not be so skeptical. 50 years ago and longer, the scientific community was truly ABOUT dicovery. It was about pioneering, advancing, and inventing. Society as a whole was a lot different then too. Big corporations cared for their employees...no, they weren't charities, but they saw value in developing a commitment to their community and their workers. Getting rich was all the more satisfying when you helped others succeed as well...Times are different, and people have a more cut-throat mentallity. The world of academia is exactly the same...I've seen it time and again. I've seen "peers" cut each other's throats to get the grant money thrown their way for their latest research idea.

You and others seem to have this childlike naivate about the world of science and acedemia. Obviously, scientists were your heroes growing up. Well, they were mine too, but one day I woke up and realized that heroes are people, not supermen. What once passed as science for the sake of discovery is now science that gets you published. No publications, no job security...bam, out the door.

And one more thing...this isn't personal. I don't give a flyin poop what you or anyone else thinks about me or my arguments. I know my arguments are based on a certain tempered amount of reason. Ultimately, my assumptions and opinions might prove wrong, but my skepticism of your glorious academia won't be. I am like anyone else, I want whats best for this country...and it is my opinion that panic isn't whats best. We have to take a reasoned, common sense approach to these "facts" and sort out the wheat from the chaffe. We have to weigh the economics of it all first and foremost, because sending our nation into a n economic depression will do nothing but escaserbate the problem.

Last, our age differences are absolutely irrelavant to this topic...(talk about dramatics)...I have an uncle who sells used cars and is 75 years old...I suspect you aren't that old if you ride a skateboard and sip espressos and date Goth chicks...as a matter of fact, I sure would enjoy knowing how old you are, because if you are older than me and doing that, you're wierder than I thought....Anyway, point being that I wouldn't go to my uncle to look for any kind of wisdom in the global warming debate based on his age, but I'd definately let him hook me up with a 1998 Pontiac Sunbird (though I'd have it checked out before I bought it, knowing him)

The "I'm older so I know better" line is the weakest one that can be tossed out, unless of course you are debating a juvenile.

G8ADD

03-17-2007, 10:14 AM

Well, Heath, that was one hell of a long sermon.

For my part, I have a good degree and I spent more than half of my working life in a university, working with these self-seeking, data-fudging scientists that you are so scathing about, and you know something? I don't recognise them from your description. Your cynicism and perhaps unfortunate experience with one of the "softer" sciences has led you to tar the whole community from a few instances. "So-and-so fudged his results so they all fudge their results" just doesn't wash as a reasoned judgement. And guys, arguing about what equipment you can use and how relevant your experience is starts to sound like a p**sing competition. It may relieve your feelings but in the words of the old aphorism, it is generating more heat than light.

As I see it there are three groups debating here; those who can absorbe the science and argue cogently about it, those who have a less adequate mastery of science and can't discriminate between what is and isn't relevant, and those who know little and care less about the science. In all three groups there are some who feel resentment at findings that they see as threatening their way of life and react by attacking the scientists.

All this is irrelevant. The scientific work is continuing and will continue for a long time to come. The conclusions that are being argued over so fiercely are no more than interim. As I keep pointing out, GW could be a threat, and no sane man ignores a threat, but at this stage I would suggest that it would be premature to take any steps purely on the basis of combating GW - though steps taken for other reasons that also combat GW, such as reducing our dependence on dwindling reserves of fossil fuel, should be encouraged.

73

Brian G8ADD

KE5FRF

03-17-2007, 11:13 AM

Quote[/b] ]As I see it there are three groups debating here; those who can absorbe the science and argue cogently about it, those who have a less adequate mastery of science and can't discriminate between what is and isn't relevant, and those who know little and care less about the science. In all three groups there are some who feel resentment at findings that they see as threatening their way of life and react by attacking the scientists.

And again, another example of "there is one right, and anyone else is either wrong or doesn't understand"

I swear to GAWD, I wish I had such superiority over everything and everyone that my opinion stood as law and couldn't be challenged

Don't you get it?

Part of the beauty of science is that it is supposed to be open to debate. Good science is science that opens up more questions than it answers, because that leads to more knowledge, and more knowledge is always better. You people are displaying the sheer academic elitism that stagnates reasonable debate and closes the door to alternative hypothesis. Your church has published a hear-all end-all report that really, when you boil it down, says everything that the rest of us have been saying for years...It is a "yeah, but" report..."Yeah, really Global Warming is mostly natural, but we also think that man isn't helping"...Well DUH. Does any reasonable person think that man is HELPING? NO, for crying out loud. But what the alternative thought camp is doing is saying, "Hold on a minute, we still have time to back up a second, take a deep breath, and look at all the variables before jumping to hasty conclusions." Hasty conclusions have been the thorn in many a science over the past 100 years...and the good thing is we have learned in a lot of cases from our arrogance...but it seems this Global Warming scare is an example of forgetting the lessons of the past. A perfect example is the levee system down here in Louisiana...The most advanced science and engineering of its day was put into shoring up and manipulating the Mississippi River, moving earth to alter the path of one of the mightiest rivers in the world...2 years ago the folly of that science came crashing down. And for the past 20 years, science has been tracking the errosion of land due to our mistake. I;m quite sure the best minds were put to the task of making all the calculations, and I'd bet you a slick new penny that there were a few voices that warned that we might do more harm than good. Well, we let the popular voice of science win the day, and look what happened.

And that is just one example of how man's arrogance has put him on a one track mind. Another good example is agriculture. Science has brought us many wonderful chemicals to kill off pests and parasites. These chemicals get the OK from our top agencies to be used on crops, and then years later are pulled off the market because they cause cancer in lab rats or the pollutants are found to kill off species of fish. Round and round we go, arrogance promotes haste and tunnel vision, which in turn realizes just as detrimental results as if we'd left well enough alone.

Again and again, round and round we go..but wait, we've learned all the lessons of the past! Science is perfect now, without flaw, without err. We can make descisions of great economic and social impact now without fear of consequence because we aren't fallable anymore. "We have peer review!!"

A wise man recently told me something about peer review. Adolf Hitler had peer review too. Want to prove Jews are an inferior sub-race? Get your top German scientists to peer-review it for you. AH, BUT THAT's different, you say! That was political! AHAHAHA rotflmao.

Every generation, my friend, has thought that the modern age most certainly had brought all the knowledge that man would ever have...or at least, a thought that not much was left to figure out. Science was defined a couple of centuries ago, with some tweaking along the way to improve the methods, but the one thing that can't be improved or changed is human fallability and arrogance. And I fear that we are headed in the same bloody direction with this GW scare.

I'm not asking you to change your mind! Hell no. Please, feel free to do everything in your power to reverse whatever it is we are causing. Are YOU driving a hybrid vehicle yet? Have YOU got a solar or wind generator supplimenting your energy consumption? The technology is there! And its getting cheaper! Please, tell me while you been a'preachin' that you've been a'doin'!!!

And don't give me a line about keeping only one light on in the house and adjusting your thermostat. I've been doing that since I started paying my own way. I want to know, if we are in panic red alert mode, what you guys are doing right here and now that I haven't been doing for years.

I don't want to hear the preaching...because if anyone is on a soapbox preaching a sermon, its the GW camp. The GW camp is the one looking to make converts and reformers. The rest of us are just shaking our heads, wondering what all the fuss is about.

KE5FRF

03-17-2007, 11:48 AM

http://www.bumc.bu.edu/Dept/Content.aspx?DepartmentID=287&PageID=9474

An article on the inherent flaws of "peer review"

Quote[/b] ]Expertise. Most of the members of a Study Section are not expert in the exact area of research in many applications assigned to the Study Section.

WOW, I didn't even know that. Sounds more like "associate review" than peers.

Quote[/b] ]Conflict of Interest. NIH policy requires Study Section members to disclose if they have any professional, financial, or personal relationship with the applicant; if the funding decision would benefit the reviewer directly; and even if the reviewer feels that there might be a perception of conflict of interest. There are also stringent NIH rules that require individuals from the applicant’s institution to leave the room when an application from that institution is under discussion. Despite these attempts to assure that there is no real or apparent conflict of interest, it is possible for informal influence to be exerted by members of the Study Section through conversation with other members of the panel before a grant is formally reviewed.

And I wager that it goes on a heck of a lot more often than our precious academia will admit.

Quote[/b] ]Confidentiality. Applicants are required to present their plans for future research in great detail for consideration by members of the Study Section. This leaves open the possibility that reviewers working in the same scientific area will become privy to new ideas, unpublished data (preliminary results), and other information which represents scientific "coin of the realm", i.e., ideas that may permit the reviewer to enhance his/her own research. For example, a senior reviewer with a large group of co-workers may be able to use an idea in an applicant’s grant to conduct competitive research that "scoops" an applicant working alone or with a small group of co-workers. Although scientists recognize that this is unethical, it is difficult to prove that a reviewer has taken such unfair advantage of information revealed in an application. Some applicants are so concerned about this possibility that they are careful not to include their best ideas in the application but rather apply for support for research that they have in fact already begun or even completed. This, of course, runs the risk that they will not obtain funding for their research.

Even academia recognizes the competitive, cut-throat nature of peer-review research

Quote[/b] ]Undermining Competition. Reviewers may provide unduly critical and negative reviews of an application from a scientific competitor and may assign unfairly poor scores. Although that score is diluted by those of 18 or 20 other scientists, negative reviews may influence other members of the Study Section enough to delay funding of a competitor’s research at least for one or two review cycles. There is no practical way to prove that this type of conflict of interest colors a critical review. However, the scientific review administrator for each Study Section is instructed to be sensitive to the way each Study Section member participates in the review process and the reputation of any reviewer suspected of such unethical behavior is at risk.

There's that competitiveness again.

Obviously, this is not an indictment on peer review...it is a Universities published recognition that peer review has pitfalls and isn't without problems.

SO...we have science, hypothesizing a new idea based on preliminary research and data. Even an honest scientist will admit that his methods might be in error, so he seeks peer review to legitimize his ideas. Yet, even the peer review process is admittedly open to manipulation, prefinalized influence on other research, theft and plaguerization.

Here is the rest of the "problems" with peer review as outlined by the article:

Quote[/b] ]Delay in Publication. The peer review step adds one to three months to the time between submission of a paper and its publication.

Reviewer Misconduct. Reviewers working in the scientific area of the paper may deliberately delay returning their review or give the editor an unfairly negative critique in an attempt to delay publication so that the reviewer’s laboratory can publish related research first. Editors who become suspicious that a reviewer is indulging in such misconduct will remove the individual from their list of reviewers, but it is difficult to be certain of the reasons for a delayed or hostile review. In any case damage already has been done to the paper under consideration.

Bias. A number of journals have tried and some continue to use "masking" of papers submitted to reviewers. This means that the papers sent to reviewers do not include the names or institutions of authors and, insofar as possible, other identifying information within the text is masked. This process is used because of the belief by some researchers that reviewers may be unduly influenced by authors who are scientifically or medically eminent. Studies of masking have produced conflicting results; the majority of data appears to show that masking does not alter the recommendations of reviewers.

Identification of Reviewers. Most journals accept unsigned reviews for transmittal to authors, although reviewers are permitted to identify themselves if they wish. The argument in favor of anonymous review is that if reviewers are required to identify themselves, they may be less willing to offer legitimate, critical evaluations of manuscripts. Analogy is drawn to the softness of signed letters of recommendation that are open to applicants, which many consider to be unreliable. (As an author in a medical journal described it, an open letter of recommendation for Adolph Hitler would describe him as "interested in ethnic issues".) Again, there is conflict in the limited amount of research into the issue of reviewer confidentiality. Most data appear to indicate that requiring reviewers to identify themselves does not have a significant effect on the quality of reviews

GAWD, if that doesn't sound just as bad as the business world, I don't know what would.
The one in bold strikes me as the most troubling. How much of this peer reviewed GW biz is being peer reviewed WITHOUT masking? And in such a competitive, cutting edge realm of research, aren't "peers" aware of the techniques of their peers? Aren't they usually aware of the research methods of others? Isn't it dangerous to think that a reviewer would give a thumb up or down because he THINKS it is his buddies research? And what of preconcieved biases in the first place? Sounds to me like peer reviewing is a pretty hairy business, and open to a lot of "favors"