Global Warming Debate

[The Gaffer]

Couldn't fit it in a book, BB.

[Butterbeer]

Ah, a mini series eh?

...........................

Ok, so there is no doubt that even in recordable human history there is reasonably significant climate change throughout the last 2,000 years or so, or that archelogical data from *ahem* Time team ..shows us that Bronze age settlements all looked like the same computer models as every other period in time or place ... ( - sorry got distracted there) ...

that southern English bronze age (or somet old anyway) had much warmer and wetter cilmates (the proof is out there - but ye'll get no links from me ya lazy bunch!)

However - this is but one factor of the current debate isn't it?

It is a given volcanoes are pretty high up on the ecobrakeCowpower factor - you would probably need a motorcycle cow-pyramid team that even evilkeneevil in his most wild dreams would laugh at, to represent that on ya average methane Cow fart scale - a bovine richter scale? (BRS) ..or a bovine richter methane scale? (BRMS) ???

BUT
isn't the whole point not that natural change occurs - but that our small (current relative) BUT GROWING percentage of pollution is both enough to be the small but crucial percentage change that tips that delicate balance?

The fear is that it sets off a snowball effect - a runaway Snowman at the top of a step hill - without a scarf!

Think of the carrot!


The point is, with massive population growth, which all can see, if unchecked, will eventually be unsustainable in itself, massive power usage, massive Global Industrialisation etc ..massive travel, cars, trains, planes and Steve martin movies -

it really doesn't take an IQ much above 42 to decide that the future needs, at the very minimum, a modicum of afore thought.

Run into that factors of at the very minmum a very credible chance that we are artificially speeding this up - and natural or not ..the effects this will mean to us humans and our lives and economies and etc - whether natural or man-made ... and at the very least -

the doubting Thomases had better sit up and think about growing some replacement carrots!

.....................................

(Wotcha El Tel btw!

Tolkienfan - yeah i like Terry Pratchett - do you?)


....................................

[The Gaffer]

Ever the diplomat, BB.

Originally Posted by BB

Think of the carrot!

One step at a time - I'm still enjoying the cow pyramid. Nice Time Team digression there, by the way. Too true.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

No they don't. Unfortunately for your thesis, I read 'em (well, the ones that worked anyway).

The first is pure assertion, based on the author endlessly repeating that he's got a PhD. Also note how the sceptics all cite each other.

The second, "Two new books confirm global warming is natural". Note: books, not peer-reviewed research. That is, these people are making a fast buck for themselves with popular science tomes which tell us what we want to hear. That makes them lowlives in my book.

The third one admits the existence of climate change (I wish they'd make up their mind), but says it's the sun's fault, based on speculative observations of the solar system. They also have the charming comment:



Yay! The Hitler analogy. Go to the bottom of the class.

It's ironic that they cite Kuhn in defence of their position. It casts themselves as noble voices in the wilderness, revolutionaries who have the vision to see what the rest of the herd can't. What this reveals is that they understand precisely nothing about Kuhn and The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, nor about science itself.

Yes, science does proceed in revolutions. The prevailing set of assumptions about an area of study, known as a paradigm, can be overturned by a new insight. Relativity would be a good example of this: it turned physics on its head. Kuhn showed how a new revolution follows a pattern of emergence, ridicule, denial, tentative acceptance and then widespread acceptance.

But they key thing is that MOST of science is what Kuhn called "normal science", where people work within an existing paradiigm, testing and extending hypotheses by matching them up with observed data.

These climate change deniers would have us believe that they are the visionaries who are to overturn the prevailing paradigm of climate science. I can see that that is a more attractive self-image than self-serving puppet of the energy industry.

What they don't understand, or choose to ignore, is that THEIR HYPOTHESIS DOESN'T FIT THE OBSERVED DATA. The best fit is with the hypothesis that human activity is causing climate change.

Of course, it's possible that there is no climate change, and/or that we're not responsible, but the SCIENCE doesn't fit with this assertion. You can, if you want, continue to believe it, but don't pretend that you are being scientific about it.

Oh, and while we're at it, since you conveniently ignored my link to a scientific study of volcanos: let's be clear that studies suggest humans emit over a hundred times more CO2 than volcanos.

No one in those articles is denying climate change, they simply believe there is a different reason for it. I do believe it is very scientific my friend. What you have to understand about established acadamia is that it is utterly and totally controlled by those who financially fond it. Like most colleges in the US are. Just like the media, all controlled. So what I suggest to you is that you look outside the box. And no I wasn't ignoring you, I just can't remember to look at everything; I have definately look at that volcano study and herre is what your quote said:

Quote:
Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. This is a conservative estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times.

Come on, a conservative estimate, hmmmm...I wonder how conservative.

From what I have been learning, anything pushed in the media, bird flu, global warming, presidential canidates (Burack Obama my @$$) the opposite is true. Time to get suffisticated. Do you realize that green peace and most other humanitarian watch groups are founded by the big oil companies? I don't believe anything some low life in a suite comes on the tv and says, I am not impressed; my advise to you, stop being impressed.

Saw a featured news report on the news the other day about how common autism is. It has increased by 273%: stop giving your children vaccines. The movie children of men...no woman can have children? How you suppose such a thing could possibly happen? Perhaps if they get us all getting into the routine of taking vaccines until they deem enough of us are, so they can just poison us all in one single stroke. Get suffisticated. I don't know what else to say, it's chess not checkers; you need discernment.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

I do believe it is very scientific my friend.

In what way, exactly?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

when the Gaffer posts, and all that's left to me is to follow him around saying ITA

But I did manage to find one point of quibble, to gladden my eristic heart.

There's movement between this
.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

It's ironic that they cite Kuhn in defence of their position. It casts themselves as noble voices in the wilderness, revolutionaries who have the vision to see what the rest of the herd can't. What this reveals is that they understand precisely nothing about Kuhn and The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, nor about science itself.

underline emphasis added
and this

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

These climate change deniers would have us believe that they are the visionaries who are to overturn the prevailing paradigm of climate science. I can see that that is a more attractive self-image than self-serving puppet of the energy industry.

again, underline added
If we are voting, I'm voting for B.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

a)What they don't understand, or b) choose to ignore, is that THEIR HYPOTHESIS DOESN'T FIT THE OBSERVED DATA. The best fit is with the hypothesis that human activity is causing climate change.

I don't think there's a random pattern of idiocy among these folks. I think there's a desperate attempt to return us to the scientific principles of the Middle Ages, when the One True Church controlled what literacy there was.

They're more than rejecting Gallileo. In a twisted way, they're rejecting Martin Luther.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

From what I have been learning, anything pushed in the media, bird flu, global warming, presidential canidates (Burack Obama my @$$) the opposite is true.

Why the opposite? Why not an exaggeration? If you tell me that science news is as much product placement these days as science, I'll high five you down the block. But how do you get from that to this?

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

Time to get suffisticated. Do you realize that green peace and most other humanitarian watch groups are founded by the big oil companies? I don't believe anything some low life in a suite comes on the tv and says, I am not impressed; my advise to you, stop being impressed.

Then you go here:

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

Saw a featured news report on the news the other day about how common autism is. It has increased by 273%: stop giving your children vaccines.

Why are they a good source now?

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

The movie children of men...no woman can have children? How you suppose such a thing could possibly happen?

The same way Faramir turned into a thug and a warg jumped across the screen. It happened in a MOVIE.

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

Perhaps if they get us all getting into the routine of taking vaccines until they deem enough of us are, so they can just poison us all in one single stroke.

Perhaps. If it was MY evil plan for world domination, it'd be looking to create a renewable serf class, rather than a planet-wide pile of bodies to bury, but maybe I didn't do well enough in my classes at "Pinky and the Brain's Academy for Megalomaniacs." And I'd sure as shootin' look for a way to poison the malcontents first, rather than all the nice sheepy people. Someone has to fluff my pillows. From that point of view, this vaccine plot is pretty lame, doncha think?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

They're more than rejecting Gallileo. In a twisted way, they're rejecting Martin Luther.

Of course I reject Martin Luther!

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Telcontarion
Saw a featured news report on the news the other day about how common autism is. It has increased by 273%: stop giving your children vaccines.

Why are they a good source now?

I did not get the info about the vaccines from the news, you would never hear them say that, that is from my own investigation. Apparently to the news it was a mistery: look up dr len horowitz for reality.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Of course I reject Martin Luther!

Where do you stand on Vatican II?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

You accepted a news report about the increase in autism.

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

I did not get the info about the vaccines from the news, you would never hear them say that, that is from my own investigation. Apparently to the news it was a mistery: look up dr len horowitz for reality.

My question is, why believe there's an increase? Maybe it's just a reporting thing. Maybe behaviors are classified as autistic that used to be considered just "odd". Maybe autism exists as a disease classification because it's a set of behaviors that occurs more often among highly insured uppermiddle class families that are willing and able to pay for "treatment". Maybe the cause (if there is one) has to do with the impact of increased electromagnetic radiation, routine ultrasounds, or transfats.

You have to have a REASON to select one factoid and match it up with a theory. There has to be a necessary relationship.

[hectorberlioz]

Go to theological opinions thread...

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

You accepted a news report about the increase in autism.

My question is, why believe there's an increase? Maybe it's just a reporting thing. Maybe behaviors are classified as autistic that used to be considered just "odd". Maybe autism exists as a disease classification because it's a set of behaviors that occurs more often among highly insured uppermiddle class families that are willing and able to pay for "treatment". Maybe the cause (if there is one) has to do with the impact of increased electromagnetic radiation, routine ultrasounds, or transfats.

You have to have a REASON to select one factoid and match it up with a theory. There has to be a necessary relationship.

First of all, it is a fact (the news did not report the 273% increase by the way) easily proven. Mercury is poison, and when people found out that mercury was in the vaccines and complained they reported that it was taken out, yet it was a lie. There own records showed that they actually increased the mercury by 250%, this is a fact, not my opinion; you can believe as you wish. I have a friend who has 2 children that are autistic ok bud.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

But that's not a statistic relating autism to vaccinations. Even with a sample size of two, not twins? Assuming not twins, you'd have to show that the elder was vaccinated and became autistic due to vaccinations. That's reportable as an "adverse reaction" to vaccination, and one of the reasons a doctor would accept not to vaccinate other children. However,somewhere during this process, the younger was vaccinated also and also became autistic. In your sample, 100% of the children vaccinated became autistic. That kind of number would attract everyone's attention.

Let me say, here, that injecting mercury laden viruses into children strikes me as a bad idea. But there are a lot of things that are commonly done that strike me as bad ideas. I might use my sense of one of those to design a test for it. If I designed and performed the test well, it might begin to be science, particularly if other people could replicate the test and get the same results.

But it isn't science when the notion occurs.

[The Gaffer]

The only problem being that all the observational studies done on this show there is no relationship between vaccines and autism. For example, in a Finnish study they followed a cohort of 13 million people (count 'em!) and found no correlation with the MMR vaccine.

However, studies DO show that autism is on the increase though. That is partly down to greater detection, but frankly we don't know what the cause is.

By the way, el Tel, you should check out Prof Wakefield, the bloke who linked MMR vaccine with autism. Basically it was found (one of his researchers dobbed him in) that he falsified his results to create a media furore and boost the shareholder value of his spin-out company specialising in "safe" vaccines. He was hounded out of the UK and now plies his lies in the US...

But why that should mean that global warming isn't happening ... oh wait, we're agreed that it IS happening

* Pauses to celebrate progress *

... why that should mean that global warming isn't caused by human activity is a mystery to me.

Originally Posted by Hector

Go to theological opinions thread...

Good plan. There seems to be more belief than science in much of this discussion

[The Telcontarion]

sisterandcousinandaunt, they are twins ok, the children are twin boys.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

That's a true challenge.

I'll hold them in thought.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Considering we do not have scientific instruments on or around each planet in the solar system, how do we know the temperature is rising elsewhere? The article talks about Mars, Mars is understandable, but oddly Pluto is said to be melting as well. Considering New Horizons is supposed to be the first satellite that takes a decent look at Pluto in years, how do we know it would be heating up too? Rather weird, I'd like to know more.

Ive heard this before in material the global warming nay sayers like to use. It seems they are using data from a 2002 study showing that the Pluto's atmospheric pressure has spiked hinting at a mild increase in temperature on the surface. Now what they dont say when they site this is that Pluto JUST reached its perihelion in 1989 which is very recent considering its orbit lasts 248 years... And the sun tends to have its largest effect not right AT perihelion but slightly after (just like its warmest at 2 to 3 in the afternoon on earth and not at dead noon when the sun is most directly facing us). It takes a while for large objects to warm up and cool down. So the fact that Pluto MAY be warming a little is not at all surprising considering its basically JUST started walking away from the closest spot to the fire.

Oh and there is also speculation that there may be volcanic activity on Pluto. Stay tuned...

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

Yes Montserrat, is a good example of a very huge volcanic explosion. So is Mount st. helens.

Yes well, but you had me researching the wrong volcano for a while. Not every volcano has the same eruption with the same levels of expelled matter as another, however similar they are in form.

Oh well, not that it matters the reading on the Soufrière Hills was very interesting, so I at least got something out of it.

Originally Posted by Tessar

Also Ernayl, when you misspell her name or make a comment like 'frogs suck'.

You, mister, are trying your luck overmuch. I see you clearly have too much time on your hands, so if I don't see a new post in a specific RPG by next monday, I'm going to poke you until you scream like a girl and beg for mercy.

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

No one in those articles is denying climate change, they simply believe there is a different reason for it. I do believe it is very scientific my friend.

I've had a look around in that link, and similar ones like it, and while I find several well-sourced articles that state some planets seem warmer, the scientists quoted all state that the reasons are not known because they lack too much data on those planets (and/or pluton, as poor Pluto has been kicked out of the planet-club).

It's the author of the linked-to article (and you, seemingly) that jump to the conclusion that it must be the sun. I would hesitate to call that very scientific. If the people actively studying these planets and celestial bodies say there isn't enough data, then there isn't enough data to make any decent scientific conclusion or even hypothesis. Basically, it's only a guessing game.

What you have to understand about established acadamia is that it is utterly and totally controlled by those who financially fond it. Like most colleges in the US are. Just like the media, all controlled. So what I suggest to you is that you look outside the box.

Trust no one, right?

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Oh and there is also speculation that there may be volcanic activity on Pluto. Stay tuned...

Stay tuned indeed, until 2013 or something when New Horizons arrives. Thanks for the info. I've had a read-around and it looks like there is a way to monitor temperature on Pluto. Apparently, when Pluto passes before a star, the back-lighting is sufficient for a telescope (Hubble no doubt) to 'read' the atmosphere. The things one learns... It sounds very cool, if you ask me. But none gave quite as detailed info as yours, so thanks again.

EDIT: Going back to global warming. The fight against CO2 emissions seem to have given a new impulse to the push for nuclear energy, as the CO2 emissions there are far less significant, but then you'd still have the 200 000 year active radioactive waste. What do you all think of this dilemma, fight global warming, or fight nuclear waste?

[The Telcontarion]

fight nuclear waste and the danger of nuclear catastrophes; chernobyl did not tickle.