Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating! [message #82417 is a reply to message #82416] |
Sat, 31 March 2007 15:02   |
gene lennon
Messages: 565
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
>
If you want to fall for this crap, it’s OK with me, but if you do a little
research you will find out some quick facts…like that many of the people
in the movie have take legal action against the producers for editing and
changing their actual comments recorded.
Mr. Steven Green
Head of Production
Wag TV
2D Leroy House
436 Essex Road
London N1 3QP
10 March 2007
Dear Mr. Green:
I am writing to record what I told you on the telephone yesterday about
your Channel 4 film "The Global Warming Swindle." Fundamentally,
I am the one who was swindled---please read the email below that
was sent to me (and re-sent by you). Based upon this email and
subsequent telephone conversations, and discussions with
the Director, Martin Durkin, I thought I was being asked
to appear in a film that would discuss in a balanced way
the complicated elements of understanding of climate change---
in the best traditions of British television. Is there any indication
in the email evident to an outsider that the product would be
so tendentious, so unbalanced?
I was approached, as explained to me on the telephone, because
I was known to have been unhappy with some of the more excitable
climate-change stories in the British media, most conspicuously the notion
that the Gulf
Stream could disappear, among others. When a journalist approaches me suggesting
a "critical approach" to a technical subject, as the email states, my inference
is that we
are to discuss which elements are contentious, why they are contentious,
and what the arguments are on all sides. To a scientist, "critical" does
not mean a hatchet job---it means a thorough-going examination of
the science. The scientific subjects described in the email,
and in the previous and subsequent telephone conversations, are complicated,
worthy of exploration, debate, and an educational effort with the
public. Hence my willingness to participate. Had the words "polemic", or
"swindle" appeared in these preliminary discussions, I would have
instantly declined to be involved.
I spent hours in the interview describing
many of the problems of understanding the ocean in climate change,
and the ways in which some of the more dramatic elements get
exaggerated in the media relative to more realistic, potentially
truly catastrophic issues, such as
the implications of the oncoming sea level rise. As I made clear, both in
the
preliminary discussions, and in the interview itself, I believe that
global warming is a very serious threat that needs equally serious
discussion and no one seeing this film could possibly deduce that.
What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which
there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why
many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely
accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples,
it's hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one:
a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only
a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to
infer that means it couldn't really matter. But even a beginning
meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases
are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director
not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that
piece of disinformation.
An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context:
I am? shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more
carbon dioxide than it absorbs -- thus exacerbating the greenhouse
gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome.? It
was used in the film, through its context, to imply
that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that
therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which
are literally what I said, comes close to fraud.
I have some experience in dealing with TV and print reporters
and do understand something of the ways in which one can be
misquoted, quoted out of context, or otherwise misinterpreted. Some
of that is inevitable in the press of time or space or in discussions of
complicated issues. Never before, however, have I had
an experience like this one. My appearance in the "Global Warming
Swindle" is deeply embarrasing, and my professional reputation
has been damaged. I was duped---an uncomfortable position in which to be.
At a minimum, I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly
with my participation included. Channel 4 surely owes an apology to
its viewers, and perhaps WAGTV owes something to Channel 4. I will be
taking advice as to whether I should proceed to make some more formal protest.
Sincerely,
Carl Wunsch
Cecil and Ida Green Professor of
?? Physical Oceanography
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
cc: Hamish Mykura, Channel 4
(Hard copy to follow)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating deliberately one sided polemic BS [message #82421 is a reply to message #82418] |
Sat, 31 March 2007 15:48 |
Deej [4]
Messages: 1292
Registered: January 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Global warming is very real IMO.
Even the people in the fossil fuels business (me, for instance) know that
they produce sulphur based pollutants and C02. The only way, IMHO, to
explain away global warming is to explaining away the theory that C02
doesn't cause it. I ain't buying that one. Those who try to compare what is
happening now to what has happened in the past with climate change are
missing one serious fundamental.......never in the past have there been so
people on this planet burning so much carbon and never before have we had
the science to live as long as we do now, and for our spawn to survive the
in such staggering numbers. Also, if you stop and think about it, up until
50 years ago, we had major disease epidemics that culled the global
populations drastically and systematically and some pretty devastating wars
on a fairly regular basis that also culled the population, especially in
continental Europe and Asia, thus delaying the exponential population
explosion that we have seen over the last 30 years or so. In 1970, the world
population was 39 billion and change. right now it's estimated to exceed 67
billion. All of these folks are competing for and using vcarbon based energy
resources (and farting on a regular basis ;o).
The solutions we're proposing right now are too little too late (again IMO)
There are ways to reduce energy consumption but this will add to the costs
that none of us want to pay. At some point, diminishing returns will be
reached and alternative energy sources will start look more competitive. The
bigger problem is that the point of diminishing returns is quickly being
reached as far as global supply is concerned (yeah....that peak oil
voodoo...too bad it's as real as the day is long). This is already the
driving factor in our effort to survive in the brave new global economy.
It's gonna be expensive no matter what though. We are already starting to
see the price of products based on corn as food to rise as the shift to
ethanol starts to ramp up. the only way to sustain anything like the economy
we have right now and become energy independent would be to build new
refineries here,, build coal fired power plants, nuclear energy and drill
every drop and bubble of oil and natural gas that we have here within our
continental soveriegnty while rolling huge amount of the revenue from the
sale of that to alternative energy R&D. Big problem there.......the energy
interests won't do it and the environmentalists won't do it so we're gonna
be hosed in 20 years, if not *much sooner*.
the real problem is that there are just too many of *us*. I think we're
getting ready so see some stuff right out of the worst imaginable horror
movie that the most twisted mind could dream up.
Mother nature has always had a way of levelling our karma and our doomsday
religiousity will do the rest. I've always believed that things happen if
enough energy is directed toward the particular end one is trying to
achieve. Well.........lots of folks believe that Armageddon is inevitable
and by god, it's our duty to make sure that it happens the *right* way so
that you go to hell and I don't.
shit!!!!....where'd I put my meds?
;oP
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:460edd9e$1@linux...
>
> The fossil fuels lobby would love to make this about Al Gore instead of
> about global warming. Because then anyone who doesn't happen like Al Gore
> might be more inclined to buy their spin.
>
> If you don't happen to like Al Gore, check out the actual science. Try and
> avoid the spin from the fossil fuels lobby if you can. Stick with facts
> and assess the risks yourself.
>
> Here are a couple of useful web sites:
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/
>
> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
> Don Nafe wrote:
>> The man who invented the internet wouldn't know a scientific fact if it
>> was weighed down with 2000 lb weight and dropped on his chicken little
>> head!
>>
>> DOn
>>
>> "Bill Lorentzen" <bill@lorentzen.ws> wrote in message
>> news:460ec4f9@linux...
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk&mode=related& amp;search=
>>>
>>> It's a British documentary showing another viewpoint about global
>>> warming and CO2. It's a viewpoint that is different from that of the man
>>> who invented the internet...
>>>
>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating! [message #82433 is a reply to message #82411] |
Sat, 31 March 2007 19:27 |
Sarah
Messages: 608
Registered: February 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Bill, Bill, Bill . . . how could you? You realize this is going to go
on for days now, people throwing their favorite scientists at each other,
spinning off into barely related left vs right sub-debates, and in the end,
everyone will continue to believe exactly what they WANT to believe.
That being said, I guess I'll get my 2 cents in: first of all, this
slick little film was written and directed by well-known
anti-environmentalist Martin Durkin, who is in trouble now with some of the
experts he used in the film for misrepresenting them by editing their
sequences.
The most amusing part of this was his answer to the "better safe than
sorry" approach -- that if by fighting global warming we doom the Third
World to poverty by preventing development. AS IF the
anti-environmentalists and the corporations funding the global warming
denyers give a flying f*** about people in the Third World for anything
other than another market to exploit. Yes, we all know that without the
burning of fossil fuels, there is no possibility of progress. Gimme a
friggin' break.
Greed kills, people. Follow the money.
Sarah
"Bill Lorentzen" <bill@lorentzen.ws> wrote in message news:460ec4f9@linux...
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk&mode=related& amp;search=
>
> It's a British documentary showing another viewpoint about global warming
> and CO2. It's a viewpoint that is different from that of the man who
> invented the internet...
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating deliberatelyone sided polemic BS [message #82435 is a reply to message #82424] |
Sat, 31 March 2007 19:40 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Don Nafe wrote:
> I'm not about to get into an argument about Global warming...but I do
> remember my Grade 10 science and the chemical make up of the atmosphere and
> from that perspective alone Global Warming being caused by CO2 doesn't make
> any sense and it makes even less sense when you use the numbers the IPCC
> uses to prove that CO2 emmissions are the cause...bad science...plain and
> simple.
Cool. This makes me think of three things:
1) Memes in our vocabulary.
2) Following the money.
3) Examining the scientific consensus.
MEMES
Phrases like "bad science" and "junk science" are often used by PR
flacks paid by fossil fuel lobbies. Previously those sorts of phrases
were used by PR flacks paid by tobacco lobbies. It's an interesting
connection...
From: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html
******
"Who is keeping the debate of global warming alive?
The documentary shows how fossil fuel corporations have kept the global
warming debate alive long after most scientists believed that global
warming was real and had potentially catastrophic consequences. It shows
that companies such as Exxon Mobil are working with top public relations
firms and using many of the same tactics and personnel as those employed
by Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds to dispute the cigarette-cancer link
in the 1990s. Exxon Mobil sought out those willing to question the
science behind climate change, providing funding for some of them, their
organizations and their studies."
******
FOLLOWING THE MONEY
So as always, follow the money:
You can check out some of the connections here:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/
SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS
The scientific consensus is actually pretty clear.
From: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
******
"PCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major
scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears
directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the
National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis
of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in
Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air
temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)].
The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary
of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's
conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is
likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations
accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on
this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American
Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement
of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding
that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities
for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they
would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members.
Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That
hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed
scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI
database with the keywords "climate change" (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of
the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals,
methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position.
Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either
explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with
methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic
climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the
consensus position."
******
And finally, here is the Bush administration's perspective on the IPCC
report, from: http://www.energy.gov/environment/4704.htm
******
"The Administration welcomes the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change report, which was developed through thousands of hours of
research by leading U.S. and international scientists and informed by
significant U.S. investments in advancing climate science research,"
U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman said. "Climate change is a global
challenge that requires global solutions. Through President Bush's
leadership, the U.S. government is taking action to curb the growth of
greenhouse gas emissions and encouraging the development and deployment
of clean energy technologies here in the United States and across the
globe."
******
So we are at consensus, both scientific and political.
The discussion has moved on to what to do about the challenge of human
influenced global warming.
> On the otherhand, I reduce, reuse and recycle and have spent thousands of
> dollars making my home energy efficient and drive as clean and efficient a
> car as I can afford...I'm doing my part and will continue to due so...but
> not because of scare tactics and bullshit science but because it's the smart
> thing to do.
Great!
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:460edd9e$1@linux...
>> The fossil fuels lobby would love to make this about Al Gore instead of
>> about global warming. Because then anyone who doesn't happen like Al Gore
>> might be more inclined to buy their spin.
>>
>> If you don't happen to like Al Gore, check out the actual science. Try and
>> avoid the spin from the fossil fuels lobby if you can. Stick with facts
>> and assess the risks yourself.
>>
>> Here are a couple of useful web sites:
>>
>> http://www.realclimate.org/
>>
>> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> Don Nafe wrote:
>>> The man who invented the internet wouldn't know a scientific fact if it
>>> was weighed down with 2000 lb weight and dropped on his chicken little
>>> head!
>>>
>>> DOn
>>>
>>> "Bill Lorentzen" <bill@lorentzen.ws> wrote in message
>>> news:460ec4f9@linux...
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk&mode=related& amp;search=
>>>>
>>>> It's a British documentary showing another viewpoint about global
>>>> warming and CO2. It's a viewpoint that is different from that of the man
>>>> who invented the internet...
>>>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating! [message #82437 is a reply to message #82423] |
Sat, 31 March 2007 19:55 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
DC wrote:
> Remember, in the 1970's the same people were squealing
> about global cooling.
That's pretty funny, Don. Who were those "same people" and what speech
impediment caused the "squealing" that you think we all remember?
What I remember about the 70's is some pretty cool music.
Anyway, here's some info on the stock mid century global cooling objection.
From: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/14560/6189
"Objection: There was global cooling in the '40s, '50s, and '60s, even
while human greenhouse-gas emissions were rising. Clearly, temperature
is not being driven by CO2.
Answer: None of the advocates of the theory of anthropogenic global
warming claim that CO2 is the only factor controlling temperature in the
ocean-atmosphere climate system. It is a large and complex system,
responsive on many different timescales, subject to numerous forcings.
AGW only makes the claim that CO2 is the primary driver of the warming
trend seen over the last 100 years. This rise has not been smooth and
steady -- nor would it be expected to be.
(graphic, go look at the link to see it)
If you look at the temperature record for the 1990s, you'll notice a
sharp drop in '92, '93, and '94. This is the effect of massive amounts
of SO2 ejected into the stratosphere by Mount Pinatubo's eruption. That
doesn't mean CO2 took a holiday and stopped influencing global
temperatures; it only means that the CO2 forcing was temporarily
overwhelmed by another, opposite forcing.
The situation is similar to the cooling seen in the '40s and '50s.
During this period, the CO2 warming (a smaller forcing at the time) was
temporarily overwhelmed by by other factors, perhaps foremost among them
an increase in human particulates and aerosol pollution. Pollution
regulations and improved technology saw a decrease in this latter kind
of emissions over the '60s and '70s, and as the air cleared, the CO2
signal again emerged and took over. Below, courtesy of Global Warming
Art, is an image of the current understanding of the factors and their
influence for the climate of the past century.
(graphic)
As the graph shows, in addition to aerosol pollution (the sulphate
line), volcanic influences were increasingly negative during the period
of global cooling, and solar forcing slightly declined. All forcings
taken together and run through the model are a very good match for the
observations. (Please see the source page for details of what model and
what study this image is derived from.)
Rather than confounding the climate consensus, mid-century cooling is
actually a good test for the climate models, one they are passing quite
convincingly.
Addendum: The opposing effect of cooling from airborne pollutants is
often referred to as "Global Dimming", and Real Climate has a couple of
articles on it:
Global Dimming?
Global Dimming II
One emerging concern is that as the pollution causing this effect is
gradually cleaned up, we may see even greater greenhouse gas warming."
Worse, the ice core evidence shows
> that increases in carbon dioxide level historically follows warming
> not precedes it. Carbon may not be the problem.
That's unlikely.
From: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/231145/76
"Objection: In glacial-interglacial cycles, CO2 concentration lags
behind temperature by centuries. Clearly, CO2 does not cause
temperatures to rise; temperatures cause CO2 to rise.
Answer: When viewed coarsely, historical CO2 levels and temperature show
a tight correlation. However, a closer examination of the CH4, CO2, and
temperature fluctuations recorded in the Antarctic ice core records
reveals that, yes, temperature moved first.
Nevertheless, it is misleading to say that temperature rose and then,
hundreds of years later, CO2 rose. These warming periods lasted for
5,000 to 10,000 years (the cooling periods lasted more like 100,000
years!), so for the majority of that time (90% and more), temperature
and CO2 rose together. This remarkably detailed archive of
climatological evidence clearly allows for CO2 acting as a cause for
rising temperatures, while also revealing it can be an effect of them.
(graphic)
The current understanding of those cycles is that changes in orbital
parameters (the Milankovich and other cycles) caused greater amounts of
summer sunlight to fall in the northern hemisphere. This is a small
forcing, but it caused ice to retreat in the north, which changed the
albedo. This change -- reducing the amount of white, reflective ice
surface -- led to further warmth, in a feedback effect. Some number of
centuries after that process started, CO2 concentrations in the
atmosphere began to rise, which amplified the warming trend even further
as an additional feedback mechanism.
(You can go here for a discussion of exactly this question by climate
scientists, with greater technical detail and full references to the
scientific literature.)
So it is correct that CO2 did not trigger the warmings, but it
definitely contributed to them -- and according to climate theory and
model experiments, greenhouse gas forcing was the dominant factor in the
magnitude of the ultimate change.
This raises a warning for the future: we may well see additional natural
CO2 come out of the woodwork as whatever process took place repeatedly
over the last 650K years begins to play out again. The likely candidates
are out-gassing from warming ocean waters, carbon from warming soils,
and methane from melting permafrost."
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating deliberatelyone sided polemic BS [message #82438 is a reply to message #82429] |
Sat, 31 March 2007 20:03 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Global warming is not being denied by anyone who reads the data. The
earth is clearly warming, according to actual measurements.
The science of how CO2 helps trap heat in a "greenhouse effect" is
pretty well understood.
If you want to read an overview of the current scientific view on global
warming, carefully stated without a lot of hyperbole, try this report
and its recent update, both linked here:
http://www.thescientificworld.com/SCIENTIFICWORLDJOURNAL/mai n/Home.asp
Overview:
"In 2003 TheScientificWorldJOURNAL published a seminal review on Global
Warming: The Balance of Evidence and Its Policy Implications by Charles
“Chick” Keller. This has been the most consistently read of all
TheScientificWorldJOURNAL’s articles. Now TheScientificWorld is
delighted to announce the long awaited update: Global Warming: UPDATE 2007.
In contrast to the United Nation’s comprehensive assessment reports, Dr.
Keller’s review and update provide easy access to issues surrounding
some of the bigger controversies and assertions about global warming,
how these assertions arose, and how the controversies have been resolved
in recent years.
In its recently released summary the new IPCC report does not provide
the how and the why behind the increased certainty of global warming and
the human involvement in it. While Dr. Keller's update is not intended
to be a substitute for the scholarly and important IPCC report, it does
make the entire picture about the global warming controversy more
accessible to readers and includes a response to certain critics’ and
scoffers’ skepticism.
The reality of global warming still might have hotly contested issues,
but now the informed outnumber the ill-informed, which is another step
to developing educated policy changes.
About the author:
After a distinguished career in the national security establishment, Dr.
Charles F. “Chick” Keller spent thirteen years heading the University of
California's Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics Branch at the
Los Alamos National Laboratory prior to his retirement in 2001. During
these years he became involved in a variety of issues related to climate
change and its causes and took on the task of developing
counter-arguments to some of the more vexing issues raised by climate
skeptics. His two contributions in TheScientificWorldJOURNAL summarize
his work in this area."
I was turned onto this report by an amazing guy I work with. The report
was written by his father.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
Don Nafe wrote:
> I understand what you're saying DJ and I'm in no way saying that humans
> aren't contributing to greenhouse gases..my only problem is that greenhouse
> gases make up such a small (almost insignificant) portion of our atmosphere
> that I personally find it hard to believe that Global Warming; if there is
> such a thing happening, is being driven by human activity
>
> DOn
>
>
> "DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote in message news:460ef23c$1@linux...
>> "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message news:460eed97$1@linux...
>>> I'm not about to get into an argument about Global warming...but I do
>>> remember my Grade 10 science and the chemical make up of the atmosphere
>>> and from that perspective alone Global Warming being caused by CO2
>>> doesn't make any sense and it makes even less sense when you use the
>>> numbers the IPCC uses to prove that CO2 emmissions are the cause...bad
>>> science...plain and simple.
>>>
>>> On the otherhand, I reduce, reuse and recycle and have spent thousands of
>>> dollars making my home energy efficient and drive as clean and efficient
>>> a car as I can afford...I'm doing my part and will continue to due
>>> so...but not because of scare tactics and bullshit science but because
>>> it's the smart thing to do.
>>
>> I think that's to be applauded and I don't disagree that some of the
>> models that arebeing put out there (by both sides) are flawed, but to me,
>> it's one of those obvious things and I just don't get how something so
>> relavent as global pupulation can be overlooked. It's as idiotic as when I
>> hear people saying that we *started* a war in Iraq when the war that was
>> started by Sadaam never ended. The fundamental facts are being overlooked
>> for the sake of political posturing while a very real disaster looms on
>> the horizon because there is no commonality of purpose..
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating deliberatelyone sided polemic BS [message #82439 is a reply to message #82421] |
Sat, 31 March 2007 20:15 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Sorry if I left the impression that everyone in fossil fuels is ignorant
about global warming, far from it. Thanks for clarifying, Deej!
I agree that we should be using the opportunities we have with our
finite fossil fuel resources to lay the groundwork for the smoothest
possible transition to a renewable energy strategy.
This will probably require people getting out of their partisan fighting
stances and well worn rhetorical grooves and actually working together.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
PS. You might want to double check your population figures:
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/world.html
DJ wrote:
> Global warming is very real IMO.
>
> Even the people in the fossil fuels business (me, for instance) know that
> they produce sulphur based pollutants and C02. The only way, IMHO, to
> explain away global warming is to explaining away the theory that C02
> doesn't cause it. I ain't buying that one. Those who try to compare what is
> happening now to what has happened in the past with climate change are
> missing one serious fundamental.......never in the past have there been so
> people on this planet burning so much carbon and never before have we had
> the science to live as long as we do now, and for our spawn to survive the
> in such staggering numbers. Also, if you stop and think about it, up until
> 50 years ago, we had major disease epidemics that culled the global
> populations drastically and systematically and some pretty devastating wars
> on a fairly regular basis that also culled the population, especially in
> continental Europe and Asia, thus delaying the exponential population
> explosion that we have seen over the last 30 years or so. In 1970, the world
> population was 39 billion and change. right now it's estimated to exceed 67
> billion. All of these folks are competing for and using vcarbon based energy
> resources (and farting on a regular basis ;o).
>
> The solutions we're proposing right now are too little too late (again IMO)
> There are ways to reduce energy consumption but this will add to the costs
> that none of us want to pay. At some point, diminishing returns will be
> reached and alternative energy sources will start look more competitive. The
> bigger problem is that the point of diminishing returns is quickly being
> reached as far as global supply is concerned (yeah....that peak oil
> voodoo...too bad it's as real as the day is long). This is already the
> driving factor in our effort to survive in the brave new global economy.
> It's gonna be expensive no matter what though. We are already starting to
> see the price of products based on corn as food to rise as the shift to
> ethanol starts to ramp up. the only way to sustain anything like the economy
> we have right now and become energy independent would be to build new
> refineries here,, build coal fired power plants, nuclear energy and drill
> every drop and bubble of oil and natural gas that we have here within our
> continental soveriegnty while rolling huge amount of the revenue from the
> sale of that to alternative energy R&D. Big problem there.......the energy
> interests won't do it and the environmentalists won't do it so we're gonna
> be hosed in 20 years, if not *much sooner*.
>
> the real problem is that there are just too many of *us*. I think we're
> getting ready so see some stuff right out of the worst imaginable horror
> movie that the most twisted mind could dream up.
>
> Mother nature has always had a way of levelling our karma and our doomsday
> religiousity will do the rest. I've always believed that things happen if
> enough energy is directed toward the particular end one is trying to
> achieve. Well.........lots of folks believe that Armageddon is inevitable
> and by god, it's our duty to make sure that it happens the *right* way so
> that you go to hell and I don't.
>
> shit!!!!....where'd I put my meds?
>
> ;oP
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:460edd9e$1@linux...
>> The fossil fuels lobby would love to make this about Al Gore instead of
>> about global warming. Because then anyone who doesn't happen like Al Gore
>> might be more inclined to buy their spin.
>>
>> If you don't happen to like Al Gore, check out the actual science. Try and
>> avoid the spin from the fossil fuels lobby if you can. Stick with facts
>> and assess the risks yourself.
>>
>> Here are a couple of useful web sites:
>>
>> http://www.realclimate.org/
>>
>> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> Don Nafe wrote:
>>> The man who invented the internet wouldn't know a scientific fact if it
>>> was weighed down with 2000 lb weight and dropped on his chicken little
>>> head!
>>>
>>> DOn
>>>
>>> "Bill Lorentzen" <bill@lorentzen.ws> wrote in message
>>> news:460ec4f9@linux...
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk&mode=related& amp;search=
>>>>
>>>> It's a British documentary showing another viewpoint about global
>>>> warming and CO2. It's a viewpoint that is different from that of the man
>>>> who invented the internet...
>>>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating deliberately one sided polemic BS [message #82442 is a reply to message #82421] |
Sat, 31 March 2007 23:27 |
Sarah
Messages: 608
Registered: February 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
(applause)
Sarah :)
"DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote in message news:460ee646$1@linux...
> Global warming is very real IMO.
>
> Even the people in the fossil fuels business (me, for instance) know that
> they produce sulphur based pollutants and C02. The only way, IMHO, to
> explain away global warming is to explaining away the theory that C02
> doesn't cause it. I ain't buying that one. Those who try to compare what
> is happening now to what has happened in the past with climate change are
> missing one serious fundamental.......never in the past have there been
> so people on this planet burning so much carbon and never before have we
> had the science to live as long as we do now, and for our spawn to survive
> the in such staggering numbers. Also, if you stop and think about it, up
> until 50 years ago, we had major disease epidemics that culled the global
> populations drastically and systematically and some pretty devastating
> wars on a fairly regular basis that also culled the population, especially
> in continental Europe and Asia, thus delaying the exponential population
> explosion that we have seen over the last 30 years or so. In 1970, the
> world population was 39 billion and change. right now it's estimated to
> exceed 67 billion. All of these folks are competing for and using vcarbon
> based energy resources (and farting on a regular basis ;o).
>
> The solutions we're proposing right now are too little too late (again
> IMO) There are ways to reduce energy consumption but this will add to the
> costs that none of us want to pay. At some point, diminishing returns will
> be reached and alternative energy sources will start look more
> competitive. The bigger problem is that the point of diminishing returns
> is quickly being reached as far as global supply is concerned
> (yeah....that peak oil voodoo...too bad it's as real as the day is long).
> This is already the driving factor in our effort to survive in the brave
> new global economy. It's gonna be expensive no matter what though. We are
> already starting to see the price of products based on corn as food to
> rise as the shift to ethanol starts to ramp up. the only way to sustain
> anything like the economy we have right now and become energy independent
> would be to build new refineries here,, build coal fired power plants,
> nuclear energy and drill every drop and bubble of oil and natural gas that
> we have here within our continental soveriegnty while rolling huge amount
> of the revenue from the sale of that to alternative energy R&D. Big
> problem there.......the energy interests won't do it and the
> environmentalists won't do it so we're gonna be hosed in 20 years, if not
> *much sooner*.
>
> the real problem is that there are just too many of *us*. I think we're
> getting ready so see some stuff right out of the worst imaginable horror
> movie that the most twisted mind could dream up.
>
> Mother nature has always had a way of levelling our karma and our doomsday
> religiousity will do the rest. I've always believed that things happen if
> enough energy is directed toward the particular end one is trying to
> achieve. Well.........lots of folks believe that Armageddon is inevitable
> and by god, it's our duty to make sure that it happens the *right* way so
> that you go to hell and I don't.
>
> shit!!!!....where'd I put my meds?
>
> ;oP
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:460edd9e$1@linux...
>>
>> The fossil fuels lobby would love to make this about Al Gore instead of
>> about global warming. Because then anyone who doesn't happen like Al Gore
>> might be more inclined to buy their spin.
>>
>> If you don't happen to like Al Gore, check out the actual science. Try
>> and avoid the spin from the fossil fuels lobby if you can. Stick with
>> facts and assess the risks yourself.
>>
>> Here are a couple of useful web sites:
>>
>> http://www.realclimate.org/
>>
>> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> Don Nafe wrote:
>>> The man who invented the internet wouldn't know a scientific fact if it
>>> was weighed down with 2000 lb weight and dropped on his chicken little
>>> head!
>>>
>>> DOn
>>>
>>> "Bill Lorentzen" <bill@lorentzen.ws> wrote in message
>>> news:460ec4f9@linux...
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk&mode=related& amp;search=
>>>>
>>>> It's a British documentary showing another viewpoint about global
>>>> warming and CO2. It's a viewpoint that is different from that of the
>>>> man who invented the internet...
>>>>
>>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating! [message #82446 is a reply to message #82437] |
Sun, 01 April 2007 03:41 |
rick
Messages: 1976
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
finality someone mentions global dimming as one of the mitigating
factors working against global warming. in areas where (solid
particulate pollution has been lessened is where the temperature
increase is greatest. areas where these controls are not being
implemented have stayed relatively cooler due to the 20-30% reduction
in sun hours.
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 20:55:15 -0600, Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com>
wrote:
>
>DC wrote:
>> Remember, in the 1970's the same people were squealing
>> about global cooling.
>
>That's pretty funny, Don. Who were those "same people" and what speech
>impediment caused the "squealing" that you think we all remember?
>
>What I remember about the 70's is some pretty cool music.
>
>Anyway, here's some info on the stock mid century global cooling objection.
>
>From: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/14560/6189
>
>"Objection: There was global cooling in the '40s, '50s, and '60s, even
>while human greenhouse-gas emissions were rising. Clearly, temperature
>is not being driven by CO2.
>
>Answer: None of the advocates of the theory of anthropogenic global
>warming claim that CO2 is the only factor controlling temperature in the
>ocean-atmosphere climate system. It is a large and complex system,
>responsive on many different timescales, subject to numerous forcings.
>AGW only makes the claim that CO2 is the primary driver of the warming
>trend seen over the last 100 years. This rise has not been smooth and
>steady -- nor would it be expected to be.
>
>(graphic, go look at the link to see it)
>
>If you look at the temperature record for the 1990s, you'll notice a
>sharp drop in '92, '93, and '94. This is the effect of massive amounts
>of SO2 ejected into the stratosphere by Mount Pinatubo's eruption. That
>doesn't mean CO2 took a holiday and stopped influencing global
>temperatures; it only means that the CO2 forcing was temporarily
>overwhelmed by another, opposite forcing.
>
>The situation is similar to the cooling seen in the '40s and '50s.
>During this period, the CO2 warming (a smaller forcing at the time) was
>temporarily overwhelmed by by other factors, perhaps foremost among them
>an increase in human particulates and aerosol pollution. Pollution
>regulations and improved technology saw a decrease in this latter kind
>of emissions over the '60s and '70s, and as the air cleared, the CO2
>signal again emerged and took over. Below, courtesy of Global Warming
>Art, is an image of the current understanding of the factors and their
>influence for the climate of the past century.
>
>(graphic)
>
>As the graph shows, in addition to aerosol pollution (the sulphate
>line), volcanic influences were increasingly negative during the period
>of global cooling, and solar forcing slightly declined. All forcings
>taken together and run through the model are a very good match for the
>observations. (Please see the source page for details of what model and
>what study this image is derived from.)
>
>Rather than confounding the climate consensus, mid-century cooling is
>actually a good test for the climate models, one they are passing quite
>convincingly.
>
>Addendum: The opposing effect of cooling from airborne pollutants is
>often referred to as "Global Dimming", and Real Climate has a couple of
>articles on it:
>
>Global Dimming?
>Global Dimming II
>One emerging concern is that as the pollution causing this effect is
>gradually cleaned up, we may see even greater greenhouse gas warming."
>
>
>
>Worse, the ice core evidence shows
>> that increases in carbon dioxide level historically follows warming
>> not precedes it. Carbon may not be the problem.
>
>That's unlikely.
>
>From: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/231145/76
>
>"Objection: In glacial-interglacial cycles, CO2 concentration lags
>behind temperature by centuries. Clearly, CO2 does not cause
>temperatures to rise; temperatures cause CO2 to rise.
>
>Answer: When viewed coarsely, historical CO2 levels and temperature show
>a tight correlation. However, a closer examination of the CH4, CO2, and
>temperature fluctuations recorded in the Antarctic ice core records
>reveals that, yes, temperature moved first.
>
>Nevertheless, it is misleading to say that temperature rose and then,
>hundreds of years later, CO2 rose. These warming periods lasted for
>5,000 to 10,000 years (the cooling periods lasted more like 100,000
>years!), so for the majority of that time (90% and more), temperature
>and CO2 rose together. This remarkably detailed archive of
>climatological evidence clearly allows for CO2 acting as a cause for
>rising temperatures, while also revealing it can be an effect of them.
>
>(graphic)
>
>The current understanding of those cycles is that changes in orbital
>parameters (the Milankovich and other cycles) caused greater amounts of
>summer sunlight to fall in the northern hemisphere. This is a small
>forcing, but it caused ice to retreat in the north, which changed the
>albedo. This change -- reducing the amount of white, reflective ice
>surface -- led to further warmth, in a feedback effect. Some number of
>centuries after that process started, CO2 concentrations in the
>atmosphere began to rise, which amplified the warming trend even further
>as an additional feedback mechanism.
>
>(You can go here for a discussion of exactly this question by climate
>scientists, with greater technical detail and full references to the
>scientific literature.)
>
>So it is correct that CO2 did not trigger the warmings, but it
>definitely contributed to them -- and according to climate theory and
>model experiments, greenhouse gas forcing was the dominant factor in the
>magnitude of the ultimate change.
>
>This raises a warning for the future: we may well see additional natural
>CO2 come out of the woodwork as whatever process took place repeatedly
>over the last 650K years begins to play out again. The likely candidates
>are out-gassing from warming ocean waters, carbon from warming soils,
>and methane from melting permafrost."
>
>Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating deliberately one sided polemic BS [message #82451 is a reply to message #82421] |
Sun, 01 April 2007 08:03 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
There's lots of stuff I can't talk about because of my job, but this is a
very good book that says some of the same things but draws slightly different
conclusions.
http://www.amazon.com/Thousand-Barrels-Second-Challenges-Dep endent/dp/0071468749
I met the author and had a long discussion with him, and he knows his shit.
TCB
P.S. The _only_ good thing that just might possibly come out of our current
middle eastern meddling is that if we do start a war with Iran, and they
do choke off the oil tankers, and gas does go to $15 per gallon it will be
a hell of a spank on the US economy but we might finally get serious about
conservation. And I don't see Iran going gentle into the night, they call
that piece of water the 'Persian Gulf' for a reason. Anyway, that's a good
book.
"DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote:
>Global warming is very real IMO.
>
>Even the people in the fossil fuels business (me, for instance) know that
>they produce sulphur based pollutants and C02. The only way, IMHO, to
>explain away global warming is to explaining away the theory that C02
>doesn't cause it. I ain't buying that one. Those who try to compare what
is
>happening now to what has happened in the past with climate change are
>missing one serious fundamental.......never in the past have there been
so
>people on this planet burning so much carbon and never before have we had
>the science to live as long as we do now, and for our spawn to survive the
>in such staggering numbers. Also, if you stop and think about it, up until
>50 years ago, we had major disease epidemics that culled the global
>populations drastically and systematically and some pretty devastating wars
>on a fairly regular basis that also culled the population, especially in
>continental Europe and Asia, thus delaying the exponential population
>explosion that we have seen over the last 30 years or so. In 1970, the world
>population was 39 billion and change. right now it's estimated to exceed
67
>billion. All of these folks are competing for and using vcarbon based energy
>resources (and farting on a regular basis ;o).
>
>The solutions we're proposing right now are too little too late (again IMO)
>There are ways to reduce energy consumption but this will add to the costs
>that none of us want to pay. At some point, diminishing returns will be
>reached and alternative energy sources will start look more competitive.
The
>bigger problem is that the point of diminishing returns is quickly being
>reached as far as global supply is concerned (yeah....that peak oil
>voodoo...too bad it's as real as the day is long). This is already the
>driving factor in our effort to survive in the brave new global economy.
>It's gonna be expensive no matter what though. We are already starting to
>see the price of products based on corn as food to rise as the shift to
>ethanol starts to ramp up. the only way to sustain anything like the economy
>we have right now and become energy independent would be to build new
>refineries here,, build coal fired power plants, nuclear energy and drill
>every drop and bubble of oil and natural gas that we have here within our
>continental soveriegnty while rolling huge amount of the revenue from the
>sale of that to alternative energy R&D. Big problem there.......the energy
>interests won't do it and the environmentalists won't do it so we're gonna
>be hosed in 20 years, if not *much sooner*.
>
>the real problem is that there are just too many of *us*. I think we're
>getting ready so see some stuff right out of the worst imaginable horror
>movie that the most twisted mind could dream up.
>
>Mother nature has always had a way of levelling our karma and our doomsday
>religiousity will do the rest. I've always believed that things happen if
>enough energy is directed toward the particular end one is trying to
>achieve. Well.........lots of folks believe that Armageddon is inevitable
>and by god, it's our duty to make sure that it happens the *right* way so
>that you go to hell and I don't.
>
>shit!!!!....where'd I put my meds?
>
>;oP
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:460edd9e$1@linux...
>>
>> The fossil fuels lobby would love to make this about Al Gore instead of
>> about global warming. Because then anyone who doesn't happen like Al Gore
>> might be more inclined to buy their spin.
>>
>> If you don't happen to like Al Gore, check out the actual science. Try
and
>> avoid the spin from the fossil fuels lobby if you can. Stick with facts
>> and assess the risks yourself.
>>
>> Here are a couple of useful web sites:
>>
>> http://www.realclimate.org/
>>
>> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> Don Nafe wrote:
>>> The man who invented the internet wouldn't know a scientific fact if
it
>>> was weighed down with 2000 lb weight and dropped on his chicken little
>>> head!
>>>
>>> DOn
>>>
>>> "Bill Lorentzen" <bill@lorentzen.ws> wrote in message
>>> news:460ec4f9@linux...
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk&mode=related& amp;search=
>>>>
>>>> It's a British documentary showing another viewpoint about global
>>>> warming and CO2. It's a viewpoint that is different from that of the
man
>>>> who invented the internet...
>>>>
>>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating deliberately one sided polemic BS [message #82463 is a reply to message #82429] |
Sun, 01 April 2007 10:23 |
Deej [4]
Messages: 1292
Registered: January 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message news:460ef748$1@linux...
>I understand what you're saying DJ and I'm in no way saying that humans
>aren't contributing to greenhouse gases..my only problem is that greenhouse
>gases make up such a small (almost insignificant) portion of our atmosphere
>that I personally find it hard to believe that Global Warming; if there is
>such a thing happening, is being driven by human activity
>
> DOn
One thing to think about here Don......deforestation.............the planet
used to be covered with plants that utilized C02. C02 may constitute only a
small portion of our atmosphere, but it's a critical part of the atmosphere.
When you talk about *almost insignificant* things, a 3 degree F rise in
global temperature may seem insignificant in and of itself, and the
inundation of 60 miles of continental coastline that this could create may
seem insignificant when you consider that 60 miles is insignificant when
you're talking about a continent that is over 3000 miles across, but also
consider the fact that a huge portion of the earth's population lives within
that 60 miles and since water tends to adhere to the laws of gravity,
depending on the topo in these various areas, this 60 miles is gonna just be
a drainage area for waterflow seeking the lowest point which means you'd
best start buying beachfront real estate on the eastern edge of the Mojave
and the Appalatians.
A little goes a long way when you start jacking around with the life support
system of a living organism and the earth is a living organism. We're just
sorta' starting to behave like a malignancy within that organism. A *almost
insignificant* tumor can kill you. Suppose someone strapped a respirator on
you and started mixing in elevated levels of C02 at higher temperatures than
98.6 degrees, thus alterering the basic composition of the gases you needed
to survive and warming your body to the point that you basically were
running a fever 24/7, and you had to breathe this to the exclusion of
anything else. Depending on how drastically the C02 was increased, you might
survive and eventually adapt, but you would initially be weaked by the
imbalance of the toxic gas and the fever and the this weakening would likely
hamper your capability to evolve an adaptation to the new environment. Now
add that to the fact that as you are weakening, the C02 levels and
temperature in your environment are being constantly elevated.
Maybe a good thin (not for us, but for everything but us) is that our
population density is getting to the point that we are are fast becoming a
petrii dish for some new bugs out there that could be considered by some to
be the earth's immune system. when the :*bird flu" white cells start
travelling through the earth's aerial circulatory system that Boeing,
Lockheed, Airbus, et al has so conveniently provided it, all but the
*resistant strains* may get whacked.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating! [message #82465 is a reply to message #82459] |
Sun, 01 April 2007 10:27 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Bill Lorentzen wrote:
> Unfortunately I don't know enough science to analyze the whole scene and
> draw my own "scientific" conclusions. That said, I do find one specific
> datum from the movie compelling: that historically the CO2 has risen AFTER
> the warming. If this is indeed true, then one would have to be a fool to
> believe that increased CO2 emissions will greatly cause global warming.
> Surely we are all smart enough to acknowledge that.
>
> A key question is: hsitorically, which came first, the warming or the CO2
> increase? Who can umequivocally determine that?
Bill, you can read a good explanation here:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/231145/76
In short, they can be interrelated, and the biggest driver in the end is
the C02. IOW, it fits into the picture we're getting, that humans are
now contributing to the current climate change.
If you can't draw your own scientific conclusions, it may make some
sense to listen to the conclusions that actual climate scientists are
drawing.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating deliberately one sided polemic BS [message #82469 is a reply to message #82463] |
Sun, 01 April 2007 11:01 |
Deej [4]
Messages: 1292
Registered: January 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Don,
To follow up on my last post in regards to deforestation, prior to the last
10 years or so, I spent a goodly part of my life in southern Mexico. I have
watched as the area has changed from what was once a paradise to an
environmental trainwreck. This happened just between 1970 and 1995.
http://www.planeta.com/ecotravel/mexico/mxforest.html
I haven't been back down to that part of the world since 96 but I still have
quite a few friends there and we stay in touch on a regular basis. If you
are interested and want the scoop on what is happening, this is a good
source of info.
http://www.realoaxaca.com/
Stan seems to lean a bit to the left on many things, but he's that way for a
reason and he's a good and honest person. His monthly newsletter is usually
consistent with what I have seen and experienced there for many decades,
which is a real eye opener for those of us up here north of the Rio Grande
who may care to question why things down there affect what's happening up
here.
Regards,
Deej
"DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote in message news:460febb3$1@linux...
>
> "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message news:460ef748$1@linux...
>>I understand what you're saying DJ and I'm in no way saying that humans
>>aren't contributing to greenhouse gases..my only problem is that
>>greenhouse gases make up such a small (almost insignificant) portion of
>>our atmosphere that I personally find it hard to believe that Global
>>Warming; if there is such a thing happening, is being driven by human
>>activity
>>
>> DOn
>
> One thing to think about here Don......deforestation.............the
> planet used to be covered with plants that utilized C02. C02 may
> constitute only a small portion of our atmosphere, but it's a critical
> part of the atmosphere. When you talk about *almost insignificant* things,
> a 3 degree F rise in global temperature may seem insignificant in and of
> itself, and the inundation of 60 miles of continental coastline that this
> could create may seem insignificant when you consider that 60 miles is
> insignificant when you're talking about a continent that is over 3000
> miles across, but also consider the fact that a huge portion of the
> earth's population lives within that 60 miles and since water tends to
> adhere to the laws of gravity, depending on the topo in these various
> areas, this 60 miles is gonna just be a drainage area for waterflow
> seeking the lowest point which means you'd best start buying beachfront
> real estate on the eastern edge of the Mojave and the Appalatians.
>
> A little goes a long way when you start jacking around with the life
> support system of a living organism and the earth is a living organism.
> We're just sorta' starting to behave like a malignancy within that
> organism. A *almost insignificant* tumor can kill you. Suppose someone
> strapped a respirator on you and started mixing in elevated levels of C02
> at higher temperatures than 98.6 degrees, thus alterering the basic
> composition of the gases you needed to survive and warming your body to
> the point that you basically were running a fever 24/7, and you had to
> breathe this to the exclusion of anything else. Depending on how
> drastically the C02 was increased, you might survive and eventually adapt,
> but you would initially be weaked by the imbalance of the toxic gas and
> the fever and the this weakening would likely hamper your capability to
> evolve an adaptation to the new environment. Now add that to the fact that
> as you are weakening, the C02 levels and temperature in your environment
> are being constantly elevated.
>
> Maybe a good thin (not for us, but for everything but us) is that our
> population density is getting to the point that we are are fast becoming a
> petrii dish for some new bugs out there that could be considered by some
> to be the earth's immune system. when the :*bird flu" white cells start
> travelling through the earth's aerial circulatory system that Boeing,
> Lockheed, Airbus, et al has so conveniently provided it, all but the
> *resistant strains* may get whacked.
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating deliberatelyone-sided polemic [message #82470 is a reply to message #82447] |
Sun, 01 April 2007 11:04 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
That's a good description of the straw man argument being put out there,
Don. It sounds plausible but it's a diversion.
Here's why:
The earth's climate HAS changed dramatically over time. No one is
claiming otherwise.
There are and have been a variety of causes. No one is claiming otherwise.
The science shows this clearly.
Setting up a straw man that no one is advocating and knocking it down
decisively may seem like a winning argument, but it's a fake argument
from the getgo.
So OK, right now, as in the past, we know that there are many drivers of
climate. Everyone agrees on this point.
However, today, unlike in the past, industrialized humans have joined
the list. The data shows human contributions to greenhouse gases.
The reason carbon in the atmosphere is important is that it sticks
around and accumulates for long periods of time. Unlike, for example,
water vapor which comes and goes on a quick schedule with evaporation
and precipitation.
Scientists have spent a long time and a lot of effort looking at all the
major suspects and so far they are not enough to account for the recent
warming trend. Whereas atmospheric carbon from human causes does account
for it.
How can what may seem like a relatively small amount of CO2 cause an
effect in a larger system?
As a mental example, consider a physical system that is in balance on a
pivot point. Even if it's a very massive system, a small amount of force
on one side or the other of the pivot point can change the balance.
The result of all our research so far gives us reasonable insights into
what may be going on in the atmosphere and how our activities may be a
significant cause for the changes we are now measuring.
That knowledge offers us the chance and the responsibility to future
generations to choose how we want to affect our home planet over time.
We can be informed and proactive or we can sit in willful confusion and
let the situation deteriorate.
Our choice.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
Don Nafe wrote:
> Just so I've got this straight...according to the scientific data I am to
> believe that the smallest portion of our atmosphere (less than 3%) is in
> charge of our planet's temperature and that the sun, the oceans and cosmic
> triggers have little or no effect on our climate...and that the warming and
> cooling trends of the previous 600 million years on the earth don't matter
> because humans weren't a factor in those changes.
>
> Ok got it
>
> Don
>
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:460edf8a$1@linux...
>> It's a viewpoint that ignores the main body of peer-reviewed scientific
>> evidence for the sake of sensationalism. It was done that way deliberately
>> by the producers, with no attempt at an objective look at the actual
>> scientific evidence.
>>
>> Google it to check out the story behind it. Fair and balanced it ain't.
>>
>> I do like the breathless announcer, fast cuts and dramatic music. It's
>> always fun to see a one-sided polemic that ironically accuses others of
>> being one-sided. I doubt anyone here is gullible enough to take it as an
>> objective authority.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>
>> Bill Lorentzen wrote:
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk&mode=related& amp;search=
>>>
>>> It's a British documentary showing another viewpoint about global warming
>>> and CO2. It's a viewpoint that is different from that of the man who
>>> invented the internet...
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating deliberately one sided polemic BS [message #82471 is a reply to message #82463] |
Sun, 01 April 2007 11:27 |
Don Nafe
Messages: 1206
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote in message news:460febb3$1@linux...
>
> "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message news:460ef748$1@linux...
>>I understand what you're saying DJ and I'm in no way saying that humans
>>aren't contributing to greenhouse gases..my only problem is that
>>greenhouse gases make up such a small (almost insignificant) portion of
>>our atmosphere that I personally find it hard to believe that Global
>>Warming; if there is such a thing happening, is being driven by human
>>activity
>>
>> DOn
>
> One thing to think about here Don......deforestation.............the
> planet used to be covered with plants that utilized C02. C02 may
> constitute only a small portion of our atmosphere, but it's a critical
> part of the atmosphere. When you talk about *almost insignificant* things,
> a 3 degree F rise in global temperature may seem insignificant in and of
> itself, and the inundation of 60 miles of continental coastline that this
> could create may seem insignificant when you consider that 60 miles is
> insignificant when you're talking about a continent that is over 3000
> miles across, but also consider the fact that a huge portion of the
> earth's population lives within that 60 miles and since water tends to
> adhere to the laws of gravity, depending on the topo in these various
> areas, this 60 miles is gonna just be a drainage area for waterflow
> seeking the lowest point which means you'd best start buying beachfront
> real estate on the eastern edge of the Mojave and the Appalatians.
Only one problem Deej nobody's talking 3 degrees..it's all about 1/2 a
degree over a hundred years, which could be a naturally occurring event yet
no one wants to admit the possibilty because well, Global Warming is a big
business now
As for deforestation being a problem I agree but here in Canada most of our
logging companies have bought into the "replant what they harvest" mind set
(although I could be wrong) so we're doing our part at least from what I've
read (and yes there are exceptions so please nobody jump down my throat)
>
> A little goes a long way when you start jacking around with the life
> support system of a living organism and the earth is a living organism.
> We're just sorta' starting to behave like a malignancy within that
> organism. A *almost insignificant* tumor can kill you. Suppose someone
> strapped a respirator on you and started mixing in elevated levels of C02
> at higher temperatures than 98.6 degrees, thus alterering the basic
> composition of the gases you needed to survive and warming your body to
> the point that you basically were running a fever 24/7, and you had to
> breathe this to the exclusion of anything else. Depending on how
> drastically the C02 was increased, you might survive and eventually adapt,
> but you would initially be weaked by the imbalance of the toxic gas and
> the fever and the this weakening would likely hamper your capability to
> evolve an adaptation to the new environment. Now add that to the fact that
> as you are weakening, the C02 levels and temperature in your environment
> are being constantly elevated.
Ya lost me on that one...but it's going to take a heck of a lot more than
1/2 a degree change to drastically alter the chemical make up of our
atmosphere as history has demonstrated over the millenia. This is not to say
that we aren't facing some realities regarding Oil, Pollution, Water etc
that have to be addressed and personally I think that we can do a much
better job managing our resources and the environment and I for one do my
part not to mention hound my various levels of government and business to
get on board and start thinking long term Afterall I have kids and I'd like
give them a planet in better shape than it is now.
>
> Maybe a good thin (not for us, but for everything but us) is that our
> population density is getting to the point that we are are fast becoming a
> petrii dish for some new bugs out there that could be considered by some
> to be the earth's immune system. when the :*bird flu" white cells start
> travelling through the earth's aerial circulatory system that Boeing,
> Lockheed, Airbus, et al has so conveniently provided it, all but the
> *resistant strains* may get whacked.
Agreed...now where were we? oh yea. CO2
Is CO2 the cause of Global Warming...that's the multi billion dollar
question.
Personally I don't think so...but then again WTF do I know
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating deliberately one-sided polemic [message #82474 is a reply to message #82470] |
Sun, 01 April 2007 12:00 |
Don Nafe
Messages: 1206
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
First off Gene, that is not CO2 I'm looking at...it is a myriad of shit we
humans spew into the atmosphere and yes CO2 is one of those ingrediants.
Can we do something about this overall pollution, damn right we can and we
have the technology now to make a significant impact.
What we need is the political will and the almighty consumer to voice their
opinion by demanding more from our governments and corporations as well as
from ourselves.
Reduce, reuse and recycle are starting points, developing real alternatives
for our energy needs is another starting point, motivating industry to clean
up their act is another starting point...the list goes on and on but the
bottom line is something can be done.
Jamie...I am not arguing that man is not contributing to the problem,
obviously we are, but you are basing everything on a 100 year period that is
granted "out of the ordinary" and insist it is solely man's contribution to
greenhouse gases that are the cause. I just think there's more here than
man's handiwork at work.
Any thoughts on that 11 year cycle of sunspot activity we just came out
of...interesting that the two years of back to back El Nino/ El Nina
coincided almost perfectly with the peak in sun spot activity between 1997
and 2002...could be a coincidence who am I to say.
And althought I sit squarely in the nay sayers camp I still think we as a
species had better smarten up pretty damn quick because global warming is
only one of many things we're going to have to deal with
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:460ff509$1@linux...
>
> That's a good description of the straw man argument being put out there,
> Don. It sounds plausible but it's a diversion.
>
> Here's why:
>
> The earth's climate HAS changed dramatically over time. No one is claiming
> otherwise.
>
> There are and have been a variety of causes. No one is claiming otherwise.
>
> The science shows this clearly.
>
> Setting up a straw man that no one is advocating and knocking it down
> decisively may seem like a winning argument, but it's a fake argument from
> the getgo.
>
> So OK, right now, as in the past, we know that there are many drivers of
> climate. Everyone agrees on this point.
>
> However, today, unlike in the past, industrialized humans have joined the
> list. The data shows human contributions to greenhouse gases.
>
> The reason carbon in the atmosphere is important is that it sticks around
> and accumulates for long periods of time. Unlike, for example, water vapor
> which comes and goes on a quick schedule with evaporation and
> precipitation.
>
> Scientists have spent a long time and a lot of effort looking at all the
> major suspects and so far they are not enough to account for the recent
> warming trend. Whereas atmospheric carbon from human causes does account
> for it.
>
> How can what may seem like a relatively small amount of CO2 cause an
> effect in a larger system?
>
> As a mental example, consider a physical system that is in balance on a
> pivot point. Even if it's a very massive system, a small amount of force
> on one side or the other of the pivot point can change the balance.
>
> The result of all our research so far gives us reasonable insights into
> what may be going on in the atmosphere and how our activities may be a
> significant cause for the changes we are now measuring.
>
> That knowledge offers us the chance and the responsibility to future
> generations to choose how we want to affect our home planet over time.
>
> We can be informed and proactive or we can sit in willful confusion and
> let the situation deteriorate.
>
> Our choice.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>
> Don Nafe wrote:
>> Just so I've got this straight...according to the scientific data I am to
>> believe that the smallest portion of our atmosphere (less than 3%) is in
>> charge of our planet's temperature and that the sun, the oceans and
>> cosmic triggers have little or no effect on our climate...and that the
>> warming and cooling trends of the previous 600 million years on the earth
>> don't matter because humans weren't a factor in those changes.
>>
>> Ok got it
>>
>> Don
>>
>>
>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>> news:460edf8a$1@linux...
>>> It's a viewpoint that ignores the main body of peer-reviewed scientific
>>> evidence for the sake of sensationalism. It was done that way
>>> deliberately by the producers, with no attempt at an objective look at
>>> the actual scientific evidence.
>>>
>>> Google it to check out the story behind it. Fair and balanced it ain't.
>>>
>>> I do like the breathless announcer, fast cuts and dramatic music. It's
>>> always fun to see a one-sided polemic that ironically accuses others of
>>> being one-sided. I doubt anyone here is gullible enough to take it as an
>>> objective authority.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bill Lorentzen wrote:
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk&mode=related& amp;search=
>>>>
>>>> It's a British documentary showing another viewpoint about global
>>>> warming and CO2. It's a viewpoint that is different from that of the
>>>> man who invented the internet...
>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - Global warming alternative opinion movie - fascinating deliberatelyone-sided polemic [message #82476 is a reply to message #82474] |
Sun, 01 April 2007 12:40 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey Don, we agree that there is more than human effects at work. The key
point is that human causes could be adding to other causes to tip the
balance.
Solar causes are exceedingly important to climate. But the measured data
shows that changes in the Sun's output are not the culprit for the
current warming:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/28/090/30666
"According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no
increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite
observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the
temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has not changed."
Based on current research, climate scientists are concerned with climate
changes that could be occurring due to human contributed greenhouse
gases. The changes could possibly accelerate due to other carbon sources
thawing and adding to the problem. We would be wise to pay attention.
Smaller actions now may be more effective than larger actions later.
I agree that something can be done, and your solutions are a good place
to start.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
PS.
I don't know about sunspot data that may correspond with el nino/nina
(ocean-based weather driving events), but if so it would be an
interesting area for research, to see if there is a mechanism to ascribe
any sort of cause/effect relationship.
Don Nafe wrote:
> First off Gene, that is not CO2 I'm looking at...it is a myriad of shit we
> humans spew into the atmosphere and yes CO2 is one of those ingrediants.
>
> Can we do something about this overall pollution, damn right we can and we
> have the technology now to make a significant impact.
>
> What we need is the political will and the almighty consumer to voice their
> opinion by demanding more from our governments and corporations as well as
> from ourselves.
>
> Reduce, reuse and recycle are starting points, developing real alternatives
> for our energy needs is another starting point, motivating industry to clean
> up their act is another starting point...the list goes on and on but the
> bottom line is something can be done.
>
>
> Jamie...I am not arguing that man is not contributing to the problem,
> obviously we are, but you are basing everything on a 100 year period that is
> granted "out of the ordinary" and insist it is solely man's contribution to
> greenhouse gases that are the cause. I just think there's more here than
> man's handiwork at work.
>
> Any thoughts on that 11 year cycle of sunspot activity we just came out
> of...interesting that the two years of back to back El Nino/ El Nina
> coincided almost perfectly with the peak in sun spot activity between 1997
> and 2002...could be a coincidence who am I to say.
>
> And althought I sit squarely in the nay sayers camp I still think we as a
> species had better smarten up pretty damn quick because global warming is
> only one of many things we're going to have to deal with
>
>
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:460ff509$1@linux...
>> That's a good description of the straw man argument being put out there,
>> Don. It sounds plausible but it's a diversion.
>>
>> Here's why:
>>
>> The earth's climate HAS changed dramatically over time. No one is claiming
>> otherwise.
>>
>> There are and have been a variety of causes. No one is claiming otherwise.
>>
>> The science shows this clearly.
>>
>> Setting up a straw man that no one is advocating and knocking it down
>> decisively may seem like a winning argument, but it's a fake argument from
>> the getgo.
>>
>> So OK, right now, as in the past, we know that there are many drivers of
>> climate. Everyone agrees on this point.
>>
>> However, today, unlike in the past, industrialized humans have joined the
>> list. The data shows human contributions to greenhouse gases.
>>
>> The reason carbon in the atmosphere is important is that it sticks around
>> and accumulates for long periods of time. Unlike, for example, water vapor
>> which comes and goes on a quick schedule with evaporation and
>> precipitation.
>>
>> Scientists have spent a long time and a lot of effort looking at all the
>> major suspects and so far they are not enough to account for the recent
>> warming trend. Whereas atmospheric carbon from human causes does account
>> for it.
>>
>> How can what may seem like a relatively small amount of CO2 cause an
>> effect in a larger system?
>>
>> As a mental example, consider a physical system that is in balance on a
>> pivot point. Even if it's a very massive system, a small amount of force
>> on one side or the other of the pivot point can change the balance.
>>
>> The result of all our research so far gives us reasonable insights into
>> what may be going on in the atmosphere and how our activities may be a
>> significant cause for the changes we are now measuring.
>>
>> That knowledge offers us the chance and the responsibility to future
>> generations to choose how we want to affect our home planet over time.
>>
>> We can be informed and proactive or we can sit in willful confusion and
>> let the situation deteriorate.
>>
>> Our choice.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>
>> Don Nafe wrote:
>>> Just so I've got this straight...according to the scientific data I am to
>>> believe that the smallest portion of our atmosphere (less than 3%) is in
>>> charge of our planet's temperature and that the sun, the oceans and
>>> cosmic triggers have little or no effect on our climate...and that the
>>> warming and cooling trends of the previous 600 million years on the earth
>>> don't matter because humans weren't a factor in those changes.
>>>
>>> Ok got it
>>>
>>> Don
>>>
>>>
>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>> news:460edf8a$1@linux...
>>>> It's a viewpoint that ignores the main body of peer-reviewed scientific
>>>> evidence for the sake of sensationalism. It was done that way
>>>> deliberately by the producers, with no attempt at an objective look at
>>>> the actual scientific evidence.
>>>>
>>>> Google it to check out the story behind it. Fair and balanced it ain't.
>>>>
>>>> I do like the breathless announcer, fast cuts and dramatic music. It's
>>>> always fun to see a one-sided polemic that ironically accuses others of
>>>> being one-sided. I doubt anyone here is gullible enough to take it as an
>>>> objective authority.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bill Lorentzen wrote:
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk&mode=related& amp;search=
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a British documentary showing another viewpoint about global
>>>>> warming and CO2. It's a viewpoint that is different from that of the
>>>>> man who invented the internet...
>
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Dec 02 03:28:58 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02429 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
