Page 41 of 47 FirstFirst ... 31373839404142434445 ... LastLast
Results 601 to 615 of 695

Thread: Climate Change

  1. #601
    Senior Member Capn_Birdseye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Houseboat, Thames, London
    Posts
    780

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RandySavage View Post
    ^I've read most of the ongoing evidence/arguments both for and against, and the biggest scientific proponents of Global Warming will readily admit that there are many questions and unknowns still to be tackled, but the best consensus of current knowledge sees the balance of evidence coming down on the side of anthropogenic climate change.
    The "evidence" is certainly not "balanced" and much of it is flawed - care to make any comment on the Michael Mann hockey stick graph used extensively by envio's?

    Your tagline seems to be "humans are too small a force to have an affect on something as huge and complex as climate."
    Up to a point - Man vs Nature is in my opinion a non-contest, but the main point is that the powerful lobby advocating Global Warming is simply using flawed/corrupted evidence to back their case, and I'm a person with no axe to grind in this debate, if I thought there was a real case to be had here I'd back it but so far I've seen none that convinces me.

    With that in mind, another question for you: do you believe what science is telling us about collapsing fish stocks, loss of tropical forests to agriculture, species mass extinction, buildup of synthetic toxins in human and animal tissue, etc., or do you think all these are more scare-mongering fables put out by the enviros who seek control and power?
    (1) Over-fishing

    (2) Greed & need

    (3) Extinction of some species is always with us, but new species are also dsicovered
    More Than 100 New Species Discovered In Hawaiian Islands

    ScienceDaily (Oct. 31, 2006) — A three-week scientific expedition to French Frigate Shoals in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument returned to Honolulu on Sunday with the discovery of many new species and a better understanding of marine biodiversity in the Hawaiian Archipelago.

    (4) Toxins in human/animal tissue

    We are living in a world in which toxins have been introduced at an alarming rate since the end of World War II. There is no burden of proof placed on industry to show that these chemicals are safe. It used to be that we considered acute toxicity or poisoning to be our only concern. Heavy metal exposure was measured in blood to diagnose poisoning. Not so anymore. Chronic heavy metal and chemical buildup in bodies gradually creates a greater ‘body burden’ that is increasingly difficult to overcome with innate detoxification mechanisms.

    This process of accumulating poisons starts in utero these days. Toxins cross the placental barrier and affect developing fetuses as well as the newborn. Mammalian milk continues to channel these substances into young bodies. Our animals are exposed to many of the same chemicals that we are, and their abilities to manage this toxic load become easily overwhelmed. Look at common sources of exposure for ourselves and our animals

    Billions of tons of chemicals are used every year, including mercury, sulfates and nitrates from coal-fired power plants in the U.S. Airborne toxins from Asia and other countries travel the jet stream, eventually settling onto virtually every continent on the planet.

    Our indoor air is 10 times more polluted than outdoor air, according to the EPA. Flame retardants, formaldehyde, paints, and nonstick or stain-resistant coatings such as those found in cookware or upholstery and carpets contribute to the mix. Home cleaning products can create an acute problem for birds that live in the house but chronic exposure for dogs, cats and smaller animals can be a problem as well. Think about how our pets are so good at cleaning up after us in the kitchen. Ingesting a little pine scented floor cleaning solution or chemical disinfectant is not a good idea, even in small amounts. Even household building materials can off-gas undesirable substances for years.

    Food. We need no reminder of the recent pet food recall catastrophe in order to be diligent about the source of all ingredients in our animals’ food. If we are successful in obtaining domestic products free from foreign contaminants, ensuring that these are as organic as possible with no hormones, pesticides, antibiotics and fertilizer residues can still be a chore. Even organically grown ingredients cannot be protected from pollutants in air and rain and inevitably expose our pets to these toxins when they are ingested.

    A study done by Gloria Dodd, DVM detected unacceptable levels of aluminum in many pet foods; even high quality canned pet food contained heavy metals. When Dr. Dodd analyzed hair samples from sick animals, she found that many of them contained high levels of heavy metals such as aluminum, lead and arsenic.
    (www.planet-pets.com/drgloria).

    Water. Studies done by the Environmental Working Group on contaminants in tap water showed that in 42 states, some 260 contaminants were detected in public water supplies, 140 of which were unregulated chemicals! Using bottled water cannot adequately protect our pets, since 25-30% of it comes from municipal tap systems – and the testing requirements for bottled water are lower than those for tap water. Additionally, the plastics from the bottles can leach into the water.

    Plastic feed and water dishes can contribute endocrine disruptors such as bisphenol A. Phthalate, another endocrine disruptor, is used to soften plastic and can be found in animal toys and in the linings of canned foods destined for both human and animal consumption.

    Grooming products and sprays we put on our pets often have toxins such as sodium laurel sulfate, phthalates, parabens, triclosan and preservatives in them. These go directly on our animals’ skin and penetrate into their systems.

    Vaccines are often a source of heavy metals (mercury/thimerisol) which are neurotoxins and the carcinogen formaldehyde.

    Heavy metals can reduce the body’s ability to absorb essential nutrients such as calcium, magnesium and zinc, eventually leading to problems with immune function, muscle contraction, energy production, and repair of bone.

    We don’t know all of the actions of toxins or the interactions of multiple toxins in low levels in the body. One thing we do know is that assaults on the cells and tissues of the body result in the formation of free radicals. Most of us are familiar with this term; free radicals are molecules that are unstable, they are missing one of a pair of electrons. Molecules like to be stable and will ‘steal’ an electron from a neighboring molecule in order to re-stabilize themselves. The molecule that was robbed now becomes a free radical and a chain reaction of free radical formation can occur; if this chain reaction cannot be stopped by the anti-oxidants in the body, oxidative stress results.

  2. #602
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Far West Village, NYC
    Posts
    927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Capn_Birdseye View Post
    The "evidence" is certainly not "balanced" and much of it is flawed - care to make any comment on the Michael Mann hockey stick graph used extensively by envio's?
    Sure, I'll make a comment.

    Wegman (a statistician) is the key figure in criticizing the hockey stick. From a scientific standpoint, I think it's a good thing that Wegman brought up what he perceived to be statistical shortcomings in Mann's hockey stick because it made the National Research Council reexamine Mann's argument. The NRC then concluded (in agreement with Wegman) that there were some flaws in Mann's methods, BUT the shortcomings were minimal, and what the hockey stick showed remained basically accurate. So yes, on balance the evidence still falls on the side of the CC

    I am no climatologist. I can make decisions only on what I read from specialists whom I trust are being honest. However, I have some slight reservations about the people attacking Mann's work. I know that the players involved in the Wegman Report are mostly tied to the fossil fuel industry (two Republican, energy-minded Senators from Texas and Kentucky, a former coal executive and an economist). The guy that requested Wegman find holes in Mann's work is the same guy who fought in Congress to provide safe harbor for the manufacturers of cancer-causing MBTE fuel additive. From a gut feeling standpoint, I trust the Mann side people a little more than the Wegman side. Also, to me, common sense or Joachim's Razor would suggest that if you slightly alter the chemical makeup of the atmosphere, there will be slight consequences. Slight consequences in this case (1-4degree increase) could be catastrophic to biodiversity that can't move as freely as it could during other, natural warming periods in last 50,000 years.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capn_Birdseye View Post
    (3) Extinction of some species is always with us, but new species are also dsicovered
    Yes, extinction is natural, but the current rate of extinction is 100 to 1,000 times the natural rate (prehuman). And I hope you understand that because we're still discovering/naming new species (we've discovered about 1.8 million species out of possibly 10 million (mostly invertebrates)) doesn't mean that some sort rapid speciation is happening in Hawaii to replace what has been killed off due to habitat loss, invasive species, overexploitation, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capn_Birdseye View Post
    Man vs Nature is in my opinion a non-contest.
    If by this you mean that humans can't have major, global, deleterious effects on nature, you're very wrong. Even in our prehistory we had significant effects on flora and fauna (for example, without Indian fires the eastern prairie would have been invaded by forest). With our numbers and consumption at current levels and continuing to increase, many major changes are taking place. To name a few: the oceans are being emptied of most of their large pelagic fish (half of fish eaten are now farmed), tens of thousands of square miles of Sahelian savanna have become the Sahara desert due to overgrazing of livestock and loss of vegetative transpiration, the rainforests of Southeast Asia are well on their way to being fully consumed to feed the cardboard and palm oil needs of industrializing nations, and scientists are still trying to understand the complex role the Amazon plays in local and global climate, even as an area larger than Alaska (more than 7 times the size of your UK) has been razed since 1970. As the rainforests disappear, so do the 90% of species we have yet to discover/name/study - a burning of the biological library of Alexandria a million times over, and a loss of countless potential medicines, foods, natural pesticides, etc.

    Bottom line: The enviros have reason to be concerned with the current and future state of the planet. I'm willing to debate global warming with you based on new evidence as it arises, but those who have the attitude of "don't worry, be happy" when it comes to environmental issues as a whole strike me as either lazy, willfully ignorant, or selfishly apathetic. I hope that's not you.
    Last edited by RandySavage; February 6th, 2008 at 05:46 PM.

  3. #603
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,781

    Default

    Don't be so savage, Randy!

    I agree with most of what you say there. So many people take this all-or-nothing attitude, or quite the opposite "I don't really care, whatever." indifference.

    Everyone does not need to make their own hydroponic farms, get electric cars run on solar cells and batteries that they charge from their treadmills/rooftop cells/bio-waste methane production (although that would also produce CO2...). But sitting around and saying "You all are greenie Nazi fascist socialist communist pinkos!" and doing nothing, while simply shouting what they have been told to shout gets us nowhere.


    The things I am concerned about are tipping points. At what % of glacier melt do we get out of our stable zone and get an uncontrollable increase in solar energy absorption?

    When do we get to the point where the tundra starts to melt and release its methane gas? What about the CO2 that is currently dissolved in the ocean, what happens when we get to the point (only a few degrees) where THAT will jump up to where our reduction in gasses will do little to stop it (pushing the rock over the bump that was keeping it from rolling downhill...).

    I am not in favor of castration of our own faltering economy in order to make marginal, at best, improvements in our ecological state of being and impact, but doing nothing is simply blind and irresponsible.

  4. #604

    Default doing nothing is responsible - technology gets cheaper over time

    I still don't see why doing nothing is irresponsible. Its very expensive (and probably impossible) to actually slow this down right now. If China adds the electrical capacity of the UK every year, and its coal fired, we're not going to make a meaningful change by installing 10% more efficient building insulation in some homes.

    That money would be better spent on research, until the point renewable or fusion technology becomes cheaper than fossil fuels. Once that happens, all the coal fired technology will disappear on its own. Procrastination is sometimes the right answer.

  5. #605
    Senior Member Capn_Birdseye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Houseboat, Thames, London
    Posts
    780

    Default

    Back in the late 1990s, American geo-scientist Michael Mann published a chart that purported to show average surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere over the past 1,000 years. The chart showed relatively minor fluctuations in temperature over the first 900 years, then a sharp and continuous rise over the past century, giving it a hockey-stick shape.

    Mr. Mann's chart was both a scientific and political sensation. It contradicted a body of scientific work suggesting a warm period early in the second millennium, followed by a "Little Ice Age" starting in the 14th century. It also provided some visually arresting scientific support for the contention that fossil-fuel emissions were the cause of higher temperatures. Little wonder, then, that Mr. Mann's hockey stick appears five times in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's landmark 2001 report on global warming, which paved the way to this week's global ratification -- sans the U.S., Australia and China -- of the Kyoto Protocol.

    Yet there were doubts about Mr. Mann's methods and analysis from the start. In 1998, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics published a paper in the journal Climate Research, arguing that there really had been a Medieval warm period. The result: Messrs. Soon and Baliunas were treated as heretics and six editors at Climate Research were made to resign.

    Still, questions persisted. In 2003, Stephen McIntyre, a Toronto minerals consultant and amateur mathematician, and Ross McKitrick, an economist at Canada's University of Guelph, jointly published a critique of the hockey stick analysis. Their conclusion: Mr. Mann's work was riddled with "collation errors, unjustifiable truncations of extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculations of principal components, and other quality control defects." Once these were corrected, the Medieval warm period showed up again in the data.

    This should have produced a healthy scientific debate. Instead, as the Journal's Antonio Regalado reported Monday, Mr. Mann tried to shut down debate by refusing to disclose the mathematical algorithm by which he arrived at his conclusions. All the same, Mr. Mann was forced to publish a retraction of some of his initial data, and doubts about his statistical methods have since grown. Statistician Francis Zwiers of Environment Canada (a government agency) notes that Mr. Mann's method "preferentially produces hockey sticks when there are none in the data." Other reputable scientists such as Berkeley's Richard Muller and Hans von Storch of Germany's GKSS Center essentially agree.
    From Wall Street Journal 18 February 2005

  6. #606
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Far West Village, NYC
    Posts
    927

    Default

    ^ Mann did eventually release his algorithm, healthy debate ensued, and the National Research Council, while pulling back from some of Mann's data, still came down on Mann's side of the hockey stick:

    http://www8.nationalacademies.org/on...RecordID=11676

  7. #607
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by investordude View Post
    I still don't see why doing nothing is irresponsible. Its very expensive (and probably impossible) to actually slow this down right now.
    Right there you are sticking impossibilities into the argument.

    "Well if it is hard to do, why should we do it?"

    Do you lift weights? Do you exercise? You know that it will help you in teh long run, but so little happens to effect aging, so why bother?

    If China adds the electrical capacity of the UK every year, and its coal fired, we're not going to make a meaningful change by installing 10% more efficient building insulation in some homes.
    We are not talking about China. We have to set an example, not point our fingers and say "well he did it!". We are in no position to ask China to change their ways if we do not do so ourselves.

    That money would be better spent on research, until the point renewable or fusion technology becomes cheaper than fossil fuels.
    Shouldn't the oil companies be donating large sums for that? What were Exxon's profits last year? And what are the Oil companies latest commercials about? That tehy are looking for more oil/gas, to "serve" us and our needs. Big whoop.

    We are not saying that research on these things would be bad, but putting it diametrically opposed, as if reduced MILITARY SPENDING could not be used for the same research, is foolish.

    Once that happens, all the coal fired technology will disappear on its own. Procrastination is sometimes the right answer.
    What are you smoking? Wait until Amageddon happens because then we will be more motivated and need it more?

    Site me ONE PLACE where procrastination has helped any company. And I do not mean by stealing others work either.

    Procrastination is NEVER a viable alternative. Its very definition does not denote timing or planning, but simply delaying what needs to be done because someone or something is unwilling to do it.

  8. #608
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RandySavage View Post
    ^ Mann did eventually release his algorithm, healthy debate ensued, and the National Research Council, while pulling back from some of Mann's data, still came down on Mann's side of the hockey stick:

    http://www8.nationalacademies.org/on...RecordID=11676
    THANK YOU for providing links RS!

    I hear these things all the time, but I do not know where to get the information.

    That and I am too lazy to do it myself sometimes (yes, that was a freebie to you Jasonik).

    Maybe I should just wait long enough until someone else does it.... Where have I heard that before....

  9. #609
    Senior Member Capn_Birdseye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Houseboat, Thames, London
    Posts
    780

    Default

    Hey randy, take a look at this:

    http://www.channel4.com/science/micr...programme.html

    and this ...

    Global Warming: A Convenient Lie
    By Andrew G. Marshall

    Global Research, March 15, 2007

    Recently, a documentary aired on the UK’s Channel 4, entitled “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, which challenged the prevailing political understanding that global warming is caused by man-made activity. The movie argues that it is in fact the sun that is responsible for the current changes in the Earth’s temperature and the film is riddled with the testimony of many scientists and climate experts, furthering a growing dissent to the man-made theory. After all, that’s all it is, a theory. As soon as people start to state that “the debate is over”, beware, because the fundamental basis of all sciences is that debate is never over, that questions must be asked and answered and issues raised in order for the science to be accurate. So what exactly are the arguments behind the Sun being the main cause of global warming?

    First off, it is very important to address the fact that Earth is not the only planet to be experiencing climate change in our solar system currently. In fact, many astronomers have announced that Pluto has been experiencing global warming, and suggested that it is a seasonal event, just like how Earth’s seasons change as the various hemispheres alter their inclination to the Sun. We must remember that it is the Sun that determines our seasons, and thusly has a greater impact upon the climate than we could ever even try to achieve. In May of 2006, a report came forward revealing that a massive hurricane-like storm that occurred on Jupiter may be caused by climate change occurring on the planet, which is expected to raise its temperatures by 10 degrees. National Geographic News reported that a simultaneous rising in temperature on both Mars and Earth suggest that climate change is indeed a natural phenomenon as opposed to being man-made. The report further explains how NASA has reported that Mars’ carbon dioxide ice caps have been melting for a few years now. Sound familiar? An astronomical observatory in Russia declared that, “the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun”. They further point out that both Mars and Earth have, throughout their histories, experienced periodic ice ages as climate changes in a continuous fashion. NASA has also been observing massive storms on Saturn, which indicate a climate change occurring on that planet as well. NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope has also been recording massive climate changes on Neptune’s largest moon, Triton. Triton, whose surface was once made up of frozen nitrogen, is now turning into gas. The Associated Press has reported that satellites that measure the temperature of sunlight have been recording an increase in the sun’s temperature, meaning that the sun itself is warming up. Even the London Telegraph reported in 2004 that global warming was due to the sun being hotter than it has ever been in the past 1,000 years. They cited this information from research conducted by German and Swiss scientists who claim that it is increasing radiation from the sun that is resulting in our current climate change.

    Claude Allegre, a leading French scientist, who was among the first scientists to try to warn people of the dangers of global warming 20 years ago, now believes that “increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena”. Allegre said, “There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled." He is convinced that global warming is a natural change and sees the threat of the ‘great dangers’ that it supposedly poses as being bloated and highly exaggerated. Also recently, the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus said, when discussing the recent ruling by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is man-made, “Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.” And if you are about to ask why no politicians here seem to be saying this, Klaus offered up an answer, “Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice”. Nigel Calder, the former editor of New Scientist, wrote an article in the UK Sunday Times, in which he stated, “When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works.” He further stated that, “Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis”. And in reference to how the media is representing those who dissent from the man-made theory he stated, “they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies”, which is exactly what I believed up until I did my research. He also wrote, “Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages”.

    For those who saw Al Gore’s “documentary”, it was very convincing of its hypothesis that global warming is a man-made phenomenon that has the potential to kill us all and end humanity. After all, the film was filled with graphs and charts, so it must be true. Let’s just get something straight here, Al Gore is not a climatologist, meteorologist, astronomer, or scientist of any kind; he is a politician. And as we all know, politicians always tell the truth. However, as Al Gore’s popularity grows and with his recent winning of an Academy Award for his movie, the issue has spiraled into massive push for quick action and stifled debate, forcing many scientists to speak out and challenge the political status quo. A group of scientists recently stated that the research behind Al Gore’s film and in fact, the concept of greenhouse gases causing global warming, is “a sham”. They claim that in fact, there is very little evidence to prove that theory, and that the evidence actually points to an increase in solar activity being the cause of climate change. In Gore’s movie, he presented evidence that was found in the research done on ice core samples from Antarctica, which he claimed is proof for the theory of CO2 being the cause of rising temperatures. However, this group of scientists state that “warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels”, meaning that a rise in Carbon Dioxide follows a rise in temperature, rather than increasing temperature following rising CO2 emissions. And not only that, but it follows behind the rise in temperature by about 800 years. The group also mentions that, “after the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.” They also claim that the report given by the UN, which said it was backed by over 2,000 of the worlds leading scientists, “was a ‘sham’ given that this list included the names of scientists who disagreed with its findings.”

    Timothy Ball, one of the first Canadian doctors in climatology, recently wrote an article addressing the issue of why no one seems to be listening to scientists who claim that global warming is NOT man-made. He starts by writing, “Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science”. He continues, “We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.” Then he mentions how Environment Canada is spending billions upon billions of dollars on “propaganda” which defends an “indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.” Then Dr. Ball brings up a very interesting point that everyone should take into consideration, citing that 30 years ago, in the 1970s everyone was talking about “global cooling” and how it was the defining issue of our lives, our species, that our very survival depended on what we did it about it. Interesting, sounds like every Canadian politician. Ball continues to explain that climate change is occurring, but that it is because it is always occurring, it is a natural change that is a result of the changes in the Sun’s temperature. He explains that we are currently leaving what was known as a Little Ice Age and that the history of Earth is riddles with changes in the climate. That’s what climate does and is always doing, changing. Dr. Ball claims that “there is nothing unusual going on,” and that he “was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as [he was] to the threats made about Global Warming.”

    Dr. Timothy Ball later wrote, in commenting on the problems that arise for scientists who speak out, that, “Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.” He also mentions how he “was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies.” He concludes in referencing others who have and continue to speak out against the prevailing myth of man-made global warming, such as author Michael Crichton, who’s book, ‘State of Fear’, explains the inaccurate science behind the man-made myth. Another prominent name is that of Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, who often speaks out against the man-made theory, yet no one seems to be listening to him.

    An article in the February 12th Washington Times discussed how skeptics of global warming are “treated like a pariah”. The article begins, “Scientists skeptical of climate-change theories say they are increasingly coming under attack -- treatment that may make other analysts less likely to present contrarian views about global warming.” He cites an example of this by mentioning how a climatologist in Oregon might be stripped of his position by the governor for speaking out against the origins of climate change. Most skeptics don’t claim that climate change is not occurring, they just disagree with what is causing it, and yet they are treated like traitors. A NASA funded study in 2003 found that, “Changes in the solar cycle -- and solar output -- are known to cause short-term climate change on Earth.”

    In a storm of scientists speaking out against Al Gore’s movie, an Australian professor of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory has publicly stated, "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention." In response to the use of images in Gore’s movie of glaciers breaking off, Dr. Boris Winterhalter, a professor on marine geology and former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland, said that, “The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier.” Makes sense, especially since history tells us that glaciers move, after all, that’s what helped form our valleys and reshaped mountain ranges at the end of the last ice age about 10,000 years ago. Maybe my memory isn’t very good, but I don’t think people were driving SUVs 10,000 years ago. Another clever use of images to manipulate facts that Gore has in his movie is that of a polar bear seemingly stranded on a piece of a broken off ice berg, stating that polar bears are becoming extinct because of global warming. However, there are a few things wrong with this assessment, first of all, that according to a paper published by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov, “the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise.” Secondly, if the polar bear is in such danger according to Al Gore, then why does a recent government survey in Canada show that they are not declining, but rather rising in numbers? Thirdly, the very idea of a polar bear “stranded” on a small block of ice is in itself misleading for Gore’s argument, as polar bears are excellent swimmers and according to Sea World, “They can swim for several hours at a time over long distances [and] they've been tracked swimming continuously for 100 km (62 mi.)” Professor Carter, speaking about Gore and his personal crusade, said, “The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science.” Even if Al Gore was telling the truth about the causes of global warming, or climate change, which most evidence points to the fact that he is not, but even if he was, he would still be a hypocrite. It was recently revealed that Al Gore doesn’t exactly practice what he preaches, such as what he said in his Academy Award acceptance speech, “People all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis. It's not a political issue; it's a moral issue.” Well, in that case, why is it that a recent study by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research found that one of Al Gore’s mansions uses 20 times the amount of electricity that the average American does. It was also reported that Al Gore consumes twice as much the electricity in one month that the average American consumes in one year.

    In examining that there is more evidence to prove the basis for a conclusion that changes in climate are more related to an increase in the temperature of the Sun rather than influence of people, we must examine why efforts to expose this myth are stifled and those who speak out are attacked. In fact, there are reported cases of scientists who speak out against the man-made theory as having received death threats. There has even been talk of relating those who speak out against the currently held theory on global warming as being equal to those who deny the Holocaust. In a recent op-ed piece in the Boston Globe commenting on the report issued by the UN, Ellen Goodman wrote, “Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.” This is a very disturbing comment, not only because there is reason to scientifically doubt the man-made theory, but also because this is a scathing attack on freedom of speech, the most vital and important of all rights and freedoms.

    With the UN Panel’s judgment in, western politicians are quick to declare that the debate is over, and action must be taken immediately. What is this action that they are planning on taking? The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the UK, Gordon Brown, soon expected to be the next Prime Minister after Tony Blair steps down, has publicly called for a “new world order” to combat the threat of climate change. So let’s have a look at this New World Order that’s being implemented to combat the threat of global warming. One major thing being pushed through with little, cancel that, no debate, is a UN recommendation that we impose “a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions”. Most people will hear this and think, “Good, polluters need to be taxed”. Well, this means people who drive cars will be taxed, because according to Al Gore, when you drive your car, you’re causing global warming. This is no joke, as an article in the UK’s Guardian Newspaper reported that, “The government is throwing its weight behind a revolutionary plan that would force motorists to pay £1.30 a mile to drivemight end up paying about £1,500 a year for driving 19,000 miles.” That’s equal to about $3,000 per year. I don’t know about you, but I don’t know many people who can afford that. In the European Union, plans are being made to impose an increase of taxes on diesel. The European Commission recently proposed to “raise the minimum tax on commercial diesel fuel by nearly 20% over the next seven years”. This, they claim, is to help protect the environment because it will act as a deterrent for people to drive. This is just excellent news, because as anyone who has driven in the past two years knows, gas prices are just too low. Another concern arising out of the concept of taxing people for how far they drive is how it is done. According to the Transport Secretary in the UK, “Every vehicle would have a black box to allow a satellite system to track their journey”. This has been raising concerns in the UK of an increase in Big Brother technology and government programs. Proposals currently being made in Canada recommend that, “Canadians would pay an extra 10 cents per litre at the gas pumps”, mirroring plans in the European Union. Another important recent news item is that Toronto “Mayor David Miller said yesterday he would support ‘region-wide’ road tolls”, to combat climate change. on Britain's busiest roads”. That is approximately $3.00 per mile. A study conducted by an expert in transportation and infrastructure found that, “a Birmingham commuter

    The European Union is also imposing a ban on conventional light bulbs, replacing them with energy-saving bulbs. That ban would fully be in effect within two years, forcing all 490 million citizens of the EU’s member states to switch from the current conventional lights they now have. However, some problems of this plan have been raised considering that the supposed energy-efficient light bulbs “have to be left on all the time, they're made from banned toxins and they won't work in half your household fittings. Yet Europe (and Gordon Brown) says 'green' lightbulbs must replace all our old ones.” They also are “up to 20 times more expensive” than conventional light bulbs. They also give off a much harsher light and do not produce a steady stream of light but rather just flicker 50 times a second. These special “efficient” light bulbs also need more ventilation than conventional bulbs, which means that they cannot be in an enclosed light fitting. I’m sure that this won’t inconvenience any of the 490 million who are being forced to switch. In Canada, talk is taking place of having a ban on conventional light bulbs being included in Stephen Harper’s clean air act. This discussion was recently brought about by the act of Australia taking moves to ban conventional light bulbs by the year 2010. As well as that, a lawmaker in California has introduced a bill to ban the selling of conventional bulbs by 2012, with a similar bill also being introduced in New Jersey. Royal Phillips Electronics, one of the leading corporations in producing light fixtures announced that they would stop selling conventional bulbs by 2016. This will result in a massive cost to the consumer, who is losing their free will in where they spend their money and how they choose to help the environment. Hoping to get by without buying new bulbs and sneak it by the government? Good luck. As a recent report pointed out in the UK, the government has very intrusive plans to make the UK the world’s first green economy. Part of this plan is that every home in the UK is to be ‘carbon neutral’ within 10 years, making every house updated to “green” standards. The government said they would provide the renovators, which has led many to fear that it is a method of spying on homeowners to make sure they go green. Blair Gibbs, a member of the Taxpayer’s Alliance and critic of the plan stated, “It's bad enough that politicians want to take so much of our money away in tax. For them also to intrude into our homes in order to have the ability to penalise us even further is simply unacceptable.”

    I am not saying that it isn’t a good idea to take action to help the environment, but I ask you to consider this: if the majority of scientific data points to the fact that global warming is caused by the Sun, then how will a tax on carbon emissions help to stop it? How does us driving cars cause climate change on Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto, Neptune and Triton? Can Al Gore please fill me in on this? If CO2 increases as a RESULT of temperature increases, then how can we hope to accomplish anything by taxing emissions? That’s like saying we will prevent the process of humans ageing by dying their grey hairs. It’s not grey hair that causes people to age; it’s ageing that causes grey hair. And nothing that you do to your hair will have any affect on how long you live. Especially since ageing is a natural process that cannot be stopped and has always occurred and will always occur. Just like climate change.

    It seems worrisome that politicians are all too eager to grab onto this man-made myth of global warming in order to make us afraid and guilty. Guilty enough to want to change it, and afraid enough to give up our freedoms and undergo massive financial expenses in order to do so. So this lie, being pushed by big money and big governments, is a convenient lie for those who want to exert control and collect money. However, it’s inconvenient for the mass amount of people who are already experiencing the problems of a widening wage-gap and fading middle class.

    If the problems we are being presented are based on lies, then how do we expect to find any true solution to helping the environment? A Global Tax won’t clean up the oil spilled by the Exxon Valdez, which is still polluting waters in Alaska nearly 18 years after the spill occurred. A Global Tax won’t stop Shell from making the Niger Delta the most endangered Delta in the whole world. No, we have to first be realistic, mature, and have debate about the problems we are facing, and then, and only then, can we even hope to achieve any sort of solution.

  10. #610
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Far West Village, NYC
    Posts
    927

    Default

    ^ To make an unbiased good argument you need to deal directly with the primary scientific sources, not secondary crap ones like this Channel 4 shock doc. For example, the article uses the President of the Czech Republic (an economist and politician) as one of its main sources on the "swindle." He says, “global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so."

    The latter part is obviously a false statement. He continues:

    "The IPCC is neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.”

    This is impossible to demonstrate and almost certainly false. He calls into question the integrity and character of every member of the IPCC. "These people" are in fact eminent and well-respected scientists and are not all of one mind on the subject.

    In short, a primary source in one of your pieces of evidence already, demonstrably, has his head up his ass.

    I don't have the patience to keep sifting through any more of this junk. If you're going to keep arguing against anthropogenic climate change that is fine and well, but please only post links to recent primary materials from reputable experts. Then I will give it a read.

  11. #611

    Default oil companies are investing in research for solutions

    Ninjahedge, I'm curious why you say oil companies aren't donating to solve global warming. Exxon and BP have donated about 600 million to Berkeley and Stanford alone this year. They also have significant internal R&D.

    Ironically, when oil companies spend money on research, they get attacked even worse and environmentalists claim the research is all just a conspiracy to suppress technology. I don't see any indication that's happening, and I don't think they could suppress the technology if they tried - its hard to suppress technology.

    The truth is its currently too expensive to do much. Just chill out and costs will come down. Solar will be economically competitive in about 5 years, and fusion will probably be competitive in 20 years.

  12. #612
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by investordude View Post
    Ninjahedge, I'm curious why you say oil companies aren't donating to solve global warming. Exxon and BP have donated about 600 million to Berkeley and Stanford alone this year. They also have significant internal R&D.
    How much do they make?

    $600M is nothing.

    Ironically, when oil companies spend money on research, they get attacked even worse and environmentalists claim the research is all just a conspiracy to suppress technology. I don't see any indication that's happening, and I don't think they could suppress the technology if they tried - its hard to suppress technology.
    Please provide proof of this.

    The truth is its currently too expensive to do much. Just chill out and costs will come down. Solar will be economically competitive in about 5 years, and fusion will probably be competitive in 20 years.
    What? Chill out and costs will come down? What is being encouraged is forcing companies to research into these venues. If they are not forced, it proceeds slowly, if at all. Look at the increase in MPG standards a while ack (Carter?) Did that ruin our auto industry? No. AAMOF, it was the fact that we were still building these lumbering boehemoths that we call "cars" that gave the different cars manufactured by Japan a solid niche and demographic to come in on.

    So, by putting pressure on industry to change, and people to do the same, there is money to be made in making your NEEDED product better and more affordable.

    Doing nothing will take too much time. The person who is willing to swim dwonstream may be able to get there before it is dark and the bears come out. Float in your tube if you want, but I hope most people will not do the same.

  13. #613
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    ID: Such good spin.

    I forget: could you tell us again what is your exact postion at the Department of Energy?

  14. #614

    Default ha, ha

    lofter: I'd rather go without heating oil than have to pass some DOE background check where they ask me about my sex life and god knows what other irrelevant detail.

    ninja: here's the difference between global warming and fuel economy - the technology to improve fuel economy existed in the 70's. You just make the cars smaller. I agree with the idea of improving CAFE standards by the way. Global warming is a different story - coming up with a new source of energy requires new physics. Certainly, we see companies like First Solar beginning to appear in new markets, but its also obvious we're not quite at the breakout point for mass deployment.
    The solution to that problem is to wait and watch the technology improve.

    Also, as for the long term answer, fusion power, I think there's a legitimate argument for having the government be the primary investor in the technology for the time being. It's too long term at this point for corporations to do the work - at this stage you want breakthroughs to be broadly shared rather than guarded as proprietary secrets.

  15. #615
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by investordude View Post
    lofter: I'd rather go without heating oil than have to pass some DOE background check where they ask me about my sex life and god knows what other irrelevant detail.
    Where does your sex life enter into this? You are stretching the issue beyond its limits. What's next, connecting environmental protection with possible pedophilia? Come on!

    ninja: here's the difference between global warming and fuel economy - the technology to improve fuel economy existed in the 70's. You just make the cars smaller.
    No, that is not all there is. How can a fully loaded full size open bed truck get better gas milage now than a car or station wagon back then? Our cars are MUCH larger now and still more efficient than most were in the 70's.

    A reduction in size was one thing, but research into engine design also led to much more powerful, efficient motors.

    I agree with the idea of improving CAFE standards by the way. Global warming is a different story - coming up with a new source of energy requires new physics.
    Its the same physics that has been around since Einsteln and before. It is a matter of refining the application of sai physics to the real world and product development.

    We HAVE several sources for energy that require no real breakthroughs, just proper implimentation. Solar, Wind, Tidal. Fusion is not the only new source.

    Certainly, we see companies like First Solar beginning to appear in new markets, but its also obvious we're not quite at the breakout point for mass deployment.
    And why is that? Because Oil is still cheaper. Hell, COAL is cheaper, but we stopped using that to a large extent because of the direct, irrefutable and almost immediate result of using it as a large-scale source fuel. Black Rain? China has it now and people are starting to ask questions, even if their cities are silenced because of asking.

    If we were to put pressure on companies to make it both harder to use conventional fuels, and cheaper to use others, you will see them start to shift. Make it so they can see a definite long term profit and they will persue it even more.

    But let companies do whatever they want, buy out alternate fuel research companies, provide a small percentage of their gross PROFIT towards their research (they spend more on advertising than that!). You let them drill for oil in areas that have very low yeild for the environmental impact they impose (I am just waiting for it to get tight enough for them to start going to the tar deposits) and all you get is what makes THEM money, not what helps us.

    Free market is never what is best for the people. It is always what is best for those that want to make money and have the money/power/leverage o do so.

    The solution to that problem is to wait and watch the technology improve.
    No it isn't. Again you are saying do nopthing and everything will work out. Life never works that way, there always has to be someone, somewhere that does the work.

    Is this the latest ramification of the American work ethic? Wait and it will be easier later?

    Also, as for the long term answer, fusion power, I think there's a legitimate argument for having the government be the primary investor in the technology for the time being. It's too long term at this point for corporations to do the work - at this stage you want breakthroughs to be broadly shared rather than guarded as proprietary secrets.

    Um, again, you are spouting. So the companies that earn more than you could possibly imagine providing what is, essentially, the backbone of our industry are allowed to divest outside our nation, removing themselves from our regulation, and proceed at a pace that gains them the biggest profit?

    No doubt they will research fusion when the time comes, but in the meantime WE are the ones that are going to pay the price.

    And, while I agree about the necessity of the overnment to research this, exclusion of private industry that is this large and this closely tied to civil need and operation is not a fair assesment.

    We can make sure Mom and Pop shops do not have to foot a major part of the bill for development of fusion plants, but including Exxon/BP/Cheveron in the same exemption is not fair.

Similar Threads

  1. Times Square: A Century of Change
    By Kris in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 144
    Last Post: April 2nd, 2015, 10:44 PM
  2. Climate Scientists Zoom In on Changes
    By Kris in forum New York Metro
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 11th, 2004, 09:09 PM
  3. New Yorkers looking up for a change
    By dbhstockton in forum Anything Goes
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 16th, 2003, 01:30 PM
  4. Making a Change in Chelsea: Rentals Go Co-op
    By Edward in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: December 12th, 2002, 01:04 PM
  5. With Change in Plans, Apartments Now Rise
    By Edward in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 29th, 2002, 12:42 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software