|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/26/2009 12:31:56 PM · #1 |
Seems that the enviros were wrong again. So, is global warming finally going to be debunked next? I hope so before they tax us out of all out money.
BBC article |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 12:41:53 PM · #2 |
yes, but what about the frogs with too many legs?
mutant frog
That solves one little mystery, but there is no way that debunks global warming. I would rather live in a healthy planet and be poorer because of taxing than be greedy and leave a terrible planet for the people who come after us.
|
|
|
|
06/26/2009 12:43:00 PM · #3 |
| Sessions is careful to say that he doesn't completely rule out chemicals as the cause of some missing limbs. But 'selective predation' by dragonfly nymphs is now by far the leading explanation, he says. |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 12:45:09 PM · #4 |
"In the late 1980s and early 1990s, researchers started getting reports of numerous wild frogs or toads being found with extra legs or arms, or with limbs that were partly formed or missing completely." As it turns out, global warming and chemical pollutants have sparked a recent surge in the populations of parasitic nematodes and dragonfly nymphs... ;-P
Global warming is about as likely to be debunked as heliocentricity. |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 01:06:16 PM · #5 |
Im surprised that the BBC posted that, it has to be one of the most poorly written science articles I've read in a long time. No qualifications of the primary advocate, a single theory being ascribed for a world wide phenomenon. These two scientists, funded by an arts organisation did one experiment in an aquarium in their lab and then come out and say they know what has caused a world wide event?
Nope, this is not true science, it lacks rigor. Im sure they are telling the truth about what they witnessed, but they have extrapolated a single point of evidence beyond all reasonable bounds.
As far as the "enviros were wrong again" comment, such is the fate of science, it makes hypotheses, and sometimes, it then goes out and proves them wrong. If on the other hand you live in the world of faith, and can believe that the "enviros" are always going to be wrong, on global warming, the world wide frog die off, or evolution and a planet more than 5,000 years old, you can close your eyes, and hold onto you belifes no matter what the truth fickle old science might show.
As far as confabulating environmentalism and taxes, puleeeeez, spare us. Just what percentage of the military budget do you suppose we spend on trying to reduce our impact on environmental degradation? ten percent? one percent? one tenth of a percent? If our federal government had put aside the $6.2 billion dollar cost of the USS George H W Bush our latest nuclear aircraft carrier, and used it to try to ensure that we would have a livable planet in our grandchildren's time, would that be terrible?
Message edited by author 2009-06-26 13:40:50. |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 01:36:08 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Blue Moon:
yes, but what about the frogs with too many legs?
mutant frog
|
Talk to  LydiaToo it has been theorized that it is all the exposure they get to strong light from her picture taking. That would be my guess, yessiree-bob.
PS: Turtles are also growing multiple shells, or so it is said, in her region. Recently one was seen with only the back half of its body.
Message edited by author 2009-06-26 13:37:40.
|
|
|
|
06/26/2009 01:38:57 PM · #7 |
As a professional biologist, I think lab work is very exceptible. How many throeies were conducted and proven in a lab and then later in the field? I will check my local haunts to see if the local large draonfly nymphs are eating prepubescent frogs and their parts if they frogs get away.
I have always questioned theories of science. When I was in college, the big warning was global cooling and my friends protested it at the "first" Earth Day activities. Gee some scientist must have debunked that theory didn't they. I feel that most folks that believe in global warming are being led around by political led scientists, or ones with an agenda. Kind of like my college professors back in the early 70s, when they weren't wife swapping. I was the only graduate of my class that didn't believe in global cooling. Funny isn't it. I don't believe in man-induced global warming either.
Man-induced global warming will be debunked, for sure. But the problem is the political implications that will happen before it is.
Enviro's = watermelons: Green on the outside, and red in the inside!
:)
Message edited by author 2009-06-26 13:41:20. |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 01:48:11 PM · #8 |
You are a biologist who doesn't see any proof of global warming? The movement of species to higher latitudes and elevations indicates nothing to you? I can see reserving judgment of causal agents, but to deny that even itself is rarely done unless the scientist is being payed to hold such an opinion.
Originally posted by vtruan:
Enviro's = watermelons: Green on the outside, and red in the inside!
:) |
Thats all I needed to hear to place you in the proper pigeon hole. Anyone who cares about the environment is a communist. OK. I hope you are more rigorous making connections at work than you are here.
I would wish on you the chance to live in China, enjoy breathing the rich broth that comes from lax environmental restrictions. Any yet these purveyors of lead based toys and melamine based dog food are communists? How can this be? I though "commies" were "enviros"? You are so confusing, 'Splain to me Lucy.
Message edited by author 2009-06-26 13:54:38. |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 01:55:40 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by vtruan:
When I was in college, the big warning was global cooling and my friends protested it at the "first" Earth Day activities. Gee some scientist must have debunked that theory didn't they. |
Actually global cooling is quite healthy as a theory. At least the idea of atmospheric aerosols having the ability to deflect sunlight and cool the earth is a real effect (although it's now called "global dimming"). It's just being superceded by conditions which encourage global warming and so the net is to the positive and not negative.
EDIT: I should clarify to say the mechanisms behind the idea of global cooling have borne out, but very few people would adhere to the idea that our earth is currently getting cooler. In that regard "global cooling" has been debunked.
Message edited by author 2009-06-26 14:00:46. |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 01:59:10 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by vtruan:
When I was in college, the big warning was global cooling and my friends protested it at the "first" Earth Day activities. Gee some scientist must have debunked that theory didn't they. |
No, actually the latest theories seem to say that there have been both cooling and warming effects to which human civilization has contributed, and that the cooling effects have masked the rapidity with which the warming effects are occuring. The warming activities are now outstripping the cooling ones, and the Earth's overall average temperature is moving up.
See the studies on the effects on contrails (or the lack thereof) in the days following 9/11 ... |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 02:00:59 PM · #11 |
"As a professional biologist" <--UH, OH!--> "I have always questioned theories of science."
Scientific theories are, of course, subject to challenge, but if I ever heard my attorney say he had always questioned the legal system, or my doctor say he had always questioned modern medicine, I'd be shopping for a new professional! :-O
Originally posted by vtruan:
...ones with an agenda. |
*agenda alert*
Originally posted by vtruan:
Seems that the enviros were wrong again. So, is global warming finally going to be debunked next? I hope so before they tax us out of all out money. |
Originally posted by vtruan:
Man-induced global warming will be debunked, for sure. But the problem is the political implications that will happen before it is. |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
You are a biologist who doesn't see any proof of global warming? |
Biologist does not equal Climatologist. 97% of climatologists say global warming is occurring and caused by humans. Unsurprisingly, the farther you get from the field that actually studies the issue, the less likely you are to accept the research (ie- know what you're talking about). |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 02:39:10 PM · #12 |
| Maybe the frogs with multiple legs are showing evolution.. maybe it's their way of becoming a stronger amphibians... :-) |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 02:48:53 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
You are a biologist who doesn't see any proof of global warming? |
Biologist does not equal Climatologist. 97% of climatologists say global warming is occurring and caused by humans. Unsurprisingly, the farther you get from the field that actually studies the issue, the less likely you are to accept the research (ie- know what you're talking about). |
Agreed, but the points of evidence that global warming theory rest on are not all within the purview of climatology, though the final conclusions rest there. One of the strongest points of evidence is in the movement of plants and animals into new ranges to seek out a livable climate. Since Carl Linnaeus in the 1740's, and the birth of Biology as a form of study, we have documented species and their ranges. Now as the planet heats up, we see a movement of species out of their historic ranges into cooler climates, be they away from the equator or into the mountain tops, with species at that are unable to find a cooler climate diminishing or dying out.
Global warming deniers can argue that we don't have sufficient records of historic temperatures, that ice core samples are too subjective to be interpreted flawlessly, but species range movement is undeniable, and since it was biological in its base, I was wondering how  vtruan would argue it away, since he says he works as a biologist.
Message edited by author 2009-06-26 14:50:08. |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 02:59:25 PM · #14 |
From your title I'm suspecting you think all environmental pollution is myth. Not sure how to read it - 'another' modifies 'environmental pollution myth' and resolved is the verb. So 'environmental pollution myth' is the noun with 'environmental pollution' qualifying 'myth.'
Okay, now that I think I have a clear understanding, I suspect you think there are a lot of myths with regard to environmental pollution and that these myths can be resolved. I'm wondering what they might be so that, when they are resolved, I will know I have been reading about a myth, as they usually don't call it a myth beforehand. Wait - I take that back - the loch ness monster is a myth. Anyway, please let me know, as soon as possible, what these myths are so that I may ignore them completely. |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 03:03:20 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by ambaker:
Talk to LydiaToo it has been theorized that it is all the exposure they get to strong light from her picture taking. That would be my guess, yessiree-bob.
PS: Turtles are also growing multiple shells, or so it is said, in her region. Recently one was seen with only the back half of its body. |
BA ha ha ha ha, Alex! :) As far as I know, all of my 'subjects' are alive, well, and with the appropriate number of limbs. Well, except for the one I found floating in my pond yesterday... but I didn't have anything to do with his demise. It was not pretty. *sigh*
But, it WAS hot outside. Perhaps it was Global Warming, indeed.
I noticed after the sun goes down Global Cooling happens. Then in the morning again, Global Warming.
It's a vicious, vicious cycle! |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 03:05:52 PM · #16 |
| moving to RANT in 10 . . . 9 . . . 8 . . . 7 . . . |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 03:17:53 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
...since it was biological in its base, I was wondering how vtruan would argue it away, since he says he works as a biologist. |
The popular tool of denial there is that the planet IS warming, but that it's a natural cycle rather than a result of human influence. Of course, that argument assumes that the 27 million metric tons of carbon dioxide that humans pump into the atmosphere every day (not to mention ozone, cloroflourocarbons, etc.) do not have a significant impact. For comparison, that's carbon dioxide gas roughly equivalent to the weight of 269 fully loaded Nimitz class aircraft carriers... every day! I think I'll go with the climatologists on that one. |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 03:19:17 PM · #18 |
One thought before it does go to rant: there are arguments pro and con. It seems the "faithful" believers don't want to discuss the issues, but rather limit debate with "nobody argues about that seriously anymore" type of supression. To the contrary, LOTS of people argue about that, and there are still some pretty reasonable arguments. More light on the problem can only lead to more truth, so what's the harm in further discussion?
But what bothers me the most is that action proposed by government is mostly political in nature, will lessen freedom and economic stability more than it could possibly lessen "global warming". There will be huge amounts of money disappearing down environmental ratholes, with nothing to show for it but more votes bought and lies told.
Just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
06/26/2009 03:22:09 PM · #19 |
I know most of you will not read this to the end, but here are a few expert that do not believe in it.
BTW- Since Carl Linnaeus in the 1740's, and the birth of Biology as a form of study, we have documented species and their ranges. Now as the planet heats up, we see a movement of species out of their historic ranges into cooler climates, be they away from the equator or into the mountain tops, with species at that are unable to find a cooler climate diminishing or dying out.
I am sure he could cover alot of habitats in 1740s via horse and buggy. No he identified alot the species that folks brought to his lab and asked he asked where they collected them.
If you look at the early breeding bird surveys, there have been many changes. The routes are being covered by better biologists-birders. I have conducted BBS' since 1969, and early birders were not very good at call/songs, so the early data is scued. I can identify over 600 species of birds (by ear), how many other can? Population and ranges change do to many reasons. Take Florida where many species have had to adapt , migrate or die, do to all of New England snow birds that have cover their habitat with houses to avoid state income taxes.
There maybe global changes, but man isn't that powerful to cause a change like the sun, a volcano, a hurricane, an earthquake, or even a big rock from space would. We just don't have that kind of Godly power.
Please read on:
Yhe World's Leading Climate Scientists, in Their Own Words
by Jay Lehr (December 5, 2008)
Lawrence Solomon, a longtime environmental activist, began wondering a few years ago how it could be that some scientists were questioning the apparently solid consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. He began seeking them out, and interviewing them on the topic.
Before long, Solomon came to realize a substantial number of the world's leading scientists are making a very strong case that humans are not causing any sort of global warming crisis.
In 2006 he began publishing his interviews with these leading scientists in Canada's National Post newspaper. In his outstanding new book, The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud (Richard Vigilante Books, 2008, 240 pages), Solomon presents the best of these interviews, while sharing additional insights for which his newspaper columns did not have room. Solomon's book breaks new ground in the global warming discussion, presenting the most important scientific evidence in the words of the scientists themselves.
The Deniers is not just a series of interviews and vignettes, however. Solomon carefully divides the information gleaned from his prestigious dissenters into chapters asking the very questions most of us have on our minds, and he allows the scientists' own words to answer the questions collectively.
Scientists Persecuted
All of the "dissenters" profiled in the book are recognized leaders in their fields, with many even active in the official body that oversees most of the world's climate change research, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Thus the book provides absorbing insight into both the scientific issues and the ferocious political and media battles being waged about global warming.
Solomon shows how noble scientists have suffered for their integrity and how attack dogs have mounted an all-out campaign against these scientists, portraying them as hacks bought by profit-mad oil companies or as non-credentialed cranks and lunatics.
Elite Scientific Resumes
The book offers well-written brief biographies of each of their illustrious careers. Here is a sample of the dozens of scientists the author interviewed, with a very condensed indication of who they are and what they believe:
Claude Allegre, Ph.D.
A member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, Allegre was among the first scientists to sound the alarm on potential dangers from global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."
Richard Lindzen, Ph.D.
A professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Lindzen says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."
Habibullo Abdussamatov, Ph.D.
Head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkova Observatory and head of the International Space Station's Astrometria Project, Abdussamatov reports, "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."
Richard Toi, Ph.D.
Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit and adjunct professor at the Carnegie Mellon University Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, Toi calls the IPCC reports "preposterous ... alarmist and incompetent."
Sami Solanki, Ph.D.
Director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, Solanki argues changes in the sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming. Says Solanki, "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."
Freeman Dyson, Ph.D.
A professor at Princeton University and one of the most eminent physicists in the world, Dyson reports the models used to justify global warming are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."
Eigil Friis-Christensen, Ph.D.
Director of the Danish National Space Center and vice president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Friis-Christensen argues changes in the sun's behavior could very well account for most of the warming during the past century.
Necessary Second Opinion
Global warming has become a critical question for citizens who must decide whether the cures being bandied about are not in fact worse than the disease.
In matters of health, most intelligent citizens seek a second opinion before undergoing a serious medical procedure, but in the case of global warming, a second opinion is exactly what global warming activists do not want you to seek, for fear it will reduce the effectiveness of their fear-mongering. Therefore, we are treated to a continuous drumbeat of the words, "the science is settled."
All the scientists Solomon interviews in his book are prominent in climate science and are not just nitpicking over the interpretation of some small piece of data. Throughout the book Solomon artistically includes boxes of highlighted quotes from his subjects, taken from their own publications. Here is one from Lindzen:
"How can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes? The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism.
"Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policymakers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes."
Worthless Computer Models
In his interview, Dyson points out from long experience that models packed with numerous "fudge factors" are worthless.
As a mathematician and physicist, Dyson is known for the unification of three versions of quantum electrodynamics, as well as for contributions to space flight and the development of a safe nuclear reactor used today by hospitals and universities around the world. But today he is known more widely as a scientific heretic for disagreeing with claims of a central human role in global warming.
In his 2005 winter commencement address at the University of Michigan, Dyson said the mathematical computer models on which the alarmist claims are based "do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry, and the biology of fields, farms, and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in."
Solar Influence Ignored
In Solomon's interview with Friis-Christensen, the scientist states he was originally optimistic about the work IPCC would do in studying the sun's influence on climate change. To his surprise, however, IPCC refused to consider the sun's effect on the Earth's climate as a topic worthy of investigation. IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.
That is a huge omission, Abdussamatov points out. He notes there has been global warming on other planets and moons in the solar system, and this demonstrates other forces may be at work regarding the Earth's moderate recent warming. "Mars has global warming, but without a greenhouse and without the participation of Martians," he observes.
Abdussamatov, at the pinnacle of Russia's scientific establishment, is one of the world's most eminent critics of the notion carbon dioxide is driving global warming. He argues these "parallel global-warmings observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth--can only be a straight line consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."
Cooling Coming Soon
Abdussamatov believes the recent global warming will be short-lived and that we are actually on the brink of a global cooling, and likely a severe one. He argues Earth has hit its temperature ceiling, demonstrated by cooling currently occurring in the upper layers of the world's oceans.
In addition, Abddussamatov notes, solar irradiance has begun to fall, likely ushering in a protracted cooling period beginning in 2012-2015.
The lowest depth of the solar irradiance reaching Earth will occur around 2041 (plus or minus 11 years), Abdussamatov estimates, and will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-60. The freeze will last into the twenty-second century before temperatures rise again. For now, he says, "we continue to bask in the remains of heat that the planet accumulated over the twentieth century."
This is an excellent book. It is written for non-scientists, and I guarantee you will understand every word. It will inspire you as you witness the courage of the deniers to take a stand and endure the wrath of global warming activists for having the audacity to report sound science.
Dr. Jay Lehr is science director of The Heartland Institute and editor of several leading scientific reference books, including McGraw-Hill's Handbook on Environmental Science, Health and Technology.
|
|
|
|
06/26/2009 03:23:38 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
...the 27 million metric tons of carbon dioxide that humans pump into the atmosphere every day (not to mention ozone, cloroflourocarbons, etc.) do not have a significant impact. |
How many metric tons of carbon dioxide are sequestered by plant and animal life, over the entire globe, including the oceans, in that same day?
|
|
|
|
06/26/2009 03:28:58 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Of course, that argument assumes that the 27 million metric tons of carbon dioxide that humans pump into the atmosphere every day (not to mention ozone, cloroflourocarbons, etc.) do not have a significant impact. |
Or on the other side of the coin, you could look at the carbon that used to be taken out of the environment by the 13 million hectares of the world's forests are lost to development and slash and burn agriculture each year. No human influence there either I'm sure. |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 03:30:11 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
"In the late 1980s and early 1990s, researchers started getting reports of numerous wild frogs or toads being found with extra legs or arms, or with limbs that were partly formed or missing completely." As it turns out, global warming and chemical pollutants have sparked a recent surge in the populations of parasitic nematodes and dragonfly nymphs... ;-P
Global warming is about as likely to be debunked as heliocentricity. |
Cool!! we found a global warming toad, then! We found a 5 legged toad--we were thinking that maybe it was pesticdies, etc. But the biologist at William and Mary said, because of the location of the limb, that it was parasites. (Unfortunately, I haven't cataloged the majority of the last 5 years of pictures, so I couldn't find it, at the moment.) |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 03:31:25 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
Originally posted by scalvert:
...the 27 million metric tons of carbon dioxide that humans pump into the atmosphere every day (not to mention ozone, cloroflourocarbons, etc.) do not have a significant impact. |
How many metric tons of carbon dioxide are sequestered by plant and animal life, over the entire globe, including the oceans, in that same day? |
IIRC the answer is half. Although to be clear I don't think any of that is squestered by "animal life".
Message edited by author 2009-06-26 15:32:10. |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 03:32:58 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
what bothers me the most is that action proposed by government is mostly political in nature, will lessen freedom and economic stability more than it could possibly lessen "global warming". There will be huge amounts of money disappearing down environmental ratholes, with nothing to show for it but more votes bought and lies told. |
You're basing this well-reasoned assessment on what, exactly? Would NOT addressing the environment save any money? The 2005 hurricane season alone cost something like $128 billion USD. Add to that the cost of western wildfires, midwest floods, southeast droughts, impacts to fishing, forestry, tourism and other industries affected by environmental change, and pretty soon it starts to add up to real money. Not to say that all of that could have been avoided, but ignoring the problem is not without its own [growing] costs. |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 03:34:00 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
How many metric tons of carbon dioxide are sequestered by plant and animal life, over the entire globe, including the oceans, in that same day? |
Animal life creates CO2, plants take it out, there was a balance. Now people and animals make more, and we have fewer plants. Guess what is happening. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/28/2025 06:29:00 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/28/2025 06:29:00 AM EDT.
|
