The G8 and the environment - DPChallenge Forums

08/27/2005 12:29:20 PM · #101

Your final interesting site is an opinion pice from David Kelley, Phd, who writes:

"Instead of reducing CO2, we should, perhaps, be increasing it. We should pay the smokestack industries hard dollars for every kilogram of soot they pump into the atmosphere. Instead of urging Chinese to stop using coal and turn instead to nuclear-generated electricity, we should beg them to continue using coal. Rather than bringing us to the edge of global-warming catastrophe, anthropogenic climate change may have spared us descent into what would be the most serious and far-reaching challenge facing humankind in the 21st century - dealing with a rapidly deteriorating climate that wants to plunge us into an ice age. Let's hope Antarctica and Greenland melt. Let's hope the sea levels rise. All life glorifies warmth. Only death prefers the icy fingers of endless winter."

His scientific qualifications? He used to be a University professeur, a computer programmer, but now teaches English as a second language. :D :D

&
&
&

You know what bakes my cake? The scientific community really is of one mind. The rest of the world outside of the U.S. really is of one mind.

But this forum is CHOCK FULL of sceptics!!

Tell me, what right-wing web sites are you visiting that feeds you this stuff - and WHY do you continue to believe anything they say anymore? :(

Message edited by author 2005-08-27 12:34:33.

08/29/2005 09:54:33 AM · #102

google.com

frychikn

Olympus C-5050Z

08/29/2005 09:16:03 PM · #103

Posted by the drummer boy:

<<< You know what bakes my cake? The scientific community really is of one mind. The rest of the world outside of the U.S. really is of one mind.
>>>

If you believe THAT, then YOUR one mind is either quite immature or else rather narrow.

08/30/2005 10:36:02 AM · #104

Originally posted by frychikn:

Definately immature, but not narrow. :D

And, certainly dead-on correct in my statement above, despite your ad hominem, unsupported comments to the contrary.

If you would bother to do a miniscule amount of research to REAL scientific sources, you would see that there is, in fact, actual consensus on the question of greenhouse gases and global warming among scientists and among most every government.

And it is obvious to anybody who reads a modicum on the subject, that the rest of the world is signed up with the Kyoto Treaty, has criticized the U.S.; and that most other countries who can afford to do anything, are doing more than the U.S. to solve the problem. Just look at the gasoline taxes they levy compared to ours.

Message edited by author 2005-08-30 10:39:03.

08/30/2005 10:37:20 AM · #105

Originally posted by theSaj:

google.com

Yes. Google. Powerful tool, that.

I suggest you try it - might direct you to some better sources. ;)

08/30/2005 10:56:46 AM · #106

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

And it is obvious to anybody who reads a modicum on the subject, that the rest of the world is signed up with the Kyoto Treaty, has criticized the U.S.; and that most other countries who can afford to do anything, are doing more than the U.S. to solve the problem. Just look at the gasoline taxes they levy compared to ours.

The rest of the world signed up for the "League of Nations"...little good it did.

And, I believe it was stated that if Kyoto was a broad all encompassing treaty and included such nations as developing industrial nations (the highest polluters) that we'd participate.

But America saw little purpose to a treaty that would simply off-shore jobs and pollution to developing nations with no regulations or safety checks.

Furthermore, as pointed out numerous states are in the process of enacting equivalent and in some cases even more stringent regulations than Kyoto. Thus, the American system is working just as fine as the global system.

Higher taxes on gas and cars that get 2-3 mpg more are very short-sighted strategies with little benfit (as demonstrated over the last 50 yrs).

Innovation and new technology development is what's key. And Kyoto would inhibit economic growth and new development in America...not encourage it.

Furthermore, if you want to address a single issue that is more responsible than any other for our current state and situation (energy crisis)..it's not SUVs, gas taxes, or anything of the sort. It's intellectual property rights.

REMOVE ALL PATENTS AND RESTRICTIONS ON ENERGY RELATED TECHNOLOGIES and you will have your new viable technology. Sadly, patents and IP controls are truly styming innovation and new development of viable alternative technologies.

08/30/2005 03:49:10 PM · #107

Hey Saj!

I have no desire to debate the merits of the Kyoto treaty.

I merely point out that the rest of the world sees it as a crucial first step, and embraces the idea of doing something about global warming, ie, they are of one mind.

The U.S., under BushCo, demonstrates that it is out of step with the rest of the world on this, but in step with the oil industry charlatans who run websites like the ones you referenced.

As this is the one issue which will degrade the quality of life for all humans, including my child, on this planet for eons to come, I take it VERY seriously.

And I bemoan the incredibly selfish actions of those who blithely dismiss catastrophe.

08/30/2005 04:24:15 PM · #108

Americans seldom are in line with the "rest of the world"...and at times we make mistakes...but often it has been our greatest strength.

There are many issues that are far more degrading to life than global warming. (Russians might actually benefit from it.)

In fact, I am much more concerned with toxification, habitat loss, and cementification than I am with the theorized effects of global warming.

Toxification is much more of a threat to your children and mind. And I do support better environmental friendly vehicles, housing, etc. But I am a firm believer that such will come thru innovation and new designs.

I would much rather see a treaty that stated "zero tarriffs" on clean goods of certain types. So say you have an eletroplating company which produces lots of heavy metal waste. You invest in a recycling system to reclaim 96% of the heavy metal waste for re-use. I think such innovation and progress should be rewarded.

Telling Americans, that you're factories can no longer produced because you've reached your pollution quota. But Chinese factories can continuing producing 10x the waste and have working conditions that leave all their workers with cancer in 20 yrs. Is to me unfair, and understandable why American's would oppose such an agreement.

In my humble opinion, the rest of the world has been wrong enough times not to merit much worth to me as a guideline.

And as I've stated, the American system is working just fine, already numerous states are in the process of passing equivalent and a few even more stringent measures that exceed Kyoto.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

10/22/2005 04:03:35 PM · #109

An interesting article from Reuters about "global warming" and the Greenland Ice Sheets. An excerpt:

"But satellite measurements showed that more snowfall was falling and thickening the ice cap, especially at high altitudes, according to the report in the journal Science.

Glaciers at sea level have been retreating fast because of a warming climate, making many other scientists believe the entire ice cap was thinning.

"The overall ice thickness changes are ... approximately plus 1.9 inches a year or 21.26 inches over 11 years," according to the experts at Norwegian, Russian and U.S. institutes led by Ola Johannessen at the Mohn Sverdrup Center for Global Ocean Studies and Operational Oceanography in Norway."

And this from SCIENTISTS who are NOT affiliated with petroleum companies. The Mohn Sverdrup Center is a department of the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center (NERSC), an independent non-profit research institute affiliated with the University of Bergen, Norway.
In fact, Ola Johannessen has often been quoted by the "global warming" fear-mongers.

You can read the full article here

Disclaimer: This posting should in no way be interpreted to infer that I am against conservation of natural resources, reduction in energy use, reduction on reliance on oil, etc. etc. It is merely an attempt to point out that the "facts" supporting the "global warming" theory are apparently more like extrapolations than they are facts. Like much of science, newer "facts" prove that the older "facts" were, in fact, not "facts" at all.

Message edited by author 2005-10-22 16:04:50.

10/23/2005 01:24:04 PM · #110

Originally posted by RonB:

......Ola Johannessen has often been quoted by the "global warming" fear-mongers.

Disclaimer: This posting ....is merely an attempt to point out that the "facts" supporting the "global warming" theory are apparently more like extrapolations than they are facts. Like much of science, newer "facts" prove that the older "facts" were, in fact, not "facts" at all.

You should have read your own article more closely, RonB.

The authors actually say:

"However, they said that the thickening seemed consistent with theories of global warming, blamed by most experts on a build-up of heat-trapping gases from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars."

And so you see, this one article you dredged up to offer proof that Global Warming is a falsehood actually DOES THE OPPOSITE. It demonstrates that the results are consistant with Global Warming.

It demontrates that results which seem contradictory to the lay person need to be interpreted by scientists who have more background and training in order to be understood correctly.

And it seems to demonstrate that anti-environmentalists will not let academic sloppiness stand in the way of a good propaganda moment.

You know, for full disclosure, when you post on scientific topics like Global Warming, and try to portray the concerns of the informed scientific community as "fear-mongering", don't you think you should label your posts with the honest fact that you don't really believe in science anyway - that you are, in fact, a confirmed disavower of Evolution and a proponent of "Intelligent Design" and Creation "Science"?

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

10/23/2005 02:34:50 PM · #111

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Originally posted by RonB:
......Ola Johannessen has often been quoted by the "global warming" fear-mongers.

Disclaimer: This posting ....is merely an attempt to point out that the "facts" supporting the "global warming" theory are apparently more like extrapolations than they are facts. Like much of science, newer "facts" prove that the older "facts" were, in fact, not "facts" at all.

You should have read your own article more closely, RonB.

I guess that how closely I read it ( and by the way, it's not "my own" article - I actually attributed it correctly ) is a matter of opinion. Your opinion of how closely I read it is just that - your opinion.

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

The authors actually say:

"However, they said that the thickening seemed consistent with theories of global warming, blamed by most experts on a build-up of heat-trapping gases from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars."

And so you see, this one article you dredged up to offer proof that Global Warming is a falsehood actually DOES THE OPPOSITE. It demonstrates that the results are consistant with Global Warming.

I didn't offer the article as "proof that Global Warming is a falsehood". Nor did I say that the results were inconsisten with "global warming". Perhaps you should read my post more closely.

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

It demontrates that results which seem contradictory to the lay person need to be interpreted by scientists who have more background and training in order to be understood correctly.

The results only seem contradictory to folks who place too much faith in the proclamations of scientists. They are not contradictory to me, at all - rather they lend support to my position of NOT placing excessive faith in such.

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

And it seems to demonstrate that anti-environmentalists will not let academic sloppiness stand in the way of a good propaganda moment.

The only academic sloppiness I see is that perpetrated by the media, both mass market, and scientific, in relaying scientific extrapolations in a such a manner as to imply that such extrapolations are facts.

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

You know, for full disclosure, when you post on scientific topics like Global Warming, and try to portray the concerns of the informed scientific community as "fear-mongering", don't you think you should label your posts with the honest fact that you don't really believe in science anyway - that you are, in fact, a confirmed disavower of Evolution and a proponent of "Intelligent Design" and Creation "Science"?

Do my personal beliefs concerning science, evolution, or "intelligent design" have the power to force scientists to publish material that discredits their own earlier pronouncements? If not, then please tell me how my personal beliefs have any pertinence when I quote what those, or other scientists have recently published?
Just as YOU cannot take credit for what they say that YOU agree with, neither do I take credit for what they say that you DON'T agree with. What they say is what THEY say. And MY beliefs have no bearing on that.

For what it's worth, I DO believe in SCIENCE. I just don't believe in scienTISTS. Likewise, I place my faith in CHRIST, but do not place my faith in CHRISTIANS. Both scientists and Christians often believe what they WANT to believe, and interpret things in ways that support that belief. To a four-year-old with a hammer, EVERYTHING needs SOME pounding.

Message edited by author 2005-10-23 14:36:21.

10/24/2005 11:42:22 AM · #112

Would anyone please explain and repudiate this article on the polar ice caps of Mars "shrinking" (or the numerous other ones on the web reporting the same fact)

Click Here

Please tell me what contribution of man has led to this result? Is the earth giving off so much heat that it's warmed up Mars millions of miles away from us? or is the fact that the number of vehicles in operation on Mars has nearly doubled? (Mind you....I believe most are solar powered...this would not bode well for us if they were the cause.)

Or is it likely due to a nearby star labelled "Sol"? I've posted this in several forums regarding global warming and have found little response by those so concerned with global warming. Why? Is it because it might provide direct and inrefutable evidence that the global warming the earth is currently experiencing is not incited by mankind but rather first and foremost by mother nature, the divine, or mere scientifically observed solar activities?

Much of the data presented pointing to man being the sole and main reason for said fluctuations is very limited. Showing a mere short moment of history. Often failing to go back even a few thousand years, and or even a few centuries to see similar events. Often ignoring scientifically observed events regarding sun spots, solar flares, solar thermal models, etc.

And now even for the most part ignoring similar occurences on other celestrial bodies. Sure, you can point to computer models but there are some inherent flaws in those models. (ie: assumptions)

Many models first start off with a presumed correlation. We "know" that temp. rose this much in 10 yrs and we emitted this much pollutants. If the rate of pollutants continues we expect this much temp. increase. LOOK!!!! The rate of pollutants continued and the temp. increased as we expected. OMG!!! We're right!!!!

However, the entire premise is mere assumption, and quite possibly simple coincidence. For example: if the sun was emitting higher thermal temps causing a warming rate over the last few decades. That rate continues and after another decade we've warmed at a near similar rate. Said effects of C02 based on presumptions may be entirely unfounded.

Now mind you, this is NOT an excuse for not cleaning up our act. But there are quite a few scientists, including some who do believe in man-made global warming, that we're barking up the wrong tree. That "cementification" is a much larger contribution to the temp. increase. Cementification is a lay term for what has been happening on the planet in the last 100-300 yrs. Essentially we have cut down so much "greenery" and planted cement instead. Cement does not absorb, process and use the sun's energy as plants do. We've also cut down millions of acres of high bio-mass rain forests for cattle grazing. Then end result is a thermal structure of land mass that is warmer. And a lower bio-mass for absorbing of heat, CO2, etc.

These are alternative theories seldom given the light of day. Habitat destruction is one of the worst events occurring in the world at the hands of man.

But yes, we who disagree get a bit annoyed with "you who agree" who seem inclined to repeatedly insult us and label us "non-science" believers. Many of us have our scientific reasons for our understanding. It is not that we dismiss global warming because we don't accept science. We merely believe your scientific procedures and methods were poorly executed. It is not a question of whether the globe warmed. (Thermal recordings indicate such.) It's a question of whether this is a natural cycle or not. And that, there is much question too. So please...you get your eggs in a basket and explain how your assumption based computer models can offer a valid explanation of the global warming occurring on our neighboring celestrial body "Mars". Please show me a global warming simulation which has accounted for Solar influenced warmth on the level observed on Mars that has led to a reduction of Martian polar ice caps in the last few years. It seems pretty unscientific, and to be honest... damn moronic ... to cry "our ice caps are melting, our ice caps are melting....it's all our fault...due to pollution you know" and then have no explanation for similar events on neighboring Mars. Should I assume the Mars experience is due to "pollution". If such is the case do you realize how profound this is. Forget global warming...we now have PROOF of intelligent life on Mars. *chuckle* So please...before you ridicule for lack of science....check your own checkbook and see if your own platform and agenda is indeed worthy of it's own ridicule.

I am for science. Just because I don't believe your methods were accurate does not make me opposed to science. Just your poor methods of trying to use the scientific method.

- The Saj

PS - I happen to be quite fond of science. I find it offensive to be accused of being unscientific merely because I believe differently than you and the mass-media.

Having had an excessive interest through out my childhood and youth. I was aware of Velicorapter, Deinonychus, and the dromasaurids. From kindergarten I was enraptured with the frontiers (ocean and space). I even went on to spend 5 1/2 yrs studying marine biology and marine science.

Am I opposed to science far from it....I often find myself sitting with two friends of mine as we banter about physics. Sure, I'm the layman....but they respect me as above average for a layman. Even if my understanding of quantum mechanics is a bit off. *lol*

Do I disbelieve in "global warming"....no, I do not. Do I necessarily believe the current pop-pseudo-science trend. Absolutely not. Do I believe it's okay to spew garbage, vapors, pollutants, etc into our air and water. No...I believe we are to be good stewards and responsible users of our land.

But at the same hand, I'm tired of the ignorant elitist crud - realize science is often wrong and changing, most of the science facts I was taught in elementary school are now WRONG!

We learn, we revise, we progress, however...sadly, science seldom admits their mistakes in public. If you're involved in science and research science - than you know, if there is anything that is affluent throughout much of the science world; it's "pride".

MadMordegon

10/25/2005 09:34:59 PM · #113

This encapsolates all the parts and is peer reviewed; //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

An exerpt;

The scientific opinion on climate change, as expressed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and explicitly endorsed by the national science academies of the G8 nations, is that the average global temperature has risen 0.6 Â± 0.2 Â°C since the late 19th century, and that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", most prominently the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4).