Page 78 of 111 FirstFirst ... 2868737475767778798081828388 ... LastLast
Results 1,541 to 1,560 of 2209
  1. #1541  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    Will you at least read Scientific American's report on global warming?
    Sure, I'll read it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to learning more.
    Palm since Palm Professional --- Treo 650 (2 yrs), iPhone since 6/29/07
  2. #1542  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bri Guy View Post
    Sure, I'll read it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to learning more.
  3. #1543  
    National Geographic's report on global warming:

    Here is the lead paragraph:
    "Glaciers are melting, sea levels are rising, cloud forests are drying, and wildlife is scrambling to keep pace. It's becoming clear that humans have caused most of the past century's warming by releasing heat-trapping gases as we power our modern lives. "

    rest of the article is found here:
    http://green.nationalgeographic.com/...-overview.html
  4. #1544  
    whoops - the forum website must be acting up - will delete the repetitious posts when I can get to my computer.
  5. #1545  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    whoops - the forum website must be acting up - will delete the repetitious posts when I can get to my computer.
    Are you sure you aren't just emphasizing your points?
    Palm since Palm Professional --- Treo 650 (2 yrs), iPhone since 6/29/07
  6. #1546  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bri Guy View Post
    Are you sure you aren't just emphasizing your points?
    Its National Geographic making the point this time, not me. But whats worth emphasizing is that Scientific American and National Geographic have been providing reliable information to sensible people for over 100 years.
  7. #1547  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    Its National Geographic making the point this time, not me. But whats worth emphasizing is that Scientific American and National Geographic have been providing reliable information to sensible people for over 100 years.
    and who am I to question their infallibility? that simply wouldn't be sensible.
    Palm since Palm Professional --- Treo 650 (2 yrs), iPhone since 6/29/07
  8. #1548  
    Questioning authority is a good thing and we all admire rebels. People like me who follow the advice of mainstream science journals certainly seem boring and conformist in comparison. But just as James Dean became a "rebel without a cause' by playing a scripted role to perfection, I wonder how many of today's "rebels" who question mainstream science are acting as individuals or simply following cues handed to them by others.
  9. #1549  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bri Guy View Post
    ...that so many have jumped on the bandwagon of "the debate is over" when, if you look at the scientific evidence, the global warming debate is NOT over. There seems to be an army of scientists with evidence supporting their positions on BOTH sides of this issue.
    As pointed out by cellmatrix, there is a broad consensus among the leading scientists that man-made global warming is real, and that it creates serious risks for our well-being. Like it or not, that's how it is.

    Rather than pour billions (if not trillions) of dollars into man-made efforts to cool the earth (or prevent a bit of warming), I think the money is far better spent on things we have more control over --- like third world development,
    Third world development is a field we have control over??

    Besides, sending trillions and trillions to Middle East dictatorships, Venezuela and the like is a bad idea in itself. In fact, every dollar spent on saving energy and developing alternative (local) energy sources not only helps preventing global warming, but also strengthens our economies.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  10. #1550  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    As pointed out by cellmatrix, there is a broad consensus among the leading scientists that man-made global warming is real, and that it creates serious risks for our well-being. Like it or not, that's how it is.

    Third world development is a field we have control over??

    Besides, sending trillions and trillions to Middle East dictatorships, Venezuela and the like is a bad idea in itself. In fact, every dollar spent on saving energy and developing alternative (local) energy sources not only helps preventing global warming, but also strengthens our economies.
    We certainly have more control over helping development in third world countries than we have over global warming. I happen to favor spending money on developing replacement energy sources --- what will absolutely KILL our economy (and provide no measurable benefit) will be the various taxes that global warming proponents will wish to impose, i.e. carbon tax, etc. The reason why I'm skeptical of all the "experts" on climate change is due to the fact that the scientific community was certain we were headed for another ice age in the 70's... global cooling... now it's warming... 10 years from now it will be cooling again... the sky is falling! the sky is falling!

    Let's dispense with the emotional reactions to climate change and use logic and reason: develop replacement energy because our oil dependency is a bad thing (regardless of whether or not man is responsible for any climate change), and rather than spending money on something we can't control (weather, climate), let's spend the money on education, hunger, disease, cancer research, the longer lasting lightbulb, etc.
    Palm since Palm Professional --- Treo 650 (2 yrs), iPhone since 6/29/07
  11. #1551  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bri Guy View Post
    the scientific community was certain we were headed for another ice age in the 70's... global cooling... now it's warming... 10 years from now it will be cooling again... the sky is falling! the sky is falling!
    Actually global cooling never had significant scientific support, but only gained temporary popular attention in the early 1970s.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
  12. #1552  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    Actually global cooling never had significant scientific support, but only gained temporary popular attention in the early 1970s.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
    There is also no consensus about the causes of global warming:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming
    Palm since Palm Professional --- Treo 650 (2 yrs), iPhone since 6/29/07
  13. #1553  
    As I posted several times in this epic thread, I am skeptical of what I think is often times hype of some underlying truths which may not tell the whole story.......and this goes for those publishing on BOTH sides of the argument. I believe we need to take responsibility for our planet. I have very little doubt that we, mankind, can effect the world we live in positively or in a very negative manner in so much as to effect the climate globally. I also believe that we have not even begun to understand the natural course of climate change that our planet goes through without any help of whoever is currently living on it's surface as well. Let alone how these two factors meld together, override one over the other, etc...

    Below is a perfect example of a story making claims about a story making claims. Who the heck knows? For every publication with concrete evidence that man is the sole devil of the earth d@mning it with every trip to the local 7-11 to get a slurpee there is another publication showing the data that was not included in the first publication which would alter their presumed conclusions as fabrications with an intent to deceive. And visa versa. Examples of both sides showing what appears to be total one sided conclusions while dismissing any examples from those with a differing opinion or set of data is in over abundance.

    Manmade Antarctic Melting, Indeed
    Thursday, January 17, 2008

    “Escalating Ice Loss Found in Antarctica; Sheets Melting in an Area Once Thought to Be Unaffected by Global Warming” was the Washington Post’s front-page, above-the-fold headline last Monday (Jan. 14). The headline for the continuation of the article was “Antarctic Ice Loss Could Speed Rise in Ocean Levels.”

    --------------

    First, standard climate alarmism claims that manmade emissions of greenhouse gases are warming surface temperatures. But not only is such warming not being observed in Antarctica, it’s actually getting cooler in western Antarctica, according to surface temperature analysis from each of eight NASA stations located there.

    ------------

    In an effort to support Rignot’s hypothesis, Columbia University’s Douglas Martinson told The Washington Post that “the [Antarctic Circumpolar Current”, which flows about 200 yards below the frigid surface water, began to warm significantly in the 1980s, and that warming in turn caused wind patterns to change in ways that ultimately brought more warm water to shore.”

    But Martinson also admitted to the Post that there is not enough data to say for certain that the process was set in motion by global warming.......According to World Climate Report, a 2007 study by University of Washington researchers reported that, although there is much interest among scientists in ocean temperature, “below-surface ocean temperature data are sparse, and the existing data sets involve substantial ‘interpolation, extrapolation, and averaging’ that may compromise the integrity of results from such data sets.”

    Adding to the mix is the most recent IPCC report, which says that the upper ocean adjacent to west Antarctica warmed by 1 degree Celsius from 1951 to 1994. But global surface temperatures actually declined from 1940 to 1976, even as manmade emissions of carbon dioxide dramatically increased.

    The bottom line is there is no established linkage between manmade emissions of greenhouse gases and any melting in the western Antarctic.

    FULL ARTICLE
    Heck I am easy. Stop wasting precious time and energy arguing. Start with mutually agreed upon common ground. Start with an issue that most everyone can agree is a concern, no matter how they come to that same conclusion. No matter what opinion one may have, I think everyone can agree that we all need an alternate energy source for transportation (cars, planes, trains, military vessels, etc..) and heat (coal, oil, source for generating electricity, etc...). For those who feel our planet is doomed I think they agree that this a major source of the earth's woes. For those that don't buy into global warming, I am sure they will at least agree it is a major issue that our whole economy is based on and/or becoming totally energy independent is vital to the future of our national security. Resolving this issue alone is a major step to meeting nearly everyone's concerns no matter where they originate. Yet still it seems that so little money, effort, and focus is dedicated to finding a solution. Why?
  14. #1554  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bri Guy View Post
    There is also no consensus about the causes of global warming:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming
    Bri, overwhelming majority and total unanimity are two different things.
  15. #1555  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Below is a perfect example of a story making claims about a story making claims.
    FULL ARTICLE
    Whether its calling the dangers of second hand smoke junk science to support the tobacco industry or calling the scientific data on global warming junk science to support the petroleum industry, Milloy, a paid lobbyist for the tobacco and petroleum industries, and his junkscience website does not seem to me to have the public's health in mind. You might find this peer reviewed article from Johns Hopkins school of public health interesting. FULL ARTICLE
  16. #1556  
    At I stated in my post, my point was not defend one side or the other. No matter ( maybe more true to the point due to) the source, the funding, the motivations, the political agenda, the personal conviction, the source to the grant(s), invested interest of personal job security, corp affiliations, professional peer pressure, desire to sell more carbon credits, or desire to justify raping a natural habitat for oil.......It does appear to the average person that it is very challenging to find a report or publication that is not countered with questions or opposing or missing data which in turn is hard to find a response to those counter arguments from the original side. Unless one is in the industry, lives and breathes every report, and is able to follow everyone of the above mentioned motivations, affiliations, funding it is all but impossible to know for sure. Just because it is published in the NY Times or in an accredited Science Journal does not make any report immune to any of the above influences. And just because it is published under Junk Science does not mean the questions raised are not valid to discuss and tossed aside with no examination to references concerning the claims. Again I am talking about both sides going both ways on this issue. Often times perception is reality whether it is real or not.

    But again.....this only proves the original point I was making....there is too much time and energy arguing about sources of areas of concern that is distracting from forming solutions to these concerns. It is very easy to find a reason for nearly everyone to be concerned with developing alternative fuels sooner rather than later. Yet there is still too much profit for keeping oil as the standard now to push this very far very fast. Carbon credit sales is becoming big business. Something that will be very challenging to continue when oil is no longer the number source. Oil companies have obvious vested interests in not immediately pushing for alternative fuel development and implementation as well. Both sides have a biased corner in the fight, in the publications that are released, the grants that are funded, etc....

    I have laid out in detail my ideas for developing an alternative fuel source in both the short term (1-10 years) and the long term (10-25 years). How would you propose to do this?
  17. #1557  
    Hobbes, I always enjoy your posts as they are well thought out and informative. However, you seem to be implying that the published science is just as biased as the oil companies and politicians which is wrong. The peer review process that science operates on has no counterpart in politics or industry. Science is not a liberal conspiracy. That is why I encourage people to learn the science themselves from non-political/non-industry biased sources. Aside from that, I appreciate your other views, both that you realize human induced global warming is a serious concern as well as your suggestions that begin to address it.
  18. #1558  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    However, you seem to be implying that the published science is just as biased as the oil companies and politicians which is wrong.
    Thanks for the supportive post!!!! I always enjoy good discussions, especially with those with different views willing to talk it out with the goal of all sides learning from each other.

    I agree that oil companies are worth BILLIONS of dollars. And the more that they can show that man does not have any responsibility in climate change, it is more profitable for them. But it is coming to the point that the other side has just as much money at stake as well to prove that man is the sole source of catastrophic climate change. In Russia Carbon Credit sales are worth $40 billion to $60 billion and our congress watching their lead to possibly follow suite

    Russian Energy Giant to Bundle Carbon Credits With Gas Sales


    In 2005, the European Union, the major market for Gazprom, introduced a cap-and-trade scheme that allows polluters to buy credits that allow them to pollute and nonpolluters to sell pollution credits that they won’t use. That system is now being closely watched as Congress considers a similar mechanism in the United States.

    Gazprom’s effort is part of a major push by Russian energy companies, already the world’s largest exporters of oil and natural gas, to become major players in the growing market for carbon credits. As a country, Russia possesses the credits in abundance under the Kyoto Protocol on climate change and hopes to transfer those benefits to its companies.


    ----------

    At current prices, the total value for Russian carbon credits could be between 30 billion and 45 billion euros, or about $40 billion to $60 billion.

    FULL ARTICLE
    According to the IETA, in Africa Carbon Credit sales are already solid market:

    Africa: Carbon Credit Trade Already Worth $5 Billion

    Developing nations could earn as much as $100 billion annually by 2050 from selling carbon credits, according to an analysis released by the World Bank at the United Nations conference on climate change that ended in Nairobi last week.

    The carbon credit trade, the conference heard, has made about $5 billion over the past two years, a figure which could grow twenty-fold in the next 40 years as developing countries invest in renewable energy and sell their credits to developed countries.

    FULL ARTICLE
    With a quick Google, I couldn't find what it is worth in the US right now or projected to be in the near future.

    But the point is it is perfectly valid to question results funded and sponsored by oil companies because of the billions of their invested interest in this issue. I am simply rolling that same level of validity to results that may be sponsored by those who have billions of their invested interest on the flip side with selling Carbon Credits. See, I do not have a clue which publications are tied to oil. Just like I do not have a clue which publications, beyond Gore's film, have ties to selling Carbon Credits. So I suspect that the average citizen in any country in the world does not either.

    I know you are in the know of all the oil connections. Do you have the same level of comparison with Carbon Sellers? If so where do you find the sourcing of the ultimate funding to rule them out?
  19. #1559  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Thanks for the supportive post!!!!
    You're most welcome, I've enjoyed our discussions over the years.
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    I know you are in the know of all the oil connections. Do you have the same level of comparison with Carbon Sellers? If so where do you find the sourcing of the ultimate funding to rule them out?
    As far as both grants and publications, scientists must abide by very specific guidelines regarding disclosure of financial interest or risk being fired from their academic institutions or barred from receiving funding. Its always a good idea to look at what funding is disclosed- its generally the first thing I look at when I read an article and if any conflict of interest is noted, its the first thing I point out when citing the article.

    Scientific articles which both support the financial interests of and are funded by corporate sponsors, whether it is the pharmaceutical, tobacco or petroleum or any other industries are seldom published in high impact journals and are looked at suspiciously by editors, reviewers and readers of scientific journals.

    Around 90% of basic science research in academics is federally funded meaning through the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which has a strict conflict of interest policy. Almost all of the high impact articles cited from the top journals are produced from federal funding and must adhere to these guidelines:
    http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/...i_grantees.htm

    In addition, peer reviewed science journals usually have their own conflict of interest policies requiring disclosure of financial interests. Here are some sample conflict of interest forms, from the top climate science journals, including Nature, Science and Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences that authors must sign prior to publication of manuscripts. In such journals, if there is any conflict of interest, its usually listed in the article just below the authors names, or listed between the discussion and reference sections.
    http://www.sciencemag.org/about/authors/prep/coi.dtl
    http://www.pnas.org/misc/coi.shtml
    http://www.nature.com/authors/editor...competing.html

    In contrast, look back at the junkscience article from Fox news and you will see there is no mention of Steven Milloy being funded by the petroleum industry. This clear conflict of interest has been effectively hidden by the sponsoring news agency and the only way to find it is by searching for it outside the Fox or junkscience websites.

    The unfortunate reality is that there is much more we need to do in the realm of financial disclosure in scientific reporting, both in academics as well as the lay press, because its such an important issue. The bottom line for me is that as long as conflicting interests are disclosed, it does not matter to me who the sponsor is whether its carbon trading, petroleum, pharmaceuticals etc. That's because an understanding of the potential conflict of interest gives the informed public the opportunity to decide for themselves whether the article is biased or not. Finally to go back to your question, while I have seen no evidence of carbon trading listed as a financial interest in the peer reviewed articles I have cited in this thread, I will be interested to look for it in future articles, along with other conflicts of interest. We all should be doing this.
  20. #1560  
    Here is an interesting step in the right direction......

    Israel Looks to Electric Cars

    Electric cars, which have existed for more than 100 years, are becoming all the rage — both GM and Toyota have said they will manufacture plug-in hybrids by 2010. But Agassi's plan stands out because it focuses on the infrastructure for recharging cars instead of on the vehicles themselves.

    Battery technology has advanced markedly in the past few years, yet an electrically powered family-style car still can't go much farther than 100 miles on a charge, and once a battery is drained it takes hours to power back up. Agassi's solution: take the battery out of the car and make it part of the infrastructure. Agassi was being shown a battery at Tesla Motors, a California-based company developing its own electric car, when the thought struck him. "I'm looking at this thing," says Agassi, "and I'm thinking, 'Oh, I get it. This is oil. This is not the gas tank. It's the gas.'"

    In practice, that means consumers will buy cars from Renault-Nissan, then subscribe to a Better Place service that includes use of a battery and electricity from charging stations. The business model, Agassi says, is similar to how a mobile phone company sells airtime. Agassi figures that if he adds electrical outlets to at least 500,000 of Israel's three to four million parking spots, people will feel like they can charge their cars whenever they need to. Since most people seldom drive more than 100 miles at a time, wiring workplaces and public spaces like shopping malls should keep most cars juiced. For longer drives, customers will be able to pull into a battery-swap station and get a fresh battery. Better Place, and not individual drivers, owns the batteries, which should keep the price of the cars comparable to gas-powered vehicles.

    FULL ARTICLE
    If this was implemented in the US, there would need to be a spare battery compartment and battery to fill it as well. I will be interested in how much this translates in subscription cost per mile if 80% of the batteries were used before exchanging it 3 times a week.

Posting Permissions