Page 84 of 111 FirstFirst ... 3474798081828384858687888994 ... LastLast
Results 1,661 to 1,680 of 2209
  1. #1661  
    And the results of this?
  2. #1662  
    Quote Originally Posted by sblanter View Post
    And the results of this?
    what do you mean? I was just saying earlier that "Global Warming" is really lower atmospheric warming balanced by mid-atmospheric cooling.... And that weather is day to day, while climate is the sum of weather over wekks, months, and years
  3. #1663  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    I view the current attempts in the thread to disregard peer review science articles and brow beat people into treating right wing blog spin jobs as legitimate alternatives as simply acts of frustration. As is the carrying out of thinly vieled hostility towards the scientific community through name calling and casting of aspersions.
    Wow. Nice straw man. You probably aren't reading this (as my post isn't peer reviewed), but just to be clear I'll note the following (again):

    1: I didn't disregard any peer review articles; I did state a healthy skepticism in them--something ANY student of science should appreciate.

    2: The alleged "brow beating" had nothing to do with the blog itself. It had EVERYTHING to do with the information in the blog--which as I noted previously was collected from legitimate sites (NASA, etc) and gave the appearance of a legitimate perspective to a lay person such as myself (regarding science matters)--sorry most of my time is spent studying computer science.

    3: No hostility toward the science community whatsoever. In fact it is quite likely that any information I read regarding global warming will come from someone in the community. I do have a irritation for the haughty nature of some in the science community for lambasting those outside of the community for not gobbling up their every word and then telling us in the next breath how science is about questions and answers. Really?

    4: Name calling . . . all I can say is, if the shoe fits . . . .
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  4. #1664  
    The way this discussion is going, this is probably not the best time to share this. I am not sharing this due to the recent line of discussion.....just happen to be a headline today.

    I have never read (or even heard of) the books they mention, Cell have you?

    There is little doubt that those attending are of the like mind of having doubts with the data about global warming. But I don't put any more emphasis on this as I do about a conference of scientists that have a like mind of being pro global warming. I simply find it interesting at looking at both.

    Cold Water on "Global Warming"
    National Review Online: Skeptics To Gather In Gotham To Discuss The Cold, Hard Facts
    March 1, 2008

    A new and very different conference on global warming will be held in New York City, under the sponsorship of the Heartland Institute, on March 2nd to March 4th - weather permitting.

    It is called an “International Conference on Climate Change” that will examine the question “Global Warming: Crisis or Scam?” Among those present will be professors of climatology, along with scientists in other fields and people from other professions.

    They come from universities in England, Hungary, and Australia, as well as from the United States and Canada, and include among other dignitaries the former president of the Czech Republic, Václav Havel.

    All told, there will be 98 speakers and 400 participants.

    The theme of the conference is that “there is no scientific consensus on the causes or likely consequences of global warming.”

    Many of the participants in this conference are people who have already expressed skepticism about either the prevailing explanations of current climate change or the dire predictions about future climate change.

    These include authors of such books as Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, and Shattered Consensus, edited by Patrick J. Michaels.

    This will be one of the rare opportunities for the media to hear the other side of the story - for those old-fashioned journalists who still believe that their job is to inform the public, rather than promote an agenda.

    Several films will be featured at the conference - including The Great Global Warming Swindle, a British television program that is now available on DVD in the United States. It is a devastating debunking of the current “global warming” hysteria.

    Nobody denies that there is such a thing as a greenhouse effect. If there were not, the side of the planet facing away from the sun would be freezing every night.

    There is not even a lot of controversy over temperature readings. What is fundamentally at issue are the explanations, implications, and extrapolations of these temperature readings.

    The party line of those who say that we are heading for a global warming crisis of epic proportions is that human activities generating carbon dioxide are key factors responsible for the warming that has taken place in recent times.

    The problem with this reasoning is that the temperatures rose first and then the carbon dioxide levels rose. Some scientists say that the warming created the increased carbon dioxide, rather than vice versa.

    Many natural factors, including variations in the amount of heat put out by the sun, can cause the earth to heat or cool.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n3893146.shtml
  5. Christiene's Avatar
    Posts
    2 Posts
    Global Posts
    4 Global Posts
    #1665  
    Climate Change is the real killer. Global warming is actually an inevitable event. -same as Global Cooling.
    Last edited by Christiene; 03/03/2008 at 08:35 AM. Reason: Change much like to "same as"
  6. #1666  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    National Review Online: Skeptics To Gather In Gotham To Discuss The Cold, Hard Facts
    March 1, 2008
    "when an organizer made an announcement asking all of the scientists in the large hall to move to the front for a group picture, 19 men did so"
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/sc...ss&oref=slogin


    enough scientists for four pizzas. Its quality not quantity, yes?
  7. #1667  
    If you want to judge the quality and quantity of the experts at the conference, you may want to read the list of bios of the approximately 100 speakers:
    http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/ConferenceBios.pdf

    Or you could base your conclusions on an anecdote from a New York Times reporter about how many men posed for a picture. The Times wouldn't want to mislead you, would they?
  8. #1668  
  9. #1669  
    Quote Originally Posted by electronique View Post
    I do know the same as correlation does not imply causation, it also doesn't imply impropiety.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  10. #1670  
    When your loyalty to a particular group or ideology is fixed, such as with a religion, a sports team, or a political party, you tend to focus on insubstantial matters that give you reassurance. Understanding the issues becomes unimportant. Cheerleading replaces critical thinking.

    Some people think that blindly accepting and preaching the words of their selected thought leaders demonstrates science and wisdom. But that's really no different from what led the Church to banish Galileo 400 years ago. Our thought leaders may have gotten smarter and better informed, but the masses are still dumb sheep.

    How do you know whether you're a critical thinker or a cheerleader? Well, is it important to understand what these scientists said before dismissing their arguments? Or is the fact that they're on an opposing team all you need to know?
  11. #1671  
    Its makes sense what you say. Also I think that all some people need to see is New York Times and they already have decided not to listen. Its goes both ways my friend.
  12. #1672  
    The New York Times is actually one of my main sources of news. I read it every day. My comment was based on having read this article and seeing that its anecdote was misleading when compared to the reality of who attended the meeting.
  13. #1673  
    While I will admit a negative bias towards the NYT, it is based primarily off of their own words and not just the name + perceived incongruity towards the truth.

    That said, I still use the NYT as an information source (reading and citation) as I realize their tilt doesn't make the information they publish necessarily wrong.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  14. #1674  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    When your loyalty to a particular group or ideology is fixed, such as with a religion, a sports team, or a political party, you tend to focus on insubstantial matters that give you reassurance. Understanding the issues becomes unimportant. Cheerleading replaces critical thinking.

    Some people think that blindly accepting and preaching the words of their selected thought leaders demonstrates science and wisdom. But that's really no different from what led the Church to banish Galileo 400 years ago. Our thought leaders may have gotten smarter and better informed, but the masses are still dumb sheep.

    How do you know whether you're a critical thinker or a cheerleader? Well, is it important to understand what these scientists said before dismissing their arguments? Or is the fact that they're on an opposing team all you need to know?
    Lot's of wisdom in this post samkim. It can be applied to all the off topics.
    Iago

    "Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash . . . But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him
    And makes me poor indeed."


    Criminal: A person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation.
    - Howard Scott
  15. #1675  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    I do know the same as correlation does not imply causation, it also doesn't imply impropiety.
    Here is another article on the conference:
    "Tobacco and oil pay for climate conference
    The Independent, London March 3
    The first international conference designed to question the scientific consensus on climate change is being sponsored by a right-wing American think-tank which receives money from the oil industry. The same group has tried to undermine the link between passive smoking and health problems and has accepted donations from a major tobacco company. The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York appears to be a conventional exchange of ideas on the science of global warming. Yet it is organised by the Heartland Institute of Chicago, which has opposed much of the science of climate change and passive smoking. Exxon, the oil giant, and Philip Morris, the tobacco company, have both donated money to it, although the institute is keeping its recent donations company. It is believed to be the first time that a direct link has emerged between anti-global warming sceptics funded by the oil industry and the opponents of the scientific evidence showing that passive smoking can damage people's health."
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...ce-790474.html

    Even though Exxon-Mobil paid three quarters of a million dollars to Heartland, the people who sponsored the conference, that does not count what oil money each of the speakers might get either. For example, I looked at the first scientist on the Heritage list and it already makes me start to wonder:

    David Archibald
    David Archibald is a scientist operating in the fields of cancer research, climate science, and oil exploration. In the cancer field, trials on a formulation he invented with professors from Purdue University, Indiana are currently underway at Queensland University.
    In oil exploration, he is operator of a number of exploration permits in the Canning Basin, Western Australia.
    http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/ConferenceBios.pdf

    I listen, to both sides, and all the other factors too. Maybe the oil money does not make a difference at all in the message? But I think its not for you to tell me, and its not for me to tell you. Its just important to know the full picture, not just a little piece someone wants to show you. The more information the better I say.
    Last edited by electronique; 03/09/2008 at 02:06 PM.
  16. #1676  
    Quote Originally Posted by electronique View Post
    Its just important to know the full picture, not just a little piece someone wants to show you. The more information the better I say.

    I agree, perspective is everything and need be applied to virtually any argument/debate/discussion. My overwhelming problem with people is not the desire to continually seek or evaluate information; rather, it is when they do one of two things:
    • Seek information until they find a satisfactory answer
    • Rather than leave a question a question, develop a sub-par answer for the sake of having an answer.
    Allow me to digress momentarily here to make a point:

    You mentioned smoking and tobacco in your recent post. For starters, I do not smoke (other than the occasional stogie) and at times am myself annoyed by smoke. Additionally, while I don't stress over my health I do take a proactive approach (eat reasonably well, exercise, vitamins and plenty of sex). That said, the following isn't me justifying my smoking as often perceived.

    There is an anti-smoking campaign in this country (US for anyone outside of it) of unbelievable proportions. I don't think I manage to get through one single day without an anti-smoking ad on tv, radio, XM, billboards or elsewhere. I find it actually quite annoying myself. What I do not hear though are things such as the "Asian Paradox" presented by the Yale School of Medicine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yale School of Medicine
    "There is a lower incidence of cardiovascular disease and cancer in Asia where people smoke heavily, which may be accounted for by high consumption of tea, particularly green tea, according to a review article published by a Yale School of Medicine researcher."
    Of course, I am definitely NOT extrapolating that all our woes would be over if we just drank lots of green tea (though such may reap positive benefits) and maybe we could even increase our smoking levels. Reading through the article suggests that cardiovascular disease and cancer isn't the result of introducing something to the body so much as it may be the lack of something in the body (EGCG).

    But that isn't what one hears from the media and all the campaigns raging on and on out there. We simply hear that our medical woes are a direct result of what smoking introduces to our body.

    That then causes me to wonder:

    Is the same type of attitude being taken toward the issue of global warming?

    Methinks so.

    Often times it isn't so much the information that is presented, but how the information is presented that makes the difference.
    Last edited by DL.Cummings; 03/09/2008 at 06:22 PM. Reason: Added last line
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  17. #1677  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    I agree, perspective is everything and need be applied to virtually any argument/debate/discussion. My overwhelming problem with people is not the desire to continually seek or evaluate information; rather, it is when they do one of two things:
    • Seek information until they find a satisfactory answer
    • Rather than leave a question a question, develop a sub-par answer for the sake of having an answer.
    Allow me to digress momentarily here to make a point:

    You mentioned smoking and tobacco in your recent post. For starters, I do not smoke (other than the occasional stogie) and at times am myself annoyed by smoke. Additionally, while I don't stress over my health I do take a proactive approach (eat reasonably well, exercise, vitamins and plenty of sex). That said, the following isn't me justifying my smoking as often perceived.

    There is an anti-smoking campaign in this country (US for anyone outside of it) of unbelievable proportions. I don't think I manage to get through one single day without an anti-smoking ad on tv, radio, XM, billboards or elsewhere. I find it actually quite annoying myself. What I do not hear though are things such as the "Asian Paradox" presented by the Yale School of Medicine.



    Of course, I am definitely NOT extrapolating that all our woes would be over if we just drank lots of green tea (though such may reap positive benefits) and maybe we could even increase our smoking levels. Reading through the article suggests that cardiovascular disease and cancer isn't the result of introducing something to the body so much as it may be the lack of something in the body (EGCG).

    But that isn't what one hears from the media and all the campaigns raging on and on out there. We simply hear that our medical woes are a direct result of what smoking introduces to our body.

    That then causes me to wonder:

    Is the same type of attitude being taken toward the issue of global warming?

    Methinks so.

    Often times it isn't so much the information that is presented, but how the information is presented that makes the difference.
    keep healthy eating, excercising, not smoking and having lots of sex my friend, you set a good example for us all!


    but once the east gets western levels of fast food obesity and inactivity even lots of green tea may not save them from western level of heart disease? who knows?

    But getting back to global warming, I am impressed how so many in the United States want to make believe that it does not exist - or ignore all major science journals and organization recommendations.

    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    I will instead listen to what all the top science journals and all the major scientific organizations tell me, such as Nature, Science, Scientific American, National Geographic, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, The Joint Academy of Sciences, The United States National Academy of Sciences, etc. etc. etc.
    (Good links!)
    Last edited by electronique; 03/30/2008 at 07:43 PM.
  18. #1678  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    Completely agree!

    Now to go a step further, as we are still the biggest carbon emitters on the planet, by far, what would have a more negative impact on China and India's efforts on global warming:

    1) for us to refuse to do anything ourselves until they participate?
    2) for us to take our own actions on global warming regardless.

    To me, approach 1 simply says to China and India, we are not serious about this problem, so why should you be? while approach 2 shows America is leading world efforts at this problem by our own example.

    Regardless of what you or I think, approach 1 will be replaced by approach 2 come 2009, no matter who wins the election and I believe this is the right course of action.


    This just in.... China celebrates its status as the WORLD`S NUMBER ONE POLLUTER..... BY FAR!!!! Move aside US, you are no longer public enemy number one.

    http://www.theonion.com/content/vide..._its_status_as
  19. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1679  
    Saw this article and thought that maybe it was time to dust off this old thread. You First World urban elites, pay close attention please

    Global warming is the new religion of First World urban elites

    Geologist Ian Plimer takes a contrary view, arguing that man-made climate change is a con trick perpetuated by environmentalists

    By Jonathan Manthorpe, Vancouver Sun
    July 29, 2009 9:38 AM

    Ian Plimer has outraged the ayatollahs of purist environmentalism, the Torquemadas of the doctrine of global warming, and he seems to relish the damnation they heap on him.

    Plimer is a geologist, professor of mining geology at Adelaide University, and he may well be Australia's best-known and most notorious academic.

    Plimer, you see, is an unremitting critic of "anthropogenic global warming" -- man-made climate change to you and me -- and the current environmental orthodoxy that if we change our polluting ways, global warming can be reversed.

    It is, of course, not new to have a highly qualified scientist saying that global warming is an entirely natural phenomenon with many precedents in history. Many have made the argument, too, that it is rubbish to contend human behaviour is causing the current climate change. And it has often been well argued that it is totally ridiculous to suppose that changes in human behaviour -- cleaning up our act through expensive slight-of-hand taxation tricks -- can reverse the trend.

    But most of these scientific and academic voices have fallen silent in the face of environmental Jacobinism. Purging humankind of its supposed sins of environmental degradation has become a religion with a fanatical and often intolerant priesthood, especially among the First World urban elites.

    But Plimer shows no sign of giving way to this orthodoxy and has just published the latest of his six books and 60 academic papers on the subject of global warming. This book, Heaven and Earth -- Global Warming: The Missing Science, draws together much of his previous work. It springs especially from A Short History of Plant Earth, which was based on a decade of radio broadcasts in Australia.

    That book, published in 2001, was a best-seller and won several prizes. But Plimer found it hard to find anyone willing to publish this latest book, so intimidating has the environmental lobby become.

    But he did eventually find a small publishing house willing to take the gamble and the book has already sold about 30,000 copies in Australia. It seems also to be doing well in Britain and the United States in the first days of publication.

    Plimer presents the proposition that anthropogenic global warming is little more than a con trick on the public perpetrated by fundamentalist environmentalists and callously adopted by politicians and government officials who love nothing more than an issue that causes public anxiety.

    While environmentalists for the most part draw their conclusions based on climate information gathered in the last few hundred years, geologists, Plimer says, have a time frame stretching back many thousands of millions of years.

    The dynamic and changing character of the Earth's climate has always been known by geologists. These changes are cyclical and random, he says. They are not caused or significantly affected by human behaviour.

    Polar ice, for example, has been present on the Earth for less than 20 per cent of geological time, Plimer writes. Plus, animal extinctions are an entirely normal part of the Earth's evolution.

    (Plimer, by the way, is also a vehement anti-creationist and has been hauled into court for disrupting meetings by religious leaders and evangelists who claim the Bible is literal truth.)

    Plimer gets especially upset about carbon dioxide, its role in Earth's daily life and the supposed effects on climate of human manufacture of the gas. He says atmospheric carbon dioxide is now at the lowest levels it has been for 500 million years, and that atmospheric carbon dioxide is only 0.001 per cent of the total amount of the chemical held in the oceans, surface rocks, soils and various life forms. Indeed, Plimer says carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but a plant food. Plants eat carbon dioxide and excrete oxygen. Human activity, he says, contributes only the tiniest fraction to even the atmospheric presence of carbon dioxide.

    There is no problem with global warming, Plimer says repeatedly. He points out that for humans periods of global warming have been times of abundance when civilization made leaps forward. Ice ages, in contrast, have been times when human development slowed or even declined.

    So global warming, says Plimer, is something humans should welcome and embrace as a harbinger of good times to come.

    jmanthorpe@vancouversun.com

    © Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  20. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1680  
    Environmentalism is definitely a religion. I recently read a quote from a children's book that can be found in some school libraries. It was written by a fundamentalist environmentalist and called Captain Eco and the Fate of the Earth:

    Your parents and grandparents have made a mess of looking after the earth. They may deny it, but they’re little more than thieves. And they're stealing your future from under your noses.
    Unfortunately, this is not just some whack job writing books in his shed in the hinterlands. He's the chair of the UK's Sustainable Development Commission and ecology adviser the Prince Charles. He's pushing the idea that the population of the UK must be reduced by half in order to be environmentally sustainable.

Posting Permissions