mudcat.org: BS: Climate change: Not??
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3]


BS: Climate change: Not??

Mr Happy 25 Nov 09 - 11:06 AM
Amos 25 Nov 09 - 11:11 AM
GUEST,bankley 25 Nov 09 - 11:15 AM
Bill D 25 Nov 09 - 11:18 AM
GUEST,TIA 25 Nov 09 - 11:29 AM
GUEST,TIA 25 Nov 09 - 11:30 AM
Tug the Cox 25 Nov 09 - 11:32 AM
John on the Sunset Coast 25 Nov 09 - 11:38 AM
GUEST,TIA 25 Nov 09 - 11:49 AM
DougR 25 Nov 09 - 12:33 PM
Bill D 25 Nov 09 - 12:34 PM
John on the Sunset Coast 25 Nov 09 - 12:41 PM
GUEST,Tunesmith 25 Nov 09 - 12:49 PM
Stu 25 Nov 09 - 12:50 PM
Bill D 25 Nov 09 - 01:14 PM
DougR 25 Nov 09 - 02:06 PM
GUEST,TIA 25 Nov 09 - 02:32 PM
John on the Sunset Coast 25 Nov 09 - 02:44 PM
DougR 25 Nov 09 - 02:48 PM
GUEST,racer 25 Nov 09 - 02:55 PM
GUEST,TIA 25 Nov 09 - 03:01 PM
Stringsinger 25 Nov 09 - 03:02 PM
GUEST,TIA 25 Nov 09 - 03:19 PM
Ed T 25 Nov 09 - 03:41 PM
Q (Frank Staplin) 25 Nov 09 - 04:07 PM
DougR 25 Nov 09 - 04:21 PM
Sandy Mc Lean 25 Nov 09 - 05:05 PM
Bobert 25 Nov 09 - 05:29 PM
Ed T 25 Nov 09 - 05:59 PM
McGrath of Harlow 25 Nov 09 - 07:09 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 25 Nov 09 - 09:49 PM
Bill D 25 Nov 09 - 09:59 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 26 Nov 09 - 02:47 AM
Ed T 26 Nov 09 - 11:39 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 26 Nov 09 - 11:49 AM
Ed T 26 Nov 09 - 12:28 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 27 Nov 09 - 01:07 AM
Ed T 27 Nov 09 - 08:29 AM
GUEST,Mike of Hessle 27 Nov 09 - 08:41 AM
Ed T 27 Nov 09 - 09:13 AM
Jim Carroll 27 Nov 09 - 11:34 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 27 Nov 09 - 11:38 AM
DougR 27 Nov 09 - 01:56 PM
Ed T 27 Nov 09 - 03:38 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 27 Nov 09 - 03:41 PM
Ed T 27 Nov 09 - 03:43 PM
McGrath of Harlow 27 Nov 09 - 05:21 PM
DougR 27 Nov 09 - 05:25 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 27 Nov 09 - 10:21 PM
TIA 28 Nov 09 - 02:10 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Mr Happy
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 11:06 AM

In news lately, some inference that climate scientists may have manipulated finding to prove their case?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-what-next.shtml

I don't know, does anyone?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Amos
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 11:11 AM

"It may sound like a thriller, but The Copenhagen Diagnosis is not an enjoyable read. It's a stark update on the state of our environment in time for next month's summit on climate change in the Danish capital.

In the report, an international team of climate scientists warns policy-makers that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are at the extreme end of predictions made only in 2007, and that natural CO2 sinks such as oceans are becoming saturated.

Also, sea level rise is almost 80 per cent higher than some predictions, says co-author Tim Lenton at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK.

The team stresses that even a little warming could cause irreversible melting of ice sheets and turn dense Amazon forests into dry savannah grassland. "We may be heading towards these climate 'tipping points' earlier than we thought," Lenton says. The report calls for drastic action, including cutting CO2 emissions to almost zero by 2100 to prevent catastrophic climate change."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,bankley
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 11:15 AM

I've been following it... there's quite an uproar over it, as well there should be if differing views have been censured....as they allegedly have...

also what ever happened to the antiwar movement ?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 11:18 AM

Ask the glaciers and Polar bears if the data is faked. IT IS getting warmer.

Even if the data WERE erroneous, doing stuff to guard against warming, like burning fewer fossil fuels, would benefit us!

Most of the denial of warming is perpetrated by those who have a monetary interest in NOT believing it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 11:29 AM

The global climate change skeptics like to focus on a single piece of information and beat it to death, while ignoring all of the other competing data that create the big picture.

This "scandal" fits the pattern perfectly - focussing on several phrases (out of context byt the way) in 60 Mb worth of emails dating back to 1996.

Some of the emails will be (and should be) embarrasing for the authors (e.g. crass comments following the death of a well-known climate change skeptic), but a few dozen words (among millions) from a single institution (among thousands) simply do not change our understanding of the physics.

The evidence for global climate is overwhelming even if we were to throw away everything coming out of CRU. But instead of throwing it all out, or simply believing the denialist scavengings of the emails, CRU has put them all in a searchable archive, so you can judge for yourself.

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php

I would love to see the denialists (e.g. Heartland Institute) post all of their internal emails from the last 13 years. Wonder what we could scavenge from those!?!?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 11:30 AM

Sorry - here is the clicky

searchable archive of the "scandalous" emails


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 11:32 AM

George Monbiot wrote about this in yesterday's Guardian. He admitted that it was a blow, but doesn't in any way invaloudate scores of other findings that point only to one thing, global warming with human derived emissions as a major contributor.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 11:38 AM

I have no vested or monetary interest in the theories of man-made global warming. I do believe we may be in a period of global warming, though recent evidence is not clear (except here in Los Angeles). I believe we were in a period of global cooling thirty-five years ago. I believe that climate change is a natural phenomenon which has been going on since the creation of the planet.

While we are always shown the dire result of glacier recession, we are never shown the glacier growth going on behind those same and other glaciers.

Finally, I believe that no matter how well-intended the cause (and I'm not sure man-made global warming hysteria is one of those) it is not honest to manipulate data to make one's hypothesis seem credible. That is called lying.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 11:49 AM

I agree that data manipulation=lying.
Also selective presentation of data=lying.
And, I think it is important to know who is doing these things.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: DougR
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 12:33 PM

GUEST TIA: I'm with you! I believe the discovery of the emails written from some scientist researchers to others may be just the tip of the iceberg (no pun intended).

A lot of money rides on the truth, and I fear that it might not be impossible to determine what the "real truth" is. Those who strongly believe in the "favored" findings by many (but certainly not all)researchers appear anxious to squelch any findings that are contrary to the "accepted" ones. Skeptics, like me, are derided even for questioning the dire projections. Note: if they could accurately forecast the weather six weeks in advance, to say nothing of a hundred years, I think their forecasts of gloom and doom might have more credibility.

Congressional investigations are being launched to attempt to get to the bottom of the leaked emails. I say right on!

As others have pointed out, a lot of cost will be required to adhere to the "fixing" of the problems world wide if the "crepe hangers" are correct. However, one should also consider the amount of research dollars being paid to the scientific researchers will lose should they be proven wrong. They DO have a dog in the hunt.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 12:34 PM

"I believe that ..."

It is important to have a good, solid reason for ANY belief.

I 'believe' because I see the majority of serious, competent scientists asserting that in spite of natural cycles, the evidence and physics and chemistry and the math involved all indicate that human activity is making things worse, and possibly interfering with those natural cycles.
Thus, I assert that it is best to err, if we DO err, on the side of caution.

Some merely 'believe' it's rubbish because they don't like the implications.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 12:41 PM

"[The]evidence and physics and chemistry and the math involved all indicate that human activity is making things worse, and possibly interfering with those natural cycles."

How can one tell if those evidence and math DO so indicate, if the data and the analysis of the data are not presented in an honest manner? The ends do not justify the means, no matter how well intentioned the prevaricator may be.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 12:49 PM

When experts disagree, always go with the worst case scenario. For example, imagine you are laying across a railway track. An expert comes along and says, "You're quite safe to stay their mate, there hasn't been a train along here in years". Then, a second expert comes along and says, "You better move. There'll be a train coming along shortly". What would you do?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Stu
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 12:50 PM

"Note: if they could accurately forecast the weather six weeks in advance, to say nothing of a hundred years, I think their forecasts of gloom and doom might have more credibility."

Climate changes study is NOT about predicting the weather (that's meteorology), it's about looking at the fossil, historical and extant records to assess the possibility of the planet warming or cooling, which in turn effects the weather.

I don't know much about the first two, but have come across Palaeoecology in my studies and trends and variations leave their mark in the rocks, in mud and ice cores that any number of scientific disciplines examine to recreate the past. Despite this apparent doctoring of the figures there's a huge amount of evidence for global warming and a substantial amount of evidence that it's man-made.

So let's say we invest large amounts of money and time in creating electric cars, exploiting renewable energy, taking our custodianship of the planet seriously and changing the way we live to lessen our impact on the environment, who looses? New technologies and industries will spring up when the old energy order is finally consigned to the slag heap where it's heading anyway. It's win-win; why question the wisdom of doing this as part of our progress as a species?

One more thing. What if the deniers are wrong? Most on this board won't be immediately effected by the consequences, as usual it'll be the poorest and most vulnerable that suffer first. So we can keep our cheapo flights and 4x4s and watch the people of Bangladesh drown and die on the BBC and Fox News. Isn't that worth avoiding at any cost - even being wrong?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 01:14 PM

"How can one tell if those evidence and math DO so indicate, if the data and the analysis of the data are not presented in an honest manner?"

Where is the assumption that any serious amount OF that data is not being presented honestly? Why would anyone think that science, in general, is being dishonest?

There ARE scientists that will 'find' data that prove anything...for the right price... but who is willing to fund lying except those with short-term monetary interest in denial?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: DougR
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 02:06 PM

And you believe (because that evidence appears irrefutable to you, Bill D.) that the scientists that "will 'find' data that prove anything" could not possibly be those who have presented the Al Gore type evidence? Right?

I don't go along with those who believe doing something rather than nothing makes sense. The cost of making the changes required is entirely too high. If, on the other hand, a scientist or a group of scientists prevent irrefutable evidence that climate change is caused by human habitation (and they haven't yet because they are still "studying" the situation)and that the changes required are possible, THEN we should turn our attention to it. IMO too much credence is being paid to evidence that is still suspect to start making those changes now.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 02:32 PM

"If, on the other hand, a scientist or a group of scientists prevent irrefutable evidence that climate change is caused by human habitation..."

They have. The only objections are political, not scientific. It is easy for demagogues to make it look like there is still a debate.

Now go look up the "Precautionary Principle".

There is no longterm downside to reducing greenhouse gas emissions - even if you refuse to understand current climate science. There are potential huge, humanity-threatening downsides to ignoring the warnings of climate science.

Anyone with children or grandchildren should be ashamed of themselves for falling in with the political demagogoues.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 02:44 PM

Oh--one of those 'the debate is over' statements. It seems to me I heard that from a politician with self interests in promoting man-made global warming. It's all polemical at this point.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: DougR
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 02:48 PM

So saith, TLA. End of conversation eh?

One of the emails intercepted read, "We cannot account for the lack of warming at the present time, and it's a travesty." Gives you a lot of confidence in the "science" behind the predictions, right?

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,racer
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 02:55 PM

It doesn't make sense to wait for proof that this isn't just a temporary warming period. The only proof of that will come when the temperature starts going down again; which will surely happen, but we might be gone by then.

The scientists might watching closely (and studying) because they cannot believe that we have done this so quickly.

I actually had to research this very thing in college. The most compelling eveidence that I saw was several graphs that represented several different models of the prospective (the graphs were generated about 20 yrs ago) temperature changes. I don't remember what all of the models represented, but one was humanity's contribution (characterized by relatively rapid upward shift in temperature), and one was a combination of all the sources (which obviously had the same rapid shift). Then over the proceding several years after that, they tracked the actual changes and compared them to the models. The actual changes followed the model that included our contribution to global warming a lot more closely that I would have thought possible.

I have met many people that believe global warming is a hoax, and none the people that I have asked about this base their opinion on research. When presented with the choice between research and "I believe what I believe and I believe what's true", I will go with the research.

We are burning millions of years of stored energy from the sun in a span of about 200 years, and it's still not enough. We are also splitting atoms to run our steam plants (which produce ~60% waste heat) The only way heat leaves this planet is through radiation (convection and conduction require a medium). The planet is getting warmer because the heat input is greater than the heat output. If it wasn't the greenhouse effect, it would be something else.
Record setting highs and lows are symptoms of a dynamic system that is being hit with something overwhelming enough to disturb the equilibrium.

Example: If I blow on a spinning top, it will dance back and forth spiral around a bit, but as long as I keep blowing on it, the overall trend will be to move in the direction that I am blowing; it will do so very erratically though.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 03:01 PM

So saith many people with tremendous expertise in this field and no political axe to grind. Forget Al Gore - he is not a scientist. Now, follow the money. Is there more money behind the research scientists (who are usually way under-funded by government grants) or the spokespeople for the fossil fuels industry?

What on earth is the possible motivation for the huge, global, cross-cultural scientific conspiracy that you deniers are proposing?

Guest_racer nails it above:
"We are burning millions of years of stored energy from the sun in a span of about 200 years"
How can that not have a huge effect?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Stringsinger
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 03:02 PM

It is more than climate change. It is global warming. There are industry paid hacks who refute what most reputable scientists have warned us about.

The majority of scientists are of one mind on this subject. You will always find someone to
refute them for ideological reasons.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 03:19 PM

Since Doug is getting little selective snippets from FOX or NewsBusters or whoever, here is the full email that he quoted above (the author is Kevin Trenberth of NCAR):

------------------------
Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in
Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We
had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it
smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a
record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies
baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing
weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global
energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27,
doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained
from the author.)
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing
system is inadequate.
That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a
monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the
change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The PDO is already reversing with
the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since
Sept 2007. see
[2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_c
urrent.ppt
Kevin
----------------------------------------

If you don't get it, the first bit is tongue in cheek - making fun of exactly the people who confuse climate with weather. Then it gets serious. But cleverly edited, it sure is damning isn't? This is why the full emails are online (see my link above) - so people with half a brain can do their own fact checking. But a lot of people won't want to be bothered with fact checking. The snippets fit their politics much better than the full quotes with context references, and links.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 03:41 PM

Climate is always changing, it's hard to refute on any side of the issue.

All the (undisputed) extra human released carbon in the atmosphere has to have some impact. What will be that impact be, is something more complex to accurately predict. Atmospheric, land and ocean processes that determine climates around the world are complex. There are many theories what result one could expect...made more complex because we have never been at this point before. Warming, cooling, extreme storms, local differences are all cards in the deck of many wild cards.

I also suspect potential changes and impact could differ, depending where you live. Remember, longer term climate change amd short term-local weather are different matters.

Who has a better chance at predicting a possible outcome? I'd put my money on international, peer reviewed scinece versus industry funded and often non peer reviewed science. Though, the latter always has a place to play....(just as stopped watches are right twice per day).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 04:07 PM

There are two causes of climate change.
One is well-known: the variations that have been going on throughout earth history.
The last ice age was about 11,000 years ago, but there are lesser fluctuations; e. g. the dry, warm period of about AD 1100, when peoples in the southwest had to leave their lands and move to places where there were better water conditions.
The melting ice caps and the increasing water temperatures which are killing large areas of reef life are another result.
A current equivalent is taking place in the highlands of central Africa, where the famed snows of Kilamanjaro and sources of water are disappearing, with severe drougth and heat killing crops and cattle, displacing many thousands in Ethiopia, Kenya and contiguous areas.

The second factor, man-made, is contributory and is becoming increasingly serious. According to some scientists, the effects began with the industrial revolution.
The best evidence for this are the analyses of ice cores taken from the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps.
The ice core analyses clearly show the increase in greenhouse gases and toxic chemicals since the industrial revolution, and the almost exponential increase in the last 100 years.

The man-made effects may be lessened by 'green' practices such as reduction of greenhouse gases and stopping destruction of forests. The natural cycles also must be planned for; rising sea levels as a result of ice cap melting causes coastal peoples to move to higher, often less productive ground, fishing and agricultural practices must change, etc., etc.
An entire nation, the Maldives, will disappear beneath the sea if sea levels continue to rise.

In other words, planning and action is called for regardless of the causes of climate change.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: DougR
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 04:21 PM

TIA:Following up on your post listing the complete email from Kevin Trenberth, I quote from the email: "the Ceres data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement in 2008 shows there should be even more warming but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is adequate."

End of story, right? "The data are surely wrong"? Why is it wrong? Can it be proved it is wrong?

It seems that even the experts question the data.

DougR

P. S. Please note: this post contains no personal attacks, no insults.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 05:05 PM

Most respected scientists would never state that climate is totally caused by the effects of human habitation or even that humanity is the main contributer. Natural forces are what causes climate change, always has and always will. That being said we must remember the story about the straw that broke the camel's back. Our contribution is skewing natural cycles and therein lies the danger of tipping the balance beyond the brink. If there is a lie in all of this it is the belief that climate change is reversible by simply cutting down carbon emissions. We must do all that we can of course, to clean our planet, but the solutions may be far beyond our means or ability. That means that what we must do as past generations and adapt to a changing world. Mankind is nomadic by nature and forced movement from rising seas, flood-planes, glaciers, droughts, etc. has allowed us to survive as a species for eons. Problem is that there are too damn many of us and we are too fixed in place by infrastructure and national borders!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 05:29 PM

Sheet fire...

Cold as a pump handle last night here in Carolina...

If these tree huggin,' commie, so-called scientists had been in Carolina last night they would be singin' a different tune...

Global warmin', my butt...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 05:59 PM

Sorry about the "purple handle", B obbit. Hope it gets better.
But, that's local weather....and maybe age....not changing climate:)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 07:09 PM

I just don't understand why anyone can suggest that, even if there there did turn out to be natural causes for some degree of global warming, that would in any way reduce the need to do whatever we can to avoid making things worse by adding our own contribution.

Just because there are forest fires caused by lightning strike is not a valid reason to be relaxed about stuff like dropping lighted cigarette ends in forest areas, or pouring petrol on the flames.
....................................

So far as those hacked emails go - don't all musicians use the way "trick" in just the same way, not to refer to a way of deceiving people, but rather as a term for a smart or elegant technique we have picked up or invented? That's the same way scientists are liable to use the word.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 09:49 PM

I laid that case a while back, on this forum...of course I was poo-pood. Even claimed it was funded by those who wanted those results!
Also another one that sooner or later will come out, is the studies that link homosexuality to a gene,,,another farce!
And anyone else read my posts(how could you not) about corruption, in these regards?
Another one on the radio today: Health providers, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies, who have a stake in the 'health care bill' lobbying the 'representatives' to influence their vote to pass, for their attached deals to make them a LOT of money!

Also, how can we overlook 'Recovery.org', and their bogus figures, and reporting in jobs created, in Congressional districts...that don"t exist!!!" Obama's administration refuses to correct the numbers!..on this 18 Million, of your dollars website!!!!!!!!!

A 'Change' you can believe in????????????????????????????!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 09:59 PM

Seems like several folks answered Doug R pretty well while I was out..... but to reply to a couple of points specifically:

"...And you believe .... that the scientists that"will 'find' data that prove anything" could not possibly be..." etc...

Doug....you COULD buy 'some' to say anything, but not all of them! The vast majority of those who could claim expertise agree.....without being bought.
You missed my point... vested interest in this lies with those who do not WISH to believe in warming! THEY are the ones who will fund 'studies' that show what they wish...like the tobacco companies used to do. Remember?.."There is no real proof that smoking 'causes' cancer...harrumph! WE have done many studies that show little correlation!" *big grin* It was sorta funny when they traced who paid who for what!

"The cost of making the changes required is entirely too high."

The cost of NOT doing it could be much higher, though measured in different coin.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Nov 09 - 02:47 AM

It should be noted, that NASA ans NOAA, also dispute the findings, in regards to the studies, suggesting 'climate change due to man made reasons'.

I previously posted, that "I think I should drive my SUV to about 1500 miles west of South America, to the bottom of the ocean, where it is known, that the ocean floor has been warming up"

Of course its warming up because of man made ...umm..whatever. (rolls eyes).

Just more political quackery to further an agenda, that needs for us to believe crap, to get support!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Ed T
Date: 26 Nov 09 - 11:39 AM

The oceans are really huge and deep. They can trap and hold lots of heat and large currents (Global conveyor belt) transfer it from one place to another (for example equator north) to moderate clomate. In addition to capturing solar heat directly, phytoplankton at the surface captures atmospheric carbon.

To get a idea on how much heat and carbon the deep oceans traps and retains (and what is the tipping point) is complex, but important. It is much more complex than estimating the temperature of the ocean surface via sattelites, or merely looking at one place in the ocean.

The oceans are big and deep, covers 70 percent of the world are complex and are expensiveand difficult to study (including getting historic records from the seafloor). There are only a few nations willing and able to contribute scientists, ships and equipment to do far ocean research . That's a challenge.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Nov 09 - 11:49 AM

Yes, but, (and you can look this up), the ocean floor has been heating up, from below. Has nothing to do with the atmosphere, but from the earth's core.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Ed T
Date: 26 Nov 09 - 12:28 PM

Heat from internal geological forces (they have always been there) are taken into consideration with the models they use.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 01:07 AM

Yes, I know. They have found new life colonies, as this 'hot spot' 1500 miles off South America have warmed up a bit. It has nothing to do with 'carbon emissions', but rather is what they are saying is what is heating up the ocean down there, that has been responsible for 'El Nino'.

By the way, there are outcries pointed at Al Gore, to give back the money,$500,000,000, that he's been given based on his bogus claims, based on his political, not scientific, fraudulent data!

Don't shoot me..I'm just the messenger.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 08:29 AM

The point is the oceans are extremely huge and complex...with many layers, currents and vast differences and changes in temperature. If someone found a new localized hotspot, to me it is totally illogical to leap to conclude that this alone eliminates any human influence in chnages in climate. Does it not seem odd that those who say scientists jump the gun on climate change, do so themselves....if an opportunity presents itself?

There are also many messengers (not refering to any mudcater) who spend alot of time injecting doubt into just about everything in life....often fueled by folks who have little scientific credibility and conduct "internet science" to join unrelated dots together to prove a sketchy theory.

I don't see why it is it important to climate change scientific research (which is important to humankind) whether vested interests call for the return of the $500,000,000 Noble prize award to a rich former USA V President? Anyway, if he lost it (which is unlikely), he likely will eat tomorrow:)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,Mike of Hessle
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 08:41 AM

Back in the 50's my wife and I (and perhaps others) were taught at School that another Ice-age was just around the corner.

Must be a big corner - or a small Ice-age !!!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 09:13 AM

In fact one theory (I do not believe it is a dominent one) that more carbon in the atmosphere could eventually lead to reduced solar warming (obscuring solar rays) ....leading to a colder....rather than warmer climate...Again....just theories


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 11:34 AM

From the flooded west of Ireland (3 years running and the worst ever) - it seems from here that the longer people waffle in order to justify driving their SUVs, the deeper the water gets.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 11:38 AM

...or as long as 'politicians' bullshit us, the more helpless we become, and nothing gets accomplished!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: DougR
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 01:56 PM

I sometimes wonder if many of those who deride those who drive SUVS object to their doing so for environmental reasons or they regret that they cannot afford to purchase a SUV.

DougR
(who drives a Honda CRV)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 03:38 PM

A horse and a chicken are playing in a meadow. The horse falls into a mud hole and is sinking. He calls to the chicken to go and get the farmer to help pull him out to safety. The chicken runs to the farm but the farmer can't be found. So he drives the farmer's Honda CRV back to the mud hole and ties some rope around the bumper. He then throws the other end of the rope to his friend, the horse, and drives the car forward saving him from sinking!

A few days later, the chicken and horse were playing in the meadow again and the chicken fell into the mud hole. The chicken yelled to the horse to go and get some help from the farmer. The horse said, "I think I can stand over the hole!" So he stretched over the width of the hole and said, "Grab for my 'thingy' and pull yourself up." And the chicken did and pulled himself to safety.

The moral of the story:

If you are hung like a horse, you don't need a Honda CRV to pick up chicks.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 03:41 PM

Ed, Are you alluding to that your THE 'Mr. Ed'????
Wink


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 03:43 PM

Two knocks of the hoof says yes


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 05:21 PM

Back in the 50's my wife and I (and perhaps others) were taught at School that another Ice-age was just around the corner.

Could well be true, depending on where you live. A climate change that overall amounted global warming could very likely result in drastic cooling in some places,especially the British Isles, if the Gulf Stream ceases to warm us up. We're on the same latitude as Labrador and Kamchatka...

Labrador

Kamchatka


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: DougR
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 05:25 PM

Ed: I have yet to see a talking chicken or a talking horse. Therefore, I have to assume you are pulling my "thingy."

I LOVE my little SUV!

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 10:21 PM

"Back in the 50's my wife and I (and perhaps others) were taught at School that another Ice-age was just around the corner."

That's because they only had station wagons and panel trucks in the '50s, and........
....... Allen Gore was just a little snot nosed brat in school, and they all knew better than to take him seriously!

OHHH, You mean THAT Al Gore, yes he even once claimed to have invented the internet! Thank goodness for that bright little whipper snapper!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: TIA
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 02:10 PM

DougR asks me, so I reply inside his text:

"TIA:Following up on your post listing the complete email from Kevin Trenberth, I quote from the email: "the Ceres data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement in 2008 shows there should be even more warming but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is adequate."

********he says that the data are inadequate, not adequate - big difference in the meaning of the sentence. Must read carefully to understand

"End of story, right? "The data are surely wrong"? Why is it wrong?"

*******because the data do not agree with myrida (yes myriad) other independent indicators that all point to even more warming than CERES. Note that CERES data do not say "no warming". They say there is warming, but not as much as all the other independent indicators. Again, careful reading would bring your apparent understanding is not up to speed.

"Can it be proved it is wrong?"

********yes, see above. CERES is only one of many, many, many independent types of data.

"It seems that even the experts question the data."

********yes, in science, experts must always question the data. But Trenberth is not questioning the fact of global climate change. He is questioning why one particular data set dopes not show as much warming as all the others. Now, this careful and complete reading of his email does not support your political argument against climate change, does it?

***********To prove that your position is sicence-based, you must show that your position is falsifiable. so, what, DougR, piece of information or type of data (even hypothetical) would falsify your position that there is no human induced climate change?

*********If I have misunderstood your position, I apologize, but I do not think I have.

"P. S. Please note: this post contains no personal attacks, no insults."

************neither does this one. :)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 19 September 9:19 AM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.