Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    6:18 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: Voting poll discussion > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: [Poll: 2007.35]: Do you believe the use of Fossil fuels causes Global Warming?... Back to Topics
JT

Moderator
Message Posted: Aug 26, 2007 12:01:00 AM

Do you believe the use of Fossil fuels causes Global Warming?
Yes
No
Unsure
N/A

Post your thoughts about this poll below.
REPLIES (newest first) Topic is locked
Profile Pic
thorman52
Champion Author South Bend

Posts:1,618
Points:77,760
Joined:Jan 2009
Message Posted: Apr 10, 2013 7:27:05 PM

Absolutely. Oh...used that one already.

Indubitably!

[Edited by: thorman52 at 4/10/2013 7:29:25 PM EST]
Profile Pic
gassprite
Champion Author Toms River

Posts:3,723
Points:728,440
Joined:Apr 2012
Message Posted: Apr 9, 2013 10:35:42 PM

Yes.
Profile Pic
thorman52
Champion Author South Bend

Posts:1,618
Points:77,760
Joined:Jan 2009
Message Posted: Apr 9, 2013 7:34:21 PM

Yes siree bob...
Profile Pic
thorman52
Champion Author South Bend

Posts:1,618
Points:77,760
Joined:Jan 2009
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2013 7:36:02 PM

yup.
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,337
Points:2,955,495
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2013 11:21:26 AM

rjr54, what I've said is that whether or not Dr. Ivar Giaever has produced papers on climate change does not change it's validity whatsoever either way. By focusing on an irrelevancy, you are missing the big picture. Kind of like what you're doing on AGW, as a matter of fact. You and thorman52 keep focusing on who should be believed on faith, instead of what is true.
Profile Pic
thorman52
Champion Author South Bend

Posts:1,618
Points:77,760
Joined:Jan 2009
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2013 3:31:32 AM

Absolutely.
Profile Pic
thorman52
Champion Author South Bend

Posts:1,618
Points:77,760
Joined:Jan 2009
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2013 3:29:27 AM

Yes.


[Edited by: thorman52 at 4/8/2013 3:31:33 AM EST]
Profile Pic
rjr54
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:1,322
Points:446,230
Joined:Feb 2005
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2013 12:36:10 AM

Idheinz

I never said Dr. Ivar Giaever was a nobody. I said I greatly admired his work on superconductors. And I have for the last 35 years. I have read his papers and think it was spectacular ground breaking work.

What I did say was that I cannot find his papers on climatology. And I am still looking for that work done by him, the data gathered by him or the analysis done by him, a paper with substance and reasoning.

The other thing I cannot understand is why you, a champion skeptic of global warming, cannot produce one paper he authored on the subject of climatology. You claim to believe in facts, but produce none. Why?
Profile Pic
thorman52
Champion Author South Bend

Posts:1,618
Points:77,760
Joined:Jan 2009
Message Posted: Apr 7, 2013 2:11:24 AM

Yes.
Profile Pic
john382
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:14,983
Points:3,069,805
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 6, 2013 7:35:10 PM

Dont know
Profile Pic
awillisant
Champion Author Mississippi

Posts:4,411
Points:862,920
Joined:Jul 2011
Message Posted: Apr 6, 2013 6:57:04 PM

yes
Profile Pic
inoculate128
Champion Author Tennessee

Posts:16,462
Points:2,211,245
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Apr 6, 2013 5:34:59 PM

Global Warming: Was It Just A Beautiful Dream After All?
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,337
Points:2,955,495
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 6, 2013 10:25:48 AM

Yes, thorman52, it's all about the mud-slinging for you, isn't it? You've already admitted that you don't care about the facts, after all.

rjr54, don't you think that you're grasping at straws at this point? Your attempts to pretend that a Nobel prize winning physicist is a nobody have failed. And isn't it the facts that matter? You know, the stuff that you're ignoring while busy with character assassination?
Profile Pic
dongo50
Champion Author West Virginia

Posts:16,258
Points:2,571,795
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Apr 6, 2013 7:54:12 AM

no
Profile Pic
inoculate128
Champion Author Tennessee

Posts:16,462
Points:2,211,245
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Apr 6, 2013 6:19:32 AM

Does anyone care to argue -- or even to snidely and passively-aggressively imply, as one of our number has about Ivar Giaever -- that Freeman Dyson is not qualified to comment upon climate science? If so, here's your starting point.

Climatologists are no Einsteins, says his successor

Freeman Dyson is a physicist who has been teaching at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton since Albert Einstein was there. When Einstein died in 1955, there was an opening for the title of "most brilliant physicist on the planet." Dyson has filled it.

So when the global-warming movement came along, a lot of people wondered why he didn’t come along with it. The reason he’s a skeptic is simple, the 89-year-old Dyson said when I phoned him.

"I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic," Dyson said.

Dyson came to this country from his native England at age 23 and immediately made major breakthroughs in quantum theory. After that he worked on a nuclear-powered rocket (see video below). Then in the late 1970s, he got involved with early research on climate change at the Institute for Energy Analysis in Oak Ridge, Tenn.

That research, which involved scientists from many disciplines, was based on experimentation. The scientists studied such questions as how atmospheric carbon dioxide interacts with plant life and the role of clouds in warming.

But that approach lost out to the computer-modeling approach favored by climate scientists. And that approach was flawed from the beginning, Dyson said.

"I just think they don’t understand the climate," he said of climatologists. "Their computer models are full of fudge factors."

A major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic projections trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO-2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.

"The models are extremely oversimplified," he said. "They don't represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds."

Dyson said his skepticism about those computer models was borne out by recent reports of a study by Ed Hawkins of the University of Reading in Great Britain that showed global temperatures were flat between 2000 and 2010 — even though we humans poured record amounts of CO-2 into the atmosphere during that decade.

That was vindication for a man who was termed "a civil heretic" in a New York Times Magazine article on his contrarian views. Dyson embraces that label, with its implication that what he opposes is a religious movement. So does his fellow Princeton physicist and fellow skeptic, William Happer.

"There are people who just need a cause that’s bigger than themselves," said Happer. "Then they can feel virtuous and say other people are not virtuous."

To show how uncivil this crowd can get, Happer e-mailed me an article about an Australian professor who proposes — quite seriously — the death penalty for heretics such as Dyson. As did Galileo, they can get a reprieve if they recant.

I hope that guy never gets to hear Dyson’s most heretical assertion: Atmospheric CO-2 may actually be improving the environment.

"It’s certainly true that carbon dioxide is good for vegetation," Dyson said. "About 15 percent of agricultural yields are due to CO-2 we put in the atmosphere. From that point of view, it’s a real plus to burn coal and oil."

In fact, there’s more solid evidence for the beneficial effects of CO-2 than the negative effects, he said. So why does the public hear only one side of this debate? Because the media do an awful job of reporting it."They’re absolutely lousy," he said of American journalists. "That’s true also in Europe. I don’t know why they’ve been brainwashed."

I know why: They’re lazy. Instead of digging into the details, most journalists are content to repeat that mantra about "consensus" among climate scientists.

The problem, said Dyson, is that the consensus is based on those computer models. Computers are great for analyzing what happened in the past, he said, but not so good at figuring out what will happen in the future. But a lot of scientists have built their careers on them. Hence the hatred for dissenters.

"It was similar in the Soviet Union," he said. "Who could doubt Marxist economics was the future? Everything else was in the dustbin."

There’s a lot of room left in that bin for the ideas promulgated by people dumber than Dyson. Which is just about everyone.

ADD: This quote from the great H.L. Mencken captures perfectly the religious nature of those in the climate cult:

"The essence of science is that it is always willing to abandon a given idea, however fundamental it may seem to be, for a better one; the essence of theology is that it holds its truths to be eternal and immutable."
Profile Pic
thorman52
Champion Author South Bend

Posts:1,618
Points:77,760
Joined:Jan 2009
Message Posted: Apr 5, 2013 7:16:50 AM

Norquist for dirty energy and big tobacco
Profile Pic
rjr54
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:1,322
Points:446,230
Joined:Feb 2005
Message Posted: Apr 5, 2013 12:13:59 AM

Idheinz

Reference 12 is an article in the Aftenposten, a Norwegian newspaper. Dr. Ivar Giaever is quoted and talks about many things. I assume that you want me to read the statement about "It is amazing how stable temperature has been over the last 150 years." That is nice but we are back to the part about no data and no analysis. There is no reference to any data. And his analysis consists of changing the units of measure to Kelvin so the amount of change appears smaller. Which of course is really not analysis. a distraction. I can easily translate a temperature to Fahrenheit to make the change appear larger, but it says nothing about the fact there is a change, and for example, about whether that change is larger or smaller than some other similar time periods. To truly know if a change is significant or not you must compare it to another change in a similar time period. And there is nothing like that in this newspaper article.

Reference 16 is a lecture given at 62nd Lindau Meeting, July 2012. And again it is lacking data and analysis. There are some pretty graphs but none addresses the question about what is the temperature change and how does it compare to other temperature changes over similar time periods. And lots of jokes; I liked the one about Alfred E. Newman being not worried. The part about religion was funny too. But I cannot find the substance; the fundamental science that consists of the data and the analysis that actually ends in a conclusion. There is a conclusion without a foundation and that is not science.

I am still looking for the work done by Dr. Ivar Giaever, the data gathered by him or the analysis done by him. Not a news clip, not a video clip, but a paper with substance and reasoning. Can you find one?
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,337
Points:2,955,495
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 4, 2013 2:43:44 PM

thorman52 - "That explains how you are so good at sidestepping and twisted rhetoric."

But note that it's ME who continuously catches YOU sidestepping and using twisted rhetoric, while you simply make baseless claims about me. Sound familiar? It's like it's me who provides documented proof of my statements and how you make baseless claims about AGW.

thorman52 - "I never professed to being an expert on the subject but the question asked is "Do you believe...""

And yet AGAIN you insist that the facts are irrelevant and we should just believe, out of faith! Those facts just keep getting in the way of your belief in your religion, eh?

thorman52 - "and I do believe from all that I've read that fossil fuels have a very profound and significant effect on the environment which happens to be the only environment we have. "

And you base this belief on what, exactly? Oh, that's right. You don't believe in reality, you just make everything up. So why should we believe your fantasy?

thorman52 - "Of course it's easier to say there is no problem or it's all natural phenomena rather than accepting a challenge to clean up this world. "

No, the easy way out is your baseless fantasy. The hard part is to actually find out what is REALLY happening so that we can determine what we SHOULD do. What you don't bother with.

thorman52 - "Then there are a few that will say this one scientist isn't qualified, his/her research is flawed, distorted, unfounded, but this other one is right on, a genius, unquestionably accurate. No...I ain't buying it."

But you don't believe in actual research, so why do you care? You just take everything on faith, and insist that everyone else should too. BTW, since you never presented anything, I never had the chance to do what you just claimed.

thorman52 - "I said many moons ago that I've read enough, including your posts and that of Mr. inloculate and you nor anyone else will change my vote."

Yes, you said that you don't care about the facts, so there's no reason to present you with them. You believe because you WANT TO BELIEVE, not because of any measly facts.

thorman52 - "Bet you're a Sox fan too. lol "

No. That's what happens when you make your decisions based on prejudice instead of facts. You get it all wrong, just like everything else in your post.
Profile Pic
thorman52
Champion Author South Bend

Posts:1,618
Points:77,760
Joined:Jan 2009
Message Posted: Apr 4, 2013 10:08:54 AM

If I pleaded anything it'd be no-contest. Elected huh? That explains how you are so good at sidestepping and twisted rhetoric. I never professed to being an expert on the subject but the question asked is "Do you believe..." and I do believe from all that I've read that fossil fuels have a very profound and significant effect on the environment which happens to be the only environment we have. Of course it's easier to say there is no problem or it's all natural phenomena rather than accepting a challenge to clean up this world. Then there are a few that will say this one scientist isn't qualified, his/her research is flawed, distorted, unfounded, but this other one is right on, a genius, unquestionably accurate. No...I ain't buying it. I said many moons ago that I've read enough, including your posts and that of Mr. inloculate and you nor anyone else will change my vote. Bet you're a Sox fan too. lol
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,337
Points:2,955,495
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 4, 2013 9:03:54 AM

rjr54 - "Thank you for the link to Wikipedia. I have already read that page and discovered that there are no references to any climatology work, no data and no analysis."

Look again. While most of his work is in Physics, there are two references to climatology work, references 12 and 16, in addition to others referring to him about climatology.
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,532
Points:3,134,110
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 4, 2013 12:23:08 AM

No
Profile Pic
rjr54
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:1,322
Points:446,230
Joined:Feb 2005
Message Posted: Apr 3, 2013 11:46:30 PM

Idheinz,

Thank you for the link to Wikipedia.

I have already read that page and discovered that there are no references to any climatology work, no data and no analysis. I have clicked through dozens of other links from Google and ran into the same problem, I could not find any works from Dr. Ivar Giaever. So now you understand my problem.

Normally, when I am reading about something, I go to the original research to view the fundamental science, the data and the analysis. I read that and study that and try yo make some sense of it all. Reading the headlines in the newspaper does not satisfy my thirst for information. Once I have read the original data and analysis, I decide if I accept or reject the conclusions put forward by the author.

In this particular case I cannot find the climatology work done. I cannot find the data. I cannot find the analysis. So I hoped that one of you here could point me to a paper or a book or a transcript or something that shows the climatology work done by Dr. Ivar Giaever. So far I am still striking out.

Can you please provide a link to something Dr. Ivar Giaever has published on climatology?
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,337
Points:2,955,495
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 3, 2013 11:01:18 AM

thorman52 - "Your honor...I rest my case. "

An interesting side point is that the title "Your Honor", or "The Honorable" has nothing to do with being a judge. It's a title bestowed to elected public officials, which I happen to be.

One of the biggest occurrences of cognitive dissonance in my life was shortly after I was first elected and a letter came addressed to "The Honorable" - ME. So, officially, going into politics automatically makes you "honorable". Funny, eh? ;-)
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,337
Points:2,955,495
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 3, 2013 9:14:52 AM

But you have yet to present a case. Are you just pleading guilty?

Just so I get this straight, you realize that you can't respond, so you play word games as a Red Herring, or Smoke Screen fallacy? You must really know that you're wrong. Essentially, you're claiming victory in a battle of wits that you haven't even entered. This is made quite obvious when you go back and look at recent posts, where inoculate128 and myself make extensive fact-based posts, which are ignored, and your response is to quote others' illogic and sling mud at what you don't understand.

From thorman52's article - "America produces a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases, yet under President Bush it is one of the few developed nations not to have signed the Kyoto treaty to limit emissions. The President's advisers have argued that the science of global warming is full of uncertainties and change might be a natural phenomenon."

So America produces 1% of the greenhouse gasses that the Earth does naturally? Why does this not scare me?
Profile Pic
thorman52
Champion Author South Bend

Posts:1,618
Points:77,760
Joined:Jan 2009
Message Posted: Apr 3, 2013 8:39:06 AM

Your honor...I rest my case.
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,337
Points:2,955,495
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 3, 2013 7:55:06 AM

thorman52 - "I figured it out. We are talking to former President Cheney, George W. Bush and friends. The question is "Do you believe the use of fossil fuels causes Global Warming?" It's a no brainer."

Yes, it certainly takes no brain to believe that. And all you've presented as evidence is an Ad Hominem fallacy.

thorman52 - "There are two types of people in the world."

There are two types of people in the world. Those who divide the world into two types of people and those who don't. Essentially, bigots and non-bigots. How about evaluating each person as the individual that they are? I guess finding out the truth would take effort, and it's a lot easier to just decide what you want to believe entirely without the benefit of those pesky "fact" thingies. After all, the facts might prove you wrong.

thorman52 - "The problem of Global Warming, Climate Change, whatever you want to call it, however you look at it, is real and happening right now."

This is, of course, a statement of faith, devoid of facts or reasoning.

thorman52 - "Anyone who says it is not real has an agenda that puts them into a position of disputing facts with rhetoric designed to confuse and destroy common sense. This agenda is usually based on money, greed and access to political influences that control and manipulate legislation and regulation favorable to only a privileged few. THE 1% ERS."

And this, of course, is an Ad Hominem fallacy, completely devoid of reason.

thorman52 - "The bottom line question remains, "Are we as citizens of the world going to correct what the enemy has caused?" We need to if your children and grandchildren are to live in a clean environment and free of devastating catastrophes, regardless of cost or inconvenience. "

And this is clearly the fallacy of Appeal to the Consequences of a Belief. You just don't care how much damage you do to the world if people don't believe your "End of the World" fantasy, do you? You're even willing to CAUSE what you claim to fear as a way of "proving" that you are right.

thorman52 - "The Final Proof: Global Warming is a Man-Made Disaster "

So they looked at the world, built climate models that produce their conclusion, and used that as "proof" that they are right. This is clearly the fallacy of Begging the Question, or Circular Reasoning. Please get back to us if you encounter any REAL evidence, which seems unlikely, as you are so carefully avoiding it.
Profile Pic
inoculate128
Champion Author Tennessee

Posts:16,462
Points:2,211,245
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Apr 3, 2013 3:18:37 AM

<sarc>
I figured it out. A few hours ago, I heard a report on the news that every year, hail causes a billion dollars' worth of damage to US farmers' crops. The solution is obvious: Congress needs to pass a law against hail and get the president to sign it. Surely all good people can agree on that.
</sarc>
Profile Pic
thorman52
Champion Author South Bend

Posts:1,618
Points:77,760
Joined:Jan 2009
Message Posted: Apr 2, 2013 11:32:14 PM

I figured it out. We are talking to former President Cheney, George W. Bush and friends. The question is "Do you believe the use of fossil fuels causes Global Warming?" It's a no brainer.

There are two types of people in the world. The ones who will sit back an watch their money grow because they have the power and the audacity to let people below them rot because they JUST PLAIN DON'T CARE.

Then there are the people that look around and see problems and will to the best of their ability try to fix the problems laid out before them.
"Some see things as they are and ask "why". I'd like to see things as they could be and ask "why not".

The problem of Global Warming, Climate Change, whatever you want to call it, however you look at it, is real and happening right now. Anyone who says it is not real has an agenda that puts them into a position of disputing facts with rhetoric designed to confuse and destroy common sense. This agenda is usually based on money, greed and access to political influences that control and manipulate legislation and regulation favorable to only a privileged few. THE 1% ERS. The bottom line question remains, "Are we as citizens of the world going to correct what the enemy has caused?" We need to if your children and grandchildren are to live in a clean environment and free of devastating catastrophes, regardless of cost or inconvenience.
-------------------------------------------------------------

The Final Proof: Global Warming is a Man-Made Disaster

by Steve Connor

Scientists have found the first unequivocal link between man-made greenhouse gases and a DRamatic heating of the Earth's oceans. The researchers - many funded by the US government - have seen what they describe as a "stunning" correlation between a rise in ocean temperature over the past 40 years and pollution of the atmosphere.

The study destroys a central argument of global warming skeptics within the Bush administration - that climate change could be a natural phenomenon. It should convince George Bush to DRop his objections to the Kyoto treaty on climate change, the scientists say.

Tim Barnett, a marine physicist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego and a leading member of the team, said: "We've got a serious problem. The debate is no longer: 'Is there a global warming signal?' The debate now is what are we going to do about it?"

The findings are crucial because much of the evidence of a warmer world has until now been from air temperatures, but it is the oceans that are the DRiving force behind the Earth's climate. DR Barnett said: "Over the past 40 years there has been considerable warming of the planetary system and approximately 90 per cent of that warming has gone directly into the oceans."

He told the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington: "We defined a 'fingerprint' of ocean warming. Each of the oceans warmed differently at different depths and constitutes a fingerprint which you can look for. We had several computer simulations, for instance one for natural variability: could the climate system just do this on its own? The answer was no.

"We looked at the possibility that solar changes or volcanic effects could have caused the warming - not a chance. What just absolutely nailed it was greenhouse warming."

America produces a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases, yet under President Bush it is one of the few developed nations not to have signed the Kyoto treaty to limit emissions. The President's advisers have argued that the science of global warming is full of uncertainties and change might be a natural phenomenon.

DR. Barnett said that position was untenable because it was now clear from the latest study, which is yet to be published, that man-made greenhouse gases had caused vast amounts of heat to be soaked up by the oceans. "It's a good time for nations that are not part of Kyoto to re-evaluate their positions and see if it would be to their advantage to join," he said.

The study involved scientists from the US Department of Energy, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as the Met Office's Hadley Center.

They analyzed more than 7 million recordings of ocean temperature from around the world, along with about 2 million readings of sea salinity, and compared the rise in temperatures at different depths to predictions made by two computer simulations of global warming.

"Two models, one from here and one from England, got the observed warming almost exactly. In fact we were stunned by the degree of similarity," DR Barnett said. "The models are right. So when a politician stands up and says 'the uncertainty in all these simulations start to question whether we can believe in these models', that argument is no longer tenable." Typical ocean temperatures have increased since 1960 by between 0.5C and 1C, depending largely on depth. DR Barnett said: "The real key is the amount of energy that has gone into the oceans. If we could mine the energy that has gone in over the past 40 years we could run the state of California for 200,000 years... It's come from greenhouse warming."

Because the global climate is largely DRiven by the heat locked up in the oceans, a rise in sea temperatures could have devastating effects for many parts of the world.

Ruth Curry, from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, said that warming could alter important warm-water currents such as the Gulf Stream, as melting glaciers poured massive volumes of fresh water into the North Atlantic. "These changes are happening and they are expected to amplify. It's a certainty that these changes will put serious strains on the ecosystems of the planet," DR Curry said.

© 2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd

An older article just to represent the good people of the world.



[Edited by: thorman52 at 4/2/2013 11:35:38 PM EST]
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,337
Points:2,955,495
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 2, 2013 8:45:28 PM

You actually have to USE google for it to work. I entered "Dr. Ivar Giaever" on that google page and the very first entry is to his Wikipedia page, which includes a reference to his climatology work. Pretty basic, but you claim to be unable to do even that, and after I helped you get started. I guess if you really don't want to know the truth, you can ignore anything, eh? And as an AGW supporter, you must be very experienced at avoiding the facts.
Profile Pic
rjr54
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:1,322
Points:446,230
Joined:Feb 2005
Message Posted: Apr 2, 2013 8:12:09 PM

Idheinz,

Thank you for the link to Google.

Unfortunately, Google cannot find any climatology work published by Dr. Ivar Giaever and Dr. Harold Lewis. Which was the whole point of my question. I cannot find it using the typical tools I use so I expect one of you to be able to provide some path to their work.

Clearly inoculate128 will not tell me. So I guess I will have to give up.
Profile Pic
inoculate128
Champion Author Tennessee

Posts:16,462
Points:2,211,245
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Apr 2, 2013 1:05:34 PM

The Economist Breaks with the Climate Orthodoxy
by Roger L Simon
April 1st, 2013 - 12:15 am

No subject has convinced me more that modern liberalism is the most primitive religious faith on the planet (possibly excepting Wahhabism) than man-made global warming, aka climate change.

So it was with some amusement that I read the other day that that most august of publications The Economist was having second thoughts:

'IT MAY come as a surprise to a walrus wondering where all the Arctic’s summer sea ice has gone. It could be news to a Staten Islander still coming to terms with what he lost to Hurricane Sandy. But some scientists are arguing that man-made climate change is not quite so bad a threat as it appeared to be a few years ago. They point to various reasons for thinking that the planet’s “climate sensitivity”—the amount of warming that can be expected for a doubling in the carbon-dioxide level—may not be as high as was previously thought. The most obvious reason is that, despite a marked warming over the course of the 20th century, temperatures have not really risen over the past ten years.”'

The publication elucidates in an extended article from the same edition:

'OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”'

Am I wrong or was the whole theory of anthropogenic global warming based on a correlation between greenhouse-gas emissions and rising temperatures? Oh, well, maybe Al Gore will explain it to me. (I’m sure his knowledge base has improved since his unfortunate ‘D’ in college geology. After all, he’s a “climate sensitive” guy.)

I especially hope he will since those pesky Russians are predicting something far worse — a new Ice Age:

Russian scientist Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov, of the St Petersburg Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory, painted the Doomsday scenario saying the recent inclement weather [in Europe] simply proved we were heading towards a frozen planet. ??Dr Abdussamatov believes Earth was on an “unavoidable advance towards a deep temperature drop”. The last big freeze, known as the Little Ice Age, was between 1650 and 1850.

Uh-oh. Maybe Time and Newsweek were right all along when they made similar predictions back in the seventies. Maybe this photoshop wasn’t even photoshopped.

All this climate silliness could be regarded as comical at this point if so many – particularly scientifically illiterate politicians – didn’t still believe — much like the cardinals in Brecht’s Galileo — in the warming religion.

Principal among these scientific illiterates is our president, whose college grades, unlike Al Gore’s and just about everybody else’s, remain a state secret reminiscent of the Politburo. I would be willing to bet my house, however, that his scientific qualifications are somewhere between non-existent and embarrassing.

So he must rely on the advice of supposed experts. But who are they? Usually scientists and business people who stand to profit by emphasizing the perils of warming. (Maybe he should listen to the Russians — he seems to like them.)

Even more dangerous – and closer to Obama’s heart – are the bureaucrats of the Environmental Protection Agency. It’s hard to imagine what they think when they read — if they read — an article like the recent one in The Economist. Could it conceivably make them question what they do? I doubt it.

Last Friday the Washington Post’s WonkTalk asked: Is the EPA ready to tackle climate change? In a video, their Brad Plumer — who apparently is convinced CO2 causes global warming — noted that Congress is not likely to do anything about climate. It will be up to the EPA, working under the guidance of the White House, to tighten rules and regulations around all sorts of emissions to protect us from what they view as an over-heated Armageddon.

If I were in the energy business, I’d have my lawyers ready. The recent research should be very useful to them. But the question remains – is anybody listening? Or will we all be broke first?

Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,337
Points:2,955,495
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 2, 2013 7:48:37 AM

thorman52 - "I think releasing tons of pollution into the atmosphere is kinda on topic, don't ya think? Huh? hmmm!"

I do think, therefore I recognize that it is completely off-topic. If you feel otherwise, please provide some evidence that there is some sort of causative relationship. Since AGW supporters can't even show that weather causes the weather, that seems unlikely. BTW, mere "tons" of pollution is clearly a minor, local event.

rjr54 - "Could you please post a link to the climatology work published by Dr. Ivar Giaever and Dr. Harold Lewis? "

Here's some help for someone who doesn't post references to support what they say.
Profile Pic
inoculate128
Champion Author Tennessee

Posts:16,462
Points:2,211,245
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Apr 2, 2013 6:14:40 AM

rjr54 --

Unfortunately, I must confess to two weaknesses: I am not blessed with infinite patience, nor do I suffer fools gladly.

Since I have no inclination to enter into childish mind games with you, I have come to the conclusion that the most appropriate reply to your question comes from that eminent climate scientist George Hamilton IV:

"If you don't know, I ain't gonna tell you."

Profile Pic
inoculate128
Champion Author Tennessee

Posts:16,462
Points:2,211,245
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Apr 2, 2013 6:05:54 AM

April 2, 2013

Warm and well fed, or hungry in the dark?

By Viv Forbes

Which is worse - gradual man-made global warming or sudden electricity blackout?

Alarmists try to scare us by claiming that man's activities are causing global warming. Whether and when we may see new man-made warming is disputed and uncertain. If it does appear, the world will be slightly warmer, with more evaporation and rainfall; plants will grow better and colonise some areas currently too cold or too dry; fewer old people will die in winter and sea levels may continue the gradual rise we have seen since the end of the last ice age. There may even be a bit more "green" in Greenland. There is no evidence that man's production of carbon dioxide is causing more extreme weather events. Any change caused by man will be gradual and there will be plenty of time to adapt, as humans have always done. Most people will hardly notice it.

What is certain, however, is that global warming policies are greatly increasing the chances of electricity blackouts, and here the effects can be predicted confidently - they will be sudden and severe.

Localised short-term blackouts can be caused by cyclones, storms, fires, floods, accidents, equipment failure or overloading. People will cope with them. The more widespread blackouts, caused for example by network collapse or insufficient generating capacity, will have severe effects.

All modern human activities are heavily dependent on electricity. Blackouts will stop lifts, trains, traffic lights, tools, appliances, factories, mines, refineries, communications and pumps for fuel, water and sewerage. People will be trapped or stranded in trains, ports, airports, lifts, hotels, hospitals and traffic jams. ATM's, credit cards and supermarket checkouts will not work. Cash, cheques, IOU's and pocket calculators will be required to buy anything.

Immediately a blackout occurs, those with emergency generators, fuel or batteries will start using them.

But within a very few days, batteries will run flat, emergency fuel supplies will be exhausted, food supplies will disappear from stores and pumped water will not be available. Intensive dairies, hatcheries, piggeries and feedlots will all face critical problems in keeping their animals alive and cared for.

If the blackout is extensive and prolonged, looting will infect the big cities and then spread to country areas. People who are old, sick, incapacitated or alone will be forgotten as able-bodied people focus on feeding and protecting their own.

The real threat to humanity today is not the theoretical dangers from gradual man-made global warming. A far bigger real danger is the growing threat to reliable electricity supplies from deep-green climate policies.
The most reliable electricity supplies come from coal, gas, hydro, nuclear, geothermal or oil. Misguided politicians and uncompromising nature are conspiring to ensure that few of these will be available to generate Australia's future electricity.

The carbon tax and renewable energy targets threaten the financial viability of using coal, gas or oil to generate electricity. Banks and investors will not risk their capital on new carbon-powered stations dependent on an unstable and polarised political environment. And the declining profitability of existing stations under the carbon tax and mandated market sharing makes it risky and uneconomic to spend money maintaining existing aging stations.

The same green zealots who plot to destroy carbon energy will also work to prevent the construction of new nuclear or hydro plants in Australia. And Australia's geothermal resources, being generally deep and remote, are unlikely to provide significant electricity for decades.

We are thus being forced to rely on fickle breezes and peek-a-boo sunbeams to generate expensive and intermittent electricity. And it will not be economic to continue building backup gas plants that are run below capacity or sit idle, earning insufficient income as they try to fill the unpredictable production gaps in the supply of green energy. The margin of supply safety will disappear.

Therefore, if we continue to allow green zealots to dictate our electricity generation, blackouts are inevitable. Britain and Germany already face this grim prospect.

All actions have consequences. We cannot continue pouring billions of dollars of community savings down the climate-change sink-hole, without starving our essential infrastructure. We cannot keep adding taxes and political risk to traditional electricity generators without reducing new investment in real base-load generating capacity. And we cannot keep adding unstable solar and wind elements to our electricity network without adding greatly to electricity costs and the risks of network failure.
  
When the lights fail, and the supermarket shelves are cleaned out, we will return, at great cost and after much misery, to cheap reliable continuous electricity using coal, gas or nuclear fuels.

Gaia worshippers will find that "Earth Hour" will not be such fun when it becomes "Earth Week".
Profile Pic
rjr54
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:1,322
Points:446,230
Joined:Feb 2005
Message Posted: Apr 2, 2013 12:04:17 AM

inoculate128

I did not say that they were not qualified to express opinions on climatology. I didn't imply that either. I asked a simple question. I cannot find some information that I wanted to read and I hoped that you could help me find the info. As I have said before I read and study and try to make some sense of it all.

If you think it is so important for me to not read the works done by Dr. Giaever and Dr. Lewis, who am I to argue? I will survive without reading their works.
Profile Pic
thorman52
Champion Author South Bend

Posts:1,618
Points:77,760
Joined:Jan 2009
Message Posted: Apr 1, 2013 10:41:39 PM

rjr54 implies nothing. He's asking a question. With all due respect, please answer it and leave all your side-stepping rhetoric at home.

I think releasing tons of pollution into the atmosphere is kinda on topic, don't ya think? Huh? hmmm!

[Edited by: thorman52 at 4/1/2013 10:45:33 PM EST]
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,337
Points:2,955,495
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 1, 2013 9:37:34 AM

Yes, thorman52, there is pollution in our environment. Fortunately, it's a lot less in North America than it used to be. They Cuyahoga River hasn't caught fire in decades. However, I don't see how that is on topic. THIS topic is about AGW. Your baseless assumption that "We have extreme weather because of fossil fuel emissions." remains completely unsupported by anything that you have presented. Please try to stay on topic.
Profile Pic
inoculate128
Champion Author Tennessee

Posts:16,462
Points:2,211,245
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Apr 1, 2013 6:39:56 AM

rjr54 --

Your question implies that Drs. Giaever and Lewis are somehow not qualified to question the theory of anthropogenic global warming because they did not work in the field of climatology. You realize, I trust, that by your logic, you yourself are also not qualified to discuss that theory for the exact same reason. In the unlikely event that you have indeed published some original work in the field of climatology, please provide a link to it so that we can check it out for ourselves.

If you are seriously interested in evaluating the qualifications of some representative scientists who have published original, and in some cases, pioneering, work in the field of climatology and who, as a direct result of that work, believe(d) that the conclusions presented in the IPCC reports concerning the theory of anthropogenic global warming are incorrect in one or more particulars, this list of a couple of dozen of them should be enough to get you started. You'll notice that it includes such climate science luminaries as Richard Lindzen of MIT, the late Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin (considered the father of the discipline of climatology), two of Dr. Bryson's former students, John Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer, and most recently, Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Syun-Ichi Akasofu
David Archibald
Sallie Baliunas
Tim Ball
Robert C. Balling, Jr.
David Bellamy
Reid Bryson
Robert M. Carter
John Christy
Judith Curry
Freeman Dyson
David Evans
Vincent R. Gray
William M. Gray
Craig D. Idso
Sherwood Idso
Richard M. Lindzen
Bjorn Lomborg
Patrick Michaels
Roger A. Pielke, Sr.
S. Fred Singer
Nir Shaviv
Willie Soon
Roy Spencer
Henrik Svensmark

I sincerely hope this information helps you in your quest for knowledge and understanding.
Profile Pic
dongo50
Champion Author West Virginia

Posts:16,258
Points:2,571,795
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Apr 1, 2013 3:30:34 AM

no
Profile Pic
rjr54
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:1,322
Points:446,230
Joined:Feb 2005
Message Posted: Apr 1, 2013 12:25:18 AM

inoculate128

I see the conversation has continued. And you think I should say something about the research grants your sources have received. My biggest problem with their work is that I cannot find it.

Could you please post a link to the climatology work published by Dr. Ivar Giaever and Dr. Harold Lewis?
Profile Pic
rjr54
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:1,322
Points:446,230
Joined:Feb 2005
Message Posted: Apr 1, 2013 12:24:35 AM

It was great to have a vacation.

But I am back and I have to get up early to work tomorrow.
Profile Pic
thorman52
Champion Author South Bend

Posts:1,618
Points:77,760
Joined:Jan 2009
Message Posted: Mar 31, 2013 12:48:28 PM

YES absolutely. No doubt about it. Is there anyone that can prove that it doesn't? It's pollution. It's not susposed to be in the environment. We breathe this stuff. We have extreme weather because of fossil fuel emissions. It needs to be stopped now. Can anyone tell me what good these emissions do for the people of mother earth? Why do we have to have them? Give me scientific proof, not articles of proof.

Houston on a good/bad day

Smog and Ozone

Risk Pollutants

From the people of Gary

Chicago pollution

Chicago at it's best

And some will say there is no problem. Houston...we have a problem!!!



[Edited by: thorman52 at 3/31/2013 12:52:41 PM EST]
Profile Pic
coffeebrake1015
Champion Author Florida

Posts:1,566
Points:649,010
Joined:May 2012
Message Posted: Mar 29, 2013 2:03:23 PM

no
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,337
Points:2,955,495
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Mar 27, 2013 10:24:16 AM

thorman52 - "Seems to me that you pick and choose what is "real" science and who are "real" scientists. "

I feel that "real" scientists are the ones who utilize the scientific method, where anything may be questioned if you can support your belief.

thorman52 - "My way or the highway has been the standard for some very great people in the past couple of years. The ones counting their money in Barbados."

And it's the AGW supporters who insist that we must not question their conclusions.

thorman52 - "Obscenities huh? Be glad I don't use them and GB doesn't allow them. "

I was, of course, referring to your obscenity that science depends on belief, and varies with belief.
Profile Pic
thorman52
Champion Author South Bend

Posts:1,618
Points:77,760
Joined:Jan 2009
Message Posted: Mar 26, 2013 8:17:59 PM

Seems to me that you pick and choose what is "real" science and who are "real" scientists. My way or the highway has been the standard for some very great people in the past couple of years. The ones counting their money in Barbados.

Obscenities huh? Be glad I don't use them and GB doesn't allow them.
Profile Pic
inoculate128
Champion Author Tennessee

Posts:16,462
Points:2,211,245
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Mar 26, 2013 2:44:06 AM

Warmist criminal honored with 'lifetime achievement award'

"A warmist who has admitted to crimes of fraud is being honored with a 'lifetime achievement award." The Heartland Institute, which was defrauded and victimized by criminal Peter Gleick reports: ..."
Profile Pic
inoculate128
Champion Author Tennessee

Posts:16,462
Points:2,211,245
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2013 11:50:11 AM

10 Reasons Climate-Change Hysterics Continue
"With the global temperature trend practically flat after 15 years and expected to decline, why is climate-change hysteria still alive and kicking? Everybody wins!"
Profile Pic
HFAJR0034
Champion Author New Mexico

Posts:10,001
Points:1,759,810
Joined:Jul 2009
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2013 9:42:23 AM

n
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,337
Points:2,955,495
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2013 9:26:09 AM

"There are hidden contradictions within the minds of people who “love nature” while deploring the “artificialities” with which “Man has spoiled ‘Nature.” The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of “Nature”--but beavers and their damns are. But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-facie absurdity. In declaring his love for a beaver damn (erected by beavers for beaver’s purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for the purpose of men) the “Naturist” reveals his hatred for his own race--i.e., his own self-hatred. In the case of “Naturists” such self—hatred is understandable; they are such a sorry lot. But hatred is too strong an emotion to feel toward them; pity and contempt are the most they rate. As for me, willy-nilly I am a man, not a beaver, and H. Sapiens is the only race I have or can have. Fortunately for me, I like being part of a race made up of men and women-- it strikes me as a fine arrangement and perfectly “natural.” Believe it or not, there were “Naturists” who opposed the first flight to old Earth’s Moon as being “unnatural” and a “despoiling of nature.” " - Robert Heinlein

I'd also like to add that this quotation was written long before the AGW movement got started.

Let me get this straight, thorman52. You actually believe that science is what the experts say is true?

[Edited by: ldheinz at 3/25/2013 9:36:19 AM EST]
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,337
Points:2,955,495
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2013 5:50:58 AM

thorman52 - "Craziness. What would we do without science?"

We'd end up with nonsense like AGW, that's what we'd do without science.

thorman52 - "Boils down to what you want to believe and what motivates that belief. Usually money. "

And you demonstrate your total contempt for Science with that obscenity. Science doesn't give a whit about anyone's belief. Science is a method for separating reality from belief. And reality:

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick

BTW, Richard Feynman won the Nobel Prize in Physics, and was voted one of the top 10 physicists of all time. He was a REAL Scientist, not one of those money-oriented hacks that you admire so much.

[Edited by: ldheinz at 3/25/2013 5:58:48 AM EST]
Topic is locked Back to Topics