BS: Palin v. Gore...

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Dec 09 - 05:01 PM

Well, enough of these pleasantries, I do hope Ms Sarah manages to see off Hillary the Hawk and become the first female president of the US, we all want to see change....real change....systemic change and it obviously aint gonna come from Mr Obama who is turning out to be a creature of the system, just as I predicted.

Tear the labels off Ms Sarah, and she might just prove woman enough to unite all the factions...just like Joan of Arc....mind you the bastards burnt Joan at the stake!!

Now that would give the trolls a right good laugh....eh gnu?

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Dec 09 - 05:43 PM

Jaysus!!

Now, if that isn't an obvious piece of trolling!

PEE-YOOO!!!

Don Firth (holding nose)

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Dec 09 - 05:57 PM

Well, the thing is that Ms. Sarah has found the soft spot in the liberal agenda and is going to pound away at it... Hey, smart politics...

But it ain't like humans aren't responsible for global warming it's just that it is impossible to prove beyond the political shadow of doubt and thus you have the big energy companies allready punching the soft spot and tellin' folks that if the Climate Bill (which hasn't even been written yet) is passed that efvryone's taxes are going to go up... Smart politics.. Hey, the voters don't know squat about stuff so what's to lose???

Meanwhile Ms. Sarah is gonna pound away on poor ol' Al Gore until he does the impossible and that is ***prove*** that greenhouse gases are responsible for global warming...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 12:35 AM

I think we may well be contributing to Global Warming some, Bobert, but I don't think we caused it. I don't think we're the primary factor that caused it, because I think it's cyclical. That's where Al Gore and I differ.

Al Gore and I agree, however, on the wisdom of reducing our harmful industrial emissions and helping to clean up the air and the rest of the environment, regardless of whether we caused Global Warming or not.

I just don't buy his specific theory about it, that's all, but I do agree on cleaning up our act. Given that I want to do the same thing that he wants to do (in a general sense)...what's the problem with my disagreeing about his theory? What difference will it make to what happens?

No difference. And I know it.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Alice
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 12:42 AM

It's not Al Gore's theory.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 12:52 AM

Ezactly. "Al Gore" is just a handy tag to lay the bundle of burden on. Kind of like when people of Alaska say they don't like what's going on in Juneau- they actually are talking about the lawmakers they themselves sent to the capital city.

Al Gore is a spokesperson for this "inconvenient truth" and an excellent one but it isn't his theory. If he were removed from the scene tomorrow our dilemma would not be lessened in any way.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Alice
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 12:52 AM

US Global Change Research Program codified by Congresss, 1989

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Amos
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 06:24 AM

Little Hawk:

I don't think you know Al Gore or his theory well. He would be the firt one to acknowledge the cyclical component in the temperature chart. The problem is not the cyclical aspect of warming, it is the anomalous part that breaks out of the whole prior range.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 02:30 PM

Much confusion over the scientific finding, partly because of simplistic language directed at a public whom is considered incapable of understanding anything more complicated than 2 + 2 = 4.
There are two aspects to the argument; climatic change as a result of natural earth processes, and change brought about by human activities.

Climatic change has occurred throughout geologic history, as the earth's axis changes in inclination and (possibly) solar intensity variance. These changes are often referred to as cyclical, although there is more irregularity than regularity to the intervals.
In part of Tertiary time, the inclination was such that the Canadian Arctic Islands had a temperature approximating that of the Carolinas, with plant and animal life (including alligators) that offer evidence of of the strong effect. Large peat and soft coal deposits are widespread in the Arctic.
Much closer to our times, a cooler shift brought the ice ages, with warmer interglacial intervals. The last ice to affect North America impinged on northern Minnesota, some 11,000 years ago.
Many lesser shifts since then have affected man and his agriculture.

That we have shifted into a warming period is evident from the melting of the icecaps and the glaciers, the first ship to to navigate the Northwest Passage unaided (this year), partial destruction of coral beds and the shifts in marine faunas, variance in plant distribution, and other changes.

The effects of human activity are the points being argued today.

The Industrial Revolution marks the beginning of industries that burn much fuel, wood from forests or fossil fuels such as coal and, later, petroleum.
That such activities are affecting the environment is evident from analyses of ice cores taken in the Arctic and Antarctic. From the time of the Industrial Revolution, carbon dioxide and other 'greenhouses' increase in amount, becoming exponential over the last 100 years or so as more and more fossil fuels are burned and forests are stripped.
Alarmingly, toxic chemical residues made their appearance in the analyses.

How large are these man-made effects on climate? Regardless of the temperature effect, our atmosphere is being polluted, this alone should call for action.

Moreover, if (doubtfully) man's activities are not contributing to temperature increase, the 'natural' changes are enough to cause concern. Low-lying population and agricultural centers such as the Bangladesh and other deltas could be inundated, some island populations could be looking for a new home (Maldives), loss of mountain glaciers (Himalayas, etc.) impinges agriculture and human activity that needs the meltwater, decreases in rainfall cause drought, etc.
Should not these natural shifts also be planned for and contingencies formed?

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 02:37 PM

I've been an astronomy and earth sciences buff since I was a kid and my Dad bought me a couple of science books. I've been interested all my life in such things as the birth and evolution of stars, how the earth came to be, plate tectonics, what makes a volcano work, that sort of thing.

But a pretty good catch-up course is "The Making of the Earth," a series on the History Channel (available on DVD, I think).

Astronomers, meteorologists, oceanographers, and earth scientists in general have pretty well plotted the earth's normal cycles—and the normal cycles of the sun that affect the earth. As Amos points out, what has them concerned is the recent anomalies—deviations—from those cycles, particularly the measurable increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that began with the advent of the industrial revolution and has been accelerating since. And with the inevitable effects thereof.

Al Gore is merely reporting these findings.

And—

Well, you know—

Kill the Messenger!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 02:41 PM

By "his" theory...I mean the theory he espouses not that he invented it. I'm not suggesting he owns the theory or that he was the first to come up with it, merely that he publicly espouses it.

And, as I say, since I also want to clean up the air and the environment, the same as he does....and since I'm only one person on a planet of 6 billion and my opinion won't change jack shit...what difference does it make if I don't believe exactly what Al Gore believes about it? Why let it trouble you?

Keep this in mind, and you won't get nearly so het up about my heretical opinions on the subject. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 03:24 PM

Little Hawk, Amos is correct in stating that Al Gore recognizes both geologic and human causes of global warming.
I have read a bit of his book, which one of my daughters bought, and he does not minimize the natural effects.
He does concentrate on changes resulting from man's activities. Opponents pick on this portion of his book to the exclusion of all else.

Not all energy companies are opposed to changes to cut greenhouse emissions.
Chevron presents their views succinctly in this article; they do recognize that man is affecting the planet's climate. Shell and others have research programs studying the problem, many with well-qualified scientists in their laboratories. Even Exxon-Mobil, perhaps the most 'business-oriented'and a critic of many greenhouse submissions, has contributed to the battery cells needed by electric cars and has other research underway in their labs; remember, there is money to be made for investors in 'green' science and change is in the air. BP has a unit making solar panels, etc.
Palin is completely out-of-touch.

The link is too long for me, the luddite, but here is part of it-
"Climate Change"
http://www.chevron.com/globalissues/climate change/...
I found it by googling "Al Gore, climate change. Maybe a reader of this thread can link it.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: EBarnacle
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 03:24 PM

Akenaton, LH, whether or not our emissions cause global warming, it is possible to deny that we would be better off with cleaner air, land and water? What difference does it make as to cause if we can make Earth a better, less foul place...and if Gaea cools off a little that would be real nice, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 03:29 PM

The Chevron article may be found by clicking onto "Global Issues" within the Chevron website:
Chevron

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 03:35 PM

Ebarnacle, I have said over and over that we would be better off with cleaner air, land and water...

You and I have no argument there.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: pdq
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 04:06 PM

Global Warming hawkers calling Global Warming skeptics names has become a serious problem.

Is one says that CO₂ is a necessasry part of the air, people say you are in favor of polluting the air.

Is one says that human beings are not responsible for the (slight) rise in CO₂ over the last 150 years, you are compared to Hitler.

The GW hawkers are losing their audience. Honest scientists left this type of discussion a long time ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 04:07 PM

The problem is, that if man made pollution is destroying life on earth and I'm sure it is, what exactly are we going to do about it.....recycle our newspapers?

Already capitalism is moving East, finding undeveloped countries, cheap raw materials and slave labour.
Soon the whole world will be a reeking workshop, because capitalism cannot stop expanding, if it does, it dies....and its leaders will ensure that while there is a cent of profit to be squeezed from planet Earth and its inhabitants, the system will go on!

Anyone seriously wishing to start reversing the damage already done, will have to accept a drastic lowering of living standards, on a scale almost unthinkable at present......central heating, production and use of electricity, mass production of consumables, importation of food and raw materials, foreign travel for social purposes and a host of other energy wasteful activities would have to be curtailed or banned.......putting these measures into practice might just be possible......after the riots had been put down and the leaders shot.....but how are we going to stop the huge populations of China and India from trying to attain the standard of living that we have enjoyed for the last sixty or seventy years?
Are we prepared to be serious about global warming? Or do we just like talking about it? If it is a reality are we already too late to have any effect? What about "human rights" a matter which concerns many here, how do peoples rights fit into any mission to save the planet?

Or do we just give up, admit that capitalism and technology have fucked us and the planet.....steal what we need to survive another few decades and let the future look after itself....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: EBarnacle
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 04:50 PM

pdq Percentage of CO2 in the air is the issue, not whether there should be CO2.

Whether or not we are responsible for the increase in greenhouse gasses in the air, the increase corresponds to both our emissions and our removal of the biosphere's ability to handle the increased emissions. If you look at the temperatures of Venus, Jupiter and Mars, they are all higher than can be accounted for by direct solar radiation, very likely due to the preponderance of greenhouse gasses in their atmospheres not allowing as much thermal reradiation as the "thinner atmosphere" planets allow.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 05:09 PM

China is the biggest producer, and user, of solar panels.

Their big problem is coal-fired industry and energy. They have made a promise and a target to reduce emissions- will they fulfill on their promises?

China, in some ways, is reminiscent of early days in the expansion of Western industry. Like the U. S. in the early 20th century, they have an industrial, fast-moving citified east, and a large rural area to the west.
Their modernization only started with the the end of Mao populism some 30-40 years ago; their pace is amazing.
I wouldn't give up on China, they have a hard-headed but practical leadership.

India seems to lack direction; they have a developing industry, but only a small part of the population seems to be involved. I haven't seen any real movement towards protection of their water supplies which are already depleting because of melting in the Himalayas and improper or uncontrolled use. A few talkers but no action.
Like akenaten, I can't find any committment on their part.

Unlike akenaten, however, I see that capitalism has benefited our lives; its direction, however, must be governed, and too many people subscribe to the "I'm all right, Jack" philosophy.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 05:38 PM

"Unlike akenaten, however, I see that capitalism has benefited our lives; its direction, however, must be governed, and too many people subscribe to the "I'm all right, Jack" philosophy"

That statement Q, is plumb full of contradictions!

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 06:22 PM

Oh?

Of course communists believe in something that is impossible.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 06:37 PM

Come on, one cant be naive for ever....Being Capitalist-phobic doesn't always mean one is a communist.
I was a party member for a number of years, but long since realised that if there is an answer it will be a personal one and not to be found in any political ideology.
What's all that to do with global warming?

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 08:03 PM

Well, Q, some very logical arguments... The problem is that alot of folks, including LH, don't hear in these arguments "proof positive"... Some, like LH, think we should not be burning so many things because the burning pollutes the air and the environoment... That's okay wth me and maybe that is the argument that needs to be pushed ahead of the global warming argument... I mean, until the scientists can prove that this burning is causing global warming, especially since you still have so many flat-earther so-called scientists that are employed by the polluters then maybe we need to change our arguments to ones that are less vulnerable...

BTW, for the right wing the global warming argument is alot like their demands that Saddam didn't have WMD's... It's unfair but it palys well to folks who really are clueless...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 08:33 PM

Al Gore and I agree, however, on the wisdom of reducing our harmful industrial emissions and helping to clean up the air and the rest of the environment, regardless of whether we caused Global Warming or not.

I just don't buy his specific theory about it, that's all, but I do agree on cleaning up our act. Given that I want to do the same thing that he wants to do (in a general sense)...what's the problem with my disagreeing about his theory? What difference will it make to what happens?

True enough Little Hawk - the puzzle is how all this speculation about the causes of Global Warming can be used by the likes of Palin as grounds for trying to block moves to stop humans continuing to make things worse.

It's like arguing about the causes of a fire rather than doing what we can to stop it burning us all up. Orvrather, it's like actively sabotaging the efforts of the firefighters, and setting new fires. There are people who do precisely that, and they are not very nice people.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 08:35 PM

I agree that "burning things" pollutes the environment and the pollution is very heavy. Much can be done to limit pollution by proper technology, however, without seriously lowering the standard of living.

I don't know that pushing this argument rather than global warming would do any good- the Republicans are interested only in defeating Obama's efforts and making him appear ineffectual so that they can win seats in the next congressional balloting and, in 2012, regain the White House.

I am afraid that they will succeed. My politics tend to be conservative, but the core membership of the Republican Party seems to be 'plain dumb'.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: EBarnacle
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 11:36 PM

"We've got to pause and ask ourselves: How much clean air do we need?"
--Lee Iacocca

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 07:58 AM

I agree that we should reduce pollution.

But why do you think we can STOP GW by those efforts??? IMO we are wasting the time that we should be using to ADJUST TO GW, since it will occur regardless of what man does- the MOST we can do is speed it up a little ( at higher levels of CO2 than we are presently at- compare yearly CO2 to a single volcanic eruption).


"If you look at the temperatures of Venus, Jupiter and Mars, they are all higher than can be accounted for by direct solar radiation,"

Melting Martian icecaps, and major climactic change to Jupiter-

And how much CO2 have we put into the atmosphere of Mars or Jupiter? The sun is known ( except to Al Gore) as a variable star- NO ARGUEMENT ALLOWED! So how will reducing the CO2 help, when the increased solar flux alone will increase the water vapor ( a more effective greenjouse gas than CO2) by a greater amount than the CO2 in the atmosphere???

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 08:12 AM

Well, Q, I've read that the fundamentalism preachers are all over the "pollution" arguments but not so many on the "global warming" arguements...

Political expediency, I would think, would trump...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 10:47 AM

Water vapor is self regulating as compared to co2.
More water vapor means more clouds. Clouds reflect sunlight back into space.

also substantial increases of energy of the sun would make green house effects moot wouldn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Amos
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 11:03 AM

This is kinda silly, really. Gore is forwarding research results and fact-based analyses. Palin is forwarding knee-jerk politically-driven reactions and overheated rhetorical soundbites. Comparing them is an exercise in absurdity.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 11:56 AM

I thought that Palin was forwarding a distillation of the arguments that billions of dollars in energy company money can buy.

The thing about climate change is that though most would suffer enormously, some stand to make out much better with the status quo. In fact, right now, denying is where the money is.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 12:01 PM

Amos,

"Gore is forwarding research results and fact-based analyses."

THAT is what is in doubt-


Follow the MONEY- HOW MUCH money and power has Gore ( and the GW "hotheads") gotten that they would not have if GW was shown to be a natural thing?

And what have ANY of them done to help prepare for LIVING WITH GW, as opposed to claiming that they could stop it, if it wasn't for all those people who don't have "true religion" and believe blindly that Saint Gore can make everything right, if we just give him money and power?

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 12:40 PM

"Follow the MONEY- HOW MUCH money and power has Gore ( and the GW "hotheads") gotten that they would not have if GW was shown to be a natural thing?

"And what have ANY of them done to help prepare for LIVING WITH GW, as opposed to claiming that they could stop it, if it wasn't for all those people who don't have "true religion" and believe blindly that Saint Gore can make everything right, if we just give him money and power? "

Could not the reverse be asked as easily? How much money are the naysayers getting from the powers that stand to lose bundles if the nation/world starts cutting back?

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Amos
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 12:49 PM

They don't claim any such thing, Bruce, and you are being disingenuous. They claim we can reverse the greatest exacerbating factor. Your assertion that "it is a natural thing" is ignoring the orders of magnitude. The natural heating of the planet due to cyclical factors, minus the exaggeration caused by anthropogenic additives, is not a major issue. Add the carbon problem, which is demonstrably a human contribution, and it breaks out of the ordinary variations by an order of magnitude.

That said, it is possible that mankind will be able to redistribute itself all over the globe, flee from new deserts and encroach on melted permafrosts and rebuild without causing major catastrophic conflicts. What's a few polar bears between friends, right? But it is not likely.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 01:03 PM

"The natural heating of the planet due to cyclical factors, minus the exaggeration caused by anthropogenic additives, is not a major issue."

And the fact thet we do not have mammoths and giant sloths still running around? I fear your statement is not valid.

Oh, seen any dinosaurs, lately??

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 01:15 PM

It is my understanding that Mammoths and other mega fauna are not running around due to hunting by man. I don't see where "GW" enters into it.

The rise of mammals and ultimately humans, came about after the fall of the dinosaurs. Are you saying we should make way for the next species?

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 01:15 PM

Perhaps it would be more fun to compare Palin's and Gore's wardrobes and hairstyles, Amos? ;-)

I don't think her comments on Global Warming being a result of natural cycles indicate much (if any) knowlege on her part, I think she just got lucky because she would naturally oppose anything Al Gore says, and Al Gore's not infallible (at least I doubt that he is...whaddya think?) so he might be mistaken about something now and then...in which case, if Sarah opposes him on THAT particular thing...which she naturally will and with no hesitation at all...then she gets to be right by default on that particular thing whether she knows much about it or not.

After all, even a non-functional watch is right twice a day.

Think about it. You could pick anyone at all...just contradict everything they ever say...and sooner or later you'd be right about something and they'd be wrong...even if you were a complete moron.

It might take a long time........but imagine the thrill of triumph when you finally end up catching them in an error. ;-)

I knew a guy who couldn't win a chess game against me (or anyone else we knew) but he kept on trying. He was a pretty lousy chess player, but he was determined to persevere till he beat me. Well, it must have been our fiftieth game, and my own overconfidence or just plain lack of attention betrayed me and I got so busy thinking about a trap I was laying for him that I completely forgot that his bishop was aiming at my queen (after I moved this other piece to set the trap).

He saw it, but he could hardly believe it, so he spent about five minutes sweating bullets, thinking that I wanted him to take my queen for some reason that would prove fatal to him. I wondered what the hell he was thinking about so hard...then I saw it. OUCH! Would he do the obvious? Well, he finally did, and there went my queen. At this point I had to start playing REALLY HARD! Yessir. I put up a fine defence, and it took a long time, but he finally managed to wear me down and got the checkmate...........

And he went absolutely berserk.

He leaped up, and started yelling things like: "WHO IS THE CHAMP? I AM THE CHAMP! YOU STINK! YOU ARE USELESS! I'M NEVER F**KIN' PLAYING YOU AGAIN! YOU STINK, MAN! YOU ARE THE WORST F**KIN' CHESS PLAYER I EVER PLAYED AND I AM NEVER PLAYIN' YOU AGAIN!" He danced all around the room in a frenzy yelling stuff like that for the next couple of minutes. Yes, this is the joy that comes over someone who has never won a game before, and if he's just a tad...um shall we say...immature...then he may react somewhat as my friend did.

It was pretty amusing, and probably one of the greatest moments Jim ever had. As it turned out, he refused to play me for about 3 weeks after that so he could preserve his "winner's" lustre for awhile and tell everyone how badly I "stink" at chess. ;-D

Then things got back to normal.

I betcha Al Gore gets caught now and then just the way I did. If so, Sarah Palin can dance around the room and yell "WHO IS THE CHAMP?" or something to that effect.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 01:25 PM

There are three major drawbacks to adjusting to GW or just letting it taking its course.

Uncertainty,
The overall climate of the Earth is well suited to man as it is. Any dramatic change is likely to be for the worse.

Expense.
On a global scale it would be cheaper to decrease the effects than deal with them. Conservation now is way cheaper than dealing with drought, storms and displacement.

Conflict,

As disparity and desperation increase war becomes inevitable. Even the US military, not known for its left leanings predicts conflict if the GW trend continues.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 01:32 PM

Little Hawk,

Are you "playing chess" with Amos right now? :-)
You haven't "taken his queen" any more than Palin has taken Gore's.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 01:36 PM

No, Jack, I'm just having fun reminiscing about old times in the early 70s. My guess is that Amos would be an excellent chess player. I eventually gave up on chess, because I find it uses up too much energy if you play it seriously. That's okay when you're young and you've got a ton of energy, but I just began to find it exhausting after I hit about 50.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 01:48 PM

You seem to have contradicted people on this thread then ignored well stated arguments to yours while repeating your original point. It seems like SOME sort of game. I thought you were playing with Amos. If you were just having fun reminiscing with no other purpose, then please forgive me.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 02:49 PM

Gore's two books on climate change are useful for the data he presents, and the citations. One can use these to find original references, and evaluate the information for oneself. Both are available in cheap paperback.
Titles are "An Inconvenient Truth," and "Our Choice."

Simplified versions for children are published under the same titles, so check closely if you are ordering from a site rather than getting them at your bookshop.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 03:05 PM

"The sun is known ( except to Al Gore) as a variable star- NO ARGUEMENT ALLOWED!"

REALLY!???

The sun is a G2V-spectral class main-sequence star, approximately 20% more massive than the average main-sequence star. Other than quite healthy and husky, it is exactly like the vast majority of stars in the universe.

Like all stars, different latitudes rotate at different rates (like Jupiter, which was on it's way to being a star, but fell way short in accumulating enough mass), which, over a few years, mis-aligns its magnetic field. Every eleven years, the magnetic field re-aligns itself, and this is the cause of sun-spots and solar flares. It also goes through longer term cycles, such as a minimum periodic sunspot activity in the 17th century, decreasing luminosity over a few of the 11-year cycles, which lowered the earth's temperature by a few degrees, causing what has been referred to as "the Little Ice Age" in Europe.

There is no indication that such an increase or diminution of luminosity is occurring at the present time, save for the normal, expected 11-year sunspot cycle, which is due to reach its peak in 2012, then wan again.

And no indication of a longer term increase in luminosity occurring at the present time.

In fact:

1. It is currently in the midst of an unusual sunspot minimum, lasting far longer and with a higher percentage of spotless days than normal; since May 2008, predictions of an imminent rise in activity have been regularly made and as regularly debunked by the astronomical community.
2. It is measurably dimming; its output has dropped 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths in comparison with the levels at the last solar minimum.
3. Over the last two decades, the solar wind's speed had dropped 3%, its temperature 13%, and it's density 20%

Although it has not lasted long enough to indicate a trend, if anything, the sun is cooling, which would tend to point to a repetition of the 17th century's "little ice age." Yet, the mean temperature of the earth has gone UP within the past century, accelerating within the past few decades.

This "The sun is growing warmer" is a favorite dodge of opponents of warnings about human-caused global warming, but it is a) not true, and b) bad science.

Astronomers do not generally regard the sun to be a "variable" star in the sense that opponents of human-caused global warming intend. There are many variable stars in the universe, referred to as "Cepheid variables," and their periodicity is usually short-term, waxing and waning within a few days or weeks, and their spectral characteristics in combination with their clocklike regularity has proven useful to astronomers in determining stellar distances.

If regarded as a "variable" star at all, the sun would fall under the category of an "eruptive" variable, a star that experiences regular eruptions on their surfaces, like flares or mass ejections, as a result of the star's adjusting its periodic rotational misalignments of its magnetic field. This includes our sun, which I have dealt with above. All main sequence stars like our sun do this.

And astronomers do not generally put them into the class of "variables."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Amos
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 03:21 PM

Little Hawk was drawing a very long shaggy metaphor for the relationship between Sarah's semi-mindless assertions and Gore's analytical ones. While the metaphor is somewhat apt, it took an awful long time getting htere. In the final analysis, LH spent a LONG time explaining that he agreed with what I said earlier!! :D He just had to change the words around so it wouldn't look like he agreed with something I said!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Amos
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 03:27 PM

Two pages of counterpoint to "Deniergate" from New Scietist.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 03:44 PM

Don, sometimes I am amused by the peculiar juxtaposition of unrelated material posted by beardedbruce, but perhaps it is best to ignore him. Your concise post on the nature of our sun, however, does cover one of bb's queer injections into this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: pdq
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 04:23 PM

In answer to the statements found in the New Scientist article linked above:

"In September 2006, New Scientist was criticised by science fiction writer Greg Egan, who wrote that 'a sensationalist bent and a lack of basic knowledge by its writers' was making the magazine's coverage sufficiently unreliable 'to constitute a real threat to the public understanding of science'. In particular, Egan found himself 'gobsmacked by the level of scientific illiteracy' in the magazine's coverage of Roger Shawyer's 'electromagnetic drive', where New Scientist allowed the publication of 'meaningless double-talk' designed to bypass a fatal objection to Shawyer's proposed space drive, namely that it violates the conservation of momentum. Egan urged others to write to New Scientist and pressure the magazine to raise its standards, instead of 'squandering the opportunity that the magazine's circulation and prestige provides'.

The New Scientist editor replied defending the article, saying that it is 'an ideas magazine—that means writing about hypotheses as well as theories'."

{note: real science does not sell enough magazine copies to make publishers rich}

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 04:38 PM

Yeah, Q, I'm always amazed at how someone will post something absolutely bogus in an attempt to support their untenable position, someone else comes along with more than enough authoritative and accurate information to absolutely bury them—and then, like one of those inflatable punching-bag dolls, they (or someone else) will bounce right back and post the same crap again!

Astounding!

Makes for long and tedious threads.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Amos
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 04:40 PM

PDQ:

The article I linked to was actually a compendium of facts, none of which you seem to want to address. There is nothing hypothetical about it, which makes your snarky rebuttal kind of pointless in the context.

Furthermore it says nothing about the laws of thermodynamics, so I wonder what your point really is?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 04:56 PM

The New Scientist is not a peer-reviewed periodical; as its editor states (pdq post) it is an "ideas magazine" (and sort of a science news brief magazine)that often has stories that are not firmly based on scientific fact but are meant to catch the interest of people who are not professional scientists. Pdq's posted description is accurate.