|
30 Aug 11 - 10:56 AM (#3215155) Subject: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won't be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth. The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world's largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth's atmosphere. In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth's atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun's magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth's atmosphere (the stronger the sun's magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100102296/sun-causes-climate-change-shock/ |
|
30 Aug 11 - 11:01 AM (#3215165) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce "We and others have documented the manipulated and edited data used by Britain's Climate Research Unit to "hide the decline" in global temperature, and fraudulent assessments by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change with conclusions based on single-source anecdotes from obscure journals. They all have been well-funded. No one has made more money from climate change hype than Gore. According to the U.K.'s Guardian newspaper, just one of the "green" companies in which Gore has invested has received over half a billion dollars in subsidies from the Energy Department." http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/583159/201108291855/Perry-Vs-Gore.htm |
|
30 Aug 11 - 11:02 AM (#3215167) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Jack Campin I can't find anything on CERN's site that relates to this and I am not about to trust the Telegraph's spin on it. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 11:10 AM (#3215174) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: pdq When you talk about Al Gore and "green", you are talking about "long green", aka "money". Check this out... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/09/collapse-chicago-climate-exchange-means-strategy-shift-global-warming-curbs/ |
|
30 Aug 11 - 11:14 AM (#3215175) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce "NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed. Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models. " http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html |
|
30 Aug 11 - 11:16 AM (#3215177) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce If you bother to read the article, instead of blowing it off: "So if it's so great, why aren't we hearing more about it? Well, possibly because the Director General of CERN Rolf-Dieter Heuer would prefer it that way. Here's how he poured cold water on the results in an interview with Die Welt Online: I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters. Nigel Calder, who has been following the CLOUD experiment for some time, was the first to smell a rat. He notes: CERN has joined a long line of lesser institutions obliged to remain politically correct about the man-made global warming hypothesis. It's OK to enter "the highly political arena of the climate change debate" provided your results endorse man-made warming, but not if they support Svensmark's heresy that the Sun alters the climate by influencing the cosmic ray influx and cloud formation. and The once illustrious CERN laboratory ceases to be a truly scientific institute when its Director General forbids its physicists and visiting experimenters to draw the obvious scientific conclusions from their results Lubos Motl, too, detects some double standards here: One could perhaps understand if all scientists were similarly gagged and prevented from interpreting the results of their research in ways that could be relevant for policymaking. However, the main problem is that many people who are trying to work on very different phenomena in the climate are not prevented from interpreting – and indeed, overinterpreting and misinterpreting – their results that are often less serious, less reliable, and less rigorous, perhaps by orders of magnitude, than the observations by the European Organization for Nuclear Research. Moreover, this sentence by Heuer One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.is really a proof of his prejudice. Whether the cosmic radiation is just one player or the only relevant player or an important player or an unimportant player is something that this very research has been supposed to determine or help to determine. An official doesn't have the moral right to predetermine in advance what "one has to make clear" about these a priori unknown scientific results. " |
|
30 Aug 11 - 11:18 AM (#3215181) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce Jack, WHY don't you check the REFERENCE????? "The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature," Or is the possibility thet you have been lied to ( to make Gore et al rich), and spread those lies, too much for you to imagine?????? |
|
30 Aug 11 - 11:21 AM (#3215184) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Bill D Oh right... an article written by James Delingpole "James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including 365 Ways to Drive a Liberal Crazy, Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work, How To Be Right, and the Coward series of WWII adventure novels. " ...where he castigates CERN for NOT drawing 'obvious' conclusions from one line of data. He quotes the Director as saying: "I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters." ... then he turns THAT into a refusal to make the leap into the political arena based on some sort of cowardice. All the 'science' shows in that solar activity and cosmic rays can, under certain conditions, add to the proclivity for warming. ...But, since Delingpole "is right about everything." It MUST be true that this attempt to "drive liberals crazy" is right on target. Quick, lets buy stock in wildlife sanctuaries in Alaska and tar sands in Canada, as we now know that more burning carbon won't make any difference~! |
|
30 Aug 11 - 11:23 AM (#3215186) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Bill D By the way... the thread title is a complete distortion of what CERN said. They did NOT make the conclusion you assert. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 11:24 AM (#3215187) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Bill D ...and I did read the article. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 11:28 AM (#3215191) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: pdq Typical close-minded knee-jerk response: trash the author. I have a batchelors degree and 9 units toward a masters in "hard" science. Many friends are also in science and they all recognize the Global Warming scare as junk science. It's an attempt at a multi-trillion dollar shakedown. Albert A-hole Gore made ove 1/2 a billion dollars himself. See my link about the Carbon Credit collapse. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 11:30 AM (#3215192) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Jack Campin WHY don't you check the REFERENCE????? "The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature," Nature is pay to view and I don't have a subscription. CERN, as a publicly funded institution, makes its stuff available free. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters. Sounds fair enough, and exactlty the sort of thing far-right journos are paid to ignore. Who has ever denied there are also non-anthropogenic factors involved in climate variation? (Volcanic eruptions, Mihailovic oscillations, there are lots of them which have been known for decades). The issue is which factors matter most in practical terms and whether we need to do something about them. By now there is no dispute about that among any climate scientists with a clue. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 11:31 AM (#3215194) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce BillD, What was that logical flaw you talked about, where one attacks the person making a claim rather than attacking the facts that are presented??? "Philosopher, heal thyself." |
|
30 Aug 11 - 11:32 AM (#3215195) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Bill D The author trashes himself with that cutesy statement about 'always being right' and having a mission to drive liberals crazy. Let's see what the experts (other than PDQ's 'friends') say in coming weeks. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 11:36 AM (#3215198) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce BillD, "The author trashes himself with that cutesy statement about 'always being right' " So, YOU admit that Gore et al are wrong? THEY insist that they are always right, don't they??? |
|
30 Aug 11 - 11:37 AM (#3215200) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Bill D Bruce, old bean.... read my reply to pdq. If a liberal **journalist** told you that HE was "always right", I can imagine your response. CERN said what CERN was supposed to say... that they had some data on one issue. Your conservative author is saying that they should have drawn more conclusions from it. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 11:39 AM (#3215202) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce A previous post of mine was lost/.removed: "Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models. " THE MODEL THAT GORE IS USING HAS BEEN PROVEN WRONG. BillD: "real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models" |
|
30 Aug 11 - 11:39 AM (#3215203) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Bill D No Bruce... Gore et al say that available science indicates that there is a problem. They do **NOT** generalize to assertions about themselves. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 11:41 AM (#3215205) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce BillD, YOUR liberal politician is saying that we should have drawn conclusions that he desires from bad models to make him more money. AND YOU JUSTIFY IT.. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 11:51 AM (#3215209) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Bill D Sorry...but that "make him more money" bit is your interpretation. The way your shrill jibe reads, Gore has no other agenda than to make money on false science. I have followed Gore's scientific articles for 16 years, and I see only attempts to find out what is happening and report it as accurately as possible. Wanta discuss Sarah Palin's $$reasons$$ for pretending to run for office? No? ....right Bad models? We will check that...that can be tested. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 11:58 AM (#3215214) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce BillD, The effect of the GW political scare is to put money into the hands of Gore et al, and to both drive up food prices for the majority of the world AND keep most people under-developed and under the control of certain groups. Now that Gore has HIS mansion, SUV, and jet, he is working to ensure that others do not get what he has. Please do check some facts- and stop attacking anyone who brings up contrary information to what supports what YOU support: TRY to see what the facts presented mean. When the GW "pushers" look at the data that contradicts them, instead of attacking those who present it, and try to either explain how THEIR theory deals with it, or modify the theory to account for real-world facts, THEN they can claim to be using science. I have not seen this up to this time. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 12:19 PM (#3215231) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Bill D "...he is working to ensure that others do not get what he has." That does not deserve a serious response. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 12:28 PM (#3215233) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: pdq "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket..." ~ Barack Obama, 2008 He is now systematically attacking coal powered electricity generation plants through the EPA and demanding they retrofit all plants with billion dollar pollution controls. Most will simply shut down. Great for our sick economy, eh? |
|
30 Aug 11 - 12:33 PM (#3215234) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Bill D You want to document exactly what you claim 'he' is doing, pdq? Or is this just a synopsis of something you heard on Fox? |
|
30 Aug 11 - 12:41 PM (#3215237) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Jack the Sailor Bruce, this is a really really simple issue. Show us a statement from CERN mentioning "global warming" and saying that it is not man made, or once again show yourself to be a fabricator. If becomes very very tedious seeing this process unfold, hundreds of data points that there is climate change. Humanity doing hundreds of things to increase it, such as deforestation, burning fossil carbon, turning our pastureland into methane factories, and then for each new data point showing that there are other factors, which, incidentally, is considered a given in the scientific community. Assholes stand up and crow about "proof" that "global warming" which is not a phenomena the scientists are claiming to exist, does not exist. I guess, it is convenient and fun to bash Al Gore. But surely you realize that his is not the source of the data. He is simply repeating the findings of others. Others who are too busy doing real scientific work to defend themselves from your bullshit. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 12:42 PM (#3215239) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: pdq Utility giant AEP says it will close five coal plants to comply with EPA regs By Andrew Restuccia - 06/09/11 03:55 PM ET Utility giant American Electric Power said Thursday that it will shut down five coal-fired power plants and spend billions of dollars to comply with a series of pending Environmental Protection Agency regulations. The company's dramatic plan to comply with the regulations could give Republicans and moderate Democrats ammunition in their ongoing fight against EPA's efforts to impose new regulations aimed at limiting greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants including mercury and arsenic. Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) immediately pounced on AEP's announcement. "This is a perfect example of the EPA implementing rules and regulations without considering the devastating impact they may have on local economies and jobs," Capito said. Capito said she will write a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson asking whether the agency took into account the economic impact of its regulations. "Let me be clear, it's decisions like the one made by AEP today that demonstrate the urgent need to rein in government agencies like the EPA, preventing them from overstepping their bounds and imposing regulations that not only cost us good American jobs, but hurt our economy," said Manchin, an outspoken critic of the EPA. But EPA defended its regulations Thursday, noting that the agency has worked closely with industry to ensure that its regulations are "reasonable, common-sense and achievable." The agency also stressed that the regulations are essential for protecting public health. "These reasonable steps taken under the Clean Air Act will reduce harmful air pollution, including mercury, arsenic and other toxic pollution, and as a result protect our families, particularly children," EPA said in a statement. In a statement outlining its plan to comply with EPA's regulations, AEP said it would need to retire 6,000 megawatts of coal-fired power generation in the coming years. The company, one of the country's largest electric utilities, estimated that it will cost between $6 billion and $8 billion in capital investments over the next decade to comply with the regulations in their current form. The costs of complying with the regulations will result in an increase in electricity prices of 10 to 35 percent and cost 600 jobs, AEP said. In total, AEP estimated it will have to close five coal-fired power plants by the end of 2014. Six additional plants would see major changes, including retiring some generating units, retrofitting equipment and switching to natural gas. "We support regulations that achieve long-term environmental benefits while protecting customers, the economy and the reliability of the electric grid, but the cumulative impacts of the EPA's current regulatory path have been vastly underestimated, particularly in Midwest states dependent on coal to fuel their economies," AEP CEO Michael Morris said in a statement. The company said its compliance plan could "change significantly" if EPA's regulations are altered. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 12:47 PM (#3215241) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Stringsinger First of all, I have an immediate mistrust of anyone who claims James Delingpole to be right about everything. I smell a financial rat in the CERN, today scientists can be bought, propaganda can gain official status and this piece seems like a propaganda vehicle for the energy industry in the guise of objective science. The tone of the article belies its objectivity, a puff piece intended to keep the controversy over global warming in moth balls. Remember that the Catholic Church reviled Galileo and I see this piece as similar. The proof of the pudding is yet to be felt as the energy industry dictates policy and more Katrinas, Irenes and the desertification of the world emerges. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 12:50 PM (#3215247) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce JtS, Show me some PROOF that MANMADE global warming is the cause of climate change, or show yourself to be a liar and asshole. PROOF, not just a consensus among those that agree with you. THAT MEANS factual points- NOT political statements. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 12:53 PM (#3215250) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Stringsinger PDQ, you think the energy industry didn't make any money by trashing global warming? Wait until the Keystone XL pipeline comes in and more explosions occur in the deep water oil drilling rigs. We are in for some hard sledding in the environment because of the sell-out by some members of the scientific community who will compromise their findings for money. Forget the EPA. It has been bought and sold. Global warming deniers will pay the price in the future as storms get worse, land becomes parched through draught and extremes in the weather will wreak more havoc. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 01:05 PM (#3215255) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce We are in for some hard sledding in the world because of the sell-out by some members of the scientific community who will compromise their findings for money. Forget the EPA. It has been bought and sold. Global warming decriers will pay the price in the future as the corrective actions that they demand cause economic collapse and warfare between those that "Have" industrial capability and those that they are preventing form development, and have no effect upon global warming since it is in the main caused by natural forces that we do not control. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 01:16 PM (#3215263) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Richard Bridge The giveaway here is that Bearded Bruce seems to think it's OK to poison the planet. When you compare that to his views on global warming it all comes into perspective. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 01:19 PM (#3215266) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Bill D EPA has a mandate to investigate causes of enviromental problems and issue regulations to reduce those problems. *IF* they are correct about power plant emissions being a problem, then shutting down a few non-compliant plants may be progress..notwithstanding financial losses!. This is a matter of 'erring on the side of caution', if there is erring at all. Industry is always reluctant to admit they are causing problems as long as the 'problem' makes them more money than stopping! (Remember tobacco company lies & denials for years?) I am awed at the number of conservative 'scientific' arguments where they simply quote each other on their own interpretations OF scientific data, rather than the majority of non-aligned scientists! If 1000 experts say man-made problems are a serious issue, and 10 conservative scientists disagree, guess who gets quoted? |
|
30 Aug 11 - 01:25 PM (#3215272) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: KB in Iowa Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce - PM Date: 30 Aug 11 - 12:50 PM JtS, Show me some PROOF that MANMADE global warming is the cause of climate change, or show yourself to be a liar and asshole. PROOF, not just a consensus among those that agree with you. THAT MEANS factual points- NOT political statements. JtS is just asking you to back up the title of the thread you started with some actual quotes. Can you do that? |
|
30 Aug 11 - 01:27 PM (#3215273) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce The giveaway here is that Gore et al, and his supporters, are willing to have a nuclear war in order to maintain their control of the world's economy. In addition, the fact that those here wjho push global warming insist on attacking those people who disagree with them, instead of addressing the facts that are presented. Attack me, and you prove you have no basis to stand on. Show me my facts are not in accord with the real-world, and you will get me to agree with you. Richard, YOU have no way to know what **I** think. Should I point out that YOUR attempt to keep all non-first world societies and peoples from industrial development proves you arer a racist???? |
|
30 Aug 11 - 01:31 PM (#3215278) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce KB, Bother to read the initial post??? Get Nature, and read the original paper. "In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth's atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun's magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth's atmosphere (the stronger the sun's magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth." NOW, PROVE that MAN-MADE GW is the cause of, and if reduced would PREVENT, Global Warming. And I am still waiting on the explaination of why the climate om Mars and Jupiter is showing short-term changes consistant with the present scale of Earth's global warming. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 01:32 PM (#3215279) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: GUEST,Shimrod If you can be bothered to plough through the load of hysterical, paranoid bollocks from the tiresome, right wing American 'science jock', James Delingpole you will come to a link to an article, by Pallab Ghosh, about the CERN results, on the BBC website. Delingpole dismisses this article as follows: "As you'd expect the BBC remains dutifully on message". But, as I'd expect, the BBC article is balanced and thoughtful and doesn't jump to politically biased conclusions. Here's a quote: "The first results from the Cloud experiment at Cern show that cosmic rays cause a ten-fold increase in the formation rate of nanometre-sized aerosol particles. However, Dr Kirkby stressed that these particles are still far too small to seed clouds and so it is premature to conclude that cosmic rays have a significant influence on climate." I will await further results before I jump to conclusions. But I am willing to conclude that I'm heartily sick of hysterical right wing Americans! |
|
30 Aug 11 - 01:38 PM (#3215285) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Mrrzy Hysterical right wing nutjobs do weeem to proliferate in our Freedom From Facts culture here in the good old USA... can't argue with that! |
|
30 Aug 11 - 01:39 PM (#3215287) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Jack the Sailor "Show me some PROOF that MANMADE global warming is the cause of climate change, or show yourself to be a liar and asshole." I did not claim that. But you made a specific, untrue claim about CERN. Its a pretty simple concept for reality based thinkers. If you claim something outrageous, you need to back it up. The fact is that CERN has not claimed that "global warming is not man made." Yet you have claimed that it has. For this to be true. CERN would not only have to claim that there is "global warming" which they don't, but also that man made factors have been ruled out. which they have also not done. You have presented two opinion pieces and have apparently made some outrageous claims of your own based on those articles. I don't think your wild opinions deserve any more thought than they already have received. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 01:46 PM (#3215292) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce You may think whatever you like. SOME here allow others to do so, without calling them assholes. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 01:50 PM (#3215300) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Jack the Sailor "In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth's atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun's magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth's atmosphere (the stronger the sun's magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth." You have not said that CERN said this. Even if you did. "global warming" is not mentioned. other factors are not considered. The only thing thing this experiment speaks to is whether or not the sun is a factor in the heat of the Earth and one of the mechanisms under which it is a factor. Now please show me something to support this silly claim. "Global Warming- CERN says not man-made" |
|
30 Aug 11 - 01:53 PM (#3215302) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Jack the Sailor I wasn't calling you in particular, an asshole. But you still haven't proved that what you are saying is anything but an untrue slander of CERN. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 01:55 PM (#3215304) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: KB in Iowa KB, Bother to read the initial post??? Yes, I read the initial post. There is nothing there or in any of the quotes you have provided since that say what you claim in the thread title. You make a very specific claim, please back it up with quotes. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 01:55 PM (#3215305) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Don Firth So. Even if scientists at CERN actually did say that: CERN. A group of particle physicists take it into their heads that global warming is not man made. That's a bit like two pediatricians and a proctologist informing the world that the earth is hollow and that's where UFOs come from. They really should be more careful about sticking their heads into the electron beam. Don Firth |
|
30 Aug 11 - 02:05 PM (#3215312) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce Don, and YOUR qualifications for believing Gore et al??? "NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed. " You want to argue SATELLITE data with me??? Better have some standing, or be prepared to back off. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 02:37 PM (#3215335) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Jack the Sailor "alarmist computer models" Its not the satellite data that is in question here. It is the over interpretation. I don't think it is any great feat to surpass "Alarmist" predictions. That is a far cry form saying that "global warming" Does not exist. It certainly does not prove that CERN said that it does not exist, considering that only the opponents of generally accepted climate science are the only ones using the term "global warming." The claim in title of this thread remains highly suspect. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 02:52 PM (#3215349) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Don Firth The sun is a main-sequence star, G spectral class. It is one of the most common star types in the universe, and very, very stable. It formed about 5 billion years ago and will last another 5 to 7 billion years before it uses up its fuel, bloats into a red giant, then collapses into a white dwarf. It will continue in that state for many more billions of years before it eventually burns itself out and drifts through space as a dense cinder no bigger than the earth. It is NOT a variable star, like, say, a Cepheid variable. It is stable. It does have one characteristic common of main-sequence stars. It goes through a regular sun-spot cycle. A sun-spot is like a magnetic hurricane, and although the sun does not have seasons as such, these sun-spot cycles occur regular as clockwork every eleven years, and have done so for billions of years. The only effect this every eleven year increase in sun-spot activity has on earth is electromagnetic interference. Radio reception can get "staticky" for a few months, and it can screw up delicate electronic gear on artificial satellites. IT DOES NOT AFFECT THE EARTH'S WEATHER. (By the way, I did not get this data from someone's blog or from the internet in general. I've been an astronomy buff since I was a kid, I took a couple of astronomy classes in college [actually had some telescope time], and I have kept up with the subject through reading recently written books, and current periodicals such as "Scientific American" and [oddly enough] "Astronomy" and "Sky and Telescope.") The vast majority of competent atmospheric and oceanographic scientists are in agreement that the recent warming of the earth's atmosphere and oceans began with the inception of the industrial revolution with its increase in the burning of coal and other hydrocarbon fuels, along with clear cutting of forested areas (plants take CO2 out of the atmosphere and convert it to O2). This, plus (as both Jacque Cousteau and Rachel Carson warned some decades ago) the pollution of the oceans with such things as pesticides killing off plankton, which also takes CO2 out of the atmosphere and returns it as O2. As I say: COMPETENT scientists all agree. Those who don't are in thrall to the hydrocarbon fuel industry and those who depend on hydrocarbon fuels, such as the automobile industry, who are being dragged, kicking and screaming, to manufacturing hybrid or all-electric cars because and increasing number of customers are demanding them. The evidence is overwhelming. It's just that some folks are far more interested in the next quarterly report than they are in future generations. I wonder how they'll feel when the rising sea level from the melting ice inundates their expensive waterfront property. Don Firth P. S. And your qualifications are. . . ? |
|
30 Aug 11 - 02:58 PM (#3215353) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Don Firth Oh! I suppose you could say that the eleven year sun-spot cycle does affect the earth's atmosphere in one way. The aurora borealis (nothern lights) become quite spectacular for a couple of months. But no temperature variations. Don Firth |
|
30 Aug 11 - 02:59 PM (#3215355) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Jack the Sailor did someone say to "read Nature?" The article on their website is a far cry form the silly claim in the title of this thread. This is nature's headline. Cloud formation may be linked to cosmic rays Other key passages follow. "I think it's an incredibly worthwhile and overdue experiment," says Piers Forster, a climatologist at the University of Leeds, UK, who studied the link between cosmic rays and climate for the latest scientific assessment by the International Panel on Climate Change. But for now at least, he says that the experiment "probably raises more questions than it answers". But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step," he says. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 03:02 PM (#3215358) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce "It certainly does not prove that CERN said that it does not exist," NOT what anyone but YOU have said. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 03:10 PM (#3215365) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Greg F. More Bearded Bullshit, with an amen from PeeDee. Best ignored; business as usual, nothing to get irritated about. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 03:11 PM (#3215366) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Jack the Sailor "It certainly does not prove that CERN said that it does not exist," that CERN said that it is not man made considering that they do not even officially say that it does exist," |
|
30 Aug 11 - 03:24 PM (#3215371) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: GUEST,TIA As a long time proponent of the "cosmic rays are driving climate" myth, I am not surprised to see one of our local deniers joining the right wing blogosphere misinformation campaign surrounding the Nature article by Kirby et al, 2011. Yes, it is well known (and accepted by real climate scientists along with the politically driven pseudoscientists) that cosmic rays might affect nucleation/cloud formation, and therefore they might play a role in climate change (one way or the other). IPCC AR4 actually discusses this. The CLOUD project at CERN is just beginning to determine what, if any, effect there is. Kirkby et al's results do show that more cosmic rays may mean more nucleation in the mid-troposphere. But they also find that the effect is smaller at lower and warmer levels – which is incidentally the place where cosmic ray climate myth proponents have always said the effect is greatest (oops, the right wing bloggers didn't tell you that did they?). In fact Kirby himself has responded to the right wing spinsmeisters: "[The paper] actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step." That is the author himself, not some right wing commentator, and not "CERN" (as if the institution can speak). So, the results suggest mechanisms by which cosmic rays might assist cloud formation, but it is very very far from any kind of proof that cosmic rays actually do significantly affect climate change. Even if it was, before any rational person accepts the "cosmic rays drive climate change theory" they ought to require that all of the evidence against cosmic ray induced climate change must still be refuted (e.g. the lack of correlation between paleoclimate and paleo cosmic ray intensity from numerous studies). And they have not been. What Kirby et al are really saying is that they have found a way that cosmic rays might locally affect cloud formation at some levels in the atmosphere. It is pure speculation, opportunism and bullshit to say that this paper contradicts IPCC in any way. Kirby says outright that this is just the beginning of the project, so you deniers might get an "I told ya so" at some point. But this ain't it, and you reveal your prejudice and unscientific approach by leaping so far ahead with this. Read it yourself before you argue with me: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html BTW, if you don't have an academic affiliation or a personal subscription, you may not get to the full text with this link, but you can buy it online. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 03:24 PM (#3215372) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce JtS, CERN has NOT said if global warming exists- THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. They DID say that there are causes for(possible)climate changes that are significant and NOT man-made. It is up to those who "believe " in MAN-MADE GW to demonstrate that GW is CAUSED BY MAN-MADE SOURCES. Thay have failed to do so. In science, one posulates a theory, then compares it to the data. IN THIS CASE, the data DOES NOT SUPPORT the theory that MAN-MADE Glogal Warming is the primary cause of climate change. To prevent other cultures than your own from industrializing, and having all those benefits we take for granted BECAUSE OF A FAILED THEORY is Racist, at least- if not genocidal. Yet that is what the effect of the MAN-MADE Global Warming supporters have been advocating. Greg F. Attacking me for bringing up something YOU do not either agree with or understand says a lot about YOU and nothing about the topic of this thread. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 03:30 PM (#3215379) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: GUEST,TIA Cross-posted. Please provide a citation for exactly where "CERN says global warming is not man-made". If you cite Kirby et al 2011, Kirby himself has already disputed you (see above). |
|
30 Aug 11 - 03:31 PM (#3215380) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce Don: "I've been an astronomy buff since I was a kid, I took a couple of astronomy classes in college [actually had some telescope time], and I have kept up with the subject through reading recently written books, and current periodicals such as "Scientific American" and [oddly enough] "Astronomy" and "Sky and Telescope.")" If THAT makes you qualified, I suggest you stop pounding on me and stuff your own head in the sand. I have a Ba. Sci. in Physics and astronomy, and over 30 years experience in Spacecraft Operations, as well as having been Clementine Data Manager, EO-1 Data Manager, GALEX and IBEX Flight Controller, and Orbit Determination for GLTN (under the Crustal Dynamics Project.) |
|
30 Aug 11 - 03:36 PM (#3215386) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce TIA, Thread titles are limited to a short phrase. I will let it be retitled" Global warming- CERN data indicates that there are significant sources of climate change related tempurature control mechanisms that are solar rather than man-made." Otherwise, should we piss and moan over thread titles, or determine what the factual basis is for the racist attempts to destroy the 3rd world peoples being proposed by Man-made GW enthusiates? |
|
30 Aug 11 - 03:44 PM (#3215391) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce Don, There are a number os solar flux variation cycles BESIDES the 11 year sunspot cycle, as has been brought out and ignored in several earlier threads. If YOU care to state that solar flux is otherwise a constant, YOU have NOT been keeping up with the last 50 years or so of solar astronomy. Atmospheric models are a significant part or precision orbit determination for low Earth orbiting satellites, and are even used for s/c such as LAGEOS. But since you know so much better than those of us who make our livings dealing with such, I suppose I should start insisting my knowledge of whatever field YOU claim to know is superior, because I say so. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 03:44 PM (#3215394) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: GUEST,TIA As a scientist, I am sure you appreciate precision in language and realize that inaccuracy is always worth pissing and moaning about. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 04:04 PM (#3215403) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce And personal attacks are indicative of people not worth listening too- BUT I HAVE TRIED to listen to you, anyway. Still waiting on any facts you have to present on the topic. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 04:13 PM (#3215406) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: GUEST,TIA Sorry, lame response. You've got a link to the facts, but you don't want to hear them. You ran with the blog talking points, and got caught. And I did not think that calling you a scientist was a personal attack. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 04:21 PM (#3215414) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce Don, I will look for the cartoon version for you... http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/20climsolar.html some info on longterm solar cycles. You know, like what contributed to the Ice Ages, and such... |
|
30 Aug 11 - 04:26 PM (#3215418) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: pdq Climate change petition pits scientists against each other A group of protesting scientists hope to break into the global warming debate with a petition against the theory of human-driven global warming. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, a small independent research group... Published: 2008-05-28 Devin Henry A group of protesting scientists hope to break into the global warming debate with a petition against the theory of human-driven global warming. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, a small independent research group, announced the petition before the National Press Club on May 19. It contains the signatures of more than 31,000 scientists who stand against the idea that global warming is man-made, including those of several University professors. Arthur Robinson, president of the institute, said the petition began as a protest among friends. "Myself and a few of my colleagues had been alarmed for a long time about this claim that all the scientists agree with those who are promoting human-caused global warming," he said. In order to break this perception, the group solicited a research document on the subject of global warming to members of the scientific community in 1998-99. During this time, they got about 18,000 signatures, Robinson said. In 2007, the petition was sent out again, Robinson said, citing increased activity such as Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," a movie portraying global warming as human-driven, as reasons to circulate the petition again. Petition signatures have reached 31,000, including 9,000 Ph.D.s, Robinson said. "If this many American scientists will sign this petition, you certainly can't continue to contend that there is a consensus on this subject," he said. University medicine professor Frank Nuttall signed the petition. He said he still believes the Earth is growing warmer, despite his signature. "This issue is whether the major reason for this is from human activities," he said. "I consider that inconclusive at the present time." University professor Wayland E. Noland said he signed the petition both in the late 1990s and last year. Like Nuttall, Noland said he didn't doubt the warming of the Earth; rather, he said he signed the petition, "because I feel that the public has become incorrectly persuaded that the global warming that is going on now has been primarily caused by CO2 emissions." Noland, a chemistry professor, said he studied meteorology briefly in college under a professor who shares his views on the subject. He said he thought people like Gore had "jumped on the current bandwagon effect" surrounding global warming. Michael Nobel, executive director for Fresh Energy, a St. Paul-based policy think tank that focuses on energy solutions, said the petition holds little merit to those who study global warming. "It's a sad and odd little voice shouting that there is no global warming," he said of the institute. "Many people have apparently fallen for it." Nobel said among those who study global warming, most agree that it is a human-driven phenomenon. "It's a curious little cultural artifact," he said of the petition. "It's like people talk about Sasquatch or alien abductions." The scientific community mostly agrees on climate issues, Nobel said. "That's what's most ridiculous about this petition," he said. "It alleges that there's a broad disagreement about the climate." Noland, however, said he believes there are still scientists who disagree with climate change ideas. "I think it's in the minority at present," he said. "But sometimes the minority proves to be right in the long term." All content © 1900 - 2011 The Minnesota Daily |
|
30 Aug 11 - 04:53 PM (#3215433) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Jack the Sailor There is no way you were trying to be scientific or accurate. If you were you would have chosen a non-political title like. "CERN findings on cloud formation" With no links to bloviated opinion floggers. You can quote your CV until the cows come home (belching the greenhouse gas methane with every step.) But you lose all scientific credibility when your source of data is "James Delingpole a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. " |
|
30 Aug 11 - 04:54 PM (#3215434) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce TIA, As a human being, I am more concerned about the racist and possibly genocidal aspects of the real effects of the measures demanded by GW enthusiasts than in being a scientist. Pardon me for valueing humanity over academic precision. And you called me one of the "local deniers", not a scientist. Shall I call you "One of the local Racist, Genocidal GW enthusiasts"? I don't think that contributes to a reasonable, fact based discussion, though you seem to think that. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 04:56 PM (#3215435) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Bill D "Arthur Robinson, president of the institute.." Oh, I remember Arthur Robinson... "Robinson was the senior author of the Oregon Petition, a petition of over 31,000 people who identified themselves as scientists or engineers (in 2008), intended to show that scientific consensus does not exist on the subject of global warming.[16] Robinson is a signatory to A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, a petition produced by the Discovery Institute that expresses skepticism about the ability of natural selection to account for the complexity of life, and encouraging careful examination of the evidence for "Darwinian theory". |
|
30 Aug 11 - 04:57 PM (#3215437) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: GUEST,TIA Lame again. Now you are deflecting and changing the subject because you know that you got caught. And please do call me racist. That is funnier than you can possibly imagine. Several people here know why. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 05:00 PM (#3215440) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce JtS,, When I stop seeing threadds here that are both insulting and lies, perhaps I might seek to make neutral titles that YOU approve of. Until then, I will comntinue to wait for you to argue facts instead of attacking people. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 05:02 PM (#3215441) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: BTNG well beardedbruce I do see a number of personal attacks made by you, so, based on your own statement, you are not worth reading or listening to.. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 05:06 PM (#3215442) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce TIA, YOU seem to think it ok to claim I am a denier, when that is NOT the case- **I** have said that climate change is real, and significant. MANY TIMES. It is the religious belief that it is both caused by man, and can be prevented ( if we just give up money to the "right people") that I find unreasonable and unsupported. I have stated repeatedly that we need to accept that climate change is REAL, and we should be taking steps to allow humanity to survive it, not waste our energy and act in a genicidal manner to try to prevent what I have reason to think will happen no matter how many times King Gore stands on the shore and commands the tide to stop. As for racism, I can only judge by your actions- you support activities that are racist in their result. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 05:08 PM (#3215443) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Richard Bridge Well, unless Juicy Brucie can come up with some better quotes from the article on which he relies, the assertion "Global Warming - CERN says not man-made" was an outright bare-faced lie. Juicy Brucie's best efforts to find a quote and bring it here come nowhere close to his assertion. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 05:09 PM (#3215445) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce BTNG Check to see that I was attacked first- are you saying that others here can act in ways that you would not allow me to act??? Self-defense is allowed. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 05:11 PM (#3215446) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce Picky Dicky has yet to show any factual reason that supports a claim for man-made GW. So he continues to attack me and the title to the thread rather than providing ANY support for his viewpoint. I stated a better title- care to alter all the thread titles on here that **I** object to as well? |
|
30 Aug 11 - 05:16 PM (#3215450) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Jack the Sailor "When I stop seeing threadds here that are both insulting and lies, perhaps I might seek to make neutral titles that YOU approve of." Don't worry about my approval. Just stop lying. That can be your contribution to decreasing the total number of lies. Lying because you think that someone else has lied does nothing to further your argument. Think of it this way. If you put less greenhouse gas into the atmosphere it doesn't mean you will stop Climate Change by yourself. After all those cosmic rays won't stop because you ask them to. But you will have done your part. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 05:20 PM (#3215451) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: McGrath of Harlow That wasn't a link to a news story in the Telegraph - it was a piece in a blog, putting a very angled spin on an item in Nature, written by "James Delingpole (who)is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including 365 Ways to Drive a Liberal Crazy, Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work, How To Be Right, and the Coward series of WWII adventure novels. And here's a link to the website for the current issue of Nature. As the "fantastically entertaining" Mr Delingpole quotes "The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature" - it's in there somewhere... Not the spun version of course. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 05:21 PM (#3215452) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: GUEST,TIA I think you should definitely object to any thread title that contains a lie. And I hope that the powers that be would change it...or not, and let readers make up their own minds. You accuse me of genocide based on a false premise. I could easily accuse you of the same for denying that climate change is the least bit anthropogenic. If we can stop it and don't is that not genocide? But that is a schoolyard nyah-nyah conversation that I have no interest in. Let's get back to the science, shall we? |
|
30 Aug 11 - 05:32 PM (#3215463) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce TIA, There MAY be some anthropogenic part of climate change- I have seen nothing to indicate that it is the CONTROLLING factor, and that we can prevent climate change from occurring. Thus, to waste effort on trying to stop it as opposed to trying to reduce it's impact on HUMAN BEINGS is morally wrong, and genocidal, as the people most in danger are Third World nations. THAT is my premise. Care to discuss this on a factual basis? That might be useful, not the comments that many here seem to think are required to prove their "liberal" credentials regardless of the impact on real people. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 05:37 PM (#3215469) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: McGrath of Harlow What the research indicates is evidence that cosmic rays can cause cloud formation. Nothing more, nothing less. Extrapolating that into "Global Warming- CERN says not man-made" is going way way beyond that, and is in fact a gross and dishonest distortion of what the research indicates. It's interesting research, it needs to be followed through and the results put into the equations, and no doubt it will be. But playing knockabout politics with this kind of stuff is nonsensical. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 05:40 PM (#3215471) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: McGrath of Harlow And what the hell has "liberal" and "conservative" got to do with this kind of stuff anyway, and more than with stuff like the causes of cancer or heart disease? |
|
30 Aug 11 - 05:43 PM (#3215473) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Jack the Sailor "Thus, to waste effort on trying to stop it as opposed to trying to reduce it's impact on HUMAN BEINGS is morally wrong, and genocidal," The only "HUMAN BEINGS" being adversely affected are the shareholders in big oil and big agriculture. There are a lot of god, non-global warming reasons for using less oil and coal and for cutting down fewer forests. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 05:44 PM (#3215476) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: GUEST,Shimrod "As a human being, I am more concerned about the racist and possibly genocidal aspects of the real effects of the measures demanded by GW enthusiasts than in being a scientist." That's the most hysterical thing you've written so far, BB. You really are a fully fledged, hysterical right-wing nut-job, aren't you? |
|
30 Aug 11 - 05:57 PM (#3215486) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Don Firth Sorry, beardedbruce, but as to your qualifications, I'm not impressed. I've known a number of supposedly "highly qualified" (read "highly degreed") scientists who apparently didn't learn a great deal. In the first astronomy class I took in college (this was in Spring quarter of 1957) all the prof taught was, essentially, celestial navigation. How to locate particular stars in the sky. Most disappointing to most of the students. They wanted to learn something about what was up there in the skies, not how to keep themselves located if they found themselves alone in an outrigger in the middle of the South Pacific. One of the students stuck up a hand and asked what the prof thought about the possibility of space travel, especially the artificial satellite program that had been in the news of late. The prof snorted: "That's just childish 'Buck Rogers' stuff. The artificial satellites they're talking about launching are nothing more than a boondoggle and an egregious waste of the taxpayers' money. Any competent scientist knows that any satellite they launch will merely fall back to earth!" Several of us in class exchanged glances that said, "What the hell are we wasting our time here for?" On October 4th, 1957, Sputnik I went into orbit. It was followed by many others, both Russian and American, then other countries got into it. I wonder what Prof. Jacobsen was thinking when he watch Neil Armstrong step down onto the moon's surface. Or watching a couple of Apollo astronauts hopping like kangaroos and singing, "I was strolling on the moon one day …. " And, you may recall, there have been a few little things since then. Beautiful photos of Jupiter and Saturn taken from up close, a couple of little high-tech go-carts wandering the surface of Mars, etc. Jacobsen retired shortly thereafter, and a couple of more up-to-date and generally much brighter young professors took over the department. No, just because someone has some alphabet soup after his name doesn't mean that he knows anything from Shinola. Especially when he has political motivations. Don Firth |
|
30 Aug 11 - 06:00 PM (#3215487) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce So, there are those here that think mass starvation is a joke? JtS, The effects of Gore et al are NOT what they claim- the people most impacted are the Third world and those who live at the edge of starvation, that Gore would push over. " There are a lot of god, non-global warming reasons for using less oil and coal and for cutting down fewer forests. " OK, I AGREE with this- but that does not mean it should take priority over trying to adjust for the impacts of the climate change THAT WILL OCURR regardless of reduction of man-made sources. You are saying that we should paint the barn to make it last longer when it is burning down. Painting is a GOOD idea- but put out the fire first, or you have wasted the effort. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 06:04 PM (#3215490) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce Don, "Especially when he has political motivations" You mean like Gore and the scientists that support him ( and his funding to them?) ? Or is it only ONE side ( the one YOU disagree with, of course) that has political motivations? As to my qualifications, YOU asked about them, and now belittle them. This speaks quite a bit about YOU. The ones MOST like the prof. YOU talk about are those who AGREE WITH YOU. What does that say? |
|
30 Aug 11 - 06:08 PM (#3215492) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Don Firth Twist and shout, BB. Don Firth |
|
30 Aug 11 - 06:10 PM (#3215494) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce "Any competent scientist knows that any satellite they launch will merely fall back to earth!"" "The vast majority of competent atmospheric and oceanographic scientists are in agreement that the recent warming of the earth's atmosphere and oceans began with the inception of the industrial revolution with its increase in the burning of coal and other hydrocarbon fuels, along with clear cutting of forested areas (plants take CO2 out of the atmosphere and convert it to O2). " It seems that you need to think back about what the scientific method is- make a theory, and see if it matches the FACTS. THEN MODIFY THE THEORY to better match the facts, NOT throw out the facts that don't agree with the theory. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 06:25 PM (#3215504) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Bill D 4+ year old thread on this: read more of the same, with more participants where BB explains in detail why he DOES accept warming, but does NOT agree we can stop or curtail it much. (Bruce...trying to find the thread where you explain what you think we SHOULD be doing. I believe it was seriously proposing folks in warmer climes moving to relatively cooler ones?) |
|
30 Aug 11 - 06:53 PM (#3215514) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: BTNG "I just love the smell of bait and switch, in the morning" - with apologies to Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore (written by John Milius) |
|
30 Aug 11 - 07:04 PM (#3215521) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: GUEST,Art Brooks, visiting As a matter of curiosity, why is Mr. Gore featured so prominently in this? Did I somehow miss his denouncement of the CERN report? The Petition Project? Isn't that the effort by that group in Oregon (both of its names are listed above someplace) that is collecting signatures about global warming from 'concerned scientists', and defines a scientist as anyone with a BS (or higher) degree in any scientific field...which is defined broadly to include dentistry and nutrition? This article (granted, it is from Wiki) contains a wealth of information on global warming and its causes. Note that no real scientist, or at least none that I've ever known, will ever say that anything is absolutely caused by anything. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 07:09 PM (#3215522) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Bill D That's it Art...the Petition Project. Over 30,000 **identified themselves** as scientists. Art Robinson was sort of 'interviewed' during the 2008 campaign. I say sort of, because he barely let the interviewer get in 2 words sideways. He was beyond rude.... |
|
30 Aug 11 - 07:18 PM (#3215529) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: pdq A professional newsman who does interviews is obligated to get the opinions of the one being interviewed, If the newsperson wants his/her opinion stated, that can be done anytime and does not require the person being interviewed as a prop. Dr. Art Robinson is a brilliant scientist and education expert. He has something valuable to contribute and the newsman's job is the help. Confrontational newsmen should be treated rudely. They are unprofessional and should find another way to make a living. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 07:37 PM (#3215538) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Richard Bridge So, juicy Brucie - just where does CERN say that global warming is not man made? Waiting... |
|
30 Aug 11 - 07:54 PM (#3215552) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: JohnInKansas Unfortuantely, the understanding of "science and scientists" is about as lacking here as elsewhere. The common citing of "a scientist said" is meaningless, or nearly so, if the subject lies outside the specific expertise of the specific scientist making the statement. All are entitled to state their opinions; but competent people must consider how likely those opinions are to reflect the opinions of others best qualified in the field under discussion While CERN's "Nuclear Scientists" do have an interest in sunspots (and one might suspect a vested interest?) being a CERN scientist does NOT ALONE qualify them to make sweeping statements about "Atmospheric Science" since Atmospheric Sciences are not within the province of the agency. An individual scientist might have expertise, but the credentials of the organization don't validate the opinionator. Each branch of science usually is a very specialised field, and believability for mere mortals must be based on the peer opinions of those in the same field. Complaints that one must believe what "a PHD" says apply only at MacDonalds when one tells you whether the fries are fresh. Even then, the "PHD" may have ulterior motives and may "stretch the meanings" but there's nothing much you can do about it. The several misstatements in the first post's extract about the "immense qualifications of CERN" are a cause for concern, specifically for example the statement that "CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web" which is FACTUALLY FALSE within any meaning of "invented." CERN made substantial contributions to implementing what was invented by others, and appropriate credit is deserved, but INVENT IT DID NOT. Puffery and fakery are terms that come to mind. No competent Atmospheric Scientist with legitimate standing among others within the specialty - that I've heard from - has denied that "sunspots" and multiple other influences have immense effect on the current cycle of apparent warming. Similarly, none have represented their models as being infallible or being the "last word." Science is a matter of continual improvement of the best and most likely, and is NOT A STATIC ENTITY. It makes little difference what is the largest influence on warming that is going on now. The best studies have shown that man-made influences, regardless of their current effect, are producing an unstable effect that could easily run "out of control" and without prompt action may already be past recovery. I've read all of the G8 report, and have followed subsequent peer (and other) reviews; and I suspect no others here have(?). A consistently persistent group of "scientists" (my term is SPGWKs) have repeatedly produced the same "31,000 signatures" on "petitions" with various claims that all other (real) scientists are wrong. While I've checked out the who and the why, and the vested interests of a sufficiently representative sample for my purposes, of the signatories on several prior petitions, I choose not to be bothered at this time with this purportedly "new one." (Given the proclivity for exaggerated claims, it's probably the ten year old one recycled once again.) Even if the "conclusions" in this latest report may be eventually evaluated as being pertinent, NO ONE HEADLINE is the news. All the blustering about whose dick is the biggest (or who's the biggest dick) will not change the steady pace of legitimate science - which unfortunately will remain impenetrable for most of the people who chose to ignore fifth grade math & science. John |
|
30 Aug 11 - 08:36 PM (#3215581) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: BTNG "a scientist said" is rather like quoting an "anonymous inside source" neither of them actually exist |
|
30 Aug 11 - 08:42 PM (#3215586) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Jack the Sailor "Dr. Art Robinson is a brilliant scientist" Really pdq? upon what do you base this evaluation? Are you some sort of authority on what makes a scientist "brilliant" or did you simply hear Hanity say that? |
|
30 Aug 11 - 08:55 PM (#3215590) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Don Firth I take it back, beardedbruce. "I have a Ba. Sci. in Physics and astronomy, and over 30 years experience in Spacecraft Operations, as well as having been Clementine Data Manager, EO-1 Data Manager, GALEX and IBEX Flight Controller, and Orbit Determination for GLTN (under the Crustal Dynamics Project.)" I AM impressed. But the area under discussion falls under the headings of atmospheric science, meteorology, and oceanography. It's not--ahem--rocket science. Don Firth |
|
30 Aug 11 - 09:24 PM (#3215609) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Bill D "A professional newsman who does interviews is obligated to get the opinions of the one being interviewed,.." And a candidate for public office is obligated to clarify his positions and his basic attitudes that might be important to his potential constituents. The brillant Dr. Robinson had no interest in openness and clarification... which might have exposed his EXTREME bias and narrow viewpoints. He hoped, as many current Republicans did, to get elected..THEN pursue his agenda of stuff he never quite mentioned in detail. The interviewer had done some homework and was asking questions which Dr. R simply didn't want asked......and 55% of the voters didn't bite. Art Robinson was a potential 'loose cannon', and his record showed he didn't need to be loose on Oregon's deck. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 09:26 PM (#3215610) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Bill D See for yourself Videos and comments |
|
30 Aug 11 - 10:09 PM (#3215629) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: catspaw49 I'm with you BB! I spent years thinking that all of those environmental scientists were in the know but now I realize I was wrong. There are several things which have sent me down the new and right road and one of them was the Oregon petition. When I see all of those other people with college degrees I know they have to be correct. No matter if their degree is Animal Husbandry, they think scientifically whereas people like myself and Bill were trained in sillyass logic games, a total waste I now sadly realize. I was also able to see that real science was not what I thought at all when I saw THIS PLACE which changed my entire life. What really sold me was their certain knowledge backed up by their science which doesn't use any of that carbon dating bullshit. Their timeline allows man to exist with dinosaurs and I knew this to be true because I have seen The Flintstones. I'm sure this is the kind of real science James Delingpole readily endorses so I am positive he is just as right about Global Warning as the scientists and lecturers at The Creation Museum are about the history of the earth and mankind. I know for a fact that many of them believe as he does already! Spaw--Born Again and proudly marching backward into the 17th century! |
|
30 Aug 11 - 11:03 PM (#3215653) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Jack the Sailor I am with you Spaw!! I just loaded this map into my GPS. |
|
30 Aug 11 - 11:11 PM (#3215656) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: number 6 Whew .... Dr. Georgia Purdom ..... she's hot ! biLL |
|
30 Aug 11 - 11:42 PM (#3215666) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: catspaw49 Yeah she's hot one alright! Didja' notice she went to Ohio State? Yep, makes me so proud I could just shit! But when she was there she traded memorabilia for tattoos just like the football teams. In her case she gave the Tat Artiste a bible signed by Oral Roberts AND Jerry Falwell in exchange for a belly tattoo of Jesus with his arms stretched upwards as if holding up her tits. Spaw |
|
30 Aug 11 - 11:49 PM (#3215671) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: catspaw49 BTW Jack, I think I'll put that map on my desktop wallpaper! Wish I'd lived with them dragons and dinosaurs.............***sigh***..................... Spaw |
|
31 Aug 11 - 03:42 AM (#3215713) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Richard Bridge Let's just run that again Juicy Brucie. WHERE DOES CERN SAY THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT MAN MADE? Little bit of a fibby-wibby was it? |
|
31 Aug 11 - 07:07 AM (#3215784) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: McGrath of Harlow It doesn't say that of course. But the point here isn't what it said, it's what someone said someone said someone said it said. You could call it "the oral tradition" as applied to science... |
|
31 Aug 11 - 07:22 AM (#3215791) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: McGrath of Harlow Basically this CERN research finding is about as relevant to "controversy" about global warming as this story - Firing laser beams into the sky could make it rain, say scientists Interesting in itself, but... |
|
31 Aug 11 - 09:12 AM (#3215859) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Greg F. You could call it "the oral tradition" as applied to science... Or you could call it Bearded Bullshit. |
|
31 Aug 11 - 10:46 AM (#3215910) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce I do note that none here have bothered to provide ANY factual support for significant man-made caused climate change. Attacking me proves only that you do not even think you can support your own viewpoint. Don, Check EO-1 instruments, and Atmospheric models for precision orbite determination. MY qualifications are greater than yours, which YOU consider to be sufficient to judge others by. So, you are saying you are not competent to make the judgements you have been making??? |
|
31 Aug 11 - 11:17 AM (#3215925) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Jack the Sailor >>I do note that none here have bothered to provide ANY factual support for significant man-made caused climate change. Attacking me proves only that you do not even think you can support your own viewpoint.<< No one here on this thread has claimed anything about man-nade climate change but you. What you claimed was that "CERN says that 'Global Warming' is NOT man-made." Many of us are waiting for you to stop evading and either back up that claim or admit your error. No one is attacking you. We are however, calling your bullshit what it is. |
|
31 Aug 11 - 11:29 AM (#3215932) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Richard Bridge It wasn't in any apparent sense an error. It was apparently a deliberate lie. |
|
31 Aug 11 - 11:30 AM (#3215933) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: McGrath of Harlow At this date that's a bit like asking for the proof that smoking causes cancer in the course of an argument about whether it should be banned in pubs. There's no doubt that there are other causes for cancer as well, and other causes for climate change, but... |
|
31 Aug 11 - 11:31 AM (#3215937) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: GUEST,TIA Jack is correct. You are changing the subject to avoid admitting an error. However, if you really want to change the subject you will have your work cut out for you refuting these 10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change . And don't just argue with John Cook (the author of the summary). You need to go back and refute the original citations (follow the links to the original peer-reviewed publications). Good Luck! |
|
31 Aug 11 - 11:32 AM (#3215938) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Bill D Ask Dr. Science about tough questions! I'm SURE he deals with climate...somewhere.... |
|
31 Aug 11 - 12:56 PM (#3215978) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity beardedbruce: "The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won't be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth." You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!...I've been posting that for a long time, only to be rebutted by nonsensical Gore 'party talking points'. the latest data indicate sunspot, and solar storm activity. Gore should have long ago been indicted for fraud, with all the taxpayer money he has collected(read: extorted), from the public...umm....$500,000,000, I believe. Don't forget, he invented the internet and the wheel, too. GfS |
|
31 Aug 11 - 01:09 PM (#3215987) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: EBarnacle It seems to me that the real question is of energy in vs. energy out. Is the atmospheric energy output directly parallel with the rise in solar/cosmic emissions? If the carbon content of the atmosphere were reduced, would this output change?--in which direction? Is GW a fact as we know it? Is global temperature rising? Do the facts as we know them tell us that we should do what we can to reduce all of the contributing factors? Which of these factors would you suggest we address first? My personal factor is atmospheric water vapor, which my company is currently extracting to provide potable water where there is either none or not enough. Don't just stand there arguing, do something! |
|
31 Aug 11 - 01:16 PM (#3215992) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: BTNG Has anyone noticed that most of th postings, regarding this issue, on the net, are all variations on or direct cut and paste jobs, of the original Daily Torygraph blog, hardly what one might call sound scientific knowledge |
|
31 Aug 11 - 01:21 PM (#3215996) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: EBarnacle Try to approach an issue which really does affect us all withe less "heat" and more light. |
|
31 Aug 11 - 01:21 PM (#3215997) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: BTNG what CERN Director General Rolf-Dieter Heuer actually said, was "asked…colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of climate change debate. "One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters," So........ |
|
31 Aug 11 - 01:55 PM (#3216017) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: pdq EBarnacle, here are answers to three of your questions: Is the atmospheric energy output directly parallel with the rise in solar/cosmic emissions? ANS: Perhaps you mean atmospheric energy absorption? For practical purposes, ALL the energy that heats the Earth's atomosphere comes from one source: the Sun. Volcanic activity and such are trivial. Is GW a fact as we know it? Is global temperature rising? ANS: The official number from the US government if a rise in the ambiant air temperatue near the Earth's surface has risen 1 degree F in the last 150 years. That is absolutelty trivial and is less change (up or down ) than occurred in most of the last 2000 years. Do the facts as we know them tell us that we should do what we can to reduce all of the contributing factors? ANS: You are correct in noting water vapor. It swamps all other "greenhouse gases". It can approach 5% of the atmosphere by mass. Carbon dioxide is just 365 parts per million and methane gas is just 1.8 parts per billion! |
|
31 Aug 11 - 02:25 PM (#3216041) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce JtS, "Many of us are waiting for you to stop evading and either back up that claim or admit your error." I REPEAT: From: beardedbruce - PM Date: 30 Aug 11 - 03:36 PM TIA, Thread titles are limited to a short phrase. I will let it be retitled" Global warming- CERN data indicates that there are significant sources of climate change related tempurature control mechanisms that are solar rather than man-made." Otherwise, should we piss and moan over thread titles, or determine what the factual basis is for the racist attempts to destroy the 3rd world peoples being proposed by Man-made GW enthusiates? WAITING FOR YOU TO ANSWER MY QUESTION. I continue to note that you have provided no factual evidence, and continue to attack me, rather than discuss the topic. |
|
31 Aug 11 - 02:31 PM (#3216047) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Don Firth "MY qualifications are greater than yours…." In what areas, BB? I've been following the global warming thing since the 1950s with the observations of Jacques Cousteau and books by such people as Rachel Carson, who was one of the first to call attention to the effect that human activity was having on the oceans and the atmosphere. And your assumption that concern about climate change all started with Al Gore's Earth in the Balance displays an actual lack of knowledge on your part. People have been concerned about what human caused pollution is doing to the planet long before Gore's book. In the very early 1960s, I knew Jerry Pournelle quite well. Jerry is probably best known as a writer of science fiction, but (to forestall anybody doing a riff on his being "only" a science fiction writer) he has advanced degrees in a couple of scientific areas, has worked in the space program when he was with the Boeing Space Center, and although he and I didn't agree politically (he's quite conservative), I learned a lot of facts from him and we had many enlightening conversations on many subjects. By the way, he was one of Ronald Reagan's science advisers and played a major part in the development of the "Star Wars" project—no, not the movies!—SDI. Jerry once said, about the profligate use of fossil fuels, "When it's gone, it's gone! When you consider the number of really essential products that are made from petroleum—from plastics to fertilizers to pharmaceuticals (and he enumerated many more)—you realize that to use up the limited supply of petroleum by burning it to produce energy is a crime against future generations!" Then he went on to describe several relatively easy and inexpensive methods of propelling automobiles and producing electricity that don't involve the burning of fossil fuels or the polluting of the atmosphere. In addition to having an encyclopedic mind for scientific facts and theories, he had a vivid imagination, which served him well both in writing some really fine science fiction and in hatching up alternative ways of doing things. He was a Southerner, born and raised in Louisiana, which, despite his prodigious knowledge, may explain his political conservatism. He and Newt Gingrich became good friends, which really puzzles me, but that's another question. In any case, that much of the current climate change is human caused is considered to be an incontrovertible fact by the overwhelming majority of competent scientists. Political considerations notwithstanding. Don Firth |
|
31 Aug 11 - 02:56 PM (#3216062) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce Don, So? I worked with Gene Shoemaker, but that gives ME no additional abilities. YOU STATED YOUR qualifications and asked mine- I replied, and in the opinion of any sane person, ON WHAT YOU STATED **I** have as good or better qualifications on the subject at hand. So when YOU state that I am not entitled to have an educated opinion, I fail to see how you can claim anything of the kind. As for Jerry Pournelle, he and I shared computer connections ( Heath/Zenith) Perhaps you should read what you wrote: "In addition to having an encyclopedic mind for scientific facts and theories, he had a vivid imagination, which served him well both in writing some really fine science fiction and in hatching up alternative ways of doing things. He was a Southerner, born and raised in Louisiana, which, despite his prodigious knowledge, may explain his political conservatism. He and Newt Gingrich became good friends, which really puzzles me, but that's another question." Perhaps you should be asking why YOU disagree with HIS political opinions, instead of denying that others are permitted to disagree with you. |
|
31 Aug 11 - 03:03 PM (#3216064) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Don Firth BB, you are totally mischaracterizing what I have said. I see no reason why I should continue to attempt to carry on a rational discussion with someone who has no interest in factual information, but just wants to win an argument. Don Firth |
|
31 Aug 11 - 03:08 PM (#3216068) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: McGrath of Harlow Political considerations shouldn't enter into a discussion about scientific theories. Such things should be put on one side until it comes to deciding what to do in face of their findings. The conspiracy theorists who deny that certain types of human activity threaten us all are diverting discussion from the real issues. |
|
31 Aug 11 - 03:22 PM (#3216076) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce Don, YOU have presented no facts, nor discussed the ones I have brought up. Imnstead, you have attacked me, my qualifications to have an opinion, the writer of the article, and all those who hold opinions that differ with yours. McG, The conspiracy theorists who insist that certain types of human activity threaten us all are diverting discussion from the real issues. IF one presumes climate change, either it is primarily caused by man or not. IN EITHER CASE, there should be steps taken TO COMPENSATE FOR THE CHANGE, which are being ignored and the resources required are being used to attempt to STOP that change- great if it works (for which NO EVIDENCE is being presented), but if it does not future generations will curse us for not taking steps to help human survival FIRST. It it the Gore et al party that has made this political, using it to push their agenda regardless of the negative impact on the majority of the world. |
|
31 Aug 11 - 03:31 PM (#3216078) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce Don, BTW, "Jerry once said, about the profligate use of fossil fuels, "When it's gone, it's gone! When you consider the number of really essential products that are made from petroleum—from plastics to fertilizers to pharmaceuticals (and he enumerated many more)—you realize that to use up the limited supply of petroleum by burning it to produce energy is a crime against future generations!" Then he went on to describe several relatively easy and inexpensive methods of propelling automobiles and producing electricity that don't involve the burning of fossil fuels or the polluting of the atmosphere." I agree with this- I just do not think that the efforts being pushed by Gore et al are either effective, or ecologically sound. " By the way, he was one of Ronald Reagan's science advisers and played a major part in the development of the "Star Wars" project—no, not the movies!—SDI" And I worked on that as well- RME, LACE, and Clementine/DSPSE. But that seems to disqualify me from having valid knowledge, according to YOU. |
|
31 Aug 11 - 03:35 PM (#3216080) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Don Firth BB, first I questioned that CERN actually said what you said it said. Then, if they actually did say that (apparently not!), were particle physicists really qualified to comment on matters of meteorology and oceanography. YOU took it personally. It way YOU who started questioning MY qualifications to even comment on the matter. Take a walk around the block and clear your head. Don Firth |
|
31 Aug 11 - 03:37 PM (#3216081) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: GUEST,TIA "WAITING FOR YOU TO ANSWER MY QUESTION. I continue to note that you have provided no factual evidence, and continue to attack me, rather than discuss the topic." Total Baloney BB. Go follow the link I posted (a summary), then follow the links within it to the actual peer-reviewed science. You know that the answer is really really really long so you are avoiding reading it by claiming I did not provide it. It is up there at 11:31 AM. Good Luck. |
|
31 Aug 11 - 03:46 PM (#3216087) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce TIA, I looked at the sight- which clearly has a political agenda. Thus I could pull the SRS Defense of refusing to look at anything that does not a priori agree with what I want to believe. However, YOU do not address the post From: beardedbruce - PM Date: 30 Aug 11 - 11:14 AM "NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed. Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models. " http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html If the studies that are listed are now being found not to reflect reality, are you still insisting that I have to believe them? I am STILL waiting for the explaination of the KNOWN short term climactic changes on Mars and Jupiter, that YOU keep telling me must be caused my man-made sources, since they are the ONLY significant sources of climate change you are willing to acknowledge. IF we try to stop climate change and FAIL, PEOPLE DIE. IF we try to adjust to the change, there is at least a chance of survival. |
|
31 Aug 11 - 04:01 PM (#3216094) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: McGrath of Harlow There can be no doubt whatsoever that human activity is putting enormous amounts of pollutants into the environment. The idea that somehow this has no significant impact on that environment is in itself highly implausible, and there is ample evidence to show that it does have such effects. That's the point. There is room for arguments about what other factors may be involved and what needs to be done, but there is no value in denying that point, and attacking those who accept it. |
|
31 Aug 11 - 04:04 PM (#3216095) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: GUEST,TIA What is the political agenda of Skepticalscience? Can you find any mention of any political party? Or any politician? Please show me where. No, you are afraid to try to go up against the real science, so you glance, and if it doesn't agree with your preconceived notion, you label it "political". Do the peer-reviewed journal articles also have a political agenda? Did you follow any links to any original data? I suspect not. Why should *I* answer your monstrously broad question when the scientific literature is awash in answers to your question. (Besides, I am too busy preparing lectures on Earth Science for young minds...bet that pisses you off). But you are not really asking a question. You are trying to deflect the conversation from your original erroneous post and thread title. |
|
31 Aug 11 - 04:14 PM (#3216101) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce McG, Can you show that IF YOU REMOVE the man-made sources that climate change will stop? If not, you are pushing an agenda that is being used to endanger the lives and peoles of third-world countries. I HAVE NOT SAID that it would not be NICE to reduce pollution, just that there are more important things to do IN REGARDS TO CLIMATE CHANGE. TIA, I looked at several of the source articles- and noted the dates. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't 2011 AFTER 2004 and 2007? If the MODELS do not reflect the real-world, it is NOT SCIENCE to keep using them without modification. YOUR failure to address this point indicates that YOU have a pre-concieved result that is what you are willing to accept, regardless of what is real. |
|
31 Aug 11 - 04:18 PM (#3216103) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: BTNG You do have to love BB's so called "sources" Yahoo, retreads of the original blog, hardly original research. I'll repeat once more.... what CERN Director General Rolf-Dieter Heuer actually said, was "asked…colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of climate change debate. "One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters," give it up beardedbruce, you're wrong and you know it! |
|
31 Aug 11 - 04:21 PM (#3216108) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Don Firth "Can you show that IF YOU REMOVE the man-made sources that climate change will stop? "If not, you are pushing an agenda that is being used to endanger the lives and peoles of third-world countries" How so? Don Firth |
|
31 Aug 11 - 04:24 PM (#3216111) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Richard Bridge So it doesn't say that global warming is not man made - merely that some man-made causes may have less effect than predicted? Is that your new position, now that the old one is shown indefensible? |
|
31 Aug 11 - 04:27 PM (#3216114) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce BTNG, If it is so obvious,, why can't those who say so provide factual evidence? I point out that the model being used is not in accord with the observed results, according to NASA, and I get NO DISCUSSION. http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf Methane and water vapor are far greater greenhouse gasses, yet Gore et al insist to reducing CO2. http://news.yahoo.com/climate-scientists-shine-light-methane-mystery-105956823.html;_ylt=ApDDycFooG0Bu4c_68LjI.aw73QA;_ylu=X3oDM |
|
31 Aug 11 - 04:29 PM (#3216116) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: GUEST,TIA 1) Of course all of the references are to articles published before 2011. We can't read articles published in the future can we? But they are all within the last decade. This is okay, yes? 2) Wow, I hope you are not fibbing again when you say you looked at several of the articles. Not a single article linked on that page is on climate modelling. There are papers on global carbon balance, seawater pH, isotopic ratios, outgoing long wavelength radiation spectra, ionospheric electron density, etc., etc., etc. But not one on climate modelling. 3) Okay, I understand you have a beef with climate models. Tell me which one, provide a citation (I can get my hands on anything), and perhaps I can "address this point." Without this, you haven't really made any point so how do I begin to address it? |
|
31 Aug 11 - 04:32 PM (#3216117) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: GUEST,TIA cross-posted. You can't begin to assert that you are getting no response from me. You are simply getting a response that you do not like, and it would be a lot lot lot of work to refute. So, I understand. I am busy too. |
|
31 Aug 11 - 04:32 PM (#3216118) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce Don, if you bother reading my posts instead of attacking me, you will see I have stated why IMHO we should be seeking to adjust TO climate change BEFORE we depend on STOPPING it, to help those (mostly) thirdworld cultures that are endangered by it. Instead, the effect of Gore et al is to drive up food prices, increaseing world starvation, and NOT moving any populations from endangered areas but instead removing the infrastructure that would be used in the future to help them. This is a presciption for war and famine- yet I can't even get a supposedly intelligent person such as yourself to look at the POSSIBILITY that WE WON"T BE ABLE TO STOP CLIMATE CHANGE, and perhaps we should be looking at ways to SAVE LIVES. |
|
31 Aug 11 - 04:41 PM (#3216127) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Don Firth Wild assertions, BB. Stock Right-Wing argument. Let's see you support that. Don Firth |
|
31 Aug 11 - 04:50 PM (#3216130) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: GUEST,TIA I have read the Spencer and Braswell paper you just linked to. There are some difficulties. First, it is a modelling paper - it uses a climate model developed by Spencer himself, but it is too simplistic to really approximate Earth's complicated atmosphere-ocean feedbacks. In fact, the water cycle and El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) are not included in the model. Second, this model assumes that El Nino/Southern Oscillation is driven by changes in cloud cover (as opposed to many scientists who have presented evidence that ENSO drives changes in cloud cover (i.e. Spencer may have his cause and effect reversed). So this is some justification (possibly incorrect) for neglecting ENSO, but it is still neglected in the model. Third, their model was developed using only a single data set - a good model needs to be built or trained on one data set, and then fed completely different ones. This is a very basic principle of any type of modelling. Fourth, details regarding their modelling algorithms and assumptions have not been released, so the results cannot be independently confirmed (remember Pons and Fleishman?). So, while the paper you provided can certainly not be called "wrong", it is currently *unsupported*. So, in this case, I agree with you - certainly not a useful model (at this point). A colleagues says all the time "all models are bad, but some are useful". |
|
31 Aug 11 - 04:56 PM (#3216132) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: GUEST,TIA Just curious - Which will be more disruptive to human life on planet Earth: 1) transitioning from a fossil fuel (which we can all agree will run out at some point) economy to something else (which would have the added benefit of reducing various forms of polution related to extraction, processing, transportation and burning of fossil fuels), or 2) moving the populations of Bangladesh, Tuvalu, Venice, the entire Sahel, possibly the southwestern US, Nunavut, many many coastal regions, et. etc. to other places - where there are already other people living? Which is more likely to provoke conflict, promote disease and death in refugee camps and just generally F with humanity? Serious question. |
|
31 Aug 11 - 05:13 PM (#3216139) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce TIA Planing for the move NOW would make the disruptions a lot less than waiting until people are forced to move and THEN trying to move them. I never said there was a perfect solution- just that Gore et al have not shown that the solution they are pushing will be at all effective, and would reduce the resources to impliment other solutions. Don. Ethanol production has been shown to reduce availibale fuel ( since it takes more petrochemicals than the ethanol replaces) AND has resulted in a large increase in the cost of corn, both as a feedstock and as fodd. |
|
31 Aug 11 - 05:37 PM (#3216148) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: saulgoldie TIA, I am sorry, but based on the best of the available information, I think we have long passed many serious environmental tipping points. Profound change for humanity is not a matter of "if" but only a matter of "when." We can stall the inevitable. But we cannot avoid it. I am going to relight my pipe, and have another drink. Maybe I will practice a few songs. Saul |
|
31 Aug 11 - 05:45 PM (#3216152) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Don Firth I don't think I said anything about ethanol production, BB. I considered that a bad option from the start, for reasons already stated. When I have time (not this afternoon) I'll give you three workable and relatively inexpensive ideas that have been put forth, which do not make use of fossil fuels, don't add pollutants to the environment, and are relatively inexpensive. Methods, incidentally, that some folks are already using to very good effect. Don Firth |
|
31 Aug 11 - 05:54 PM (#3216159) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: McGrath of Harlow I don't think anyone says there is any prospect that reducing pollution will stop undesirable climate change in its tracks. Even if the only factor causing that were human activity, it is far too late for that. Obviously we need to find ways of reducing the damage caused by changes that are going to happen whatever we do - but at the same time we need to stop doing things which are liable to make things even worse. If the house is near to burning down, you stop pouring fuel on it and threatening all the other houses on the street. But of course you also look for alternative accommodation. Those aren't alternatives, you do both. What's to disagree in that, bruce? |
|
31 Aug 11 - 06:00 PM (#3216164) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: GUEST,TIA saulgoldie, No apologies. I with you agree entirely on a personal level. Sadly, I am preparing my kids to live in a world far different from this one. But in science, nothing is ever certain, and we must listen to all ideas no matter how crazy, and then dispassionately destroy them. If they can survive, they are the new truth. So far, hypotheses regarding anthropogenic climate change are surviving the onslaught by other scientists. I am always prepared to wear my scientist hat and discuss rationally a scientific topic. Sadly, assaults on anthropogenic climate change hypotheses by non-scientists are being incited by politicians and media blowhards, and it is dangerous to ignore them. This (I think) is what Al Gore meant when he said "we must win the conversation". The science is really quite settled. It is the public conversation that is being lost. So with or without scientist hat I'll go at it on this topic. Enjoy the pipe and songs. |
|
31 Aug 11 - 06:38 PM (#3216190) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Jack the Sailor Gore et al insist to reducing CO2 Relax Bruce, I have heard Gore talk about the importance of reducing methane. We can cut our carbon and methane emissions and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. In the long run doing so would be a cost saver and in the short run a job creator. We can't move Bangladesh. We have neither the will or the resources or the cooperation of the Bangladeshies. And where would they go? Should we give them Texas? There is plenty of empty land in Texas. The Texans might object however. |
|
31 Aug 11 - 07:06 PM (#3216203) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Bill D I tried several years ago to get BB to address the 'moving populations' idea in more detail, but never got anywhere. (Will Rogers in the 1940s was being interviewed, and was asked "What should we do about the German submarines?" He replied, "Simple...boil the ocean!" The questioner sputtered,something like.. "But that's...I don't see... Will, how would we boil the ocean?" "Oh, that's not my department...I'm the idea man! We have experts to work out the details!") |
|
31 Aug 11 - 07:25 PM (#3216212) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: BTNG beardedbruce is rather like that author, Tom Clancy, he cloaks alot of nothing in techno-babble, some people might be impressed, I'm not. |
|
31 Aug 11 - 09:00 PM (#3216250) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Greg F. Should we give them Texas? By all means. They'd have to do a better job than Rick Perry. |
|
31 Aug 11 - 09:18 PM (#3216271) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: dick greenhaus Moving populations doesn't seem to appeal to the populations involved. Witness New Orleans. |
|
31 Aug 11 - 09:31 PM (#3216278) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: EBarnacle In re: temperature change. It is hardly trivial. Have you looked at the Summer ice caps lately? A large part of any sea level ris is going to come from there and from deglaciation. Have the scientists you all are citing considered the effects of chsnges in albedo? We need to aggressively address these issues before more of the world gets into wars over territory they are forced to need. |
|
31 Aug 11 - 10:25 PM (#3216296) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: GUEST,TIA EBarnacle- You have hit upon one of the most important positive feedbacks of all! Yes, yes, yes, there should be a lot more discussion of this: The Earth warms slightly... So, polar sea ice shrinks a little bit... Since water has a much lower emissivity than ice... So, the exposed ocean absorbs more thermal IR... So, the Earth warms a little... so, polar sea ice shrinks a little... ... ... ... Be very worried. This is a runaway process. Sort of like the Mewthane bomb. The Earth warms a little... So, some permafrost thaws... This releases just a little bit of methane... Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (right BB?)... So, the Earth warms a bit more... So, some permafrost thaws... ... ... ... Get it? |
|
31 Aug 11 - 10:26 PM (#3216297) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: GUEST,TIA oops. Methane. |
|
31 Aug 11 - 10:30 PM (#3216301) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: GUEST,TIA PS So, anytime someone tells you that CO2 is unimportant because it is such a small percentage of the atmospheric components, think *leverage* think *feedbacks* Most climate bullshit begins with oversimplification and ignorance of the interconnectedness of Earth systems. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. |
|
01 Sep 11 - 07:15 AM (#3216415) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: McGrath of Harlow ...Will Rogers in the 1940s was being interviewed... That's impressive in the light of the fact he was killed in 1935. |
|
01 Sep 11 - 09:57 AM (#3216487) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce TIA, I agree about the runaway effect of lessened polar ice caps- ONE reason I do not believe, nor have seen any evidence that MAN_MADE efforts to STOP climate change ( short of an all-out nuclear winter, that even most here might think was excessive) will have enough effect to be worth the death and destruction that it would cause. |
|
01 Sep 11 - 10:18 AM (#3216501) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Greg F. Nor can you supply any evidence that it won't. |
|
01 Sep 11 - 11:17 AM (#3216518) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Bill D Ok... after a search, it seems the Will Rogers line is one of those apocryphal remarks which no one can verify that anyone said, but are such good metaphors that they can be inserted by careless (mea culpa)pundits to make some point. I heard that story LONG before the internet & Google, and neglected to verify it. |
|
01 Sep 11 - 11:39 AM (#3216530) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: EBarnacle If you believe there is a problem, work like hell to do something about it instead of sitting there complaining that it can't be done. If we can have a positive effect instead of providing an unfortunate positive feedback answer, perhaps we will not have a situation which involves decimation or of homo sap. Work on things you can work at, like getting the CO2 out of the air. Whether or not it causes global warming, it is not good for us and contributes to the acidification of the oceans You've heard of pH, I presume? Humans have been changing the world since the first ape began using tools to get more food or protect the family from predators. Think of the effects of agriculture. If we don't work at it, we will join the dinosaurs. |
|
01 Sep 11 - 12:42 PM (#3216555) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Arkie What the CERN experiment has done is provide evidence that global warming might be the result of solar activity. Since the study was performed in a laboratory the case is not closed. But, I thought it common knowledge that the climate of the earth is connected to activity of the sun. The CERN experiment has not proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that man has had no effect on global warming, nor has it proved that gases and waste released into the atmosphere by man made activity are harmless. I would think the CERN experiment would be welcome as a further attempt to understand what is occurring. The opioninizing and politicizing that has followed in its wake is not surprising but neither does it reflect an intelligent managing of information nor is it constructive. |
|
01 Sep 11 - 01:35 PM (#3216580) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: EBarnacle Well put, Arkie. Meanwhile, when your boat is leaking, bail like hell. |
|
01 Sep 11 - 04:55 PM (#3216676) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Don Firth I got on a roll. This is long, but I believe that those who are up to reading it will find it informative. beardedbruce: "ONE reason I do not believe, nor have seen any evidence that MAN_MADE efforts to STOP climate change ( short of an all-out nuclear winter, that even most here might think was excessive) will have enough effect to be worth the death and destruction that it would cause." As I drive around the city, here and there I see houses with solar panels on the roof. These, I learn, are installed by the owners themselves. For various motives. Sometimes it's because they are concerned about the environment, but probably more often it's to reduce—or eliminate entirely—their electric bills. Solar panels are an investment that pays for itself, better than some investments. And I might mention that the city I'm referring to is Seattle, not famous for its year 'round sunshine. Yet, solar panels do the job for a lot of folks. And the more people who buy and install them, the less expensive they get. Some years ago I worked with a fellow who lived in the south end of Seattle, near the northern border of the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. He installed a wind turbine in his back yard. It was not all that large, certainly smaller than the ones you see in wind farms, and height-wise, it was actually not quite as tall as the telephone poles that line the street he lives on. [This becomes important, as you will see.] The wind turbine provided all of his electrical needs: lights, kitchen appliances, television, phonograph, computer, the works. But Seattle City Light noted that his meter was running backwards! This meant that he was putting more electricity into the system than he was using! And this meant that, not only could they not bill him for his electricity use, they owed him money! Randy hadn't even thought of this when he put in the system. Seattle City Light did their damnedest to make him take the wind turbine down. Since he was near the airport, they got—I forget which, the Civil Aeronautics Board or the Federal Aviation Administration—to get on his case. They came out and surveyed the situation and concluded that any landing airplane that was approaching the runway at an altitude at which Randy's wind turbine, or, for that matter, the nearby telephone poles, would constitute a hazard was already in serious trouble. They did, however, ask Randy to put a flashing red light on the tower, which he did. Then City Light tried to get his neighbors to complain about the wind turbine being an eyesore. That tactic backfired. Randy's neighbors dropped by to ask him all kinds of questions, and soon other wind turbines started popping up around the neighborhood! City Light had to pay Randy for the electricity he put back into the grid—and soon, some of Randy's neighbors as well. (Har-de-har-har!! I tend to enjoy it a bit when, for a change, The System takes it in the shorts!) Doug Johnson was one of my guitar pupils. He was my last student in the evening, and the two of us would often adjourn to the Pizza Haven on University Way for an evening snack and a coffee or two. Doug was an engineer, and one evening we got to talking about relatively low-tech methods of utilizing solar power. I don't know if the idea was original with Doug, or if he heard it somewhere, but it sounds bloody ingenious to me. In a desert, or in open country in general that receives a fair amount of sunshine, take a piece of insulating material and place it on or near the ground to provide shade. When the sun goes down, move the insulating material over, so it's directly adjacent to its previous position. Do this for a few twenty-four hour periods and soon you have a hot patch of ground right next to a cold—possibly even frosty—patch of ground. Got it? Okay. Take a LARGE piece of insulating material, say as large as a football field—or even larger—put it on rails so that it's easy to move, and do the same thing. Soon you have a large patch of hot ground next to a large patch of quite cold ground. Now, run pipes carrying fluid back and forth between the two patches with turbines along the dividing line between the hot and cold patches. The hot fluid races through the turbines into the cold side where it condenses and gets pumped back into the hot side to do it all again. The turbines produce electricity. Once installed, maintenance is minimal, and since it gets its input from the sun, it just keeps going and going and going …. Doug said that he knew of a group of Indians in New Mexico who, with a couple of blankets, used to pull this stunt to produce sufficient cold to make ice cream in the desert. (Don't ask me how that works, but I suppose someone can work it out.) I have a number of friends who are driving hybrids, like the Toyota Prius. And Seattle (and many other cities) has a "Flex car" or "Zip car" system. You join the system for a fee, and this entitles you to use the cars. There are cars parked in neighborhoods around the city, and all a member of the system has to do is walk (usually not more than a few blocks) to where a car is parked, open it with a special key issued to members of the system, then use the same key to start it, and off they go. When they're through with it, just park it in the same spot and lock it. Since the Flex or Zip car is supposed to be used only around the city and not taken on long trips, many of them are hybrids or full electric (good for maybe thirty-some miles before they need recharging). Portland, Oregon, to our south, has a similar arrangement. With bicycles. Yellow bicycles in bike stands all over the city. Take a bike, pedal it to wherever you want to go, and leave it at a bike stand there, along with the other yellow bikes. Do the bikes ever get stolen? Oh, a few, perhaps. But why steal something that you can use for free? At any time. Healthy exercise, gets you where you want to go, and uses no fossil fuels. In the late 1980s, I worked as a technical writer and editor for the Bonneville Power Administration (the same outfit that Woody Guthrie wrote songs for the the 1930s—"Roll On, Columbia," "The Grand Coulee Dam," etc.). The Department of Energy had commissioned the BPA to find new, inexpensive, and non-polluting sources of electricity. After much research, the BPA was dragged, kicking and screaming, to the conclusion that, by far, the most promising AND least expensive AND least polluting source of new electrical power was (steady, now!) conservation! So they instituted a program in which they provided subsidies for people to participate in a home weatherization program. Have their homes insulated, double-pane windows installed, and in general, cut heat loss which would reduce their use of electricity for heating their homes. This program went over so well that the State of Washington instituted what they called their "Oil Help Program" for people who heated their homes with oil. It, too, proved very popular. My job was to take the stacks of reports from the staff who inspected the houses after the jobs were finished to make sure they had been done properly and to code, collate the information, and compile all the field reports into a periodic comprehensive reports on how well the total job was being accomplished. As a part of my job, I was required to take a course in residential weatherization, so although I have never actually done it myself (crawled through the InsulSafe in someone's attic with a pen in one hand, a clipboard in the other, and a flashlight in my teeth), I am a qualified and State Certified residential weatherization inspector. It is possible to greatly reduce our use of CO2-emitting fossil fuels, while at the same time improving our lives rather than creating hardships for anyone I fail to see, Bruce, how measures such as these to stop climate change (NOT involving anything LIKE an all-out nuclear winter) would, in any way, cause "death and destruction." I have heard it said that "We will have solar power when, and only when, the power companies figure out a way to run a sunbeam through a meter!" During the time I was involved with it, I knew that the BPA took a whole lot of crap from the nuclear industry, who wanted to put a string of nuclear power plants around the state, and the State of Washington was getting similar loud static from the oil companies. Since the oil, coal, and nuclear industries are large and (obscenely) wealthy, they own some of the finest politicians that money can buy, so there is a great deal of interference with such things as getting the kind of funding and other subsidies (routinely available to the established industries) for research and development into non-polluting energy sources. And, of course, the shouting down of various concerned environmental groups, AND the overwhelming majority of scientists qualified to speak on the subject, who try to warn us of the impending dangers inherent in what we humans are doing to our environment. There are BIG BUCKS involved, and these folks regard the next quarterly report as far more important than future generations—including, apparently, their own progeny. Obviously, the human race needs to be toilet-trained. By the way: regarding nuclear power plants, especially in Grays Harbor County, where the nuclear industry wanted to put one of the biggest plants—the coast of Washington State lies on an earthquake fault; a subduction zone practically identical to the one off the north coast of Japan, where the recent major earthquake and resultant tsunami occurred, with the side effect of wrecking the Fukushima nuclear power plant. Japan is currently trying to cope with what they are now regarding as a nuclear distaster, requiring evacuation and quarantining of the entire area. And geologists are warning people in the Pacific Northwest, especially along the coastline, that this area is long overdue for a major earthquake, most likely along this subduction zone. Although they tend to call it a "geological event." Don Firth |
|
01 Sep 11 - 06:21 PM (#3216721) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: BTNG that fault line runs all the way up the Americas and T's off into the Pacific and thence under Japan, it's the Pacific Rim and yes it's not simply a matter of if the "Big One" is going to happen, it's just a matter of when. It's simply something you live with if you reside anywhere on the West Coast |
|
01 Sep 11 - 06:30 PM (#3216728) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: EBarnacle I believe it's also known as the Ring of Fire and circles the entire Pacific. |
|
01 Sep 11 - 06:37 PM (#3216735) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Don Firth The one which geologists at the University of Washington seem to be particularly concerned with is "the Cascadia Subduction Zone, a 1000 km long thrust fault which is the convergent boundary between the Juan de Fuca and North American plates and is the most extensive fault in the Pacific Northwest area. It surfaces about 50 miles offshore along the coasts of British Columbia, Washington, Oregon and northern California. No historic earthquakes have been directly recorded from this source zone. According to recent research, an earthquake estimated to be as large as 8.0 to 9.0 occurred in this zone in January of 1700." This sucker is a mirror image of the fault off the coast of northern Japan. But the whole Pacific Northwest area, including under Puget Sound itself, is like a spiderwebbed piece of plate glass. (Wotthehell am I doin' here!!??) Don Firth P. S. Dandy location for a bunch of nuclear power plants, eh? |
|
01 Sep 11 - 06:46 PM (#3216737) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Don Firth Yes, definitely part of the "Ring of Fire." But the whole thing is studded with cracks, tributaries, and offshoots. The general movement of the Pacific plate is to the north-northwest, but it nudges these satellite plates in various directions. The Juan de Fuca plate is getting pushed to the east, while the North American plate is moving to the west, putting incredible stress on the Cascadia Subduction Zone. Sooner or later, something's going to give. Don Firth |
|
01 Sep 11 - 06:57 PM (#3216741) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Don Firth I was sitting at my computer, probably on Mudcat, when THIS little jitter happened. I live in a four story, 100 year old brick apartment building. I thought I was going to have a bunch of upstairs neighbors drop in any second. Through the ceiling! Don Firth |
|
01 Sep 11 - 07:23 PM (#3216751) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: GUEST,TIA Just to make sure you are sufficiently scared - Think about Rainier as well. Several of the eastern suburbs of Seattle are built on lahar deposits (melted glacier water carrying soil and rocks) produced by eruptions - one in about 1500, and many many older ones. |
|
01 Sep 11 - 07:43 PM (#3216757) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: kendall Global climate change is a natural thing and has been going on for many years. Global cooling has also been going on for years. In the 14th century cooling caused crop failures and many starved to death. Now, it's warming, but unlike other periods in earths history, we have been pumping billions of tons of hydro carbons into the air for the last hundred years. It doesn't take a genius to see that it is making the problem worse. |
|
01 Sep 11 - 07:49 PM (#3216763) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Don Firth Just a year or so before Mount St. Helens blew, Mount Baker, to the north, was rumbling some and blowing off a bit of steam. It finally settled down (for now), but while it was doing its little shimmy, a bumper sticker was seen on cars in the Bellingham area (just west of Mt. Baker): "Vote NO on Mt. Baker Eruption!" Yeah, Mt. Rainier is one of the biggest, perhaps THE biggest volcano in the Cascade Range, a mountain range rumpled up by the collision of tectonic plates, containing several volcanoes. If it got nasty, it could take out Tacoma and Olympia (state capital) and a bunch of small communities, and do a whole lot of dirt to Seattle. A couple of offshore underwater volcanoes have been discovered recently in this area. Lotsa fun! Don Firth |
|
01 Sep 11 - 10:32 PM (#3216827) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Bill D "Dandy location for a bunch of nuclear power plants, eh?" Not to mention Hanford When I lived in Kansas, there was a brief attempt to use salt mines near Hutchinson to relieve the pressure on Hanford. But salt in mines is a fluid! A slow fluid, but we need 30-40,000 year stability. Then they decided Yucca Mt. in Nevada(read about THA!) was a better choice. Short story...Yucca Mt. is defunded. The nuclear waste? Let's just leave it at Hanford, near that Cascadia subduction fault....and let's build MORE nuclear plants. |
|
02 Sep 11 - 10:53 AM (#3217081) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: EBarnacle Read the article by Brown in the current Treehugger. It's about population displacement as a result of desertificatio, falling water tables and contaminated soil. |
|
02 Sep 11 - 12:46 PM (#3217149) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: kendall The biggest worry, in my opinion, is the horror that lies under Yellowstone. When that blows it's Adios to all. |
|
02 Sep 11 - 01:18 PM (#3217160) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: EBarnacle I don't know enough about geology to answer this question. When we finish removing the oil, water, natural gas and other underground semistructural components from beneath the surface will we have created the potential for at least one "minor" earthquake in the removal zones? |
|
02 Sep 11 - 02:40 PM (#3217206) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Don Firth Yeah, Kendall, that one is a doozy. Yellowstone is a caldera. I don't think most people who drive through and ogle at the various wonders such as boiling pools and Old Facefull are aware that they are meandering around inside a huge volcanic crater. I heard recently that folks noticed that the water in a lake in Yellowstone seemed to be rising. No one had noticed until then that, on the other side of the lake, the water was receding. What was actually happening was that the lake was tilting! This meant that magma was starting to push upward. If it decided to push upward a bit more enthusiastically, I might get a bit unpleasant in the neighborhood. And beyond! "To the moon, Alice!! To the moon!!" Most people would be a bit unsettled, I think, if they realized that the earth is mainly a big ball of boiling iron, and we're living on the slag that's drifting around on top. This gives you a bit of an idea. Don Firth |
|
02 Sep 11 - 03:02 PM (#3217213) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: GUEST,TIA EBarnacle- You said the key word "semi-structural". The stuff we extract (water, oil, gas) resides within the porosity of the host rock. If the pore fludis are supporting some of the wegith of the overburde, yes, extraction leads to subsidence...the Central Valley of California is a perfect example of widespread and dramatic (>30 feet) subsidence due to water withdrawal. In many cases, the overburden is supported by the grains in the rock/sediment, so extraction does not produce subsidence (e.g. nearly all shale gas). |
|
02 Sep 11 - 04:10 PM (#3217236) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: GUEST Just to update the original topic "The editor-in-chief of a climate science journal has resigned in response to an academic controversy triggered by his publication of a paper co-authored by a leading climate sceptic. Prof Wolfgang Wagner wrote in an editorial published on Friday in Remote Sensing that he felt obliged to resign because it was now apparent to him that a paper entitled "On the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in Earth's radiant energy balance" by Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell, was "fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal"... Full editorial http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/sep/02/journal-editor-resigns-climate-sceptic- paper Next week, Prof Andrew Dressler of the department of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, is due to publish a paper in the journal Geophysical Research Letters offering a detailed peer-reviewed rebuttal of Spencer's paper. |
|
02 Sep 11 - 04:43 PM (#3217247) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: GUEST,TIA Just to be clear in case you missed it - it was precisely this Spencer and Braswell paper that BB provided us a link to in order to assert that "climate models don't match the observed ata according to NASA." Yup, if two models don't match, one of them is wrong. But it is not NASA. NASA's data are fine. Spencer and Braswell modelled it inappropriately. |
|
02 Sep 11 - 05:33 PM (#3217269) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: beardedbruce TIA, Better look at my post- I WAS REFERENCING THE NASA data, that the auther stated showed the UN Model was not being reflected in the data. "Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted. The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted." I look forward to the article showing how the facts that don't match the model are wrong. If there is a problem with the analysis of the data, I would hope that it would be found- and not just assumed because it does not match what some authorities want to be the results of the data. The article says UN Model prdicts certain results. REAL observations do not show the results that the UN model says should be there. Seems reasonable to question the UN model. BTW, Don, Solar panals ( direct solar to electric) are about the most environmentally damaging source of energy ( OVER THE TOTAL LIFETIME) af ANY energy source. LOTS of heavy metal poisoning, but as long as we leave it in the Third world I guess it is fine. I agree that wind is a good technology, but keep hearing reports of bird killoffs due to the ( limited) wind farms we already have. |
|
02 Sep 11 - 07:26 PM (#3217339) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Don Firth BB, bird kill-off reports have got to be spurious; a, shall we say, "red herring gull?" I've seen a couple of wind farms, and 1. The wind turbines are not tall enough to be in the flight path of migratory birds, as some try to claim; and 2. The blades move slowly enough, even in a fairly brisk wind, that any bird that gets smacked by one is dumb and uncoordinated enough that it should be removed from the gene pool anyway. As to solar panels, I don't know. But I've heard sufficient claims from those who are generally opposed to alternative energy sources that I am going to check into the truth of the matter. Don Firth |
|
02 Sep 11 - 07:52 PM (#3217356) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Bill D Yellowstone would be serious, and so would that island in the Canaries falling in half and sending a tsunami at us...and so would the Cascadia fault letting go......but we can't DO anything about those. There is good evidence that we many not even be here for those other catastrophes if we don't deal with population and energy production... at least not as an organized species! Wind & solar panels ARE better basic options than what we are doing now! |
|
02 Sep 11 - 08:19 PM (#3217362) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: pdq So, Solar Energy is the answer. Really? By BY KEVIN FREKING and JASON DEAREN — Associated Press Posted: 1:36pm on Aug 31, 2011; Modified: 6:36pm on Aug 31, 2011 Solar Manufacturer Bankruptcy Solyndra workers leave Solyndra in Fremont, Calif., Wednesday, Aug. 31, 2011. The solar-panel manufacturer that received a $535 million loan from the U.S. government has announced layoffs of 1,100 workers and plans to file for bankruptcy. President Obama spoke at Solyndra about the bright future of Solyndra. PAUL SAKUMA Solar Manufacturer Bankruptcy Solar Manufacturer Bankruptcy Solar Manufacturer Bankruptcy WASHINGTON — A California solar-panel manufacturer once touted by President Barack Obama as a beneficiary of his administration's economic policies - as well as a half-billion-dollar federal loan - is laying off 1,100 workers and filing for bankruptcy. Solyndra LLC of Fremont, Calif., had become the poster child for government investment in green technology. The president visited the company in May 2010 and noted that Solyndra expected to hire 1,000 workers to manufacture solar panels. Other state and federal officials such as former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Energy Secretary Steven Chu also visited the company's facilities. But hard times have hit the nation's solar industry. Solyndra is the third solar company to seek bankruptcy protection this month. Officials said Wednesday that the global economy as well as unfavorable conditions in the solar industry combined to force the company to suspend its manufacturing operations. The price for solar panels has tanked in part because of heavy competition from Chinese companies, dropping by about 42 percent this year. Republicans have been looking into the Solyndra loan for months. The House Energy and Commerce Committee subpoenaed documents relating to the loan from the White House Office of Management and Budget. GOP Reps. Fred Upton of Michigan and Cliff Stearns of Florida issued a joint statement on Wednesday saying it was clear that Solyndra was a dubious investment. "We smelled a rat from the onset," the two lawmakers said. Shortly after the company's announcement, it became clear that the bankruptcy would serve as further ammunition to criticize an economic stimulus bill that provided seed money for solar startups - even though officials said interest in providing Solyndra with guaranteed government loans was first sought under the Bush administration. Upton and Stearns said they would continue to seek documents that would provide more details about the Solyndra loan. "Unfortunately, Solyndra is just the latest casualty of the Obama administration's failed stimulus, emblematic of an economic policy that has not worked and will not work. We hope this informs the president ahead of his address to Congress next week," the GOP lawmakers said. When Obama, who is seeking to address Congress to unveil a new jobs plan, toured the company's facilities, he said the investment was important because more clean energy would benefit the environment, the economy and national security. "The future is here," Obama said during his visit. "We're poised to transform the ways we power our homes and our cars and our businesses. ... And we are poised to generate countless new jobs, good-paying, middle-class jobs, right here in the United States of America." In a blog posting, Energy Department spokesman Dan Leistikow said Solyndra was a once promising company that had increased sales revenue by 2,000 percent in the past three years. The $535 million loan guarantee was sought by both the Bush and Obama administrations, he said, and private investors also put more than $1 billion into Solyndra. "We have always recognized that not every one of the innovative companies supported by our loans and loan guarantees would succeed, but we can't stop investing in game-changing technologies that are key to America's leadership in the global economy," Leistikow said. Solyndra was heralded as one of the nation's bright spots of green technology innovation, creating a solar tube of sorts that could soak up sunlight from many different angles, producing energy more efficiently and using less space. The company's panels were also light and easy to install, which was meant to save up front costs. But over the past few years, other companies caught up and provided similar products at a lower cost. Brian Harrison, Solynda's president and CEO, said that raising capital became impossible. "This was an unexpected outcome and is most unfortunate," Harrison said in a statement. Another solar company, Spectrawatt Inc. of Hopewell Junction, N.Y., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Aug. 19. Its CEO said in the filing that it could not compete with solar manufacturers in China, which receive "considerable government and financial support." Spectrawatt's filing came four days after Evergreen Solar Inc. of Marlboro, Mass., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Solar industry advocates said the failure of these three companies is not indicative of the health of the U.S. solar industry as a whole and that overall the Energy Department's loan guarantee program has been a success. "In the last 18 months, solar companies have either added or expanded almost 60 factories in the U.S. and driven the installed cost of solar down by 30 percent," said Rhone Resch, president and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association. "To date, solar projects that have received loan guarantees will help to deploy enough clean solar energy to power nearly 1 million homes and create tens of thousands of jobs across 28 states," he said. Jesse Pichel, a clean energy analyst with New York-based investment firm Jefferies & Co. said Solyndra's products used unique technology that was more expensive to install, "and the improvement was marginal at best." Dearen reported from San Francisco. AP Business Writer Joshua Freed contributed to this report from |
|
02 Sep 11 - 08:30 PM (#3217364) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Bill D pdq... what does the financing and politics of solar have to do with the basic sense of using solar? It took YEARS to sort out who would get to drill oil wells and build railroads and manufacture cars! |
|
02 Sep 11 - 08:39 PM (#3217366) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Don Firth Here you go, BB: It takes power to make power—even with a solar grand plan. From the mining of quartz sand to the coating with ethylene-vinyl acetate, manufacturing a photovoltaic (PV) solar cell requires energy—most often derived from the burning of fossil fuels. But a new analysis finds that even accounting for all the energy and waste involved, PV power would cut air pollution—including the greenhouse gases that cause climate change—by nearly 90 percent if it replaced fossil fuels.Check it out for yourself. Scientific American. Heavy metals? What heavy metals? And pdq: How about the REST of the story? Forbes. Don Firth P. S. By the way, pdq, it can't be that difficult. I just checked to find out what it would cost to have the building I live in fitted with solar panels, and found that if we were to buy the panels commercially, they would run about $200 each. But, I was informed, with a bit of ingenuity, one can get the materials and make one's own panels for about $90 each. I'm going to mention it at the next board meeting. |
|
02 Sep 11 - 08:47 PM (#3217369) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: pdq I recently talked to a man who moved to a part of northern Arizona where there is no electricity. He has a new house built and the cost of a full-function solar system was still $36,000. Remember, it must provide all the electricity you need 24 hours a day. Energy must be converted to a storable form and then returmed to energy on demand. All the other stuff and expert installation ain't cheap. He will not pay back the system cost in his lifetime (most likely), but this was the price of being free and living where he wanted. Not really an economic choice. |
|
02 Sep 11 - 09:06 PM (#3217371) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Greg F. And the guy that moved to northern Arizona has even LESS to do with the basic sense of using solar than do the financing & politics and bad business decisions & practices of a single firm. But it IS pure PeeDee thryu & thru. At least he's consistent. |
|
03 Sep 11 - 01:17 PM (#3217627) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Don Firth "Remember, it must provide all the electricity you need 24 hours a day." Well, yeah. If you're living somewhere where there is no electricity at all. So this guy should learn to live without electricity at all? Here's a suggestion: How about he not move there in the first place? Who is this genius, anyway? What's your point, pdq? Don Firth |
|
03 Sep 11 - 01:49 PM (#3217636) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Don Firth Here's a bizarre thought: people used to live without electricity. Now, how in the world did they manage that!?? Don Firth |
|
03 Sep 11 - 02:33 PM (#3217660) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: artbrooks I went solar in January. We are still on the grid - we sell our excess to the power company - and haven't had a bill since February. Most months we get a check. It cost me about $9K (after rebates), and I expect we'll make that back in about 8 years, assuming constant electrical costs. |
|
03 Sep 11 - 03:54 PM (#3217689) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Greg F. Don't waste your time trying to change his mind with facts, gang. |
|
03 Sep 11 - 05:32 PM (#3217735) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: GUEST,TIA artbrooks- That is great to hear. I've got a guy coming out Monday to spec us out for a system. I can't wait to see the meter running backwards! |
|
03 Sep 11 - 07:47 PM (#3217785) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: kendall We know there are scientist who insist that we are not causing global warming. We also know they work for the companies that make the pollution. The Gulf of Mexico is also a caldera. Maybe Yellowstone will give us a matched pair someday. |
|
07 Sep 11 - 03:23 PM (#3219651) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: GUEST,raredance Here is a free link to the Nature publication from the CERN CLOUD project. "Global warming" is not mentioned at all in the paper. "Climate" is mentioned only twice, once in the abstract and once in the introduction. I hope your physics and chemistry knowledge is current. Enjoy http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html |
|
07 Sep 11 - 04:31 PM (#3219684) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: GUEST,beardedbruce Don, "Heavy metals? What heavy metals?" Yes heavy metals. You know, the ones like cadmium that cause developmental problems and birth defects. From the article you posted: "Even though thin-film solar PVs employ heavy metals such as cadmium recovered from mining slimes, the overall toxic emissions are "90 to 300 times lower than those from coal power plants," the researchers write in Environmental Science & Technology." The problem that they DO NOT talk about is concentration- the difference between a ton of cadmium in a million tons of coal over 30 years vs 6 pounds in a 30 pound panel is significant- and there is cadmium pollution both in production and at end of life. If you don't think concentration matters, I have a large gold mine with proven reserves of thousands of tons of gold to sell you- The Pacific ocean. Just send me a check... |
|
07 Sep 11 - 05:48 PM (#3219733) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Bill D Well Bruce.. I tried reading a bit on solar panel and Cadmium in general. Much of it is far too technical for me to evaluate, but I see pages claiming that Cadmium-Tellurium panels are about the most efficient, and the compound is fairly stable, requiring some pretty high temperatures to break down. The do say that is is prudent to develop Cadmium recovery systems IF we continue using Cadmium. this page also suggests that it is not clear yet whether Silicon panels can be as efficient.... If I were betting man, I'd wager a nickle that both types...and maybe some others WILL be used for different applications. I'd wager whole dollar that solar will be a significant way of generating energy in the next few decades....and whatever the safety analysis, I'd wager $5 that overall, solar will be safer & cheaper than coal and nuclear. If I could live 200 years, I'd wager $20 that solar, wind, tides....etc., will be about the ONLY dependable sources beyond the falling water we now use. |
|
07 Sep 11 - 09:58 PM (#3219845) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Jack the Sailor 200 years? In 2 hundred years, It'll be back to the future, mini fusion plants in Deloreans running on waste water. |
|
08 Sep 11 - 08:19 PM (#3220376) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: EBarnacle Tia,when I say "semistructural," I am also thinking in terms of Florida and similar places. When the underlayment becomes dehydrated, usually due to a drop in the aquifer, the structural value goes down and becomes similar to the chalk cliffs of Dover and similar places. When the right frequency or loading hits, you have a sinkhole. |
|
09 Sep 11 - 10:38 AM (#3220631) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: McGrath of Harlow Given that there is at least as much money to be made trying to reduce the damage as there is in burying our heads in the sands and carrying on regardless, I am puzzled why there seems to be, especially in America, this assumption that being a denier is the conservative thing to do. There are of course other aspects to this as well as money making, but that seems to be the primary consideration for these people. |
|
09 Sep 11 - 11:52 AM (#3220669) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: EBarnacle The other reactionary conservative concern is similar to the story in which the announcement comes over the aircraft PA system: "You are flying in the first fully automated commercial aircraft. It is programmed tyo deal with all contingencies. Rest assured that nothing can go wrong, go wrong, go wrong." Deniers believe that they live aboard a fully self correcting planet which will correct itself before anything serious goes wrong. The system may correct itself but not necessarily before we are destroyed in the process. I prefer soft landings myself. |
|
09 Sep 11 - 12:20 PM (#3220684) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: Greg F. this assumption that being a denier is the conservative thing to do. Fits right in with their total denier mentality. They deny Evolution. They deny that there are classes in American Society. They deny there is racism in America. They deny that Reaganomics has been an abject failure. They deny that Social Security isn't "going broke". They deny that there is anything positive about Unions. They deny the truth of anything they don't understand or agree with. I could go on, but I think you get the picture. |
|
09 Sep 11 - 10:07 PM (#3220941) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: EBarnacle I was just reading "Questioning the Millennium" by Stephen Jay Gould [Thank you, Kat!]. On page 52, he cites former Secretary of the Interior James Warr, also a "prominent member of the Pentecostal Assembly of God, stated that we need not worry unduly about environmental deterioration (and should therefore not invest much governmental time, money or legislation in such questions) because the world will surely end before any deep damage can be done." This says a lot about why religious [and often political] conservatives resist the logic of cleanung up in the present. |
|
09 Sep 11 - 10:09 PM (#3220942) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: EBarnacle Continuing: If you believe the world is going to end shortly, why worry? |
|
15 Sep 11 - 07:58 AM (#3223522) Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made From: GUEST,john f weldon Ages ago I posted this above the line, but sometimes it's hard to decide... ...so I'll add it here... feral folk BTW - In 57 when the Russkis launched Sputnick, it was denounced as a fake by many a commentator. Which was odd, since it was clearly visible to the naked eye. |
