Slashdot Mirror

So the Earth was kept from an ice age for thousands of years longer, and you are COMPLAINING? That would be salvation for humanity to have thousands of years more not to worry about the return of a major ice age, which would truly deviate crops instead of boosting them as warming periods do.

As it turns out, none of the predicted over-warming signs have come to pass (like the hot spot over the tropics), so we may not even be as lucky as that prior period of time.

One problem with this analogy is that it's not just one "doctor" that's saying "operate", it's thousands . How many more "second opinions" do you want before you accept that perhaps you actually need an operation? Are all those doctors quacks, every one of them?

Here are some "second options" :

• Heidelberg Appeal http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/heidelberg_appeal.html
• Leipzig Declaration http://www.sovereignty.net/p/clim/leipzig97.htm
• Oregon Petition http://www.petitionproject.org/
• Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/UN_open_letter.pdf
• US Senate Minority Report http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9
• Copenhagen Climate Challenge http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/

Are all those doctors quacks, every one of them?

(5) http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_final.pdf where proxy data shows the global warming folks are seriously out to lunch
The Heartland Institute? seriously? they are such a blatant shill for Big Oil and Big Business it's not funny.

Man, you were doing so well too, why do you have to finish with a classic logical fallacy? Just because Big Oil and Big Business might be behind them (as opposed to who, Big Environmentalism and Big Carbon Credit sellers?) does not mean any research they perform is wrong. If they are using standard, trusted scientific techniques for handling and verifying their data there is no reason to trust it less than anybody elses. And it is good to have them, because Big Oil and Big Business are going to ask different questions than a university researcher would apply for a grant to research.

One fact you may not know, is that "Big Oil" employs a large number of honest to god field scientists who are often far more qualified than their academic counterparts due to the vast amount of field studies they do. These are usually geologists and chemists, but their research experience kicks the pants off your average university research scientist. They may be collecting their data for a certain purpose (finding more oil), but they collect that data all over the world and it can be applied to many different areas of research.

Anyway, I find most of the rest of your post reasonable. You just flubbed point 5 pretty hard.

ignorance indeed:

(1) Greenland used to be green....
Actually it didn't, it was called GREENLand to lure people there...marketing in action. Or perhaps a translation error.

(2) Medieval Warm Period
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/medieval-warm-period-mwp/
2000 year temp graph

(3) Rome used to import ENGLISH wine
correlation vs causation

(4) Astronomers have been pointing out *forever* that Major and Minor Ice Ages are dependent on the precession and nutation of the Earth's orbit.
I don't dispute this. However, there is *no* proof of this causing the *rate* at which we are seeing change today. Something else is effecting the system that wasn't around previously...like us.

(5) http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_final.pdf where proxy data shows the global warming folks are seriously out to lunch
The Heartland Institute? seriously? they are such a blatant shill for Big Oil and Big Business it's not funny.

The recent disclosures that some scientists may not have followed accepted processes for handling data (ignored more complete data sets for smaller data sets that better supported their ideas etc.) are serious things to investigate and rightly should be investigated. I don't know of any climate change proponents who disagree with that.

It doesn't, however, change the other *vast* accumulated data that show a very marked divergence from historical norms at rates not seen previously.

That isn't true at all.

I'm no engine expert, but I think catalytic converters typically introduce additional restriction to an exhaust system. This will often reduce power output, the net result of which is the use of slightly more gasoline to do the same work.

The trade off with catalytic converters is not a new one, here is a post from the NY Times in 1998 that talks about it: http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/controversies/catalytic.html

According to the Wikipedia article you linked to, Fred Singer does not claim that global warming is not happening.

[...]the Science Environmental Policy Project [...] claims that global warming is not happening

He claims that second-hand smoke is not as significant a factor as was previously published in the EPA report.

The same goes for EVERY smoker out there. Yes, that's right, FUCK YOU SMOKERS for using our public money for crap you do to yourselves.

Hospitals filled with smokers dying of lung cancer? Really?

"lung cancer accounts for only 2% of the annual deaths worldwide and only 3% in the US."

Smoking doesn't cause lung cancer (who/cdc)
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Edit orial%201-4.html

Court Rules Against EPA on Secondhand Smoke (oops, they lied)
http://www.sepp.org/reality/courtrules.html

More on the infamous 1993 EPA study...
http://www.sepp.org/reality/pseudosci.html

Ton of links that tell the truth:
http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/lung.htm

Don't believe the anti-smoking propaganda. Smoking may not be good for you, but it's certainly not as bad as the average person claims. (Note, you'll find similar pseudo-science in most 'anti' style literature, youth drug/alchohol literature is an easy example. Same nonsence in older studies on radon.)

Hospitals filled with smokers dying of lung cancer? Really?

"lung cancer accounts for only 2% of the annual deaths worldwide and only 3% in the US."

Smoking doesn't cause lung cancer (who/cdc)
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Edit orial%201-4.html

Court Rules Against EPA on Secondhand Smoke (oops, they lied)
http://www.sepp.org/reality/courtrules.html

More on the infamous 1993 EPA study...
http://www.sepp.org/reality/pseudosci.html

Ton of links that tell the truth:
http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/lung.htm

Don't believe the anti-smoking propaganda. Smoking may not be good for you, but it's certainly not as bad as the average person claims. (Note, you'll find similar pseudo-science in most 'anti' style literature, youth drug/alchohol literature is an easy example. Same nonsence in older studies on radon.)

Smoking causes cancer?

http://www.sepp.org/reality/courtrules.html

http://www.junkscience.com/news/newets.htm

http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/stats.htm

I was going to mod this insightful, but then I decided to do some research about the facts.

"The climate-aerosol debacle: The U.N. science advisory group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has a big credibility problem. Its 1996 report, the basis for Kyoto, had to admit that the rapid warming predicted by computer models was not occurring. So they hit on an explanation to account for the discrepancy: Sulfate aerosols, particles created from the burning of coal and other sulfur-containing substances, were supposed to reflect incident sunlight and create an offsetting cooling--forcing an agreement with the observations that show no warming trend. Unfortunately for the IPCC, the details don't match. The Southern Hemisphere, containing fewer aerosols, should be warming more rapidly-but it isn't."

by S. Fred Singer
Washington Times, January 10, 1999

http://www.sepp.org/glwarm/partinggreen.html
http://www.sepp.org/bios/singer/biosfs.html

But then again, lets take a look at what a certain third party has to say about his character:

http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Nightline.html

I wish I had time to follow the trail further.. I leave you to your own conclusions. Maybe someone already knows, but with agendas flamebait is inevitable.. I look to someone with a very reliable source to clear this up.

I was going to mod this insightful, but then I decided to do some research about the facts.

"The climate-aerosol debacle: The U.N. science advisory group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has a big credibility problem. Its 1996 report, the basis for Kyoto, had to admit that the rapid warming predicted by computer models was not occurring. So they hit on an explanation to account for the discrepancy: Sulfate aerosols, particles created from the burning of coal and other sulfur-containing substances, were supposed to reflect incident sunlight and create an offsetting cooling--forcing an agreement with the observations that show no warming trend. Unfortunately for the IPCC, the details don't match. The Southern Hemisphere, containing fewer aerosols, should be warming more rapidly-but it isn't."

by S. Fred Singer
Washington Times, January 10, 1999

http://www.sepp.org/glwarm/partinggreen.html
http://www.sepp.org/bios/singer/biosfs.html

But then again, lets take a look at what a certain third party has to say about his character:

http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Nightline.html

I wish I had time to follow the trail further.. I leave you to your own conclusions. Maybe someone already knows, but with agendas flamebait is inevitable.. I look to someone with a very reliable source to clear this up.

The fact is that, while the North American continent emits about 1.6 billion metric tons of carbon every year, North American carbon sinks actually absorb 1.7 billion tons of atmospheric carbon every year. North America is therefore a net consumer of carbon dioxide. The same is not true of the European nations, who essentially see their emissions cleaned up by North American or other carbon sinks. They were not keen to see carbon sinks counted in the equation when they had none to count themselves, despite the fact that the European targets under Kyoto were less stringent than those imposed on other industrialized nations.

Skeptics view of the Buenos Aires conference

Debate of the IPCC executive summary

"Stanford scientist Stephen Schneider has been a leader of the alarmist camp, which has received most of the publicity" Ronald Hilton (Stanford University - 03/18/99

E-mail correspondence between S. Fred Singer and Ben Santer

Industry contributions to the environmental movement

Environmentalism for the 21st Century

The CO2 & Climate Team

is calling a scientist with a contrary view "Mass Murderer" ok under the "ends justify the means rules

Now as a Parthian shot. Below are the primary movers in the anti "Big warming Industry". I cannot find, please point it out if you can find one, a page devoted to "Smear tactics" against the Big GW scientists, though I will admit that Milloy occasionally uses a bit of sarcasm, and Singer is none to friendly towards Schneider, none devote a page to "smear tactics". Lomborg of course, in Danish Stoicism, wouldn't say anything hurtful about anyone.

Patrick Michaels
Bjorn Lomborg
Steve Milloy

Now we move on to Schneider's site.

Schneider Contrarians

Here Schneider devotes 13,245 words to mud slinging and smear tactics (including the exorbitant amount of API funding to Soon and Baliunas that covered 5% of their budget, no mention to where the remainder of the funding comes from.

Skeptics view of the Buenos Aires conference

Debate of the IPCC executive summary

"Stanford scientist Stephen Schneider has been a leader of the alarmist camp, which has received most of the publicity" Ronald Hilton (Stanford University - 03/18/99

E-mail correspondence between S. Fred Singer and Ben Santer

Industry contributions to the environmental movement

Environmentalism for the 21st Century

The CO2 & Climate Team

is calling a scientist with a contrary view "Mass Murderer" ok under the "ends justify the means rules

Now as a Parthian shot. Below are the primary movers in the anti "Big warming Industry". I cannot find, please point it out if you can find one, a page devoted to "Smear tactics" against the Big GW scientists, though I will admit that Milloy occasionally uses a bit of sarcasm, and Singer is none to friendly towards Schneider, none devote a page to "smear tactics". Lomborg of course, in Danish Stoicism, wouldn't say anything hurtful about anyone.

Patrick Michaels
Bjorn Lomborg
Steve Milloy

Now we move on to Schneider's site.

Schneider Contrarians

Here Schneider devotes 13,245 words to mud slinging and smear tactics (including the exorbitant amount of API funding to Soon and Baliunas that covered 5% of their budget, no mention to where the remainder of the funding comes from.

Skeptics view of the Buenos Aires conference

Debate of the IPCC executive summary

"Stanford scientist Stephen Schneider has been a leader of the alarmist camp, which has received most of the publicity" Ronald Hilton (Stanford University - 03/18/99

E-mail correspondence between S. Fred Singer and Ben Santer

Industry contributions to the environmental movement

Environmentalism for the 21st Century

The CO2 & Climate Team

is calling a scientist with a contrary view "Mass Murderer" ok under the "ends justify the means rules

Now as a Parthian shot. Below are the primary movers in the anti "Big warming Industry". I cannot find, please point it out if you can find one, a page devoted to "Smear tactics" against the Big GW scientists, though I will admit that Milloy occasionally uses a bit of sarcasm, and Singer is none to friendly towards Schneider, none devote a page to "smear tactics". Lomborg of course, in Danish Stoicism, wouldn't say anything hurtful about anyone.

Patrick Michaels
Bjorn Lomborg
Steve Milloy

Now we move on to Schneider's site.

Schneider Contrarians

Here Schneider devotes 13,245 words to mud slinging and smear tactics (including the exorbitant amount of API funding to Soon and Baliunas that covered 5% of their budget, no mention to where the remainder of the funding comes from.

Okay back to Schneider for a moment.

Some more out of context quotes from here: Schnieder quotes

Selected Schneider Quotes

"A cooling trend has set in, perhaps one akin to the Little Ice Age." - Twenty-year-old Schneider quote cited in the Washington Times, June 12, 1992

"Temperatures do not increase in proportion to an atmospheric increase in CO2... Even an eight-fold increase... might warm earth's surface less than two degrees Centigrade, and this is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years." - from paper Schneider co-authored in 1971 cited in Environmental Overkill by Dixy Lee Ray (1993)

"[Global warming linked to emissions of CO2, methane and other gases] is a scientific phenomenon beyond doubt. It's only a question of how much warming there will be." - Quoted by David L. Chandler of the Boston Globe, January 23, 1989

"It is journalistically irresponsible to present both sides [of the global warming theory] as though it were a question of balance. " - Quoted in the Boston Globe, May 31, 1992

"Looking at every bump and wiggle... is a waste of time.. I don't set very much store by looking at the direct evidence." -Quoted in the Washington Times, June 12, 1992

I don't have, but have read, the entire article in the 1992 Boston Globe article. It moderates it somewhat, but far from fully.

Further, Schneider was Al Gore's science advisor, and helped to author Gore's book "Earth in the balance". I'm assuming your a Dem, and that's fine, could care less. But if this guy is running around with Al gore, it shows Political intentions, and makes him far from an un-biased person. He has motivation, likely political, behind his position.

Everything all told, I stand behind my opinion of Schneider's quote, and usage of it, as it stands.

As to the merits of research, I've read some of it, quite frankly, I'm not impressed. Shallow and non-original would be the terms I would use.

From his site on climate science Schneider

I see ~30 articles referenced, of which 2 he is directly credited as a co-author. The majority of which is re-iteration of Mann's work (where we stumble briefly on-topic), if you want a review of Mann's work go to the parent article, there's plenty. But I'll make an offer if you like. Pick a graph, article whichever you choose, and I'll point out the merits, or lack thereof should you desire. Took me about 5 minutes to quickly review the graphs, and see that not one of them isn't a distortion graph designed to look good but when you look at the labels you see that it is not what it appears on the surface. I am familiar with all of these in one iteration or another. Suffice to say they lack the same contrary evidence charts that go with these. The fall perfectly in line with Schneider's opinion of: "So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have." There is direct conflicting graphs developed by the same sources. This contrary data is dropped and only supporting evidence is published. Yes this is a direct challenging statement. Take me up on it should you desire.

"It's the inflation of research beyond its own merits that I object to."

I agree completely 100%, and I invite you to look into it with a scientific eye. Should you need direction I'll be happy to get you started. Most importantly Question it. Part of scientific review is to assume the data is wrong and look to put holes in it. If it you can't find any holes it stands as good. But you have to actively seek holes. If you don't understand something research it. And by that I mean more the methods and presentation, and less the meaning.

Name the last time you saw an anti GW article in the mainstream news. Be honest with yourself and say anytime you've seen a mainstream news source even mentioning the other side, or even noticing that there was an other side. Aside, of course, from people like me posting such articles in places like this.

As to scientists on the pro-GW side not getting press. Say the word I'll cite 10 articles a day till you tell me to stop. In fact I see plenty of articles about things that have absolutely nothing to do with GW saying something along the lines of "As global warming predicts.." or "We can expect more events like that because of global warming..." the Dec 26th Tsunami for example. There is absolutely no correlation between a seismic event under kilometers of water and global warming. Yet they grab headlines by supposedly connecting them. There are currently 6 to 7 articles about this in the British press everyday at this point. Quite frankly I'm calling you on that one, there are just to many contrary examples.

As to whey the likes of Lomborg, Michels, Milloy, and Singer being more well known, quite frankly because the pond is smaller, and those involved feel strongly about getting the word out, not because they are paid by oil companies (Do you think I make money from oil companies?) but because they are disgusted (as am I) by the me too science that is going on in this area, and the obvious distortions (which I notice you don't want to talk about the science, just the semantics, sorry I'm keeping it down but it struggled up), Singer for an example was a member of the IPCC, his stated reason is quite simply what he saw during that time, and as I've mentioned his site sepp is 100% funded by private contributions. So if it's a motive argument, I put my money on "my" guys every time.

But your comment about Lomborg intrigues me. Why skeptical about Lomborg. Again stick to the science and ignore what you've been told about him poersonally. Research it yourself. Lomborg himself talks openly and at length about the criticisms against him. References.

Lomborgs Critic page
Quote from Patrick Moore (one of the founders of Greenpeace "I believe they acted out of political motivation and are purposefully stifling Lomborg's efforts to defend himself." Patrick Moore Sci Amer rebuttal
If your opinion of Lomborg comes from the supposed case against him by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, note that the Ministry responsible found that committees judgment was "Not backed up by documentation and was "completely void of argumentation"
FBjorn's press release

And to my previous point. There was plenty of press about the case by the DCSD against Bjorn, but little about the retraction of that case. And I assume your opinion was jaded by this.

Continued

Uh, dude? You do know that global warming isn't contested, right?

Really? See http://www.sepp.org/books/hotcold.html and http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/00000002D37 1.htm among others.

Not so long ago, we were facing imminent threat of an ice age caused by -- you guessed it -- our polluting ways. The proponents then were as convinced of their inerrancy as you are now.

When your computer model can accurately predict whether it will rain ten years from next Friday, then your inanity will warrant a rethink.

You raise some good points and I am concerned about a lot of them too. I do have three children to feed. However, I refuse to run around in a panic just because "a task force of senior politicians, business leaders and academics from around the world" are scared. This is not science, it's politics. In fact most everything I read about Global Warming reeks of politics.

Read this essay for a more detailed explaination on why I refuse to scare easily:

http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/GW-Aliens-Crichton.htm l

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on. Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

Actually, it doesn't take any special expertise. It's not hard to survey scientific opinion, because good scientists publish, and get cited by other scientists. The best scientists get cited a lot.

Yes, we're talking science -- not politics. The aggregate opinions of the community have no bearing on the issue. Data does.

From Aliens Cause Global Warming By Michael Crichton:

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with
consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary,
requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he
or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In
science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results.
The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke
with the consensus.

"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't
science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

"In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is
nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.

"In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following
childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon
of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was
able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes
claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence.
The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary
techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his
management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him
from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the
start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and
twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of
the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and
ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

"There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of
thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra.
The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary
was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young
investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded
that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ
theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through
diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the
blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other
volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and
swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called
"Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus
continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social
factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because
it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until
the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took
years to see the light.

"Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit
together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the
continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental
drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great
names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were
spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what
any schoolchild sees.

"And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and
smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory,
fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus
errors goes on and on. "

This is why the Senate did vote 95-0 against the Kyoto accord under the Clinton administration, which is definitely not a myth.

Take a look at http://www.sepp.org/pressrel/petition.html for more.

We've talked for years about a "nuclear winter"

Yes, but that wasn't scientifically proven any more than global warming has been.

Oratory isn't the same as evidence, but see Michael's Crichton's speech on the two subjects for a point of view which is usually absent. Which is to say, rigorous science.

BOTH sealing putties contained asbestos. See here. It wasn't the presence or absence of asbestos that was the problem.

There is a miniscule chance of Gulf Stream changes, and it is the Rocky Mountains which keep England warm.

Jerry Pournelle posted a link to this on his site.

Aliens Cause Global Warming
By Michael Crichton

It is a very good read. Crichton claims that the public believes in things like Global Warming and Nuclear Winter for the same reasons that it believes in little green men. He says that science has failed to act as "a candle in the dark."

But that's exactly the problem--I might believe the argument that Kyoto was truly about climate change if those exemptions were not in place. You refer to the nations "least able to act now"--but the exempted countries are nations whose industry is still in development. Would it not therefore be easier to install the necessary pollution control mechanisms as factories are being built, than to build first and refit later?

The fact that this exemption exists leads me--and others--to believe that the Kyoto treaty was, in fact, about economics. This is not to say that it was not an effort to reduce pollution as well; it was merely structured in such a manner as to strike an economic blow at the US.

Of course, whether or not it is in America's long term interests depends on what you think about climate change. For my part, I believe the reports from the UK & US governments, from the UN panel on climate change (IPCC) and from just about every scientific body that isn't associated with the Global Climate Coalition, a mouthpiece for Esso/ExxonMobil, that suggest that it is a serious problem, perhaps (according to Hans Blix) even more of a worry than WMDs

Did you read the real IPCC report?

Only the US Republican Party and some US Democrats seem opposed to Kyoto,...

The Kyoto treaty was rejected unanimously by the Senate--including a significant number of both Democrats and Republicans.

I understand the arguments of both sides. I don't believe there is any global warming.

Global Warming or Hot Air?

The Leipzig Declaratioin

Desperate Times Call for Desperate Acts

Global Warming? Nevermind!

Cooling Off on Global Warming

Why the Kyoto Greenhouse Gases Accord is Full of Hot Air

Global Warming Hype Heats Up

Global Warming and the Media Elite

The Heat is Online

Numerous Articles on Global Warming


Read those articles, and do your own research. Don't trust me... look into it yourself, and you'll see the truth.

Really good question. You don't hear about CFC's "destroying" the ozone layer any more because the evidence that this happens isn't anywhere near to being conclusive See Ozone, Skin Cancer, and the SST for more information.

..considering the limited options the government had to choose between.

Let's face it, we all know the best way to dispose of something is to flush it down the toilet. Hell, it works for fish - it should work for nuclear waste too! Just a quick flush later, and it should be on its way to a nuclear waste treatment plant. Unfortunately, in 1992, congress shot themselves in the foot by limiting the volume of flush water to 1.6 gallons (6.08 liters, to the rest of the world) per flush. As anyone who has tried to flush the end result of a recent mexican buffet knows, this isn't even enough water to flush the average feces log, let alone nuclear waste!

Clearly, flushing down the toilet is still a good solution, so I propose the government take a long hard look at the new pressure assisted toilets available today, which make the best use of the 1.6 gallons available to them by using the line pressure to increase the velocity of the flush. I've had the pleasure of trying one of these toilets out for myself and I have yet to find anything this toilet cannot flush. The sheer sucking power is nothing short of breathtaking. I'm sure this is our solution to nuclear waste disposal.

Here some articles that might interest you. Global Warming
The Scientific Case against the Global Climate Treaty

Globally it is likely that the 1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year recorded (since 1861). Certainly this seems to be the case in the northern hemisphere not simply since 1861 but for the last ten centuries.

Yep, I hope so. We are still coming out of a little ice age, returning to the higher temperatures which were the norm when the Vikings grew grapes in Newfoundland. The scary thought is that we might find out, in 100 years, that the temperatures are really going down.

You point out that the EPA and UN-funded scientists have found evidence of global warming. Notice where their funding comes from. If Exxon was paying the bill, these same guys would no doubt have found the opposite. Government and industry researchers don't get tenure.

There are literally thousands of responsible scientists who work in these fields who believe that any sort of costly action to "avert global warming" is a bad, irresponsible idea. Some of them are Exxon employees, but certainly not all. Here and here (loosely related) are a couple of random links which might help make the point that it isn't a settled issue in the minds of people who understand it and aren't funded by the Government or Greenpeace (HINT: both these groups find it easier to get money from the public if they can claim that the sky is falling.)

In short, ad homenim arguments are less productive than usual here, since we see the usual suspects on each side of the issue. The energy companies are pushing their issue, Greenpeace is pushing theirs, and so on.
We need to consider the consequences of being wrong. Seeing the global temperature rise by 1 to 2 degrees C is probably going to make the world a better place to live in the long run. That's the maximum likelihood prediction from most of the models that folks on either side take seriously. The doomsday 5+degree C senarios have very low probabilities under most models.
Consider the cost of "taking action": Millions of people around the world, most of them already desperately poor, will die earlier and more miserably if we do anything to limit energy use. The only thing I can think of to reduce greenhouse gasses without causing disaster is replacing coal with nuclear power. That isn't going to happen anytime soon, unfortunately, because of the same agenda that is driving the "its getting hotter" side of the issue.

It's interesting that when people talk about this issue they aren't interested in a true debate. They have a hypothesis and only seek find the data that supports the hypothesis.

If we really wanted a debate, we'd at least hav some points of view seen on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, New York Times, et al. But they talk about it as though it were a forgone conclusion. It's not, it's very worthy of study, and genuine study.

The scientific method is based the princlple that one collects data and draws a conclusion from all the data collected.

In addition, people always seem to gravitate to the Kyoto treaty when this issue is put on the table. I find it curious that we never hear about the Leipzig Declaration, the Heidelburg Appeal, the and the Oregon Appeal.

They have signatures from over 4000 scientists who say:
"The Appeal expresses a conviction that modern society is the best equipped in human history to solve the world's ills, provided that they do not sacrifice science, intellectual honesty, and common sense to political opportunism and irrational fears. "


So, as the original posting of the aricle says.. What does this mean for global warming? Nobody knows.

It's interesting that when people talk about this issue they aren't interested in a true debate. They have a hypothesis and only seek find the data that supports the hypothesis.

If we really wanted a debate, we'd at least hav some points of view seen on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, New York Times, et al. But they talk about it as though it were a forgone conclusion. It's not, it's very worthy of study, and genuine study.

The scientific method is based the princlple that one collects data and draws a conclusion from all the data collected.

In addition, people always seem to gravitate to the Kyoto treaty when this issue is put on the table. I find it curious that we never hear about the Leipzig Declaration, the Heidelburg Appeal, the and the Oregon Appeal.

They have signatures from over 4000 scientists who say:
"The Appeal expresses a conviction that modern society is the best equipped in human history to solve the world's ills, provided that they do not sacrifice science, intellectual honesty, and common sense to political opportunism and irrational fears. "


So, as the original posting of the aricle says.. What does this mean for global warming? Nobody knows.

Dude, we don't even know for sure if global warming is happening. This isn't just random bullshit on the web, either. The True State of the Planet, ed. Robert Bailey, has similar data, (only up to 1992, unfortunately), and it shows a cooling trend. Bailey's book gives all its references, so you can fact-check to your heart's content.

There also happens to be a few dissenting voices in the scientific community--15,000 of them, in fact.

Finally, the steps we have taken to curtail global warming (Kyoto Accord, for instance) are really just a joke. To seriously cut back greenhouse gas emissions, we'd have to go back to the stone age, and that would come at a serious cost in standard of living and ultimately human lives. The burden would be especially heavy in developing countries, where modern pollution control technologies simply aren't available.

That's why not much has been done.

Before people freak out completely, I'd like to make a few observations:

First of all, it's worth noting that this is a prediction based on a theory. Scientists are trying to explain why we haven't yet seen as much global warming as the models would suggest, and this is one possible explanation--not absolute fact. Remember, back in the '70s, global cooling was the environmental boogeyman. Second, the IPCC has done some shady things before, such as changing the executive summary of a report after it was peer reviewed (my source for this is a series of letters to the editor published in the Wall Street Journal several years ago). Finally, there is a significant amount of controversy in the scientific community surrounding global warming.

The point is, take the IPCC report with a large grain of salt. People on both sides of the issue have their continued grant funding depending on whether they find evidence for or against global warming, so the science has unfortunately become very distorted by politics.

That said, I'd like to suggest a simple technological solution to the potential global warming problem. Disperse sufficient fine particulate matter into the upper atmosphere to reflect about 1% of the sun's light. Volcanoes do this naturally, and there's plenty of data to show that it can cool the planet. The cost of doing this artificially, while expensive, is likely to be far, far cheaper than meeting the goals set out in the Kyoto Accord. I can't take credit for this idea--I heard it mentioned once somewhere else. Why, with all the concern about global warming, do you hear so little about using technology to directly fix the problem?

One thing that gets me is the near universal assumption that the 'ozone hole' is a necessarily new phenomonon that represents a fundlemental danger to humans and other life on earth.

There is an interesting essay [with an excellent bibliography] here Which endeavors to critically debunk the rationale behind the scaremongering widely perpetuated by the mainstream media. Many respected scientists have had critical disagreements over the validity of the 'ozone problem', yet this has suprisingly been absent throughout the long history of mainstream media coverage of the topic.

Think what you will, I won't say I am wholly convinced one way or another, but this is well worth reading. Even if you are an adamently radical environmentalist, if nothing else it is good to know thine enemy. ;)

The preliminary introduction is a bit slow, if you're in a hurry, skip down to the subsection titled SCIENTIFIC UNCERTAINTIES AND CONTROVERSIES and as well to CONCERNS ABOUT SKIN CANCER , which I found particularly interesting.

It wouldn't be the first time that national hysteria (in this case, international) got out of hand, fed by a singular drum-beat of media hype, leading to bad policy. [Remeber columbine, the drug way, countless others?]

It's valuable to challege orthodoxy, and I found this article a fascinating read. You should check it out.


--
man sig

Read Here

and and here

It appears I was wrong about the CFC's. The main issue with them appears to be they actually reached the stratosphere.

However those links do point out a few interesting things about how much chemicals things liek the ocean and volcano's generate (Yes its VERY significant) such as sulfur as mnuch as half of the sulfur in the atmosphere comes from colvano's (Liberal statement)

Another thing to point out is the Ozones damn near disappearance over anartica, no one can explain it and were pretty sure humans didnt cause it

Its another one of those "Earth cycles we dont understand" i was talking about.

I just think that we wont contribute very much and who knows maybe 1 or 2 percent is enough to FUCK us all

Maybe it isnt, i dont lose any sleep over it and I give the "environmentalist" approach as much effort as my life can. I wasnt necesarilly trying to be insightful or anything with my comment, its just pretty well known that we understand very little about things such as the weather and the patterns of earth we are a blink in the eye of earth, and I think no matter how bad we fuck things up earth will recover maybe more slowly, but whose not to say dinosaurs did the same thing, whose to say what we are doing is not a natural part of this process we are a part of the planet, thats all my point is that no matter what people say, no one can honestly know for sure, and it didnt take a graduate degree for me to come to this conclusion..

Jeremy