Junk Science

[senojekips]

yes, but are you filling the glass or emptying it?

I am sure that mankind is emptying the glass or at least using the contents faster than they are being replenished.

This perhaps is more important than climate change,... Population explosion, as it seems to be happening in the places where it can least be afforded. Also it could have a significant impact far sooner than climate change already several countries that have been net exporters of food are now importers. This too is exacerbated by climate change, but more so as a result of population increase and the rising cost of fertiliser due to the oil crisis.

This could well make another interesting thread.

 

[Del Boy]

Ref MontyB's last post; I do not feel that there is anything there that I would disagree with, other than that his first analogy I would not consider precise. However, in general I agree with his post, although I see that I have not adequately described my position to him.

I won't therefore hammer the point; probably the easiest way to make it would be to take up his old car scenario!

 

[senojekips]

The same statement applies to waiting for science to agree it just wont happen because every day we learn something new.

Paleontologists have a saying "I expect everything I discover to eventually be disproven" not because the dinosaur is suddenly going to turn out as a hoax but because we do not know the finer points of the species (colour, sounds etc.) and therefore every piece of the puzzle we find increases our knowledge and makes some other aspect of the puzzle defunct.

Global warming is exactly the same we know global warming/cooling is happening ALL sides agree that it is a natural process and it is this that mankind needs to protect itself from by investigating whether there are any man made causes contributing to this issue.

Lets assume there is no man made contribution to global warming the fact still remains that the "natural process" will continue now given that knowledge what effect are increased/decreased temperatures going to have on the worlds populations from food production to commerce, most of our arable land is in temperate climates, most of our major commercial areas and population centers are built on the coast.

This is not about panicking people into making changes it is about getting as much information as possible as soon as possible so that nations can plan for these changes and reduce the impact in future, now I am not saying there are not panic merchants in the process but these people exist in all areas of life and they are just as dangerous as the "lets ignore the problem" crowd that make up the other end of the spectrum.

I'm happy to go along with that, which is pretty much what I have been saying all along. My disagreement is with those who are insisting that climate change is man made, or at least made noticeably worse by man's use of fossil fuels etc. Even worse are those who seem to be implying that we can turn it around it by reverting to pre industrial lifestyles.

 

[A Can of Man]

Once you go off on the extremes your story loses credibility because the likelihood of it being grossly inaccurate increases. I'm with MontyB on this.

 

[errol]

So in less words, your point is the Earth has heated and cooled a bunch of different times before us humans can along and will continue to heat and cool regardless of our actions?

I had to break it down for those members who don't like to read long posts

Hi Doody , how are you going? All the best from Aussie John.

 

[errol]

i personally think that we can't make any major difference. not even a minor difference. i think that it's just part of a cycle of events that constantly goes round and round.

So what do you think we should do? Stick our heads in the dirt?

 

[errol]

So in less words, your point is the Earth has heated and cooled a bunch of different times before us humans can along and will continue to heat and cool regardless of our actions?

I had to break it down for those members who don't like to read long posts

I hope you're smarter than some of your army mates Doody.

Aussie John.

 

[errol]

Exactly... what we has a group do it so small it's trivial. It's like me pouring a glass of water into the Ocean. I'm all for the environment. If the woods and animals go away then I have to place to hunt/fish/camp.

The Earth has cooled and heated long before we came and it will do it long after we go. The Sun goes through cycles also and heats and cools. Hell, the Polar Ice Caps on Mars are melting..... Do we have any effect on that?

This is rubbish!

 

[Insomniac]

So what do you think we should do? Stick our heads in the dirt?

i think we should keep on as we are. lose all the socalled "green" taxes, and keep developing alternatives. eventually hydrocarbons will run out, and we'll need another fuel source.

 

[Del Boy]

i think we should keep on as we are. lose all the socalled "green" taxes, and keep developing alternatives. eventually hydrocarbons will run out, and we'll need another fuel source.

And the faster necessity pushes us into that the better. That should be the drive. Let us rush on with the 'get rid of oil race.' In the Uk the authorities love the current problem. High oil prices, huge tax revenues from that, stealth taxes galore, excuses for everything blamed on global warming, opting out of weekly rubbish collections, moving to fortnightly and then monthly causing increased rat problems and fly-tipping, invasion of privacy with micro-chips in rubbish bins to spy on users etc., etc.

This is all bringing about increased demands on our freedoms and our finances and impacting upon our lives in a very negative way. I hear there are towns in world with ovens that can destroy any waste at all and turn it into power for the use of the community. If this is so in fact, why have we not got them everywhere here. It is easier, of course, to pluck the golden goose more and more.

 

[senojekips]

More Doubts

Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.

David Evans | July 18, 2008

I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.

When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest ipcc report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.

Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

 

[AikiRooster]

and another justification for this lovely addition....

 

[MontyB]

Thats almost as funny as this one...

Anyway back to the question at hand I really wish people would stop posting opinions as fact, the problem with this is (and even he admits it in a round about way) when he says this

None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.

, this argument is being fought by two sides with differing agendas and I am prepared to bet good money that neither side is telling the entire truth. It is simply politics in the science world.

 

[AikiRooster]

perhaps, but......

 

[MontyB]

I cant be bothered linking so here's some more and hopefully at some point you will realise that for every one you can throw up there I can match so how about we stop trying to kill a thread with a battle neither of us will win.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/bl25bushpics.htm

 

[AikiRooster]

10-4 MontyB, good idea.
I was not trying to win per se, just trying to make some funnies with a very frustrating subject matter.

 

[senojekips]

I cant be bothered linking so here's some more and hopefully at some point you will realise that for every one you can throw up there I can match so how about we stop trying to kill a thread with a battle neither of us will win.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/bl25bushpics.htm

I don't see this as a matter to be won or lost, my point throughout the whole debate has been to demonstrate that it is not an open and shut case, as some would have us believe. It is still only a theory.

 

[A Can of Man]

There is simply so much money involved with the greenhouse gas deal that it's impossible to see the environmentalists who support this without question as some kind of responsible, politically neutral organization built around solid science.
And of course there is money involved in debunking it, but to openly do so would be a political disaster for anyone at this stage so no company can really afford to speak out against it.

 

[MontyB]

There is simply so much money involved with the greenhouse gas deal that it's impossible to see the environmentalists who support this without question as some kind of responsible, politically neutral organization built around solid science.
And of course there is money involved in debunking it, but to openly do so would be a political disaster for anyone at this stage so no company can really afford to speak out against it.

This is just it there are two sides making a living opposing the other side and as such neither can be considered objective, this is why it is important to avoid these "sensationalised" made for news reports and concentrate on raw data.

I don't see this as a matter to be won or lost, my point throughout the whole debate has been to demonstrate that it is not an open and shut case, as some would have us believe. It is still only a theory.

Indeed but at this point both sides "arguments" are only theory and will remain so until one side is proven correct.

 

[senojekips]

Indeed but at this point both sides "arguments" are only theory and will remain so until one side is proven correct.

My argument in a nutshell. In the mean time I will continue to act in accordance with my own experience.

For all of the accumulated knowledge and scientific papers written by and available to the experts, I find it frustrating that I seem to get it right at least as often as they do, without spending millions,... billions of dollars.