Interesting (anti-)global warming article...

[Neil]

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_10-19/2007-11/pdf/38_711_science.pdf

[Danny]

this is just me nitpicking but shouldnt it be "anti/against the thoery of global warming?, cus how can you be "anti global warming" itself?, so then if it happens do you run out of your house shooting the sky whilst yelling "back!,back global warming, youll not take my house!"?:lol:

yeah its picky, but i got a good gag out of it.;)

[Neil]

this is just me nitpicking but shouldnt it be "anti/against the thoery of global warming?, cus how can you be "anti global warming" itself?, so then if it happens do you run out of your house shooting the sky whilst yelling "back!,back global warming, youll not take my house!"?:lol:

yeah its picky, but i got a good gag out of it.;)

Happy now :moon:

[Danny]

im sittin' here with a choclate biscuit and a mug of tea girnning to myself, so you can bet the balls of an icy bastard im happy:D

[suicide22]

Don't laugh at mother earth.:confused::shifty:

[Danny]

*waves off the warning, points at the ground and jeers*

*and is promptly curshed by a boulder*


Thing is if global warming is fact, and to be fair i think climate change is the right term ,some places are gonna get colder, not were i live unfortunately, i saw a documentary on this that as a "what if" and middle england turned form a verdant green area of woodlands and rolling plains of grass to a desert wasteland, least well have a beach though:rolleyes: but point is, fear the earth isnt the right term here, its fear man, the one thats killing it, seriously, imagine if global warmings true and we destory the world through pollution, if alien archeologists found earth millienia later wed probably jsut be aclled "planet killers" or something...or "the planet of the apes" , which would be kind of ironic.

[MinionZombie]

I'll give the article a read, but for something that has barely been properly debated globally, the debate certainly isn't over.

Get that chemical finished that stops animals huffing ass-gas out their bum-bums!

Did you see that Al Gore got the freaking Nobel Peace Prize (yeah, shared with those UN folk, but whatever) ... ug ... :rolleyes:

ManBearPig isn't real, gol...:)

Also, did you see the thing on the news where a judge (was it banned?) An Inconvenient Truth from secondary schools where the gubment had pimped off a load of copies? HAHAHA - f*ckin' too right.

It's education you freaking morons, BOTH SIDES OF THE FREAKING COIN PLEASE! :rolleyes: Sheesh! Also the judge saying something along the lines of 'there are 9 theories put forth in A.I.T. which are false/unproven' - haha, how's that for an inconvenient truth. :lol::p It's alarmist most definitely, it's also a movie masquerading as a documentary - like those Michael Moore things, they're dressed up as movies to make idiots go watch them to boost their box office numbers.

As you all know, I question both the extent of mankind's involvement, as well as the evidence of the pro-theory bandwagon ... somebody said recently that 'going green' is the new religion, yep, I can certainly understand that assertion ... the time for research is far from over, the argument is far from won & conclusive.

Besides, I despise the way the pro-theory bandwagon has draped it's rabid pro-theory passion all over recycling and renewable fuels, which are the next natural step in mankind's ascent anyway. Relatively speaking the industrial revolution only just happened, we now have our industry, so the next step is seeing about making that industry as efficient and renewable as possible - it's just the next step, but it's all been marred by the frothy-mouthed vitriol of Al Gore & Co (a man who, when posed the thought that he isn't right/not entirely right, by Richard Madeley on TV, went stone-faced cold with disgust).

And then the thing about Bush's home being greener than Gore's, hahaha, f*ckin' n00b.

*starts thinking of that episode of South Park about hybrid cars ... hahaha*

[Terran]

This guy is kind of a goofball in the scientific world....he is predicting a coming Ice Age it seems as if his criticisms are skewed to support this viewpoint....Also he felt that the movement to remove lead from gasoline was based on a "stupid and fraudulent myth," (apparently he believes this regardless of the direct correlation that when lead was removed from gasoline the levels of lead in people's bloodstreams lowered.) ....

He has written articles in previous years very similar to this one using much of the same information and similar conclusions which were always heavily criticized for utilizing half truths and misinformation....a critique on one of these earlier papers can be found here http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7 .....


But hell lets give him the benefit of the doubt....So instead of global warming we are facing global cooling.....so either way rapid global climate change is occurring...Just one is caused both directly and indirectly by man and the other is not


Hell if he is half right...and the scores of other people saying global warming is happening is half right too.....then nothing should happen...lol
:rolleyes:

[Tricky]

Our industry now is cleaner than it has ever been,i dont see how they can make it much cleaner other than shutting it down & having us all revert back to the stoneage!Go to middlesbrough and have a look at the buildings from the industrial revolution that havent been shotblasted clean,they are as black as coal & thats from the days when the industrial fumes were that thick it was like a permanent black fog over the city,and every other industrial city in the country was the same,now that was pollution!We've come a long way but people still demand the same high levels of production from industry,without it we couldnt sustain the populations needs or our economy.Victims of our own damn intelligence & success....

[MinionZombie]

Clean, renewable fuels will come. Recycling will be done properly (and not just organised-for-recycling junk getting tossed in landfill regardless - there was a whole doc on Channel 4 about that a while back), but it takes time, it has to be gradual and seep in.

It's completely not in the least bit practical or possible to just click some fingers and then boom, issue solved. It's a matter of our own evolution, and it takes time, and like Tricky has said, if the pollution was like it was back in the day then we'd really be monged ... and still, it's the big ones like China, India and America that need to be bothering, not the freaking UK, a pokey little island whose contribution is so small it'd be taken over in mere months by one of the biggies, if we shut down entirely.

In other words, the renewable, clean and recycled way of life is a gradual process, it cannot be any other way. There's 6 to 7 billion people wrapped up in this thing we call life.

And I still find the fact that a big-engined Mercedes S-Class is more environmentally friendly than a trendy, celeb-loved Toyota Prius. :lol:

[suicide22]

Where an immoral wasteful society concerned with equity: rather than are salvation.

[Andy]

Im a famous anti-enviromentalist, in that i know global warming is scientific theory and NOT fact, it has yet to be proved that global warming is happening, enviromentalism, such as it is, is also a money making scam thought up by goverments to rake in more money from gullable citizens. at least in this country :)

[Terran]

in that i know global warming is scientific theory and NOT fact, it has yet to be proved that global warming is happening, enviromentalism, such as it is, is also a money making scam thought up by goverments to rake in more money from gullable citizens. at least in this country :)

Theres no such thing as scientific fact....a Scientific Theory is about as close to fact as you can get...

In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis. This common usage of theory leads to the common but misguided statement "It's not a fact, it's only a theory."

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation, and general relativity.



I generally dont think much can be done about the current situation.... The ice caps are going to melt now even if we magically stopped all our CO2 Emissions....Now I think its more of an issue of just how fast it is going to happen....

[Tricky]

Why delay the inevitable,ride with it & see what happens :)

[Andy]

Ok then but my point was it is only one of many theories, also which which has no real evidence to back it up yet it is commonly taken as fact.

Another theory (personally i think is more plausible) as to why the climate is changing is that the earth is tilting as it spins, as it does very slowly taking millions of years to tilt from position to another, causing global climate change as it does as one end of the planet moves closer to the sun while the other moves further away.

Another fact, wildly overlooked, which backs this theory up is the fact that while yes the north pole is melting and shrinking, the south pole is rapidly growing.

This has happened before and will happen again, it has weight backing it up, unlike the global warming theory, yet it has no money making potential becuase goverments cant use it to scare people into paying extra taxes, so its not as widely regarded.

[Terran]

Well probelm is essentially several issues:

The world gets most of its drinking water from glaciers(I think the USA gets 80%) Without these glaciers how well will we be able to supply the population with a constant water supply.

Raising sea levels and all the people living along coastlines and low elevation places(Thats a lot of enviromental refugees)...

How the changing climate will effect agriculture (Raising food costs and availibility).

So if it happens slowly we might be able to adjust to a certain degree even though it will still be very tough.....but if it happens fast your talking about a massive global disaster...


Ok then but my point was it is only one of many theories, also which which has no real evidence to back it up yet it is commonly taken as fact.

Another theory (personally i think is more plausible) as to why the climate is changing is that the earth is tilting as it spins, as it does very slowly taking millions of years to tilt from position to another, causing global climate change.

No real evidence backing it up yet? :rockbrow:......
How many pages do you want?....Most of the alternative theories have thoroughly been deconstructed from recent further data and other data vectors


The orbit tilt changing one would happen on a slower scale than the rapid type of changes we are seeing....

[MinionZombie]

Agreed, the money making and guilt tripping with this green movement is frightening, also how some people are completely and utterly violently opposed to questioning it, or seeking other theories/explanations/etc.

Al Gore as God essentially, and Carbon Footprinting (a sickeningly trendy term I absolutely despise) is the new path to salvation.

Live Earth was sickening, a bunch of pissy celebs complaining their limo's hadn't turned up, and Madonna's "carbon footprint" of 14,000 people - why don't you f*ck off and stop preaching to the little guys in little Britain, you hypocritical British-wannabe skank. :mad:

I'd rather put my money on the Sun, a massive ball of fire which heats the earth, an explosive orange ball which has no political agenda, has no money invested in it ... it just is, is what it is. If there was no sun, we'd be absolutely f*cked, my point being it holds an extraordinary amount of power and control over us and our little planet ... ergo ... my money's on the big ball of flame we aren't supposed to look directly at. :cool:

[Neil]

The ice caps are going to melt now even if we magically stopped all our CO2 Emissions....Now I think its more of an issue of just how fast it is going to happen....

Why do you still have experts saying there is no unusal 'melting' happening?

[Terran]

Why do you still have experts saying there is no unusal 'melting' happening?

Well I guess its important to note that these experts still acknowledge that melting is occurring....but I’m not sure how many of those experts are still saying this because the melting rate is even surprising the people who were expecting increased melting to occur....So I’m not entirely sure how an expert can say no "unusual" melting is occurring when the people predicting the rate of melting ice are constantly under estimating by large degrees....If they say no unusual melting is occurring where are their predictions?

Here is a little blurb that was in new scientist that illustrates how the melting is over shooting average model predictions....



Melting away

The extent of Artic melt this year has been revealed-and it is worse than anyone thought.
Last month, just 4.28 million square kilometers of ice covered the Artic ocean, 23 percent less than the previous record low, set in 2005, and 39 percent less than the average annual minimum between 1979 and 2000. "It didn’t just break the record, it shattered the record. This year just obliterated everything else," says Walt Meier, a member of a team of scientists at the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, in Boulder, Colorado that analyzed satellite measurements of this year's melt.
The remarkable decline made headlines last month when European and US space agencies announced that ice-clogged North-Passage had completely opened for the first time [in recorded history].

[Neil]

Well I guess its important to note that these experts still acknowledge that melting is occurring....but I’m not sure how many of those experts are still saying this because the melting rate is even surprising the people who were expecting increased melting to occur....So I’m not entirely sure how an expert can say no "unusual" melting is occurring when the people predicting the rate of melting ice are constantly under estimating by large degrees....If they say no unusual melting is occurring where are their predictions?

Here is a little blurb that was in new scientist that illustrates how the melting is over shooting average model predictions....

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=513
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/09/reports-record-arctic-ice-melt-disgracefully-ignore-history

[Terran]

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=513
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/09/reports-record-arctic-ice-melt-disgracefully-ignore-history

In regards to the first article….
The author of the article,Robert W. Tracinski, is clearly a skeptic…. Throughout the article he defends his position with information from a report written by a scientist with the Institute of Ocean Sciences in British a Columbia, a guy named Greg Holloway, who is not a global warming skeptic….This is what Holloway said….

The total Arctic ice loss, Holloway estimates, is closer to 12 percent, of which maybe 3 percent can be attributed to warmer global temperatures. His conclusion: This small reduction is well within the range of natural variability and may have nothing to do with global warming.
Now this is the important part….
this article and Holloway’s report was written almost seven years ago!…
Since then the total amount of glacier ice melted, the rate of melting, the thinness of the ice, and the speed of glacial retreat have all increased beyond most predictions….
So even Holloway, a climate scientist, who had a very moderate interpretation of the climate change back in 2001 should be very surprised over what has happened since his report.
So if Robert W. Tracinski, who is neither a glacier expert nor a climate scientist, does not even have the intellectual backing of the experts he uses to support his claims why should we put any weight into an article that is essentially just a journalist’s opinion based on a gut feeling? Especially a journalist's opinion on climate change that is nearly 7 years old....


The second article is more recent but more deceptive.
This was written by Noel Sheppard, who is an economist, and business owner. First off, he ignores volumes of data that addresses many of his claims especially this one

How can anyone make a claim with a straight face that ice conditions in the Arctic are either historically low or grim when we've only been monitoring these levels for the last 35 years? Is everything that happened in this region - in thousands of millennia since the Big Bang occurred - totally irrelevant?
How many climate recreations through mud samples and ice cores does he want....no scientist is ignoring the past

He then takes a series of “successful” Northwest Passage expeditions to debunk the entire theory of Global Warming…?!…(But he was deceptive in these points as well more later)

The Northwest Passage issue is just one point indicating global warming amongst scores and scores of collaborative evidence….

But more to the point he is especially deceptive about the situation surrounding these successful navigations of the passage in the past and their relation to the current conditions…

The first expedition he mentions is the Roald Amundsen expedition….He selectively left this out though: Amundsen’s chose the east-west route, via the Rae Strait, which contained young ice and thus was navigable, ( Due to water as shallow as 3 feet (1 m), a larger ship could never have used the route.). So this is not even the same region being talked about being completely navigable today! And even being a completely different region it took him 3 years to complete the journey!….

And the Ship he refers to doing it in the 1940s was an "ice-fortified" schooner and it still took 86 days of cutting through ice and waiting for thaws…

The author of this article seems to have missed the point in the significance of the very thing he was reporting on…. That the passage is nearly completely free of ice...not that people can or have navigated it...:rolleyes:

He was harping on this one point:

"[A]nalysts at the Canadian Ice Service and the U.S. National Ice Center confirm that the passage is almost completely clear and that the region is more open than it has ever been since the advent of routine monitoring in 1972."
Getting the picture? Claims of "grim consequences

It wasn’t about people not being able to successfully navigate the passage….it was about it being nearly completely clear of ice:
See, notice the difference?


The extreme loss in 2007 rendered the passage "fully navigable". By which the ESA suggested the passage would be navigable "during reduced ice cover by multi-year ice pack" (namely sea ice surviving one or more summers) where previously any traverse of the route had to be undertaken during favorable seasonable climatic conditions or by specialist vessels or expeditions.


These journalist-skeptics are always so selective in the data they refer to and really they already have their opinion and just look for something to support it….

They also tend to paint a picture that this is a highly debated area of science when it is not...

[Neil]

What I (& I believe many people) find difficult to handle is either both 'sides' seem to declare clear and definate evidence they are right... This being the case, how can we be sure which is right?

[MinionZombie]

What I (& I believe many people) find difficult to handle is either both 'sides' seem to declare clear and definate evidence they are right... This being the case, how can we be sure which is right?
The key is questioning - I get the impression all the pro-theory people aren't questioning it at all, and many will be going along with it because they have deep seated guilt over their possessions, like an underlying depression about their lifestyle (think "Fight Club") ... and yes, I am being serious.

Then there's all the chattering classes and champagne socialists and celebrities...

Then there's researchers who are paid to conduct research which agrees with the pro-theory, it's a competitive market and some researchers have come out worriedly and stated that the way pro-theory research is conducted is at least a bit shady, not every piece, but there's definitely a rotten chunk in there.

The rabidly anti-theory people are just the polar opposite and I don't sit there either.

As for the anti-theory people, at least they're questioning it ... admittedly to varying degrees. To accept anything just like that *clicks fingers* is ludicrous.

I remember being royally disgusted when I heard statements like "the time for debate is over" in the media - WHAT FECKIN' DEBATE?! There's been none, the media is rabidly biased in one direction, the anti-theory side that questions it all (to varying degrees) really has to struggle through the vast tide of pro-Gore propaganda and trendy catchphrases like "carbon footprinting"...and that "carbon credits" stuff, that's shady. The new-religion undertones of the pro-Gore side is terrifying to be honest.

As I've no doubt said before, I question the extent of our involvement. I believe the earth and the especially the sun are far more powerful that us pesky critters scurrying around on the surface, that said, recycling and clean fuels I am all for - but not because of "my carbon footprint" or any of that cock-tugging pish-tosh - but because it's just the natural, next step in human evolution.

It's that simple, but it can't be done like that *clicks fingers*, it has to take time...

For an analogy, look at television sets - the industry standard used to be 4:3 sets, now the standard is 16:9 sets, but it took years and years for that to happen.

Extend that analogy to a much larger issue, and that's where I rest, it's the natural next step in human evolution...and the rabid trend-slogan guilt tripping surrounding the pro-side is absolutely sickening, they might as well be screaming "THE MESSIAH! THE MESSIAH!" like in "Life of Brian". :rolleyes::lol: