|
|
|
|
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/23/2009 2:02:35 PM | Nope. The premises used to nullify the survey results are faulty.
.
.
.
Some specific answers…
Msg 240…
IP addresses do not ensure one email recipient -- one vote. That is so because after answering the set of questions, the scientist can walk over to the next machine in the next room in the facitily he works in, and vote again. Then repeat the process until he gets tired or runs out of computers.
What you are referring to is “ballot box stuffing”. Questionpro.com, like most online survey services, has techniques to detect and prevent this kind of vote rigging. IP address tracking and cookie insertion is just one of the methods invoked and is likely what is mentioned in literature about the Doran and Zimmerman poll. However, there is a battery of active and passive techniques used to identify and screen out such tampering. It isn’t that easy to tamper with cyber ballots anymore.
Msg 240…
The respondends were also a self-selected group within a selected group. If one assumes that every recipient was honest and voted only once, still, less than one-third of those contacted answered the questionnaire.
They are certainly voluntary. But that is neither here nor there. If the response rate is statistically significant, there is a representative sampling of positive and negative responses. The total response volume only has to exceed this threshold (at least by North American mathematics).
Msg 240…
One-third participation does not make a valid statement about an issue.
The total response volume only has to exceed the statistical significance minimum threshold.
Msg 247…
"some are arguing here. that they are knowingly falsifying data" I donno, maybe someone claimed that. Everything is up to interpretation right now, that's why there is no consensus. No data needs to be falsified if the amount of it is so little that no consesus can be forced on the community by way of an overwhelming proof. Hence the interpretative nature of the interpretations and I simply choose to go with one instead of the other. If it was not left for interpretation, because proof existed, then the debate would not be going on.
Nope. The “everything is up to interpretation” is just another way of saying it’s “random” or that there is some other mechanism to explain the results. It is essentially a plea to ignorance. We could use that argument for any phenomena that occurs without human measurement of each and every variable (which is pretty much most things). We see this excuse all the time. It usually starts with the phrase, “Unless we know ALL the facts…” We haven’t personally seen ALL the people in New York City, but it is doubtful that all that we haven’t seen have purple hair. Now we can use the excuse of “unless we know ALL the facts” to say that maybe they all do… Right…
There is a great deal of corroboration in observed behaviour that matches what the climate model predicts. However, most deniers speciously hold climate science to a perfectionist’s requirement of absolute precision. In this way, they can maintain the false notion that there is reason to doubt. It is equivalent of someone stating that unless science can tell me the exact speed they are going, well perhaps they aren’t moving at all… it’s all interpretation then.
If there were no doubt there would be no debate? LoL. If that were true, we wouldn’t keep seeing people post “the atmosphere is optically thick”, or, “it’s the fluctuation in solar output” mythology ad nauseam (especially when their errors have been directly pointed out to them as many times as they post up the junk.) Nope. There is debate because some need (for whatever reason outside of really seeking the truth) to dismiss climate science. It goes on because there is a small but vocal group that wants to create doubt where doubt does not exist.
As far as consensus, it is becoming apparent that if just ONE scientist disagrees, deniers will hoist him or her up on their shoulders and parade around town proudly shouting that there is NO CONSENSUS.
Msg 247…
I believe people choose one or another interpretations according to their temperament.
Opinion or not, this is just conveniently ignoring the evidence as well as the discipline of avoiding bias that scientific practice demands.
Msg 247…
I am a contrarian, I tend to be very un-sheepish (unless around women). I think for myself, I come up with my own theories, false or true, no matter. I invent things. I am convinced that most scientists who side with the non-human effect on climate change are sorta dehumanized robots who look at things of science with no emotions, unless it's about the science of emotions. You know, Asperger's sufferers. Those who like to blame humans for the warming, they're like clever autodafe-directors. They like to keep the population feeling guilty, because they live in guilt and they can't imagine how somebody can live a happy and fulfilling life without the yoke of guilt.
We are B0rg.
This is just a veiled way of implying that those who agree with what climate science are unthinking sheep. That is a wholly unsupported opinion yet one that is common with most that deny the impact industrialization has had on the climate system.
Why would people feel “guilty”? Unless they were personally around for the past 200 years and actively promoted the industrial practices of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, it is difficult to expect such remorse from the average citizen. Does one have any shred of evidence that climate science as a whole (or even in part) are seeking to “guilt” people into understanding? (We are talking scientists here, not AL GORE).
Certainly mitigation strategies may involve some form of evocation of personal duty, but the science is still the science. To stray from that in this discussion is merely deflection to avoid exposure of non-substantiation in contrarian claims.
Nice try, though.
Msg 247…
"statistically speaking...one third participation could indeed make a valid statement if it could be shown to be representative of the entire population" This is true, but there is the conditional, there is the condition which at this point is not at all assured. It is a point that some people would like to prove or have others see that way. There is no way from our point to prove it, as "a representative sample" could only be interpreted if we had a view of the entire population, which then would render the significance of the representative sample moot. The problem is that 1. the gropup is self-selected and 2. the mechanics of the poll allow inaccuracies and prejudicial results. So this point about how it "could" be valid is null and void.
This is just attempting to dismiss the nature of statistical analyses when it apparently refutes ones argument. It is equivalent to picking 20 m&m’s out of a bag of 100, seeing they are all blue and declaring that the rest are equally likely to be red rather than blue… based on nothing more than believing that the bag should have been all red ones to begin with.
The group is self selected? Irrelevant, since purposeful naysayers are represented regardless of self selection.
The mechanics of the poll allow inaccuracies? Unless one can prove that Questionpro.com did not apply a reasonable amount of “anti ballot box stuffing” processes, this is wholly unsupported (articles may have mentioned “IP address” uniqueness, but this doesn’t mean that is all they use.) This renders such accusation null and void.
Msg 247…
And if it were truly random, and the necessary integrity would be there, it would still be nothing more than opinion. Not enough evidence to support either side. This is like deciding by voting whether latmus turns blue in acid or in base liquids. A few experiments, and it's proven that it's not the other way around. We still need those few experiments / observations in the climate change scrutiny.
“Nothing more than opinion” is purposely confusing the poll and the subject matter. Of course the poll is an opinion by its very nature. However, the science that the poll refers to is NOT merely opinion.
“Not enough evidence to support either side”. This just a permutation of the tired old ploy of “we will equate the sides based solely on being opposite”. Nope. There is plenty of corroboration and factual records that support the views of climate scientist. As it has been demonstrated even here on these threads (based on the numerous false claims proven to be false), there is really NOTHING supporting the contrarian view.
Msg 247…
"but I don't find all of their findings suspect" So don't I. I just realize that their findings are not pointing at any specific and hard-and-fast interpretation. The findings they have are accurate, I believe, but their interpretation of it is not reliable, as either we don't have enough findings or we don't know how to handle them if we do have enough findings.
Essentially this is just down to opinion on what one considers to be adequate interpretation of the data. In this way we have come full circle. The point of the opinion poll is to determine if people consider the interpretations to be adequate. They necessarily ask climate scientists since that is their area of expertise. If one considers that “biased”, then one is welcome to diagnose their personal ailments based on a random sampling of people off the street rather than that of a several physicians. Caution; results may vary; consult a random sampling of people. LoL.
Msg 247…
"hard to demonstrate how they benefit monetarily by being fraudulent" It's a common American misconception that money is the end all and the be all. In most cases in life, yes. But there is also the steadfast fidelity to a philosophy. A commitment to a belief. The belief in this case is not the fact of science, but that humans must feel guilt, so some scientists may be swayed and are without being fraudulent.
In the context of the original statement, “benefit monetarily” refers to specious accusations (in whole or implied) that scientists who agree with the current findings are doing so for ulterior reasons. Regardless of those ulterior reasons, it is the purely unsupported nature of such motives that was criticized. To focus on whether money is the payout is merely deflecting that valid assessment into a discussion on forms of payment.
If one feels that scientists are attempting to “guilt” the common citizen into compliance, please provide some evidence of this, or admit that this is wholly unsupported and biased opinion.
Msg 247…
"apparently, you are completely distrustful of their findings." Not at all. You must get beyond appearances. Of course, by findings I mean data (as in "I found a piece of new evidence") whereas you may mean interpretation ("I find you guilty of the charges.")
This is just arguing semantics to avoid the appraisal. Based on the information supplied, there is indication that some hold a view of “disbelief” then attempt to justify it with conjured evidence.
In more extreme cases, they will keep referring to debunked myths ad nauseam. Need proof of that? Have a look at this thread alone. See how often myths like the OISM Oregon petition is brought in, or the “atmosphere is optically thick” fallacy, or the “it’s all natural” ploy. There are other threads that will even prove that some of these myths are repeated even AFTER they are DIRECTLY shown to be false.
Msg 247…
(From another post:)
Can you name another field, other than science, where it is self correcting?
The only non-evidence based fields are philosophy and religion. We can cosider all fields as scientific if they are evidence based.
No, I cannot name another field which is self-correcting as science. The other two are philosophy and religion, and neither is self-correcting.
You win.
Yep. Science encourages healthy cynicism. The problem is when people misinterpret that to mean any contrarian view is a valid based solely on being contrary. The proof that deniers do so outside of logic is clear. When we see the same fallacies being promoted regardless of how many times they are refuted (“the atmosphere is optically thick”, “it’s the sun”, “Some glaciers are growing”, “climate scientists cannot possibly have any practical experience”, etc…) it points to propaganda to support an agenda OUTSIDE of seeking the truth.
.
.
.
You have engaged The B0rg
“Resistance is Futile”
| |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/23/2009 4:25:43 PM | Interesting!
There are some other sources of evidence. Monks in Germany and I think Poland have been recording the melting of the ice of freshwater lakes for a long time. They reported unanimously that the freezing and thawing of ice on the lakes they observed has been later, and earlier, respectively. That is freshwater lakes for many years have been ice free longer, as time progress.
Another finding of importance which adds considerable worry is the dispersion of aerosals from Asia over the Arctic land and sea ice and snow. This reduces the albedo (reflectivity) of the surface of the earth during warmer weather, accelerating the melt of both sea ice and snow.
There are many positive feedbacks which are not directly related to the increased levels of infra red absorbing gases (heat trapping gases) in the atmosphere and most importantly the trophosphere.
Another indirect impact of increased infra red absorbing gases is the destruction of the ozone layer in the upper stratosphere over the Antarctic, which results in decreased attenuation of UV from the sun, and higher UV rates (insolation), leads to more sensible heat or infra red emissions.
The Franklin ice shelf is a thread away from disintegrating at this time. It is huge, and with it's disappearance there will be less albedo.
CO2 has an infra red absorbency of approximately 27 times that of the trophospheric combination of air. If CO2 were to double, then the increase of the infra red absorbency of the atmosphere would be significant. I think the IPCC calculated that at existing rates of increase in CO2, the result would contribute between about 2 to 6 degrees celsius in average global warming over 100 years, or by about 2100, with much more warming in the Arctic, and at Antarctic, and much more so inland of Alaska, Yukon, NWT, Inuvut, and so on.
The problem with the issue of climate change is that habitat can be lost, changed or impacted, and thus many species of animals (both sea and terrestrial) may be exterminated or become 'relics'....
Humans have already destroyed and impacted negatively many habitats and species....but in the past we did this only on a regional level, now the issue of impacts are global.
I recall when the chemist employed by Dow Chemical determined that refrigerants with CFC's were causing the destruction of ozone in the stratosphere. This finding led to a ban on CFC's because the scientific community and policy makers agree that the facts were correct. I now see no difference here with CO2.
Other issues of global importance are DDT (and all chlorinated colinesterase inhibitors), PCB's, mercury, radionuclides from nuclear plants & atmospheric bomb tests, acid rain, et cetera, and each of these cases the thing was 'scientific consensus'...but there are many more including estrogenic compounds in plastics,
chao | |
|
| Recent report on climate disruption, re. The Science of
Posted: 1/23/2009 6:41:53 PM | Yes, interesting.
Regarding most anything in any way involving economic activity (or complacency)
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
[ Upton Sinclair, I, candidate for governor; and how I got licked (1934) University of California Press 1994: 109. ]
The quote also speaks to interpretation and doubt aspects.
.
Undisturbed Western forests have been having increasing mortality over recent decades, across major species, across elevations, and across tree age. Representative sample plots are surveyed every several years. Annual temperature has increased about 1F in fifty years. Mortality appears due to increased drought strain and increased predation by insect and pathogen activity that has been increasing with warmer winters and summers. [USGS, with UW and UO; "Tree Mortality", Science, 23 Jan. '09]
(The report authors {including assistance from the Universities of Washington and Oregon}, influenced by the forest products industry, are hardly bastions of tree-hugging ; )
Trees in western North America are dying at faster and faster rates, and climate change is likely to blame.
The mounting deaths could fundamentally transform Western forests because tree reproduction hasn’t increased to offset losses, according to a new study published Thursday in Science. And new seedlings aren’t rising quickly enough to fill the gaps.
“If current trends continue, forests will become sparser over time,” co-author Philip van Mantgem, an ecologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, said in a press conference call. This would be a setback in the fight against global warming because thinner forests with small, young trees store less carbon, so more heat-trapping carbon dioxide would cycle into the atmosphere.
A large-scale transition to such threadbare woods would have other negative effects as well, van Mantgem said. Species that depend on big stands of old growth, such as marbled murrelets and spotted owls, would have much less room to roam. And the risk of catastrophic fires would go up with more dead, dry wood lying around to fuel it.
The evidence is mounting that warming and drought are changing ecosystems across western North America. Other studies have documented major tree die-offs and surging wildfires. Plant species have climbed uphill, and bark beetles are laying waste to ever-increasing tracts of woodland.
The new study “adds to the list,” said Michael Goulden, an ecologist at the University of California, Irvine who was not involved in the research. “Something large and important is happening to Western ecosystems, in correlation with climatic shifts.”
The research revealed that tree mortality rates in old-growth forests from southern British Columbia to Arizona have doubled every few decades over the past 50 years.
This is likely because region has warmed considerably during this period too, the scientists say. Since the 1970s, temperatures across the West have risen by 0.3-0.5 degrees Celsius every ten years. Such warming has led to reduced snowfall, a smaller winter snowpack, and earlier spring melts.
“Trees are under more drought stress,” said USGS ecologist Nathan Stephenson, a co-author on the study.
Higher temperatures could also be killing trees by jump-starting their enemies, he said. The warmer the weather, the faster the insects and pathogens that feed on trees can grow and reproduce.
And the two factors could be acting in concert, as drought-stressed trees are less able to fight off disease and predators.
[...]
“Even in the most resilient old-growth stands, there still is a coherent signal of increased mortality related to warming,” said co-author Thomas Veblen of the University of Colorado.
The use of long-term data makes the study stand out, Goulden said. “The data are as high-quality as anyone could realistically hope for. The conclusions are based on repeat surveys of permanent plots over long periods.”
However, Goulden thinks the authors should have hedged a bit more on their claim that warming is responsible for the increase in tree deaths.
“The authors’ argument is based on rejecting the alternatives and showing that warming was correlated with increased mortality,” he said. “The direct evidence that warming caused the change, or even that the observed warming was sufficiently large to have caused the mortality change, is not there.”
Still, the paper makes a valuable contribution, further documenting a worrisome trend the world should be watching, Goulden said. “I’m convinced the authors are describing a large, widespread, real, and important phenomenon,” he said.
[ “Widespread Increase of Tree Mortality Rates in the Western United States”, by Phillip J. van Mantgem, Nathan L. Stephenson, John C. Byrne, Lori D. Daniels, Jerry F. Franklin, Peter Z. Fulé, Mark E. Harmon, Andrew J. Larson, Jeremy M. Smith, Alan H. Taylor, Thomas T. Veblen. Science Vol. 323, 23 January 2009: 447. ]
Cf. Kathleen Wren, "Science: Tree-Death Rates, On the Rise Since 1955, May Be Linked to Climate Change". http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/0122sp_trees.shtml
--RM
| |
|
| Recent report on climate disruption, re. The Science of
Posted: 1/23/2009 6:54:40 PM | The language we use predefines the frames for discussion.
Global Warming is less than accurate, limiting perception and discussion. While "global climate change" is a little less inaccurate, this largely ignores a decisive parameter: that the effects are unknown, and this, more than general or particular warming, is the most undesirable economic forecast. In such light, how do farmers know what to plant, when? When effects of change are unknown, how is capital best allocated? Non-agricultural plant life can't pack up and move with alacrity, even if it could know where to go. As Cliff Mass, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington pointed out, a far more useful shorthand is "global climate disruption". GCD includes the economic, agricultural, environmental phenomena we are facing--whatever the cause or causes.
______
Cliff Mass is also Principal Investigator, UW Mesoscale Analysis and Forecasting Group - http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~cliff/cliff.php
The UW Atmospheric Sciences Department, including climatalogical data
- http://www.atmos.washington.edu/data/
--RM
| |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/23/2009 7:05:10 PM |
Monks in Germany and I think Poland have been recording the melting of the ice of freshwater lakes for a long time.
The ice age cycle is about 100,000 years.
CO2 has an infra red absorbency of approximately 27 times that of the trophospheric combination of air. If CO2 were to double, then the increase of the infra red absorbency of the atmosphere would be significant. I think the IPCC calculated......
What is the distribution within the IR spectrum? The absorbency is based on molecular bond energy. CO2 has three bands of absorption in the IR segment of the EM spectrum near the visible part of the EM spectrum. Water, having weak hydrogen bonds between molecules, has broad band absorption deep into the lower energy ranges of the IR part of the spectrum. In short, CO2 has a very clear and sharp "color" fingerprint. It does not absorb IR outside of these narrow bands nor does it radiate outside of these bands. The effective "color temperature" of CO2 is relatively hot, not the relatively cool earth temperatures.
What color temperature would one expect near the poles where most of the global warming observations come from? At these very low temperatures, there is very little energy radiated at the "colors" CO2 absorbs. If one were to test CO2 absorption by some warm IR source and detect the amount of heating, one would easily conclude some degree of attenuation for the broad range of IR. Consider that the CO2 is absorbing a spectral segment of the IR and not attenuating the entire spectrum. You get the same results as attenuation until you reach saturation of that specific band. Actually its three very narrow bands. Then the attenuation would begin to drop as the IR outside of the absorbed bands passes without being absorbed and the absorbed bands are completely absorbed. The only reason there is still any change in absorption is due to re-radiation by the CO2 itself. Another way to reach this saturation of absorption without increasing the gas density is to increase the distance. It would seem that at atmospheric CO2 density, CO2 reaches that point in a few tens of feet yet the atmosphere is miles deep. Increasing the density of a saturated absorber in a spectrum will have very little effect on the overall IR absorption as most of the IR spectrum passes no matter what the density of CO2 gas. For water vapor, this is completely different because of its weak hydrogen bonds between molecules. Such weak bonds have a wide range of low energy levels and therefor a broad band of absorption. Clouds have a far more profound effect as they reflect IR much like the glass of a green house. The formation of clouds is a result of particulates such as dust and smoke as well as particles from space hitting the upper atmosphere.
In short, CO2 as a mechanism for global warming is a dead end. That does not mean man does not contribute in the form of smoke and particulates as well as atmospheric water from the diversion of rivers and streams for agriculture etc. There are plenty of natural mechanisms for the observed climate changes that provide plenty of fossil records to attest to their existence. These mechanisms by their nature are not gentle but rather abrupt as they tend to be self accelerating as many natural reactions are. The famed "hockey stick" graph is pretty much what they would act like but that is also likely to be a wave form seen even in the harmonics of the cycle.
Do you think if we have enough votes of "scientists" we can make the earth stop these nasty cycles? Perhaps in the future we can control our environment but we are a long way from that. We can do our best to keep it clean and not waste resources but knee-jerk environmental destruction is the wrong direction.
An earlier post asked about the EPA. In my high school days, I joined an environmental club that used profits from recycling to fund scholarships. One of the things we recycled was used motor oil. We collected it and sold it directly to a refinery. The EPA became involved with all the accompanying bureaucracy and the profit from oil collection became a net cost. It then became cheaper for people to dump it in the nearest storm drain. Then there was MTBE and the cancer threat. Now ethanol. I continually monitor the gas mileage I get from each tank and it appears the EPA flavor of gas in the urban area I live in requires about 10% more gas for the same performance I get from gas purchased away from the city. Yes, some good comes from the EPA but some is just plain make-work for bureaucrats at our expense. | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/23/2009 8:54:38 PM | Dear B0rg,
Thanks for your lengthy and well-thought out reply to my points.
I agree that your opinion to oppose my opinion is valid.
This allowance for differences of opinion is what I think makes the evidence inconclusive regarding man's involvement in the process of global warming.
If we were discussing "gravity", we would not be arguing whether humanity's influence on gravity as a physical phenomenon is significant or not.
We would also not argue whether issues in political science are influenced by humans or not.
The very fact that opposite opinions on global warming are each valid is why I maintain the liberty to not believe that humans contribute to it. If it were proven either way, there would be no debate. And since the debate is happening, it will still not solve the puzzle. Only scientific findings in the physical world and their proper interpreation can solve that puzzle.
For whatever reason, we are not at that stage yet. | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/23/2009 9:58:13 PM | CO2 does not absorb much, if any visible light. Incoming solar radiation is not light primarily but rather Ultra violet radiation, at least at the surface of the earth. CO2 traps heat, sensible heat in the spectrum of 'near' IR, infra red, and 'far' IR.
Visible light has very little heat in it, or sensible heat, or long wave radiation.
With increased global warming, the prognosis is increased patchy cloud, which is more conducive to more global warming. Increased scattered stratospheric cloud therefore is a 'positive feedback' resulting from warming.
The best scenario is cloudless nights, with overcast cloudiness during the main part of the day, a feature common in the winter (normal winter) in the temperate zones of the earth.
However, as a result of increased sea surface temperatures during the winter, there is more humidity, more wind, and warmer maritime conditions during winter, resulting in higher precipitation during the winter. More winter cloudiness during the night, and more overcast conditions resulting in milder but more snowy weather.
Here in BC we have not had cold winters like we used to. As a result the mountain pine beetle has flourished, and killed off more than 60% of the lodgepole pine, resulting in the devastation of over 7 million hectares of forest, which when it decomposes with also be a 'positive feedback' to drive climate change for many years to come.
The IPCC in it's initial report determined that CO2 emissions contributions from forest were about 40% of the total, and most of that was due to 'deforestation' whether due to logging, agriculture or disease. But that figure may have to be revised upward soon,
Infrared absorption spectra for various gases
"Absorption of ultraviolet, visible, and infrared radiation by various gases in the atmosphere. Most of the ultraviolet light (below 0.3 microns) is absorbed by ozone (O3) and oxygen (O2). Carbon dioxide has three large absorption bands in the infrared region at about 2.7, 4.3, and 15 microns. Water has several absorption bands in the infrared, and even has some absorption well into the microwave region. There is already sufficient CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb almost all of the radiation from the sun or from the surface of the earth in the principal CO2 absorption bands. (Data from ref. [1], page 93; original data are from Howard et al [21] and Goody [22])."
Apparently the highest concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere as about 2000 ppm, each doubling of the CO2 concentration increases temperature by 1.85 C, globally.
chao | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/24/2009 7:29:27 AM | Hello, again. As some of you might guess, I took part in the survey in question. The two "key questions" noted in the news article shown here are (we are told) proof of the consensus that's been touted concerning climate change. My answers may prove illuminating to many of you debating this survey.
To the first, whether or not temperatures have risen since the pre-industrial era, I answer yes. It's rather obvious, and practically undeniable. In the 17th century, the Earth was still in the depths of a climate phenomenon called the Little Ice Age. The second question for the reporter writing that article was whether humans were a significant factor in the warming, to which I again answer, yes. To qualify that, however, I have to say that I'm not sure how significant that "factor" is, or what amount human greenhouse gas production has as part of that factor. New research is coming out all the time that suggests possibilities not considered before, or reconsidering currently-held knowledge.
For instance, in recent years, research has continued into the solar contribution; and some steps have been taken in demonstrating the idea that this factor is greater than we have held true. For instance, Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West suggested in a 2007 Journal of Geophysical Research paper that the solar factor for the 20th century may be as much as 50%, far greater than we currently hold true. Before anyone jumps on me here, let me be perfectly clear: do I think Scafetta and West's paper definitive? Absolutely not. What I AM saying is that it's interesting enough to continue to research this possibility to improve our scientific understanding of what drives our planet's climate. As a climate scientist, I'm compelled to be open to new possibilities, and to reconsider current knowledge when warranted. Scafetta and West present us this possibility that our current assessment of what causes the current climate changes leans too heavily towards greenhouse gasses. | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/24/2009 1:33:28 PM | Visible light has very little heat in it
I think you need to get out in the sunlight a little more.
The entire EM spectrum is energy, including visible light. If it is absorbed, the energy will be converted to a different form. This is usually heat. Objects will radiate heat as well. If they are quite hot, they radiate all the way in the visible light range. Edison did well by this principle. Lower temperature objects tend to radiate lower energy, longer wavelength, light. Say glowing red heating elements. As you get cooler, the radiated light is more in the IR range. The near IR range is commonly used for "night vision" goggles but usually requires illumination with an IR source as few objects are hot enough to "see". This is where the CO2 absorption bands are. Night vision goggles such as those used by pilots, have to be near IR as the canopy blocks deep or far IR long wavelength light. Night vision equipment capable of seeing objects at room or body temperatures must have windows that pass these wavelengths, typically sapphire or germanium. Not glass or Plexiglas. This is below the absorption bands of CO2. Consider that the poles, where much of the global warming observations come from, are very cold. It would seem that CO2 could not be a significant factor in blocking IR radiation. Microwaves are below the IR band and the weak hydrogen bonds of liquid water absorb them quite well. Amana sold a lot of appliances based on this principle. | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/24/2009 1:40:06 PM | The entire EM spectrum is energy, including visible light.
If I'm not mistaken, everything, in varying forms, is energy.
So in context, we're talking about transfering of energy. | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/24/2009 10:56:38 PM | The solar factor? Donder and blitzen, you read a paper which 'suggested'? that solar factor contributed 50%? contributed to what?
As I gloss your missive I see words like "possibility", and "reconsider" current knowledge,
you are not a climate scientist, but possibly a 'social dis-engineer'....
You also say "you are not sure how significant that 'factor' is...
Please do not mislead...
from the article by Scafetta, and West, who agree:
"The IPCC report 1 concludes that the contribution of solar
variability to global warming is negligible, to a certainty of 95%.
chao | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/25/2009 4:52:47 AM | Here is the link to a letter written by Scafetta and West:
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2005GL025539.pdf
Here is a quote from that letter:
We estimate that the sun
contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global
warming, and 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming.
These results, while confirming that anthropogenic-added
climate forcing might have progressively played a dominant
role in climate change during the last century, also suggest
that the solar impact on climate change during the same
period is significantly stronger than what some theoretical
models have predicted.
I'm not sure whether that is the paper Donder is referring to, but it looks like they do believe their is a significant solar component to climate.
I know that most climatologists and scientists, in general, believe that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the main reason our climate warmed more quickly in the 20th century than previously, but there are solar scientists who have found extremely strong correlations between solar cycles and global temperature. Because they have not been able to find the mechanism to explain the correlation, their work is dismissed by many. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist; just that it hasn't yet been found.
In regard to the legitimacy of the survey being put into question because it is self-selecting, I think most surveys are self-selecting aren't they? Whenever I take one by phone, it's by my choice, same when one arrives by mail. Responding by e-mail is not any different. | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/25/2009 5:03:41 AM | In response to questions concerning Scafetta and West [Scafetta, N., and B.J. West (2007), Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the Northern Hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600, Journal Of Geophysical Research, 112, D24S03, doi 10.1029/2007JD008437]:
I am having difficulty seeing where Scafetta and West are saying that they "agree" with the finding and certainty of the IPCC in the paper cited. In section 26, they do say that:
"[26] As figure 5a shows that climate is relatively insensitive to solar variation if we adopt MANN03, which shows a minimal secular variability during the preindustrial era. From the 17th century minimum to the beginning of the 20th century the NH climate warmed about 0.1K, while from 1900 to 2005 the NH climate warmed about (delta) T=0.8K and about (delta) T=0.6K since 1950. In this calculation the increased solar activity contributed about 0.1K during the preindustrial (1600-1900) era and 0.17K during the postindustrial (1900-2005) era. Thus the sun could have contributed approximately 1.7/8=21% of the global NH surface warming that occured from 1900 to 2005 (this estimate might present a 20% error). These data would support the conclusion that since 1950 the Sun does not seem to have contributed significantly to the global warming (approximately 0.03K). This result is essentially consistent with the findings reported by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [2001] and Hansen et al. [2002] suggesting that almost all warming since 1950 had an anthropogenic origin."
Is this what the author of the question is referring to? If so, then more of the paper needs to be read. It is available here: http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2007JDoo8437.pdf
Scafetta and West continue past this point in the next section, as we can see:
"[27] On the other hand, as figure 5b shows, if we adopt MOBERG05, which shows a larger secular variability during the preindustrial era, the climate is found to be quite sensitive to solar variation. As deduced from Figure 5b, MOBERG05 shows that from the 17th century minimum to 1900 AD the NH warmed by about 0.4K. The Sun might have contributed at most ~o.35K during the preindustrial era (1600-1900) and ~0.4K from 1900 to 2005. Thus the Sun could have contributed roughly 4/8=50% of the global NH surface warming that occured from 1900 to 2005. Since 1950 the Sun might have contributed ~0.05K (.5/6=8% of the warming) using LEAN2000, or ~0.15K (1.5/6=25% of the warming) using WANG2005. Again these estimates might present an 20% error."
And then conclude with this:
"[42] In conclusion, if we assume the latest temperature and TSI reconstructions, WANG2005 and MOBERG2005, are accurate, we are forced to conclude that solar changes significantly alter climate, and that the climate system responds relatively slowly to such changes with a time constant of between 6 and 12 a. This would suggest that the large-scale computer models of climate could be significantly improved by adding additional Sun-climate coupling mechanisms."
Again, I ask where in that paper do it's authors state such agreement? Or, for that matter, do I state my emphatic disagreement? It would be misleading of me to state, as emphatically as the IPCC does, that my professional opinion is what the IPCC says. I am certain that: 1] The rise in greenhouse gasses in the industrial times are practically all anthropogenic in origin, for reasons I've explained in an earlier missive here; 2] that the global temperatures have risen since the beginning of the 20th century; and 3] that the rise in greenhouse gasses are responsible for at least part of the temperature rise of the 20th century. Beyond that, I will say nothing professionally with the certainty of some of my colleagues. I will state that I believe it probable that anthropogenic greenhouse gasses are responsible for a significant (possibly dominant) role in climate change over the last half century, but will not state such conclusively. So long as research such as this continues to show such contrast with current knowledge, I will conclusively say we have much to learn about how complex a thing Earth's climate is and say continued study is warranted, as are my reservations. | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/25/2009 10:00:23 AM | "we have much to learn about how complex a thing Earth's climate is and say continued study is warranted, as are my reservations"
So what if we conclusively learn that global climate change caused overwhelmingly by some non-anthropoe-whatever causes? Then what? A whole bunch of people will lose their footing on a well-serving guilt, their footing on a well-serving feeling of righteousness such as can be described by "THOSE DAMMED INDUSTRIALISTS ARE DESTROYING THE EARTH!!!", their footing if their ability to keep other people in a state of feeling guilty and thus easy to manipulate is taken away from them.
Aside from that, if man has no input, no role in the climate change, then very likely it's the case that it is also not in our, humanity's, power, to stop the process of change.
So I think it's a dangerous thing to prove this. A lot of people will be awfully mad and scared.
And if the conclusion is conclusive, and points at man as the guilty party in turning up the thermostat? Then we will be really angry. Industrialized countries will be required to shut down most of their operations. But almost all operations of industrialized countries keep us fed, not only in our countries but in others as well. Transportation stops--cities starve. Production of goods stops -- workers starve. Legal actions and political debate stop (to eliminate a lot of hot air from entering the atmosphere) -- lawlessness and mayham erupts.
So I think it's a dangerous thing to prove this. A lot of people will be awfully mad and scared.
Therefore if the conclusive evicence points at man as the guilty party, then we are really, but really going to take it in in the rear end, in an upward direction.
However, on the other hand, if the conclusive evicence does not point at man as the guilty party, then we are really, but really going to take it in in the rear end, in an upward direction.
I don't even know now why the f we needed to open this f'g can of worms. | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/25/2009 10:55:23 AM | As far as I knew the world as a collective is going under the assumption that humans are the major contributing factor to an increased rate in climate change, thus the Kyoto Protocol and Obama planning to look into greener energy. It's still a struggle, even with a supposed scientific consensus on the matter.
In my mind, it's not a black and white situation where one side is right and the other is wrong; there are a myriad of factors contributing to our climate, some of which we understand, some that we don't. It's a complex situation that will be slowly figured out. We know what role CO2 plays, but there will be other contributing factors that will have to be taken into account as well, with both positive and negative feedback loops.
But if you haven't noticed, we are already in a horrible mess on our planet. Humans are grossly overpopulating the inhabitable areas of our earth, destroying habitats of other species, polluting waters to the point that not all societies will have potable water, reducing the fertility of land, using chemicals that impact our health and that of other species... etc., etc.
But to say that having a better understanding of our role in the impact of climate change is opening a can of worms is counterintuitive. It's always better to understand the repercussions of our actions, isn't it?
To me, the problem has been this idea that a growing population is a sign of a healthy economy and therefore society; really, it's the equivalent of a slow suicide for our species and the homicide of many, many other species.
I think the only hope there is is to understand the impacts of our actions on the natural world and to plan our societies accordingly. Is that feasible? Well, that's another question. | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/25/2009 12:58:16 PM | Dave..you mentioned ethanol mandates earlier in this discussion. The ethanol mandates, it is my understanding, where put in place to replace MTBE so that oxygenate standards could still be met in an effort to reduce photochemical smog and tropospheric ozone. What do ethanol mandates then have to do with AGW? Were people arguing that ethanol would reduce AGW? Seems to me the only other argument being pushed for ethanol was getting off of foreign oil. These are policy decisions (Bush and the Energy Policy Act of 2005).
I don't want to debate the efficacy or lack thereof of ethanol manadates I just don't see how they were referenced by you as an indication that scientists are perpetuating rampant fraud. Unless perhaps that was not your inference or implication. How does the supposed ill wisdom of ethanol mandates paint a picture of fraudulent "science" vis a vis climate change and AGW? | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/25/2009 1:10:28 PM | Burp,
Given your sentiments of "folks are gonna be mad no matter what is proven or disproven," it seems you are advocating a path of no further study, or alternatively, continued ignorance regarding what we don't know or the uncertainties thereof.
Is this true? I hope not. I can forgive people for misinterpreting things, but I cannot forgive people for knowingly choosing ignorance over knowledge in such matters.
I don't buy that if it's "proven" that AGW is complete hogwash and everything is peaches and cream that there will be some bloodbath. Oh, some folks may have to eat some crow, but they are the type i think for the most part who'd say "I made decisions based on an incomplete data set, but pursued the matter with the best wisdom I knew of at the time - is that worthy of crucifixion?"
I was told Linus Pauling, a Nobel prize winner at the time, proposed a triple helix for DNA before watson and crick, turns out he was wrong. he didn't kill anyone and he didn't cry either. he learned..he moved on. | |
|
| Consequences of climate disruption, and anthropogenic contribution
Posted: 1/25/2009 1:13:10 PM |
supposed scientific consensus wrote novascotialass, 1/25/2009 10:55 :23 AM.
This has been repeatedly demonstrated as disingenuous, on this and similar forums.POF threads. Within the realm of the practice of the scientific method, the assessment is and for some time has been more than decisive.
homicide of many, many other species wrote novascotialass.
Homicide? Further, what purpose is served by using euphemism?
More accurately, these are extinctions--murders, by now advertent exterminations of entire species, and many. Biocide, perhaps? 
In other words, complementing those of novascotialass,
a better shorthand could be Anthropogenic Climate Disruption (ACD):
Whatever the human contribution, significant reduction can at least moderate the net effect due to the sum of causes. Even if (for discussion here) the human contribution is not the largest component, it may well be enough to be sufficiently significant.
This is particularly true when evidence is more than sufficient for prudent action now, while increasing gathering better information.
to understand the impacts of our actions on the natural world and to plan our societies accordingly. Is that feasible? We, humanity, have done so before, and have failed or succeeded before. (Gosh, Sweetly {1/25/2009 10:00:23 AM}, we're heading to go off a metaphorical cliff that others have gone before. What a bummer that we're able to be learning about this just ahead.) Consider <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikopia">Tikopia Island</a> or Japan under the Tokugawa Shogunate. Today, more than ever in our history, we have both choice and knowledge. Have a good read with Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed, by Jared Diamond (2005), or Biophilia by E. O. Wilson (1984); (cf. <a href="http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/298708_nature06.html">Nature deficit disorder</a> : ).
--RM
[Ed. note: forums.pof doesn't seem to be accepting simple HTML linking, but at least the links can be readily seen.]
| |
|
| Consequences of climate disruption, and anthropogenic contribution
Posted: 1/25/2009 3:15:33 PM | "I cannot forgive people for knowingly choosing ignorance over knowledge in such matters."
Have you read the reasoning why I think ignorance over knowledge is a good idea this time around? It was right beside the statement in which I advocated ignorance. I can't figure out how you were able to miss it.
RenéMagritte, you got it. Thanks for the informative links and book titles. Unfortunately I don't read, I just write. I gather information by osmosis it seems. And I have a special little hatred towards non-fiction books of a singular theme: Their meaning or message could be completely described in a two-page essay, or maybe even in a sentence or two in some cases. I'll be darned if I'll waste my time reading entire books on some knowledge that can be transferred in ten seconds flat.
Another reason I don't read is that I have an undiagnosed ADDHDHHDHDDD. If it's a book, I read fiction; if a novel or an entire book, then it's gotta be humour. Thank goodness for Terry Pratchett, Mark Twain, Stephen Leacock, Jerome K. Jerome and myself. Oh, and a whole bunch of completely untranslatable Hungarian Humorists. (Note please the double alliteration.) Oh, and Jaroslav Hasek and Ilf-Petrov. Bohumil Hrabal has always been overrated, I thought. (These last three are NOT Hungarian.) | |
|
| Consequences of climate disruption, and anthropogenic contribution
Posted: 1/25/2009 3:37:59 PM |
homicide of many, many other species
wrote novascotialass.
Homicide? Further, what purpose is served by using euphemism?
More accurately, these are extinctions--murders, by now advertent exterminations of entire species, and many. Biocide, perhaps?
How about second-degree murder, then? | |
|
| Consequences of climate disruption, and anthropogenic contribution
Posted: 1/25/2009 3:53:10 PM | ^^^^ There is always two degrees of separation between any murders.
(I'm working my way toward eventually to be able to create a pun which is so painful that it'll cause a double murder-suicide. That's my ultimate aim as a writer, and I'll call it "the final solution".) | |
|
| Recent report on climate disruption, re. The Science of
Posted: 1/25/2009 4:17:49 PM | "And the two factors could be acting in concert, as drought-stressed trees are less able to fight off disease and predators."
I can see the picture clearly now: the valiant tree, sitting on a rock, panting, hot, with his Excaribou stuck in the ground and the tree's noble iron-gloved hands resting on the cross-bar of the sword's handle (which has a name, someone once pointed out to me); his head hanging in frustration, because though he was able to fight off predators, now he's convinced he'll less be able to do so year after year. Unless, of course, his offspring undergo some mutations, like it had happened millions of times in the lineage of the tree before, that made survival and the fight against the evil enemies: disease and predators, every successful time easier again.
" ... reduced snowfall, a smaller winter snowpack, and earlier spring melts." Stupid, vicious, untrue tree-propaganda. Look at the snow and rain these days.
One dry summer with one less rainfall does not a permanent drought make.
"Annual temperature has increased about 1F in fifty years." What's an 'annual temperature'? If we don't like people homiciding trees, we should not take a stand on the cide of science writers who drop very significant words such as "average" and "mean" when they transliterate from the studies. I don't mean to be mean, but the same goes for another quote, "Since the 1970s, temperatures across the West have risen by 0.3-0.5 degrees Celsius every ten years." I daresay that temperatures rose by 10 to 30 degrees Celsius, even within a month. Then later on they dropped the same or similar 10 to 40 degrees Celsius. And in a shorter interval than a year!!! YIKES!!! We're all going to dieeeee...
Today I saw a blurp of official news on Yahoo, which had a line something like "... and they should of liked it." Yikes. Please gag me with a spoon. | |
|
| Recent report on climate disruption, re. The Science of
Posted: 1/25/2009 10:11:12 PM | There is only debate because some choose to ignore the evidence.
.
.
.
Some specific answers…
Msg 260…
Dear B0rg,
Thanks for your lengthy and well-thought out reply to my points.
There is no need to thank us, but it is acknowledged as human graciousness.
Msg 260…
I agree that your opinion to oppose my opinion is valid.
Purely an obfuscation. The validity of an opinion is not based on merely having it. Validity is based on the merit of what that opinion is supported on, or, conversely what causes it to be not so supported. Nonetheless, you reserve the right and the capacity to form your own opinion (valid or otherwise). The elimination of free will would likely turn this forum into monologue (curiously not unlike how some deniers, especially those with the agenda to debase the scientific community in general, choose to treat it.)
Msg 260…
This allowance for differences of opinion is what I think makes the evidence inconclusive regarding man's involvement in the process of global warming.
If by that, one means that there is enough ambiguity in the current analyses to render anthropogenic contributions as effectively inconsequential it is invalid. There is enough evidence to show that the current perturbations in global mean temperatures are not wholly independent of the onset of large scale industrialization. One can maintain an opinion in opposition to this, but other than calling the entire cause and effect to be coincidental, and doing so without any evidence of an alternate mechanism, there is no support for it.
However, if by that, one means that there is insufficient information to predict how the entire climate system will react, and how much of that reaction is beyond the natural elastic limit, then that is open to debate. There is allowance for conference there. It is unfortunate that some others here feel any thread on “climate change” is an invitation to post all sorts of fallacious propaganda ad nauseam. If it did not happen with such predictable frequency, the discussion of the depth of climate departures could actually happen.
Msg 260…
If we were discussing "gravity", we would not be arguing whether humanity's influence on gravity as a physical phenomenon is significant or not.
In the context of your analogy, the gravity of an object is related to its mass. Up to this time, the influence that human have on adjusting the mass of the earth is, well, insignificant. That isn’t the case with the ability of humans in accelerating the reintroduction, and seriously increasing the concentration of CO2 into the atmosphere. Human industrialization also creates a host of other environmentally negative situations on a global scale.
If it’s just even the existence of gravity itself, that is so NOT because anthropogenic climate change contribution is any less real than gravitational attraction. It is so because gravity’s effect is much more apparent, more accessible and easily demonstrated. If one’s only window to gravitational effect was that of measuring orbital paths and velocities, many would dismiss it since they don’t personally perceive it happening. This is the potential vagueness and relative difficulty in personally ascertaining the cause and effect that detractors exploit.
Msg 260…
We would also not argue whether issues in political science are influenced by humans or not.
If the behaviour exhibited by some on these threads is any indication, that probably wouldn’t be true. There would be those who would argue that the planets were running on invisible rails (or something else unseen), or moving at random (they were called wanderers…), and that scientists that demonstrate this “gravity” thing were doing so because they were being rewarded (in cash or other forms of payment) to lie about it or to create fear in of elusive gravity monster. Anyone who understood that this “gravity” existed would be mindless follows of a “faith”.
Msg 260…
The very fact that opposite opinions on global warming are each valid is why I maintain the liberty to not believe that humans contribute to it.
Nope. This is still employing the fallacy that merely holding an opposing opinion makes it equally valid. This fallacy seeks to dismiss all the evidence supporting findings of climate science simply because someone decides to disagree for no reason but to disagree. It doesn’t work that way.
As far as maintaining the “liberty to not believe”, just who is taking, or threatening to take, that liberty away from you? Any human can choose to believe whatever they want to believe in. Of course, when it comes to logical debate, merely “believing” without a shred of support isn’t too convincing. Yet by all means, believe whatever you wish. It is not a requirement of The Collective to convince those who purpose refuse to of anything. We merely point out illogic (and the bullying that so frequently accompanies it) when we so desire (such is free will).
Msg 260…
If it were proven either way, there would be no debate. And since the debate is happening, it will still not solve the puzzle. Only scientific findings in the physical world and their proper interpreation can solve that puzzle.
Did we not just cover this? There is “debate” ONLY because there are those who speciously choose to disagree in lieu of the evidence. When put to task, most will then toss out some standard myths as “proof” of their contrary stance, or deflect the discussion into politics or irrelevant minutiae. Once that is debunked, many will resort to name-calling and ridiculing the critic. Others will just repeat the same fallacies as if it hasn’t been debunked.
Some will do both. You witness it with the “coats of paint” fallacy repeating message above. You witness it when people speciously disambiguate that measuring effects at the poles means that the GHG effect must have to happen right over them (never mind the fact that the GHG effect affects the entire global system).
These detractors attempt to create false doubt so they can justify believing their conclusions (or in some cases, justify denouncing the scientific community). If not so before, it is apparent to any following these threads, that there are those to which no amount of scientific proof is enough.
Msg 260…
For whatever reason, we are not at that stage yet.
Not quite so.
Only a small percentage of people are in denial, and of that segment very few truly disbelieve. The nature of “denial” is that one is actually aware of a truth and it’s certainty; one only consciously chooses to deny it. Some elect to quietly isolate themselves from the evidence by employing rationalizations based on counterfeit dénouement. However, some are so fervent with defiance that they will be openly hostile to anyone who sheds light on the subject (we see it here all the time.)
No one is robbing you of the right to think however you wish. Clinging to falsehood once that falsehood is shown to be illogical to one self (as well to one’s peers) may jeopardize one’s dignity if one too entangles their ego, but freedom of choice is still intact. Contrary to what some falsely accuse, we actively avoid passing judgment and we do not coerce the occasionally necessary one upon others; we explore the foundations of platforms (and for that we are often the target of name-calling and ridicule…)
Your opinion is still your opinion and one can believe it is solidly founded regardless of how it’s been shown to be faulty. Whether it is disingenuous, illogical, unsupported or all of the aforementioned is up to each individual viewing this thread to decide on their own (such is the nature of free will.) Whether you believe the findings of climate science or not doesn’t change the fact that a significant, no, overwhelming percentage of climate experts believe it. In the final analyses, it will be their “opinion” that matters as far as decisions makers go.
.
.
.
There is only debate because some choose to ignore the evidence.
You have engaged The B0rg
“Resistance is Futile”
| |
|
| |
| Recent report on climate disruption, re. The Science of
Posted: 1/26/2009 7:44:34 AM | From the trekie's own words:
we actively avoid passing judgment
Yet we have these snippets:
Purely an obfuscation........counterfeit dénouement........repeat the same fallacies
In other forms of internet bullying:
many will resort to name-calling and ridiculing the critic.
And here we go:
These detractors ........not unlike how some deniers
From the inspiration of the poster's identity:
Resistance is Futile
Followed by trademark arrogance and denial of his own complicity:
We merely point out illogic (and the bullying that so frequently accompanies it) when we so desire (such is free will).
Note the "drone" character devoid of free will Borg identifies with.
they will be openly hostile to anyone who sheds light on the subject (we see it here all the time.)
And Borg is not openly hostile and discounting of open discussion?
The discussion of alternate mechanisms and exploring reasons for misleading observations is science! To Borg, science is a vote.
mindless follows of a “faith”.
Yet Borg says the science is resolved by vote no less.
There is only debate because some choose to ignore the evidence.
EVIDENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF CO2 CAUSES. Borg appears to be ignoring the evidence of prehistoric climate change and a past with far higher CO2 levels than we have today. To understand the motive for such blind faith, one has to explore motives yet Borg dismisses such exploration. What more evidence of a religion is needed?
discussion into politics
Accompanied by denial of Brog's very reason to post:
It is not a requirement of The Collective to convince.....
Unlike Borg, I have been open about my qualifications to form my own opinions and analysis of the topic. I do not often resort to citing some shaman of a religious-political movement as "proof" like Borg does but I actually form my own opinions and express them. In short, I am not a drone in some collective. I have argued repeatedly that people should think for themselves. Borg has done the opposite:
Resistance is Futile
I have extensive experience in the measurement and analysis of time varying and cyclic real world parameters where my understanding of science is not up for a vote but must prove itself in producing results. Borg prefers a vote.
Then there is this:
were doing so because they were being rewarded (in cash or other forms of payment) to lie about it
yet this is the very accusation made about tobacco science! It has been pointed out that massive fortunes are to be made from carbon credit trading and fortunes are already being made from fear mongering movies such as that from Al Gore. This accompanies the motive of political power. Many scientists live in a publish or parish environment and political correctness steers grants to those who "witness their faith" and denounce the unfaithful with demeaning and inaccurate labels such as "denier."
Much of my career has been in energy conservation as well as the measurement and analysis patents I have generated. I also work throughout the IR spectrum with both IR enhanced vision systems and deep IR thermal imaging. What qualifications does Borg have other than his identifying with a cancelled fiction TV show? Maybe it's because he read some internet published paper he like to cite. Yup, there's some facts we can count on along with the hair growth and male enhancement drugs.
I have been active in environmental causes for over 4 decades. It's not some petroleum industry I am arguing for but science. Borg prefers blind faith in bureaucrats labeled as "scientists" as "resistance is futile". When the basis of policy is erroneous science, the environment suffers. Note the ethanol mandates that is killing sea life and resulting in deforestation to grow fuel crops while burning oil to do it. The "profits" from such activity are driven by tax code, not free markets. The again, Borgs says "resistance is futile" so one should not question the wisdom of government. | |
|
|
| Page 11 of 17
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 |
|
Home
login 
