Global Warming. Is the hype coming to an end?

[Mallette]

Well, sure this will kick in both sides, but here is what an objective look suggests.  My own take is that there is nothing to catch the eye for any reasonable time period. Most of the evidence presented by both sides in this debate merely prove that if you torture data long enough it will confess to anything.

 

Here is 2000 years.  I was familiar with these fluctuations 50 years ago as I became fascinated with history.  Each peak and bottom here had profound implications on people.  Cold drove the barbarians into the Roman Empire, and precipitated the industrial revolution...and a lot more.  Warming was also responsible for many upheavals and changes.

 

 

This one is EPA.  Stretching things out doesn't change much.

 

 

Zooming out to a reasonable geologic range again we see nothing that sticks out as unusual. 

 

 

 

 

None of the above is evidence that humans are not contributing to the current change, but they certainly suggest that, given the massive disruption and cost to reduce CO² emissions, it's a good idea to provide correlational evidence that is irrefutable, consistent, and easily assimilable by those who will pay the price. 

 

Dave

 

 

[Mallette]

Peoples belief systems aren't the question.  Isaac Newton believed in alchemy.  I'll not start a list but many would be shocked at what some of our most brilliant scientists like Linus Pauling, Thomas Watson, and many others believed. 

 

I'll state it again, with feeling:  A person, scientist or otherwise, doesn't fully understand something if they cannot explain it clearly to a layman of average intelligence and education.  My respect for human ability to understand things is very high and my disdain for those who claim to understand things but say "Oh, it's just too complicated for you..." know no bounds.

 

Had a wonderful chat with the great British chemist Sir George Porter when he came to the National University of Singapore one year as the Prime Minister's Distinguished Lecturer.  I around 5 minutes he clearly explained his concept of light-dependent reactions of photosynthesis and how it could be harnessed create a clean, hydrogen based economy.  Pretty heady stuff and I assure you I was not able to follow the version he gave to the science faculty even though it was the same thing. 

 

Pew Research?  Seriously?  We're going to bet economic disruption and a serious hit on quality of life to a VOTE of scientists who cannot offer an easy assimilable explanation?  And on a vote that is hardly a landslide at 57%.  Sheesh, 36% of scientists don't believe in evolution. 

 

Yes, these sorts of "scientists say..." things are handy for the ruling class to use to shape opinion, but not the type of "evidence" I want or would repeat.  One good friend is a clinical research scientist doing work in stem cell research.  Very, very brilliant.  But she can explain it to me, and listens equally in deep interest when I explain variable specific impulse engine technology to her...even though I am certainly not an expert in that field. 

 

She'd be a "voter" in those "scientists say" polls.  Me, I want to know just WHO the scientists are doing the saying, and precisely how they back up what they are saying.  Right now, they are babbling at the same time and when 57 are saying one thing and 43 are saying another, it's not really easy to understand.

 

Dave

Edited February 26, 2015 by Mallette

[Guest Steven1963]

BTW, monetary policy is not a function of the government. It is a central bank directed policy. But you knew that. The government does control fiscal policy, but even that is directed by lobbyists and central bankers

 

I'm confused, Earl. In a recently locked thread you proclaimed that banking was directly related to public policy (i.e., politics).  I've got to be mistaken however, otherwise why would you be commenting on subject this is strictly forbidden?

 

Earl said:

 

2. From the Oxford Dictionary: Political - "Of or relating to the government or the public affairs of a country." Certainly discussions about War, Banking, etc., meet this definition. There is a whole field of academic study called "Political Economy."

Edited February 26, 2015 by Steven1963

[Mallette]

Mark, you keep going on about how we have defined gravity and yet you will find not a single physicist not in an asylum who will agree with you.  We not only don't know what it is, we can't even connect it to quantum mechanics.  Einstein tells is what it does, but not what it is.  Evolution isn't relevant.  The taxpayers don't have to pay for it.  And if there is an ideological split...maybe it's an ideological question. 

 

The scientists are split 44-56 and even in that split there is a vast array of opinion. 

 

And if the premise is false, so is the question.

 

Dave

[oldenough]

Would you rather be safe, than sorry?

[cluless2]

I think I am seeing thread warming. Far too much hot air

[Mallette]

Depends entirely on how sorry I have to be.  And nobody seems to be able to supply an answer to that.  If Bluto comes by and says if I don't pay the premium I'll be sorry, at least I have a pretty good idea what to expect if I don't pay. 

 

Dave

[Mallette]

They very definitely ARE the issue, and there are excellent studies to show this effect.

 

I see nothing of relevance there.  People have no need to understand evolution, or even to have an opinion on it.  We aren't taxed to support it.  What's your point? 

 

At the moment, it's all irrelevant as no global plan to reduce CO² and none has been announced. 

 

My problem is that, if you do a search, the only clear, concise plan you'll find is by an MD, Peter Carter.  He says only 0, naught, zippo, zero will do and we have to have it by 2020 to avoid global catastrophe...and even then it will take a 1000 years to repair the damage.  

 

Of course, there will be global economic disruption, the rich will get richer, etc from what it would take to do this via the means we've heard about so far.  Massively expense scrubbing systems and such...

 

Here's how you could sell Dave and people like me:  Let's do something we ought to do anyway that will make both sides happy in the long run.  Massive global public expenditures on fusion and solar power.  That takes care of half of it right there.  Much of the rest can be eliminated by getting rid of IC engines.  Of course, that means a LOT more lithium, which is already in short supply.  Need to spend some money on space to eliminate that problem. 

 

And, if the oceans don't die and the atmosphere doesn't go Venusian on us, I'll say "Great job!  So glad we listened to you!' 

 

So, rather than debate the debatable, tell me what you think a reasonable plan to get us to 0 emissions is that will produce something to make life better rather than more miserable?

 

Dave

[Mallette]

Yes, I dismissed you argument and still do.  Mr. Kahan's study is about as useful as confirming that when you drop something, it falls down.

 

However, you quoted the Pew Center.  Here's what the Pew Center has to say about scientist's beliefs:

 

 

The numbers you have sound more like Al Gore on the campaign trail.  I'll bet 97% of scientists don't agree that the sun is not, in fact, Sol Invictus. 

 

Dave

Edited February 26, 2015 by Mallette

[eth2]

I'm confused, Earl. In a recently locked thread you proclaimed that banking was directly related to public policy (i.e., politics). I've got to be mistaken however, otherwise why would you be commenting on subject this is strictly forbidden?

 

I'm glad you finally recognize that you are confused. Acceptance is the first step in recovery.

The "government" does not control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve (a non-Governmental organization) controls monetary policy. Nonetheless, monetary policy is a key element of the "public affairs"  of this nation. Hang in there Steven. It will all come together.   

Edited February 26, 2015 by eth2

[Joseph Jove]

Unfortunately, Klipsch has no specific policy against idiots.

Close the thread.

Not contributing by calling people idiots.

Focus.

I see that the proverbial "you're an idiot because we disagree" card has been flung. Also, the "most scientists agree" rubber stamp has been licked, mailed and delivered. Furthermore, the "I'm uncomfortable with this topic so let's outlaw it" iron fist has been thrusted down.

We need some levity.

Q: How do Prius owners drive?

A: One hand on the wheel, the other patting themselves on the back.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Joseph Jove

[oldtimer]

Q: How do Prius owners drive?

 

Bad enough to frustrate good drivers from my experience.

[Travis In Austin]

AGW would have been a very simple scientific issue, and is in fact a case study of the ramifications of trying to play politics with science.  As I stated a couple a hundred posts ago, the problem has been that a previous administration tried to put a spin on the science behind AGW, censored scientists and used political appointees (non-scientists) to rewrite scientific conclusions.  They were able to do this until they messed with the wrong scientist:  Dr. James Hansen, the head of NASA's Goddard Space Institute for over twenty years.  Dr. Hansen first testified about AGW before Congress in 1988, saying that the effects were present then.  

 

The way that government was trying to influence science was a fundamental shift, apparently, for the first time government was trying to alter the scientific research and conclusions of its own agencies.  This wasn't using opposing scientific view points to refute an agency's scientific research and results, it was trying to snuff out that research.  The reason for any "controversy" concerning AGW is that it was initiated by politics, and then carried forward by the oil lobby who set up "institutes" that are no different than the now deceased Tobacco Institute.

 

Here is a quote from an article about what Dr. Hansen had to endure at the hands of political appointees:

 

"At NASA, orders authorized by administration-appointed public relations officers “reduced, marginalized, or mischaracterized climate change science,” an agency investigation stated recently. Climate scientists were not allowed to conduct media interviews without prior approval. Hansen had to remove the 2005 temperature data from NASA’s website. Even Hansen’s daily schedule suddenly required prior consent.

Hansen decided he had seen enough. He sent an email in January 2006 about the NASA constraints to New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin, who first uncocered the restrictions. During an interview on the CBS program 60 Minutes, Hansen said, “In my more than three decades in the government I’ve never witnessed such restrictions on the ability of scientists to communicate with the public.”

Federal scientists, from NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and other agencies have since acknowledged that their climate findings were also being repressed. “[Hansen] did a great deal to help unmask the Bush administration’s collusion with the global warming disinformation campaign,” said Piltz, who helped expose the White House when he publicly resigned from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program. “He’s a bit like a lone wolf. Nobody can tell him what to say or what to do. They made a mistake when they tried to mess with him.”

Today Hansen rallies openly for drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. He writes personal letters to governors urging them not to approve new coal-fired power plants in their states. He decries the increased role of fossil fuel lobbyists in American politics — once testifying to Congress that NASA’s mission had apparently become to “protect special interests’ backside.”

I have attached a PDF of the Inspector General Report that concluded that NASA's Office of Public Affairs, at the direction by political appointees, had censored and marginalized science and the report found that this had long term implications for NASA.  The report states:

 

"The actions of the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs also had an impact on many levels of Agency operations. News releases in the areas of climate change suffered from inaccuracy, factual insufficiency, and scientific dilution. Some scientists claimed to have self-censored; others simply gave up. Worse, trust was lost, at least temporarily, between an Agency and some of its key employees and perhaps the public it serves."

 

 

Another article in the Christian Science Monitor stated:

 

"In 2004, a NASA press conference announcing the findings of a study on air pollution was squelched. An e-mail from the public affairs office advised that the "Administration does not want any negative environmental news before the election ... as such news could alter the election."

 

Dr. Hansen had published scientific peer reviewed articles about ACW as far back as the middle 70s.  He was published in Science magazine in 1981, seven years before his testimony in Congress.  I don't know if everyone is aware of the significance of having an article published in Science, but it is generally regarded  as every research scientist's dream to be published in that journal.  It is considered by most to in scientific research to be the next best thing to a Nobel Prize.  It is a major BIG deal.  

 

I have attached a copy of his article from Science as well.  This was cutting edge SCIENCE in 1981 and there has been an additional 30 years of SCIENCE since that time to back that up.

 

The oil industry has been funding the denial of AGW since the late 90s.  I didn't come up with this myself, it is out there if you look and are wiling to sift through the propaganda.  There is an excellent book on the subject that I read when it first came out a few years ago by James Lawrence Powell, The Inquisition of Climate Science.  I bought it because I was concerned that politics/government was trying to corrupt science.  Unfortunately, that book highlights that that is fact was the case with AGW.   Here is a link to a review of that book:  http://monthlyreview.org/2012/05/01/petroleum-and-propaganda/

 

I can understand an industry group trying to advocate its position in the light most favorable to their interests.  That is the purpose of industry groups.  Tobacco were masters at it until the trial lawyers got a hold of them.  But to have government trying to squash legitimate science had never worked before.  The Surgeon General issued his report in the 60s, TV ads were banned, warnings appeared on boxes, and other regulations came about  as a result of that report and subsequent ones, but there was no attempt to try and bury the report, edit the report, or censor the Surgeon General.

 

There really would be no debate if the government hadn't actively participated in attempting to manipulate the science regarding AGW in conjunction with big oil's media campaign.  

 

The political appointees at the NASA PIO did make a mistake when they tried to mess with him.  A lot of those people were fired or resigned and Dr. Hansen was there until he retired in 2013.  

 

You cannot fool mother nature and you cannot fool science.

 

 

 

 

oi_sti_summary.pdf

1981_hansen_etal.pdf

[mungkiman]

 

 

 

Unfortunately, Klipsch has no specific policy against idiots.

Close the thread.

Not contributing by calling people idiots.

Focus.

I see that the proverbial "you're an idiot because we disagree" card has been flung. Also, the "most scientists agree" rubber stamp has been licked, mailed and delivered. Furthermore, the "I'm uncomfortable with this topic so let's outlaw it" iron fist has been thrusted down.

We need some levity.

Q: How do Prius owners drive?

A: One hand on the wheel, the other patting themselves on the back.

 

 

Levity might suggest your face is an Ad hominem... 

 

Steven and I tease each other from opposite sides of the same river. I live in Portlandia. He's in Vantucky.

[Guest Steven1963]

 

I'm confused, Earl. In a recently locked thread you proclaimed that banking was directly related to public policy (i.e., politics). I've got to be mistaken however, otherwise why would you be commenting on subject this is strictly forbidden?

 

I'm glad you finally recognize that you are confused. Acceptance is the first step in recovery.

The "government" does not control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve (a non-Governmental organization) controls monetary policy. Nonetheless, monetary policy is a key element of the "public affairs"  of this nation. Hang in there Steven. It will all come together.   

 

 

I'm fully aware of the how the Federal Reserve operates. Therein lies the rub, Earl. You also know it is private, but proclaim that since it has 'elements' that relate to public affairs it is off limits as being political.  This reminds me of the conundrum "we know what the problem is, but talking about it is off limits."

 

But alas, then you go and start talking about banking in this thread. Now, I know I'm confused, but I'm pretty sure you are also.

[Guest Steven1963]

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately, Klipsch has no specific policy against idiots.

Close the thread.

Not contributing by calling people idiots.

Focus.

I see that the proverbial "you're an idiot because we disagree" card has been flung. Also, the "most scientists agree" rubber stamp has been licked, mailed and delivered. Furthermore, the "I'm uncomfortable with this topic so let's outlaw it" iron fist has been thrusted down.

We need some levity.

Q: How do Prius owners drive?

A: One hand on the wheel, the other patting themselves on the back.

 

 

Levity might suggest your face is an Ad hominem... 

 

Steven and I tease each other from opposite sides of the same river. I live in Portlandia. He's in Vantucky.

 

 

Nah, I'm in Mancouver (*** marriage and all being legal in Washington). 

 

EDIT: G.A.Y.

 

EDIT, EDIT:  And btw, I owned a prius and LOVED it.  Only got rid of it because I bought jet skis and need an oil-burning truck to get them around.  

Edited February 27, 2015 by Steven1963

[Joseph Jove]

Unfortunately, Klipsch has no specific policy against idiots.

Close the thread.

Not contributing by calling people idiots.

Focus.

I see that the proverbial "you're an idiot because we disagree" card has been flung. Also, the "most scientists agree" rubber stamp has been licked, mailed and delivered. Furthermore, the "I'm uncomfortable with this topic so let's outlaw it" iron fist has been thrusted down.

We need some levity.

Q: How do Prius owners drive?

A: One hand on the wheel, the other patting themselves on the back.

 

Levity might suggest your face is an Ad hominem... 

Now we can safely declare this thread has reached rock bottom. My face has been attacked. Ha. What's next, Monkey boy, up my nose with a rubber hose?

"Now is the winter of YOUR discontent". (Smile)

I'm out of here.

[Mallette]

Any chance of changing the focus here to just assuming there IS an acute global emergency in spite of being nowhere near the extremes of geologic time and that immediate action is required.

 

Anybody aware of any?  Given extreme reductions are mandated with many calling for 0 emissions in 5 years, and even that being maybe too little too late, where is the declaration of global emergency?

 

Put it in perspective:  We are told the consequences will be global catastrophe.  About all one can compare it with is the outbreak of WWII which mobilized the planet in singular focus with all things subordinated to the war effort.

 

We are told this is magnitudes of order worse. 

 

So, what's the plan?

 

Dave

[Jeff Matthews]

Solution? Reverse the growth in global consumption.

 

You go first. 

[Travis In Austin]

WW II is the wrong analogy. We were slow to get in, it was "their" war until December 7th.

The analogy was the discovery of a hole in the ozone layer and the chemicals that caused it my American scientists which led to the phased in ban of freon in aerosol sprays and other refrigerants. The Montreal Protocol was the result that has been amended several times to include other chemicals. Chemicals that increase global warming. The MP is working on the ozone hole.

Koyoto is the international solution to global warming, it spells out what needs to be done and by when. We were in Koyoto, a part of the solution, then we withdrew, now we are back in it again.

Personally, AGW shouldn't be our main concern. There will be more flooding in New York, othet coastal cities, more severe weather patterns, etc. and we can adapt to that and argue about what can be done all we want.

The real problem, in my view, is that the pH of the ocean is 30% more acidic from carbon emissions, all man made. The number and the cause are undisputed. Aside from whatever nations that depend on the oceans we all depend on it for oxygen. If green algae begins to slow in reproduction due to pH increasing, or worse, begins dying, it is all over. The ocean, in addition to providing half of the oxygen we breath also removes half of the CO2 that is removed by photosynthesis.

What I worry about is that we are not putting enough focus on the ocean in science and research to determine just how much it can take beyond what we have done already. We learned that coal burning was able to pollute the ocean to the point of toxic levels of mercury in fish in only 100 years. Pregnant women are advised to avoid all fish/seafood in this country.

Climate and the weather get the attention because it plays out in storms, floods and heatwaves. A scientist sitting in a lab looking as near microscopic plants is pretty boring and diffict to understand how they are ESSENTIAL for life on the entire planet to exist.