Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Anybody who worries about global warming
Options
-
05-07-2008 12:50am#1Should read this, all of it. and please don't make judgements unless you have read it all.
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
A little about one of the authors:
"James A. Peden - better known as Jim or "Dad" - Webmaster of Middlebury Networks and Editor of the Middlebury Community Network, spent some of his earlier years as an Atmospheric Physicist at the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh and Extranuclear Laboratories in Blawnox, Pennsylvania, studying ion-molecule reactions in the upper atmosphere. As a student, he was elected to both the National Physics Honor Society and the National Mathematics Honor Fraternity, and was President of the Student Section of the American Institute of Physics. He was a founding member of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, and a member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. His thesis on charge transfer reactions in the upper atmosphere was co-published in part in the prestigious Journal of Chemical Physics. The results obtained by himself and his colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh remain today as the gold standard in the AstroChemistry Database. He was a co-developer of the Modulated Beam Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer, declared one of the "100 Most Significant Technical Developments of the Year" and displayed at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago. "
Read it and worry no more
(I have been looking for something this comprehensive since all this "greenhouse gas" malarki started, I remember my physics teacher in secondary school used to ramble on about how this is all "nonsense", and he explained why, and now I have found an article by a group of real scientists who can do the same for you, I have found various papers on the internet by independant scientists who all come to the same conclusion but nothing as complete as this, I think everybody should read it.
And if your still not convinced read this article here:
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html
For those of you with absolutely no patience I give you a summary from the text
1. The "Greenhouse Effect" is a natural and valuable phenomenon, without which, the planet would be uninhabitable.
2. Modest Global Warming, at least up until 1998 when a cooling trend began, has been real.
3. CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas; 95% of the contribution is due to Water Vapor.
4. Man's contribution to Greenhouse Gasses is relatively insignificant. We didn't cause the recent Global Warming and we cannot stop it.
5. Solar Activity appears to be the principal driver for Climate Change, accompanied by complex ocean currents which distribute the heat and control local weather systems.
6. CO2 is a useful trace gas in the atmosphere, and the planet would actually benefit by having more, not less of it, because it is not a driver for Global Warming and would enrich our vegetation, yielding better crops to feed the expanding population.
7. CO2 is not causing global warming, in fact, CO2 is lagging temperature change in all reliable datasets. The cart is not pulling the donkey, and the future cannot influence the past.
8. Nothing happening in the climate today is particularly unusual, and in fact has happened many times in the past and will likely happen again in the future.
9. The UN IPCC has corrupted the "reporting process" so badly, it makes the oil-for-food scandal look like someone stole some kid's lunch money. They do not follow the Scientific Method, and modify the science as needed to fit their predetermined conclusions. In empirical science, one does NOT write the conclusion first, then solicit "opinion" on the report, ignoring any opinion which does not fit their predetermined conclusion while falsifying data to support unrealistic models.
10. Polar Bear populations are not endangered, in fact current populations are healthy and at almost historic highs. The push to list them as endangered is an effort to gain political control of their habitat... particularly the North Slope oil fields.
11. There is no demonstrated causal relationship between hurricanes and/or tornadoes and global warming. This is sheer conjecture totally unsupported by any material science.
12. Observed glacial retreats in certain select areas have been going on for hundreds of years, and show no serious correlation to short-term swings in global temperatures.
13. Greenland is shown to be an island completely surrounded by water, not ice, in maps dating to the 14th century. There is active geothermal activity in the currently "melting" sections of Greenland.
14. The Antarctic Ice cover is currently the largest ever observed by satellite, and periodic ice shelf breakups are normal and correlate well with localized tectonic and geothermal activity along the Antarctic Peninsula.
15. The Global Warming Panic was triggered by an artifact of poor mathematics which has been thoroughly disproved. The panic is being deliberately nurtured by those who stand to gain both financially and politically from perpetuation of the hoax.
16. Scientists who "deny" the hoax are often threatened with loss of funding or even their jobs.
17. The correlation between solar activity and climate is now so strong that solar physicists are now seriously discussing the much greater danger of pending global cooling.
18. Biofuel hysteria is already having a disastrous effect on world food supplies and prices, and current technologies for biofuel production consume more energy than the fuels produce.
19. Global Warming Hysteria is potentially linked to a stress-induced mental disorder.
20. In short, there is no "climate crisis" of any kind at work on our planet.1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
And my opinion is that they're being no more misleading than you are with your objection to "the infamous hockey stick" on the grounds that you claim one specific example of it doesn't contain these events.
Seriously, though, if you want to try and argue that these guys are somehow misleading the public through misdirection, I'd ratchet down the rhetoric and emotive language a level. After all - isn't the use of that sort of approach what you're complaining about?
If you made your point calmly, without rhetoric, and with more evidence than they supply, then I could understand your stance. As it is, you're supplying no more than them, using language just as emotive as they do, all the while complaining about those very tactics. All I can figure out from this is that your complaint is not that people shouldn't use such tactics, but rather that its somehow wrong that they are more successful at it.
Ever hear of over analasis. I am emotive because I am human.
My opinion being expressed here cannot be construed as "tactics" as I require no tactics to express my opinion, after all I am free to do so.
I am not a politician, I do not use "Rethoric" with the intent to mislead and manipulate opinion, I will respect your opinion.
I expressed my opinion, I gave my sources, It really is as simple as that take it or leave it, but I will not get into semantics with you.
I have my opinions on climate change, and how it is presented by the mainstream media. I have nothing to gain or lose by anyone standing by my here or speaking against me, I have no agenda, I really don't care but I do enjoy discussion.
I will not however discuss anything with someone who resorts to this kind of psychology because I see it as manipulating, leading and off topic. Conversation over buddy, You can worry about climate change, I won't. Lifes too short to talk BS with a keyboard warrior. You win I lose, if it makes you happy, I achieved my purpose with this thread in the OP, expressing my view based on what I've read and seen.
Take it ham and cheesey 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
And my opinion is that they're being no more misleading than you are with your objection to "the infamous hockey stick" on the grounds that you claim one specific example of it doesn't contain these events.
Seriously, though, if you want to try and argue that these guys are somehow misleading the public through misdirection, I'd ratchet down the rhetoric and emotive language a level. After all - isn't the use of that sort of approach what you're complaining about?
If you made your point calmly, without rhetoric, and with more evidence than they supply, then I could understand your stance. As it is, you're supplying no more than them, using language just as emotive as they do, all the while complaining about those very tactics. All I can figure out from this is that your complaint is not that people shouldn't use such tactics, but rather that its somehow wrong that they are more successful at it.Ever hear of over analasis. I am emotive because I am human.
My opinion being expressed here cannot be construed as "tactics" as I require no tactics to express my opinion, after all I am free to do so.
I am not a politician, I do not use "Rethoric" with the intent to mislead and manipulate opinion, I will respect your opinion.
I expressed my opinion, I gave my sources, It really is as simple as that take it or leave it, but I will not get into semantics with you.
I have my opinions on climate change, and how it is presented by the mainstream media. I have nothing to gain or lose by anyone standing by my here or speaking against me, I have no agenda, I really don't care but I do enjoy discussion.
I will not however discuss anything with someone who resorts to this kind of psychology because I see it as manipulating, leading and off topic. Conversation over buddy, You can worry about climate change, I won't. Lifes too short to talk BS with a keyboard warrior. You win I lose, if it makes you happy, I achieved my purpose with this thread in the OP, expressing my view based on what I've read and seen.
Take it ham and cheesey
I see. So you're allowed to be emotive and put your argument as you see fit, because you're human. When I put my argument as I see fit, its because I'm playing psychological games and trying to manipulate people and over-analysing.
It’s a shame to take up positions and then to defend them at all costs, even if that means missing the point.
The point of Jimkel’s post seems to be that you are not actually making any argument which is relevant to the subject ( which is “Anybody who worries about global warming” ), but you seem to be making points about Jimkel’s style of response.
It would be great to take the heat out and discuss the issue at hand, rather than take issues with individual posters styles. It’s an interesting topic, and while I enjoy discussion of it, it would be refreshing to discuss/argue about the substance, rather then the style of individual posters.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Well, yes....in the same sense that the theory of gravity is nothing more than a theory, or the theory of special relativity is nothing more than a theory.
I'm guessing that if no-one has pointed it out, its because from a scientific perspective, theory is just-about as good as it gets. When you say that its "nothing more" than a theory, you neglect to mention that in the relevant terminology there is nothing more than a theory.
Its a bit like trying to suggest that someone didn't do so well in their exams, because they got nothing more than an A+, or that someone isn't that rich, because they're nothing more than a multi-billionaire.
Are we disagreeing on something here? I was just addressing some people here who seem to think that they know some of these things for a fact. However your exam analogy is nothing like what I'm talking about. There are specific measurables there, things we know for a fact, and relatives, things we think that others may not agree with. So in this case "well" is relative, but once we determine a definition for well we can prove the result one way or another.You know when you said that its "nothing more" than a theory? By definition, scientific theories can be disproven.
Yes they can, just as they an be proven. Read my post again, I didn't way it was utterly impossible to prove or disprove. I did say that to do either would require something that we cannot currently do (controlled global climate experiments) and also requires knowledge of factors that we know little about (cosmic rays being a perfect example, there are theories as to what they do but we don't really "know" therefore can't "know" we are accurately reflecting their affect on our environment). I also speculated that we may never have the ability to do the former. So from our current standpoint we need to realise we're in no position to prove or disprove any theory on climate change.
0 -
Advertisement
-
If what you wanted to say was "a theory is not a fact", then fine...I agree, but believe you made your point incredibly badly.I was just addressing some people here who seem to think that they know some of these things for a fact.
Put bluntly, the argument that something is "just a theory" (or words to that effect), when applied to a scientific theory, is almost always either a comment from ignorance, or from a deliberate effort to conflate the scientific and non-scientific meanings of the word.
How about my analagy to the theories of gravity and special relativity? Will you argue that they are each "nothing but a theory"?However your exam analogy is nothing like what I'm talking about.
What you said was : "There is a chance that we are causing global warming. Just as we can't prove it, we can't disprove it." Nowhere in there did you allow that we might be able to prove or disprove it. You said that we cannot do either. Admittedly, you offered reasoning why it couldn't be proven, but then made this quantum leap to arguing that "equally it cannot be disproven".Yes they can, just as they an be proven. Read my post again, I didn't way it was utterly impossible to prove or disprove.
Incidentally, just as theories are required to be disproveable, they are impossible to prove. What you argue as the requirements to prove them is equally incorrect - even were we capable of carrying out such experiments, they wouldn't prove the theory. Theories cannot be proven. That's why "theory" is as good as it gets. You can verify that observation matches prediction as many times as you like, but you cannot prove that it will continue to do so.
We cannot ever be in a position to prove a theory of climate change. Theories cannot be proven.So from our current standpoint we need to realise we're in no position to prove or disprove any theory on climate change.
We can, however, easily disprove them. Theories of climate change make predictions. If the observed results do not match the predictions, the predictions are wrong. If the predictions are wrong, the theory is wrong, and thus disproven.
To go back to the first sentence of your post...
Most certainly. We are disagreeing on the accuracy of your portrayal of what a scientific theory is...and possibly on the meaning of "prove" and "disprove".Are we disagreeing on something here?0
Advertisement