An oasis of free speech for civilized talk/debate/pontification about things you shouldn't talk about at parties (or the Comic Bloc). Religion, politics, culture, philosophy, science, truth, lies and opinions.


    Clamate Change coversation link con't from CB

    Share
    avatar
    Avery4Peace
    Admin

    Posts : 4
    Join date : 2009-06-13
    Location : Virginia, U.S.A.

    Clamate Change coversation link con't from CB

    Post by Avery4Peace on Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:06 am

    http://www.comicbloc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41570&page=11
    -------
    the last couple of post follow.

    from Kandor Red

    Okay, I'm going to give this one last shot for now:

    1) The Nazism thing goes over the top, and makes it hard to feel like we're in an honest debate. Calling people Nazis is not a way to influence them, or to indicate your openness to dialogue. This is especially true when we're discussing things that are not, for example, genocide or murder.

    The Pastor Niemoller quotation you cite doesn't quite fit. Niemoller's point is that a crime against any person is a crime against everybody. His list isn't a mounting series of increasingly worse crimes, but a changing cast of victims that were horrible from the outset.

    If you're trying to work the Niemoller quotation around to mean, "Don't accept regulation of industrial emissions, because next thing you know it will be a Maoist one-child policy," then I find that spectacularly unpersuasive.

    2) Why are you telling me that CO2 "only makes up 4%" of greenhouse gases? I didn't say it was the majority of greenhouse gases. (It is the usual textbook example used when teaching the greenhouse effect; I remember that from childhood.)

    I was attempting to rebut your claim that "CO2 is not pollution" by pointing out that, pollution or not, it is a greenhouse gas.

    The exchange, as I saw it, went like this:

    1peace: "CO2 is not pollution"
    Kandor: "But it is a greenhouse gas."
    1peace: "Yes, but it's only 4% of greenhouse gases."

    Can you see why I'm not feeling convinced? Or even why I'm not feeling like this is really a conversation? (Even though I've enjoyed other conversations with you.)

    3. I don't doubt that you can find selected studies or specific individuals who dispute global warming. Science works through dispute and debate: there will always be scientists in a minority position, especially in minority positions that are favorable to big industry. (Think about those medical doctors whose studies proved tobacco wasn't bad for you.)

    The fact that a few scientists dispute a model that most scientists have come to accept does not invalidate the model.

    3a. While we're at it, the "global warming, now it's global cooling" line is not the strongest. The global warming model does predict that some regions get cooler (often with bad effects) when

    How could such a thing be? Well, let's use a simple but important example: global warming melts more and more ice at the polar caps, so that cold melt water gets into the oceans. Evidently, if enough ice melts, the new supply of cold water will form a layer in the Atlantic that prevents the Gulf Stream from rising to the surface anymore. Think about Western Europe (or Hilton Head) with no Gulf Stream.

    "For all things there is a season...."

    Kandor Red


    --------------------------------------


    from 1peace

    Kandor,
    Let me say on and off the record. I never intended to imply that you or anyone else on the bloc are Nazis or Nazi like. I'm sorry if I've given you that impression. Let me state this in the clearest terms. I do not consider ANYONE on the bloc past or present in any way Nazi or Nazi sympathizer. I hope we can put that aside at this point and again please accept my apology if I've given that impression with my quick comments.

    Now about the Niemoller quote, what I was trying to say is that those population control/Man made climate change advocates mentioned very specifically that the U.K.s population needed to be cut back by half of todays population. They didn't give a method or but one of them in the article did mention 2050 as a date for near extinction. And Kandor I can't think of any benign ways of halving a population by 2050. can you? Or even slowing population growth to near zero till then without heavy handed liberty busting measures.
    So these people are in the U.K. so my Niemoller reference could have read something like "1st they came for 30 million in the U.K. but i didn't live in the U.K..." I hope that contextualizes it better. again I'm not saying that it's your view. or the view of a majority of man man climate change supporters but is the clear and disturbing view of some. And one that has the ear of the Prime Minister of the U.K. on the issue. So i don't think it's something that we should just disregard out of hand. Or disregard at all.

    As far the comparison of them being Nazis being over the top, well for everyones sake, I hope it is. And again my sorry if my compassion seemed to put a shadow on your position. Part of 1 or 2 of my political positions may partially put me in the company of outright KKK members but i'm not a klan member or sympathetic in anyway. But if the head of the KKK was an adviser to the President and that grand pobas advocated ideas on the issue that i partly agree with him on. i'd want the clear strictest separation as well.

    So, anyway, I understand and acknowledge your stance. I gather you believe in man made climate change (as long as the scientific majority promote it.) And are completely against population control and those that promote it.
    Sorry for rambling just wanted so long about that just wanted to be clear maybe we can "just move on" from here. But I do reserve the option to Bring those Population Control folks again up if they get more and more news play.



    To your second point.
    You remember a lot more than I do from school. Everything i think i know about this subject I've mostly picked up in the last few years.
    but the exchange as you saw it and what i was responding too was probably off target from the beginning. Pollutant or greenhouse gas it is seen as a threat but if the idea that man made climate change is a wrong then CO2 would cease to be looked upon as a problem. But the alt energy-reduce-reuse-recycle idea would still be valid and bring benefits.
    As far as the 4% goes you seem too see CO2 some how as a primary effect or catalyst rather than a small percentage of the whole effect as i understand it. I guess that difference probably hits on why my point didn't move you. i was responding honestly, but from your POV it missed the mark.
    And from what i see, human activity is not even able to raise it in any significant way in the foreseeable future. Other natural variables are much more significant factors as far as greenhouse gases are concerned based on my understanding. But if we're concerned about greenhouses gases i've read other alarmist point to methane as a horrible greenhouse gas as well. Much worse than CO2 and rising faster. The bad guys there are cows and termites, bogs and marshes and natural earth seepage. Recycling won't help us there. Kill some cows and then ????. If the alarmist are right we are in a no win situation with Global warming/climate change. If it's true it seems we'd be better off trying to accommodate for it rather than waste time, money and energy(in every sense) in trying to stop it. In other words if the tide is rising then it doesn't make much sense to yell at, beat up and collect a fine from lil jimmy for peeing in the ocean. It's really not his fault, though he did do his part. You'd better just move your blanket and sand castles further inland and hope its far enough....
    avatar
    Avery4Peace
    Admin

    Posts : 4
    Join date : 2009-06-13
    Location : Virginia, U.S.A.

    Re: Clamate Change coversation link con't from CB

    Post by Avery4Peace on Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:10 am

    from 1peace

    your 3rd point,
    I don't doubt that you can find selected studies or specific individuals who dispute global warming. Science works through dispute and debate: there will always be scientists in a minority position, especially in minority positions that are favorable to big industry. (Think about those medical doctors whose studies proved tobacco wasn't bad for you.)

    Knador Red No doubt there are paid scientist in the Anti global warming camp. I'll admit that. But not all. And I'd also have to say that there are those, not paid, but Passionate and fervent environmentalist that would almost rather die than to give up on the idea that shows so much promise of getting gov'ts and people moving in the direction of "saving the planet". The facts on this issue are less important to them than "truth" of the overall environmentalist position. "We must all change our ways and sacrifice in a major way now or the planet dies." And there are other biz/political interest that have ways of using this to make them more profitable and more powerful politically.

    As far as minority verses the majority in science goes. I hope, as I'm sure you do, that the correct scientific facts are embraced as soon as they are known by honest scientist and that the consensus will form around those fact. And that the politics and debate can move from there.

    You chose the tobacco company scientist. not to flattering.
    Form the other perceptive heres a few lesser known stories of the honest minority report.
    This story, is amazing and it make a huge point about human nature and "science".
    Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis (1818 – 1865) was a Hungarian physician. He discovered that cases of puerperal fever, also known as childbed fever, could be cut drastically if doctors washed their hands in a chlorine solution before gynaecological examinations.

    While employed as assistant to the professor of the maternity clinic at the Vienna General Hospital in Austria in 1847, Semmelweis introduced hand washing with chlorinated lime solutions for interns who had performed autopsies. This immediately reduced the incidence of fatal puerperal fever from about 10 percent (range 5–30 percent) to about 1–2 percent. At the time, diseases were attributed to many different and unrelated causes. Semmelweis' hypothesis, that there was only one cause, that all that mattered was cleanliness, was extreme at the time, and was largely ignored, rejected or ridiculed. He was dismissed from the hospital and harassed by the medical community in Vienna, which eventually forced him to move to Pest.

    Semmelweis was outraged by the indifference of the medical profession and began writing open and increasingly angry letters to prominent European obstetricians, at times denouncing them as irresponsible murderers. His contemporaries, including his wife, believed he was losing his mind, and in 1865 he was committed to an asylum. He died there only 14 days later, possibly after being severely beaten by guards. Semmelweis' practice only earned widespread acceptance years after his death, when Louis Pasteur developed the germ theory of disease which offered a theoretical explanation for Semmelweis' findings. He is considered a pioneer of antiseptic procedures.

    More recently the medical scientific dogma for decades has been that stomach ulcers were cause by stress. But just in recent years it's been "discovered" that no it's been bacteria all this time. And the "treatments" that had been given were never going to cure the patients. Of course the establishment balked a bit at 1st.... but now.

    Vitamins are herbs are getting more respect from "western science" even prayer's getting some recognition. Were any of those things effective or true before the majority of scientific community received or had the model.

    Kandor, I'm sure you could come up with even better examples.

    So while there is often safety in numbers, the truth is where you find it.

    The fact that a few scientists dispute a model that most scientists have come to accept does not invalidate the model.
    ddf
    Kandor Red
    I've touch on that a bit above but more importantly in this case
    If a few scientist point out that the model is laced with bad data then yes that can ,and believe does, invalidate the model.
    For example:

    •In January 2005 Christopher Landsea resigned from work on the IPCC AR4, saying:
    "I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4."
    •UK House of Lords Science and Economic Analysis and Report on IPCC for the G-8 Summit, July 2005:
    We have some concerns about the objectivity of the IPCC process, with some of its emissions scenarios and summary documentation apparently influenced by political considerations. There are significant doubts about some aspects of the IPCC’s emissions scenario exercise, in particular, the high emissions scenarios. The Government should press the IPCC to change their approach. There are some positive aspects to global warming and these appear to have been played down in the IPCC reports; the Government should press the IPCC to reflect in a more balanced way the costs and benefits of climate change. The Government should press the IPCC for better estimates of the monetary costs of global warming damage and for explicit monetary comparisons between the costs of measures to control warming and their benefits. Since warming will continue, regardless of action now, due to the lengthy time lags.
    • ...Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate."
    • Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors"
    •...Monckton says, "I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method."
    •...The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running....
    ...GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.
    •"As Chief of several of NASA Headquarters’ programs (1982-94), an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research," ... "I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made.”...
    “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit. Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it."
    "They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.”

    ________________________
    wow sorry for the long post
    Started this after dinner and been up and down from it different times during the evening.


    peace

      Current date/time is Tue Sep 26, 2017 12:19 pm