There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

by Elsewhere 109 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  FreeWilly

  Just one more graph...

  Assuming the graphs I produced turn out to be accurate, does anyone here believe that the correlation between solar activity and Earth's temperature response is a mere coincidence?

  

  "Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are." - Petr Chylek
  (Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia)
  Commenting on reports by other researchers that Greenland's glaciers are melting.
  (Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001) (8)
• 

  rmt1

  This guy does not appear to know about or understand the thermohaline cycle. starters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation
• 

  AuldSoul

  I enjoyed Michael Crichton's lecture at the California Institute of Technology: Aliens Cause Global Warming

  He makes a startling point that should be obvious but which, somehow, isn't. There is no such thing as "consenus science," if it is consensus, it automatically is not science. If it requires a marketing campaign to sell the concept to the scientific community, it is not science. Consider the following excerpt, which I find enthralling.

  Cast your minds back to 1960. John F. Kennedy is president, commercial jet airplanes are just appearing, the biggest university mainframes have 12K of memory. And in Green Bank, West Virginia at the new National Radio Astronomy Observatory, a young astrophysicist named Frank Drake runs a two week project called Ozma, to search for extraterrestrial signals. A signal is received, to great excitement. It turns out to be false, but the excitement remains. In 1960, Drake organizes the first SETI conference, and came up with the now-famous Drake equation:
  N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL
  Where N is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live.
  This serious-looking equation gave SETI an serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we're clear-are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be "informed guesses." If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It's simply prejudice.
  As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion. Faith is defined as the firm belief in something for which there is no proof. The belief that the Koran is the word of God is a matter of faith. The belief that God created the universe in seven days is a matter of faith. The belief that there are other life forms in the universe is a matter of faith. There is not a single shred of evidence for any other life forms, and in forty years of searching, none has been discovered. There is absolutely no evidentiary reason to maintain this belief. SETI is a religion.

  And it is through my personal observation coupled with this common sense approach to science I arrived at my belief that science spins off religions quite frequently. Science is easily as sectarian as any religion they just name the sects differently. They call their sects "Fields."

  Anyway, the link is there to the entire paper. I think the guy has a brilliant mind and a very engaging delivery of some fairly boring material. I enjoyed his treatment of second-hand cigarette smoke, as well.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul (non-smoking, UFOlogy curious, who believes global warming is happening, but for reasons other than those officially given)
• 

  osmosis

  When this issue first hit the mass media in the 70s, scientists first predicted that the "greenhouse gasses" would lead to global cooling, and, eventually, a premature ice age.

  Then when the temperature got warmer instead of colder, they simply reversed their theory and said it was gonna get real hot!

  Truth of the matter is there's just not enough data to say anything for certain.

  The environment is one topic that actually competes with the paranormal when it comes to the amount of bullshit involved.
• 

  SWALKER

  Truth of the matter is there's just not enough data to say anything for certain.

  Climatic scientists seem to be in agreement that in the U.S. it's getting warmer. Also, there is less ice mass recorded in the Arctic region. The reason that it may be getting warmer here in the U.S. is because of all the hot air that Bush is blowing out. No one seems to know the answer for sure though on what the cause is.

  The environment is one topic that actually competes with the paranormal when it comes to the amount of bullshit involved.

  You certainly seem to be adding an additional amount of BS to the heap yourself!

  Swalker
• 

  osmosis

  ok SWALKER is mad at me and being pouty.. whatever. go ahead and take little swipes at me if it makes you feel better.
• 

  AuldSoul

  No one seems to know the answer for sure though on what the cause is.

  I think this is the point, SWALKER. Since no one knows what the cause is, how do we know for sure that reducing emissions will help the situation? If it won't, we will spend countless billions of dollars (because the costs will be passed to the consumer) repairing something that wasn't broken to begin with.

  On most issues, you and I would probably agree as far as Bush goes. However, I heard him say he will not sign any agreements regarding global warming or its supposed causes until he knows for sure that (1) there is global warming, (2) what the cause is, and (3) that the agreement signed will address the actual cause as a solution to the problem.

  This seems reasonable to me. Otherwise, we would be casting about in the dark on finding a solution. I can show a direct correlation between the frequency of metallic fleck embedded paints being used on autmobiles and global warming. I can show the same correlation with the quantity of asphalt being used in road construction. And concrete usage. And steel manufaturing. And greenhouse gas emissions. And the quantity/variety of signals being broadcast on earth.

  However, I cannot show a correlation between any of these, and historically known periods of greater average temperature than we are currently experiencing.

  You mentioned that the last decade was the hottest period on record? If we grant that as true, the "record" the experts refer to doesn't extend very far into the past, geologically speaking. That "record" only goes back to about 1860, 146 years ago. That isn't even the beginning of a blip in geologic terms.

  Like I said, I don't disagree that global warming is happening. Until we "know the answer for sure" on what the cause of it is, it seems ill-advised to make and act on a plan for fixing it. If the sun is causing it, there's nothing we can do about it.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  SWALKER

  AS...the geologic scientists seems to disagree with the climatic scientists...so it is difficult to try and figure out who knows what. I don't think it hurts one bit though, to find alternative fuel sources, as we are being held somewhat captive to other nations who supply it. With rising gas prices, I also like the idea of cars getting 40, 50, 60 + miles to the gallon. If someone did a lot of driving the savings would probably pay your car payment each month!

  Swalker
• 

  AuldSoul

  I don't think it hurts one bit though, to find alternative fuel sources, as we are being held somewhat captive to other nations who supply it. With rising gas prices, I also like the idea of cars getting 40, 50, 60 + miles to the gallon.

  I'm all for both ideas. But I doubt much progress will be made while spending hundreds of billions per year on nation building for an oil-yielding country while committing 20 billion over 10 years to finding alternative fuel sources. The task was charged to the Department of Energy and the money slated for private research. Oversight of this is a spectacularly ill-suited assignment for the Department of Energy.

  It's like handing Al Capone the keycode to your loaded bank vault and asking him to distribute the funds to people who aren't la familia, so these "independent" researchers can find ways to destroy organized crime syndicates.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  SixofNine

  It's funny to watch, as more and more evidence comes available, people start to sound more and more like Witnesses or fundies pooh-poohing that crazy notion of evolution, as they pooh-pooh that crazy notion that humans can hurt the environment and should actually think about what type of planet they leave for their great-grandchildren.

  Working to reduce human impact on the earth is as pure WIN/WIN as anything on this planet could possibly be.

  When people are fighting against win/win, you know you have BELIEF problems to deal with.