The Dangers of Junk Science.

[Stella_Omega]

~~~

Did all this five years ago on this left leaning forum...buy ya books 'n buy ya books all you do is eat the the pages & lick the covers...geez..louise...



ami

You should give it up as a waste of your time.

 

[PREMwriter]

You should give it up as a waste of your time.

Think we should tell him water vapour isn't a gas? Nah, he'd never believe it. It would spoil his perception of Co2 being good for us. Maybe if we said it was man-made and it benefited us he'd like it better.

 

[colddiesel]

The world did warm up. Since the early 2000's, but then the average temperature has remained steady. However, it is warmer than it was a hundred years ago. Whether or not it is man-caused is irrelevant.

My take is that I'm not convinced that it is. However, if a genuine concern for GW is what it takes to get people to clean up the air and the ocean and to reduce our dependence on energy from unreliable foreign sources, good!

my emphasis added.

VM there is far more sense here than in all the rest of this thread. Consequently you will inevitably be ignored.

 

[TE999]

I find it intriguing that the Global Warming villains are the same ones that are causing all the worlds other problems such as poverty, greed, unfair accumulation of wealth, racisim, bigotry, graft and all the other ills mankind is heir to. Specifically, big corporations, capitalists, bankers, oil men, those lacking in compassion and anyone who casts a jaundiced eye toward the expansion of big government.

As I said in another post, Environmentalisim has become the new religion of the disaffected and bitter. If you choose to live in a hovel sans modern conveniences to save the planet, be my guest. I intend to enjoy myself and consume resources as I choose. Contrary to some popular beliefs, there isn't a finite amount of anything be it money, natural resources, atmosphere or food.

I can say with assurance if you went to a developing country such as China, India, Saudi Arabia or Indonesia and told them they needed to cut back on consuming resources and cease continuing to progress, they would laugh in your face. If you persisted, you would be ignored, locked up as a crank or expelled.

There is easily as much 'scientific data' decrying Global Warming as there is supporting it. What does one believe?

I also find it interesting that the term 'Global Warming' has fallen out of favor as it has become insupportable in it's face. I think the new term 'Climate Change' has replaced it. Maybe this will aid the benighted among us to more easily conceptualize the doom that lurks at our back door.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Think we should tell him water vapour isn't a gas? Nah, he'd never believe it. It would spoil his perception of Co2 being good for us. Maybe if we said it was man-made and it benefited us he'd like it better.

You might want to go back to school...water comes in three states, solid, liquid and gas. Ice is water in it's solid state. Water flowing down a gentle slop is it's liquid state. Vapor is it's gaseous state. So if you can't even get that right how am I to believe you about climate change?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I find it intriguing that the Global Warming villains are the same ones that are causing all the worlds other problems such as poverty, greed, unfair accumulation of wealth, racisim, bigotry, graft and all the other ills mankind is heir to. Specifically, big corporations, capitalists, bankers, oil men, those lacking in compassion and anyone who casts a jaundiced eye toward the expansion of big government.

As I said in another post, Environmentalisim has become the new religion of the disaffected and bitter. If you choose to live in a hovel sans modern conveniences to save the planet, be my guest. I intend to enjoy myself and consume resources as I choose. Contrary to some popular beliefs, there isn't a finite amount of anything be it money, natural resources, atmosphere or food.

I can say with assurance if you went to a developing country such as China, India, Saudi Arabia or Indonesia and told them they needed to cut back on consuming resources and cease continuing to progress, they would laugh in your face. If you persisted, you would be ignored, locked up as a crank or expelled.

There is easily as much 'scientific data' decrying Global Warming as there is supporting it. What does one believe?

I also find it interesting that the term 'Global Warming' has fallen out of favor as it has become insupportable in it's face. I think the new term 'Climate Change' has replaced it. Maybe this will aid the benighted among us to more easily conceptualize the doom that lurks at our back door.

Haha...'Climate Change' that thing that happens at the change of a season. So they would have us believe that the changing of the season are bad for us and the planet. Well good luck on controlling the spin and tilt of the planet.

If the fucking planet wants to get hotter there is nothing we can do about it. If it wants to cool off down to the temperature of the Arctic ice pack it will. If it wants to spit you out and kick your ass it will.

I too will live my life comfortably and attempt not to pollute by recycling and such. But don't ask me to cut off my nose just because you want too.

 

[DeeZire]

...there isn't a finite amount of anything be it money, natural resources, atmosphere or food.

Would you care to explain the statement above?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Would you care to explain the statement above?

Explain...reads pretty clear to me.

 

[DeeZire]

I find it intriguing that the Global Warming villains are the same ones that are causing all the worlds other problems such as poverty, greed, unfair accumulation of wealth, racisim, bigotry, graft and all the other ills mankind is heir to. Specifically, big corporations, capitalists, bankers, oil men, those lacking in compassion and anyone who casts a jaundiced eye toward the expansion of big government.

I don't find it intriguing at all. It's just human nature. Some people celebrate greed, some try to reign it in with the interests of the common good in mind. In other words, some people have moral integrity, some don't. The fact that the ones with no moral integrity don't even notice their deficiency only makes it all the more obvious.

 

[PREMwriter]

You might want to go back to school...water comes in three states, solid, liquid and gas. Ice is water in it's solid state. Water flowing down a gentle slop is it's liquid state. Vapor is it's gaseous state. So if you can't even get that right how am I to believe you about climate change?

water in it's so-called gaseous state is called condensation. That's what we call rain when it gathers together in droplets large enough to fall to the ground. This causes a cooling of the air. When you fart, it's a gas, it dissipates into the air and disolves, unless you're a real bad farter and it collects enough to form a layer of noxious gas and you get a barrier that holds heat in. Schools out, go home and wank some more.

 

[TE999]

I don't find it intriguing at all. It's just human nature. Some people celebrate greed, some try to reign it in with the interests of the common good in mind. In other words, some people have moral integrity, some don't. The fact that the ones with no moral integrity don't even notice their deficiency only makes it all the more obvious.

The common good decrees that I work and you don't and yet you get to pick my pocket via the government when you need something.

Greed is actually ambition viewed by those who have little or none. I never worked for a poor man, just ambitious ones.

Moral integrity is a term coined by those who think the world isn't fair because they don't have what someone else has and think themselves superior because they say they don't need it.

 

[DeeZire]

Greed is actually ambition viewed by those who have little or none. I never worked for a poor man, just ambitious ones.

There is a difference between ambition and greed, a difference you are obviously blind to. Thank you for proving the point of my previous post.

 

[Stella_Omega]

The common good decrees that I work and you don't and yet you get to pick my pocket via the government when you need something.

Greed is actually ambition viewed by those who have little or none. I never worked for a poor man, just ambitious ones.

Moral integrity is a term coined by those who think the world isn't fair because they don't have what someone else has and think themselves superior because they say they don't need it.

Might wanna rethink all of three of these statements.

Or not, of course.

 

[penandpaper]

I've read the word speculation and assumption concerning scientific research four times already. If you don't believe it say, "I don't believe these scientists working in the field. I think I know more than them," because, in truth, that is what you're doing.

And saying you believe the small handfull of scientists that don't support global warming goes back to Ami's argument against the so-called liberal scientists of today - they do it for the buck. They can raise money and the more they can sell, the more they'll earn.

 

[TE999]

There is a difference between ambition and greed, a difference you are obviously blind to. Thank you for proving the point of my previous post.

Yes there is. Ambition is the desire to do something to advance oneself. Greed is not being willing to surrender what you have earned to other people who have done nothing to earn it. (Also see Common Sense)

Might wanna rethink all of three of these statements.

Or not, of course.

I choose not.

 

[DeeZire]

... Ambition is the desire to do something to advance oneself. Greed is not being willing to surrender what you have earned to other people who have done nothing to earn it. (Also see Common Sense)

Greed: excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves

Earn: to receive as return for effort and especially for work done or services rendered

Getting down to semantics, when one guy works his ass off all day for an unlivable wage, and the guy who benefits from said labor sits on his ass all day and makes 400 times the amount of the first guy, the first guy is being deprived of earning a living by the second guy. This is an example of greed.

Not being willing to surrender what you have earned to other people who have done nothing to earn it is, indeed, common sense. However, being willing to surrender a small portion of what you have earned to other people who are not as fortunate as you is also common sense when you consider the fact that would not be able to earn one dime if it wasn't for the society in which you live. In other words, the society in which you live supports your lifestyle.

If you would prefer to keep every penny for yourself, I would suggest you extract yourself from said society, perhaps by relocating to a mountain retreat out in the wilderness, or sailing to an uninhabited desert island.

Good luck making a living out there in the middle of nowhere.

 

[Epmd607]

...

As I said in another post, Environmentalisim has become the new religion of the disaffected and bitter. If you choose to live in a hovel sans modern conveniences to save the planet, be my guest. I intend to enjoy myself and consume resources as I choose. Contrary to some popular beliefs, there isn't a finite amount of anything be it money, natural resources, atmosphere or food.

I can say with assurance if you went to a developing country such as China, India, Saudi Arabia or Indonesia and told them they needed to cut back on consuming resources and cease continuing to progress, they would laugh in your face. If you persisted, you would be ignored, locked up as a crank or expelled.

There is easily as much 'scientific data' decrying Global Warming as there is supporting it. What does one believe?

No one's telling BRIC or developing nations to cut back on consuming resources, everyone's screaming at them to consume our coal and steel because we just about dropped into a depression with the pullback in consumption of commodities by China and developing nations.

I can say with assurance that you can't provide us with any scientific data that refutes global warming and the human impact as put forth by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Anti-science and anti-environmentalism is the religion of the bitterest of all politicos, the neo-conservative. The people arguing against global warming get off on obscure marginal theories, beliefs. They become experts in such thing as World Trade Center demolition, Skull and Bones, the Bermuda Triangle, ID, Kennedy Conspiracy, Nostradamus, ghost hunting, bigfoot searching.

 

[amicus]

Getting down to semantics, when one guy works his ass off all day for an unlivable wage, and the guy who benefits from said labor sits on his ass all day and makes 400 times the amount of the first guy, the first guy is being deprived of earning a living by the second guy. This is an example of greed.

Not being willing to surrender what you have earned to other people who have done nothing to earn it is, indeed, common sense. However, being willing to surrender a small portion of what you have earned to other people who are not as fortunate as you is also common sense when you consider the fact that would not be able to earn one dime if it wasn't for the society in which you live. In other words, the society in which you live supports your lifestyle.

If you would prefer to keep every penny for yourself, I would suggest you extract yourself from said society, perhaps by relocating to a mountain retreat out in the wilderness, or sailing to an uninhabited desert island.

Good luck making a living out there in the middle of nowhere.

~~~

I derive no pleasure from reading or responding to your thoughts and I view your expressed philosophy, as much as you reveal of it, to be sick and irrational and hateful and it gives me cause to wonder why you have become so bitter and abusive.

Most young peope, starting off in life, are excited and happy to get that first job and of course, it is an entry level job, with progressive limited only by the ability of the employment and his temperament.

You seem to have a hatred of those who have become successful in their lives and accumulated wealth or fame through their skill or expertise, why?

Where is it carved in stone that because one devotes himself to acquiring wealth, status, property, whatever they choose, that they have a debt to society? The contribute their skill to society, to the general welfare by their performance of excellence in an area that others are eager to pay for and accept.

I suppose you would think badly of me being paid $1,000 for each three hour radio show I perform? Tens of thousands are entertained and may be swayed by the advertising that support my show. Do you hate me for my ability, them for their ignorance, or just hate excellence in general?

I suppose you, as most, object to making money from money through interest? You want to build a home, the money I have in the bank goes to build your home. You get a home and easy repayment, the bank makes a profit and I make a profit by allowing my money to be invested. Just what is it you hate about that?

They say the poor are always with us, do you think I have an obligaton because I am successful to donate a portion of my wealth to the poor just because they are poor? Would my money not be better spent to build an apartment building to provide low income living space, instead of just giving it away to be spent and gone in hours?

Just curious as to what drives people who express a similar sense of life as you do, for I truly do not comprehend.

Amicus

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I've read the word speculation and assumption concerning scientific research four times already. If you don't believe it say, "I don't believe these scientists working in the field. I think I know more than them," because, in truth, that is what you're doing.

And saying you believe the small handfull of scientists that don't support global warming goes back to Ami's argument against the so-called liberal scientists of today - they do it for the buck. They can raise money and the more they can sell, the more they'll earn.

I know how the game is played, if thats what you mean. Perfessers are as hot for a dollar as anyone on Wall Street, and how they get money is by convincing tax payers to fund their scams.

Take light-rail. Everyone here is hot for light rail. The public doesnt want it, but the pols and lawyers and newspapers cum when they think if the money to be made from building choochoos to no where.

There really isnt any place for the trains to go because of how the area is organized. But the proponents argue how it will do marvels.

 

[rgraham666]

The world did warm up. Since the early 2000's, but then the average temperature has remained steady. However, it is warmer than it was a hundred years ago. Whether or not it is man-caused is irrelevant.

My take is that I'm not convinced that it is. However, if a genuine concern for GW is what it takes to get people to clean up the air and the ocean and to reduce our dependence on energy from unreliable foreign sources, good!

This sums up my thoughts on the matter. It's not a good idea to foul our nests.

The opposition to not fouling our nests has nothing to do with science, junk or otherwise. It has to do entirely with politics. Those opposed to the changes required to not foul our nests regard those changes as a danger to America, a liberal plot to reduce America's strength and leave it vulnerable to attack by outside and evil forces.

So stop trying to convince them. You can't.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

water in it's so-called gaseous state is called condensation. That's what we call rain when it gathers together in droplets large enough to fall to the ground. This causes a cooling of the air. When you fart, it's a gas, it dissipates into the air and disolves, unless you're a real bad farter and it collects enough to form a layer of noxious gas and you get a barrier that holds heat in. Schools out, go home and wank some more.

Water vapour is a gas. A gas is chemically defined as that state of matter that has neither definite volume nor definite shape. A liquid has definite volume but no definite shape, and a solid has both definite volume and definite shape.

You're no doubt thinking of the state of water at what we call STP--Standard Temperature and Pressure, or normal earth conditions--which is a pressure of 1 atmosphere (760 torr) and room temperature, or 23 degrees C (296 degrees Kelvin). In this state, water is a liquid.

Water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas, but there's a limit to how much water the atmosphere can hold before condensation occurs. There's no limit to how much CO2 the atmosphere can contain. In any case, the atmospheric concentration of water at the relevant altitudes is quite constant over geological time. The amount of CO2 is not, and a subtle but critical feedback effect occurs when CO2 traps extra heat in the atmosphere. The heat increases the amount of water vapor in the stratosphere, which increases the greenhouse heating, which increases the amount of water in the stratosphere, which again increases the heating, etc. etc. This is the "runaway greenhouse effect" that many scientists are so worried about.

Meanwhile the oceans warm slightly, and start disgorging huge amounts of dissolved CO2. (The solubility of a gas in a liquid decreases as temperature increases, unlike the solubility of most solids, which increases as temperature goes up. That's why your beer makes bubbles as it sits in the glass getting warm.) The permafrost starts to melt and massive amounts of methane from formerly frozen rotting vegetation swamp the atmosphere. Methane is an even more efficient greenhouse gas than water vapor or CO2. This accelerates the overall heating process.

At some point, the whole system passes the tipping point and it's too late to do anything to reverse the heat acceleration of the system. No one knows precisely where that tipping point is in terms of atmospheric CO2 levels, but scientific consensus is that we're very close to it and will get even closer or perhaps hit it at the rate we're going well within the next 50 years.*

Will this be the end of civilization as we know it? No. Overall we're talking about an increase in mean global temperature of a few degrees. But this is sufficient to cause massive economic damage as sea coasts flood and weather patterns and ecosystems are violently disrupted--pH and salinity of the oceans changed, currents displaced, farm land becoming desert and deserts blossoming.

At this point, the decision is: do we want to take this seriousy and do something about it while we still can? Or do we want to bet that it won't happen and do nothing. Do we want to err of the side of caution or recklessness?
==================

* This is a very simplified picture of the phenomenon. It neglects things like changes in the earth's albedo (the amount of solar energy absorbed vs. the amount of energy reflected into space) caused by melting ice caps and increased cloud cover that more atmospheric water vapor would produce; whether certain levels of excess CO2 will accelerate plant growth which will in turn use up more CO2; what effect the increased acidity of rain (CO2 dissolved in rain water makes it more acidic) will have on this plant growth (will actually kill a lot of vegetation) and on carbonate rock (it'll free more CO2), and a host of other factors.

That being said, most scientists are in agreement about the essential validity of the phenomenon and the trend it's going in.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I know how the game is played, if thats what you mean. Perfessers are as hot for a dollar as anyone on Wall Street, and how they get money is by convincing tax payers to fund their scams.

This is patently ridiculous.

If any climatologists are out for a quick buck, they'd be pushing studies which show that global warming is a fraud, because there's a hell of a lot more industry money to be made by showing that GW isn't happening than there is public money to show that it is.

Anyone with a PhD by their name can go to the coal or fossil fuel companies and walk away with arms full of cash if they'll only muddy the waters and cast doubt on the phenomenon, and a lot of them have done just that.

Every week we see petitions and letters to the editors by non-climatologists saying it's all a bunch of hooey, as if a physics professor or PhD in Exercise Physiology would know.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

~~~

Just curious as to what drives people who express a similar sense of life as you do, for I truly do not comprehend.

Amicus

It's called conscience. And of course you wouldn't understand.

 

[PREMwriter]

Water vapour is a gas. A gas is chemically defined as that state of matter that has neither definite volume nor definite shape. A liquid has definite volume but no definite shape, and a solid has both definite volume and definite shape.

You're no doubt thinking of the state of water at what we call STP--Standard Temperature and Pressure, or normal earth conditions--which is a pressure of 1 atmosphere (760 torr) and room temperature, or 23 degrees C (296 degrees Kelvin). In this state, water is a liquid.

Water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas, but there's a limit to how much water the atmosphere can hold before condensation occurs. There's no limit to how much CO2 the atmosphere can contain. In any case, the atmospheric concentration of water at the relevant altitudes is quite constant over geological time. The amount of CO2 is not, and a subtle but critical feedback effect occurs when CO2 traps extra heat in the atmosphere. The heat increases the amount of water vapor in the stratosphere, which increases the greenhouse heating, which increases the amount of water in the stratosphere, which again increases the heating, etc. etc. This is the "runaway greenhouse effect" that many scientists are so worried about.

Meanwhile the oceans warm slightly, and start disgorging huge amounts of dissolved CO2. (The solubility of a gas in a liquid decreases as temperature increases, unlike the solubility of most solids, which increases as temperature goes up. That's why your beer makes bubbles as it sits in the glass getting warm.) The permafrost starts to melt and massive amounts of methane from formerly frozen rotting vegetation swamp the atmosphere. Methane is an even more efficient greenhouse gas than water vapor or CO2. This accelerates the overall heating process.

At some point, the whole system passes the tipping point and it's too late to do anything to reverse the heat acceleration of the system. No one knows precisely where that tipping point is in terms of atmospheric CO2 levels, but scientific consensus is that we're very close to it and will get even closer or perhaps hit it at the rate we're going well within the next 50 years.*

Will this be the end of civilization as we know it? No. Overall we're talking about an increase in mean global temperature of a few degrees. But this is sufficient to cause massive economic damage as sea coasts flood and weather patterns and ecosystems are violently disrupted--pH and salinity of the oceans changed, currents displaced, farm land becoming desert and deserts blossoming.

At this point, the decision is: do we want to take this seriousy and do something about it while we still can? Or do we want to bet that it won't happen and do nothing. Do we want to err of the side of caution or recklessness?
==================

* This is a very simplified picture of the phenomenon. It neglects things like changes in the earth's albedo (the amount of solar energy absorbed vs. the amount of energy reflected into space) caused by melting ice caps and increased cloud cover that more atmospheric water vapor would produce; whether certain levels of excess CO2 will accelerate plant growth which will in turn use up more CO2; what effect the increased acidity of rain (CO2 dissolved in rain water makes it more acidic) will have on this plant growth (will actually kill a lot of vegetation) and on carbonate rock (it'll free more CO2), and a host of other factors.

That being said, most scientists are in agreement about the essential validity of the phenomenon and the trend it's going in.

Thanks for the lesson Doc. Helps explain the process much better. Overall, we're in a heap of shit and only a few seem to want to shovel it away, while the rest just keep piling it on. It has to stop somewhere, but when. The more we harmonize with nature and the elements, the better we'll understand how to keep check of what we're doing to the planet and make corrections as needed.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

This is patently ridiculous.

If any climatologists are out for a quick buck, they'd be pushing studies which show that global warming is a fraud, because there's a hell of a lot more industry money to be made by showing that GW isn't happening than there is public money to show that it is.

Anyone with a PhD by their name can go to the coal or fossil fuel companies and walk away with arms full of cash if they'll only muddy the waters and cast doubt on the phenomenon, and a lot of them have done just that.

Every week we see petitions and letters to the editors by non-climatologists saying it's all a bunch of hooey, as if a physics professor or PhD in Exercise Physiology would know.

I think my assertion holds water. Feather merchants are the rule in most industries. Its why Soviet biological science was such a disaster; the government advocated Lamarckian evolution and the perfessers hopped aboard. People wanna make money and they'll push anything to bring home the bacon.