Another very interesting tidbit on Climate Change

[Kev H]

This is posted in the financial section of a paper, so hope that does not mean this guy's findings are all "driven by oil money."

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/...l?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4

Regardless of his conclusion validity, I consistently come away from these (scientific reports) with the sense that most of us don't know what the fuck we're talking about (ie, the more certain you claim to be, the further from facts you go), and those that have a mild clue constantly call for more thorough research before jumping into crazy-costly schemes. Some days, I hope we spend so much on Global Warming that we all freeze our asses off after making the planet colder than it otherwise would have been. That'd serve us right (though no one would learn any beneficial lessons--would still be good for a chuckle).

 

[rgraham666]

If the National Post told me the sun rose in the east, I'd go out and check it myself tomorrow morning. Of the four Toronto papers they are the second most ideological.

They're all ideological to some extent, but they're the second worst.

The worst, not long ago, printed a column advocating the return of public flogging as an antidote to crime.

As far as global warming goes, the evidence points to it. However, even if it isn't going to happen, I'm in favour of the changes required. Mostly because the pollution our current major energy sources produce can't be good for us or the planet we live on.

We keep our homes clean. Why not the home for all of us?

 

[emap]

Oh my god there is something wrong with me, I agree with rgraham666.

I think the whole global warming thing is overhyped. Anybody else remember the report that the earth should be getting warmer but in the last 50 years it has gotten warmer by a couple degree's faster than it should have?

Not kidding, as i recall it we are supposed to average a degree warmer average climate per decade, we are increasing at a rate of 1.1 degrees per decade, might have been a slightly larger increase, been a while since I heard this. Though one key question, why do they not keep talking about that?

I mean yes granted people are the dumbest most inane things on the face of the earth. Have to scream right into their ear about 10 times before a tenth can understand what your talking about, but ummm why are they not telling us we are supposed to be getting warmer just not this fast so people stop screaming end pollution or we all die?

 

[kendo1]

The truth is out there.

 

[Stella_Omega]

"First, Do No Harm."​

 

[flavortang]

Ten seconds before someone says 'liberal'. And, no, that doesn't count.

 

[amicus]

This is posted in the financial section of a paper, so hope that does not mean this guy's findings are all "driven by oil money."

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/...l?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4

Regardless of his conclusion validity, I consistently come away from these (scientific reports) with the sense that most of us don't know what the fuck we're talking about (ie, the more certain you claim to be, the further from facts you go), and those that have a mild clue constantly call for more thorough research before jumping into crazy-costly schemes. Some days, I hope we spend so much on Global Warming that we all freeze our asses off after making the planet colder than it otherwise would have been. That'd serve us right (though no one would learn any beneficial lessons--would still be good for a chuckle).

~~~

Interesting article Kev H, thank you.

Also, actually learned something I had not read elsewhere, about the impact of Cosmic Rays during minimal solar action in our system, interesting.

Hope all the 'believers' took the time to read. Thanks again for posting.


amicus...

 

[trysail]

Michael Crichton, Freeman Dyson & William Gray, Ph.D. agree

Reid Bryson, known as the father of scientific climatology, considers global warming a bunch of hooey.

The UW-Madison professor emeritus, who stands against the scientific consensus on this issue, is referred to as a global warming skeptic. But he is not skeptical that global warming exists, he is just doubtful that humans are the cause of it.

"There is very little truth to what is being said and an awful lot of religion. It's almost a religion. Where you have to believe in anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming or else you are nuts."

Here's a link to an article about him:
http://www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=197613

 

[Stella_Omega]

Ten seconds before someone says 'liberal'. And, no, that doesn't count.

Pay up, baby

 

[flavortang]

Pay up, baby

No habla english?

 

[3113]

Reid Bryson, known as the father of scientific climatology, considers global warming a bunch of hooey.

And Einstein didn't believe in quantum physics, didn't want to believe in it. He was wrong. What's you're point?

See, this is what most people will NEVER understand about science. There is no "Bible" that tells the scientist everything, and there are no priests who are infallibly right about what that Bible means. There is only evidence and facts and what they apparently prove.

Scientists will hold onto their pet theories or belief systems. Einstein couldn't believe that God would "throw dice," as he said, that quantum theory was viable. But just because he's Albert Einstein doesn't mean that his word, his belief, can go against the evidence and facts that support the viability of this theory.

98% of reputable scientists believe in global warming and they base that belief on the evidence. If this guy can really refute all that evidence, then have at it. But just because he's got a name and a reputation, it doesn't meant dilly-squat, not in science. You've either got solid fact to back you up WHICH WILL CONVINCE EVERYONE that you're right, or you don't, and whether you're Einstein or some guy in a basement with a foil beannie on his head, you're talking out of your ass.

 

[amicus]

3113, read the offered link, it is rather well put together and explains why so many so called, 'scientists', 'believe' in man caused global warming.

amicus...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Ten seconds before someone says 'liberal'. And, no, that doesn't count.

I was hoping to find the word in the Financial Times piece by Vaclav Klaus just for yucks in response to this, but he uses other terms.

excerpt:

Rational and freedom-loving people have to respond. The dictates of political correctness are strict and only one permitted truth, not for the first time in human history, is imposed on us. Everything else is denounced.

As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.

The environmentalists ask for immediate political action because they do not believe in the long-term positive impact of economic growth and ignore both the technological progress that future generations will undoubtedly enjoy, and the proven fact that the higher the wealth of society, the higher is the quality of the environment. They are Malthusian pessimists.

The scientists should help us and take into consideration the political effects of their scientific opinions. They have an obligation to declare their political and value assumptions and how much they have affected their selection and interpretation of scientific evidence.

Does it make any sense to speak about warming of the Earth when we see it in the context of the evolution of our planet over hundreds of millions of years? Every child is taught at school about temperature variations, about the ice ages, about the much warmer climate in the Middle Ages. All of us have noticed that even during our life-time temperature changes occur (in both directions).

Due to advances in technology, increases in disposable wealth, the rationality of institutions and the ability of countries to organise themselves, the adaptability of human society has been radically increased. It will continue to increase and will solve any potential consequences of mild climate changes.

I agree with Professor Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who said: “future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age”.

The issue of global warming is more about social than natural sciences and more about man and his freedom than about tenths of a degree Celsius changes in average global temperature.

Freedom, not climate, is at risk
By Vaclav Klaus
Financial Times
Published: June 13 2007
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9deb730a-19ca-11dc-99c5-000b5df10621.html

 

[cantdog]

Funny, Vaclav, I was saying the same thing about Christian fascists just the other day. Depends whose dicta you want to resent more, I guess. Have a nice day. Move to the coastal flats.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Interestingly, none of the global warming fans who have posted here have said a word about the contents of the article cited (or of the Klaus piece). They just attack and/or demonize the messenger. Isn't that what religionists do?

 

[geronimo_appleby]

ask me in 50 years time.

 

[cantdog]

Interestingly, none of the global warming fans who have posted here have said a word about the contents of the article cited (or of the Klaus piece). They just attack and/or demonize the messenger. Isn't that what religionists do?

Thew statement that environmentally concerned people are the biggest threat today is sheer opinion. So what? The writer has an opinion. Should I react with horror?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Thew statement that environmentally concerned people are the biggest threat today is sheer opinion. So what? The writer has an opinion. Should I react with horror?

Fair enough. Your response just made me realize that no post responding to the OP had engaged it's substance. But you indeed were responding to an opinion piece, so I shoudn't have inserted that reference to your post.

 

[S-Des]

98% of reputable scientists believe in global warming and they base that belief on the evidence.

Seriously, where did you get that number? Is there a poll I'm unaware of that lists every scientist, their educational backround (to tell if their specialty has anything to do with climate change), and describes their opinion in detail (so we can tell if they only agree with 10%, 50%, 70%, etc . . . ) of the currently held theory of global warming? I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.

 

[rgraham666]

Give it up, folks. Neither side is going to convince the other.

This isn't a scientific argument about data and hypothesis. It's a political argument about freedom and survival, about Faith good and true. (Should I bold that?)

Arguments about Faith good and true can't be won. Especially by the people caught iin the crossfire.

 

[Kev H]

Seriously, people, don't be so afraid to admit you're going overboard. Open your mind enough to read/digest other scientific evidence. Yes, it is possible that man is contributing to climate issues, and we have been doing the right thing: pouring tons of research money/effort at those hypotheses. But at least be open-minded enough to read this scientist's finding, and realize how very insignificant we are when compared to the number of sunspots and solar winds, etc. Don't so goddamn religious about your stance.


ETA for Rob: Your "It" means the posts to the OP, right? Plenty of science in the link (otherwise, I'd not have posted it).

 

[cantdog]

No, Rob's right. Pointless endeavor. The initiative has passed to the Pacific, anyway. Japan has the tech edge, now. It's downhill from here. The culture of the internal-combustion auto will mutate drastically and we'll even miss the petroleum jelly, but even choosing not to act is an action. Stay home and argue about how it isn't happening, if it suits you. There are others to carry the ball.

China just passed us in terms of total greenhouse emissions, but we still have them, far and away, on a per-capita basis. And we will act, whether you choose to or not.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Interestingly, none of the global warming fans who have posted here have said a word about the contents of the article cited (or of the Klaus piece). They just attack and/or demonize the messenger. Isn't that what religionists do?

Ol' Vaclav there confuses "freedom" with "My right to make another buck".

 

[Picodiribibi]

Give it up, folks. Neither side is going to convince the other.

This isn't a scientific argument about data and hypothesis. It's a political argument about freedom and survival, about Faith good and true.

Arguments about Faith good and true can't be won. Especially by the people caught in the crossfire.

Well said; we're really not arguing the data here, we're all just swallowing and regurgitating the portions we like best. That's not science; that's debate--"a political argument about freedom and survival."
Forget about the global warming "controversy": Statistics will say anything if tortured enough.

Ol' Vaclav there confuses "freedom" with "My right to make another buck".

Completely agree. It's all about the benjamins.

My job would be an environmentalist's worst nightmare. I'm in the power engineering field. Our product is pure energy and greenhouse gases. My company and its clients are businesses. If coal is cheap (and it is), we will be approached to build coal-burning plants. The technology is tried-and-true (cf., the internal combustion engine). Our clients are very practical people: they know their investors will get a handsome return on their investments through coal-burning technology; consequently, our clients get to stay in business. So we act like good consultants and reassure them that coal is the way to go and convince them that we are the company to get them there. That way, we get to stay in business, too. It's a happy, vicious circle.
Believe me, we spend a lot of man-hours to make our dirty product look clean on paper; we save our clients a lot of money that way. There is no such thing as clean-burning fossil fuel, whatever the BP commercials tell you.
Solar and wind energy is free, but engineering a cost-efficient means of capturing that energy is very expensive, vis-a-vis coal or natural gas. The more money a technology costs per kilowatt, the less profit a company who sells that energy makes, the greater the risk to the investors of that company. Are we interested in clean power? Sure, if that's what our clients want. But more often than not they are interested in staying in business.
The only way to change this paradigm is to offer stronger incentives to build clean, but inefficient, power plants (and, it follows, stronger disincentives from building efficient, but polluting, plants). These incentives can realistically only come from one place: the government. Which means, ultimately, your tax dollars.
Yeah, right. Ask Al Gore how that's been working out.
Personally, I'd like to see new nuclear power plants being built in the U.S. They're clean and efficient and safe...but the regulatory hurdles are so great we've been stuck in planning stage since the 1970s. Fucking bureaucracy.
You people that want clean, cost-efficient power have a voice in changing this, but, sadly, too many people in this country are afraid of nuclear power. It's these people's voices that are being heard. Idiots.
There you are: once again, it's all your fault. I'm going to lunch.

 

[flavortang]

I don't get it. How is freedom at risk? lol Freedom to drive your Humvee at 3 MPG? The guy forgot to say "embolden", "terrorists", "9-11" and "they hate us for our freedom" in his talking points.