Mars Rovers

[amicus]

Lucifer...Mab....

Not that you will accept this either...


http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/1992/j92/j92.singer.html

Warming theories
need warning label



by FRED SINGER

The conventional wisdom these days seems to be as follows: increasing carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuel is enhancing the natural atmospheric greenhouse effect. By the next century, the resulting global warming will present a clear and present danger to humankind. We need to find radical solutions as quickly as possible to avert catastrophes-including violent weather, parched farmlands, rising sea levels, flooded continents, complete ecological collapse, and millions of environmental refugees. I suppose that many readers of the Bulletin would agree.

Furthermore, some of the more ardent proponents of global warming theories seem to believe that it is somehow inappropriate, if not downright immoral, for any scientist to emphasize the theories' uncertainties. Their argument seems to be that it is better for national governments to do something, however costly (even if it turns out that warming theories are wrong), rather than risk waiting for more certain and persuasive data.

It is not surprising that such views are widely held. After all, the public has been exposed to a steady diet of hyped news stories and TV specials and propagandized by environmental pressure groups. However, these views are not shared by all specialists in atmospheric physics or climatology-scientists who actually study these problems. There is no scientific consensus in support of a greenhouse warming threat.

A growing number of experts have become concerned that opinion-making and "publication by press release" are being used to influence environmental policy. With momentum building toward the "Earth Summit"-the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro this month-the issue of climate warming has taken center stage. Many scientists have spoken out. Philip Abelson, in a lead editorial in the March 30, 1990, Science, observed that "if [global warming] is analyzed applying the customary standards of scientific inquiry, one must conclude that there has been more hype than solid fact."

Robert M. White, president of the National Academy of Engineering and a distinguished meteorologist, wrote in the July 1990 Scientific American, "Given this 'cry wolf' history, it is not surprising that many meteorologists harbor deep reservations about taking costly actions on the basis of predictions of a climate warming." And in late December, John Houghton, chief editor of the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report, which forms the basis for the global warming portion of the UNCED Earth Summit, announced a much reduced prediction of future climate warming based on new studies. As reported in the December 29, 1991 Sunday Times of London, Houghton, who also directs the British Meteorological Office, castigated environmental activists for scaremongering.



About global warming

During the summer of 1991, researchers at the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), an independent, foundation-funded research group, sent survey forms to more than 120 U.S. atmospheric scientists. Most of these scientists had contributed to or reviewed the IPCC report, which has been widely described by UNCED supporters as presenting a "scientific consensus" about the reality and danger of enhanced greenhouse warming. Colleagues who worked on the report had complained that its "Policymakers Summary" did not accurately represent the conclusions in the report itself. And journalists and bureaucrats presumably read only the summary, not the rather technical 400-page report.

The survey results were remarkable. Of over 50 scientists who responded, 23 agreed that the summary did not represent the report fairly and could be misleading to non-scientists. An overwhelming majority of respondents agreed that there was no clear evidence in the climate record of the last 100 years for enhanced greenhouse warming due to human activities. Nearly all respondents expressed skepticism about the adequacy of the global climate models (GCMs) used to predict future climate warming.

Other independent surveys support these findings. For example, a November 1991 Gallup poll of 400 members of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union (actively involved in global climate research) responded to the question: Do you think that global average temperatures have increased during the past 100 years and, if so, is the warming within the range of natural, non- human-induced fluctuation? The poll found that only 19 percent believed that human-induced global warming has occurred.

Greenpeace International also surveyed scientists who worked on the IPCC report. Asked whether business-as-usual-policies might instigate a runaway greenhouse effect at some (unspecified) future time, only 13 percent of the 113 respondents thought it "probable" and 32 percent "possible." But 47 percent said "probably not"-far from a consensus. Jeremy Leggett, Director of Sciences in Greenpeace Inter- national's Atmosphere and Energy Campaign, described this same survey as revealing "an as-yet poorly expressed fear among a growing number of climate scientists that global warming could lead not just to severe problems but complete ecological collapse."

These surveys all guaranteed respondents' anonymity, although some did sign their names. But this February, SEPP went a step further and contacted some 300 atmospheric physicists and meteorologists (most of them serving on technical committees of the American Meteorological Society) and asked them to publicly endorse a strongly-worded statement (see the facing page) expressing concern that policy initiatives being developed for the Earth Summit were being driven by "highly uncertain scientific theories." One of those who replied objected, four wanted changes, but more than 50 put their names to the statement.

These surveys all confirm that most climate scientists believe that some global warming may be occurring, but that catastrophic predictions are unsupported by the scientific evidence, and that predictions of disaster are based on yet-to-be validated climate models.

But what do the surveys mean in terms of greenhouse warming? Science is not democratic; truth is not arrived at by vote. The surveys tell us that there are still unanswered questions that need to be settled by additional research before drastic and far-reaching policies are undertaken. And there is time for this research.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Taken from the middle of the 6th paragraph from the bottom:

"An overwhelming majority of respondents agreed that there was no clear evidence in the climate record of the last 100 years for enhanced greenhouse warming due to human activities."

Which is what I stated at the beginning of this discussion.

da ball be in ur court...

amicus

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

That's really strange. His works cited is wrong, he has no abstract. It reads like an editorial in fact. One sec, let me look into this more.

EDITED TO ADD: I'm surfing through the back issues of this magazine. It's not a science journal. It's an editorial magazine. And worse, I'm not seeing proper citing of sources on any of these (at least so far). Here. This is an example of a science journal (as I stated to be one of the proper places to look). This is a random science article from the American Journal of Botany. It has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. In fact, it's about inflorescence. It is however an example of a real scientific article. Note the key features such as abstracts, description of experiments, and a works cited detailing all the experiments this experiment bases its work on. That was what I was looking for.

As for your journal, I'd feel a lot better about it if it had a proper works cited page on its articles. The author makes a lot of references to what people said, but he doesn't cite location of sources and their place in the magazine well. It makes looking up the validity of his quotes an awful lot harder. Oh well, it's the nature of editorial I suppose. I'll leave Mab to discuss the validity of the rest as this journal is more in his field than mine and he knows more about who's corrupt and who isn't.

P.S. My reservations about the journal could be quite unfounded, I'll admit that possibility. Let me look some more about it.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

An example of scientific article in favor of the current global warming theory

I apologize earnestly for the hoops this link requires. The magazine is Climatic Change. It is run by two Stanford professors. The article in question is "The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era Began Thousands of Years Ago" by William F. Ruddiman Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia. Published December 2003.

The link you need to use is the number 1 link under the "Most Viewed Articles From This Journal" heading. That will take you to the abstract. Click on PDF to get the whole article.

http://www.kluweronline.com/issn/0165-0009

It's a fairly interesting tracking of human actions and their effect on global warming trends and cycles. Anyway, happy reading.

 

[amicus]

Well, thank you Lucifer...for the links...

For about 35 years I have followed the growth of 'earth friendly' ecology groups of many stripes and shades. They range the gamut from baby harp seals, to save the whales to the spotted owl and much more.

There is a large group of intertwining interests that in general basically pine for a more pastoral life style. You most likely know many of them by name.

One of combined means by which their advocacy is expressed is to protest any and everything that disturbs nature or shows the traces of human endeavor. From mining to oil drilling, to large corporations to agri-business.

The global warming/greenhouse effect movement has been around a long time. The 'possiblity' provided by sloppy science, that the warming effect created by the actions of man, has become a 'vehicle' for these groups to restrict, regulate and control the works of man.

When one clear-cuts a forest, or builds a city with hundreds of square miles of concrete..it surely affects the environment.So does taking a pee in a bubbling brook.

We learn from our mistakes, we clean polluted rivers, we sanitize toxic waste dumps, we treat our sewage instead of dumping it raw into a river. But man always has and always will, make an impact on nature.

I state again, based on 35 years of awareness, that the global warming/greenhouse effect is largely politically driven, sensationalist bad science.

If you really seek scientific understanding, you will look into the area with open eyes and realize that the evidence gathered and presented is not sufficient to 'prove' the theory and thus, as one of the source pages said, 'must be rejected.'

regards...amicus

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Well, thank you Lucifer...for the links...

For about 35 years I have followed the growth of 'earth friendly' ecology groups of many stripes and shades. They range the gamut from baby harp seals, to save the whales to the spotted owl and much more.

There is a large group of intertwining interests that in general basically pine for a more pastoral life style. You most likely know many of them by name.

One of combined means by which their advocacy is expressed is to protest any and everything that disturbs nature or shows the traces of human endeavor. From mining to oil drilling, to large corporations to agri-business.

The global warming/greenhouse effect movement has been around a long time. The 'possiblity' provided by sloppy science, that the warming effect created by the actions of man, has become a 'vehicle' for these groups to restrict, regulate and control the works of man.

When one clear-cuts a forest, or builds a city with hundreds of square miles of concrete..it surely affects the environment.So does taking a pee in a bubbling brook.

We learn from our mistakes, we clean polluted rivers, we sanitize toxic waste dumps, we treat our sewage instead of dumping it raw into a river. But man always has and always will, make an impact on nature.

I state again, based on 35 years of awareness, that the global warming/greenhouse effect is largely politically driven, sensationalist bad science.

If you really seek scientific understanding, you will look into the area with open eyes and realize that the evidence gathered and presented is not sufficient to 'prove' the theory and thus, as one of the source pages said, 'must be rejected.'

regards...amicus

Environmental groups. Yeah, I know of them. Used to work for one in fact back in my high school days. Sometimes what they advocate is petty or worthless, often though they make a good point. But that's sort of beside the point.

You claim that the global warming "movement" is some sort of political plot to increase control and regulation. I agree that what it asks for is regulation of pollution, but as I show in my science journal link it's a lot more founded than the opposite opinion. Do I believe the doom stories about us not having more than a handful of years before irreperable damage occurs? Not really. Not yet. Do I believe that it's real and we should watch things a little? Yeah, the evidence points me in that direction.

Also to respond to your analogy. Yes, pissing in a river does affect the current environment of the river and those that feed of the river, but in a small way. Clear cutting whole forests and replacing them with concrete cities and mass CO2 and CH4 producers is a bit bigger. It skews the balance between producer of free radicals and cleaner of free radicals. It removes a CO2 absorber (trees) and replaces it with production.

An example from my forte. In aging research, aging is a function based on the number of repair forces minus the number of deterioration forces. For instance free radical oxygen atoms reduce the effectiveness of a mitochondria in the cell and this can cause it to atrophy and in fact cause the whole cell to shut down protectively. Now antioxidants are molecules in the same area of the mitochondria and react with the free radicals in order to prevent them from damaging anything. Now an analogy: If half of the anti-oxidants became free radicals all of a sudden. The mitochondria would die much faster, the cells would senesence much more rapidly and the body would age and well die at a much greater rate. A similar thing occurs in the world of environmental chemistry and climatic sciences.

I realize you believe me to be a blind ol' bugger because of my noted disagreements to Ayn Rand and the neo-con political movement and other causes you champion. However, if looking at science journal articles instead of editorials for scientific knowledge (go figure that), means that I'm blind to scientific understanding, then so be it. I still maintain that viewpoint because well I'm a scientist and well it's how we do things. Show me the articles from the journals that's what I look for. Show me the experiments that disprove. (Allow me this one sarcastic thought, I'll be better as soon as it's done: ) Oh wait, you don't believe in experiments and facts and science because your major was one of those bloody borderline sciences. (I apologize for the sarcastic personal comment but it was really itching at the back of my mind to be said. Sorry man. )

-The Devil You Know

 

[amicus]

Hope you find something soon in your 'aging' research. All living things age and change and eventually cease to live. But the human lifespan, regardless of how you 'tweak' the statistics, has increased rather dramatically over the past century.

I do not 'champion' Ayn Rand, she was 'pro choice' I am not.

I do not 'champion' what you call the 'neo cons' I am of no belief.

As a scientist...a few here might appreciate if you did in fact survey the literature on global warming and discovered the evidence was indeed not sufficient to base a conclusion on. That would be helpful to many...and honest.

I guess I don't mind your sarcasm, most men I discuss matters with on the net seem to require going through a 'pissing contest' before the begin to communicate. Most of the women here are just nasty and beyond redemption I think.

That is enough for one long night for me, it has been interesting.

Amicus Veritas

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Hope you find something soon in your 'aging' research. All living things age and change and eventually cease to live. But the human lifespan, regardless of how you 'tweak' the statistics, has increased rather dramatically over the past century.

I do not 'champion' Ayn Rand, she was 'pro choice' I am not.

I do not 'champion' what you call the 'neo cons' I am of no belief.

As a scientist...a few here might appreciate if you did in fact survey the literature on global warming and discovered the evidence was indeed not sufficient to base a conclusion on. That would be helpful to many...and honest.

I guess I don't mind your sarcasm, most men I discuss matters with on the net seem to require going through a 'pissing contest' before the begin to communicate. Most of the women here are just nasty and beyond redemption I think.

That is enough for one long night for me, it has been interesting.

Amicus Veritas

Aging research is my long-haul project. However, scientists are making good discoveries into it and are starting to get real results so I'm all excited about it.

You champion free-market capitalism, the brain child of Ayn Rand. That is why I said it. Just because she's pro-choice and your not doesn't mean that you don't follow her core beliefs.

Also, you champion many of the causes and core beliefs of the neo-conservative belief system, that's why I said what I did there. Don't worry so much, it's a bit of a guilt by association syndrome. For instance I am labeled as a Green even though I have only voted once for their party and am a registered unaffiliated.

As a scientist, I did read the article all the way through and found it's conclusions to have a decent enough backing. It also fit in well with what I've heard from the boys in the global warming group down here. That's my honesty. If you find the evidence lacking, fair deal, I can easily find other articles in reputable scientific journals. However the point remains that I produced an actual real article with abstract and graphs and all that the scientific community requires, you did not. I know this sounds all masculine and puffy to you, but it is a point of contestation.

Wisecracks. Yep. Oh and it's not a male-bonding pissing contest as you call it. Well...not entirely at least. It's just that your rampant disbelief of factoids and whatnot because surveys are rigged so easily it's not even funny, sort of jades sometimes with my core science beliefs. You have to admit that it gets a bit aggravating sometimes when the other side is like that. In fact, chances are that you have encountered the same thing on the other divide from some leftist factoid disbeliever.

Oh minor note, I know we've all covered this ground before, but the reason that the ladies seem to you like the Furies ripping without mercy is because well... you say things like that. Women don't take insults and misogyny lightly. They attack it and shred it apart. Try being a little more effeminate or at least sensitive and you might notice the ladies treating you a bit better. For instance you'll notice I haven't yet been flamed to a crisp by one of the Lit ladies. It's all in how you treat them and their opinions.

Have a nice night. Sleep well and may your dreams of free-market economy and your latest novel being finished continue to dance faerie-like across your wee noggin.

-The Devil Next to You

 

[Tanuki]

Re: The Myth of Global Warming

amicus, those two chemists never submitted that paper to peer review, nor have they ever published any work on the subject of global warming. They are not experts on the subject, and without a peer review, their "data" is not verifiable.

With billions of dollars at stake, I think statements like this should have some data to support them, and should reviewed by their scientific peers if they have nothing to hide.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Re: Re: The Myth of Global Warming

amicus, those two chemists never submitted that paper to peer review, nor have they ever published any work on the subject of global warming. They are not experts on the subject, and without a peer review, their "data" is not verifiable.

With billions of dollars at stake, I think statements like this should have some data to support them, and should reviewed by their scientific peers if they have nothing to hide.

The effect of green house gasses is very real. The planet Venus shows the greenhouse effect on a global scale.

There is a huge amount of CO2 contained in the seas and a massive amount contained in the rocks that make up this planet's crust. What people fear here on earth is called a run-away greenhouse effect. Basically, you only have to get a certain amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere before the average temp on the planet rises enough to start water evaporating faster. The water vapor adds CO2 tot he atmosphere, which in turn casues the temp to rise, which causes evaportaion to speed up. In theory, it will reache a point where the ice caps begin to melt, thus releasing even more CO2. eventually, the amount of CO2 reaches the point where the temp below the cloud cover casues water to boil. this releases even more CO2, causing the temp to rise further still, until the surface temp becomes so hot that the CO2 stored in carbonates begins to be released.

That's the theory in a nutshell of how Venus became like it is and what could happen here if the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere gets high enough. It is just a theory and we should all hope it remains forever more a theory, as the only way to prove it would be to have it happen.

As far as Ami's posts go, he is correct in saying it's only a theory. According to the scientific method, once a hypothesis becomes a theory, it must stand up to challenge via experimentation. Vis-a-Vis, you cannot disprove it by lack of proof. What you must do is present something that other sceintists can replicate, that runs contrary to the theory. At that point the theory must be able to adapt to include the new information or it is discredited.

I don't know much about the theory here on earth. I have seen no proof that global warming is directly linked to pollution. In the same breath I have seen no proof that it isn't. Since the theory is widely accepted, I must assume it has withstood enough attacks to become a theory. At this point then, opinions of why it is wrong are not good enough. Showing things it dosen't explain, things that are replicateable in other labs, by other scientists, is the only way to discredit the theory.

I am not aware of anyone who has produced valid, experimental results, that discredit the theory. It would seem, that anyone who could discredit it, would come forward with the information. Until someone does, the theory is valid and as long as the theory is valid, attempts to slow or stop the emmission of green house gases are at the very least prudent, IMHO.

-Colly

 

[dr_mabeuse]

The article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists pretty much sums up my own feelings towards the global warming question: we don't know yet. I'm quite comfortable with that position, and I repect the scientific integrity of the BAS.

I'll freely admit that a lot of the press generated by the enironmental movement has been shrill and full of dire predictions and frankly overboard. But that's a long way from saying that these problems don't exist or that's they're all myths cooked up by hysterical Luddite treehuggers.

I know from experience the kind of care unregulated industry shows towards the environment. I still remember when the Chicago river was an open cesspool of sewage and industrial waste, and I myself worked for a business that used to deal with its carcinogenic wastes by dumping them in the alley behind the factory, where they'd eventually seep into the basements of nearby houses. Had it not been for environmental regulations, I have no doubt that they'd be dumping those vats of chromic acid there to this day.

---dr.M.

 

[Tanuki]

Global warming is considered by many scientists to be too simple a theory to explain man's influence on the climate. The effect of greenhouse gases may not simply raise the average temperature, for the climate is a very complex system.

So to focus on just average temperature is to ignore the bigger picture - is our pollution changing the environment? Look in the scientific journals for studies of the coral reefs for example. Many of the Earth's coral reefs have recently been wiped out by El Ninos, a natural phenomenon that raises the water temperature for a period of time. What's different about recent ones, is their average water temperature is significantly higher, enough to destroy reefs that have survived hundreds of previous El Ninos over a thousand years.

Some studies have shown that much of the planet's coral reefs have been wiped out in the last decade. I've seen some of it first hand. Since our coral reefs contain a significant portion of the ocean's life, the effects of their destruction could be catastrophic.

The effects of pollution on the earth is obvious - to keep merrily polluting because we haven't yet seen any global catastrophies is foolhardy.

 

[amicus]

tanuki....


Couple of things...at least a few posters here have stepped back and are willing to at least look at the evidence offered by the global warming greenhouse effect lobby.

In a addition to automobile exhausts, the coal burning power generating plants pump a lot of pollutants into the atmosphere. It is a combination of a political aversion for nuclear energy by some groups and the continued support for mine workers unions and the production of coal on the other side.

Two natural causes affect the health of coral reefs, the el nino and el nina, the effect of which is more in the broad ocean current system than with reef areas and the starfish growth explosion that decimates reef culture in Australia and elsewhere.

There is a strange anomaly going on here: on one hand the critics demand 'science based' challenges to the global warning fracas but when they get it, they reject it as grounds for a course of action, just as you have.

Perhaps you and others are just so rabidly against modern industrial society that the mere sight of a smokestack or an SUV causes you to froth at the mouth.

Thanks to industry, mass production...thus wealth, thus a higher standing living for all, thus better medicine, better housing, better food more sanitary conditions, the health and lifespan of Americans of the last century have improved tremendously.

Rather than criticize, you might consider kissing the nearest smokestack in appreciation.

amicus

 

[amicus]

Dr. Mab...

I do not argue that industry, factories, mines, oil wells, name as many as you wish, have contributed greatly to pollution.

As an earlier example I offered, tribes living alongside a stream, no doubt used that stream for garbage disposal.

Humanity learns..and always the hard way, it seems.

I do argue your basic implied nastiness of industry in general.

I read that you and many others want/demand regulation of Industry. That entails the use of government enforcement, rules and regulations that drive up the cost of the product or service being produced. And as you well know, government, composed of people working for it, as just as subject to corruption and bribery as are people in industrial pursuit to cut corners and pollute for profit.

Either you see this as a representation of the basic evil nature of man, or, I might suggest, the system is at fault.

I offer 'property rights' as a solution to many of the ills associated with environmental destruction.

When 'all', the 'public' owns the property, such as public lands, parks, et cetera, then no one is 'responsible' for the upkeep.

I propose that every square inch of land within the realm should be privately owned. I further offer that strict and enforced 'property rights' be acknowledged and and fulfilled.

By that, I mean, if you erect a smokestack on your adjacent piece of land and pollute the air over my piece of land, I have legal recourse to protect my 'property rights' and have you cease violating them.

The same holds true for arsenic laced mine tailings and stream pollution. If individuals, even in the guise of corporate entities had their property rights protected from adjacent or even downstream polluters and the litigant procedure remained uncorrupted, voila, no more pollution.

The wider question, such as air pollution in places like the Los Angeles basin, is a harder nut to crack. The automobile in the past 75 years somewhat overwhelmed us as it has many cities world wide.

Asimov and Heinlein approached this problem a half century ago, with enclosed cities, non polluting transportation systems and a host of other means to avoid environmental disruption.

These things will come to pass, through science and industry, but not through control and regulation.

The history of man is a series of ups and downs, not a pretty upward tending graph of progress as many would wish.

We are what we are, snarling, aggressive, competitive, acquisitive possessive and jealous critters ready to jump on any opportunity and steal your shorts if you don't watch out.

Ya gotta love mankind, we are just mean and nasty enough to head off into the stars.

amicus

 

[amicus]

Colleen....

Greenhouse gases will eventually be used to change the atmosphere of Mars...so I read from science fiction, 50 years ago and current science guru's now.

Since the Industrial Revolution began, in England about 1850, there has been a coterie of those who wish to abolish, restrict and regulate every aspect of the transition from the pastoral sheep meadows and quaint huts of villagers to the busy impersonal rush of modern civilization.

An earlier post pretty much lines out ways to deal with that, through individual property rights.

By definition, regulation, control, restriction, can only function on existing endeavors. That is to say, you can only control that which is before your eyes and that is the present, which is a child of the past.

What most apparently do not consider is that by controlling the present, restricting and regulating the progress, the advances that man might make; you destroy, change, modify the future.

To some, that is a good thing as they see the unbridled appetite and greed of man as destructive.

I see it otherwise, I see the unfettered mind of man, his limitless capacity to invent and create and his desire for better things for himself and others in his fold, I see that as the only 'hope' of the future if we are to overcome the ills that are attendant to progress.

We can not achieve these things as individuals, it requires more hands and minds in mutual cooperation for mutual gain. Yet the individual is the essential core to the entire concept.

Onward and Upwards....

amicus

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Amicus-
Okay, mab has spoken for the integrity of the BAS and since he is of that field I trust his judgement. I take back most of my reservations of the article though I do still maintain that the article should have had a works cited and I'm disppointed that it didn't. However, the main point is I concede its validity.

Moving on, I'm not sure where your argument is heading about pollution. Your beliefs about global warming I know and understand, however the rest seems hazy. You state that the government is wicked and anti-industrialization when they try and regulate how much a corporation can pollute and where. You then propose that everyone should own the rights of the land and air of an area and should be able to punish polluters when they infringe this right and that there should be a body to do this. You then go on about the needs of the individuals to group together and work together in a body designed for mutual benefit.

Here's my point. This mutual benefit takes the form of a government. It is (in theory) a body of officials designated by the individuals to take care of the indivduals needs and work for the greater good of the people. Like all things touched by humans, this system has become corrupt, but that is the main goal of a government. Thus, this government's actions against polluters for infringing on the citizen's rights downstream should be hailed by you as a glorious victory for the individuals and for the greater good. In fact all punishments given to the polluter for failing to care about his fellow man equals a glorious victory of the greater good over the wills of an uncaring individual. In conclusion, why are you angry then? The process seems to follow your core hopes. Is it just because a government is involved?

Also a side point, if greenhouse gases will make Mars habitable and the same gases are Venus's downfall, then doesn't it seem a bit like a past-present-future progression. I think the poignancy of the movement would lend at least a hypothesis to the whole issue of global warming.

Also, Colleen is right on about theories and hypotheses. Theories, though religious groups love to play with the dictionary meaning of the word, are heavily fortified positions. It doesn't mean that they are perfect (Newton's law of mechanics proved to be adequate for much but ultimately flawed for instance), but it does mean that now in this moment the theory is sound. Do I believe the doomsayers that say we don't even have a generation left? Not really. However, the phenomenon is real. It does affect us. When if ever will it kill us? Who knows. I sure don't and in fact no one does. The factors that dictate it are shifting and depend on human choices.

Another minor note, I know you don't like the treehuggers and whatnot but movements to regulate have come up with results. For instance the hole in the ozone layer over Antartica is hypothesized to close back up within the next hundred years because of the reduction of ozone destroying chemicals in use.

Final note, a pure logical reiteration on man's effect on CO2. If trees and other flora reduce the amount of CO2 and humans and animals produce CO2, then when man reduces the number of trees and increases the number of CO2 producers (in the form of inventions, energy production, etc) then the rates of CO2 production and reduction would be similarly affected. Thus the equation would balance out to an overall increase in CO2 level that would increase at the new rate. If humans continue to clear-cut fauna and cement over areas to prevent regrowth and increase the amount of production. The rate increases even more and the level of CO2 increases to the new rate. Any way you look at it, we are affecting the global concentration of CO2 to be at a higher level. That is the basic logic. From that point forward it all depends on actual experiments. This is where in the global warming theory, the Venus example comes in. That produces hypothesis and the tracking of the trend on our planet is what makes it a viable theory.

That's all from the science corner for now.

 

[amicus]

Lucifer


Well..it is not the 'science corner' as you accept the validity of the documentation and then revert to an emotional response..

Every nation that ever became one from even before the City States of the Greeks and Romans...made an effort to administer to the poplulation.

Some methods worked better than others. But, Totalitarianism failed and is no longer viewed as a workable system.

The Grand experiment of individual freedom, ownership of property and limitations on government by constitutution was first tried here. Since that time, the original concept has been whittled away at until today, we find people advocating and yearning for the European recipe of a social democracy.

We may well become that, but for the time being the United States of America is a 'representational republic' not a true democracy and I for one, wish it to remain that way and move toward even more individual freedom.

Enough of that...

Ozone...do I have to go find the scientific documentation or can your fingers navigate to a site that will tell you again that the hole in the Ozone layer over Australia/Antarctica is a cyclical, 'natural' event unrelated to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Ozone is created by lightning discharges, over a million each day the weather people say, don't worry, we got lots and get more everyday.

Mutual benefit is not administered by government and is not government. It is a free association of individuals or corporate entities to 'mutually' accomplish a given task.

Government only comes into play if it is asked to clarify the law or litigate should rational disagreement occur.

amicus

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Lucifer


Well..it is not the 'science corner' as you accept the validity of the documentation and then revert to an emotional response..

Every nation that ever became one from even before the City States of the Greeks and Romans...made an effort to administer to the poplulation.

Some methods worked better than others. But, Totalitarianism failed and is no longer viewed as a workable system.

The Grand experiment of individual freedom, ownership of property and limitations on government by constitutution was first tried here. Since that time, the original concept has been whittled away at until today, we find people advocating and yearning for the European recipe of a social democracy.

We may well become that, but for the time being the United States of America is a 'representational republic' not a true democracy and I for one, wish it to remain that way and move toward even more individual freedom.

Enough of that...

Ozone...do I have to go find the scientific documentation or can your fingers navigate to a site that will tell you again that the hole in the Ozone layer over Australia/Antarctica is a cyclical, 'natural' event unrelated to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Ozone is created by lightning discharges, over a million each day the weather people say, don't worry, we got lots and get more everyday.

Mutual benefit is not administered by government and is not government. It is a free association of individuals or corporate entities to 'mutually' accomplish a given task.

Government only comes into play if it is asked to clarify the law or litigate should rational disagreement occur.

amicus

Okay, communication error. Big time. Listen, amicus. None of that actually was meant to be emotional. The one part that I might see you interpreting it that way was actually an earnest question about what you believed about the role of government and the nature of punishment for polluting other people's air, water, and earth space. It was a clarifying question in fact so I could know your position. It was not emotional. Thank you for answering my question though. The separation of groups for mutual good being separate from governments is key to your argument not falling into a loop and makes your point much more understandable.

Ozone is not tied to CO2 and I'm sorry if it seemed like I was making a connection between the two. Ozone depletion is related to CFC and halon concentration in the atmosphere. Regulation on these chemicals was championed by environmental groups. Current news reports seem to point to it finally shrinking now that we've decreased production and thus concentration. It was a point about environmental groups and what they've done that's good. I repeat it had nothing to do with CO2 production. CO2 production is another and separate point. That's why I separated them.

To reiterate, please re-read my thread. I think you'll see once you realize that each paragraph is a completely isolated stream of questioning or thought, that it is not emotional. It is merely in order: An acceptance of the validity of the BAC in reference to Dr. Mab's word; A clarifying question about one of your theories; A continuation of the clarifying question with an explanation of my confusion and what I got out of your theories (one of my assumptions turned out to be false in accordance to your viewpoint. That turned out to be the reason for my confusion); A reiteration on theories and what being one means in the scientific community; A side observation on the whole mama, papa, baby bear poignancy of Venus, Mars, Earth and a proposed hypothesis; An example of an environmental group doing some good; And a concluding reiteration of the basic logic premises of a CO2 buildup argument.

Perhaps now that you understand the post better, you will see why it was hardly emotional and in fact was fairly emotionless. I think you will also see what points I was trying to make.

-Science Corner doing an explanation of itself

 

[Tanuki]

amicus, the property rights idea is interesting, but one problem I see with that is legal settlements. Polluting corporations might be able to buy off land owners with cash, without ceasing to pollute or even clean up. Also, effects of pollution might take decades to become apparent, such as with mercury poisoning. You have to monitor the source, not just watch downstream to see what shows up.

I believe regulation is the only answer, although I think current US regulations are at a sufficient level in most cases. Regulation and litigation have done wonders in the US to clean up polluters. The real growing source of pollution today is China, which even today uses dirty coal to heat homes and office buildings!

I'm a firm believer in moderation - let's own two cars instead of four, and have comfortable homes instead of 10 bedroom mansions. Let's buy mid-size SUVs instead of Expeditions and Hummers. And let's all recycle. This is all it takes I think.

 

[Tanuki]

Ozone...do I have to go find the scientific documentation or can your fingers navigate to a site that will tell you again that the hole in the Ozone layer over Australia/Antarctica is a cyclical, 'natural' event unrelated to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Ozone is created by lightning discharges, over a million each day the weather people say, don't worry, we got lots and get more everyday.

amicus

I think the ozone created at ground level doesn't filter up to the upper atmosphere, so you can't replenish it that way. And certainly the ozone hole is cyclical, the question is whether it's currently cycling at a normal or abnormal rate. I believe scientists fear it is growing far more rapidly than is natural.

I don't think CO2 affects the ozone layer, it's CFCs and other ozone depleting gasses. The US has done a great job eliminating the use of CFCs, freon, and whatever that stuff is in compressed cans.

 

[thenry]

Azimov, Heinlein, Raynd:

Amicus, do you get all of your positive philosophical proofs from fiction? I hate to break it to you, but just because someone wrote about man conquering the stars, all women being nymphomaniacs, and talking apes respecting property rights doesn't mean the real world does or will work the same way. As a second example, I offer the body of work available at this website.

More than once I have watched you start a thread based on your perceptions and when your assumptions are attacked with actual facts (or, barring those, peer-reviewed science) you in turn attack with ye olde fallacies of circumstantial ad hominem, guilt by assiciation, well poisoning, with a hint of straw man and personal attack. In this thread, for example, you have placed the burden of proof on anyone disagreeing with you to "review" peer-reviewed science for you when all you have read is an editorial. Have you read either the original papers supporting a global warming hypothesis or those examining the same datasets to find no causality?

You remind me very much of a roommate I had for one year in college, an objectivist. We used to argue late into the night he wondering why I never saw the truth of his arguments and me wondering why he never saw the point. Two have stuck with me through the years:

The first was after a man's pet tiger had mauled a child. He felt that tiger should be put to death because it had demonstrated a capacity for violence. I was of the opinion the tiger's capacity for violence was unchanged and had always existed. Yes, he replied, but the difference is, now we know.

The other argument involved the right to an abortion. His reasoning was that as a parasite the fetus enjoyed no rights of its own. After all, he reasoned, the fetus and its mother share the same blood. After pointing out that he and his mother had different blood types, my roommate was stumped to silence til morning when the morality of the issue suddenly hinged on the exact tissue compisition of the placenta.

 

[amicus]

Hey Lucifer…must have browsed 50 sites…like the greenhouse effect and global warming, very little science, much hype on both sides…however, it is factual that the ‘hole’ over Antarctica has for unknown reasons(not time enough for the ban on refrigerants to have had any effect) has declined by nearly 50% …But has not been singled out by the scientific community or mentioned in the press in any wide degree…

Ozone

http://www.globaltechnoscan.com/26thMarch-1stApril03/lightning.htm


Researcher Renyi Zhang of Texas A&M University helped lead a study on the impact of lightning, and the results are surprising: Lightning can be responsible for as much as 90 percent of the nitrogen oxides in the summer and at the same time increase ozone levels as much as 30 percent in the free troposphere, the area that extends 3-8 miles above the Earth's surface.
The amount of ozone and nitrogen oxides that lightning creates is greater than those created by human activities in that level of the atmosphere, the study shows.

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Crista.html#3link

New Scientific Evidence Proves
Ozone Depletion Theory False

New scientific evidence continues to demonstrate that the ozone depletion models -and the resulting ban on CFCs- are based on a Big Lie

By Rogelio Maduro

Co-author of the book "The Holes in the Ozone Scare", 1993
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

The above is a length article with many resource links...


So you now have the requested ‘scientific’ research (though not top drawer in your eyes I am sure) concerning both global warming/greenhouse and Ozone depletion.

These ‘scare tactics’ publicized by politically motivated scientists are very damaging, not only to the economy and the security of people who are taken in by the sensationalism, but worst of all, the scientific community has lost a large amount of credibility.

Might be nice if you would acknowledge that…

Amicus

 

[amicus]

Hmmm thenry...you seem to have an axe to grind..and a personal one at that..

It is of no concern to me, but the tone of your words does not elicit a response.

What is it you want?

Amicus Veritas