Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

rsol · (This post was last modified: 03-23-2011 08:07 PM by rsol.)

Quote:I am a sceptic and prefer critical thinking.

explain critical thinking as opposed to the a scientific process? please state the differences and explain the nuances im stupidly missing. pardon my lack of education. I sort of put them both in a similar pile. If you can illuminate me from this folly id greatly appreciate it.

Quote:So, you are the denier, denying that you and humanity know very little but BELIEVE in very colorful (and some quite good) theories.

of what? what im a denying? that we have more to learn about the world? nope dont think so. i wouldn't be championing the scientific process if i didn't.

Quote:I am not the one supposing I hold the whole truth, you are. It's up to you to present the evidence, sorry.

Im presenting you with your own evidence. If you are willing to back it up you could of at least read it. You are the blind believer here not me.

TBH i think you are yet to be honest with yourself yet, you seem to think you are on some other plane of existence from the rest of us. Id like to just point out you are already in a box whether you like it or not. Or shall i put you in the "dont put me in a box"...box. Your method for critical thinking could come under quite considerable criticism. your drifting around a topic a bit like the guy who simply doesnt want to look wrong, never mind if you are correct, or of an adulescient looking to annoy someone till they beat some sense into you.

first of all. I cant shout on the internet or hit you. so your trauma based learning methods will have to be altered for the medium we occupy. If you start reading about cloud formations you can pretty much start from there. dont worry, all that reading WILL be traumatic for you. im sure the boredom will overwhelm you, or......... short cut..... just dont bother and stick to echoing catchphrases. its your choice as you say. believe or evolve.

The fact that list of Doran lee's is in this forum shows the sorry state the truth movement is in. TPTB have done their job well......

to believe 2+2=5 is all very well and good, just don't build my house. go and learn about maths and hey presto, the belief is gone, the real fear that the religious have is that science may explain, in great detail, just exactly how much bullshit we are willing to believe.........

hubbabubba · (This post was last modified: 03-23-2011 10:03 PM by hubbabubba.)

(03-23-2011 07:51 PM)rsol Wrote: explain critical thinking as opposed to the a scientific process?

For one, it can be falsified. AND people will believe it until it is exposed as false. Then it can be proven wrong in the future and a new theory will have to be worked out, called a paradigm shift. Third, it can be politicized, or political correct, making it difficult to oppose it. Fourth, it can be lobbied or bought, depending on the agenda of the financier. Fifth, it can be built upon a chain of previous theories or "proofs" and one of these is proven wrong in the future. Critical thinking is when one is aware of these things and takes care to not believe in everything called science.

Quote:of what? what im a denying? that we have more to learn about the world? nope dont think so. i wouldn't be championing the scientific process if i didn't.

You are denying that many of the science's answers to BIG questions are theories, not proven facts. These questions are so BIG that they might never be answered fully, instead the answer is a best guess. Believing these best guesses as 100% true facts and calling everyone who is sceptical a denier is borderline priestly.

Quote:Im presenting you with your own evidence. If you are willing to back it up you could of at least read it. You are the blind believer here not me.

Proof that I am sceptical? I don't need that, I already know it. You are just being silly, you know you have the burden of proof.

Quote:your drifting around a topic a bit like the guy who simply doesnt want to look wrong, never mind if you are correct, or of an adulescient looking to annoy someone till they beat some sense into you.

It's called intuition. Sometimes it's right, sometimes it's wrong. I usually trust it before any kind of popular or MS source, but if I am proven wrong with good evidence I will adjust my belief accordingly.

Quote:first of all. I cant shout on the internet or hit you.

You could use all CAPS, or wait for Yeti to release his electrocution icon.

Quote:If you start reading about cloud formations you can pretty much start from there. dont worry, all that reading WILL be traumatic for you.

You mention them quite often, why not give me a short primer?

Quote:The fact that list of Doran lee's is in this forum shows the sorry state the truth movement is in. TPTB have done their job well......

Can't find it.

Quote:science may explain, in great detail, just exactly how much bullshit we are willing to believe.........

I think it does that right now, yes. Anyhow, are we doing this just to flame each other a little for fun or are we trying to learn something here?

***SiLVa*** · 03-23-2011, 10:06 PM

rsol,
post #7 in this thread...can you answer those for me?

FWIW, I dont think that Global Warming is fake or a complete hoax. I just have a problem with who/what they are putting all the blame on. As well, the establishment proposed "solutions" do nothing to show how they could help in any way. Monetary penalties/taxes/fees are not going to help anything. Also I have an issue with supressed technology and how more eco-friendly technology seem to be ignored by the establishment. All while claiming to be "green" yet rather than support these inventions or ideas, they are ignored or ridiculed, while the oil companies that work hand-in-hand with the establishment laugh all the way to the bank.

So where does the evidence fit in, and in what context?

There has been plenty of evidence to show things are way different on Earth than they were thousands of years ago, true. However, the same is also is true of other planets that have no human inhabitants so thats still not really enough to explain it for me.

You seem a bit passionate about your beliefs... or should I say, evidence. What can you show a "denier" like me to change my mind?

Telecaster72 · 03-24-2011, 03:10 AM

@rsol, you have valid points, especially how the "truth movement" is getting manipulated.

Quote:Is mankind causing global warming?
yes. It gets worse by the day. go and have a look at the last 100,000 years and tell me exactly how many trees and forests there were. what the desert sizes were. tell me that the conditions on earth now are exactly the same as the last ice age or the one before. tell me that.

I can stretch to agreeing that mankind might be contributing to global warming to some extent.
My time machine is at the shop unfortunately, I cannot number the trees or tell you how many grains of sand there were in the deserts 100.000 years ago, neither can science.
The earth is NEVER the same.
We dont have an ice age yet so ofcourse the conditions on earth are not exactly the same as the last ice age.
To use your logic, please tell me that the earth was exactly the same 8000 years ago as it was right before the industrial revolution.

Quote:you can deny all you like that billions of creatures can exist by using up everything they see, finding new ways to waste energy in ever more elaborate ways, you keep it up. The earth is an infinite rubbish dump for us and its all going to be fine.......

I am not happy either about how we are treating our planet, where we are heading and the resources we are wasting. I dont think anybody is denying that, that is not the question in my opinion, and that man is a dirty animal that consumes resources like it was going out of style is evidence of bad character, egoism and greed, not that CO2 is the bane of humanity.

Quote:THESE PRESENT CONDITIONS ARE UNPRECEDENTED.

Every new second is unprecedented, everything is constantly changing, never static, the process is constantly ongoing, i get your point but it does not prove anything.

Quote:Im ashamed at how many can be so easily led.

I agree, and that goes both ways.

Quote: you think the electromagnetic spectrum and the ionosphere has no place in ENVIRONMENTAL studies? YOU THINK THAT THE TILT OF THE EARTH, ALL THE OTHER WOBBLES...THEY HAVE BEEN IGNORED??????

It does not matter what i think since my thoughts are not peer reviewed, i am sure you have the studies where they all are included in your evidence.

Quote:your ignorance of the subject is what these people prey on.

Exactly, and why not make a buck in the process?

Quote:These rants are from many who are happy with the status quo whilst proselytising with their anti establishment credentials. This is a sham and you are having your well poisoned.

You have something there, i can see that too and my well is sometimes poisoned and i am aware of it, did you ever consider having your water checked?

Quote:The only oposition to cap and trade/carbon credits are those who deny global warming

Well it certainly isn't the bankers.

There is a difference in denying global warming, and to doubt that co2 is the big culprit. Your systematic thinking and scientific reasoning should have told you that.
You talked about wasting resources earlier, what is carbon credits if not a huge waste of resources? And do you really think it will set the thermostat to whatever temperature science think is optimal for our planet?

rsol · (This post was last modified: 03-24-2011 09:40 PM by rsol.)

Quote:For one, it can be falsified.

and 2 it has to pass peer review including OTHERS finding you correct.

Quote:Critical thinking is when one is aware of these things and takes care to not believe in everything called science.

science does not believe in itself. that's the difference between science and dogma. I do understand your reasoning however you are yet to present anything to consolidate that idea into a working theory. You are not critical of yourself. can you prove that it IS happening or can you only speculate that it could?

Quote:I can stretch to agreeing that mankind might be contributing to global warming to some extent.
My time machine is at the shop unfortunately, I cannot number the trees or tell you how many grains of sand there were in the deserts 100.000 years ago, neither can science.
The earth is NEVER the same.
We dont have an ice age yet so ofcourse the conditions on earth are not exactly the same as the last ice age.
To use your logic, please tell me that the earth was exactly the same 8000 years ago as it was right before the industrial revolution.

I cant and i wont. The earth AT PRESENT is the situation. we have only learned FROM THE PAST we cannot expect to suddenly turn back. The issue many have is that they think the world surface has all the capacity to keep going regardless of our addition to the figures. this is factually incorrect.

One thing you people dont seem to get. im far from a tree hugger but i do understand the need. right now about 400 - 600 million people have produced the sort of results we have in front of us today. The danger is that we have 6bill people who are ALL looking to live a lifestyle similar to what we have enjoyed up until now. If these people carry on with the same model left to them by US, There will be no point for debate about taxes or cap and trade or any economic worries.

A planet can change, not any time it likes. im not some gia crusader. If this planet goes through a major change, this current system can easily descend in to chaotic weather patterns that WILL kill almost every life form. systemic collapse only ever requires one major pillar to fall. study systems and what one actually means. It will then sit and re-emerge a few million years later with a new equilibrium. so as far as earth is concerned we are a skin rash with shoes.

Please note that earth carries on as usual and im DEAD. not a happy thought. now this is of course if this is true.......

Lets come at it from your angle. can i ask exactly what are you proposing? I mean ive heard alot of talk about how wrong the science is, or how wrong science is in general. For me i can only listen to so much but its interesting to see how faith overwrites reason. what do you think is happening?

What is YOUR plan? do you have one? Or is it carry on as though nothing is happening? im just asking? what is the reasoning behind this?

Quote:There is a difference in denying global warming, and to doubt that co2 is the big culprit. Your systematic thinking and scientific reasoning should have told you that.
You talked about wasting resources earlier, what is carbon credits if not a huge waste of resources? And do you really think it will set the thermostat to whatever temperature science think is optimal for our planet?

Can you please show me where I have stated this? can you show me people here who will doubt CO2 as the major factor but consider global warming to be a fact? Also what does it matter anyway? the point i was making was not about the intricate detail of the opposition but the opposition itself. Im stating that if the only opposition to cap and trade and carbon credits is a plain denial then "they" win. I think this is part of the plan. this is an opposition that is controlled. to remove yourself from a debate is to lose it by default. Also we CAN have optimal as there ARE real figures that no one can deny. the melting point of water, the speed that land can take/dissipate heat. these DO NOT CHANGE.

To save energy the best way would be for people to put in for their power. Its obvious. TPTB as standard have used this as an excuse to centralise money and power. hardly a surprise.

Quote:There has been plenty of evidence to show things are way different on Earth than they were thousands of years ago, true. However, the same is also is true of other planets that have no human inhabitants so thats still not really enough to explain it for me.

what planets? what changes?

Quote:It's called intuition. Sometimes it's right, sometimes it's wrong. I usually trust it before any kind of popular or MS source, but if I am proven wrong with good evidence I will adjust my belief accordingly.

yes so go and find it. you want your opinions handed to you on a plater. thats a brat mentality. go and earn your intellect.

Quote:You mention them quite often, why not give me a short primer?
read above.

i have already given you ample links to start you off. you just have to read it and follow where it leads. you need two things to succeed, patience and a desire to learn.

Quote:Can't find it.

stop scanning the pages and read the content.

Quote:think it does that right now, yes. Anyhow, are we doing this just to flame each other a little for fun or are we trying to learn something here?

Thats up to you.

Quote:I am not happy either about how we are treating our planet, where we are heading and the resources we are wasting. I dont think anybody is denying that, that is not the question in my opinion, and that man is a dirty animal that consumes resources like it was going out of style is evidence of bad character, egoism and greed, not that CO2 is the bane of humanity.

If you crap where you eat you eventually start eating crap. And NO CO2 is not the only point of argument. once again. ITS THE OPPOSITION that is concentrating mainly on it. why? cap and trade......that is the motivation. there are no alternatives presented only stubbornness. not helpful to us. great help to them.

If any of you people think i am some science teacher or Greenpeace activist you would be wrong. i care about the earth as much as any house i would live in. we are being messy children and we are leaving old mother government to clean up. now you all get upset on the sanctions instead of TIDYING YOUR ROOM......

The ones to blame for this mess are the ones who back YOU. look at fox news and tell me they are big on environment. Or am i talking to the wrong guys nowadays? as a democrat is in office....... I will be writing the thesis on left/right leanings and the conspiracy theories surrounding them. This will involve religious groups and their fear of "the mark" jesuits, knights templar. they all have these counter conspiracy theories.

Quote:Exactly, and why not make a buck in the process?

interesting point. so its BIG SCIENCE now Smile

perhaps you are wary of charities but they actually employ people.....
http://www.jobsincharities.co.uk/
perhaps all these charities are actually "them" with just making it look 100 times worse than what's out there.... i mean some people actually earn a living by using their professional credentials in their field??? In climatology? thank god global warming came around. cuz i remember the bad old days where people in dupont got really bad pay. geologists must have jumped at the chance of telling all those poor cash-strapped oil companies to piss off as now they earn millions........yeah....i see your point.

Also people made more money selling the shovels and spades in the gold rush than mining for gold. there was gold out there however. bubbles happen in reality and inflate beyond. they cant start on thin air.

Imagine money as our environment for a second.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13xfLnxaoQQ

Nothing wrong with extinction. its all natural. i just was hoping humans might try to rise above that. My only faith.....the problem is, the evidence against will kill me too.

hubbabubba · (This post was last modified: 03-24-2011 09:30 PM by hubbabubba.)

(03-24-2011 08:37 PM)rsol Wrote: What is YOUR plan?

Yes, what is your plan rsol? If you don't like cap and trade, what do you propose?

Quote:Im stating that if the only opposition to cap and trade and carbon credits is a plain denial then "they" win. I think this is part of the plan. this is an opposition that is controlled. to remove yourself from a debate is to lose it by default.

That's a fallacy: Missing the Point; Begging the Question

Quote:yes so go and find it. you want your opinions handed to you on a plater. thats a brat mentality. go and earn your intellect.

We are still waiting for your evidence.

Quote:i have already given you ample links to start you off. you just have to read it and follow where it leads. you need two things to succeed, patience and a desire to learn.

You haven't said anything to pique my interest.

Quote:stop scanning the pages and read the content.

I can't find the thread you were mentioning.

rsol · (This post was last modified: 03-24-2011 10:23 PM by rsol.)

Quote:Yes, what is your plan rsol? If you don't like cap and trade, what do you propose?

So instead of have an idea you leave it up to me? ok

Decentralise your power. electricity is easy to generate and can be easily produced BY YOUR HOME. if we wish to get ourselves out of this the most energy savings can be met in the home. it is the primary energy waster by far...per person. travel is secondary to home heating. electric cars will not stop traffic jams. car culture is another problem on its own and is not part of this discussion. however if all cars were electric we would have a much better local environment regardless.

The real issue more than anything is that we in the primary countries as far as technology, have a chance to not only make a fortune by using our engineering skills to produce home based power plants and small-efficient generation on individual levels. such a thing would take many decades to happen over the entire planet. the need for oil would still be there. but focused on plastics and medicines where it sort of belongs. we shouldn't be smoking all this away just to get to work.

An economy has to change and for the better otherwise it is dead. to stay stagnant it will just produce a slow death while the dogs eat up the remaining dogs with one dog on his own chasing its tail.

Its not just about being environmentally friendly its about getting off the treadmill.

Quote:That's a fallacy: Missing the Point; Begging the Question

you dont even bother with a question.

Quote:We are still waiting for your evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

Quote:You haven't said anything to pique my interest.

thats your problem not mine. if you are not interested in the topic then you have nothing to say about it either. you are a moot point repeating echoes handed to you, like the weather yourself. you could easily be talking about a celebrity or sportsman.

Quote:I can't find the thread you were mentioning.

Its this thread!!!! its in the opening statements!!!!

talking to you is like teaching a granny I.T.

***SiLVa*** · 03-24-2011, 10:51 PM

(03-24-2011 08:37 PM)rsol Wrote:
Quote:There has been plenty of evidence to show things are way different on Earth than they were thousands of years ago, true. However, the same is also is true of other planets that have no human inhabitants so thats still not really enough to explain it for me.

what planets? what changes?

Really?
I thought you'd know how to do a simple search on your own.
But since you're gathering all that evidence you're going to show me(hopefully), I'll cut you some slack this time...
Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists

Mars 'more active than suspected'

Mars hots up

New storm on Jupiter hints at climate change

Jupiter: Turbulent Storms May Be Sign Of Global Climate Change

Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth's temperature

Global Warming Detected on Triton

Saturn's Strangely Warm Moon

Saturn has bizarre warm pole

Scientists: Mars Was Wet, Warm 4 Billion Years Ago

These were found with a quick search, but there is plenty more information on planetary changes happening since the beginning of time. None that can be justifiably blamed on humanity.

(03-24-2011 08:37 PM)rsol Wrote: The ones to blame for this mess are the ones who back YOU. look at fox news and tell me they are big on environment. Or am i talking to the wrong guys nowadays? as a democrat is in office....... I will be writing the thesis on left/right leanings and the conspiracy theories surrounding them. This will involve religious groups and their fear of "the mark" jesuits, knights templar. they all have these counter conspiracy theories.

All that talk about religious groups works both ways, imo. Belief and Faith are being used either way. Lets not forget what Al Gore said about the Global Warming problem. According to him, Global warming caused without a doubt by humanities sins, is no longer just a political issue- it is now a spiritual issue too:
Gore Says Faith Community Decisive in Tackling Climate Change

hubbabubba · (This post was last modified: 03-24-2011 10:57 PM by hubbabubba.)

(03-24-2011 10:16 PM)rsol Wrote: Decentralise your power.

I agree on everything you said (although I only quoted the first sentence)! Quit shouting about global warming and get going! Wink

Quote:you dont even bother with a question.

I will soon.

Quote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

Thanks, I'll return to you in a few weeks and tell you I don't agree.

Quote:if you are not interested in the topic then you have nothing to say about it either.

You are saying like: "Cloud formations are cool dude, they even explain why I'm right abot AGW. Just read this url and this url and this url and you'll see I'm right. How I'm right? It's up to you to find out, I can't be bothered telling you in this link forum, oh excuse me, discussion forum."

Quote:you could easily be talking about a celebrity or sportsman.

Yup, I was talking about Rambo.

Quote:Its this thread!!!! its in the opening statements!!!!

AHA! Now I don't remember the question...? Icon_biggrin

Quote:talking to you is like teaching a granny I.T.

Sorry, a little low in spirit...

rsol · (This post was last modified: 03-25-2011 12:01 AM by rsol.)

Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists rather misleading title as it doesn't seem to be too much of a puzzle.

Quote:Volcanoes on Pluto?

Elliot hinted at the possibility of another factor fueling Pluto's warming trend.

He compared Pluto to Triton, a moon of Neptune. Both have atmospheres made mostly of nitrogen. In 1997, Triton occulted a star and astronomers found that its atmosphere had warmed since the last observations were made in 1989 during the Voyager mission. Back then, Voyager found dark material rising above Triton, indicating possible eruptive activity.

"There could be more massive activity on Pluto, since the changes observed in Pluto's atmosphere are much more severe," Elliot said. "The change observed on Triton was subtle. Pluto's changes are not subtle."

There is no firm evidence that Pluto is volcanically active, but neither is there evidence to rule out that possibility. Even the Hubble Space Telescope can barely make out Pluto's surface.

Elliot added that the process affecting Pluto's temperature is complex. "We just don't know what is causing these effects," he said.

yep we just dont know, through lack of evidence. global warming for that planet is not a trend shared by us. we also have dissimilar orbits. sound like some new parameters are hitting this distant, little known planet

Quote:Lets not forget what Al Gore said about the Global Warming problem. According to him, Global warming caused without a doubt by humanities sins, is no longer just a political issue- it is now a spiritual issue too

If you put me with Al Gore i can put you with Rupert Murdoch. deal? Al gore does not speak for me. I can fully agree that he is an evil scum-bag and looking to profit from this. that does not detract away from the science regardless of political ideals. Go and look for the date his name was mentioned in the logs of this very forum. you will see my name spelling out how much of a dick this guy is.

Quote:http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/20...8764.shtml

solar variability can be attributed to about 1.3watts of variation per square meter on earth. for each planet there will be correlation. the average hit is around 1300 to 1400 watts per square meter. in other words it does play a part, but a bit part. 1.3 into 1300(im being conservative) ?? anyone??? there's your % of variation. not enough by a long shot.

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070402/f...402-7.html
A link to a similar page but allowing for a different point of view. looks like its from a lefty...surprise surprise.

Quote:You are saying like: "Cloud formations are cool dude, they even explain why I'm right abot AGW. Just read this url and this url and this url and you'll see I'm right. How I'm right? It's up to you to find out, I can't be bothered telling you in this link forum, oh excuse me, discussion forum."

What i am saying like, is like, you like, need to know like, what you are like, talking about.

Read and understand. you are afraid to know because it may dispel your belief. evolve or stagnate. read it first. its not overly complicated. im not trying to distract you. you say you want to learn something.

Quote:Thanks, I'll return to you in a few weeks and tell you I don't agree.

those wikis are quite condensed and would be an hours read at most. thanks for already deciding on the outcome before the result. is this your idea of critical thinking?

Telecaster72 · (This post was last modified: 03-25-2011 03:03 AM by Telecaster72.)

@rsol

First of all, i would say i am agnostic when it comes to climate science.

Quote:solar variability can be attributed to about 1.3watts of variation per square meter on earth. for each planet there will be correlation. the average hit is around 1300 to 1400 watts per square meter. in other words it does play a part, but a bit part. 1.3 into 1300(im being conservative) ?? anyone??? there's your % of variation. not enough by a long shot.

Thank you for finally sharing some of the evidence and showing that the settled science actually takes solar variation into account.

You are talking about variations in the solar constant

Quote:The solar constant, a measure of flux density, is the amount of incoming solar electromagnetic radiation per unit area that would be incident on a plane perpendicular to the rays

Am i correct?

Quote:The scientific consensus is that solar variations do not play a major role in determining present-day observed climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report states that the measured magnitude of recent solar variation is much smaller than the amplification effect due to greenhouse gases.

source

I withhold that science is not settled, you can not settle on such a complicated process like this, there is no point where you can draw the line.
It might be very comfortable to do so and it will give you that warm fuzzy safe feeling.

That percentage of yours is correct based on the assumption that there are no more variables in the suns effect on the planet.

Quote:systemic collapse only ever requires one major pillar to fall. - rsol

So take a leap of faith now and just for a second assume that there could be scientists that actually thinks there is also other solar and cosmic effects that affects the system than the variations in radiation measured on a plane perpendicular to the sunrays.

I will just give you one example of one possible factor that is not included in iPCC's computer models. I am not saying that this is the smoking gun or anything, just showing you one little possibility.

Nir J. Shaviv, of the Racah Institute of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
writes in the Journal of Geophysical Research :

Quote:Over the 11‐year solar cycle, small changes in the total solar irradiance (TSI) give rise to small variations in the global energy budget. It was suggested, however, that different mechanisms could amplify solar activity variations to give large climatic effects, a possibility which is still a subject of debate. With this in mind, we use the oceans as a calorimeter to measure the radiative forcing variations associated with the solar cycle. This is achieved through the study of three independent records, the net heat flux into the oceans over 5 decades, the sea‐level change rate based on tide gauge records over the 20th century, and the sea‐surface temperature variations. Each of the records can be used to consistently derive the same oceanic heat flux. We find that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification mechanism, although without pointing to which one.

(full article here as 13 pages pdf)

So if this guy is on to something, what could that do to the pillar you mentioned?

Reminds me of my favorite definition of "settle": "to slowly sink to the bottom" Wink

P.S I agree to every one of your solutions, very well thought out, if i could add something it would be to complete the "plastic and medicine" with biodegradable hemp plastic in as much part as possible and of course the medical uses of marijuana seriously considered for use in conventional health care.

rsol · (This post was last modified: 03-25-2011 09:38 AM by rsol.)

Quote:That percentage of yours is correct based on the assumption that there are no more variables in the suns effect on the planet.

Its is but one avenue in the solar variation list. solar variation means....all variants. this includes flares, wobbles ect ect. ALL of those variations can effect the temperature by that 1.3watt per square meter thats its maximum variation.. its not just the one line on a graph.

you would be right to say that science is not settled. it never would be. its HOW settled you have to gauge.

Quote:So take a leap of faith now and just for a second assume that there could be scientists that actually thinks there is also other solar and cosmic effects that affects the system than the variations in radiation measured on a plane perpendicular to the sun-rays.

The solar variation is only an average of course, it take into consideration the angles, seasonal shifts, even cloud cover. a yearly average.

Quote:mechanisms could amplify solar activity

and counter them too. this is the thing about those pillars i mentioned.

Take away the gases on this planet and you have Mars just a few degrees warmer. its the gasses that keep you from freezing to death at night. it wont matter what the sun is doing.

I think we have an accord on solutions. the only problem is this well thought out train of thought has been hijacked. what do we do?

***FastTadpole*** · 03-25-2011, 10:46 AM

I've had this Global Warming / Climate Change / Denier debate hundreds of times over the past 6 or 7 years.

During many wasted hours I could have spent with my children I've come to the following conclusions.

There are exaggerations, cherry picking, data modelling manipulation, misquotes, low blows and outright lies on both sides.

A lot more dollars are being pumped into the Climate Change side of the argument a lot of them public funds.

You can lean on whichever side of the argument you wish and be confident in your stance because there are millions of internet articles, documents and scientific papers backing your claims. The internet has managed to make the clusterfuck of objectivist science based on opinion.

The sky is blue, black, green, purple or pink and you could back it up - with pictures and it's true. Same goes with most (not all - see urban heating effect, NASA's recent climate satellite glitch, denied FOIA requests to raw temperature source data at every turn - then the failure to back it up leaving only the final 'interpreted' data..) of the numbers and data out there - they are true. The weighting and source are not uniform so this brings the temperature record itself into question. With the internet anyone with a keyboard can 'prove' anything with a simple search query and referencing a statistic or observation that fits their argument for asserting their world view.

Record high temperatures in Arizona!

April snowfall in New York!

Either weed out the bad data or start a new study, but only if given public mandate, that is comprehensive in climate analysis that takes into account causal factors rather than AGW alone as has been done to date with the $180 Million+ per year IPCC study.

The consensus of 2,400 is really not a consensus at all many of those names listed are not climate scientists and they merely contributed to the report and didn't necessarily have an hard opinion on the subject, the conclusions were in the hands of about six people responsible for creating the IPCC AR4 report for Policy Makers.

I was on both "polarized by design" sides and settled on I don't know for sure but I highly doubt the AGW theory of Carbon Dioxide being the primary driver for temperature rise has a tangible basis in reality on a global scale.

Here are some facts off the top of my head based on established and reasonably verifiable annual output data for CO2 production.

Human respiration accounts for 2.2 Gt of CO2 combine that with the 18 to 28 Gt total (I get different numbers from everybody) and that is the human contribution ~30% (depending on where you are on the planet) of which is absorbed immediately.

Rotting biomass accounts for 320 Gt of CO2.

The atmosphere contains 3200 Gt of CO2 and makes up 0.039% of the atmosphere, tops. That's the 390 ppmv that is bandied about all the time. Comparably Nitrogen is 78% and Oxygen is around 20%, There is 24 times more Argon in the atmosphere than there is CO2. Water vapour sits at roughly 0.40% over the entire atmosphere. Methane and Nitrous Oxide are also greenhouse gases at 1.79 ppmv (0.000179%) and 0.3 ppmv (0.00003%) respectively.

We don't know how much carbon dioxide the ocean sink stores but it is likely to contain much much more than to the Earth's atmosphere.

Water Vapour Accounts for 55% to 85% of the greenhouse effect. Volcanoes also contribute to the greenhouse blanket. Corking the hot springs, vacuuming up clouds, Taxing water vapour isn't very green sounding though is it?

Carbon Dioxide accounts for ~8% of the cumulative greenhouse effect.

When one litre of petrol is burned, 2.28kg of CO2 are produced [ref].
~1900 litres is the average annual usage for automobiles for a total of 4332 kg of CO2 output per year, per vehicle. The US has 63 Million registered cars, trucks and vans. 272,916,000,000 kg of CO2 is produced

1GT = 10,000,000,000,000 kg

So All US automobiles produce 0.0272916 Gt of CO2

The total greenhouse effect is estimated to be 28°C.

You have the numbers now. Do the math and see for yourself how implausible this is. I did and as a result promptly cancelled my Greenpeace membership, burned my Green Party Lawn sign and started asking some questions, doing some research, following the money and looking into the policy makers' agenda(s).

My provincial government (Alberta) and other governments don't appear the value the citizen opinion and insight when it conflicts with this push for carbon neutral sustainable development and rely only on the IPCC data and their AR4 report for policy makers. Government funded publications, education and research grants are decidedly one sided to massage public perception. Many debates and forums are set up with disproportionate representation of the denier side and are more often than not loaded with controlled opposition strawmen and topics discussed are in a select limited spectrum. When the government selected talking heads are backed into a corner in a debate they spout the rehearsed line that it does not matter if it's warming cooling or staying the same; a good investment in growing field of technology for the world market.

Here's a sample letter I had sent to the Alberta government before the Copenhagen meetings that was met with the technology investment response.

Last year the Alberta Government handed over $4 Billion (Not as bad as Ontario's 10 Billion freebie to Samsung Wind though) to oil companies to fight global warming in building a Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) infrastructure and Coal Gasification and CCS pipeline. They stated it would do the equivalent of taking a million cars off of the road aka 0.0004332 Gt of CO2 if all these registered vehicles in America are driven regularly.

The target for a 50% (and some countries have an 80% target) reduction from year 2000 levels would cost $101,569,713,758,079 (101 Trillion). There are worse subsidy/ theft schemes though, like the Electric Vehicle scam, which would cost well over $1.9 Quadrillion to convert at the current cost with at least 50% of funding being from federal and state coffers to convert the American auto fleet to this so called Green.

Combine this with the 'Green' Taxes, Carbon Credits (I'm still waiting for mine in the mail, you get yours?), Carbon Trading, the Biofuel (GMO Corn, Soy, Algae, Jatropha, Biomass ..) scam, the Geo-Engineering scam the Wind Farm scam, the Grid Buyback scam ... The US Social Security and the Canadian Pension Plan (CPP) are being eyed and worked into funding models by the IMF as a way to pay for all this both at home and abroad via World Bank Handouts, IMF Transfers and Free PR through the Publicly Funded Oligarch Directed Controlled Media, Tax Exempt/Subsidized Foundations and the Education (Indoctrination) System at every level.

These select companies gain competitive advantage in exploiting PPP schemes to their R&D (and marketing) through taxpayer buoyed research bodies like NASA, IPCC, CRU, Universities.

It's not really about them getting your $20 it's about you not having it. Money is only a means to an end which is power, the power of the sucking black hole, the paper is only a faith based illusion driving human action in what is the biggest fake propped up god humanity has ever known -- dollar almighty.

Climate changes I live in a region where temperatures vary from +40C to -40C. New Orleans was built and rebuilt below sea level practically begging to get washed away again. Some permafrost northern Inuit villages get millions to save their towns with costly fortifications rather than adapt and migrate. Birds do it every spring and fall; humans have done it too in the past.

We don't need to pour our best minds, resources and manpower to control the global thermostat. The human race is an intelligent, innovative and adaptive species. If we somehow do succeed in this gargantuan task akin to playing God; who gets the power to set the temperature dial?

If the people in the environmental green guilt movement actually focused on real issues that are in our face rather than concentrate their efforts on something that might raise global average thermometer readings of a degree or two over the next century, rather than promote green fascism, I fathom we'd all be better off in seeing a better return on our efforts.

* Industrial Pollution (Air, Water, Soil ..)
* Factory Animal Farming > Mixed Farming
* Monoculture Agriculture > Permaculture City Gardens, Hydroponic Greenhouses
* Energy Efficiency > Transmission
* Mega Dams > Mini Hydro without creating millions of refugees a year.
* Space Junk > If you want to save the satellites
* Water Privatization > Nestle is still draining the great lakes
* Regional Overfishing > There are plenty-o-fish in the sea no need to get them all from a few dozen spots on the globe
* Irresponsible GMO Development in Patenting Life Forms > Stock up on Seeds not ammo, don't buy it
* Soil Nutrient Depletion > Rediscover the lost art of fallow, controlled burns and organic fertilizers
* Nuclear Arms Testing > It isn't Nuclear Power plants that are creating the biggest spikes on the global Geiger-counter
* Depleted Uranium > Taxpayer Funded - yeah we paid for it, stop
* Chemicals > Boycott DOW, Be aware of the entire production cycle, Don't Use them if you can help it
* Starving Nations Exporting Cash Crops > duh

Pick one but don't expect demands to be met by grovelling or shouting to the master class. Us slaves need to get our hands dirty, organize and proactively work on the solutions ourselves.

.. or just do anything else that has a tangible benefit; play a game of cards with an old lady abandoned by her family and left to rot in a hurry up and die already home.

The AGW > Global Warming > Global Disaster THEORY pitch and the pre-determined solutions to reallocate world wealth, selectively regulate all land use, cripple transport, handicap production and control energy has worn thin.

***icosaface*** · 03-25-2011, 02:10 PM

Thanks for the synopsis FastTadpole. You summed the situation up very succinctly.

***SiLVa*** · 03-25-2011, 04:49 PM

(03-24-2011 11:31 PM)rsol Wrote: Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists rather misleading title as it doesn't seem to be too much of a puzzle.

Quote:Volcanoes on Pluto?

Elliot hinted at the possibility of another factor fueling Pluto's warming trend.

He compared Pluto to Triton, a moon of Neptune. Both have atmospheres made mostly of nitrogen. In 1997, Triton occulted a star and astronomers found that its atmosphere had warmed since the last observations were made in 1989 during the Voyager mission. Back then, Voyager found dark material rising above Triton, indicating possible eruptive activity.

"There could be more massive activity on Pluto, since the changes observed in Pluto's atmosphere are much more severe," Elliot said. "The change observed on Triton was subtle. Pluto's changes are not subtle."

There is no firm evidence that Pluto is volcanically active, but neither is there evidence to rule out that possibility. Even the Hubble Space Telescope can barely make out Pluto's surface.

Elliot added that the process affecting Pluto's temperature is complex. "We just don't know what is causing these effects," he said.

yep we just dont know, through lack of evidence. global warming for that planet is not a trend shared by us. we also have dissimilar orbits. sound like some new parameters are hitting this distant, little known planet

You asked for examples, and I provided some answers. I'm still waiting for the evidence you subscribe to. Perhaps it would give me something to think about from another perspective. Anyhow, regardless of the lack of similarities, Im just pointing out how things are naturally happening on planets to cause warming or other major environmental/geological changes. It happens all the time, and has for thousands, even millions of years without the aid of mankind on those other planets. I just feel its very possible that these changes can be just a small part of a natural cycle, and not something to be overwhelmingly blamed on mankind exclusively as some would like us to believe. From my perspective, the science is not settled.
Like FT said, the science is cherry picked by both sides. I wouldnt deny that at all. We have to look at the endgame for those pushing the AGW agenda. What will their solutions be, how exactly will it help us? Or how can it be bad for us? So far Im not impressed or even remotely satisfied with the proposed solutions at the moment.

(03-24-2011 11:31 PM)rsol Wrote:
Quote:Lets not forget what Al Gore said about the Global Warming problem. According to him, Global warming caused without a doubt by humanities sins, is no longer just a political issue- it is now a spiritual issue too

If you put me with Al Gore I can put you with Rupert Murdoch. deal? Al gore does not speak for me. I can fully agree that he is an evil scum-bag and looking to profit from this. that does not detract away from the science regardless of political ideals. Go and look for the date his name was mentioned in the logs of this very forum. you will see my name spelling out how much of a dick this guy is.

Wait a second...I dont think I "put you in" with Al Gore, just pointing out to you that religion and belief swing both ways in terms of the AGW debate. And as Al Gore is one of the many politicians at the forefront of this debate, its only fair to point out his view on faith and spirituality in regards to the discussion of moral or spiritual relevance in the debate.
Regardless of that tho, at least we can agree that he is a total dick. Smile

(03-24-2011 11:31 PM)rsol Wrote:
Quote:http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/20...8764.shtml

solar variability can be attributed to about 1.3watts of variation per square meter on earth. for each planet there will be correlation. the average hit is around 1300 to 1400 watts per square meter. in other words it does play a part, but a bit part. 1.3 into 1300(im being conservative) ?? anyone??? there's your % of variation. not enough by a long shot.

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070402/f...402-7.html
A link to a similar page but allowing for a different point of view. looks like its from a lefty...surprise surprise.

Im not really getting your point here. Him being a lefty, means what exactly? He doesnt really dispute any of the facts, And he seems to miss the point of the overall context and the possibilities of the warming being caused by natural cycles.