Global Warming The debbil made me do it

"Dan" wrote:

Is this ecologically unsound?

I know it's been a few hundred posts back, but I am far from arguing
for unmitigated plowing of the ecosystem. What I have been arguing is
that the incessant over-the-top predictions of calamity are not proven
or assumed by --their own experts --, and that much of the hysteria
is driven by politicians and other hucksters who see opportunity ripe
for a power grab.

Jeez; I got no quarrel with that.

Anyone who makes up his mind on this subject solely by listening to Al Gore
or James Inhofe is just being lazy--or partisan to the point of debility.

My beef is against the campaign of disinformation that is trying to make it
all go away by shooting the messenger: science. Consider one of the charges
one hears repeated over and over, "The scientists can't be believed; they're
all lying to get paid." What becomes of our culture if this idea becomes
conventional wisdom?

"Dan" wrote:

It is a simple matter to compare the isotopic ratio in the current
atmosphere to that in samples from ice cores.

Guess what that comparison reveals?

And these isotopes are recognizable in comparison to -- oh -- volcanic
activity? Or those altered by radiation exposure?

Yes, they are.

But that's irrelevant, of course. If these isotopes came from volcanoes
and
radiation exposure, the ratio would be the same in ice core samples as it
is
now, wouldn't it?

Yes they are because you said so or because there is evidence
supporting this?

Because there is evidence. I just told you what it is. The isotope ratios
of the modern atmosphere are different from samples going back hundreds of
thousands of years. Volcanoes and cosmic rays have been around the whole
time; the only thing new is people burning a ****-load of fossil fuel.



And -- to use the scientific term -- possibly.

This is about as close to a slam dunk as you'll ever get.


Hardly compelling.

Well, I can lead a denier to facts but I can't compel him to acknowledge
them.

Once again with the labels.

Well dammit, Dan, what do you want me to say? This is freshman chemistry
and geology stuff. Hell, even *I* can understand it. It's readily
available for you to check. It's not like it's a shocking new discovery.

On Mar 11, 2:03 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:

Anyone who makes up his mind on this subject solely by listening to Al Gore
or James Inhofe is just being lazy--or partisan to the point of debility.

My beef is against the campaign of disinformation that is trying to make it
all go away by shooting the messenger: science. Consider one of the charges
one hears repeated over and over, "The scientists can't be believed; they're
all lying to get paid." What becomes of our culture if this idea becomes
conventional wisdom?

In all fairness -- plenty of "scientists" have been paid to lie or
support some position. This is no revelation.

Case in point -- Jarvik. Anyone who saw those ads and knew anything
about him knew they were intentionally misleading.

We are bombarded by "scientists" proclaiming all sorts of nonsense.

The anti-nuke crowd in the '80s was the genesis of this phenomenon --
groups of "scientists" speaking on things they weren't necessarily
qualified to pontificate upon. Yet they did, ad naseum.

[Background: The "issue" in the 80s was US deployment of new
technology arms, not whether nuclear weapons were harmful if used. The
"scientists" demanded that the US unilaterally disarm, assuming that
the Soviets would follow suit. This only reinforced the perception of
"scientist's" naivety, further reducing their potential for swaying
the internal debate]

Whenever we hear about GW, the proponents always quote their pod or
batch or covey of scientists, when further study find the majority are
specialists in something far removed from macro- and paleo-
climatology.

And you wonder why our "culture" is wary of "scientific
pronouncements"?

And as far as "campaign of disinformation," it seems to me the NY
Times, Time, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, et al all comporting with
the Gore view is hardly wilting under a "campaign of disinformation."

Dan

On Mar 11, 2:20 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Dan" wrote:
It is a simple matter to compare the isotopic ratio in the current
atmosphere to that in samples from ice cores.

Guess what that comparison reveals?

And these isotopes are recognizable in comparison to -- oh -- volcanic
activity? Or those altered by radiation exposure?

Yes, they are.

But that's irrelevant, of course. If these isotopes came from volcanoes
and
radiation exposure, the ratio would be the same in ice core samples as it
is
now, wouldn't it?

Yes they are because you said so or because there is evidence
supporting this?

Because there is evidence. I just told you what it is. The isotope ratios
of the modern atmosphere are different from samples going back hundreds of
thousands of years. Volcanoes and cosmic rays have been around the whole
time; the only thing new is people burning a ****-load of fossil fuel.



And -- to use the scientific term -- possibly.

This is about as close to a slam dunk as you'll ever get.

Hardly compelling.

Well, I can lead a denier to facts but I can't compel him to acknowledge
them.

Once again with the labels.

Well dammit, Dan, what do you want me to say? This is freshman chemistry
and geology stuff. Hell, even *I* can understand it. It's readily
available for you to check. It's not like it's a shocking new discovery.

Hang on -- I'm not doubting the presence of matter altered by
combustion.

But it does not follow that these CO2 molecules are independently
responsible for the observed rise in CO2 in the atmosphere.

Dan

"Dan" wrote:


And as far as "campaign of disinformation," it seems to me the NY
Times, Time, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, et al all comporting with
the Gore view is hardly wilting under a "campaign of disinformation."

Here's the difference between the various bloggers, media talkers and think
tanks attempting to debunk AGW, and the National Academy of Sciences, for
instance. The former tell lies; repeating them even when they must *know*
they are lies. They are good at it, slippery and hard to pin down; masters
of the half truth and the cherry-picked fact, but liars nonetheless. So far,
no one has shown me that the NAS or NOAA or the USGS is lying about AGW.

This is not something new. Some of these same liars were in the service of
the tobacco companies, using the same tactics. Some of them also use the
same tricks trying to debunk evolution, calling it a "religion" to get
creationism equal time in public school science classes. See Worldnet Daily
or the Eagle Forum for plenty of examples of the overlap. They are
successful as long as the NY Times, Time, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox,
et al. continue to give them time.

On Mar 11, 4:31 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Dan" wrote:

And as far as "campaign of disinformation," it seems to me the NY
Times, Time, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, et al all comporting with
the Gore view is hardly wilting under a "campaign of disinformation."

Here's the difference between the various bloggers, media talkers and think
tanks attempting to debunk AGW, and the National Academy of Sciences, for
instance. The former tell lies; repeating them even when they must *know*
they are lies. They are good at it, slippery and hard to pin down; masters
of the half truth and the cherry-picked fact, but liars nonetheless. So far,
no one has shown me that the NAS or NOAA or the USGS is lying about AGW.

This is not something new. Some of these same liars were in the service of
the tobacco companies, using the same tactics. Some of them also use the
same tricks trying to debunk evolution, calling it a "religion" to get
creationism equal time in public school science classes. See Worldnet Daily
or the Eagle Forum for plenty of examples of the overlap. They are
successful as long as the NY Times, Time, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox,
et al. continue to give them time.

I don't pretend to speak for bloggers and media types -- simply
counting them would be exhausting.

However, disagreeing with the conclusions of however august a body of
eminences does not make one a liar (see wikipedia entry under
"Galileo" -- the "authorities of the time had some pretty compelling
evidence that the sun revolved around the earth -- a repeatedly
observed phenomenon). There has been and continues to be evidence that
compels the aforementioned groups to *qualify* their statements.

And getting back to the original point -- there is a long, long
stretch between observing and even accepting data that suggests some
human induced forcing of atmospheric phenomenon and concluding
therefore that disaster is upon us.


Dan

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:19:50 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

Roger wrote in
:

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 06:25:38 -0700 (PDT), Dan
wrote:

On Mar 10, 9:21 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:


OTOH, if he sells the Debonair someone else will pollute
with it.

Unless he really believes in his cause, in which case he would scrap

Thaks sorta like the difference between the religoius believer and the
fundamentalistic fanitic.

The believer learns to conserve and in harmony with nature and the
resto f the world. The fanatic says, if it doesn't conform, destroy it
or them.

I disagree with almost all of the above. I don't think believers and
fanatics are all that much different when it comes to the crunch. This
isn't just anotion, BTW, I have some experience with this. The fanatic
cannot exist without succour from the mainstream, for one thing. The
beliver may distance themselves from the fanatic, but there's usually
sympathy to one degree or another that enables the fanatic comfort in
his position.

I never thought of it in that light, but it makes sense.
The extremist, radical, or fanatic is just an extreme view or position
of the mainstream. They are usually a small percent and couldn't
exist without either the support, sympathy, or being condoned (even by
being ignored) by the mainstream.

This overlay applies to just about every human leaning I
can think of. But science should be and usually is, out of this realm.
Scientists don't "believe" they look at the evidence and make a best
guess. That's all they do and all they ever have done. They may disagree
with one another but fanaticism just isn't part of their rainbow..

Dogma does tend to permeate the scientific community to a surprising
degree. IOW the "not invented here (not my idea), or we've done it
this way for years can be difficult to overcome. That's why most pick
non controversial subjects for their Masters and PHD thesis. The
scientific community can be quite resistant to change "at times" and
unfortunately if they want the grant money to keep coming in have to
be careful.

Being they, as a whole a reluctant to accept new ideas contrary to
mainstream thinking it makes the wide acceptance of global warming
even more of a high profile, something we shouldn't ignore subject.


Bertie
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"Dan" wrote:


And getting back to the original point -- there is a long, long
stretch between observing and even accepting data that suggests some
human induced forcing of atmospheric phenomenon and concluding
therefore that disaster is upon us.

Thus the wider the bands of uncertainty grow the farther out the models go.


But here's what we know:

CO2 is the primary persistent greenhouse gas.

CO2 makes the planet warmer. If it didn't, the place would be frozen.

There's 35% more of it now than at any time in the last 800 thousand years
or more.

Humans put that extra 35% in the atmosphere in the last 200 years. That is
a geological instant. A lot of the effects, especially methane feedbacks,
may not even have begun yet. Meanwhile, we are adding more GHGs all the
time. Party on dudes!

A warmer climate will shrivel glaciers, melt sea ice, magnify drought and
flood events, raise sea levels, alter habitats and move agricultural zones.

How much? Nobody knows for sure, but we have a pretty good idea what the
planet was like the last time it was 3C or 6C hotter than it is now.

How lucky do we feel? Lucky enough to just muddle ahead and wait to see
what happens? I don't think we should. The only home we've got is getting
run down and used up. We need to think about taking better care of it.

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:14:46 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

Roger wrote in
:

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 20:05:12 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

"John T" wrote in
om:

"Dan Luke" wrote in message


http://www.sourcewatch.org
http://www.realclimate.org

Not examples of balanced or un-biased sites. These don't help you
any
more than using http://junkscience.com would help me convince you of
the fallacy of your belief in AGW.



it's pretty obvious you won;t be convinced. I'm pretty much resigned
to
watching idiots like you sell my kids future down the Suwanee...

At least I'll have the pleasure of telling you I told you so in the
fulness of time..

At my age I'd like to be able to stick around long enough to do that.
OTOH with things accelerating as fast as they are I just might.

Well, exactly.

I don't think I'll make it to 2100 myself, but I'll do my best.

Well, shucks, that'd only make me160 so a young guy like you should be
able to do it. OTOH I'll bet you won't have to wait nearly that long.
Look at the Ross Ice Shelf. Once it decided to go it didn't wait
around and apparently no one saw that coming. The glaciers in
Greenland that used to move in yards per year are now moving
kilometers per year. The permafrost line has moved several hundred
miles north all the way around the northern hemisphere and winters are
now short enough and the weather warm enough that insects like the
Pine Beetle are destroying whole forests that used to be safe. Average
temperatures North of the 45th parallel are up far more than the rest
of the world. Where the particulate pollution has been cleaned up it's
even more pronounced.


Bertie
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger wrote in
:

Being they, as a whole a reluctant to accept new ideas contrary to
mainstream thinking it makes the wide acceptance of global warming
even more of a high profile, something we shouldn't ignore subject.


I agree, of course. Even if it does turn out to be untrue, though, it
doesn't matter. Oil wil run out and relatively soon, so even if we move on
for that reason alone it's worth taking a different direction. if it ran
out tomorrow, we'd have to find another way, and we would. so why not just
push forward regardless? If the global warming/climate chang/sky is falling
scenario turns out to have been true, well, we've dodged a rather large
bullet. If it turns out to be untrue, well, we've dodged a smaller bullet.
Whatever else can be said about what comes out of th eailpipes of our
contraptions, it's not full of vitamins and nutrients.


Bertie