[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer]

Came across these articles recently. Very interesting....

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_...o_thermometers/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/05/go...sa_thermometer/

http://www.theregist...dard_polar_ice/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/go...ic_ice_mystery/

[HandyNZL]

Lies, lies, damn, lies!!

[maure]

Yep, it is an unfortunate truth that the facts are not being reported with honesty... and, of course, the problem is not restricted to global warming.

My work is on the edges of one of the technologies used to predict weather patterns. I can tell you that mid-term and long-term modelling is not yet possible. So, from what I know, it is impossible to tell whether or not the global warming claims have any merit _at_all_.

BTW, I wonder how many of you know that it was actually the Thatcher goverment who started this (latest) global warming scare so that they could push their nuclear energy program...

[monza gorilla]

So Thatcher invented Al Gore? What a horrible thought. Fun articles though.

[Quiet One]

Why is it that Europe and USA get so defensive about the GW issue? People keeps trying to attack the GW theory as if it was aimed at themselves.

The interesting bit is that all the time they keep hinting at some kind of worlwide scientific conspiracy to convince us poor idiots that the world is getting warmer when it isnt.
But if you want to think about conspiracy theories you can have two main lines:

1) The "GW is a hoax" theory: scientists are trying to convince us that the world is getting warmer along with ecologists.
2) The "GW is a hoax" hoax theory: The heavy industry and governments from the most industrialized countries are trying to hide the fact that contamination is ruining our eco system.

Mmmh...yep...probably the scientists and ecologists are the ones with so much to win in the first case. Why would Bush, Exxon and others try to convince us that there's no GW? Such nice guys!

Anyways, I find it totally stupid. The ecosystem is ****ed. Call it GW or Global Cooling. Mankind is a destructive power. We keep leaving deserts were once there were full forests. We keep vomiting poisonous waste at our rivers, seas, soil and atmosphere. Non biodegradable products are created then thrown wherever costs less with no real idea on how do they affect us.

Is all that also some kind of greenpeace conspiracy? Why do we fear being more responsible about the enviroment? Is the propsect of a close climate collapse so terrifying we rather believe that it is all a hoax?

[maure]

When Gore got on board (and started charging a fare), the car was already rolling down the street...

It's true, though, that unlike the internet, Gore hasn't yet claim to have invented it.

[EDIT]
For the unlikely yet real Thatcher connection, here is the link for those interested:

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/d...sp?docid=107346
[/EDIT]

This post has been edited by maure: 20 August 2008 - 11:14 AM

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer]

Quiet One, on Aug 20 2008, 12:05 PM, said:

Anyways, I find it totally stupid. The ecosystem is ****ed. Call it GW or Global Cooling. Mankind is a destructive power. We keep leaving deserts were once there were full forests. We keep vomiting poisonous waste at our rivers, seas, soil and atmosphere. Non biodegradable products are created then thrown wherever costs less with no real idea on how do they affect us.

Andres, nobody questions the need for humans to be more responsible. I'm all for that.

My concern is more about the alleged fiddling with data in a not good way. Needs some explanation.

....and GW is being used as an excuse to push things through without debate like nuclear power or wind farms .... these have environmental impacts too, some positive, some negative. But we need the debate.

Furthermore one of the reasons why we probably care in UK is that we are being taxed very heavily on the basis that global warming is a fact....

This post has been edited by Meanioni: 20 August 2008 - 11:45 AM

[monza gorilla]

maure, on Aug 20 2008, 12:07 PM, said:

When Gore got on board (and started charging a fare), the car was already rolling down the street...

It's true, though, that unlike the internet, Gore hasn't yet claim to have invented it.

[EDIT]
For the unlikely yet real Thatcher connection, here is the link for those interested:

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/d...sp?docid=107346
[/EDIT]

Thanks for the link.

[Quiet One]

Meanioni, on Aug 20 2008, 08:41 AM, said:

Andres, nobody questions the need for humans to be more responsible. I'm all for that.

My concern is more about the alleged fiddling with data in a not good way. Needs some explanation.

....and GW is being used as an excuse to push things through without debate like nuclear power or wind farms .... these have environmental impacts too, some positive, some negative. But we need the debate.

Furthermore one of the reasons why we probably care in UK is that we are being taxed very heavily on the basis that global warming is a fact....

What kind of taxes do you get because of GW? Why would sombedy (and who?) make up this kind of giant worlwide conspiracy about GW just to raise taxes? (As if governments would ever need such complicated contraptions to raise taxes)

That is what I don't understand. The undefined, but certainly evil conspiracy of "they are lying at us for some obscure purpose" sounds like a re creation of the marxist conspiracy theories used in the '70s around these parts to hide the obvious: USSR was not even close to establish any kind of communist base here. Guerrilla was just that, and didn't need the horrifying measures taken to be dealt with. Oh....but guerrilla was not the problem. The problem were the marxists. They were poisoning us through books, movies, even paintings and modern maths (modern maths were banned here for a while because they taught us "group theories"...marxist propaganda, obviously)

I see the same logic applied here: ecologists and scientists as global conspirationists just make no sense. GW is against USA and UK industrializing policies, so as much as they might pass a few taxes based on it, it doesn't compensate for the fact that GW harms the mindless development of heavy industry. The logic step would be to deny GW for governments so they can count with support from the people with money i.e. big industries, oil companies, etc.

I am sorry, but if I have to choose a cosnpiracy theory, I can't see any valid reason to choose the GW hoax theory. I think the "first world countries need pollution to make more money" makes more sense. And, so far, is just the way things seem to be going.

[monza gorilla]

Sometimes people just can't see the wood for the trees.

[Max Mosley]

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer]

Quiet One, on Aug 20 2008, 01:27 PM, said:

What kind of taxes do you get because of GW?

- We have to pay a flight tax on any flights that we make that massively increases the cost of flying, especially domestically
- The UK government has steadily increased taxation on fuel way above inflation, citing GW as a reason for action; UK has some of the heaviest taxed fuel in the world, ad we pay double duty as they add VAT on top of the fuel tax (something which the EU is trying to outlaw). This has a bearing on the cost of all goods and services as the related transport costs are correspondingly higher
- We pay a car tax which is very heavily weighted towards CO2 emissions

I'm sure there are others.... I forget - but these combined generate billions of pounds of taxation revenue.

Quiet One, on Aug 20 2008, 01:27 PM, said:

Why would sombedy (and who?) make up this kind of giant worlwide conspiracy about GW just to raise taxes? (As if governments would ever need such complicated contraptions to raise taxes)

These are the same people who lied to us about Weapons of Mass Destruction and have been telling porkies about Al Qaeda too.... globally. So for them to lie about something else globally is not that unrealistic or infeasible. I don't know if that is the case, but that's not the point of my posting.

Quiet One, on Aug 20 2008, 01:27 PM, said:

I see the same logic applied here: ecologists and scientists as global conspirationists just make no sense. GW is against USA and UK industrializing policies, so as much as they might pass a few taxes based on it, it doesn't compensate for the fact that GW harms the mindless development of heavy industry. The logic step would be to deny GW for governments so they can count with support from the people with money i.e. big industries, oil companies, etc.

Andres, you are putting words in my mouth - my interest in these articles is a genuine one - two key issues:

1) There appears to be some evidence that the scientific basis upon which a lot of things depend is flawed; worse, appears to be manipulated. I want to know why and to understand what the implications are.

There may be good reasons why NASA is going back into historic figures and adjusting them; isn't it just a little strange that the way that it is being altered favours GW? By chance alone, you would expect any such changes to add up to zeros - some increases, some decreases, yet that is not the case and I think we should ask why.

2) It begs questions about how the media reports on this and this affects the visibility of key facts and the prevailing attitude. Why aren't newspapers saying: "Arctic ice not melting faster than we thought, actually"?

To be honest Andres, I'm not suggesting there is some global collusion - however, and this is an alternative....

- NASA scientists tinker with figures and in so doing create a greater likelihood that it will look like global warming is happening
- IPCC uses this available evidence and draws conclusions from this - creates a call to action
- Governments act/react and change their economic/taxation policy (as the UK Government has)
- Companies change their business models to compensate for GW

Maybe this is not a bad thing....

However, it still begs the question - why are the changes being made? (it may be genuine, it may be accidental/c#ckups, it may be with a more sinister intent). We need to know.

Just supposing, these figures are wrong and in fact the global temperature is not rising as fast as thought - where does that leave us then?

This post has been edited by Meanioni: 20 August 2008 - 04:20 PM

[AleHop]

Everybody's talking about global warming these days when the bigger problem is not CO2 emisions but chemical contamination. And nobody remember to talk about it, it is always and only Global Warming. Why?

1) In the Roman age, a large part of Lybia was cultivated (mostly wheat), and it and Sicily were considered the "granaries of the Empire" and then Lybia turned into a kind of desert. I don't think man produced much CO2 1.5 thousand years ago.

2) Greenland had a milder climate in the past, settlers used to have farms and cattle. It all disappeared during the Little Ice Age 500 years ago.

Ok, we should reduce CO2 emisions but we should stop talking about Global Warming so much. We should talk about chemical contamination which is the biggest problem we have and no other.

[Quiet One]

Meanioni, on Aug 20 2008, 01:19 PM, said:

- We have to pay a flight tax on any flights that we make that massively increases the cost of flying, especially domestically
- The UK government has steadily increased taxation on fuel way above inflation, citing GW as a reason for action; UK has some of the heaviest taxed fuel in the world, ad we pay double duty as they add VAT on top of the fuel tax (something which the EU is trying to outlaw). This has a bearing on the cost of all goods and services as the related transport costs are correspondingly higher
- We pay a car tax which is very heavily weighted towards CO2 emissions

I'm sure there are others.... I forget - but these combined generate billions of pounds of taxation revenue.



These are the same people who lied to us about Weapons of Mass Destruction and have been telling porkies about Al Qaeda too.... globally. So for them to lie about something else globally is not that unrealistic or infeasible. I don't know if that is the case, but that's not the point of my posting.



Andres, you are putting words in my mouth - my interest in these articles is a genuine one - two key issues:

1) There appears to be some evidence that the scientific basis upon which a lot of things depend is flawed; worse, appears to be manipulated. I want to know why and to understand what the implications are.

There may be good reasons why NASA is going back into historic figures and adjusting them; isn't it just a little strange that the way that it is being altered favours GW? By chance alone, you would expect any such changes to add up to zeros - some increases, some decreases, yet that is not the case and I think we should ask why.

2) It begs questions about how the media reports on this and this affects the visibility of key facts and the prevailing attitude. Why aren't newspapers saying: "Arctic ice not melting faster than we thought, actually"?

To be honest Andres, I'm not suggesting there is some global collusion - however, and this is an alternative....

- NASA scientists tinker with figures and in so doing create a greater likelihood that it will look like global warming is happening
- IPCC uses this available evidence and draws conclusions from this - creates a call to action
- Governments act/react and change their economic/taxation policy (as the UK Government has)
- Companies change their business models to compensate for GW

Maybe this is not a bad thing....

However, it still begs the question - why are the changes being made? (it may be genuine, it may be accidental/c#ckups, it may be with a more sinister intent). We need to know.

Just supposing, these figures are wrong and in fact the global temperature is not rising as fast as thought - where does that leave us then?

I am not putting words in your mouth. In fact, I am not even putting words in the mouth of whoever wrote those articles. I am trying to understand something that is totally foreign for me, i.e.: anti-GW mind. I don't understand who and what has to gain with a GW conspiracy. I can understand who and what could they gain from keeping the status quo.
I understand your concern (well, I try to) and I know you are being totally honest. That is why I want to understand this whole anti GW from you, because I would not believe what Bush would have to say about this same subject.

I am not debating the objections to GW. I have no idea whether to trust this weblink you posted or the NASA or try to understand whatever discrepancies there might be.
[a huge posting trying to explain my POV followed...but it was too long...I will try again some other time ]

[medilloni]

The Earth is what, 4billion+ years old? Life on Earth has been around for approx 3 and a bit billion years? The timescale that reliable data could have been acquired is how long? 100 to 200 years at the very most? After the decimal point, how many zero's before we get to the number of years we have used for calculating whether or not the normal swings in temperatures, land mass movement, currents etc etc etc aren't normal, part of the Earth's natural evolution and change?

Does this go on much in the science world, where important assumptions (decisions, answers?) are made from such a miniscule pinprick of 'reliable' information?

Scientists told the world that you can make fuel from crops, and this would help. Green people turned greener in sheer delight. Yay, let's now plant fuel and grow it, in places where it won't hurt anyone. Any idea where? What will we use to harvest this World Saving Miracle Fuel, that doesn't cost more than the way we create energy now? Sod it, why don't we just burn-for-fuel all the people that die from their land being desecrated, and from starvation because fuel's more profitable than food. Western Man with 2 kids doesn't have answers to climate change as long as he won't do the monthly shopping in the p**sing rain on his push-bike - and he still wants the Internet, the lights on, the TV for the GP's, batteries for the wife's dildo and a flight to somewhere sweaty for his hols.

The vast majority concerned with global warming are hypocrites, not being nasty here, it's just that when someone is asked to do without something they've always had, they're going to kick and scream. 'Conspiracy theory' I don't believe in, I just think too many people are wrong - on both sides of the debate.



OK, that bit above is a bit of a tongue-in-cheek 'opposite rant' to Quiet One's ( ), and no, I don't believe that man's presence hasn't contributed to changes in the present climate, but I'd like someone to quantify the damage we're meant to have done before fingers of blame are pointed and blind panic sets in. And by quantify, I mean if man didn't do a thing for the next 100 years are scientists saying there wouldn't be climate change? The World would suddenly stop changing and be predictable? I don't think so.

Man is responsible for some really bad sh!t, and if we'd have carried on as we did in the 'coal fired years', I'd probably be sat on the green side of the fence, but as we are now I believe we're (in this country) at least 70% less guilty of increasing climate change (over it's natural cycles) than we're made out to be. And I object to paying taxes and premiums (some of the examples Meani gave, and more) for theories that are so inaccurate and/or questionable.

[AutoRacer5]

Funny thing is, with people saying that man is responsible for the earth getting warmer, what about the surface temperature on Mars going up recently over the past year? Could the mars land rovers really be causing that?

[Quiet One]

I give up.

I am trying to understand something about a situation that could affect all mankind.

AleHop & Autoracer: both comparisons are idiotic and non applicable. Climate changes can happen everytime, everywhere for different causes. We are discussing whether THIS particular situation is caused by mankind or not.
Your argument is like saying: "Chernobyl didn't cause any rise in the incidence of cancer on the surrounding zones. X died from cancer a century ago. Was it because of Chernobyl?"

AleHop: you are right about the dangers of chemical pollution, though.

Medilloni: You sound more reasonable, at least. I must point out, though, that again we are all talking about a subject that is very hard to quantize. As far as I know, the most complex computers built (those IBM who-knows-what), are being used mainly to predict whetaher models and have been only slightly succesful so far. However, most scientists agree that something is going on with weather. And they all agree on the deletereous effects of things like CFC, destruction of the ozone layer, predation of certain species, radioactive waste accumulated, etc.etc. Maybe they keep arguing how will all this affect us. But even if they are discussing the extent and quality of the damage, there is no doubt that the damage is there.

The climate is ****ed up (again) no doubt about it. Maybe it is just a natural thing? Only some websites and lots of people who despise greenpeace thinks so. I would rather try to diminish the impact on the ecosystem of our reckless civilzation than close my eyes and say "I think this all might have another explanation" until is too late.

I'd rather swallow my words in pro of GW than having to swallow my words against it when Tuvalu finally sinks beneath the ocean, or mass extinctions become rampant.
Just my take.

[tifosi too!]

Quiet One, on Aug 20 2008, 11:21 PM, said:

I give up.

I am trying to understand something about a situation that could affect all mankind.

AleHop & Autoracer: both comparisons are idiotic and non applicable. Climate changes can happen everytime, everywhere for different causes. We are discussing whether THIS particular situation is caused by mankind or not.
Your argument is like saying: "Chernobyl didn't cause any rise in the incidence of cancer on the surrounding zones. X died from cancer a century ago. Was it because of Chernobyl?"

AleHop: you are right about the dangers of chemical pollution, though.

Medilloni: You sound more reasonable, at least. I must point out, though, that again we are all talking about a subject that is very hard to quantize. As far as I know, the most complex computers built (those IBM who-knows-what), are being used mainly to predict whetaher models and have been only slightly succesful so far. However, most scientists agree that something is going on with weather. And they all agree on the deletereous effects of things like CFC, destruction of the ozone layer, predation of certain species, radioactive waste accumulated, etc.etc. Maybe they keep arguing how will all this affect us. But even if they are discussing the extent and quality of the damage, there is no doubt that the damage is there.

The climate is ****ed up (again) no doubt about it. Maybe it is just a natural thing? Only some websites and lots of people who despise greenpeace thinks so. I would rather try to diminish the impact on the ecosystem of our reckless civilzation than close my eyes and say "I think this all might have another explanation" until is too late.

I'd rather swallow my words in pro of GW than having to swallow my words against it when Tuvalu finally sinks beneath the ocean, or mass extinctions become rampant.
Just my take.

I guess your main POV, which I agree with, is the need to preserve the environment as much as possible. The anti-GW measures are directed towards and so I agree with them. If GW does exist or is caused by man, I 'm not sure!
I prefer to take protective measures anyway!

[Quiet One]

tifosi too!, on Aug 20 2008, 05:45 PM, said:

I guess your main POV, which I agree with, is the need to preserve the environment as much as possible. The anti-GW measures are directed towards and so I agree with them. If GW does exist or is caused by man, I 'm not sure!
I prefer to take protective measures anyway!

That's what I am trying to say! Except it only took you a couple of lines and I had to write those long boring posts to say as much

[maure]

Quiet One, on Aug 20 2008, 12:27 PM, said:

What kind of taxes do you get because of GW? Why would sombedy (and who?) make up this kind of giant worlwide conspiracy about GW just to raise taxes? (As if governments would ever need such complicated contraptions to raise taxes)

That is what I don't understand. The undefined, but certainly evil conspiracy of "they are lying at us for some obscure purpose" sounds like a re creation of the marxist conspiracy theories used in the '70s around these parts to hide the obvious: USSR was not even close to establish any kind of communist base here. Guerrilla was just that, and didn't need the horrifying measures taken to be dealt with. Oh....but guerrilla was not the problem. The problem were the marxists. They were poisoning us through books, movies, even paintings and modern maths (modern maths were banned here for a while because they taught us "group theories"...marxist propaganda, obviously)

I see the same logic applied here: ecologists and scientists as global conspirationists just make no sense. GW is against USA and UK industrializing policies, so as much as they might pass a few taxes based on it, it doesn't compensate for the fact that GW harms the mindless development of heavy industry. The logic step would be to deny GW for governments so they can count with support from the people with money i.e. big industries, oil companies, etc.

I am sorry, but if I have to choose a cosnpiracy theory, I can't see any valid reason to choose the GW hoax theory. I think the "first world countries need pollution to make more money" makes more sense. And, so far, is just the way things seem to be going.

It's simpler than that and worse than that.

Why did, for example, the republicans in the US campaigned with "safe skies"? Conspiracy? Nope. Political gain. They used the fear of terrorism (a lurking thought) to their advantage.

There is no reason to speak of conspiracy in the GW spin. There are many ways in which the "preocupations" of the populace are being exploitated by politicians for self-interest. (feminism is another one of these). Gore charges some 1/4 of a million for each talk he gives, isn't that motivation? Many have made careers out of GW.

I can tell you that in the academic world (of which I know a bit), many "scientist" have turned GW into a cash cow. Pure intellectual prostitution is far more common than people think.

The bottom line is that second to exploiting the fears of the population in order to win elections is to create those fears to begin with and then charge intellectual property. There is a reason, after all, why GW is a "left-thing". Another one from the left is that corporations are "evil". Anyway, all political parties have their monsters.

As I said at the beginning, the biggest problem of GW (like many other issues) is that we are not being told the facts. That is, it is impossible to tell whether or not the planet is going to sht _the_way_they_are_telling_it... and, as you read, the suspicition is that early predictions were bull to begin with.

This post has been edited by maure: 20 August 2008 - 09:34 PM

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer]

Quiet One, on Aug 20 2008, 09:21 PM, said:

I give up.

I am trying to understand something about a situation that could affect all mankind.

And you have touched on my point, because it is this assumption that I am questioning. I do not doubt the wisdom in cutting back and being more eco-aware and I and my family try to follow this. It is common sense and even if GW turns out to be baloney, polluting our planet less has to the the right thing. BUT....

What concerns me is the political angle to GW and some of the decisions being made have major implications, let me pick three as examples:

- In the UK, there has been a buying shift towards diesel-engined vehicles as they are seen to be less CO2 intensive. This has been precipitated by changes in tax making diesel cars more favourable. Diesel produces less CO2, so this is good, right? Well, no as diesel engines are considerably more "dirty" than petrol engines and produce more particulates and other pollutants. Is this wise?

- Developed nations are putting pressures on less developed nations to agree to lower or capped emissions outputs. This will have an impact upon economic activity and will hold back nations from developing, perpetuating poverty, etc. Is this good?

- Bio-fuels are seen as "cleaner" alternatives to fossil fuels. Demand is such that swathes of farm land are being diverted to growing these rather than food. This is contributing to food shortage problems and rising prices and exacerbating poverty problems. Is this wise?

Forget the conspiracy thing - I have views on GW but my point with all of this is nothing to do with this.

The articles I posted simply raise some questions - maybe, the data being used that underpins the GW assumptions is wrong and if that is the case there are some serious implications. Even if it is not a conspiracy and is simply a c#ckup - that turns the whole CO2 warming thing on its head.

Then we find that maybe we have been backing the wrong horse and instead of chasing something that is not real, we should have been focused on reducing mercury levels in the sea, getting NO2 levels down in exhausts and stopping burning rubbish to remove cancer-causing dioxins from entering the atmosphere.

Maybe the data is right, in which case fine and I take it all back, but I think we should know and not just accept it because we are told its right. And moreover if it has been changed with a purpose in mind I sure as hell want to know why.

[Max Mosley]

[Max Mosley]

Meanioni, on Aug 20 2008, 10:53 PM, said:

- Developed nations are putting pressures on less developed nations to agree to lower or capped emissions outputs. This will have an impact upon economic activity and will hold back nations from developing, perpetuating poverty, etc. Is this good?

Yes this is a very good point. Poverty imho is a bigger problem than global warming, but we aren't so keen to tackle it.

Meanioni, on Aug 20 2008, 10:53 PM, said:

The articles I posted simply raise some questions - maybe, the data being used that underpins the GW assumptions is wrong and if that is the case there are some serious implications. Even if it is not a conspiracy and is simply a c#ckup - that turns the whole CO2 warming thing on its head.

But you work in a university surely? You cannot seriously think all the scientists there are covering up data?

Meanioni, on Aug 20 2008, 10:53 PM, said:

Maybe the data is right, in which case fine and I take it all back, but I think we should know and not just accept it because we are told its right. And moreover if it has been changed with a purpose in mind I sure as hell want to know why.

I agree with that. However as you can imagine, the science involved is complicated. Are you willing to read the literature?

[Max Mosley]

medilloni, on Aug 20 2008, 07:23 PM, said:

Does this go on much in the science world, where important assumptions (decisions, answers?) are made from such a miniscule pinprick of 'reliable' information?

Yes. However you'd be surprised how accurate estimates you can make from a pinprick of data. Also you'd be surprised how many assumptions you make every day if you think hard about it.

medilloni, on Aug 20 2008, 07:23 PM, said:

The Earth is what, 4billion+ years old? Life on Earth has been around for approx 3 and a bit billion years? The timescale that reliable data could have been acquired is how long? 100 to 200 years at the very most? After the decimal point, how many zero's before we get to the number of years we have used for calculating whether or not the normal swings in temperatures, land mass movement, currents etc etc etc aren't normal, part of the Earth's natural evolution and change?

Well, probably 200 years of direct measurements are all we have, yes. However it's possible to get data going back hundreds of millions of years if you accept less direct data. For example ice cores can tell us a lot about the atmosphere and temperature in the distant past, likewise tree rings and fossils. Of course, there are some assumptions involved in these methods, but most scientists believe that they are quite reliable methods.

[Quiet One]

Meanioni, on Aug 20 2008, 06:53 PM, said:

- In the UK, there has been a buying shift towards diesel-engined vehicles as they are seen to be less CO2 intensive. This has been precipitated by changes in tax making diesel cars more favourable. Diesel produces less CO2, so this is good, right? Well, no as diesel engines are considerably more "dirty" than petrol engines and produce more particulates and other pollutants. Is this wise?

Carl Sagan (the guy whose scientific views I respect the most while still being actually comprehensible for an ignoramus like me) said that pollution went both ways: CO2 which creats global warming and particles, which can increase the earth's albedo (the quantity of energy reflected), that is, they could act as a gazillion minuscule mirrors reflecting back the sun rays thus cooling the atmosphere. At the moment he wrote that article he said that we wer producing both CO2 and particles in such huge quantities that it was hard to tell which one would ultimately prevail.
In short: no, is not wise to change one peril for another. Fossil fuels are all bad. We know that. We knew that for a long time as we knew the fuel reserves were falling fast, so fast it was not a matter of centuries but mere decades until they dry out or at least became prohibitively expensive. Yet, only a a minority of shy attempts have been done to replce them. So we are basically stuck which whatever stupid idea they can conoct in the next few years to solve the need of billions of people for gas.

Meanioni, on Aug 20 2008, 06:53 PM, said:

- Developed nations are putting pressures on less developed nations to agree to lower or capped emissions outputs. This will have an impact upon economic activity and will hold back nations from developing, perpetuating poverty, etc. Is this good?

Actually most developed countries tend to resist things like the Kyoto Protocol (which USA has refused to sign for years). It has found little to no opposition in most undeveloped countries. As all undeveloped countries together can barely compare to the level of emissions of a single major developed country, I think it is not a problem of hurting our economies. In fact, a good use for technological development would be to devise new technolgies that under developed countries can put at work now, before their industries develop towards the traditional high emitting system. Our problem is lack of cash and pressure from developed countries so we do not compete with them. Our level of emmissions is still far away of being a real risk compared to the likes of Russia, China or USA.

Meanioni, on Aug 20 2008, 06:53 PM, said:

- Bio-fuels are seen as "cleaner" alternatives to fossil fuels. Demand is such that swathes of farm land are being diverted to growing these rather than food. This is contributing to food shortage problems and rising prices and exacerbating poverty problems. Is this wise?

No. And this is a highly controversial matter down here too, were people dies of starvation everyday.

Then again: does the fact that bio fuels, diesel and emission caps might be not such a wise move deny the risk of GW? I know is not what you mean, but that is what worries me. The anti GW propaganda tends to confuse both subjects: the fact that some policies might be wrong or that there is a political manipulation of things with the fact that we have been ecologically irresponsible and that it is time to grow up and face the consequences of our own acts.

Meanioni, on Aug 20 2008, 06:53 PM, said:

The articles I posted simply raise some questions - maybe, the data being used that underpins the GW assumptions is wrong and if that is the case there are some serious implications. Even if it is not a conspiracy and is simply a c#ckup - that turns the whole CO2 warming thing on its head.

Then we find that maybe we have been backing the wrong horse and instead of chasing something that is not real, we should have been focused on reducing mercury levels in the sea, getting NO2 levels down in exhausts and stopping burning rubbish to remove cancer-causing dioxins from entering the atmosphere.

Maybe the data is right, in which case fine and I take it all back, but I think we should know and not just accept it because we are told its right. And moreover if it has been changed with a purpose in mind I sure as hell want to know why.

The problem with the articles that you posted were mainly that they suffer from "cogitus interruptus"
They say basically: "see? this data is wrong! get it?"
No, I don't get it. What are you trying to prove? (I am addressing the article writer, not you Meanie Weenie ) If the NASA manipulated the GW data, why did they do that? I can't see the NASA as some sort of S.P.E.C.T.R.E. like organization trying to convince us about GW so they can...what? Laugh like maniacs while caressing a cat? Pass more taxes when actually Bush tries to cut taxes?
It is just too confusing to me.

[HandyNZL]

I'm with the Mayans on all this....the earth is on a tilt, right? hence the seasons (if it wasn't tilted we'd have the same weather year round)...like a coin or spinning top this axis revolves about a point strangely enough at the south pole (near enough, but we're not talking true north vs magnetic north here), and as it spins the op end of the axis spins in a wider circle. Currently the north pole is getting towards the closest it will ever get to the sun (not including the sun going super nova on us), and will reach it's closest point in another 3 and a bit years in May 2012. The good ol' astronomers can give you the exact date even. After that, the north pole will begin moving away from the sun again, and sometime in 4512, it will be at the furthest point away from the sun, and start moving back towards it.....

The Mayans worked all this out with their clock...a clock intrinsically more technical and accurate than our own - they didn't need a leap year every fourth year - and some very smart people that watch the stars can confirm all this.

So, if global warming really exists, it is because of several factors, and not just man.

1) The earth is relatively closer to the sun than it has been in almost 5000 years
2) We spew carbon emmissions, that theoretically block out the sun, but create a greenhouse, thus warming us up

We can't do anything about #1, and even if we did very little about #2, it will solve itself to a large degree when oil is either depleted or too expensive in about 20-30years.

So instead of getting all up in arms, we should be concentrating on low carbon emission power sources, recycling as much waste as possible to reduce the demand on world resources, and not to listen to all the GW end-is-nigh freaks that say we must buy hybrids, which as we all know are more environmentally unfriendly (not to mention crap) than a conventional diesel car, nor to buy those power saving light bulbs that don't actually last 30-years (they haven't even been around that long so where's the proof for a starter), but they can cause blindness, burns, even death, if one breaks in your hand, plus you should not place them in landfill because of all the poisons inside of them. All for 3c less a day on your power bill. If you want to save money on power, use LED lights instead.

[maure]

[Piotr]

uuuuuuuuu, my FAVORITE topic!
As a geologist, I look at the Earth history from a perspective of millions of years (anything less than a 100,000 m.y. is temporary and insignificant). I love the ClimateAudit.com, becuase they force the GW proponents on a defensive and expose politically motivated "science" (like NASA adjustments).
Here are a few thoughts (not necessarily connected to each other):

• Most news proposing a potential "proof" of GW gets the headlines, while the retractions are not published or get a paragraph on page 32 (examples - the hottest decade of the last 100 years was the 1930's, the 'hockey stick" diagram showing increase in CO2 vs global temp is statistically dead wrong, the increase in CO2 in atmosphere usually FOLLOWS GW, not causes it, Katrina was only Category 3 when it hit New Orleans, etc, etc).
  
• We are still (temperature-wise) on a rebound after the latest ice age. We are nowhere NEAR the temperatures from before the Ice Age.
  
• Earth is either cooling, or warming - there never is an "equilibrium." Just look at the temperatures of the last million years.
  
• If we are so powerful that we could cuase warming of the ENTIRE PLANET, should we worry that things like Kyoto protocol could cause a new Ice Age???
  
• When on August 21, 2008, we can accurately predict weather in Paris for August 15, 2009, I may start looking at the climate models predicting GW. When on this topic, there is roughly the same number of models predicting global cooling, as there is predicting GW, but only the later ones are cited by the IPCC and the press. WHY???
  
• When you start questioning the basis of the whole GW science, the proponents, instead of trying to defend it, resort to the standard "well, so you thing we should just keep polluting the Earth?" or, my favorite of late " so, you are a Bush supporter?" (???).
  
• The Earth climate works on cycles ranging from 11-year Sun Spot cycles to a 140,000 orbit cycles ( I also heard of 650,000 cycle, but don't remember what it is off hand). Insisting that GW is caused by the "green house gasses" emissions of the last 50 years is assinine.
  
• If the "majority of scientists" (aka "consensus") claims my lawn mower causes GW, what is the actual number (%) of these scientists??? I challenge you to find that out. You will not be able to do so. Al Gore used that phrase when citing a study by a historian (?) of 965 climate articles published between 1998 and 2003 (presumeably none disagreed with GW). On the other hand, the latest study (using the same methods) of over 500 articles published 2003 -2007 found that 55% of scientists either disagreed or claimed there is not enough data to support the GW hypothesis.
  
• Yes, I did know that the GW was invented by Margaret Thatcher to support her push for nuclear power. At that time it was contradictory to a "consensus" among scientists regarding the fact that pollution may/will cause global cooling and ice age.
  
• Can we finally agree if the GW is responsible by higher or lower number of hurricanes? At the present, the GW proponents seem to claim both.
  
• Why, again, is GW bad? The last one (Holocene Optimum, or the Middle Ages warming - with average temperatures higher than today) "caused" two crop harvest cycles per year that resulted in so much food, people had time for art and science and that calamity called rennaissance happened. Are we to believe that cold climate that almost killed humanity off (aka Ice Age) is better???
  
• Don't get me started - I can go on like this for hours...
  
• No geologist that I know of can seriously propose any data supporting the idea that the recent (10-20 years?) warm trend is nothing more but a blip in geological scale. In fact, the opinions of geologists are pretty much divided along the ideological lines, with the GW enthusists rarely citing any geological record (which cleraly shows GW is a bunch of politically motivated hysteria).

So, please show me an example of a scientific study supporting GW, and I'll show you resent study with results refuting it. With the scientists divided 50/50 on the issue, the GW is hardly anything more than an interesting hypothesis, and hardly a "fact" as Al Gore pontificates during his $250,000 a pop lectures...

[maure]

So you are a geologist, eh? Fun stuff.

Welcome to the latest non-debate...

BTW, have you seeing my sprinkler lady?

[Piotr]

maure, on Aug 21 2008, 01:30 AM, said:

So you are a geologist, eh? Fun stuff.

Welcome to the latest non-debate...

BTW, have you seeing my sprinkler lady?

errrr.... say what?