Environmentalism speech by Michael Crichton and second hand smoking

[a_unique_person]

I said: try to be technical. What you mentioned is just what the Green Litany says. Provide the technical basis for this.

As it looks as you know little or nothing about this, I will make specific questions. Google and/or Wikipedia work for you:

State the following:

1. The altitude the CFC molecules reach.
2. The mechanism by which heavy molecules pass through the tropopause.
3. The amount of energy needed for a photon to dissociate a CFC molecule (100% error margin allowed)
4. The levels of UV radiation at different altitudes.
5. The concentrations of CFC in the stratosphere.
6. The chemical reaction (Molina’s dimmer formula) for the chlorine catalytic reaction on the surface of ice crystals.
7. The concentration of ozone in the stratosphere and compare it with that of CFCs.
8. The time of permanence of CFC molecules in the stratosphere.
9. Why chlorine molecules cannot interact with ozone molecules in mid-air, outside ice crystals on SPCs

That will be enough, for the time being. Wish you luck.

Cut the "green litany" crap, for a start. I have never pretended to be a scientist, I am never going to be a scientist, I am going on authoritative sources. But you already knew that, so why are you wasting my time and your time asking stupid questions like that?

 

[BobK]

How do you decide what or who an authoritative source is, if your not up to snuff on the subject? What criteria do you use?

 

[Edufer]

You declared that there is a vast global conspiracy imvolving, literally, thousands of scientists, government officials, activists, and god knows who else. All I am asking for is some tiny shred of evidence for this.

How are they keeping something that HUGE a secret?

I have not said there is a conspiracy. There is no need for such thing. Old cloaked conspirators of yesteryear have been replaced by today's lobbyists. Isn't that true? Oil lobbies, nuclear industry lobbies, chemical industry lobbies, environmental groups lobbies, and so on.

On the other hand, as they say in court, there are many "circumstancial evidences" for that kind of scientific unethical activities. If you cannot see them, it's not my fault. Maybe you were born color blind to such activities.

 

[Edufer]

Debate is over

Given that your credibility is completely shot and you haven't offered nearly as much scientific evidence as you seem to think you have, you'll excuse me if I don't take your word as authoritative.

Credibility depends on your degree of knowledge and/or gullibility. You can believe whoever you chose to believe. That's called Religion, and has nothing to do with Science. You have just given what you think is an elegant way out of the debate.

OK, strike three, you're out of the debate then. Bye.

 

[Edufer]

Cut the "green litany" crap, for a start. I have never pretended to be a scientist, I am never going to be a scientist, I am going on authoritative sources. But you already knew that, so why are you wasting my time and your time asking stupid questions like that?

Another guy that gets a strike three call on the debate.

If those were stupid questions for you, then it shows your level of knowledge and understanding of the subject.

If your level of understanding and knowledge is so low, how can you determine who`s an authoritative source? Perhaps you consider authoritative those who scream louder, or offical sources that get ample media coverage? I pitty you.

Strike Three.

 

[Edufer]

How do you decide what or who an authoritative source is, if your not up to snuff on the subject? What criteria do you use?

Of course, not in the same way you determine I am not up to the snuff. I analyze the message and abstain of shooting the mailman.

In other words, I use the knowledge I have in scientific matters --and common sense.

Still waiting for the greenhouse or ozone depletion to be proved. If anyone wants to keep arguing, he must first answer the extremely simply questionnaire provided way up above. Then we can move on. if not, then Adiós.

 

[Mark]

I have not said there is a conspiracy. There is no need for such thing. Old cloaked conspirators of yesteryear have been replaced by today's lobbyists. Isn't that true? Oil lobbies, nuclear industry lobbies, chemical industry lobbies, environmental groups lobbies, and so on.

On the other hand, as they say in court, there are many "circumstancial evidences" for that kind of scientific unethical activities. If you cannot see them, it's not my fault. Maybe you were born color blind to such activities.

So...this gw conspiracy of yours does not exist, but I am blind to its activities.

Got it.

 

[Cleon]

Credibility depends on your degree of knowledge and/or gullibility. You can believe whoever you chose to believe. That's called Religion, and has nothing to do with Science. You have just given what you think is an elegant way out of the debate.

OK, strike three, you're out of the debate then. Bye.

Debate? What debate? You're pontificating and fellating your ego. That's not a "debate" in any reasonable sense of the word.

 

[Edufer]

So...this gw conspiracy of yours does not exist, but I am blind to its activities.

Got it.

Oh, no. The conspiracy thing is all yours. You brought it up.

I can’t be held responsible for your blindness. Perhaps you were born with a color blindness related to scientific fraud and bias.

 

[Mark]

Oh, no. The conspiracy thing is all yours. You brought it up.

I can’t be held responsible for your blindness. Perhaps you were born with a color blindness related to scientific fraud and bias.

Good rule of thumb for judging a person's faith in their own opinions: how quickly do they resort to petty insults and name calling?

So I have to assume even you don't have any faith in the stuff you are spewing.

 

[Edufer]

Debate? What debate? You're pontificating and fellating your ego. That's not a "debate" in any reasonable sense of the word.

You are right. That’s the first reasonable statement you’ve provided. For a debate to be considered as such, both sides must supply material on the debated subject. You have just provided ad hominems, strawmen, red herrings, and all sort of irrelevant commentaries to a scientific question, or a proposed subject for discussion.

By your pompous, albeit gross answer, I can see that you are out of arguments. Too bad. It really looks as the debate is over.

At the moment you and some others provide a relevant answer with proper scientific basis, then it will become a debate. Until now it has been guys stepping out to bat and counted strike three!

It’s a nice day down here. 33º C and I am out to the pool.

 

[Edufer]

Good rule of thumb for judging a person's faith in their own opinions: how quickly do they resort to petty insults and name calling?

So I have to assume even you don't have any faith in the stuff you are spewing.

I agree. So you are meaning that varwoche, The_unique_person, and Cleo have no faith in their arguments. I couldn't agree more with you.

But if by an literary hyperbole I implied that you might suffer from color blindness and can not detect scietific fraud, that's not a "petty insult", and much less a "name calling". "Moron" or "stupid" would be name calling, but I will never say that to anyone -becasue if he is a moron or a stupid he wouldn't understand.

If I'd say I find you very "susceptible" -would it be taken as an insult instead as an opinion worth of analysis?

 

[Mark]

I agree. So you are meaning that varwoche, The_unique_person, and Cleo have no faith in their arguments. I couldn't agree more with you.

But if by an literary hyperbole I implied that you might suffer from color blindness and can not detect scietific fraud, that's not a "petty insult", and much less a "name calling". "Moron" or "stupid" would be name calling, but I will never say that to anyone -becasue if he is a moron or a stupid he wouldn't understand.

If I'd say I find you very "susceptible" -would it be taken as an insult instead as an opinion worth of analysis?

You would have to define "susceptible" to what exactly? A conspiracy even you say doesn't exist? I have looked at your data and---I admit I am not a scientist---to me you seem to making the very flawed assumption that gw means uniform warming everywhere. It does not...so your assertion that I am "susceptible" to the influence of this dark cabal of lobbyists, unethical scientists, and politicians who are out to get America, is flawed from the get go. As are your data.

 

[Edufer]

You would have to define "susceptible" to what exactly? A conspiracy even you say doesn't exist? I have looked at your data and---I admit I am not a scientist---to me you seem to making the very flawed assumption that gw means uniform warming everywhere. It does not...so your assertion that I am "susceptible" to the influence of this dark cabal of lobbyists, unethical scientists, and politicians who are out to get America, is flawed from the get go. As are your data.

No, you got it wrong. Cool down. I’ve given the word “susceptible” as a synonym of “sensitive”, “sensible”, or “a person that feel emotions with deep intensity”. This does not mean that I think you are sensible, susceptible or whatever, nor that I implied it.

Of course GW does not means uniform warming, because there is not uniform warming or cooling anywhere –at least not for too long a time. Some regions, as a huge part of Antarctica have been showing a long cooling trend (more than 25 years). Some smaller regions in Antarctica have shown strong warming as the Peninsula. Some regions have shown strong warming, other regions strong cooling.

Temperature Anomalies for January 2006 - from NASA

Source: NASA/GISS

Of course, these are not actual temperatures but departure from average, so blue areas are cooling, the darker color the stronger cooling. Reds are warming, and white areas are no variations. There have been press releases out there branding january as the "warmest ever". Can you see why my faith in that "warming scientists" and journalists will someday provide accurate information is reaching submarine levels?

This show that the GW hypothesis does not account for all these differences, and anomaly variations. Although lately there has been fashionable to say that the GW theory explains everything. Kind of One Size Fits All sock.

It warms at Sao Paulo, Brazil? Then global warming is to blame. Sure, see:

Source: NASA/GISS
(This is the most unbelievable proof of Urban Heat Island Effect ever seen!).
An exclusive for Randi forum. (You're welcomed).

I guess you know Sao Paulo started its industrial development and growth in the late 50s, going from 500.000 people to more than 20 million today.

It cools in Europe? GW is to blame. Ocean currents slow down or move faster? Geez! GW is there. It snow less, or more?, it rain less or more?, anything that increases or decreases?, faster or slower than ever before? –Global Warming is there! No wonder Global Warming theory cannot be taken seriously.

I have NOT asserted in any way that you are susceptible to anything. I don’t know and don’t care if you are susceptible to the influence of politicians, scientists, your children, or the ice cream vendor in the corner.

And my data has not been proved wrong by you -or anybody else for that matter- since I have made it public at our forum at Climate Sceptics. Not even Hansen has tried to refute it. And Marcel Leroux quotes my works in the references of his latest book in French.

Make your homework. Google Marecel Leroux in Amazon.com or better go to this link and see it all about Leroux: http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref...32830?search-alias=aps&keywords=Marcel Leroux

Flawed data? Yeah, sure!

 

[Orwell]

It cools in Europe? GW is to blame. Ocean currents slow down or move faster? Geez! GW is there. It snow less, or more?, it rain less or more?, anything that increases or decreases?, faster or slower than ever before? –Global Warming is there! No wonder Global Warming theory cannot be taken seriously.

It's you who cannot be taken seriously. You invoke vast conspiracy theories by accusing thousands of climate scientists of cooking the data, slander Nature and Science, two very respected scientific magazines, and make tons of hasty generalisations.

The fact is, decreasing CO2 emissions would be a good idea even if the wasn't such a thing as global warming. Western nations need to decrease their reliance on fossil fuels, for political, economical and environmental reasons. Also, if global warming is for real, and if we don't do something about it, the consequences might be disastrous in the long run. If global warming isn't for real and we do something about it thinking that it is happening, well, in a few decades we'll just go "d'oh", but not much else will happen.

I think we should err on the side of caution. We need to use our resources more efficiently anyway, global warming or no global warming. The fact that global warming seems to be taking place is just an added motive, and a big one at that.

 

[Mark]

No, you got it wrong. Cool down. I’ve given the word “susceptible” as a synonym of “sensitive”, “sensible”, or “a person that feel emotions with deep intensity”. This does not mean that I think you are sensible, susceptible or whatever, nor that I implied it.

Of course GW does not means uniform warming, because there is not uniform warming or cooling anywhere –at least not for too long a time. Some regions, as a huge part of Antarctica have been showing a long cooling trend (more than 25 years). Some smaller regions in Antarctica have shown strong warming as the Peninsula. Some regions have shown strong warming, other regions strong cooling.

So...your contention is that the state-sized chunks of ice breaking off from Antarctica are because of record levels if ice being formed? Where are your data on this? It all conflicts with observations:

Ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are melting more than twice as quickly as scientists previously predicted, causing dire forecast of weather change and environmental devastation in years to come.

In a study released in Friday's issue of Science, satellite images have produced evidence that global warming is progressing fast enough to pose imminent dangers to low-lying environments around the world.

http://www.here-now.org/shows/2006/02/20060217_5.asp

Please clarify your point about Sao Paulo. GW cannot be taken seriously? It is by the vast majority of scientist/climatologists. You'll need to provide some pretty convincing evidence besides vague conspiracy implications to sell your contrary viewpoint.

Your comment:

If I'd say I find you very "susceptible" -would it be taken as an insult instead as an opinion worth of analysis?

You said it, not me. If you don't want to make silly accusations, don't make them.

And my data has not been proved wrong by you -or anybody else for that matter- since I have made it public at our forum at Climate Sceptics. Not even Hansen has tried to refute it. And Marcel Leroux quotes my works in the references of his latest book in French.

Make your homework. Google Marecel Leroux in Amazon.com or better go to this link and see it all about Leroux: http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref...32830?search-alias=aps&keywords=Marcel Leroux

Flawed data? Yeah, sure!

I am not a scientist. But I did my homework, and these guys are...and they disagree with M. Leroux. As do the vast majority of others. Maybe he is correct...but it is hardly the slam dunk you make it out to be. Not even close.

Btw, the wird "data" is plural.

The supporters of climate modelisation [on a debate with leroux and others]

* Hervé Le Treut: Research Director of the Dynamic Meteorology Laboratory at the CNRS, professor at the Ecole normale supérieure and the Ecole polytechnique.

* "Climate : Why the models aren’t wrong," by Jean-Marc Jancovici, Engineering consultant. High profile personality regularly interviewed by the press. He is also considered a "left-wing nucleocrat" by anti-nuclear activists(cf. article in Expansion "Windmills won’t solve our energy problems). Personal website : www.manicore.com.

* Jean Jouzel: Geochemist, Research Director at the CEA, member of the GIEC French office. Talk "Physics and the Climate," at a conference held on 5 July 2005 in Paris. Author of "Global Warming: A Scientific and Political History, and Future Scenarios," co-authored with Gérard Mégie.

* Gérard Mégie: (died on June 5th 2004) President of the CNRS since 2000, physicist, climatologist, internationally renowned climate researcher, founder of the “Pierre-Simon Laplace Institute for Science and the Environment,” co-organiser of the first Sustainable Development forum. "Human Influence on the Climate," video interview for Planète TV. "Scientific Stakes and Environmental Changes," video-conférence.

http://www.ideesdefrance.fr/Scientific-Players.html

 

[clk]

I'm skeptical of many climate arguments, including global warming. Many of the people who support GW are the same ones who claimed in the 1970s that the next ice age was imminent. And then there are those who say that GW will cause the next ice age....

 

[jj]

And then there are those who say that GW will cause the next ice age....

You are aware for the rather substantial support for the POSSIBILITY, aren't you? You do know what the Atlantic Conveyor is, yes? You do know that it's changing in speed right now. What we don't know is how cyclic it is, yet. We haven't been measuring deep ocean currents for very long, for simple reasons of technology.

 

[Orwell]

Many of the people who support GW are the same ones who claimed in the 1970s that the next ice age was imminent.

Like who?

And then there are those who say that GW will cause the next ice age....

The argument is that GW could cause some very important ocean currents (like the Gulf Stream), to shut down, which would cause western Europe to freeze. See, in terms of latitude, most of western Europe is higher than southern Canada. No Gulf Stream, and they would have a climate comparable (or worse) to Canada. Scotland would be as cold as Greenland. That's the deal with global warming: a hotter world (on average) doesn't mean that it will be hotter everywhere.

It seems like a lot of people have trouble following the scientific debate behind GW, a fact that is exploited to great effect by those who reject GW for ideological and short-term economical reasons.

 

[clk]

Like who?

Stephen Schneider