Environmentalism speech by Michael Crichton and second hand smoking

[Orwell]

Stephen Schneider

Links please. By the way, I know I'm pointing out the bleeding obvious here, but we know an awful lot more about climate now than we did in the seventies...

 

[clk]

Links please. By the way, I know I'm pointing out the bleeding obvious here, but we know an awful lot more about climate now than we did in the seventies...

http://www.discover.com/issues/feb-06/rd/global-cooling/

In 1975 Newsweek wrote of "ominous signs" that temperatures were dipping, and a year later National Geographic suggested the possibility of a worldwide chilling trend. Stephen Schneider, a climatologist at Stanford University, recalls those stories well. "I was one of the ones who talked about global cooling," he says. "I was also the one who said what was wrong with that idea within three years."

Schneider coauthored a 1971 article in the journal Science about atmospheric aerosols—floating particles of soil dust, volcanic ash, and human-made pollutants. His research suggested that industrial aerosols could block sunlight and reduce global temperatures enough to overcome the effects of greenhouse gases, possibly triggering an ice age. But he soon realized that he had overestimated the amount of aerosols in the air and underestimated the role of greenhouse gases.

"Back then this science was so new, so theoretical, it was really hard to sort it out," he says. He and other early climate researchers say they did not predict a global cooling trend but simply suggested the possibility. Evidence suggests that average worldwide temperatures did decrease between the 1940s and the 1970s. Some climatologists partially attribute the temporary cooling trend to industrial smog, which has since been overcome by the effects of growing greenhouse emissions and, ironically, by clean-air laws that have reduced atmospheric particulates.

Hmm...so the cooling trend was caused by industrial smog. Perhaps we should repeal the clean air laws to stop global warming.

 

[Orwell]

http://www.discover.com/issues/feb-06/rd/global-cooling/


Hmm...so the cooling trend was caused by industrial smog. Perhaps we should repeal the clean air laws to stop global warming.

 

[Edufer]

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.

If I cannot be taken seriously, then why bother answering?

You keep accusing me of invoking conspiracies, when it is you or Mark, or Cleon, etc that has brought the word “conspiracy” to the debate. But that’s an old trick used when you have run out of arguments and want to take the high ground and put the other person in the defensive. It won’t work with me.

The fact that Science and Nature will ever print anything that could jeopardize years of hard work pushing the GW scam (or anything else favoured by the establishment) is something even recognized by their own editors, and has been proven by the rejection of many studies that ended published in less glamorous journals –but earned prizes for being the “Study of The Year”. They even refused to print letters to the editors sent by Nobel Prizes commenting in unfavourable ways the GW scam. And their “corrigenda” ordered to Mann for his sloppy work on the Hockey Stick never was fully acknowledged by Mann –only a mere recognition that there are some faulty files in MBH98 that were not important to the final result. Go figure!

There is no such thing as reducing CO2 from the atmosphere. Nature produces CO2 in quantities that are out of our control. Even human emissions are out of control for many reasons -- the main one is that no country wants to reduce its productivity and its place in the international markets, favouring other countries that won’t reduce its energy consumption (those who aren’t in the Kyoto Treaty as China, India, Brazil, USA, Australia, etc), or other countries that will cheat on their emission reports because there is no way to check on their emissions. If you have read the provisions of the Treaty, you should know by now there is no way for any country to audit another country’s reports.

That’s why Tony Blair wrote Kyoto’s epitaph at Gleneagles, Scotland, last year, when announcing the “increased efficiency” initiative in order for the European Union to “save face” for not complying with Kyoto. He didn’t imagine that the USA would launch its Asia-Pacific proposal.

This is a political matter I rather not discuss because you can opine whatever you want and it will always sound good. And you will never reach an agreement on anything that way. Science is one thing that shouldn’t mingle with politics.

But technical and scientific matters are a better topic. There will be no benefits for any CO2 reductions. That’s an impossible dream, and a very bad one, because CO2 is not pollution –it is food for the vegetal world, and we all mammals are living because there is a vegetal world that benefits from increased levels of CO2. This point is not debatable. There is not a single (serious) scientist that would say that Earth would benefit by a reduction of CO2.

The western nation’s need for decreasing on fossil fuels has nothing to do with CO2 going up or down. It has to do with politics, not science. Science can help to reduce the dependence on fuels by developing alternate –but effective—energy sources. As to the present day, alternate effective energy sources are hydropower and nuclear power, with hydropower reaching to its limits.

Other energy sources proposed - hydrogen, wind, solar, tidal, etc, - are simply in a very primitive state of developing. Nothing could be as attractive and desirable as free energy. But in this field, the Laws of Thermodynamics tell us “there is no such thing as a free lunch.” Wind power has too many disadvantages regarding its real power output, and continuous electricity supply to the grid, maintenance costs, real CO2 savings (there is a lot CO2 produced for making a single wind station, and the need for backup conventional oil fuelled generators working idle for providing electricity in case of a sudden decrease or total loss of wind). And those environmental problems as landscape spoiling, very low frequency noise (seriously unhealthy), migratory bird killing, and some more.

If mankind had erred always on the side of caution, then we would still be jumping from branch to branch and looking for the moment when there was not danger for drinking water from the nearby river. That’s why the Precautionary Principle must be eradicated from any legislation in the world, and politicians planning to include that Principle as “enforceable” should be committed to an asylum.

I know you will jump in a backwards somersault with what I’ve exposed. But, what the heck, we are here to have fun.

 

[Edufer]

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:

They should make up their minds and make clear an obscure point: Are ice sheet breaking away chunks of ice into the sea (as Larsen-B in 2004), or are they melting away. They are to totally different things. Melting is ice going back to its liquid state. That takes time –lots of time, especially in Antarctica where temperatures seldom reach “melting” point, as in Greenland too.

Larsen-B ice shelf broke because it had grown to the point that the ice resistance couldn’t support the sheer weight of the increasing ice. Larsen-B had broken that same way many times in the past, it will grow again and will break once more. Nothing new. In case you didn’t understand, Larsen-B didn’t melt –it collapsed. Warming had nothing to do with it.

Data abounds in the web, but try to look for scientific sites dealing with glaciers.

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.

You will die with the word "conspiracy" in your lips. Guess what? Conspirators will kill you. Beware.

My point on Sao Paulo needs no clarifying. If you cannot read a graph, then don’t ask me to do it for you. For decades Sao Paulo had a flat line trend. Zero growth, during a time when CO2 was rapidly increasing in the world. The “theory” didn’t work here –temperatures didn’t pay attention and kept flat until industrialization came along and converted Sao Paulo in the biggest industrial city in the Southern hemisphere. It passed from 500.000 inhabitants in 1955 to more than 20 million in just a few years.

The Urban Heat Island Effect –the effect of human induced warming by paving, urban areas developed to a huge extensions, heat provided by industries, etc, contributed to raise its temperature trends. But don’t think that Sao Paulo is much warmer during daytime now than before the urban growth. The big paved and built area absorbed heat during the day, and released slowly it during the night. Night temperatures were the ones that rose and the ones to blame for the warming trend. That’s not to say that daytime (maximum) temperatures didn’t rise, but the rise was much smaller than the night ones (that should show minima temperatures). Minima temperatures were the ones tha increased, and that is reflected in the graph, following lineally the urban growth.

If you have PayPal you can send me $50 for the lesson. I shouldn’t be working for free.

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

I didn’t accuse you of anything – you are nothing, I mean you are nothing worth of accusing. I was just giving an example but you misunderstood –and for what I’ve seen up to now, as you misunderstand some aspects of climatology and meteorology.

Btw, the wird "data" is plural.

BTW: I Provide DATA (lots of it, so it is plural) BTW: “wird” is a “weird” word.

About Megie, Nice. It still does not make him right, or what he says right. In fact, many things he said were wrong. But that is a matter for a different discussion.


Cheer up! The sky is not falling!

 

[a_unique_person]

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....

This is a huge misrepresentation. The idea that the climate is subject to change is well known, including the regular occurance of ice ages. The next one should be about due, and that is all they were claiming. There were no Intergovernmental committees to address the issue, no international conferences to deal with cooling, etc. The measurements did not indicate one was about to arrive.

 

[Mark]

My point on Sao Paulo needs no clarifying. If you cannot read a graph, then don’t ask me to do it for you.
If you have PayPal you can send me $50 for the lesson. I shouldn’t be working for free.


I didn’t accuse you of anything – you are nothing, I mean you are nothing worth of accusing. I was just giving an example but you misunderstood –and for what I’ve seen up to now, as you misunderstand some aspects of climatology and meteorology.


Cheer up! The sky is not falling!

No, but my interest in trying to discuss this with someone who has to rely on petty insults to get his point across is at an end.

And there is a HUGE difference between a typo and someone who claims to have all this scientific knowledge, but cannot tell singular from plural.

 

[Orwell]

You keep accusing me of invoking conspiracies, when it is you or Mark, or Cleon, etc that has brought the word “conspiracy” to the debate. But that’s an old trick used when you have run out of arguments and want to take the high ground and put the other person in the defensive. It won’t work with me.

You have accused thousands of scientists of cooking and manipulating their data in order to make GW work. If that's not a vast conspiracy, I don't know what is.

The fact that Science and Nature will ever print anything that could jeopardize years of hard work pushing the GW scam (or anything else favoured by the establishment) is something even recognized by their own editors, and has been proven by the rejection of many studies that ended published in less glamorous journals –but earned prizes for being the “Study of The Year”. They even refused to print letters to the editors sent by Nobel Prizes commenting in unfavourable ways the GW scam. And their “corrigenda” ordered to Mann for his sloppy work on the Hockey Stick never was fully acknowledged by Mann –only a mere recognition that there are some faulty files in MBH98 that were not important to the final result. Go figure!

More slander. One of the reasons why I don't believe you is that you don't back up any of your accusations. Are we supposed to take your word for it? Have you ever heard of the following sceptic rule: "extraordinary facts demand extraordinary evidence"? Those who think GW is happening have provided us with quite a lot of evidence. You have mostly provided invective.

There is no such thing as reducing CO2 from the atmosphere. Nature produces CO2 in quantities that are out of our control. Even human emissions are out of control for many reasons -- the main one is that no country wants to reduce its productivity and its place in the international markets, favouring other countries that won’t reduce its energy consumption (those who aren’t in the Kyoto Treaty as China, India, Brazil, USA, Australia, etc), or other countries that will cheat on their emission reports because there is no way to check on their emissions. If you have read the provisions of the Treaty, you should know by now there is no way for any country to audit another country’s reports.

Kyoto is one thing, GW is another. We are debating the reality of GW. If a country reduces their GW gas emissions without signing Kyoto, I wouldn't care less. I don't care how gov. and people do it, I just hope they do it.

This is a political matter I rather not discuss because you can opine whatever you want and it will always sound good. And you will never reach an agreement on anything that way. Science is one thing that shouldn’t mingle with politics.

Historically, science and politics have always been mingled, and they will continue to be mingled. See, once you have the data and the interpretation of the data, what you do with it comes down mostly to politics. What politics shouldn't do is mess with the data.

But technical and scientific matters are a better topic. There will be no benefits for any CO2 reductions. That’s an impossible dream, and a very bad one, because CO2 is not pollution –it is food for the vegetal world, and we all mammals are living because there is a vegetal world that benefits from increased levels of CO2. This point is not debatable. There is not a single (serious) scientist that would say that Earth would benefit by a reduction of CO2.

So all those scientists who disagree with you are, by definition, not serious, eh?

The western nation’s need for decreasing on fossil fuels has nothing to do with CO2 going up or down. It has to do with politics, not science. Science can help to reduce the dependence on fuels by developing alternate –but effective—energy sources. As to the present day, alternate effective energy sources are hydropower and nuclear power, with hydropower reaching to its limits.

Other energy sources proposed - hydrogen, wind, solar, tidal, etc, - are simply in a very primitive state of developing. Nothing could be as attractive and desirable as free energy. But in this field, the Laws of Thermodynamics tell us “there is no such thing as a free lunch.” Wind power has too many disadvantages regarding its real power output, and continuous electricity supply to the grid, maintenance costs, real CO2 savings (there is a lot CO2 produced for making a single wind station, and the need for backup conventional oil fuelled generators working idle for providing electricity in case of a sudden decrease or total loss of wind). And those environmental problems as landscape spoiling, very low frequency noise (seriously unhealthy), migratory bird killing, and some more.

Once again, you're just stating your opinion. Nobody is proposing that we should depend on one single type of renewable energy. It should be noted that, as far oil is concerned, we have pretty much put our energy eggs in the same basket for most of the last century. And oil isn't renewable, it will run-out eventually.

If mankind had erred always on the side of caution, then we would still be jumping from branch to branch and looking for the moment when there was not danger for drinking water from the nearby river. That’s why the Precautionary Principle must be eradicated from any legislation in the world, and politicians planning to include that Principle as “enforceable” should be committed to an asylum.

It should be pointed out that it's you and the other anti-GW crusaders that are being the sticks-in-the-mud concerning this. You're the ones who decry the need for fuel conservation technology and clean energy. You're the ones who are clinging to an increasingly outdated way of life.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

It should be pointed out that it's you and the other anti-GW crusaders that are being the sticks-in-the-mud concerning this. You're the ones who decry the need for fuel conservation technology and clean energy. You're the ones who are clinging to an increasingly outdated way of life.

I don't find any contadiction between both positions:
It would be very good to have clean energy and more fuel conservation.
But does that lead to "GW is caused by human activity"?

 

[Orwell]

I don't find any contadiction between both positions:
It would be very good to have clean energy and more fuel conservation.
But does that lead to "GW is caused by human activity"?

Oh boy... Try to follow the line of reasoning, ok? See, the anti-GW people typically argue against doing anything in two ways: they either deny the whole thing or important parts of it, and/or they say that the economical price of doing anything will be too steep. I mentioned in a past post that I was of the opinion that reducing our reliance on fossil fuels would be a good idea, GW or no GW. Anthropogenic is just added incentive. I think that, in the long run, the economical price of doing nothing will be huge. Fuel prices have already increased and they will probably increase even further, the US is engaged in a disastrous occupation in great part because of its need for oil, the environmental consequences of continuous fossil fuel burning will be very costly; some people argue that they're already very costly...

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Then you have to show that GW is man made. We agree about the need to reduce or even eliminate if possible fuel comsumption. We disagree about GW (for now. It's hard to find the truth among 45 thousand links and papers). That's what I'm trying to do in the other thread.

 

[Orwell]

Then you have to show that GW is man made. We agree about the need to reduce or even eliminate if possible fuel comsumption. We disagree about GW (for now. It's hard to find the truth among 45 thousand links and papers). That's what I'm trying to do in the other thread.

A wee aside: there's always been a bit of GW going on in the Earth's atmosphere, otherwise we wouldn't be here. You mean to say: then you have to show that the recent increase in global temperatures that has been attributed to augmenting GW due to an increase in emissions of global warming produced gases is man made.

I am not an expert in this field, and I don't think that I could produce an argument that would make you change your mind. But I and others have provided you with a bunch of links were experts talk about the reality of anthropogenic GW.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

What you don't know is that there is nothing to change. I posted a paper showing that Mann's study was flawed. Then I read some others, but no one rebutting it, instead restating the position that the original rebuttal was wrong. What seems interesting is that Mann haven't made his algorythm available and also that the original study has not been ever replicable (wich would be hard to do without the original algorythm).
As soon as I can see the algorythm, the raw data, run the algorythm against the data and checked that the data has nost been picked carefully to support a point, I'll happily concede the whole point.

 

[jj]

Larsen-B ice shelf broke because it had grown to the point that the ice resistance couldn’t support the sheer weight of the increasing ice. Larsen-B had broken that same way many times in the past, it will grow again and will break once more. Nothing new. In case you didn’t understand, Larsen-B didn’t melt –it collapsed. Warming had nothing to do with it.

Interesting, you claim factually "Warming had nothing to do with it."

Please explain how you can prove the negative. You've made a host of absolute pronouncements, and this seems to be among the most ridiculous to date. You're claiming proof of the negative. Please explain clearly, convincingly, etc, how you can do that. NOTICE: One insult, only ONE, in your reply, and your entire reply goes in the wastebasket.

Now, of course, as it gets warmer, and still well, well under freezing, ice does flow faster. This is not news, this is well-understood physics. So, say, if the ice gets a half-degree warmer, that means it moves faster. If it moves faster, things break off sooner and faster.

Please explain, and you'll have to go into the hydrodynamic physics AND DEMONSTRATE EXPERTISE OF YOUR OWN, in order to claim otherwise. You have made absolute statements, between your insults and offensive speech to others, that suggest that you claim the authority of a well-known expert. Now, since you've suggested that, let's see your chops.

 

[jj]

Then you have to show that GW is man made.

Bullpucky! If the climate is warming enough to affect growing conditions and sea level, I don't CARE why, we need to understand it.

Why are you in such a state of defiant denial, anyhow.

While we're at it, what do you have to say about the measured pH change of the oceans due to CO2 absorbtion, anyhow?

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Well, the point of this thread is WHY. AFAIK, no one is denying GW.

 

[Orwell]

As soon as I can see the algorythm, the raw data, run the algorythm against the data and checked that the data has nost been picked carefully to support a point, I'll happily concede the whole point.

Aw come on, who are you trying to fool here? As far as I can tell from your comments of plant biology and greenhouse gas emissions, I very much doubt that you have the scientific expertise needed to do such a thing!

I don't have it either by the way, but I never pretended that I did.

 

[Edufer]

You have accused thousands of scientists of cooking and manipulating their data in order to make GW work. If that's not a vast conspiracy, I don't know what is.

Simply what I said: clever and dishonest people trying to keep their paychecks coming. Read my post again. No need for a conspiracy. Just a broad “consensus” over that providing “the magic fabric for the king” they will get their monthly reward.

More slander. One of the reasons why I don't believe you is that you don't back up any of your accusations. Are we supposed to take your word for it? Have you ever heard of the following sceptic rule: "extraordinary facts demand extraordinary evidence"? Those who think GW is happening have provided us with quite a lot of evidence. You have mostly provided invective.

You are still living in a thermos; a sealed container with no connection with reality. I don’t need to provide any evidence for something that is in the public domain. As you know, “corruption does not give a properly signed receipt”, so if someone inside the sect or the scam group does not go public denouncing the fraud, it will be extremely difficult to “prove” somebody is getting money for his contribution to the fraud.

I guess you know perfectly well that James Randi teamed with Sterwart, for debunking Jacques Benveniste’s fraud on homeopathic dilution. That was easy, but most frauds are only discovered because an insider (perhaps a bad paid one) just speaks out.

Those who think that GW is a fraud –as presented by the IPCC and accomplices- have also provided ample evidence for their claims. The difference is that GWarmers have the support of the greedy media, while the “sceptics” are denied their access to the press and “glamorous” science journals. That’s a fact know by ALL scientists, but most of them won’t talk –their job, their family food, is at stake.

Historically, science and politics have always been mingled, and they will continue to be mingled. See, once you have the data and the interpretation of the data, what you do with it comes down mostly to politics. What politics shouldn't do is mess with the data.

I agree completely. This proves my point!!

So all those scientists who disagree with you are, by definition, not serious, eh?

Your question is a fallacy. Seriousness has nothing to do with greed, fear of losing their jobs, or advancing an ideological agenda (Malthusianism). If I disagree with someone, my arguments do not automatically lose its seriousness, and the reverse is also true. Only contrasting both arguments and evidences against known basic physical laws (as Thermodynamics) will tell which arguments are valid and which are not.

 

[Orwell]

Simply what I said: clever and dishonest people trying to keep their paychecks coming. Read my post again. No need for a conspiracy. Just a broad “consensus” over that providing “the magic fabric for the king” they will get their monthly reward.


You are still living in a thermos; a sealed container with no connection with reality. I don’t need to provide any evidence for something that is in the public domain. As you know, “corruption does not give a properly signed receipt”, so if someone inside the sect or the scam group does not go public denouncing the fraud, it will be extremely difficult to “prove” somebody is getting money for his contribution to the fraud.

I guess you know perfectly well that James Randi teamed with Sterwart, for debunking Jacques Benveniste’s fraud on homeopathic dilution. That was easy, but most frauds are only discovered because an insider (perhaps a bad paid one) just speaks out.

Those who think that GW is a fraud –as presented by the IPCC and accomplices- have also provided ample evidence for their claims. The difference is that GWarmers have the support of the greedy media, while the “sceptics” are denied their access to the press and “glamorous” science journals. That’s a fact know by ALL scientists, but most of them won’t talk –their job, their family food, is at stake.


I agree completely. This proves my point!!


Your question is a fallacy. Seriousness has nothing to do with greed, fear of losing their jobs, or advancing an ideological agenda (Malthusianism). If I disagree with someone, my arguments do not automatically lose its seriousness, and the reverse is also true. Only contrasting both arguments and evidences against known basic physical laws (as Thermodynamics) will tell which arguments are valid and which are not.

I don't have the patience to answer this pile of male bovine manure, and I don't think I should waste time arguing with a quack who can't tell a fallacy from a rhetorical question. Could someone else do the honours?

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Aw come on, who are you trying to fool here? As far as I can tell from your comments of plant biology and greenhouse gas emissions, I very much doubt that you have the scientific expertise needed to do such a thing!

I don't have it either by the way, but I never pretended that I did.

Well, you have debunked your strawmen. Congratulations! You win the debate against yourself.