Canadian Scientist comes out against Global Warming

[tjinaz]

Good read... whether you belive it or not it outlines the current political influence on science. I am sure it happens on both sides.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Seems like this has gone beyond science and more toward an ideology.

[worth]

Seems like this has gone beyond science and more toward an ideology.

I think you hit the nail on the head with that statement.

[Slava]

Very interesting. I overheard someone say that the environment is the "moral dilemma" of our times the other day. I think that this is directly tied in with the ideology comment you made above. It's hard for the "average guy" to know where all of this takes him!

[Cowperson]

For amusement, the Deniers Page at The National Post.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=c6a32614-f906-4597-993d-f181196a6d71

Cowperson

[Looger]

definitely not isolated, here's an article i stumbled across on another forum:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0

Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists, describes the logic that led him -- and most everyone else -- to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming.

Step One Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect.

Step Two As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the 20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human activities.
Step Three No other mechanism explains the warming. Without another candidate, greenhouses gases necessarily became the cause.

...

Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.
"In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."

Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.

"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."

there's plenty of dissenting views to the UN (cough TAX cough AGENDA ahem OPEN YOUR EYES) reports, problem is what's getting force-fed down the media pipe.

[llama64]

Can't campaign on a platform against gay marriage or abortion anymore, so they gotta make something a moral dilemma.

Global warming is happening, it's not a matter of belief or not, the facts are there. Whether humans are conclusively to blame and whether this is a bad thing :whistle: is up for debate. I mean really, how many massive coastal cities do we need?

Vancouver could use a good soaking me thinks...

I find it amusing when people state that they don't "believe" in global warming.

[Looger]

i should add that i'd never heard of shariv, so how prominent his research is or how vetted his statements are i cannot attest to.

but it is in a serious paper, i guess it's up to anyone interested to check with Lawrence Solomon of the National Post to follow up.

[Slava]

I guess my point wasn't on whether the planet is warming or not; I think that there is enough evidence to say that it is. But who knows what the cause is, and who really knows whether it can be reversed even if we know what the cause is. At the end of the day, people just feel better when they think they know what causes things though.

[Looger]

I find it amusing when people state that they don't "believe" in global warming.
i keep hearing that 'global warming deniers' say this but i have yet to meet ANYONE that has expressed this to me, in that global warming thread we had a week+ ago i don't recall one post saying that the climate isn't changing.

what's really going on here?

EDIT: it sure sounds to me like some people are trying to polarize this debate, the two camps being 'believers' and 'deniers'. so brilliant.

[mykalberta]

The truth is we will never know for sure until its either too late or nothing happens.

Its the oil cruisis of the 70s all over again, we will run out by the year 2000 - oh wait we were wrong, its the year 2007, oh wait wrong again the year 3000 :)

Scientists cant find a direct link between humans and apes yet, only hypothesis's. Until that simple (what should be simple if its true) link can be made, I wont trust any scientists.

The only truth is this, releasing carbon emissions into the atmosphere is not a good thing, who knows what it causes - but its not a good thing.

I have always wondered how the UN signed off on the Kyoto Protocol and yet there was that report last week on how the scientists have confirmed Global warming - what is the point of a UN sponsored report when its supposedly already been confirmed because of Kyoto?

Unless Kyoto was just Europe's attempt to balance the economic playing field of the mid to late 90's with the US and Canada (since they are magically the only countries that have to do anything). Funny how that ended up hmmmm.

MYK

[ken0042]

I seem to recall hearing that the average temperatures on both Mars and Jupiter are on the rise as well.

I'm not saying that I don't think that we are having an impact on our environment. I am saying that it is good to hear both sides of the story before making conclusions.

[worth]

Yeah, there have been scientists that have said that the suns temperature has been rising, thus affecting the temperatures of other planets as well, which could be one of the major factors to consider about global warming.

[Looger]

I'm not saying that I don't think that we are having an impact on our environment. I am saying that it is good to hear both sides of the story before making conclusions.
i hope that people realize that when issues as complex as this have 'two sides' we are in deep deep trouble.

[ken0042]

Perhaps "two sides" was a poor choice of words on my part.

Maybe "multiple hypotheses" or "multiple contributing factors" would have been better.

[Looger]

good to hear that you're not a brainwashed journalism student.

EDIT: not all journalism students are brainwashed, poor choice of wording, sorry.

[Cowperson]

Further amusement, China says its up to the West to take care of global warming . . .

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=0fa54116-f239-4a42-b09d-579e1fa53f21&k=9084

On the other hand, the International Energy Agency said a few days ago indicates China will pass America as the number one CO2 emitter by 2009:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/business/worldbusiness/07pollute.html?ex=1320555600&en=bc1f15db49d2b390&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Also, the number one oil bull on Bay Street cut his energy weighting yesterday, saying:

Crude oil consumption in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries dropped last year for the first time in 20 years as a result of the aggressive actions by many of those nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to CIBC World Markets Inc.

“Governments are waging a war on carbon,” said Jeff Rubin, chief strategist and chief economist at CIBC World Markets in his Canadian portfolio strategy outlook report this morning. “The decline in crude consumption in the OECD last year seems further evidence of policy-mandated demand-destruction aimed at reducing oil consumption in an effort to abate GHG emissions,” he added.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070205.wrubin0205/BNStory/Business/

EDIT:

A few days ago in the Globe & Mail, this feature on The Dirtiest City In The World. How would you like to live in this place?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070203.wclimatechina03/BNStory/National

Cowperson

[llama64]

i hope that people realize that when issues as complex as this have 'two sides' we are in deep deep trouble.

Yup, but look at what the next federal election is about. Complex and important discussions often get jumped on by the idiots who run for public office and then try to gain support by polarizing the issue into a us vs them debate.

Every political party does it, and as far as I can tell, it's only hurting society. Why do we let issues like this be governed by the masses? You can't tell me that Homer Simpson is qualified to weigh in on things like this.

Authority for climate policy should be left to those who actually know ****, and not run out in the public court.

[Looger]

well llama64, i would think that the answer lies more in the 'educate homer' direction, and less in the scientific dictatorship direction.

brezhinski's 'elite unrestrained by morals' is not what i would lobby for...

[Bill Bumface]

Really, either way it doesn't matter. The earth is warming, no one denies this. Whether its humans or not is a useless debate.

Either it is, and we need to clean up our act, or its not, and we clean up our act.

Both courses of action arrive at a positive outcome.

[Looger]

i disagree hulkrogan.

the heart of the debate for me lies in the mechanism at work to 'clean up our act'.

being blamed (taxed) for something i didn't do - that is finance entire economies to go in this wasteful direction, when no emergency situation exists, is not a positive outcome and doesn't necessarily reduce emissions - look at kyoto, where the rich countries can just buy credit off of the poor countries that aren't even close to being allowed to HAVE polluting industries! what total garbage, what insane nonsense.

the blame game is a bad one to play, and unfortunately it's one being played.

i think we should realize that we're not in emergency mode, and change via regulations and new standards to adjust to lower outputs of harm without deep-sixing our economies or filling up the coffers of the super-rich with global taxes - a bad precedent.

[Bill Bumface]

i disagree hulkrogan.

the heart of the debate for me lies in the mechanism at work to 'clean up our act'.

being blamed (taxed) for something i didn't do - that is finance entire economies to go in this wasteful direction, when no emergency situation exists, is not a positive outcome and doesn't necessarily reduce emissions - look at kyoto, where the rich countries can just buy credit off of the poor countries that aren't even close to being allowed to HAVE polluting industries! what total garbage, what insane nonsense.

the blame game is a bad one to play, and unfortunately it's one being played.

i think we should realize that we're not in emergency mode, and change via regulations and new standards to adjust to lower outputs of harm without deep-sixing our economies or filling up the coffers of the super-rich with global taxes - a bad precedent.

First of all, incase it starts heading that way, lets not get into a debate whether kyoto is the right course of action, whether or not global warming is caused by humans.

Second, your response doesn't really address my point. You responded by saying "I disagree because humans aren't causing global warming so we should react differently".

My point is that I don't think we can say 100% either way. There is VERY strong evidence that at the least we are contributing to some extent. My personal opinion is that its fairly obvious we aren't helping any, but that is beside the point. The safest route is to ignore the cause of global warming and to work towards minimizing our impact. Reducing air pollution has a fairly obvious net positive effect.

[Looger]

First of all, incase it starts heading that way, lets not get into a debate whether kyoto is the right course of action, whether or not global warming is caused by humans.
kyoto is aboot the only benchmark we have for these globalist solutions, and it's a pretty terrible one.
Second, your response doesn't really address my point. You responded by saying "I disagree because humans aren't causing global warming so we should react differently".
i said no such thing.

i think that we should simply not freak out and do something drastic.
My point is that I don't think we can say 100% either way. There is VERY strong evidence that at the least we are contributing to some extent. My personal opinion is that its fairly obvious we aren't helping any, but that is beside the point. The safest route is to ignore the cause of global warming and to work towards minimizing our impact. Reducing air pollution has a fairly obvious net positive effect.
i agree. we should reduce our output.

my point is that this is being spun as a crisis, and with a crisis radical things happen.

problem - reaction - solution

create the problem - manipulate the reaction - provide the solution

this is quite literally the oldest trick in the book and i cannot stand idly by while people openly discuss falling for it again.

[calculoso]

I don't think that humans are the main driving force in creating global warming, but anything that cleans up our air has to be a good thing.

Enough of the smog.. enough of the polutants.. enough of the smoke.. enough of the acid rain... let's just clean things up regardless!

[Looger]

calculoso, aren't you supposed to be in the galapagos islands for nixon's head's party? i hear that he stepped out for some smokes - really good ones!

<semi-obscure futurama global warming reference...>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgE_mkR2oac

none like it hot!

[jolinar of malkshor]

Can't campaign on a platform against gay marriage or abortion anymore, so they gotta make something a moral dilemma.

Global warming is happening, it's not a matter of belief or not, the facts are there. Whether humans are conclusively to blame and whether this is a bad thing :whistle: is up for debate. I mean really, how many massive coastal cities do we need?

Vancouver could use a good soaking me thinks...

I find it amusing when people state that they don't "believe" in global warming.

I find it amusing that many people automatically think that the main cause is human activity.....seeing since Earth has had numberous cycles of warming and cooling. Did you know that there use to be an ocean where Alberta is now???

Come on now....there are sooo many variables we really do not know what is heating the earth.

Are CO2 a contributing factor? Yes for sure, but there are many other factors that we really don't know how much it contributes.

[jolinar of malkshor]

I don't think that humans are the main driving force in creating global warming, but anything that cleans up our air has to be a good thing.

Enough of the smog.. enough of the polutants.. enough of the smoke.. enough of the acid rain... let's just clean things up regardless!

I agree that we should take steps to reduce air pollutants. Kyoto does nto do that. Besides, CO2 is not a pollutant. Lets focus on serious air pollutants not a natural occuring gas that plants need to live.

[JimmytheT]

The truth is we will never know for sure until its either too late or nothing happens.

Its the oil cruisis of the 70s all over again, we will run out by the year 2000 - oh wait we were wrong, its the year 2007, oh wait wrong again the year 3000 :)

Scientists cant find a direct link between humans and apes yet, only hypothesis's. Until that simple (what should be simple if its true) link can be made, I wont trust any scientists.

The only truth is this, releasing carbon emissions into the atmosphere is not a good thing, who knows what it causes - but its not a good thing.

I have always wondered how the UN signed off on the Kyoto Protocol and yet there was that report last week on how the scientists have confirmed Global warming - what is the point of a UN sponsored report when its supposedly already been confirmed because of Kyoto?

Unless Kyoto was just Europe's attempt to balance the economic playing field of the mid to late 90's with the US and Canada (since they are magically the only countries that have to do anything). Funny how that ended up hmmmm.

MYK

I do not want to derail this thread, however the bolded statement has to be addressed. Scientists have not found a direct fossil link to a single common ancestor for modern apes and humans, however there is plenty of other types of direct evidence, like mapping Genomes, other fossilized remnants of ancient human and ape species that are now extinct etc.

Please try to understand and learn more about the scientific method, modern biology and primatology before making such statements like the one above. Also understand that for the remains of a creature to become fossilized, very special circumstances must be present. Over 99% of plant and animal remains will never get fossilized.

Okay, I'm done, back to global warming

[Bill Bumface]

A little useless and off topic here, but it ****es me off that one of the easiest ways to remove C02 from our atmosphere is illegally getting hacked down everyday and no one is doing anything to stop it.

http://images.wri.org/map_brazilamazonforests_p27.jpg

[Frequitude]

i hope that people realize that when issues as complex as this have 'two sides' we are in deep deep trouble.

Where would you place global warming on the fear-love lifeline?

[jolinar of malkshor]

A little useless and off topic here, but it ****es me off that one of the easiest ways to remove C02 from our atmosphere is illegally getting hacked down everyday and no one is doing anything to stop it.

http://images.wri.org/map_brazilamazonforests_p27.jpg

I agree....it saddens me aswell. But Brazil is a sovereign nation....there is nothing we can really do other than purchase all that land.....and they might not even allow that.

[Looger]

Where would you place global warming on the fear-love lifeline?
somewhere close to ling ling and the wallet!

[mykalberta]

I do not want to derail this thread, however the bolded statement has to be addressed. Scientists have not found a direct fossil link to a single common ancestor for modern apes and humans, however there is plenty of other types of direct evidence, like mapping Genomes, other fossilized remnants of ancient human and ape species that are now extinct etc.

Please try to understand and learn more about the scientific method, modern biology and primatology before making such statements like the one above. Also understand that for the remains of a creature to become fossilized, very special circumstances must be present. Over 99% of plant and animal remains will never get fossilized.

Okay, I'm done, back to global warming

No, scientists have not found a direct link, where again do male apes have 1 less rib bone than female apes - yah thanks. Regurgitating what professors say doesnt make it fact.

I also apologize for derailing this thread, although no DIRECT link has been found. I as simply using it as an example of the scientific communities zeal to solve everything when they cant solve the simplest thing.

Again, sorry - I could not let that post go.

MYK

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Good read... whether you belive it or not it outlines the current political influence on science. I am sure it happens on both sides.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Seems like this has gone beyond science and more toward an ideology.


No offense, but if you look closely into the career of Dr. Ball, he's not actually a "scientist"--in the sense that he doesn't do actual science. He's a member of an ideological think tank, and a former professor who hasn't published an article in a refereed scientific journal in decades. Not to say that there isn't a debate, but this guy's a quack.

[worth]

No, scientists have not found a direct link, where again do male apes have 1 less rib bone than female apes - yah thanks. Regurgitating what professors say doesnt make it fact.

I also apologize for derailing this thread, although no DIRECT link has been found. I as simply using it as an example of the scientific communities zeal to solve everything when they cant solve the simplest thing.

Again, sorry - I could not let that post go.

MYK

WTF are you talking about 1 less rib bone?

[Burninator]

No, scientists have not found a direct link, where again do male apes have 1 less rib bone than female apes - yah thanks. Regurgitating what professors say doesnt make it fact.

I also apologize for derailing this thread, although no DIRECT link has been found. I as simply using it as an example of the scientific communities zeal to solve everything when they cant solve the simplest thing.

Again, sorry - I could not let that post go.

MYK

Yeah why haven't scientists solved something as simple as the origin as man? What a bunch of morons. You think they would have thrown that together over a weekend. We should just stop listening to them.

The whole man is descendants of apes theory is widely accepted by the scientific community. Of course it is just a theory, pretty much everything is (gravity for example). Most scientists never claim to have a 100% answer to everything. This goes for the missing link and global warming.

[Looger]

this is some DANGEROUS logic here...

just because evolution is by far the majority opinion among scientists, and it's an 'unproven' theory by the criteria that pretty much every theory is unprovable, then by extension global warming must be caused predominantly by man's 20th century waste gases, even when nothing close to the evolution-missing-link theory consensus exists regarding global warming, and the entire debate is muddied at every turn!

good one.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

this is some DANGEROUS logic here...

just because evolution is by far the majority opinion among scientists, and it's an 'unproven' theory by the criteria that pretty much every theory is unprovable, then by extension global warming must be caused predominantly by man's 20th century waste gases, even when nothing close to the evolution-missing-link theory consensus exists regarding global warming, and the entire debate is muddied at every turn!

good one.

I'm interested to know where these legions of scientists who don't believe in anthropogenic climate change are--and why they haven't been publishing their findings as original research in scholarly, peer-reviewed journals. If they know something, don't they have a responsibility to share it with the world?

Maybe they're too busy writing op-ed pieces. :confused:

[Azure]

I don't think that humans are the main driving force in creating global warming, but anything that cleans up our air has to be a good thing.

Enough of the smog.. enough of the polutants.. enough of the smoke.. enough of the acid rain... let's just clean things up regardless!

Very well said.

Lets go another route here....why don't we start using more nuclear energy, instead of fossil fuels?

I know it will create a problem with waste disposal, but whats worse....global warming, or waste disposal? Since its 90% probable that global warming is man-made. According to the latest reports...

:confused:

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Here's an interesting read for anyone interested in the real story behind "Dr." Timothy Ball.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/09/tim_ball_sues_for_325000.php

The full story is also available on globeandmail.com for subscribers. Essentially, Dr. Ball is suing a professor of climatology (a REAL scientist) for defamation, after Prof. Dan Johnson called him out for playing fast and loose with his credentials. Debate is a good thing: a debate on climate change that shuts out proven liars and quacks like Timothy Ball is even better.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Very well said.

Lets go another route here....why don't we start using more nuclear energy, instead of fossil fuels?

I know it will create a problem with waste disposal, but whats worse....global warming, or waste disposal? Since its 90% probable that global warming is man-made. According to the latest reports...

:confused:


FWIW, I agree. Dealing with Nuclear waste is, as a matter of scale, a far smaller problem than global climate change. I think any honest environmentalist ought to recognize that nuclear power is the next logical step in getting rid of our dependence on fossil fuels--at least until things like Hydrogen become more practical. As it stands, nuclear power is the most feasible alternative.

[photon]

I agree, I don't understand why there isn't a lot more pushing for nuclear power, or at least more reasearch into it to make the waste easier to deal with. Yes it'd be nice to get to the point of zero emissions, fusion, solar, etc, but while we're working on those nuclear seems like a reasonable stepping stone.

[worth]

I don't see how substituting one problem for another is progress.

[photon]

The amount of waste produced would be far far less and would be controlable, and as was said it becomes a management issue. As opposed to the current method of taking the byproducts and dumping them into the atmosphere.

[icarus]

Regarding ideology... those who opposed and still oppose the theory of evolution also try to make the debate about ideology. Scientists, they claim, have a vested interest in dismantling religion and so all have conspired to concoct the theory.

So if you are willing to consider the possibility that ideology fuels the climate change argument, then you should also be willing to countenance the proposition that ideology perpetuates the theory of evolution.

[Tron_fdc]

FWIW I read an article stating nuclear power was one of the worst polluters when it came to the different types of power generation. I'll have to do some digging to find it, but the point is that it seems a lot of power generation is not as clean as some might think.

I was also told by a political figure that we'll be getting nuclear power up north in the very near future, not that it was a big secret in the first place.

[icarus]

I agree, I don't understand why there isn't a lot more pushing for nuclear power, or at least more reasearch into it to make the waste easier to deal with.
A few months ago I met an inspector from the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna who told me that the way nuclear waste is dealt with is unquestionably safe and effective.

Essentially you lock the waste away in a super thick vault deep in a mountain or underground. The negligible amount of radiation that escapes from the vault is still too far away from any living thing to cause a problem. He had me convinced.

[kevman]

Here's an interesting read for anyone interested in the real story behind "Dr." Timothy Ball.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/09/tim_ball_sues_for_325000.php

The full story is also available on globeandmail.com for subscribers. Essentially, Dr. Ball is suing a professor of climatology (a REAL scientist) for defamation, after Prof. Dan Johnson called him out for playing fast and loose with his credentials. Debate is a good thing: a debate on climate change that shuts out proven liars and quacks like Timothy Ball is even better.

What'd you think about the article from the National Post that called out Gore as a liar? (in last weeks Global Warming debate)

In reference to your comment about the legions of scientists that don't believe we're causing the issue I showed you an article, peer reviewed no less, that demonstrates this view last week. I can find you more but it doesn't seem like you want to read them anyways.


On a somewhat related note... doesn't Mr. Moore have a documentry with a major point that American's love fear? The media knows that fear sells and as a result that's what they're selling. I'm not trying to throw out conspiracy theory's I just found it humerous (Moore complaining abour fear mongering...Moore's buddy Gore using fear mongering...get it? har har :D). A prime example can be found on CNN involving the flooding of San Francisco. They have "scientists" that claim that global warming will completely flood the San Francisco air port by the year 2100. This astonishing realization came after the IPCC anounced last week that climate change could increase sea levels 7-23inches by the end of the century. All Global Warming debate aside if they built the airport only 7inches above the sea level they deserve to have it flooded :bag: That's ignoring the fact that the run way is actually 13ft. above sea level...

[Flames Draft Watcher]

i disagree hulkrogan.

the heart of the debate for me lies in the mechanism at work to 'clean up our act'.

being blamed (taxed) for something i didn't do - that is finance entire economies to go in this wasteful direction, when no emergency situation exists, is not a positive outcome and doesn't necessarily reduce emissions - look at kyoto, where the rich countries can just buy credit off of the poor countries that aren't even close to being allowed to HAVE polluting industries! what total garbage, what insane nonsense.

the blame game is a bad one to play, and unfortunately it's one being played.

i think we should realize that we're not in emergency mode, and change via regulations and new standards to adjust to lower outputs of harm without deep-sixing our economies or filling up the coffers of the super-rich with global taxes - a bad precedent.

Isn't keeping life viable on Earth a greater goal than making sure our economy doesn't tank? Why is the economy the most important thing in the universe to some?

[Azure]

I don't see how substituting one problem for another is progress.

So we just keep burning up fossil fuels at an alarming rate?

[Looger]

Isn't keeping life viable on Earth a greater goal than making sure our economy doesn't tank? Why is the economy the most important thing in the universe to some?
what kind of logical progression are you using here???

it's like we only have two choices - kill all life on earth or shut everything down!!!

oh. my. god.

i'vs stated aboot 20 times in these global warming threads that I AM IN SUPPORT OF LOWERING OUR EMISSIONS TO NON-HARMFUL LEVELS THAT WILL NOT HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE NATURAL CLIMATE RHYTHMS OF THE PLANET BECAUSE THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT WE ARE HAVING SOME EFFECT.

that being said, the hysteria involved is so out of control and is so spun in the media, what i fear is that drastic changes will be made that will have disastrous consequences for people on earth, just be careful who we will be trusting to solve all these problems, and exactly why this is so important RIGHT NOW.

[RougeUnderoos]

In reference to your comment about the legions of scientists that don't believe we're causing the issue I showed you an article, peer reviewed no less, that demonstrates this view last week. I can find you more but it doesn't seem like you want to read them anyways.




Something I find kind of strange when this issue comes up is people seem to be saying "I don't trust the scientists, now look at what this scientist who I believe has to say on the matter".

One article doesn't really equal "legions", although I'm sure there are more.

[kevman]

Something I find kind of strange when this issue comes up is people seem to be saying "I don't trust the scientists, now look at what this scientist who I believe has to say on the matter".

One article doesn't really equal "legions", although I'm sure there are more.

I agree...it seems everyone wants to believe the scientists they want to believe. This thread has an article saying we are not the cause and an article calling him a liar. We also have a movie saying it's all our fault and an article calling him a liar. With so many articles supporting both sides of the argument how can it be so unamanous one way or the other???

[Azure]

Right now...


http://www.uic.com.au/graphics/ElectPercentpie.gif

Say we reduce the amount of coal we use by 15%, cut gas down 10%, push oil back to 5% and make up for those losses, and push nuclear and hydro up to 30% each.

Coal-fired electricity generation gives rise to nearly twice as much carbon dioxide as natural gas per unit of power, but hydro and nuclear do not directly contribute any. If the amount of nuclear power were doubled, emissions from electricity generation would drop by one quarter.
Something to start out with...

Coal-fired power stations worldwide consume over 3200 million tonnes of coal each year to produce 38% of the electricity. This compares with about 61,000 tonnes of natural uranium (72,000 t of oxide concentrate from the mines) providing the fuel for the nuclear power stations which provide 16% of the world's electricity.
Much of the coal is used in the country in which it is mined, but often it has to be transported long distances, which requires considerable energy (and results in further greenhouse gas emissions).
By comparison, very little uranium is required to do the same job. The 1000 MWe nuclear power station requiring 27 tonnes of fresh fuel per year means an average of about 74 kg per day, which would fit in the back of a car. An equivalent sized coal-fired station needs some 8600 tonnes of coal to be delivered every day.

http://www.uic.com.au/graphics/CO2.gif

http://www.uic.com.au/ueg.htm

I find it ridiculous that people bitch about global warming, yet refuse to support nuclear energy.

This is not 1986 anymore...I'm sure advancements have been made on the nuclear side.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Here's an interesting read for anyone interested in the real story behind "Dr." Timothy Ball.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/09/tim_ball_sues_for_325000.php

The full story is also available on globeandmail.com for subscribers. Essentially, Dr. Ball is suing a professor of climatology (a REAL scientist) for defamation, after Prof. Dan Johnson called him out for playing fast and loose with his credentials. Debate is a good thing: a debate on climate change that shuts out proven liars and quacks like Timothy Ball is even better.

Interesting. I found Ball's piece particularly poorly written and defended for the level he claims to have achieved.

I think if there was a massive swell of scientists who have credible information against global warming both politicians and industry would be falling all over themselves to hype it and promote it. Worrying about climate change is pricey and involves making political decisions that likely won't be popular. That our media and politicians are slowly coming to a consensus on this issue points to there being a lot of evidence on the side of climate change.

Op-ed pieces like this certainly aren't going to sway my opinion. Why wasn't there a summit on the myths of global warming just recently? Why did scientists get together themselves to talk about this issue if it was not well supported by their own method?

[Looger]

I think if there was a massive swell of scientists who have credible information against global warming both politicians and industry would be falling all over themselves to hype it and promote it.
you won't find many scientists that dispute the current changing climate, point of fact there has never been a period in history where the climate WASN'T changing.

you will however find much discussion regarding mankind's direct role, and how much effect comes from other observable factors.

please tell me that you don't seriously consider the debate centering around whether or not scientists believe that global warming is happening, because if you do, i may have lost enough faith in common sense to stay at home and cry for a few days.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

what kind of logical progression are you using here???

it's like we only have two choices - kill all life on earth or shut everything down!!!

oh. my. god.

i'vs stated aboot 20 times in these global warming threads that I AM IN SUPPORT OF LOWERING OUR EMISSIONS TO NON-HARMFUL LEVELS THAT WILL NOT HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE NATURAL CLIMATE RHYTHMS OF THE PLANET BECAUSE THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT WE ARE HAVING SOME EFFECT.

that being said, the hysteria involved is so out of control and is so spun in the media, what i fear is that drastic changes will be made that will have disastrous consequences for people on earth, just be careful who we will be trusting to solve all these problems, and exactly why this is so important RIGHT NOW.

I guess it depends on how you view and frame the issue. If you believe that extremely hard to reverse damage has and is happening then you have to take drastic steps as soon as you can. If you decide that species extinction, land development, etc are important issues then you take drastic steps as soon as you can.

What I don't get is those that are much more worried about the economic effects of reacting then they are about the actual earth and the viability in the future of not only our race but other species as well. The economic hardships that potentially may be caused by turning to a more sustainable living pattern are not going to be more disastrous then real climate change will be. We're talking about the future of life on earth and human life on earth.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

please tell me that you don't seriously consider the debate centering around whether or not scientists believe that global warming is happening, because if you do, i may have lost enough faith in common sense to stay at home and cry for a few days.

Of course I consider it. The information that has been brought to me by those against humanity's role seems more suspect then the other side. Based on the credibility of those arguing against it and their arguments I am currently siding with the scientists who believe humans are in part responsible for some of the current change. Let's not take human psychology out of it either. Do we like to consider the possibility that we are poisoning ourselves or hurting ourselves through our desire for progress, advancement and industrialization? Of course we don't. It's much easier to try and explain it away and I think there's some motivation for many people whose ideologies will be attacked when we are forced to question the way we view the world and the environment.


But to focus solely on global warming is to miss many other important issues. Our attitude towards the earth has had many other effects and we may be facing issues like the loss of certain fish species that WE rely upon for food. Acid rain is not myth. Species extinction is not a myth and neither is mankind's role in it.

Global warming is not the only issue we have to address, it's clear that humanity has had a profound effect on the world in the past couple hundred years through industrialization and we haven't spent enough time reflecting upon whether this has been good and whether we need to take a different approach. The idea that the earth is ours to plunder as we see fit may prove to be a deadly ideal for us.

I'm scared that the response of "well don't do anything drastic yet cause we don't know for sure and we don't wanna sacrifice any of our money unless we do know for sure" may result in us waiting too long. As one of my profressors points out, there's lot's of money to be made in clearning up our act as well. New industries, new technology will spring up. To view environmental reforms as being purely negative in terms of economics is a short-sighted view.

[Looger]

fair enough Flames Draft Watcher...

but there are plenty of people in high positions of power that do NOT have the best interests of earth on their minds, yet are the very same people pushing this agenda into the public conciousness.

to suddenly embrace drastic change can potentially do more harm to the earth, AND to our economic future - which quite honestly in my opinion, when properly applied and directed, sure has a hell of a lot better chance at establishing some form of balance then huddling around the wood stove or the coal fire.

we have the chance, right now, with our high level of technology AND economic affluence, to seriously affect change. if we throw that away and put all our hopes and dreams into a global tax-fed government system that wants only control and will step on dolphins and humns alike for that goal, well we'll sure feel like idiots - if we feel anything at all that is.

[jolinar of malkshor]

A few months ago I met an inspector from the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna who told me that the way nuclear waste is dealt with is unquestionably safe and effective.

Essentially you lock the waste away in a super thick vault deep in a mountain or underground. The negligible amount of radiation that escapes from the vault is still too far away from any living thing to cause a problem. He had me convinced.

What about 10 thousand years from now.....do we really know where these pollutants will be then? Why don't we fire them off to the sun?

[photon]

What about 10 thousand years from now.....do we really know where these pollutants will be then? Why don't we fire them off to the sun?

That would probably work, but getting them into space in the first place would be the tough part. All it would take is one rocket of nuclear waste to explode on the pad and render Florida a wasteland to make it not a good idea :eek:

[Looger]

haven't the french had some success with vitrification, or glass buried deep underground?

i know in utah somewhere there are old mines under a mountain or something filling up with nuclear waste.

what aboot tossing the stuff into a crack in the crust?

we can always load it into ammo and turn every warzone into slowly poisoning hellholes for billions of years, like iraq.

options are endless, though not all very smart from the standpoint of proper disposal.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

In reference to your comment about the legions of scientists that don't believe we're causing the issue I showed you an article, peer reviewed no less, that demonstrates this view last week. I can find you more but it doesn't seem like you want to read them anyways.


Actually you didn't. I applaud the effort, though. What you did was paste the text of a REVIEW article into a post, and assure us that it came from what you deemed to be a reputable source. 3 points:

1. Pardon me for not taking your word on it--show me the source and I'll decide for myself if it's worth believing. That's called critical reading, a valuable life-skill.
2. Review articles are subject to completely different peer-review processes, something that varies from journal to journal, but sometimes they are approved, sight-unseen, by a single editor. Translation: you don't know what peer-reviewed means. I'd explain it, but I did that before, and apparently you don't want to know anyway.
3. One article does not equal a groundswell. I can find you one article that says that string theory is hokum. I can find you another that says that every other theory is flawed. It's called science--and it thrives on debate. The fact is, in scientific terms, there is widespread consensus on this issue. One review article from one journal changes nothing. That's like saying that because in one week Shean Donovan scored more goals than Jarome Iginla, that there's now a "debate" about who's the better hockey player.

[icarus]

What about 10 thousand years from now.....do we really know where these pollutants will be then? Why don't we fire them off to the sun?
Well he said that they'd be okay for thousands of years.

In any case, mathematical models show that humanity will disappear ten thousand years from now anyway! :w00t:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument

[calculoso]

What I don't get is those that are much more worried about the economic effects of reacting then they are about the actual earth and the viability in the future of not only our race but other species as well. The economic hardships that potentially may be caused by turning to a more sustainable living pattern are not going to be more disastrous then real climate change will be. We're talking about the future of life on earth and human life on earth.

What I don't get are those that want to totally disregard the economic effects of reacting. Something has to change, but something/someone has to pay for that change. To totally dismantle the economy, using the environment as a reason, would be disastrous to both the economy and the environment (no money to buy/develop cleaner technologies). Those the support Kyoto, and their almost instant billion dollar payments, fail to realize that.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Well he said that they'd be okay for thousands of years.

In any case, mathematical models show that humanity will disappear ten thousand years from now anyway! :w00t:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument

What the argument is not
The Doomsday argument (DA) does not say that humanity cannot or will not exist indefinitely. It does not put any upper limit on the number of humans that will ever exist, nor provide a date for when humanity will become extinct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinct).

[icarus]

What the argument is not
The Doomsday argument (DA) does not say that humanity cannot or will not exist indefinitely. It does not put any upper limit on the number of humans that will ever exist, nor provide a date for when humanity will become extinct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinct).
Right, well my remark was not really meant to be taken seriously (hence the smiley), but if you take it to be so than you should recognise that I never claimed that humanity cannot or will not exist indefinitely, I just referred to the statistical model. I am not sure why you posted the quoted passage in response.

[Azure]

I think people fail to realize how many nuclear bombs/explosions it would take to wipe out all of humanity.

[RougeUnderoos]

I think people fail to realize how many nuclear bombs/explosions it would take to wipe out all of humanity.

huh?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Right, well my remark was not really meant to be taken seriously (hence the smiley), but if you take it to be so than you should recognise that I never claimed that humanity cannot or will not exist indefinitely, I just referred to the statistical model. I am not sure why you posted the quoted passage in response.

Sorry...I took it that you were serious...usually people put the little wink...wink face when they are being sarcastic.

I apologize.

[jolinar of malkshor]

I think people fail to realize how many nuclear bombs/explosions it would take to wipe out all of humanity.

no kidding...look how many have actually been denoated above ground. I don't know the exact number....but I know it is quite a few.

[Azure]

huh?

I think the biggest fear people have with nuclear energy is the possible fallout from an explosion/accident, or something like that.

I would assume people put nuclear bombs and doomsday together, where in fact rendering the world useless by using nuclear bombs is a very extreme belief.

[RougeUnderoos]

I think the biggest fear people have with nuclear energy is the possible fallout from an explosion/accident, or something like that.



Well maybe. That's not what I'm really worried about, but if I lived in Fort Mac and there was a nuclear powerplant down the road I might be. But I don't live there and I do know that they are pretty safe.

I don't know enough about the subject to say we shouldn't go that route but I did read somewhere that the mining for fuel (uranium?) is a fairly intense operation that burns a hell of a lot of energy just to find it. Now obviously it's a net-gain method of generating power or they wouldn't do it, but it doesn't sound quite as "clean" as some people suggest.

The idea of three-eyed fish in Lake Athabasca is kind of intriguing.

[Five-hole]

Interesting. I found Ball's piece particularly poorly written and defended for the level he claims to have achieved.

I think if there was a massive swell of scientists who have credible information against global warming both politicians and industry would be falling all over themselves to hype it and promote it. Worrying about climate change is pricey and involves making political decisions that likely won't be popular. That our media and politicians are slowly coming to a consensus on this issue points to there being a lot of evidence on the side of climate change.

Op-ed pieces like this certainly aren't going to sway my opinion. Why wasn't there a summit on the myths of global warming just recently? Why did scientists get together themselves to talk about this issue if it was not well supported by their own method?

Well said; I completely agree. I came into this thread late, but I too found the linked article to be poorly written and completely devoid of factual evidence to support his claims. It was a rhetorical piece and nothing else, which is particularly precious as that was part of what he was railing against in his piece.

It was further illuminating to discover his "credentials" are misrepresented severely.

[Azure]

Rouge, France used to have a dependence on importing resources to create electricity....I think they built around 80 reactors, and are now exporting electricity.

We haven't heard anything about their problems.

[MacDougalbry]

I'm sure most of you have already seen this:

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/

[Calgaryborn]

Here is another scientist who doubts a strong link between climate
change and human activity:

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_020607_news_taylor_title.59f5d04a.html

[kevman]

Actually you didn't. I applaud the effort, though. What you did was paste the text of a REVIEW article into a post, and assure us that it came from what you deemed to be a reputable source. 3 points:

1. Pardon me for not taking your word on it--show me the source and I'll decide for myself if it's worth believing. That's called critical reading, a valuable life-skill.
2. Review articles are subject to completely different peer-review processes, something that varies from journal to journal, but sometimes they are approved, sight-unseen, by a single editor. Translation: you don't know what peer-reviewed means. I'd explain it, but I did that before, and apparently you don't want to know anyway.
3. One article does not equal a groundswell. I can find you one article that says that string theory is hokum. I can find you another that says that every other theory is flawed. It's called science--and it thrives on debate. The fact is, in scientific terms, there is widespread consensus on this issue. One review article from one journal changes nothing. That's like saying that because in one week Shean Donovan scored more goals than Jarome Iginla, that there's now a "debate" about who's the better hockey player.

I gave you the title of an article and where you could find it. Pardon me for not pirating and presenting you with the entire article. However, Cowperson was able to find this link (http://www.springerlink.com/content/g87327815xg2u1h2/) pretty simply by following directions.

Do tell me why my "peer reviewed" articles are not up to the same standard as yours...if you did explain this already pardon my ignorance because I missed that. I simply searched an academic search engine for "peer reviewed" articles on the topic I was looking for. I was under the impression that by limiting by search to only peer reviewed articles that is what I would get. Apparantly just like the scientists disputing our influence on global warming peer reviewed articles on that matter are also not "real" peer reviewed articles...

I never claimed that 1 article was enough to make an informed decision. I simply said that while you (and Mr. Gore and his 928 articles) were unable to find an article disagreeing with his consensus I was. In fact I believe my whole point a few weeks ago and I'll restress it now was not to take 1 movie (Mr. Gores) as truth like so many did.

Personally I have a hard time believing any "scientists" right now on the issue because it seems like every ideal has a group of their own scientists supporting them.

[FLAMESBURNOIL]

^^^ I agree, and the reality is there is no real consensus on the issue..All scientist's get their research money from somewhere, so its more than just oil companies paying scientist off to get their word out...

Also you have to have an understanding of how the scientific community works and a good example is the origins of native north americans - and the popular consensus is that they orginated from Asia 10,000 years ago - when evidence suggests otherwise - and any scientist who doesnt agree with the popular theory (clovis theory) is quickly discredited - even in the face of overwhelming genetic evidence

For years archaeologists have have been told there is no need to dig past the clovis line (i.e. digging past depths that represent up to 10,000 years) - because you wont find any artificats, because the majority of scientists agree on the clovis thoery

well some scientist did and they continued to find artificats older than 10,000 years -these scientists where shunned, attacked, shamed etc...by other archaeologists who held true to the clovis theory

well turns out the clovis theory is bogus....yet still remains a common belief for some reason...

this has been happening for hundreds of years...just like when some philosphers came out with that crazy insane idea that the earth was round...

[Looger]

...ooh - i didn't know that the asiatic land bridge was mutually exclusive with people being here before...

isn't there plenty of evidence, simply of both?

the polynesian-looking skulls of 40,000 year vintage simply being another unsuccessful and/or integrated north american settlement, people that resemble today's ainoo in japan.

there's plenty of evidence that doesn't have to cancel every other previous theory out.

[tjinaz]

http://www.delmarvanow.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070206/NEWS01/70206001/1002


Bad bad scientist

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

I gave you the title of an article and where you could find it. Pardon me for not pirating and presenting you with the entire article. However, Cowperson was able to find this link (http://www.springerlink.com/content/g87327815xg2u1h2/) pretty simply by following directions.

Do tell me why my "peer reviewed" articles are not up to the same standard as yours...if you did explain this already pardon my ignorance because I missed that. I simply searched an academic search engine for "peer reviewed" articles on the topic I was looking for. I was under the impression that by limiting by search to only peer reviewed articles that is what I would get. Apparantly just like the scientists disputing our influence on global warming peer reviewed articles on that matter are also not "real" peer reviewed articles...

I never claimed that 1 article was enough to make an informed decision. I simply said that while you (and Mr. Gore and his 928 articles) were unable to find an article disagreeing with his consensus I was. In fact I believe my whole point a few weeks ago and I'll restress it now was not to take 1 movie (Mr. Gores) as truth like so many did.

Personally I have a hard time believing any "scientists" right now on the issue because it seems like every ideal has a group of their own scientists supporting them.

Look, it's not like I'm moving the bar on you. A scientist is someone who does original research. A peer-reviewed article is an article where that person presents their data for evaluation by the scientific community. It's really not hard.

What you showed us was neither--it was a review article, and moreover it was a review article that wears its bias on its sleeve--it says at the bottom "our view is ..." which is a signal that there will be two parts--a review of research and then their re-interpretation of that research. Note--and this is important--that only one of the three authors is even a "climatologist"--and that none of them are academics. I'm not saying they're idiots--I'm sure they know what they're talking about. Just that they're not "scientists" any more than Timothy Ball is.

Also, just so you're not putting words in my mouth, I never said there would be no articles out there at all. You can find articles arguing all kinds of stuff, if your standard is one article here or there equals a controversy. By that standard, evolution is a controversy. It's all about who you're prepared to listen to. Personally, I'm more interested in the data, but if you think it's better to listen to the kind of rhetoric you found in your article, be my guest.

[photon]

what aboot tossing the stuff into a crack in the crust?


Or build a machine like the one from The Core that digs down below the crust.. put the stuff in the mantle and the earth will recycle it for us!

[Azure]

Or build a machine like the one from The Core that digs down below the crust.. put the stuff in the mantle and the earth will recycle it for us!

:w00t:

That would cause quite the controversy.

I still can't believe there isn't more research being done into nuclear advancement. The French(dumb as they might seem) have already proven that you can go from depending on imported resources, to exporting electricity. Simply because of nuclear energy.