-
Hey Guest!
British Car Forum has been supporting enthusiasts for over 25 years by providing a great place to share our love for British cars. You can support our efforts by upgrading your membership for less than the dues of most car clubs. There are some perks with a member upgrade!**Upgrade Now**
(PS: Upgraded members don't see this banner, nor will you see the Google ads that appear on the site.)
but were afraid to ask: 
STOP!! Never post your email address in open forums. Bots can "harvest" your email! If you must share your email use a Private Message or use the 
smilie in place of the real @
Pretty Please - add it to our Events forum(s) and add to the calendar! >> 
$4.49/gal for diesel ????
- Thread starter angelfj1
- Start date
Share this page
MGA Steve
Jedi Warrior
Offline
angelfj said:
Actually, the 1885 date corresponds to the end of the "Little Ice Age." That was a centuries-long period of cooling in the Northern Hemisphere that has been well-documented by archeologists, glaciologists, and palynologists in a number of locations.
And, as for the other rate changes, how do they compare to the retreat rate for the same glacier in, say, the 100-year period from 1200 to 1300? That is the period when the Ancestral Pueblo people here in Colorado (Mesa Verde) and New Mexico (Chaco Canyon) peaked in population and abruptly "disappeared." Their disappearance has been postulated to have been due to climate change and an associated drought longer than any in recorded U.S. history.
I don't know the answer to this question, but I should be allowd to pose it. And so should the questions of any other scientist who has a theory that does not necessarily agree with the status quo. That is how we make advances in science--by questioning the status quo, then going out and testing our hypothesis.
Online
NutmegCT said:
It got changed because I guess I hijacked it (hey I can do that I own the place).
I don’t have the time to go through every line of the IPCC report again, but just a couple of points that I will make with specific references before I have to turn in. In the Working Group II Report “Impacts, Adaptations and Vulnerability.” Chapter 14 section 14.2.6, they state the following: “Cumulative decadal hurricane intensity in the US has risen in the last 25 years…”
My first minor problem with this statement is the fact that they are talking about “decadal” activity (e.g., 10 year periods), yet choose to examine only a 25 year period rather than a 30 year period, or some other factor of ten, but never mind. When I plotted the data from the National Hurricane Center archives, for decadal hurricane activity in the US, I did not see any significant increase in hurricane frequency or intensity, as seen the attached graph. Granted my graph (this particular graphs looks only at major, Cat 3 or greater) only goes through 2005, but since 2006 and 2007 seasons were both much quieter than anyone’s predictions, let's just consider the 25 year period from 1981 through 2005. In that decadal “period” there were a total of 17 major hurricanes, with an “average” (per decade) of 6.8, which is only slightly higher than the overall decadal average over the past 150 years. And were it not for a somewhat more intense season than average in 2005, this number would be at or below average. Considering the very quiet 2006 period and lower than predicted 2007 season, I don’t buy the statement that “cumulative decadal hurricane intensity in the US has risen in the past 25 years.” No, it has not – not in any meaningful way, especially if you look at decades past, like 1931 to 1940 (8 major hurricanes) or 1941 – 1950 (10 major hurricanes), and certainly 2006 and 2007 don't point to any such increase.
Second example: In the 2007 Climate Change Synthesis Report, they make the dire observation that “Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the
twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface
temperature (since 1850).” Well, how convenient – they only talk about eleven of the last 12 years. Could that be because 2007 saw global temperatures drop world-wide so much that the drop wipes out nearly all of the past 100 years of so-called warming (it actually snowed in Baghdad)?
Also, they don’t mention the fact that more accurate satellite data indicates that global temperatures have actually not increased since 1998.
Third example: In the 2007 Climate Change Synthesis Report, section 1.1, they state: “Observations since 1961 show that the average temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at least 3000m and that the ocean has been taking up over 80% of the heat being added to the climate system.”
However, this does not jive with recent determination based on thousands of ocean sensors that, in fact, global ocean temperatures have decreased since 2003 (the past 5 years). Never mind how the global warming prophets are spinning this “minor bump in the global warming road,” the fact is, this pronouncement, does not support the statement I just cited.
See: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060921123321.htm
But rather than me, an unqualified schlub, listing problems I have with the IPCC, lets consider how someone with “proper credentials” feels. I think most would agree that being the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and one of the world's leading atmospheric scientists, would qualify one to have an opinion that should be considered – certainly more than my humble opinion. Well, Dr. Richard S. Lindzen is that person and he was also one of the lead authors of the third TAR report by the IPCC (He since asked to have his name removed). He has said: “The "most egregious" problem with the IPCC's forthcoming report, said Lindzen, "is that it is presented as a consensus that involves hundreds, perhaps thousands, of scientists . . . and none of them was asked if they agreed with anything in the report except for the one or two pages they worked on." And regarding all the so-called experts, he says this: “It is no small matter," said Lindzen, "that routine weather service functionaries from New Zealand to Tanzania are referred to as 'the world's leading climate scientists.' It should come as no surprise that they will be determinedly supportive of the process." And as to why so many “scientists” would be on board if this is flawed science, he says: “Scientists are human beings," Lindzen concluded, "subject to normal instincts and weaknesses." They respond to incentives just like everyone else. "Current government funding creates incentives to behave poorly by maintaining the relevance of the subject," he said, noting that on some issues financial support for science depends on "alarming the world." In other words – follow the money! He concludes with: “There's little doubt, Lindzen said, that the IPCC process has become politicized to the point of uselessness. He advised U.S. policymakers simply to ignore it. “
Then here is a more recent critique of not only the IPCC but the recent movie by Mr Gore by someone who was a contributor to the most recent 2007 report: https://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22430
I will conclude my uncharacteristic foray into the depths of “Pubdom,” with this. I do not believe that man is having any significant effect on global climate. I am well aware that many people here do believe it, and that is their right.
I think that my initial post speaks for itself on the topic. However, if others wish to believe man is causing Global Warming, God bless you and more power to you – it is a free country. In the meantime, I’m still waiting for Mr Gore to debate anyone on this topic…I won’t hold my breath.
Here's hoping for some global warming next year to offset the record drop in temps world-wide we saw in 2007.
Ok, I'll go crawl back under my rock now.
Basil
GregW
Yoda
Offline
Hi Angelfj,angelfj said:
I have a different opinion of the movie “An Inconvenient Truth” While it is a well crafted movie, I don’t believe it’s crafting is what most think it is and I’m surprised I haven’t seen this talked about anywhere. The movie is broken up into segments of the lecture and what might be called “Human Interest” stories. It starts out with Mr. Gore’s feelings about loosing the election. This is designed to evoke an emotion out of the audience, in effect, turning off the analytical portion of the brain. Then we move into the lecture where we are primed to accept whatever we are told. When our brain starts to wake up, we are shown how Al’s child is almost killed, evoke another emotion and back again to the lecture. This technique allows points to go past that would normally be questioned. An example would be the 650,000-year temp vs. CO2 chart, the 30foot wide one. Al compares the temperature difference between today and 1000 ft of ice (about 2 feet high on the chart). Then he gets in his scissor lift to show where the projected CO2 levels might be in 50 years and says “That’s a hot day” So he is trying to make you think the CO2 chart is actually a temperature increase, which simply isn’t true.
I would suggest to anyone who watches the movie to fast forward past the heart strings and focus only on the lecture. You might get something different out of it.
Online
angelfj said:
I've tried several times to respond to that comment, but I can't seem to not sound demeaning, so I'll just leave it alone.
angelfj said:
See previous comment.
angelfj said:
And as a masters degree Electrical Engineer and current Senior Analyst with about that same number of years experience, I can only say - okey dokey. :laugh:
angelfj said:
There has been no real debate. One of the lead authors of the third TAC report by the IPCC, Dr Richard Lindzen (Professor of meteorology at MIT) said: "The most egregious problem with the IPCC's forthcoming report, is that it is presented as a consensus that involves hundreds, perhaps thousands, of scientists . . . and <span style="color: #990000">none of them was asked if they agreed with anything in the report except for the one or two pages they worked on.</span>" So much for peer review.
angelfj said:
And I'm equally sure it has not...at least no debate between those who are on board and those who doubt it. What has happened however is that many scientists who disagree have been marginalized as happens in any good propaganda campaign...and this is the best such campaign I've ever seen in my life time.
v/r
Online
MGA Steve said:
Well, my feeling is, I know many people are not going to agree with me (I'm not very smart after all). I'm ok with that. I have no grand illusion that I'm going to change anyone's mind, especially true believers. But I put a good bit of thought into my first post and if I have only sparked a tiny but of interest in some to look at other view points, then maybe that's all that matters.
Ok, on that note, as Forrest Gump would say "and that's all I've got to say about that."
Basil
Online
Ok, because I actually have a life (I think), and I tend to spend too much time crafting my replies on topics like this, I'm going to bow out of this thread. I respect all the opinions I've heard and want to thank you all for keeping it civil. For what it's worth, this thread has the third highest number of replies of any post ever in the pub...super!!
bugimike
Yoda
Offline
It is nice to know that there are a bunch of thinkers here who will at least listen to alternative points of view and make intelligent counter-points without resorting to temper tantrums, character assassination and the rest of it! With this kind of dialogue one can even draw on some intelligent conclusions and think in new and alternative ways! Diversity of thought can breed either conflict or increased awareness! I opt for the latter! 
Offline
Basil - thanks for those three examples from the IPCC report. Here's how I read them:
1. IPCC report: "Cumulative decadal hurricane intensity in the US has risen in the last 25 years…”
As always, anyone can prove just about anything by choosing the right dataset. But your chart that purports to disprove the IPCC statement doesn't address *intensity* at all. It just shows decadal numbers of the top three categories lumped together (3,4,5).
2. IPCC report: “Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the
twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface
temperature (since 1850).”
You say "Well, how convenient – they only talk about eleven of the last 12 years. Could that be because 2007 saw global temperatures drop world-wide so much that the drop wipes out nearly all of the past 100 years of so-called warming (it actually snowed in Baghdad)?"
That 2007 exception may very well be telling, but you can't fault the IPCC for eliminating 2007. The report was written during 2007 and published in October 2007, before the hurricane season had ended.
3. IPCC report: “Observations since 1961 show that the average temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at least 3000m and that the ocean has been taking up over 80% of the heat being added to the climate system.”
You say "... based on thousands of ocean sensors that, in fact, global ocean temperatures have decreased since 2003 (the past 5 years).
Again, that's a different set (subset?) of similar datasets. Both certainly could be taken as "true" - or both as "unproven".
I'll do some more reading on this when I get back from work. Went to bed last night at 11 and there were zero new posts. Got up at 6am and there were 14 new posts. I gotta stay up later!
And I really appreciate the factual examples.
T.
1. IPCC report: "Cumulative decadal hurricane intensity in the US has risen in the last 25 years…”
As always, anyone can prove just about anything by choosing the right dataset. But your chart that purports to disprove the IPCC statement doesn't address *intensity* at all. It just shows decadal numbers of the top three categories lumped together (3,4,5).
2. IPCC report: “Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the
twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface
temperature (since 1850).”
You say "Well, how convenient – they only talk about eleven of the last 12 years. Could that be because 2007 saw global temperatures drop world-wide so much that the drop wipes out nearly all of the past 100 years of so-called warming (it actually snowed in Baghdad)?"
That 2007 exception may very well be telling, but you can't fault the IPCC for eliminating 2007. The report was written during 2007 and published in October 2007, before the hurricane season had ended.
3. IPCC report: “Observations since 1961 show that the average temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at least 3000m and that the ocean has been taking up over 80% of the heat being added to the climate system.”
You say "... based on thousands of ocean sensors that, in fact, global ocean temperatures have decreased since 2003 (the past 5 years).
Again, that's a different set (subset?) of similar datasets. Both certainly could be taken as "true" - or both as "unproven".
I'll do some more reading on this when I get back from work. Went to bed last night at 11 and there were zero new posts. Got up at 6am and there were 14 new posts. I gotta stay up later!
And I really appreciate the factual examples.
T.
Offline
This has been an amazing thread. I have never seen most things in black and white. At times I was jealous of my Dad who could make an opinion after a brief reading and never waiver again. It made his life easier. For me, I always felt that both sides of an discussion could be valid and it takes me a long time to decide which is the proper solution.
This is one of these discussions. But whether or not we are causing a problem for the earth's temperature, I feel that developing renewable and cleaner energy sources will be good in the long run. But the pendulum always swings too far in a direction before it rights itself. If we can have cars running on three or four main energy sources such as gasoline, hydrogen, electricity, and maybe some other source we will not see control of one resource causing so much trouble over all.
Remember when there was a call in the 70's crisis period to stop all motorsports as it wasted gasoline. That was one overreaction which calmed when the pendulum did a swing in the other direction. Soon many large SUVs and large V-8s were back in vogue as the pendulum peaked on the other side of the arc. Now we are swinging back, and probably excessively again.
But thanks to everyone who has made this in interesting and intelligent discussion. There has been a lot to think about from people who can be understood and respected.
This is one of these discussions. But whether or not we are causing a problem for the earth's temperature, I feel that developing renewable and cleaner energy sources will be good in the long run. But the pendulum always swings too far in a direction before it rights itself. If we can have cars running on three or four main energy sources such as gasoline, hydrogen, electricity, and maybe some other source we will not see control of one resource causing so much trouble over all.
Remember when there was a call in the 70's crisis period to stop all motorsports as it wasted gasoline. That was one overreaction which calmed when the pendulum did a swing in the other direction. Soon many large SUVs and large V-8s were back in vogue as the pendulum peaked on the other side of the arc. Now we are swinging back, and probably excessively again.
But thanks to everyone who has made this in interesting and intelligent discussion. There has been a lot to think about from people who can be understood and respected.
OP
angelfj1
Yoda
Offline
Originally Posted By: angelfj
I recall the first time I saw "An Inconvenient Truth". I was really concerned that the material was "up and over" the heads of the average viewer.
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="text-decoration: underline">On reflection, I admit this wasn't the best choice of words. :blush: I never meant to demean anyone or suggest that I had a superior understanding of the material. I just felt that parts of the presentation were too complex for the majority of viewers and that this would cause misunderstanding, confusion and lack of interest (fja)</span></span>
Originally Posted By: angelfj
I said to my wife that it was too sophisticated for the average viewer.
See previous comment. <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="text-decoration: underline">ditto (fja)</span></span>
Originally Posted By: angelfj
As a masters degree electrical engineer with 40 + years of experience in studying statistical data I feel that the producers presented a very plausible case.
And as a masters degree Electrical Engineer and current Senior Analyst with about that same number of years experience, I can only say - okey dokey.
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="text-decoration: underline">I knew there was something about you that I liked</span></span> :smirk:
<span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">It seemed appropriate to qualify my opinion!</span></span>
Originally Posted By: angelfj
Perhaps there hasn't been sufficient debate but I doubt it.
There has been no real debate. One of the lead authors of the third TAC report by the IPCC, Dr Richard Lindzen (Professor of meteorology at MIT) said: "The most egregious problem with the IPCC's forthcoming report, is that it is presented as a consensus that involves hundreds, perhaps thousands, of scientists . . . and none of them was asked if they agreed with anything in the report except for the one or two pages they worked on." So much for peer review.
Originally Posted By: angelfj
Scientists tend to be very sensitive about being criticized and I am sure that debate did occur.
And I'm equally sure it has not...at least no debate between those who are on board and those who doubt it. What has happened however is that many scientists who disagree have been marginalized as happens in any good propaganda campaign...and this is the best such campaign I've ever seen in my life time.
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="text-decoration: underline">I tend to disagree in principle. Debate comes in many formats and venues. Each scientific paper written and presented to peer scientists is a form of debate. Whether or not the debate is public or not does not determine if debate is taking place.
I just did a Google search for "global warming conferences" and got 2.34 million hits. I believe much serious debate continues. This is a very good thing.</span></span>
I recall the first time I saw "An Inconvenient Truth". I was really concerned that the material was "up and over" the heads of the average viewer.
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="text-decoration: underline">On reflection, I admit this wasn't the best choice of words. :blush: I never meant to demean anyone or suggest that I had a superior understanding of the material. I just felt that parts of the presentation were too complex for the majority of viewers and that this would cause misunderstanding, confusion and lack of interest (fja)</span></span>
Originally Posted By: angelfj
I said to my wife that it was too sophisticated for the average viewer.
See previous comment. <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="text-decoration: underline">ditto (fja)</span></span>
Originally Posted By: angelfj
As a masters degree electrical engineer with 40 + years of experience in studying statistical data I feel that the producers presented a very plausible case.
And as a masters degree Electrical Engineer and current Senior Analyst with about that same number of years experience, I can only say - okey dokey.
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="text-decoration: underline">I knew there was something about you that I liked</span></span> :smirk:
<span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">It seemed appropriate to qualify my opinion!</span></span>
Originally Posted By: angelfj
Perhaps there hasn't been sufficient debate but I doubt it.
There has been no real debate. One of the lead authors of the third TAC report by the IPCC, Dr Richard Lindzen (Professor of meteorology at MIT) said: "The most egregious problem with the IPCC's forthcoming report, is that it is presented as a consensus that involves hundreds, perhaps thousands, of scientists . . . and none of them was asked if they agreed with anything in the report except for the one or two pages they worked on." So much for peer review.
Originally Posted By: angelfj
Scientists tend to be very sensitive about being criticized and I am sure that debate did occur.
And I'm equally sure it has not...at least no debate between those who are on board and those who doubt it. What has happened however is that many scientists who disagree have been marginalized as happens in any good propaganda campaign...and this is the best such campaign I've ever seen in my life time.
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="text-decoration: underline">I tend to disagree in principle. Debate comes in many formats and venues. Each scientific paper written and presented to peer scientists is a form of debate. Whether or not the debate is public or not does not determine if debate is taking place.
I just did a Google search for "global warming conferences" and got 2.34 million hits. I believe much serious debate continues. This is a very good thing.</span></span>
T
Tinster
Guest
Guest
Offline
No wonder it took me 5 months to rewire my TR6 !!
I ain't no....
"masters degree electrical engineer with
40 + years of experience "
The dim bulb in Dale's old brain begins to glow!!
d
I ain't no....
"masters degree electrical engineer with
40 + years of experience "
The dim bulb in Dale's old brain begins to glow!!
d
Online
Ok, you have made some fair points, but I have more problems with the IPCC in general than just the couple of examples I quickly pulled out here, not the least of which is lack of peer review as pointed out by Dr Lindzen, MIT meteorologist, as discussed in an earlier post. With respect to #1, I agree that my chart only shows decadal hurricane activity and lumps all major levels together. However, if you look at each level (Cat 1 through 5) separately (which I also graphed - see below), when you look across decades past, I still don't see any significant increase in "decadal" hurricane activity or intensity despite 2005 being a slightly more active year than average. While it's true that one can't fault the IPCC for ignoring 2007 because, as you said, the report was written in 2007 before the hurricane season was over, they must have known by then that 2006 was virtually silent with respect to US hurricane activity. Even if you don't include 2006 (which they had no reason not to), you still can't look at the numbers and conclude there has been any "significant" increase in US hurricane intensity (intensity as represented here as category of storm) compared to many other decades in the past, and you especially can't conclude that if you do consider 2006 (which they should have, if they didn't). (I know in the charts below the "totals" don't always add up - my original data set only went to 2004 and I later updated the individual decade numbers to include 2005 but didn't always update that total, so ignore that column)
With respect to #2, I'll concede that one can't fault the IPCC for not including 2007, however, based on NASA satellite data that is more accurate than the ground sensor data, we know that temperatures globally have actually not increased since 1998. In fact, from the 1940's to the mid- 1970's, a period of rapid post-war industrialization, global temperatures dropped so much that the "experts" were warning us of a pending "ice age." That period saw CO2 levels increase due to the post-war industrial boom, yet global temperatures decreased - not supportive of the man-caused C02 causes warming theory. Here is a Newsweek article from 1975. I find it almost humerous the pronouncement at the end of the article, "The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climactic change once the results become grim reality." Sound familiar?
Also, if you view the second video in my original post on this topic, Christopher Horner, author of "Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming" points out that after the Cold War thousands of temperature sensors were removed by the former Soviet Union in Siberia - one of the coldest areas on earth. He suggests that the loss of so many very cold region sensors may have skewed the global averages a bit..as he notes there is a "shift" in temperatures that coincides with the loss of these sensors. I have also seen discussions of how many ground-based senors, over the years have become urbanized. In other words, sensors that once were out in some field, are now surrounded by concrete (roads, buildings, etc) and naturally record higher temperatures. This revelation makes the more accurate satellite data showing no significant warming since 1998 (10 years) all the more significant.
As for #3, I can't argue that it "may be" a different dataset and I have no idea whether the IPCC had access to this data when they wrote their report. Time will tell what sorts of adjustments they make going forward.
Look, my issues with the man-caused global warming are many - not just the issues I may have with the report personally. There are many other's such as Dr Roy Spencer, Dr Richard Lindzen and Christopher Monckton, and many others who have issues with the IPCC report and their entire process. Lindzen was a former Lead author of the IPCC report and Monckton a contributor of the most recent...both of them strongly disagree with not only much of the report but also the entire IPCC process. View the videos that both I and GregW have posted - these are people in the field who don't agree with the IPCC "consensus," and they present very cogent reasons why...but you simply don't hear their voices in the main stream media. <span style="font-weight: bold">Angelfj</span> - When I say that there has been no debate, what I mean is, anyone who disagrees with the "consensus" is marginalized - case in point, Al Gore said himself just recently that people who don't buy the consensus are akin to tin-foil-hat wearing maroons who think the Moon landings were staged in Arizona...and how many of the non-believers did the IPCC invite to their Bali conference? I'd venture none - these people, Gore included, do not want real debate. As Lindzen himself points out - there was no real peer review of the IPCC report. Maybe he's lying, but he was once a Lead author for them. What you have in the IPCC report is "science by committee" and, being a EE, I know you are smart enough to know that consensus is NOT science. You mentioned you were "very impressed with the organization and presentation..." Well, as history has shown us, all good propaganda is well packaged - that's why it is so effective.
Ok, now I'm really done. Am I going to debate every item point-for-point in the IPCC report? No, I don't have time for that. I think I have made my opinion clear and why I hold the opinion I do. If I have done nothing more than to at least make some people think outside their comfort zone, then I'm happy. If you don't agree with me, that's ok too.
Cheers,
Basil
With respect to #2, I'll concede that one can't fault the IPCC for not including 2007, however, based on NASA satellite data that is more accurate than the ground sensor data, we know that temperatures globally have actually not increased since 1998. In fact, from the 1940's to the mid- 1970's, a period of rapid post-war industrialization, global temperatures dropped so much that the "experts" were warning us of a pending "ice age." That period saw CO2 levels increase due to the post-war industrial boom, yet global temperatures decreased - not supportive of the man-caused C02 causes warming theory. Here is a Newsweek article from 1975. I find it almost humerous the pronouncement at the end of the article, "The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climactic change once the results become grim reality." Sound familiar?
Also, if you view the second video in my original post on this topic, Christopher Horner, author of "Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming" points out that after the Cold War thousands of temperature sensors were removed by the former Soviet Union in Siberia - one of the coldest areas on earth. He suggests that the loss of so many very cold region sensors may have skewed the global averages a bit..as he notes there is a "shift" in temperatures that coincides with the loss of these sensors. I have also seen discussions of how many ground-based senors, over the years have become urbanized. In other words, sensors that once were out in some field, are now surrounded by concrete (roads, buildings, etc) and naturally record higher temperatures. This revelation makes the more accurate satellite data showing no significant warming since 1998 (10 years) all the more significant.
As for #3, I can't argue that it "may be" a different dataset and I have no idea whether the IPCC had access to this data when they wrote their report. Time will tell what sorts of adjustments they make going forward.
Look, my issues with the man-caused global warming are many - not just the issues I may have with the report personally. There are many other's such as Dr Roy Spencer, Dr Richard Lindzen and Christopher Monckton, and many others who have issues with the IPCC report and their entire process. Lindzen was a former Lead author of the IPCC report and Monckton a contributor of the most recent...both of them strongly disagree with not only much of the report but also the entire IPCC process. View the videos that both I and GregW have posted - these are people in the field who don't agree with the IPCC "consensus," and they present very cogent reasons why...but you simply don't hear their voices in the main stream media. <span style="font-weight: bold">Angelfj</span> - When I say that there has been no debate, what I mean is, anyone who disagrees with the "consensus" is marginalized - case in point, Al Gore said himself just recently that people who don't buy the consensus are akin to tin-foil-hat wearing maroons who think the Moon landings were staged in Arizona...and how many of the non-believers did the IPCC invite to their Bali conference? I'd venture none - these people, Gore included, do not want real debate. As Lindzen himself points out - there was no real peer review of the IPCC report. Maybe he's lying, but he was once a Lead author for them. What you have in the IPCC report is "science by committee" and, being a EE, I know you are smart enough to know that consensus is NOT science. You mentioned you were "very impressed with the organization and presentation..." Well, as history has shown us, all good propaganda is well packaged - that's why it is so effective.
Ok, now I'm really done. Am I going to debate every item point-for-point in the IPCC report? No, I don't have time for that. I think I have made my opinion clear and why I hold the opinion I do. If I have done nothing more than to at least make some people think outside their comfort zone, then I'm happy. If you don't agree with me, that's ok too.
Cheers,
Basil
ecurie_ecosse
Luke Skywalker
Offline
This is a good place to say "Amen". So here we go "Amen". :thumbsup:
Stuart.
Stuart.
tony barnhill
Great Pumpkin - R.I.P
Offline
Glad I´m on vacation in the tropical climate of Central America & don´t have ready access to a computer...this discussion is one of those in which neither side can ever prove to the other that they are wrong...everybody is entrenched in their beliefs, regardless of the proven ´science´...to one side its a scam, to the other side its tatamount to a religion
But, its fun to read!
But, its fun to read!
MGA Steve
Jedi Warrior
Offline
I agree with you, but perhaps for a different reason. I would like to see the U.S. create alternative energy sources in order to reduce oil imports. "Energy independence" is not really possible in the modern world (e.g., China wants to build dozens of new nuclear power plants to reduce their reliance on coal, but the Australians must supply the uranium to do it). However, we would be foolish not to increase the use of our own energy resources, whether they be solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, ethanol (especially alternatives to corn-based), waste-to-energy and landfill gas (methane and methanol burn as well as ethanol!), coal, coal-bed methane, oil, natural gas, and, yes, even nuclear. But the fact that some of these forms of energy produce CO2 makes them less politically correct than others and slows the goal of energy "less-dependence" becoming a reality.Brooklands said:
As a small, local example, we in Colorado now have hundreds of thousands of acres of beetle killed or dying lodgepole pine trees that would make great pelletized stove and boiler fuel. But the wheels of Federal (most of the tress are on Federal land) bureaucracy grind exceedingly slow for such uses. Unfortunately, pelletized wood produces CO2 when it is burned, but, more critically, logging on Forest Service land in the state has been drastically reduced due to environmental pressures. So, by the time a decision to use this potential energy source comes, it may be too late as there is only a 2-3 year window before the "standing-dead" timber is blown down or is too far gone to be economical for fuel or even for timber for log homes.
And, in spite of the reversal by some environmentalists of their opposition to nuclear power in light of their global warming concerns, nuclear is not a near-term solution to our energy "less-dependence." An entire generation of nuclear engineers and scientists who mined and processed uranium into nuclear fuel rods, then permitted, sited, designed, and constructed nuclear plants in the 1960s and 1970s are now retired or dead (I know because I am one--retired, not dead . . yet!). Even the companies they worked for, like Westinghouse, are gone--at least from the nuclear power plant business. So, universities will have to train a whole new crop of these specialists before the industry can become what it was before Three Mile Island. Lastly, we still don't have a national repository for disposing of the OLD fuel rods left from the last nuclear energy boom 25 years after starting to characterize it! (I know because I worked on that too.)
Now, for the good news . . . . . . .