$4.49/gal for diesel ????

[Steve]

What's wrong with this picture? Please don't tell us that the scientific community is lying to us, or being bribed by Al Gore sympathizers.

Why doubt them??? Certainly, the doubting "scientists" are in a vast minority.

Hmmmm . . . .

If I may step in here, now that Basil has "broken cover".......... and before I go any further I have to state my neutrality on the subject of politics, but I also do a lot of reading and research, and I have to say that whilst the people you refer to may not be "bribing" the scientists that you mention, per se, they are certainly paying handsomely to fund that research.

Research will come up with any conclusion that you wish if you are willing to pay enough for them to disregard any information to the contrary.

You'll find the scientific community that are supporting the chicken little syndrome are indeed a minority, but thanks to their patrons, are a very vocal minority..........

Basil points out that there was never a "debate" on the subject, anyone who raised a dissenting voice has been shouted down as a capitalist puppet.

As I mentioned I really am neutral on the subject, but the media focus is on the doom-mongers, and the members of the scientific community who cast doubt on their prognostications are demeaned as idiots.

 

[vagt6]

But, I refer to <span style="font-style: italic">widespread</span> scientific concensus (you know it's true), not just here in the U.S., but <span style="text-decoration: underline">independent</span> scientists and <span style="text-decoration: underline">independent</span> institutions all over the planet in practically <span style="text-decoration: underline">every country</span> who agree that it's for real.

The doubting, or anti-warming scientists are "hushed", because they're in the vast <span style="font-style: italic">minority</span>.

So, you're saying that there's some kind of <span style="font-style: italic">global conspiracy </span>against anti-warming views/scientists/politicians? A pervasive "left wing" pro-environment conspiracy that stifles all opposing views?

This "dark force" conspiracy would require means to affect funding; research; writing, journals, periodicals; and philosophy, all in different countries, simultaneously. The cost to maintain and fund it would be staggering. Actually, it's impossible.

Heck, it's hard to get independent scientists to concur on <span style="text-decoration: underline">anything</span>, usually, except this issue!

 

[Basil]

Certainly, the doubting or opposing "scientists" are in a vast minority. Why would one choose to believe a minority of "scientists" (a number of whom are not nearly as credible).

Hmmmm . . . . Strange.

Nice immitation of Mr Gore. There are a lot more opposing scientists than you think, but the media gives them NO air time. Did you hear about the 100 or so who protested the Climate Meetings in Baili? Nope. I bet you didn't. Did you hear about the recent Climate Change conference in DC in which hundreds of scientists from many different areas met who are all of the opinion that man-caused global warming is not happening? Did the media tell you about that? Nope, bet they didn't. You are demonstrating perfectly my point of how effective propaganda shuts out opposing views points.

When one man came out and suggested the earth was not, in fact, the center of the universe, he was also in the minority - but he was right. And as to why I choose not to belive them - simple - much of what is in the IPCC report is not true...period.

Basil

 

[Basil]

But, I refer to <span style="font-style: italic">widespread</span> scientific concensus, not just here in the U.S., but all over the planet in practically <span style="text-decoration: underline">every country</span> who agree that it's for real.

So, you're saying that there's some kind of <span style="font-style: italic">global conspiracy </span>against these credible scientists from independent funding sources, in different countries??

A world-wide conspiracy of some sort??

Who's behind this conspiracy? Who is funding it? Who is organizing it?

I thought so.

Please.

No sir, I'm saying that there are many many scientists who do NOT believe in the Global Warming hype and they are being pushed out of the debate. In fact there has been no debate. Part of the problem is research funding...if you are a research scientist and are not on board with the "consensus" then you won't get funding - it is that simple.

If you want to bow at the alter of Global Warming, that is your right. I do not. With all due respect, I have actually read the IPCC report.

Cheers,
Basil

 

[NutmegCT]

This is getting interesting ...

Basil - I've got the IPCC report here at home. Could you give us an example of where it's untrue, or where it's got some invalid data?

Maybe a specific section of the report, and your findings about that section?

Thanks.
Tom

 

[MGA Steve]

QUESTION: When there's conjecture about something that's critically important to the planet, and to mankind, who you gonna believe?

Please choose an answer among A-E, below:

<span style="font-weight: bold">A)</span> Highly credentialed, dedicated and honorable research scientists from a wide range of institutional backgrounds (thus, no collusion) who have exhaustively researched the pollution problem, and, a majority of whom independently concur that we're ruining the environment (in many ways, not just "global warming") with fossil fuel consumption;

I worked for the U.S. Geological Survey--a government agency made up almost entirely of Ph.D scientists--from 1968 to 1973. Before I went there, some of the geophysicists I worked with had spent years working on uranium exploration due to the high funding levels for that field in the late 1950s and 1960s. Others, who were generally younger, had worked on the joint USGS-NASA lunar exploration training program in Flagstaff, where funding was drastically cut when Apollo was cancelled and SkyLab became the new NASA priority.

During the 1973 oil embargo, several of these former uranium/space geophysicists switched to geothermal exploration, because alternative energy had become the new highest priority (ie., highest funding level). After Mount St. Helens blew up in 1980, some of these same scientists switched to vulcanology and one or two even ended up at the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory because that was where the highest priority (funding level!) was found.

So, research by "unbiased" scientists in government agencies and universities is very often oriented toward the current "hot topic," which at the present is global warming. If you can find a niche in science that actually lasts for an entire career--great! If not, you join the others chasing the latest funding priority.

In grad school I had a Welsh geology professor who quite frankly stated to our class: "There are two ways to get recognition in this field. One is to publish a few outstanding papers that everyone will read and acknowledge. The other is to publish a great number of mediocre papers in order to constantly keep your name in front of your peers because they only read the title and abstract anyway." He had chosen the latter path to fame! And, even more incredible, I stil remember his statement 40 years later!

 

[Steve]

I have a quote here from a member of MENSA on a forum discussion about global warming which should be considered.....

"Regardless of who is "right" about global warming, those screaming the loudest about it are pretty clearly on a path of wealth redistribution."

Not my words.

As here, there are two sides to the discussion. This quote happens to echo my thoughts.

 

[NutmegCT]

I'll be interested in what Basil shares from that IPCC report. But in the interim, why did this thread turn into a Global Warming/Climate Change thread anyway?

T.

 

[Steve]

Oh, you know how threads have a habit of morphing into something else entirely..... and the topics are not entirely unrelated :laugh:

 

[vagt6]

Yes, Steve, but if a credible person or persons came up with a credible study that DISPROVED global warming theories, they'd also benefit tremendously, financially and otherwise. Publishers would be on them like white on rice, etc.

Works both ways.

 

[MGA Steve]

Yes, Steve, but if a credible person or persons came up with a credible study that DISPROVED global warming theories, they'd also benefit tremendously, financially and otherwise. Publishers would be on them like white on rice, etc.

Works both ways.

I don't know about that. A Durham University geologist named Arthur Holmes included a chapter on "continental drift" in his 1943 textbook. The theory of continental drift and its spinoff concepts are now the basis for much of the oil and gas exploration occurring throughout the world. And you have to admit that such exploration was of considerable interest to the world's economy at least as far back as the 1973 Oil Embargo!

However, very few geologists, universities, government agencies, or oil and gas companies took notice of the Holmes theory until 1969. Many even argued vehemently against it until the mid-1970s.

Arthur Holmes was "a voice crying in the wilderness" for 30 years before anyone took him seriously. Now his ideas are known to every freshman geology major; heck, even every child who visits a museum of natural history. So much for consensus science!

 

[angelfj1]

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. I was very impressed by the organization, presentation and documentation. The credentials were from all phases of science , worldwide from all political viewpoints. I said to my wife that it was too sophisticated for the average viewer. But how can you present a comprehensive view of global warming without getting into sophisticated science, statistics, trending and predictive diagnosis. 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. Perhaps there hasn't been sufficient debate but I doubt it. Scientists tend to be very sensitive about being criticized and I am sure that debate did occur. Perhaps more is better. I would be happy to watch
an equally well done film with another conclusion.

My wife and I just returned from a business trip to Chile. We were very fortunate to be able to visit Patagonia and Los Torres de Paine National Park and the Grey Glacier. This is the 3rd largest glacier in the world following Greenland and Antarctica. We have been very fortunate to have seen a good portion of the world. We always make a point of meeting local families and this trip were lucky to stay with some folks whose family has lived in this region for 4 generations. They talked about how the grandfather would tell stories about the ice and places were he would hunt and camp when he was a boy. They told about how sad he was that he could not show these places to his grandchildren because they are now under water. The local courthouse has records and maps of the glacier that go back to approx, 1800. The glacier had been receding at a rate of .3 meters per year until approx. 1885 when it increased to 1 meter per year (300%) and kicked up again to about 2 meters/yr in 1949. I stayed at that rate until the mid 70's when it shot up to its current rate of 3 meters per year. These are my rough calcs. based on the data in the log book. I confirmed this a week later with one of the Chilean government offices in Santiago. I really don't care if everyone believes that we are in trouble. But if enough of us do, there may be time to make a difference. Then in 50 years maybe my grandsons can tell their grandchildren of the wondrous sites they have seen

 

[Tinster]

Hey !!

The folks in that Nanook photo kinda look like two
nice folks wuz in shorts down here in the tropics over Christmas.

A handsome couple to say the least.

d :thumbsup:

 

[bugimike]

It seems to me that there is a lot of mixing apples and oranges in these arguments and there are a lot of facets to what is going on! IF there is global warming, is it man-induced or part of a geologic cycle? What are the consequences of each? What can be done about either if a determination can be made that the data is positive? Who profits from the efforts/sacrifices made by the masses towards a solution.

Regardless of whether global warming is occuring or not, man-made or not, efforts aimed at increased efficiency and cleanliness of fuels can only work towards the benefit of mankind and the planet! We do not live in a bottomless pit of resources and should thus seek the most efficient uses of all of them. It is inarguable to me that as a species we waste too much! I certainly do not have any of the answers and I am always suspicious of demagoguery and punditry! In short, I see merit and chicanary on all sides! Unfortunately, either way, it IS a finite game! Global warming or not, mankind is "populating ourselves" right to the point of extinction. In a perfect world, in time, there would still be too many of us!!

 

[MGA Steve]

The local courthouse has records and maps of the glacier that go back to approx, 1800. The glacier had been receding at a rate of .3 meters per year until approx. 1885 when it increased to 1 meter per year (300%) and kicked up again to about 2 meters/yr in 1949. I stayed at that rate until the mid 70's when it shot up to its current rate of 3 meters per year. These are my rough calcs. based on the data in the log book. I confirmed this a week later with one of the Chilean government offices in Santiago. I really don't care if everyone believes that we are in trouble.

I certainly believe your calculations--the same thing has happened at glaciers that I have visited here in Colorado and in Alaska, Canada, and New Zealand. Glaciers advance and retreat constantly--the only constant in geology is change. But are the glaciers receding due to man?

I pulled the following quote from the "UN Atlas of the Oceans:"

"<span style="font-style: italic">During the Last Glacial Maximum, about 21,000 years ago, global sea level was approximately 120 m (400 ft) lower than today. The Bering Land Bridge existed as a vast tundra plain connecting Asia and North America. As the world's glaciers and ice sheets melted over the following millenia, rising sea level flooded the land bridge - blocking migration routes for animals and humans</span>."

Was man responsible for either that period of glacial melting or the subsequent 400-foot rise in sea level, a rise which primarily occurred between about 10,000 and 5,000 years before present? No, major changes in the cooling and warming of the earth do not need our help. They have occurred naturally at least 5 times in the past one million years of earth history.

Are we contributing to the current warming due to hydrocarbon fuel burning? Possibly. Are we contributing due to the destruction of equatorial rain forest? Possibly. Have we been in a natural warming cycle since 1875? Very likely. Does science have anything left to study on these issues or have all the questions been answered? Yes and NEVER!

 

[AweMan]

Global warming or no Global warming, I have nothing against keeping our environment clean. But what really bothers me is the fact that A greater majority of the "Global Warming" advocates, are what I deem as Hypocrytes.
Case in point:
Al Gore championing the Global warming issue while at the same time using more fossil fuel himself than any average citisen. He Flys his jet hither and yon at will! But consider this, one two hour flight uses more fossil fuel than your vehicle does in a week and leaves a larger carbon footprint in doing so. Then there are his Mansions that use more fossil energy to heat and cool than any average american household does. Not to mention the other electrical devices he may use that consume energy created by {His words not mine} "Dirty Coal". He is just one example out of many that are in the same category. Spewing thier ADJENDA, screaming "The sky is falling"
Don`t get me wrong, I want a cleaner earth! But not JUST at the inconvience of the AMERICAN non elite. Other countrys have to be on board with the ideal of not polluting our atmosphere, otherwise what we do as Americans will have little or NO EFFFECT what so ever!
Setting an EXAMPLE By these Hypocrytes might go a long way to get everyone World Wide on board with the Clean earth ideal.

 

[jlaird]

Boy are there a lot of deep thinkers here. I am impressed with the language, thought, and commitment of all of you.

Great thread, maybe the best off topic one we have ever had.

 

[angelfj1]

"We do not live in a bottomless pit of resources and should thus seek the most efficient uses of all of them."

Well said Mike

 

[angelfj1]

"Don`t get me wrong, I want a cleaner earth! But not JUST at the inconvenience of the AMERICAN non elite."

With that attitude nothing will ever change! Who do you think worked for peanuts before the labor movement? the AMERICAN non elite. Whose lives are lost in all wars, real or fabricated - the AMERICAN non elite.

I think it is people like you and I that need to realize that the politicians, the 10 percent (with 90 percent of the wealth) or so called elite don't give a frack. So guess who's left holding the bag - the AMERICAN non elite.

 

[angelfj1]

"I certainly believe your calculations--the same thing has happened at glaciers that I have visited here in Colorado and in Alaska, Canada, and New Zealand. Glaciers advance and retreat constantly--the only constant in geology is change. But are the glaciers receding due to man?"

Even after my crude calcs, you can see a definite correlation with subsequent recessions at a) the onset of the industrial era, b) post WWII and c) the peak of the big Detroit gas guzzlers. Gee- Deja Vu (all Over Again)!

No doubt in sufficient geological time (many centuries) I'm sure there will be reversals, but by then our posterity may be enjoying the beaches in Ohio. :frown: