Shunned For Over 10yrs For Denying Climate Change.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
TheRedneck

Okie

doke.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by atlasastro

I remember going to work and standing around the coffee pot talking about how cold it was going to be in ten years. I remember watching documentaries on TV showing how we would have to adapt in order to survive. I remember news stories talking about how every abnormality of weather was attributed to, and therefore 'proof' of, the coming ice age.

Sorry Redneck, i finally realise where i went wrong, i should have looked at made TV documentaries, news and coffee pot talk when i was looking at the misconception that there was a lot of serious science claiming that there was an impending ice age in the 70's rather than looking at what the scientific community was doing at the time, gee my bad.
You love mentioning how science is used to manipulate, control and make money, but i guess you don't include the above media as being typically involved in those habits and are happily willing to use them as proof for your own argument.
Enjoying your own propaganda maybe, fair enough, each to his own. Like I said in my earlier post, the media had a field day with this topic in the 70's, but science didn't.

All a 'scientist' needs do to create the evidence you mention is write it down and have it published.

Yeah, because as we know science just "creates" stuff all the time, like evidence that DNA is the coding of life, and that smoking causes cancer, and that the world is round, gee those clever tricksters.

Fiction writers do it all the time.

Well I am enjoying yours.

The difference is supposed to be peer review and open discussion in order to prevent such from happening, but there is a tremendous amount of money being made from spoon-feeding incomplete and/or inaccurate information to the public. What is published and what is not is more usually an indication of what people are supposed to believe than anything else.

More innuendo that research is all biased based on funding, more accusations of fraudulence and inaccuracies. Well show that then Redneck. Oh wait you'd have to do some study, or maybe research, review other work.....who is paying you Redneck to ummm, write the above fiction. There is far to much money to be lost by many, many people who have invested heavily in the argument that GW and climate change is not anthropogenic, or even happening. We both have our point of views, that we both can easily argue that have been bought.

And here we have my real peeve on this subject: not that some believe the planet is warming out of control, not that studies are being performed in a haphazard way, but that fact is being manufactured in the public mind without regard to truth. That is not science; it is manipulation. As I have aged and matured somewhat, I have come to see the dangers inherent in such activity.

Firstly, you may use an extreme like "warming out of control" to sensationalise the oppositions position in order to make it seem unreasonable, but the fact is we have no control of the climate. We effect it though, and many, many scientist believe that those effect will have consequences, I know of no scientific reports that are saying that the world is ending, but that a lot of people will be affected adversely if we continue emitting GH gases the way we are. So far, many of the changes that have been predicted, have come to fruition, some sooner than previously thought (another omission you left out when comparing the 70's ice age scare to GW/climate change).
as to the manufacturing of public perception in relation to GW, once again your are of the mark. GW/climate change is only now being taken seriously by the public, Govt. and businesses. It has taken until the mid point of this decade to reach that point. Science has been largely ignored until this recent period.
Perhaps some folks at your work, around the coffee pot, were discussing this article.

Last year -- 2007 -- was the year in which global warming finally began to be taken seriously. The climate change deniers were in full retreat, and the realisation that we face a long and grave crisis was finally dawning on the general public. However, it remains to be seen whether it was the year in which the world agreed on effective measures to deal with the crisis.

www.thespec.com...
I was going to post some more appropriate studies, polls etc, but I know you don't like all those pesky scientist that just make stuff up to get paid.

It was a consensus that led us into the Iragi War.

Nice attempt at discrediting the consensus of the scientific community. There was no global consensus that the reason why USA and allies went to war with Iraq was valid, that is why the USA ignored the UN. That is why the world has suffered, because a few countries ignored all other reason in relation to the issue. Try another analogy.

Oops, that contained some false data... sorry, but we got to set up military presence in the area anyway.

No, it was only lies, made up, and "some" false data, try all of it, and they were exposed. The world was on to this scam, that was why millions of people marched against the war, here in Australia, in the UK and in the US.
How has that happened with GW?

It was a consensus at one time that life on the planet would be wiped out because that ozone hole was going to spread until it covered the planet... oops, didn't happen, but it sold a lot of sunscreen (I doubt you remember before sunscreen was widely used as I do) and helped DuPont out.

There is and was a hole in the Ozone layer. CFC's were causing it. In 1987 the world agreed to stop using CFC's. The hole is slowly repairing itself. The world scientific community agreed that without the Ozone layer, we would not be able to live. If you can show me that we can, and that the Ozone layer has no hole, never did, and CFC's had nothing to do with it, I will gladly change my mind. I hope you have a little bit more than the expiration date of a refrigeration coolant. BTW, don't post any studies as they are all fiction( I love how your logic works Redneck, I am going to cast ambiguous aspirations on any science from now on as fiction written by anyone, whilst expecting others to consider my own posts as an authority because "I was there dude, at the coffee pot".)

Remember when eggs were deadly? I do. How about when milk was a carcinogen? I remember that one too, lasted about a week, waited a couple of days, then went for another week.

Here's one you might remember: when the Patriot Act and NAFTA were good things. Yeah, that really proved out true.

Sorry, I don't remember when that happened, eggs?.
I live in Australia, so the Patriot act ,whilst interesting from a conspiracy and abuse of power viewpoint, did not really strike me as a good idea. NAFTA, this is politics Redneck, and economics. How is this applicable to GW and the scientific community agreeing about its cause, the effects and the future outlook. People aren't trading studies within a free trade economy set up in the northern continent of America designed to establish greater trade between partners to make companies and businesses in member states more attractive to import and export goods to because of the tax free agreement.
GW is not an ideal a piece of legislation, or a political ideology. It is a fact, well, to most of the world.



[edit on 13-11-2008 by atlasastro]

quote by RedneckThe very fact that now, this soon after it happened, while those who remember it are still alive, the global cooling scare is claimed to not even have existed should scare any sane person. I always thought rewriting of history required waiting until at least most of those who remembered it were dead. But, like so many other things I have been told throughout my life, apparently not.

The stated purpose of ATS is 'deny ignorance'.

TheRedneck

Ok. then you,Redneck, are denied.

Nowhere in my post did i say that the scare did not happen. Nowhere did i try to re-write history. You theatrics would be amusing if they where not so insulting. Frankly I am surprised that you would have to stoop so low as to infer insanity on an-others part, and you do this whilst fabricating a scenario(re-writing history etc.) that never took place. Kind of like you re-writing the history of my post.....
Nice try Redneck.

Enjoy your propaganda.

I do, because yours is cheap crap.

[edit on 13-11-2008 by atlasastro]

reply to post by atlasastro

Oooh, looks like I struck a nerve... calm down atlasastro, it'll all be OK. Just repeat after me: "Oooommmm, ooooooommmmm, oooooommmm"...

i finally realise where i went wrong, i should have looked at made TV documentaries, news and coffee pot talk when i was looking at the misconception that there was a lot of serious science claiming that there was an impending ice age in the 70's rather than looking at what the scientific community was doing at the time, gee my bad.

Actually you should have been looking at both. Or do you deny that media have been used to further bad science? The media has a long track record of manipulation, one you apparently wish to ignore. That's fine, but be aware I will call you on that ignorance.

Science is not bad, nor is it normally manipulative in itself. But, like almost anything else, it can be used for manipulation. Science examines anomalies and phenomena, and makes predictions based on hypothesis about such. The worth of those hypothesis is determined, not by who makes them, but by the results of the predictions based on future events and experimental results. Thus, if a hypothesis is formulated that states we will all freeze in the fiery flood due to excess CO2 levels, it is not proven until we freeze in the fiery flood.

There are intermediate levels to this obviously dramatic example, of course. However, thus far the predictions are not proving nearly as accurate as I would expect. As I mentioned to melatonin, his own charts would appear to show a sine wave curve peaking in the time period just prior to the present and now turning downward (depending on what one considers 'noise' and what one considers 'signal', to quote his argument). Yet CO2 levels are not decelerating to account for that.

Antarctic Ice is growing after showing some minor decline in recent years, not continuing to accelerate the rate of loss as would be expected if we were on an uncontrolled warming trend due to the continuing rise in CO2 levels.

Arctic ice is shrinking, yes, but NOAA empirical data shows some of the most severe anomalities in temperature are happening around the Arctic region. Some areas are actually increasing the amount of ice as well, indicating this is due to some other source of heat rather than the atmosphere. Oh, that's right, and they found active volcanoes under the ocean in the vicinity of the ice melts.

Jackyll just posted information that I have been wondering about for some time: the accuracy of the thermometers used to analyze temperature variations. It seems some of them are sitting close to outside A/C units, which release heated air as an exhaust. That makes the whole body of observations on global temperature averages suspect at least. And yet, the only thing I have heard argued against that was 'don't throw the baby out with the bathwater' (paraphrased). If the data is found faulty, then it's faulty and must be either verified or discounted.

I do not discount science; I simply do not blindly accept it. Science was never meant to be blindly accepted; the entire search for truth we call science is founded on the principle of review and replication of results. Once you dismiss that and accept things blindly, you no longer follow science, you follow scientists, who are inherently human and prone to error just as much as the rest of us.

Yeah, because as we know science just "creates" stuff all the time, like evidence that DNA is the coding of life, and that smoking causes cancer, and that the world is round, gee those clever tricksters.

DNA: Yes, it does appear to be the coding of life, as you put it, but we still are not completely sure of what most genes do, nor can we create it synthetically. Still a bit of work to be done, there, eh?
Smoking/cancer: I don't buy this one. I have seen too many people die from respiratory complications early in life yet have never smoked, and far too many who have smoked all their life and have no signs of cancer. For a thing to be true, it must be true all the time. How about 'may increase risk of lung cancer'? That one I'll go along with.
Earth is round: Yep, I think we got that one pegged. Of course, before we figured it out, it was the 'scientists' of the day who were so sure it was flat. If I remember my history correctly (and I'm pretty sure I do this time), there was a consensus even that the planet was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, and the whole thing sat on the back of a big turtle.

More innuendo that research is all biased based on funding, more accusations of fraudulence and inaccuracies. Well show that then Redneck. Oh wait you'd have to do some study, or maybe research, review other work.....who is paying you Redneck to ummm, write the above fiction.

Yep, more accusations. Hey, a man has to be good at something.

Who pays scientists? I mean, everyone has to eat, right? They have to get paid. The stereotype of the old guy with crazy hair (thank you Einstein ) sitting around in his modest apartment eating sandwiches and scribbling on paper pads all day in the search for some great truth to life, is simply that: a stereotype. In actuality, most scientists are just normal people who have an inquisitive mind and a great deal of previous work from other scientists at their fingertips. They go to work every day, get paid on Friday, worry about the mortgage, buy groceries, just like you and I.

Most of them work for the various governments, either directly or through governmental grants. Quite a few work for the various large corporations, generally in specific areas where their findings may be used to further the profits. A few are basically self-employed or contract themselves out to media for sensationalism purposes (Michio Kaku ("Mucho Kookoo") comes to mind). As such, those who say and/or find the things their supervisors want to be said/found are those who reap the greatest financial profits. Luckily, there are plenty of scientists who still cling to the Scientific Method and search for the truth, but there are also a good number who exploit this arrangement and take the financially profitable path. The trick is finding out who is following which path, not trying to believe one of the paths does not exist.

In the Global Warming scenario, we find many people on the side of AGW who stand to make a pretty big profit from carbon credits and alternative energy sources. These people have plenty of scientists on their payroll, and a good number of these appear (to me anyway) to be interested in profit first and foremost. That does not discredit their work, but it does raise a red flag of caution when examining the results.

I also know that some scientists are on the other side, paid very well to find anyway to debunk any warming theories. While it is always good to have competition, it also means that their work is also suspect. I am on neither side; I support truth. I receive no monetary or physical benefits from either side of the debate. I simply look at the evidence, the hypotheses, the arguments, and the math (that's the thing with the funny-looking symbols), and make an informed decision as to what is and is not BS. And I have to say that I tend to find more BS than I do anything. This angers me to the point that I even reflected that in my title lines at left: "Seeking truth, but finding nuts".

as to the manufacturing of public perception in relation to GW, once again your are of the mark. GW/climate change is only now being taken seriously by the public, Govt. and businesses. It has taken until the mid point of this decade to reach that point. Science has been largely ignored until this recent period.

Ah, fantastic point!

First you accuse me of not paying enough attention to the scientific work behind the scenes in favor of media outlets, then you say it's a shame it took so long for the media to inform us all of what's going on.

With the exception of a few activist scientists (Mucho Kookoo for example), I don't get their views handed to me as easily as, say, Lou Dobbs or Glenn Beck. I spend much of my leisure time either pouring over scientific publications or at least watching scientific documentaries (I love some of the humor in them). Most people do not do that; most people listen to the nightly local news, maybe a few minutes of CNN, and then switch the boob tube over to Survivor or Family Guy.

In short, it is rare for a scientist to announce a finding to the public. Instead, findings are generally announced through publications in scientific journals, which are read primarily by scientists. It is the media who announce scientific findings to the public. I don't know for a fact, but I would assume that Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck, if they have any educational credentials, have such credentials in journalism rather than in, say, electromagnetic field theory. SO I really can't hold them totally responsible for any inaccuracies on scientific principles.

Who I can hold responsible are the various powers that do control the media, whether by force or by threat or by ideology. Those powers are found in the government, not in corporations. If you want reporters to be invited to the next press conference, we want you to carry this story. If you want to get a scoop on what's about to happen in the Middle East, don't cover that story. Hey, we've got a great story for you on how the President's mother was a pregnant nun who liked to wear purple Indiana Jones hats, but before we get to that, would you be so kind as to put this story on the front page?

-continued-

[edit on 13-11-2008 by TheRedneck]

reply to post by atlasastro
- continued from last post -

That happens, atlasastro. And it skews the perception most people have about science. Now, when I hear about how the Arctic ice is melting, but hear bery little about the volcanic activity under it or how Antarctic ice is growing under the same conditions, it alerts me that something is wrong and I tend to try and find out what. When I have heard about something akin to Global Warming and then begin to hear the whispers of taxation, especially when governments are going broke, it makes me suspicious. And I have heard both on this subject.

At one time I accepted Global Warming. Then, due to stories not making scientific sense ("If this ice shelf breaks off, it will raise the oceans by 20 feet") and rumors (and now explicit threats) of some silly 'carbon tax', I checked the facts out myself. Yes, myself, not following anyone's path but mine. I read published papers, I researched the known properties of the various gases involved, and came to a conclusion: Anthropogenic Global Warming is a scam being perpetuated by the various world leaders on the global population.

Now, if you would like to convince me otherwise, it's easy: present some factual, peer-reviewed evidence that shows all applicable variables related to atmospheric temperature, and show me mathematically how taxing CO2 emissions will change the dynamics of the system. That's all you have to do. that's all anyone else has to do.

Open invitation, atlasastro. Here's your chance to get TheRedneck on your team. Here's your chance to get me to argue just as fervently for AGW as I have been against it. One caveat: I will challenge anything that does not immediately seem self-evident, although I will also listen to any explanations on such.

TheRedneck

reply to post by atlasastro

Sorry Redneck, i finally realise where i went wrong, i should have looked at made TV documentaries, news and coffee pot talk when i was looking at the misconception that there was a lot of serious science claiming that there was an impending ice age in the 70's rather than looking at what the scientific community was doing at the time, gee my bad.

Although it is true that there were studies on both sides of the issue, during the seventies, the "balance" wasn't upset until the GW advocates of late, went back and "performed studies" that said that all the noise regarding the "Coming Ice Age" came from media, and not scientists. This is nothing more than proponents of GW being very selective in what they considered SERIOUS studies.
Regardless, science is not a democratic process. In fact, very little knowledge is gained when everyone publishes papers confirming what is already known. True advances in science frequently come from those that publish works that challenge the current thinking. That, of course, should be self-evident.
As to peer reviews, you've now entered a realm that I am quite familiar with.
Peer reviews work fairly well, when the subject is fairly narrow, the variables are all known, AND ACCURATELY AND CONSISTENTLY MEASURABLE, and multiple disciplines are not involved. On the other hand, when those conditions are not met, then the peer review process frequently fails in its attempt to verify or refute the reviewed thesis.
Global Change falls into the latter category, unfortunately. As several of the posters have pointed out, there are so many variables, in so many different disciplines, and many of those variables are estimated or inferred from other variables, where correlations may be apparent, but cause and effect have not been determined.
Of course, the theses of Global Warming and Global Cooling, naturally rely on temperature data. Over the last century, although temperature data may have been directly measured, but changes in instrumentation and methodology have been common.That is the GOOD news.

The BAD news is that as we go back in time, temperature data has to be inferred from other indicators, such as CO2 levels, plant and fossil evidence, sea levels, etc. Many of the GW advocates point to CO2 levels of the past and claim that those levels correlate with temperature directly. Unfortunately, it is not clear which variable is the leader and which is the follower. In addition, there are so many other variables, as many have pointed out, that to point to one variable as the cause of GW or GC would be foolhardy.
In addition, when an issue, such as Global Change is politically charged, it is hard to get an impartial group of referees. The only thing a referee can do, in such cases, is either verify or dispute facts, as they know them or BELIEVE them to be. Since "PROVING" that Global Warming or Global Cooling is occurring is virtually impossible, given changes that normally take place over millennia, the peer review catches nothing but obvious facts.
I won't even get into the selection of the referees by the editor, and all that entails. That is the subject of another thread.
I'm afraid that as long as we look at one variable as the causal agent, any attempt to get closer to the truth of Global Change is doomed to failure.
I believe that IF this issue is resolved, it will be resolved as a DISPROOF BY EXAMPLE. Again, though, that may take a few hundred years, and I don't think many of us will be around to see that.

[edit on 13-11-2008 by ProfEmeritus]

reply to post by atlasastro

Sorry Redneck, i finally realise where i went wrong, i should have looked at made TV documentaries, news and coffee pot talk when i was looking at the misconception that there was a lot of serious science claiming that there was an impending ice age in the 70's rather than looking at what the scientific community was doing at the time, gee my bad.

He's right y'know.

There was a chill across the world, and it wasn't just the cold war. From the 1940s to the mid-70s, the planet seemed to be in the grip of a global cooling. For a while, almost every outbreak of extreme weather was blamed on it. Some members of a new scientific discipline, climatology, predicted a new ice age. Yet before the 70s were out, temperatures were rising and many of the soothsayers for a new ice age were warning of global warming instead. It is a strange, and now largely forgotten episode. Some say it shows climate scientists are scaremongers and shouldn't be believed, whatever they are predicting. So what happened three decades ago? And why should we believe the climatologists now?

www.newscientist.com...

After rising rapidly during the first part of the 20th century, global average temperatures did cool by about 0.2°C after 1940 and remained low until 1970, after which they began to climb rapidly again.

The mid-century cooling appears to have been largely due to a high concentration of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, emitted by industrial activities and volcanic eruptions. Sulphate aerosols have a cooling effect on the climate because they scatter light from the Sun, reflecting its energy back out into space.

The rise in sulphate aerosols was largely due to the increase in industrial activities at the end of the second world war. In addition, the large eruption of Mount Agung in 1963 produced aerosols which cooled the lower atmosphere by about 0.5°C, while solar activity levelled off after increasing at the beginning of the century

www.newscientist.com...



GW links.
Climate myths:Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter.
www.newscientist.com...

Climate myths:Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming.
www.newscientist.com...

reply to post by jakyll

Yes, and in fact, I have a book right here on my bookshelf that I've read several times since I bought it in 1978. The book is:
The Weather Conspiracy -The Coming of the New Ice Age

Pages 192 through 196 list the book and paper references that supported the book's hypothesis, which is basically the theory of Prof. Reid A Bryson of the University of Wisconsin At Madison. On page 231:

...the world is at the end of a golden era. that of benign climate and food surpluses. Moreover,climate change has set in, and it will be 40 to 60 years from now at a minimum,possibly centuries before we can hope for equally benign weather.

Furthermore:

The earth's atmosphere, hence its weather, is driven by the heat of the sun.Temperature differences-between pole and equator, and between surface and upper air-constitute the main working parts of this heat engine and are responsible for pressure differences and the consequent flow of air masses.

Later on, he states that man-made dust has a far greater cooling effect on the earth, than man made CO2 does in heating the earth.
Although the book is 30 years old, there is quite a bit of sound science in it.

Thank you, jakyll, for the backup, and you, Prof, for the insight.

It has been a while since atlasastro posted, so I am assuming at this point he did not wish to take me up on my offer to listen to his evidence. I find that to be the case often when these threads erupt. It is really a shame, though, since I do believe that, at the very least, we as a society have and will benefit from the knowledge gained during this episode of environmental study. All we need do now is weed out the faulty data and theories from those which provide accurate information.

I mean to set up an experiment as soon as time and money allow (which could be a little while the way things are looking). I propose the following, should anyone else wish to beat me to it: four identical Plexiglass (acrylic) enclosures, each one about 4 foot cubed or larger. These cubes would need some method of light ventilation to equalize air pressure, as the temperature in all of them will rise substantially with sunlight exposure. In the first, the control, the ground will be soil, possibly with some sort of floral ground cover and filled with air. In the second, the same ground situation would be used, but CO2 would be able to be added in measured quantity to double the CO2 level in the enclosed air. In the third, regular air would be used, but the ground cover would be replaced with a concrete slab that would cover 50% of the area enclosed. The fourth would function with concrete ground cover equal to 50% and a doubled CO2 level.

Each enclosure would need to be situated to receive identical exposure to solar radiation, and each would be equipped with a thermometer to measure the inside temperature (I had intent to also add a cylinder recording device, but hourly measurements should provide sufficient data at reduced construction costs). Now one should be able to see the correlation between temperature rise in solar radiation with doubled CO2 levels and with an excess of concrete ground cover, and compare the results to the control to determine which variable is more responsible for warming trends.

I firmly believe that it would be the concrete which is more of a culprit than CO2 levels, but the experimental results, since they would be repeatable and verifiable, would indicate which is more apt to create heat on the planet.

If anyone wishes to carry this experiment out, please feel free to do so, and please post your results. I am sure we would all be happy to see them.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck

Good Day, Redneck.
Are you aware of this:
www.sciencedaily.com...

reply to post by ProfEmeritus
Good morning Prof!

I am aware of it now, thank you. I seriously doubt that they will be able to replace traditional concrete in the foreseeable future, simply due to economics. But the research being done on it will no doubt have fascinating effects on improving material design overall.

Nice catch!

TheRedneck

Ahh...

Intresting..


This kind of nonsense happen ALL THE TIME here in the US...

If someone does not follow the Big-Goverment line, they get 'silenced'

Blacked out on the media... They become a man who does not exist...
Erased from the public eye...





The Big Boys, the powers that be, WANT to CONVINCE the world that WE, ARE CAUSEING the globe to warm...

And, all evidence for C02 induced, man-made global warming is pretty much Bunk...

There is no question the Earth is on a warming trend, but, our entire solar system is ALSO warming...

And, contrary to John Lear, Humans are not on every planet in our solar system...

So, the likleyhood that HUMANS are the main catalyst for the warming of the Earth, and our surrounding solar system, just doesn't hold up...


No matter how many fraudulent awards he gets...

reply to post by TKainZero

Great post. A star for you. The "man causes global warming" nonsense shows the arrogance of some people to think that they have a bigger effect than 5 billion years of cycular climate patterns in our solar system.

reply to post by TKainZero

Make that two stars.

Evidence is not necessary when financial gain is concerned. That is why science is so easily corrupted and must be questioned with a critical eye and a questioning heart. Anything less and we lose the advantages science has yet to uncover for our future and depose ourselves to another era akin to the 'Dark Ages' of yore.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TKainZero

Blacked out on the media... They become a man who does not exist...
Erased from the public eye...

Yet its amazing how many people believe that such a thing doesn't happen and has,in fact,never happened.

The UK and US governments under Blair/Brown and Bush have shown a staggering amount of corruption that it boggles the mind that people still believe everything they come out and say.