Folks, This Is Getting Serious

Originally posted by ThinksYouAreAnIdiot
Unless of course they are "hired shills"

Hardly. I talked to Professor Bill McGuire from the Benfield Hazard Research Centre in Monte Carlo last week. It was a conversation that left me very depressed. Past predictions about the state of global warming are now turning into observations. CO2 levels are the highest they're been for 800,000 years and the speed of some of the glaciers in Greenland has doubled in their march to the sea, from 7 km a year to 14 km a year. Water is melting on top, percolating down and then lubricating the base of the bloody things.
I had to reel away afterwards for a beer.
The fact is that the (re)insurance industry is getting desperately worried about the issue of global warming, as they're going to be facing the bills for the damage from it soon.

[edit on 18-9-2006 by Darkmind]

[edit on 18-9-2006 by Darkmind]

Originally posted by Darkmind
The fact is that the (re)insurance industry is getting desperately worried about the issue of global warming, as they're going to be facing the bills for the damage from it soon.

Yes, it is really amazing all the things that are taking place and will happen...

Insurances may avoid facing bills if most part of the Earth is under water... Who will they compensate?

Do you know if there is a real study of the amount of sea level increase that will happen because of the ice melting? And have they checked the areas on Earth that will be under water? I wonder if there is a map showing it.

Scientists are warning once after the other... First, it was predicted, then it was said...Now it is said, it is confirmed... What are we waiting for?
For it to happen and then take steps about it?

Something could be done right now... Am I wrong?

If this cannot be stopped, why aren´t they doing something to move people away from the most dangerous areas?

The sick irony of global warming is that it's apparently making Texas a more habitable place. I have never seen such mild summers in my life, or if I have, I can't remember them. Whereas a typical summer would sometimes see two straight months of 120+ F weather, nowadays I don't even know if we broke 110, and the 100+ days lasted less than 20. Whereas before we only had two seasons: Summer, which was DAMNED HOT, and lasted about 8 months of the year), and Winter, which lasts about 3 and a half months and largely consisted of lethal chunks of ice falling from the sky and destroying vehicles. "Spring" and "Fall" were largely alien concepts, lasting less than a week each, and generally were only noticed by the fact that suddenly we'd begin sweating when we were previously shivering, or vice versa. In fact, I'd go so far as to say Texas saw less Spring and Fall than Seattle sees sunny days per year.

Now, after a very mild summer of mostly mid-90's, I'm enjoying a very pleasant autumn, with leaves very gently turning pretty colors, and I can actually sit or stand outside without needing a paramedic team for exposure to the elements on standby, and I would even go so far as to say yardwork has become somewhat of a pleasure now.

It sucks about the rest of the world, but lucky for me that Texas was such a godforsaken climatic hellhole before that it could only be improved by Global Warming!

Originally posted by ThinksYouAreAnIdiot
Tell me speaker, other than the results of his research, how do you determine a "legitimate scientist" from a "paid shill" Becuase is seems to me your criteria is whether or not his or her research provides evidence which supports your favored theory.

I am going to be highly suspicious of any findings of a "scientist" who is fiananced by one of the major polluters, especially when they erroneously state things like, "Well, the factories aren't a major contributor to pollution,et cetera." It doesn't take a genius to figure out that statements like that are not only bought and paid for, but entirely false. It's as simple as that.

For example,I certainly would not believe any "science" that this guy would throw at me.

thinkprogress.org...
Exxon-Backed Pundit Compares Gore To Nazi Propagandist
Sterling Burnett is a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, an organization that has received over $390,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. This afternoon on Fox, Burnett compared watching Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, to watching a movie by Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels to learn about Nazi Germany. Watch it:

[edit on 18-9-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

I have a question for all of you who doubt the severity of global warming...Are you really going to take these guys word for it?

New Ads Funded by Big Oil Portray Global Warming Science as Smear Campaign Against Carbon Dioxide
Yesterday, the Competitive Enterprise Institute – a front group funded by ExxonMobil and other big oil companies – launched two advertisements in response to Al Gore’s new movie, An Inconvenient Truth.

The first ad portrays global warming science as a vicious smear campaign against carbon dioxide. The ad, which despite appearances is not an SNL parody, helpfully reminds us that carbon dioxide is “essential to life” because “we breath it out.”

thinkprogress.org...

[edit on 18-9-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

I am going to be highly suspicious of any findings of a "scientist" who is fiananced by one of the major polluters, especially when they erroneously state things like, "Well, the factories aren't a major contributor to pollution,et cetera." It doesn't take a genius to figure out that statements like that are not only bought and paid for, but entirely false. It's as simple as that.

Tell me something speaker, given that there is at least 3-4 dollars available for research that is likely to provide evidence for Global Warming as there is for research that is likely to provide evidence against it, wouldn't a researcher who was willing to sell his credibillity be better compensated by crafting his research to be more likely to provide confirming evidence?

The one thing I know for a fact about most researchers is that they spend the bulk of thier time if untenured, searching for grants to continue thier private projects. A researcher whose research casts doubt on global warming will quickly find himself ridiculed by his peers, less able to fund his research, and less socially acceptable in most university setting therfore making him less likely to secure the one thing that would safeguard his independence, tenure.

From a purely mercenary perspective, which is what you are attributing to those scientists whose research you have labelled "not only bought and paid for, but entirely false", research casting doubt on global warming is counterproductive.

It also follows that if any given percentage of researchers on one side of the issue is in fact selling results, then logically one must assume that some percentage of those researchers on the other side are likely doing the same. Furthermore as the pro global warming side is clearly more profitable, in terms of prestige, social standing, tenure prospects, and grant awards, that would be the side of the issue I would expect would attract the most mercenary of minds. Especially when so much of the funding decisions is in the hands of environmental lobbies who combine massive political and finacial power coupled with, at best, superficial knowledge of the underlying science, and at worst, quasi-religous conviction.

Originally posted by thelibra

The Irony of Global Warming...

The sick irony of global warming is that it's apparently making Texas a more habitable place. I have never seen such mild summers in my life, or if I have, I can't remember them. Whereas a typical summer would sometimes see two straight months of 120+ F weather, nowadays I don't even know if we broke 110, and the 100+ days lasted less than 20. Whereas before we only had two seasons:

It sucks about the rest of the world, but lucky for me that Texas was such a godforsaken climatic hellhole before that it could only be improved by Global Warming!

I'm no weather expert, your post made me a little curious. lol maybe true the temperatures have been kind of nice, although we had drought in central Texas this year.... thankfully it rained this week

Check this out, around my area.
Waco - 100° Days and Warm Season Temperatures since 1902 www.srh.noaa.gov...

2004 there was 1 day of 100°
1980 there was 63 days of 100°
1979 there was 1 day of 100°
1955 Dec 24 90°F

The list actually looks random, weird that 1919 and 1920 with zero days of 100°. It seems the 100° temperatures fluctuate every 5-10 years or more.



[edit on 19-9-2006 by XPhiles]

Originally posted by XPhiles
I'm no weather expert, your post made me a little curious. lol maybe true the temperatures have been kind of nice, although we had drought in central Texas this year.... thankfully it rained this week

Yeah, we've been having one too. Not counting the last month, I think it's rained four times in the last 2 years. So yeah, we may be dying of thirst right alongside our lawns, but at least we're dying of thirst at a pleasant temperature.

Originally posted by XPhiles
The list actually looks random, weird that 1919 and 1920 with zero days of 100°. It seems the 100° temperatures fluctuate every 5-10 years or more.

S'Texas, m8. Random doesn't even begin to describe our weather. It's like god needed a place for all the dee-deedeeee clouds and wind to go. Our sky is one big insane asylum for weather that just didn't fit in anywhere else.

"July, already? Crap. Watch out for the hail storms!"

"Golly, December? Merry Christmas, let's go get a tan in this 90 degree sunny day."

"Oh, April... going on a year's worth of drought...with no breeze.... yay..."

"It's fall, guess it's time for those dead stick looking things to start blooming and seeding..."

Originally posted by ThinksYouAreAnIdiot

Tell me something speaker, given that there is at least 3-4 dollars available for research that is likely to provide evidence for Global Warming as there is for research that is likely to provide evidence against it, wouldn't a researcher who was willing to sell his credibillity be better compensated by crafting his research to be more likely to provide confirming evidence?

The one thing I know for a fact about most researchers is that they spend the bulk of thier time if untenured, searching for grants to continue thier private projects. A researcher whose research casts doubt on global warming will quickly find himself ridiculed by his peers, less able to fund his research, and less socially acceptable in most university setting therfore making him less likely to secure the one thing that would safeguard his independence, tenure.

It also follows that if any given percentage of researchers on one side of the issue is in fact selling results, then logically one must assume that some percentage of those researchers on the other side are likely doing the same.

wouldn't a researcher who was willing to sell his credibillity be better compensated by crafting his research to be more likely to provide confirming evidence?

What makes you so sure of that? Isn't it a fact that what most people want to hear is that there is no global warming? After all, that is what leads most people to argue against it; they refuse to believe that something so crucial is occurring. So how would it be more profitable for a person who is confirming credibility? I mean, it's against human nature to support a report that states than 30 years from now large portions of the coastline will be under water.

A researcher whose research casts doubt on global warming will quickly find himself ridiculed by his peers, less able to fund his research, and less socially acceptable in most university setting therfore making him less likely to secure the one thing that would safeguard his independence, tenure.

True. Generally it's because his/her research is funded by such pollution giants as EXXON,MOBIL, et cetera. Again, I ask, why should "research" funded by the nations biggest polluters be believed? Why?

[edit on 19-9-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 19-9-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 19-9-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

Would you trust any research funded by the US Govt?

Personally I prefer to judge the researh on its scientific merits - I don't care if it was funded by Exxon, the Vatican or the Zeta Reticulians.

If it's rubbish research it will be ignored and the researcher villified accordingly. If it's good research then it deserves full attention - even if it tells us something we don't want to know.

Originally posted by Essan
Would you trust any research funded by the US Govt?

Personally I prefer to judge the researh on its scientific merits - I don't care if it was funded by Exxon, the Vatican or the Zeta Reticulians.

If it's rubbish research it will be ignored and the researcher villified accordingly. If it's good research then it deserves full attention - even if it tells us something we don't want to know.

Of course I don't trust the research of the EPA under the existing administration. Why? Simple. We all know that the big oil and chemical corporations were supporters of George W. Bush. You don't think his administartion would do anything to upset the applecart do you? Of course not!! To me, it does matter who funded the research. Surely you don't think that a chemical plant is going to report "accurate" scientific data on the chemicals it is throwing into the air everyday.

Originally posted by Essan
If it's rubbish research it will be ignored and the researcher villified accordingly. If it's good research then it deserves full attention - even if it tells us something we don't want to know.

Wow... I can't believe this mindset still exists.

Ummmmm, Essan, I really hate to break it to you, but you're wrong. Every single day, everything from school textbooks to "proven scientific foundations" are circulated, used as if they were fact, and even further works built upon them, when at the core, everything it was based upon was rubbish.

To quote two of the most notable examples from memory:

1.) School textbooks have been peer-reviewed, given excellent marks for their content by an entire panel of state employees, purchased, and even planned for distribution, when the book in question was actually completely blank on the inside. No one had bothered to read it, or indeed, to even open the book and see if anything had been printed. This is to say nothing of the other fully approved, praised, and accredited books, which contained such fallacies as "ants that sting" and "bees that bite"

2.) Scientific "fact" has repeatedly been based upon flawed emprical evidence that someone else did. Feynman actually discusses one case that rose up where he couldn't figure out why A = B instead of C, like it was supposed to. After doing some investigation into the history of the problem, he had found that only one empirical study had been performed, and that the control datum had been flawed during the procedure. However, further reference books were published, based upon the empirical evidence from that one experiment, and newer publications were published based upon those reference books, which in turn prompted yet further books, basing entire proofs, series, experiments, and all, upon what a previous book had claimed the case to be when, ultimately, only one experiment had been performed, and badly at that, and everyone else's work had been based off the assumption that data was correct.

(source: Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!.)

These are not the results of some quack find, christian science monitor, web blog, or other creditless sources. These are the common findings and observations of one of the most brilliant physicists ever. It is extremely dangerous thought to simply assume that "rubbish research" will be weeded out by the masses when not even the establishment itself can be bothered to properly execute the most basic principles of scientific research.



[edit on 9/19/2006 by thelibra]

Originally posted by thelibra
Wow... I can't believe this mindset still exists.

Ummmmm, Essan, I really hate to break it to you, but you're wrong. Every single day, everything from school textbooks to "proven scientific foundations" are circulated, used as if they were fact, and even further works built upon them, when at the core, everything it was based upon was rubbish.

To quote two of the most notable examples from memory:

1.) School textbooks have been peer-reviewed, given excellent marks for their content by an entire panel of state employees, purchased, and even planned for distribution, when the book in question was actually completely blank on the inside. No one had bothered to read it, or indeed, to even open the book and see if anything had been printed. This is to say nothing of the other fully approved, praised, and accredited books, which contained such fallacies as "ants that sting" and "bees that bite"

It is extremely dangerous thought to simply assume that "rubbish research" will be weeded out by the masses when not even the establishment itself can be bothered to properly execute the most basic principles of scientific research.



[edit on 9/19/2006 by thelibra]

Right on....This also addresses what I said earlier about people, particularly in the United States, being uninformed and indifferent. Hell, people in this country don't even read books anymore. "It's too boring, wah,wah," they say. Yet we have people entering college who don't even know how to read or write!!!

Yet, according to the majority of the population, they've got it all figured out. They know everything. They know nothing because they don't take the time to research and learn. We are living amongst an "ignorant" population. Notice I said "ignorant" and not "dumb," there is a difference.

Americans have the ability to learn, so they are not "dumb," they are just too indifferent and lazy to do so...Therefore, such an attitude contributes to the "ignorance" we find in a large percentage of the population. Here is an example of what I am talking about

America the ignorant
After Sept. 11, Americans have rushed to educate themselves about Islam, the Middle East and foreign affairs. But how did we get so benighted in the first place?

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Laura Miller

Sept. 27, 2001 | Almost as soon as rescue workers began sifting through the rubble at the sites of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, many Americans launched another search -- not quite as desperate, perhaps, but crucial nonetheless. Citizens scrambled for information about the places the killers came from and the ideas and beliefs that could drive men to lay down their lives for the chance to massacre ordinary American office workers. Foreign correspondents with expertise in the Middle East say their phones have been ringing off the hook, and virtually every newspaper in every town across the nation has run a variation on two basic stories: "What is Islam?" and "Why Do They Hate Us?" Adding to the shock of thousands of violent deaths was the bewildering information that the people who so passionately want us dead belong to nations and groups that many Americans had never even heard of.

American Ignorance

I mean it has filtered down even to our leaders, as I am sure that this administrations' environmental decisions would demonstrate.

[edit on 19-9-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 19-9-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

Here is an interesting article about solar radiation affecting the "greenhouse effect":

May 10, 2005
Global Warming: Something New Under the Sun?
Filed under: Climate Forcings, Aerosols, Solar —
That appears to be what is happening, judging from three papers in the May 6 issue of Science.

These three papers argue that the amount of incoming solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth has increased dramatically in the last two decades. While the values vary from paper to paper, in toto the new studies suggest that the increase in solar radiation absorbed at the earth’s surface had almost 10 times as much warming power during that time as the concurrent increases in carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas. Therefore, the warming observed over the past 20 years must have little to do with changes in greenhouse gases.

Before you kill the greenhouse effect, please note that we think this is a lot of hooey. But if you accept these results, that’s where you have to go.


You’d think it would be huge news that the greenhouse scare is over. Instead, the “news” sections of Science and Nature are behaving in their predictable fashion. In Nature, Quirin Schiermeier wrote “this may worsen the greenhouse effect.”

Really?

Solar Radiation

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
What makes you so sure of that? Isn't it a fact that what most people want to hear is that there is no global warming? After all, that is what leads most people to argue against it; they refuse to believe that something so crucial is occurring. So how would it be more profitable for a person who is confirming credibility? I mean, it's against human nature to support a report that states than 30 years from now large portions of the coastline will be under water.

The general public doesn't control grant monies. In point of fact most climatologists funding comes from either universities, environmentalist groups or wealthy alumni. The oil industries sponsorship of climatological research is negligable by comparison. They feel the vast bulk of thier money is better spent on exploration and operating expenses.

True. Generally it's because his/her research is funded by such pollution giants as EXXON,MOBIL, et cetera. Again, I ask, why should "research" funded by the nations biggest polluters be believed? Why?

Not familiar with the term groupthink? Strange because you are such a remarkable living example of that very concept in action.

Tell me why should research funded by greenpeace or other activist organisations be any more inhearntly reliable than that funded by corporations?





[edit on 19-9-2006 by ThinksYouAreAnIdiot]

double


[edit on 19-9-2006 by ThinksYouAreAnIdiot]

Originally posted by Wirral Bagpuss
I predict in about 100 years or so the Earth will be radically different...

LOL.

So that's what it takes to be considered a prophet.

If you would excuse me, I have lots and lots of predictions to record.

Originally posted by ThinksYouAreAnIdiot

Tell me why should research funded by greenpeace or other activist organisations be any more inhearntly reliable than that funded by corporations?

Well, for one, I am not aware of any financial benefit that greenpeace would accrue from global warming being a fact. You do realize that if it's proven that all of these chemical plants are contributing to the warming of the globe that they will have to either change their tactics or shut down? Who stands to lose? The big corporations do.

So,tell me, why wouldn't big corporations support skewed "scientific" findings? Why should I view these "findings" as reliable?

[edit on 20-9-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 20-9-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

Originally posted by soficrow
Sorry - but I find your comments uneducated, and your attempts to trivialize the topic crude. To say the least.

I can say the same for you.. Do you really think the Earth doesn't have its own ability to clean itself? Are you saying we should plug up and stop every single volcano in the world?? Earth is one big burning fossil fuel, we are just on the crust of it. You would think, by now Earths air would be deadly, since Earth has been polluting itself since the beginning... I'm 100% certain the Earth has its own way of cleaning itself.

Acid rain huh, does it rain every day? No.

Now, is the green house gases really a bad thing? I mean if green houses are used to make plants grow faster, wouldn't that make the plants on Earth grow faster?

[edit on 21-9-2006 by LAES YVAN]