News for anyone interested in Global Warming.

[K T Ong]

MagiK, just to know, by what authority do you judge which side is offering the truly accurate picture and which side is just spinning out stories? I mean, are you a weather scientist yourself? This is just a question, not a tacit accusation.

[ 09-13-2002, 03:52 AM: Message edited by: K T Ong ]

Originally posted by K T Ong: MagiK, just to know, by what authority do you judge which side is offering the truly accurate picture and which side is just spinning out stories? I mean, are you a weather scientist yourself? This is just a question, not a tacit accusation.

KT yeah I am...can you prove Im not?....Ok Im not so read below.

[img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img]
Ok now to really answer your question. You do not have to be a weather scientist to know bullshit when you step in it. You don't need to be a scientist to see that the people who started the crusade left because the radical eco-nuts have quit doing science and have turned it into a religion. (I even posted the writings of the founder of Green peace at one point on this forum) K.T. I read, I read a lot, I have been lucky and had a job where I got to see information before it got to the news media for public distribution. I am also quite talented at sifting data for relevant facts and a memory that allows me to track concepts over decades. I don't forget concepts...details yes but not overall derivitives of data. I have spent all of my life since I was around 12 (28 years ago) keeping tabs on science and science discoveries, and when I see things that don't fit I look for the source.
I do actually want to know everything there is to know about things I think are important. So I get highly outraged when scientists loose their integrity and make up data just to get their next government grant (such as the guy who made up the data about salt causing high blood preasure) Or when I see people passing themselves off as hard scientists to garner media attention. You do not have to be a PHD in every field to be able to spot inconsistancies or fabricated information. Can you claim to have paid as much attention as I have to these issues for 28 years? Just curious, you see because I grew up when the movie Soylant Green scared the bejeezus out of me, and when I was told there would be no rain forest by the time I was an adult and that the world would runn out of Oil by the 1980's...I grew up listening to the green whackos spout their bullshit to scare all the little kids and became outraged when I learned they were not telling the truth. So you see...this might be one of my own personal little crusades. I demand accuracy, and objectivity in scince, I do not want to see people throwing out data because ti doesnt fit their model and I am sick to death of the doom and gloom groups who lie to people every day because in their minds "The ends justify the means".

Oh and by the way. It is by my own authority. Here in the United States, we don't need to ask the government for permission to think for our selves.

[ 09-13-2002, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Timber Loftis]

When you model the world's atmosphere, you have to input information for the model to use as a base. Just because we find out that one assumed number in a model that is - TRULY - amazing does not mean the model is wrong. You simply input more accurate numbers as you run across them. This article, and some posters, seem to think that you must know absolutely everything about every inch of the Earth before you can try to predict anything. I think this thinking akin to the conspiracy theorist's that Buzz Aldrin hit that's on one of today's other threads.

PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE - meaning better safe than sorry - applies so much to global warming issues. Our current state of ignorance on climate change demands we be super-careful, not that we assume we are doing no harm.

Redistribution of Wealth: to those who object to Kyoto because the developing countries don't have limitations, I inform you that you have been duped by the dumbest president in US history (and Bush's IQ is a fact, not an opinion). A basic assumption of environmental law is that the "polluter pays," a believe me the US puts out more greenhouse gases than anyone ever possibly can.

I don't know the backgroud of all you posters - but if anyone is interested, I've got tons of info on this stuff, as I've worked on it a lot (went to Climate negotiations overseas, taught classes, wrote several papers, etc).

[Timber Loftis]

Sir Golum:
You know, I heard an intriuging theory, a while back, that said that the suns changes in temperature could be the cause of ice ages, heat ages (thats what I call global warming). Its only a couple of degree's kelvin, but apparantly that makes an impact on our planet. I think this is the best theory.

You also realize that the Earth's axis of rotation shifts over time too, right? It goes from / to \ and then back to / and so forth. Most scientists think this is a large factor.

[Lox]

IIRC, there are three aspects of the earths rotation/orbit that change over time. The orbit around the sun is slightly elliptical. If you were above the plane of the orbit looking down, assume the long ends of the ellipse point at 9:00 and 3:00 (on a clock face). Over time (I forget the period, but I think maybe 50,000 yrs) the long ends of the ellipse will rotate through 6:00 (and 12:00) and so on. Thats one. The second part is the tilt of the axis. The earth is slowly going through preceission (sp?). Right now the North Pole points toward the sun during July, but in X yrs the North Pole will point away from the sun in July. (It's kind of like a spinning top as it slows down). Now what was the third part... damn, I can't remember.

I'm sure these affect our climate, but I don't think anyone knows how exactly.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: When you model the world's atmosphere, you have to input information for the model to use as a base. Just because we find out that one assumed number in a model that is - TRULY - amazing does not mean the model is wrong. You simply input more accurate numbers as you run across them. This article, and some posters, seem to think that you must know absolutely everything about every inch of the Earth before you can try to predict anything. I think this thinking akin to the conspiracy theorist's that Buzz Aldrin hit that's on one of today's other threads. PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE - meaning better safe than sorry - applies so much to global warming issues. Our current state of ignorance on climate change demands we be super-careful, not that we assume we are doing no harm. Redistribution of Wealth: to those who object to Kyoto because the developing countries don't have limitations, I inform you that you have been duped by the dumbest president in US history (and Bush's IQ is a fact, not an opinion). A basic assumption of environmental law is that the "polluter pays," a believe me the US puts out more greenhouse gases than anyone ever possibly can. I don't know the backgroud of all you posters - but if anyone is interested, I've got tons of info on this stuff, as I've worked on it a lot (went to Climate negotiations overseas, taught classes, wrote several papers, etc).

Come back and talk to me when your modles actually acout for more than 20% of all pertinent variables have been ascertained and when you can show me an accuracy of more than ohh say 80% over even a month. Then Ill listen to your models.

As for your "the dumbest president" bullshit take it somewhere else.
I haven't heard him say anything about Kyoto. I have looked at many documents about the accords and can quite clearly see that if a nation wants to increase its output all it has to do is PAY cash to some other country which doesnt use its allotment. Deal with reality.

My previous post may sound kind of angry, but in reality I only ment the presidential part to be heated. It irked me that this guy just assumed I was just another uninformed sheeple.

[Thoran]

There is evidence that somewhere back a LOONG way, the earth rotated on its side and the poles got more sunlight than the equator... wouldn't that be something?

The whole problem I have with science in the US (and it may be this way everywhere) is that it's vision has gotten as short as the next grant cycle. (much as the US stock market has become myopic) Unless the research is being funded BY someone in order to return a certain result (which happens all the time) it's funded based on it's seeming merit. In order to establish that your project has merit you need to make a LOT of noise... BIG FINDINGS, WORLD CHANGING RESULTS, COLD FUSION!!!! [img]smile.gif[/img] Of course this leads to a lot of overstating and hysteria inducing press releases, that turn out to be borderline BS. Honestly I think that BOTH sides of this issue are equally guilty of garbage science. One side overstates EVERY finding to try to whip up public support, the other side finds a needle of dissenting results in a haystack of confirming data and promply demands we throw out the WHOLE LOT.

Makes me glad I'm an Engineer.

Bottom line for me: We ARE changing our environment, we ARE increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, we have ABSOLUTELY NO idea what that means over the long haul, but it could be VERY BAD, or it could mean nothing. In light of such information, it would seem the smarter course would be to follow the path that minimizes our chances of wipeing ourselves out. Very bad on one side... not much of anything on the other... I'd try to minimize the Very bad side myself.

That doesn't mean I support Kyoto... when I looked into it I came to the conclusion that I'm not much in the mood to "do my part" when so many other countries get waivers and exemptions.

Originally posted by Thoran: There is evidence that somewhere back a LOONG way, the earth rotated on its side and the poles got more sunlight than the equator... wouldn't that be something? The whole problem I have with science in the US (and it may be this way everywhere) is that it's vision has gotten as short as the next grant cycle. (much as the US stock market has become myopic) Unless the research is being funded BY someone in order to return a certain result (which happens all the time) it's funded based on it's seeming merit. In order to establish that your project has merit you need to make a LOT of noise... BIG FINDINGS, WORLD CHANGING RESULTS, COLD FUSION!!!! [img]smile.gif[/img] Of course this leads to a lot of overstating and hysteria inducing press releases, that turn out to be borderline BS. I think that the press has really warped the whole country. The original idea of a news media reporting NEWS was great. I find that the spinning of issues or digging up possibly juicy stories or sensationalizing everything for ratings just revolting. There used to be such a thing as journalistic integrity. I don't think it exists anymore. Honestly I think that BOTH sides of this issue are equally guilty of garbage science. One side overstates EVERY finding to try to whip up public support, the other side finds a needle of dissenting results in a haystack of confirming data and promply demands we throw out the WHOLE LOT. Makes me glad I'm an Engineer. Bottom line for me: We ARE changing our environment, we ARE increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, we have ABSOLUTELY NO idea what that means over the long haul, but it could be VERY BAD, or it could mean nothing. In light of such information, it would seem the smarter course would be to follow the path that minimizes our chances of wipeing ourselves out. Very bad on one side... not much of anything on the other... I'd try to minimize the Very bad side myself. So the question is...Do we completely disolve our existing societies and make sure that at least 5/6ths of the world population dies out or do we ignore the irrational panic mongering that is going on and continue to improve our technologies as almost every western nation is doing while maintaing the best quality of life for every one (in the west) that is the highest in the known history of the planet? I vote for option #2....see my post above about the 1970's and the Enonut horror stories we had to grow up with. That doesn't mean I support Kyoto... when I looked into it I came to the conclusion that I'm not much in the mood to "do my part" when so many other countries get waivers and exemptions. Don't forget...since those country's can't use their allotments, that means they can sell them for $$$$

Originally posted by MagiK: ...I have spent all of my life since I was around 12 (28 years ago) keeping tabs on science and science discoveries, and when I see things that don't fit I look for the source. ...Can you claim to have paid as much attention as I have to these issues for 28 years? ...So you see...this might be one of my own personal little crusades. I demand accuracy, and objectivity in scince, I do not want to see people throwing out data because ti doesnt fit their model and I am sick to death of the doom and gloom groups who lie to people every day because in their minds "The ends justify the means". Oh and by the way. It is by my own authority. Here in the United States, we don't need to ask the government for permission to think for our selves.[/QB]

Ray, the reason people keep arguing with you and not giving you the credit you think you deserve is because of the above types of comments. you may have a world of justification for your viewpoints, but you present them in such a way that you DO IN FACT come off like someone on a crusade. Being passionate about things is good, without it, it's just so much boring pontification, but I think you really let your passion trip up your points sometimes.
I know you'll take this the way I mean it, have yourself a good weekend.