OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 02, 2014, 08:24:49 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Pope condemns the climate change prophets of doom  (Read 39782 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« on: December 12, 2007, 07:00:55 PM »

The Pope condemns the climate change prophets of doom
By SIMON CALDWELL - More by this author » Last updated at 14:48pm on 12th December 2007
 
Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.

The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.

The German-born Pontiff said that while some concerns may be valid it was vital that the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement.

His remarks will be made in his annual message for World Peace Day on January 1, but they were released as delegates from all over the world convened on the Indonesian holiday island of Bali for UN climate change talks.

The 80-year-old Pope said the world needed to care for the environment but not to the point where the welfare of animals and plants was given a greater priority than that of mankind.


"Humanity today is rightly concerned about the ecological balance of tomorrow," he said in the message entitled "The Human Family, A Community of Peace".

"It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances.

"If the protection of the environment involves costs, they should be justly distributed, taking due account of the different levels of development of various countries and the need for solidarity with future generations.

"Prudence does not mean failing to accept responsibilities and postponing decisions; it means being committed to making joint decisions after pondering responsibly the road to be taken."

Efforts to protect the environment should seek "agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances", the Pope said.

He added that to further the cause of world peace it was sensible for nations to "choose the path of dialogue rather than the path of unilateral decisions" in how to cooperate responsibly on conserving the planet.

The Pope's message is traditionally sent to heads of government and international organisations.

His remarks reveal that while the Pope acknowledges that problems may be associated with unbridled development and climate change, he believes the case against global warming to be over-hyped.

A broad consensus is developing among the world's scientific community over the evils of climate change.

But there is also an intransigent body of scientific opinion which continues to insist that industrial emissions are not to blame for the phenomenon.

Such scientists point out that fluctuations in the earth's temperature are normal and can often be caused by waves of heat generated by the sun. Other critics of environmentalism have compared the movement to a burgeoning industry in its own right.

In the spring, the Vatican hosted a conference on climate change that was welcomed by environmentalists.

But senior cardinals close to the Vatican have since expressed doubts about a movement which has been likened by critics to be just as dogmatic in its assumptions as any religion.

In October, the Australian Cardinal George Pell, the Archbishop of Sydney, caused an outcry when he noted that the atmospheric temperature of Mars had risen by 0.5 degrees celsius.

"The industrial-military complex up on Mars can't be blamed for that," he said in a criticism of Australian scientists who had claimed that carbon emissions would force temperatures on earth to rise by almost five degrees by 2070 unless drastic solutions were enforced.
Logged
Pravoslavbob
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #1 on: December 12, 2007, 08:34:56 PM »

Hi JoeS,

Sorry if I have been too polemical in my posts in the past.  Please don't take what I have to say here as a personal attack on you.

IMHO, this is quite an irresponsible position for the Pope to take, although I agree with him that some voices in the environmental movement are too quick to dismiss the importance of human beings in the natural order of things, and that costs for combatting global warming should be justly distributed.

A broad consensus is developing among the world's scientific community over the evils of climate change.

True.

Quote
But there is also an intransigent body of scientific opinion which continues to insist that industrial emissions are not to blame for the phenomenon.

 Scientific opposition to the idea that global warming is not caused by humans is very small, unless you count the big oil lobby in the US, who have been doing a great job convincing the American public that there is an actual debate in the scientific community over whether or not global warming is even happening at all.  There is no debate.  Even the tiny group of scientists who claim that global warming is not being caused by humans do not deny that it is happening and may well have big consequences.  It's true that we really don't know all the variables at all.  We don't know what will happen in the end, when the push comes to shove.  But there's a lot of evidence that global warming is happening at quite a rapid rate.  Do we really want to just sit back and dismiss the scientific evidence as being "alarmist"?


"In the past few years, a firestorm has engulfed the debate about global warming. This issue has pitted science against spin, with inflammatory words from both sides. Former Vice-President Al Gore’s recent Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of his work on global warming, only served to heighten the rhetoric on both sides of the debate.

How could scientific fact, which many believe could determine the very future of the planet, become a political battleground, left versus right, environmentalist versus climate change sceptic?"

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html

I highly recommend watching the video given on this link, if you have the time.  It's very eye-opening and thought provoking.

Quote
Other critics of environmentalism have compared the movement to a burgeoning industry in its own right.


Which critics, besides the Vatican?  A "burgeoning industry?"  I know that some of these environmental groups can be shrill, and it's not to their advantage sometimes, but a "burgeoning industry"?  Yeah, right.  Just like Exxon Mobil or General Motors.  Give me a break.

Quote
In October, the Australian Cardinal George Pell, the Archbishop of Sydney, caused an outcry when he noted that the atmospheric temperature of Mars had risen by 0.5 degrees celsius.

"The industrial-military complex up on Mars can't be blamed for that," he said in a criticism of Australian scientists who had claimed that carbon emissions would force temperatures on earth to rise by almost five degrees by 2070 unless drastic solutions were enforced.

Very irresponsible and ignorant remarks indeed, IMHO.  Since when are Cardinals ecological experts?
« Last Edit: December 12, 2007, 09:11:06 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Didymus
Peace and grace.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: HG Coptic Bishop Anba Daniel of Sydney
Posts: 563


St. Thomas Didymus the Apostle of India


« Reply #2 on: December 12, 2007, 11:02:41 PM »

Good on HH of Rome!

About time we had somebody speaking sensibly on this topic. It's not like the world's climate isn't constantly changing. I agree we ought not trash the planet but I don't seriously think a changing climate in itself is a major problem. People, plants and animals will either adapt adequately, move, or die. Agreeably the last isn't good but it has what has always happened at least from Noah's time onwards is it not?
Logged

...because I was not with you when the Lord came aforetime.
...because I am blind and yet I see.
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,959



« Reply #3 on: December 13, 2007, 12:26:59 AM »

Very irresponsible and ignorant remarks indeed, IMHO.  Since when are Cardinals ecological experts?

Or politicians for that matter?
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,053


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #4 on: December 13, 2007, 12:51:59 AM »

I'm going to believe the word of a close associate who studies Global Warming: humans are part of the problem, but the major engine is cyclical climate change.  I would agree that much science is disregarded out of alarmism; OTOH, people use this fact to disregard the impact that humans do indeed have on climate change.

Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,964


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #5 on: December 13, 2007, 12:59:32 AM »

IMHO, this is quite an irresponsible position for the Pope to take...
How is counseling others to think through these issues with cool heads and a balanced perspective irresponsible?
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,053


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #6 on: December 13, 2007, 01:25:28 AM »

Scientific opposition to the idea that global warming is not caused by humans is very small, unless you count the big oil lobby in the US, who have been doing a great job convincing the American public that there is an actual debate in the scientific community over whether or not global warming is even happening at all.  There is no debate.  Even the tiny group of scientists who claim that global warming is not being caused by humans do not deny that it is happening and may well have big consequences.  It's true that we really don't know all the variables at all.  We don't know what will happen in the end, when the push comes to shove.  But there's a lot of evidence that global warming is happening at quite a rapid rate.  Do we really want to just sit back and dismiss the scientific evidence as being "alarmist"?

"In the past few years, a firestorm has engulfed the debate about global warming. This issue has pitted science against spin, with inflammatory words from both sides. Former Vice-President Al Gore’s recent Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of his work on global warming, only served to heighten the rhetoric on both sides of the debate. 

Well, those who claim there is no global warming seem to have blinders.  But stating that it is primarily human-caused seems to disregard other evidence, including other Solar-System temperature changes (which reinforce the idea that the Sun does not produce a constant energy emission, but that it instead varies), and the fact that the Earth has within the last few million years gone through a warming period at least as warm as this one, and probably warmer.  Plus, not many people can predict what Global Warming will do to the world's environment with any certainty - it has not been the cause of increased Tornadic reports, and has not been the cause of the recent surge in hurricane activity and strength.

What I found telling was that (according to my associate, who is a meteorologist), (a) Mr. Gore, while producing a very good movie - that my friend called a must see - had mistakes in his presentation when speaking about climate & weather (the only aspects that my friend has the ability to critique), and (b) the folks behind the alarmist movie The Day After Tomorrow disregarded the consultation of the National Weather Service (which they sought) and instead portrayed events against the advice of trained meteorologists who study Global Warming.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Pravoslavbob
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #7 on: December 13, 2007, 01:27:49 AM »

How is counseling others to think through these issues with cool heads and a balanced perspective irresponsible?

That's just it: the American (and Italian?) public has been sold a bill of goods by big oil that says that "we have to consider all sides of the problem", and parts of the media have bought it too, because journalists are trained to always try to "give both sides of the story."  Well, there aren't two sides to this story.  Global warming is happening.  The predictions that we are capable of making about the outcome in a number of years look quite grim for much of the planet, although not all of it.  Could these models be wrong?  Of course they could.  They are extrapolations concerning something that we have never had to deal with.  Things could turn out quite differently.  It just doesn't look like they will at all.  The Pope doesn't know what he is talking about when he condemns the environmental movement for "fear mongering".  As far as I'm concerned, the Pope is "chill out, there's nothing to worry about" mongering.  
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Pravoslavbob
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #8 on: December 13, 2007, 01:35:33 AM »

the Earth has within the last few million years gone through a warming period at least as warm as this one, and probably warmer

Of course it has.  But were there big coastal cities at the time?  Were there 6 billion people on the face of the earth who had to deal with it?  And how rapidly did the warming happen in the other warming periods?

Quote
Plus, not many people can predict what Global Warming will do to the world's environment with any certainty

See my post above this one.

Quote
- it has not been the cause of increased Tornadic reports, and has not been the cause of the recent surge in hurricane activity and strength.

We simply have no scientific way of verifying whether global warming is or is not behind recent changes of this kind.
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,964


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #9 on: December 13, 2007, 01:39:45 AM »

That's just it: the American (and Italian?) public has been sold a bill of goods by big oil that says that "we have to consider all sides of the problem", and parts of the media have bought it too, because journalists are trained to always try to "give both sides of the story."  Well, there aren't two sides to this story.  Global warming is happening.  The predictions that we are capable of making about the outcome in a number of years look quite grim for much of the planet, although not all of it.  Could these models be wrong?  Of course they could.  They are extrapolations concerning something that we have never had to deal with.  Things could turn out quite differently.  It just doesn't look like they will at all.  The Pope doesn't know what he is talking about when he condemns the environmental movement for "fear mongering".  As far as I'm concerned, the Pope is "chill out, there's nothing to worry about" mongering. 
I do not doubt that global warming IS occurring; how much of this is caused by humans, though, I don't think is as clear as you would like to think it is.  I generally do prefer, also, to approach EVERYTHING with a cool head unswayed by passion and to examine ALL sides of every issue.  Has "big oil" drilled this into me?  I don't think so, for this is just the way I am, and I couldn't care less what "big oil" has to say about anything.  It's consistent with my personality to gravitate toward Pope Benedict's counsel on global warming and think it the most responsible thing he could say.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2007, 01:40:38 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Pravoslavbob
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #10 on: December 13, 2007, 01:48:41 AM »

The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.

This is the most irresponsible part of his statement, if he really said this.  The polar ice cap is receeding now at an incredible rate.   It's not a theory.  It's fact.   Disasterous outcomes have been modelled by the mainstream scientific community, not by philosophy majors who spend their evenings canvassing for Greenpeace.  The Pope is "don't worry be happy" mongering.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2007, 01:51:52 AM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Pravoslavbob
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #11 on: December 13, 2007, 01:59:04 AM »

I do not doubt that global warming IS occurring; how much of this is caused by humans, though, I don't think is as clear as you would like to think it is. 

I have already said that there is a small component of the scientific community that doesn't think it is caused so much by humans as may have been thought.  I wouldn't "like to think" anything.  Although I am rusty on a lot of ecological matters since I don't deal directly in my work with these issues anymore, I do try to look at new evidence when I can and will consider any reasonable hypothesis.
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #12 on: December 13, 2007, 02:43:30 AM »

How is counseling others to think through these issues with cool heads and a balanced perspective irresponsible?

He is reacting not to what Pope Benedict actually wrote, but to the Daily Mail's hysterical interpretation---"Pope Benedict has launched a surprise attack. . ." etc.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #13 on: December 13, 2007, 02:48:50 AM »

This is the most irresponsible part of his statement, if he really said this.  The polar ice cap is receeding now at an incredible rate.   It's not a theory.  It's fact.   Disasterous outcomes have been modelled by the mainstream scientific community, not by philosophy majors who spend their evenings canvassing for Greenpeace.  The Pope is "don't worry be happy" mongering.

Isn't it telling that most of the tabloid Daily Mail's article is its own commentary on Benedict's words and not Benedict's actual quotes? I think we should withhold judgment until he actually delivers this address.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #14 on: December 13, 2007, 03:02:08 AM »

Actually, the full text is out. Here's the section on the environment:

7. The family needs a home, a fit environment in which to develop its proper relationships. For the human family, this home is the earth, the environment that God the Creator has given us to inhabit with creativity and responsibility. We need to care for the environment: it has been entrusted to men and women to be protected and cultivated with responsible freedom, with the good of all as a constant guiding criterion. Human beings, obviously, are of supreme worth vis-à-vis creation as a whole. Respecting the environment does not mean considering material or animal nature more important than man. Rather, it means not selfishly considering nature to be at the complete disposal of our own interests, for future generations also have the right to reap its benefits and to exhibit towards nature the same responsible freedom that we claim for ourselves. Nor must we overlook the poor, who are excluded in many cases from the goods of creation destined for all. Humanity today is rightly concerned about the ecological balance of tomorrow. It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances. If the protection of the environment involves costs, they should be justly distributed, taking due account of the different levels of development of various countries and the need for solidarity with future generations. Prudence does not mean failing to accept responsibilities and postponing decisions; it means being committed to making joint decisions after pondering responsibly the road to be taken, decisions aimed at strengthening that covenant between human beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative love of God, from whom we come and towards whom we are journeying.

8. In this regard, it is essential to “sense” that the earth is “our common home” and, in our stewardship and service to all, to choose the path of dialogue rather than the path of unilateral decisions. Further international agencies may need to be established in order to confront together the stewardship of this “home” of ours; more important, however, is the need for ever greater conviction about the need for responsible cooperation. The problems looming on the horizon are complex and time is short. In order to face this situation effectively, there is a need to act in harmony. One area where there is a particular need to intensify dialogue between nations is that of the stewardship of the earth's energy resources. The technologically advanced countries are facing two pressing needs in this regard: on the one hand, to reassess the high levels of consumption due to the present model of development, and on the other hand to invest sufficient resources in the search for alternative sources of energy and for greater energy efficiency. The emerging countries are hungry for energy, but at times this hunger is met in a way harmful to poor countries which, due to their insufficient infrastructures, including their technological infrastructures, are forced to undersell the energy resources they do possess. At times, their very political freedom is compromised by forms of protectorate or, in any case, by forms of conditioning which appear clearly humiliating.


http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20071208_xli-world-day-peace_en.html

-

Honestly. The Daily Mail is total trash. The sad thing is, even the New York Times likes to do this with the Pope's words.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #15 on: December 13, 2007, 03:06:34 AM »

This is the most irresponsible part of his statement, if he really said this.  

The funny thing is, he said nothing of the sort. The Daily Mail is controversy-mongering, as usual. Honestly, I'm so glad I have sworn off the secular media.

« Last Edit: December 13, 2007, 03:18:41 AM by lubeltri » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,964


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #16 on: December 13, 2007, 03:13:35 AM »

JoeS,

I just noticed that you didn't provide a link to the article you quoted, which would be very helpful.  I see quite clearly that you copied the name of the author with the text, so I don't see that you failed to give proper credit to the author, but a link to the online news medium that published this would be even better.  Just post the link on this thread, and one of the moderators will append it to your OP for you.  Thank you in advance for providing this for us.

- PeterTheAleut
Logged
Pravoslavbob
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #17 on: December 13, 2007, 03:15:43 AM »

The funny thing is, he said nothing of the sort. The Daily Mail is controversy-mongering, as usual. Honestly, I'm so glad I have sworn off the secular media.

Thank you for your posts!   Smiley  He didn't remotely say what the Mail claims, did he?  (I didn't know that the article was from that paper.)  Unbelievable!  Having briefly read over his statement, it all looks perfectly sensible to me.

Do you happen to know if the Australian cardinal in question actually said the outrageous statements that are attributed to him?
« Last Edit: December 13, 2007, 03:19:07 AM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #18 on: December 13, 2007, 03:20:40 AM »

Thank you for your posts!   Smiley  He didn't remotely say what the Mail claims, did he?  (I didn't know that the article was from that paper.)  Unbelievable!  Having briefly read over his statement, it all looks perfectly sensible to me.

You're welcome.  Smiley

Unfortunately, other people will read that shoddy piece of journalism and now think that the Pope is in league with Big Oil and is sending his albino monk minions around the world to sabotage the fight against global warming.

Well, what are you gonna do?  Roll Eyes

Logged
Pravoslavbob
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #19 on: December 13, 2007, 03:23:52 AM »

Well, what are you gonna do?  Roll Eyes


What, indeed?  Perhaps I will simply have to give in and submit to the dark side.... Wink
« Last Edit: December 13, 2007, 03:26:45 AM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,964


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #20 on: December 13, 2007, 03:24:20 AM »

Well, what are you gonna do?  Roll Eyes


Certainly not going to let him zap me with that dreaded Force lightning! Shocked
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #21 on: December 13, 2007, 03:31:48 AM »

Do you happen to know if the Australian cardinal in question actually said the outrageous statements that are attributed to him?

The only reference to this is in an article published in an Australian newspaper:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/pell-the-sceptic-not-convinced-world-is-warmer/2007/10/03/1191091193879.html
Logged
Pravoslavbob
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #22 on: December 13, 2007, 03:45:10 AM »

The only reference to this is in an article published in an Australian newspaper:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/pell-the-sceptic-not-convinced-world-is-warmer/2007/10/03/1191091193879.html

Hmmm.  Well, at least the Mail quoted something correctly from this source.  Who knows if the cardinal actually said the things attributed to him, though.  I mean, if what you say is true, that even the New York Times misrepresents papal statements, who can you trust?
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
observer
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 546

Vivre die Raznitsa!


« Reply #23 on: December 13, 2007, 02:22:31 PM »

What are we going to do about Mars?  There are no nasty humans breathing CO2 or plants. Of course let's be sensible stewards of our planet (the Martians can look after themselves) but don't let us fall dupes to the Global theory which puts us closer to captivity by the great problem-solver.  The earth doth wax old as doth a garment.  The fallen world as we know it may disappear, but our souls have another kingdom.
Logged

Thou shalt not prefer one thing to another (Law of Liberalism)
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #24 on: December 13, 2007, 06:41:00 PM »

That's just it: the American (and Italian?) public has been sold a bill of goods by big oil that says that "we have to consider all sides of the problem", and parts of the media have bought it too, because journalists are trained to always try to "give both sides of the story."  Well, there aren't two sides to this story.  Global warming is happening.  The predictions that we are capable of making about the outcome in a number of years look quite grim for much of the planet, although not all of it.  Could these models be wrong?  Of course they could.  They are extrapolations concerning something that we have never had to deal with.  Things could turn out quite differently.  It just doesn't look like they will at all.  The Pope doesn't know what he is talking about when he condemns the environmental movement for "fear mongering".  As far as I'm concerned, the Pope is "chill out, there's nothing to worry about" mongering.  

One needs to ask himself: "If Global warming causes oceans to rise why are so many Global Warming advocates buying property on beaches and shore lines around the world?Huh?

I guess they dont believe in their own religion?
Logged
Carole
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (ish)
Posts: 271


« Reply #25 on: December 14, 2007, 09:40:21 AM »

Scientific opposition to the idea that global warming is not caused by humans is very small, unless you count the big oil lobby in the US, who have been doing a great job convincing the American public that there is an actual debate in the scientific community over whether or not global warming is even happening at all.  There is no debate.  Even the tiny group of scientists who claim that global warming is not being caused by humans do not deny that it is happening and may well have big consequences.  It's true that we really don't know all the variables at all.  We don't know what will happen in the end, when the push comes to shove.  But there's a lot of evidence that global warming is happening at quite a rapid rate.  Do we really want to just sit back and dismiss the scientific evidence as being "alarmist"?


Why would you think that a news item by CBS is any more reliable than the sources used by His Holiness as the basis for his caution regarding the climate change prophets of doom?

FWIW my husband works with literally dozens of scientists whose specialty is weather, geology, archeology and rocket science.  These people are PhDs and college professors.  Highly educated and trained members of the "scientific community" and their perception is that there is no global consensus on climate change within the "scientific community."  In fact two of the men that my husband knows are former members of the IPCC and they removed themselves from the panel because of blatant political wrangling and the issuance of an opinion which does not reflect their views.  In fact one even went to court to get his name removed from the study.  Oh and the members of the IPCC are not all scientists.  They are political appointees.  Not even a solid representative sample of the scientific community let alone a consensus.

These are not rich men who work for the oil industry.

The idea that there is a global consensus that all climatologist, meteorologists and other scientists agree upon is a myth promoted by those with a "Green" agenda.  The idea that any scientist that doesn't agree with the global warming scare-mongering is "on the take" from oil companies or car companies is nothing short of libel.

There isn't even a solid consensus that there is a significant global warming happening, let alone what it is caused by or how to "fix it" (or even if it can be fixed).

« Last Edit: December 14, 2007, 09:42:59 AM by Carole » Logged

Carole
Pravoslavbob
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #26 on: December 14, 2007, 12:50:59 PM »

Why would you think that a news item by CBS is any more reliable than the sources used by His Holiness as the basis for his caution regarding the climate change prophets of doom?

Please read the entire thread.  The Pope did not remotely say what this newspaper article said he did. 

Quote
FWIW my husband works with literally dozens of scientists whose specialty is weather, geology, archeology and rocket science.

Being any of these things doesn't make you a climate change specialist.

Quote
There isn't even a solid consensus that there is a significant global warming happening....

Yes, there is. 
« Last Edit: December 14, 2007, 12:52:04 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Tamara
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Diocese of America
Posts: 2,208


+Pray for Orthodox Unity+


« Reply #27 on: December 14, 2007, 12:55:45 PM »

Why would you think that a news item by CBS is any more reliable than the sources used by His Holiness as the basis for his caution regarding the climate change prophets of doom?

FWIW my husband works with literally dozens of scientists whose specialty is weather, geology, archeology and rocket science.  These people are PhDs and college professors.  Highly educated and trained members of the "scientific community" and their perception is that there is no global consensus on climate change within the "scientific community."  In fact two of the men that my husband knows are former members of the IPCC and they removed themselves from the panel because of blatant political wrangling and the issuance of an opinion which does not reflect their views.  In fact one even went to court to get his name removed from the study.  Oh and the members of the IPCC are not all scientists.  They are political appointees.  Not even a solid representative sample of the scientific community let alone a consensus.

These are not rich men who work for the oil industry.

The idea that there is a global consensus that all climatologist, meteorologists and other scientists agree upon is a myth promoted by those with a "Green" agenda.  The idea that any scientist that doesn't agree with the global warming scare-mongering is "on the take" from oil companies or car companies is nothing short of libel.

There isn't even a solid consensus that there is a significant global warming happening, let alone what it is caused by or how to "fix it" (or even if it can be fixed).



Thanks Carole. I am not surprised by what you have shared with us. I just read an article today stating a magma hot spot may be the cause of the ice melting rapidly in Greenland

http://www.livescience.com/environment/071213-greenland-magma.html

In regard to Al Gore's, An Inconvenient Truth, an article from USA Today stated only 19 scientists found this movie accurate. Many of the 100 contacted either were skeptical of the movie's claims or they hadn't even bothered to see the movie or read his book which leads me to believe they do not consider his work to be worthy of their time as scientists.
And this article tried to put a positive spin on the movie.  Roll Eyes

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-06-27-gore-science-truth_x.htm   from the article:

“The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book.”

The articles one reads in the paper lately have taken on a panicked tone which leads me to believe much of what we are being told are exagerations and hype.

Logged
Pravoslavbob
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #28 on: December 14, 2007, 01:12:03 PM »

The idea that there is a global consensus that all climatologist, meteorologists and other scientists agree upon....

Meteorologists, archeaologists, "rocket scientists" etc. are not climate specialists.

Quote
....is a myth promoted by those with a "Green" agenda.  The idea that any scientist that doesn't agree with the global warming scare-mongering is "on the take" from oil companies or car companies is nothing short of libel.

If you had bothered to read all of my posts, you would have seen that I acknowledge that there is a small community of climate scientists who think that global warming is not being caused in the main by people, and there is also a very small group who think that it is not necessarily happening.

Libel?  I guess you should sue the CBC then.  Or maybe TIME magazine, or other reliable media outlets (The Daily Mail would therefore be one that was excluded) who insist that global warming is happening.  The evidence from the CBC documentary is really quite compelling, in terms of pointing to the contention that lobbyists working for big oil on this issue have dubious credentials and used to work as lobbyists for big tobacco.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2007, 01:57:37 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #29 on: December 14, 2007, 01:17:33 PM »

Meteorologists, archeaologists, "rocket scientists" etc. are not climate specialists.

Given that the disciplines you're listing are ones used in climatology (and that you deliberately omitted Carole's reference to climatologists), would you care to tell us what your point is?
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
Pravoslavbob
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #30 on: December 14, 2007, 01:22:52 PM »

Given that the disciplines you're listing are ones used in climatology (and that you deliberately omitted Carole's reference to climatologists), would you care to tell us what your point is?

I suppose archaeologists and rocket scientists might work in concert with other scientists in an interdisciplinary way to help support the work of disciplines that are more concerned with climate change, but in and of themselves, these disciplines are not areas directly connected with climate change.  Even meteorology is not directly linked with the study of long-range changes in climate.  IMHO,the fact that someone is a meteorologist would not automatically make them an expert, or even particularly knowledgable, in the area of long-range climate projection.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2007, 01:36:30 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #31 on: December 14, 2007, 01:31:56 PM »

My point should be self-evident.  I didn't know that archaeologists and rocket scientists worked in climate science, as you claim.  That's new to me. 

Climatic conditions are very important within archeology.  Even slight variations can dramatically alter a society - hence there are archaeologists that do in fact specialize in climate related issues.  I also personally know several academics in the social sciences that specialize in environmental issues.  It looks like an interdisciplinary field to me. 
Logged
Pravoslavbob
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #32 on: December 14, 2007, 01:42:51 PM »

In fact two of the men that my husband knows are former members of the IPCC and they removed themselves from the panel because of blatant political wrangling and the issuance of an opinion which does not reflect their views. 

Well, that's two men out of the dozens that your husband works with.  What disciplines do they work in?  Their defection could be significant.  On the other hand, there is always going to be political wrangling when people get together.  Or at least what is perceived as being such.
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Carole
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (ish)
Posts: 271


« Reply #33 on: December 14, 2007, 02:19:37 PM »

Well, that's two men out of the dozens that your husband works with.  What disciplines do they work in?  Their defection could be significant.  On the other hand, there is always going to be political wrangling when people get together.  Or at least what is perceived as being such.

Never mind.  Clearly you are right and the people my husband works for and with (who are by the way directly studying climate and weather patterns) and have PhDs in various related fields of study are wrong.

Whatever.

Some people are so invested in the idea of Global Warming and catastrophic climate changes that they can't see beyond the ends of their own noses for fear of being wrong.  You might well be among that crowd - I don't know.  But it seems that way to me.  Go ahead and buy the spin.  But are you old enough to have been a child when they told us all to watch out for Global Cooling and prepare for the next ice age?  If you aren't, I am.  That never happened either. Along with acid rain destroying the planet and a host of other liberal pet-causes that turned out to be junk science.

Have a nice day.

Edited to add:

For everyone else.  I am not saying that all scientific fields are equal in their knowledge of climate change.  Nor am I implying that by definition all rocket scientists know everything about climatology.  My point was that my husband works for a group that is a joint endeavor between a couple of governmental departments and more than one major university.  Climate is one of the things that this group is working on studying.  The scientists are not all Americans, either.  They come from around the world.  These people work in complementary disciplines, in a relatively small environment and discussions of Al Gore's Nobel Joke Peace Prize and An Inconvenient Truth are common.  Further, they all work in the so-called "scientific community" and according to these scientists, their experiences and opinions is that there is not a consensus of opinion.  That this is part of the "scare mongering" and hype that surrounds this issue.

And if Pravoslavbob wants to get his knickers in a knot because not all of the scientists my husband works with are climatologists ... Well news flash.  MOST of the members of the IPCC (who also received the Nobel Prize) are not climatologists either.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2007, 02:46:52 PM by Carole » Logged

Carole
Pravoslavbob
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #34 on: December 14, 2007, 03:46:28 PM »

  But are you old enough to have been a child when they told us all to watch out for Global Cooling and prepare for the next ice age?  If you aren't, I am.  That never happened either.

It is true that the earth appears to be "due" for another ice age.  Maybe this would help cancel out global warming.  Wink

Quote
.... Along with acid rain destroying the planet and a host of other liberal pet-causes that turned out to be junk science.

Well, I would not say that acid rain is going to destroy the planet, buts its negative effects on lakes that are not buffered by alkaline bedrock (eg lakes on the precambrian shield), and its negative effects on vegetation  cannot be disputed.  If you and your husband truly believe that this is "junk science", then I don't know what to say.  You might want to check with him on this one. 


Quote
For everyone else.  I am not saying that all scientific fields are equal in their knowledge of climate change.  Nor am I implying that by definition all rocket scientists know everything about climatology. 

Fair enough.  I may well be doing too much "barking up the wrong tree" on this issue.

But you know, why take my word for what's happening in the field of climate change.  Sure there is debate about it.  In any scientific endeavour, there should be debate.  That's healthy.  There's just not the kind of debate that some would have us believe is there.  The vast majority of scientists working on the climate issue agree that global warming is happening.


"National and international science academies and professional societies have assessed the current scientific opinion on climate change, in particular recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the IPCC position that "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities"."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

"Climate change sceptics sometimes claim that many leading scientists question climate change. Well, it all depends on what you mean by "many" and "leading". For instance, in April 2006, 60 "leading scientists" signed a letter urging Canada's new prime minister to review his country's commitment to the Kyoto protocol."

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11654


Is it possible that majority scientific opinion on this issue could be wrong?  Of course it is.  But from where we stand right now, it just doesn't look like this is the case.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2007, 04:18:42 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Pravoslavbob
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #35 on: December 14, 2007, 03:57:23 PM »

One needs to ask himself: "If Global warming causes oceans to rise why are so many Global Warming advocates buying property on beaches and shore lines around the world?Huh?

I don't know what you are referring to here, JoeS.
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Pravoslavbob
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #36 on: December 14, 2007, 04:03:39 PM »

Thanks Carole. I am not surprised by what you have shared with us. I just read an article today stating a magma hot spot may be the cause of the ice melting rapidly in Greenland

Well, this just accounts for a very small part of the Greenland ice cap.  It doesn't change the fact that the rest of the Greenland cap, and the Canadian and Russian arctic ice is melting at such an incredible rate as well.  Of course, if that were also due to volcanic activity, then global warming might be the last of our worries.  As indeed, it might be anyway.  Wink

"The threat of climate change caused by human activity could turn out to be a minor problem by comparison with a scarcely acknowledged natural hazard.

Geologists say there is a real risk that sooner or later a supervolcano will erupt with devastating force, sending temperatures plunging on a hemispheric or even global scale."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/628515.stm
« Last Edit: December 14, 2007, 04:16:08 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #37 on: December 14, 2007, 04:07:20 PM »


The Earth has  been going through climate changes since its beginnings. We happen to be in a warming trend but this will change into a cooling trend and then back again.  There is nothing unusual as to what is happening now. Didnt the American Indians migrate from Asia over the land ice bridge along the Aleutian Islands?  So, where did this ice go after they settled in this new land.  Where these Indians driving SUV's ?

I've read that at best, the human impact on environmental climate change is less than 5% and the balance is nature herself.  The Sun (sun spots, etc.), oceans |(releases more poinsonous gases via underwater vents than any human race could ever do) , Forests (rotting undergrowth worldwide releases carbon dioxide and other carbon based oxides) and volcanic activity throughout the globe account for almost all of the earth's climate change.  The moom is moving away from the earth approximately 2 inches per year. It is estimated that eventually our earth will slow down its rotation because of this. Do we invest in stopping the moon from leaving its orbit?

Its this less than 5% that we are asking all the nations of the world to invest heavily and in some cases bankrupting some economies simply to satisfy a political adjenda.   

This is not to say that as responsible custodians of God's earth we shouldnt be doing what we can to make our environment more pleasant than it is. Recycling has become a norm today and thats good. But dont think that all our efforts are going to make a drastic change in what the earth herself wants to do.

Personally, I dont fear what is going on now.   What I do fear however, are these self appointed, Al Gore included, experts who want to subjugate our country just to please some half witted climatologist who is predicting the end of the world around the next corner.



Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #38 on: December 14, 2007, 05:16:48 PM »

experts who want to subjugate our country
Whatever one thinks of global warming, poluting the world is not a "right" which some countries have over others.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,959



« Reply #39 on: December 14, 2007, 05:33:26 PM »

Whatever one thinks of global warming, poluting the world is not a "right" which some countries have over others.

Is anyone here actually making such a claim? 

The point that people are tyring to make is that pollution (i.e. man) does not correlate substantially, statistically or in reality, to global temperature change.  And many scientists have also pointed out that out. However, that does not mean I support putting out more toxins into the air.  I want cleaner air, especially when I visit my brother in Los Angeles since I can hardly breathe there!  If there are countries out there pressing for such a "right" that would be India and China and other industrially developing nations who overtake the U.S. in terms of pollution produced.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Nyssa The Hobbit
Used to be OrthodoxFairyQueen
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian as of 1/10/09
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 396



WWW
« Reply #40 on: December 14, 2007, 05:47:27 PM »

I want cleaner air, especially when I visit my brother in Los Angeles since I can hardly breathe there!

A California friend who just moved here to Wisconsin said that he had trouble breathing our clean air at first.  Smoking actually helped him breathe more easily!
Logged

Author of "Tojet" (fantasy) and "The Lighthouse" (Gothic), info available at my website URL.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #41 on: December 14, 2007, 06:15:42 PM »

A California friend who just moved here to Wisconsin said that he had trouble breathing our clean air at first.  Smoking actually helped him breathe more easily!
I wonder if human beings will evolve to live in toxic environments like acidophilus bacteria!
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Tamara
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Diocese of America
Posts: 2,208


+Pray for Orthodox Unity+


« Reply #42 on: December 14, 2007, 07:00:49 PM »

Is anyone here actually making such a claim? 

The point that people are tyring to make is that pollution (i.e. man) does not correlate substantially, statistically or in reality, to global temperature change.  And many scientists have also pointed out that out. However, that does not mean I support putting out more toxins into the air.  I want cleaner air, especially when I visit my brother in Laos Angeles since I can hardly breathe there!  If there are countries out there pressing for such a "right" that would be India and China and other industrially developing nations who overtake the U.S. in terms of pollution produced.

I don't think any of us who posted believe it is our God-given right to pollute the environment. My family doesn't own a gas-guzzling SUV or minivan. We chose to live in a community which is close to a downtown that allows me to walk to the grocery store, post office, drug store, etc. to avoid driving as much as possible. If we had enough $$ we would invest in solar panels for our roof so we could experience the joy of seeing the meter spin the other way because we would be putting power on the grid.  Wink
Personally, I would like to see more funding put toward developing alternative fuel sources and furthing the efficiency and reducing the price of solar technology. Not only we would be cleaning up our world but our energy dollars would stop funding Muslim fundamentalists. However,  I don't like to see newspaper articles full of half truths and propaganda in reference to climate change. As I said before, the global warming theory has reached the level of hysteria and Carole is right, it does remind me of the fear-mongers who warned us about imminent ice age not too long ago.
Logged
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,959



« Reply #43 on: December 14, 2007, 07:19:13 PM »

INot only we would be cleaning up our world but our energy dollars would stop funding Muslim fundamentalists.

The vast majority (80% +)of our oil comes from Canada and Venezuela and unless there is something contrary, these countries (at least not yet) are not funding terrorist training camps or jihadist propaganda.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #44 on: December 14, 2007, 07:20:52 PM »

Whatever one thinks of global warming, poluting the world is not a "right" which some countries have over others.

If you read my post thoroughly you will see that I also stated that we are stewards of God's creation. And as such have the responsibility to take care of our surroundings.  Who wants polluted streams, and air? Who has done MORE TO CLEAN UP THE ENVIORONMENT THAN THE UNITED STATES?   Republicans and Democrats dont want dirty waters or air or anything else at least not in the last forty or so years.   I spent a great deal of my life as an Enviromental Engineer in the building and installation control systems for wastewater and potable water plants.  So, I do know a little about what pollution can do if gone unchecked. We all know the horror stories of rivers literally catching fire, and the rivers dying for lack of oxygen.  Well, the U.S. has accomplished tremendous strides in vertually illiminating this hazard from our shores. What should be the cause for alarm is now the developing countries who are now realizing the potential of wealth and are going full speed towards development without regard for environmental impact. So, it is here, the third world, in which we should be concentrating our efforts to convert the unconverted to become more ecologically minded in their planning.

Logged
Pravoslavbob
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #45 on: December 14, 2007, 07:21:50 PM »

The point that people are tyring to make is that pollution (i.e. man) does not correlate substantially, statistically or in reality, to global temperature change.

Show evidence, please, to support this position.  The link that I provided from wikipedia gives links to many American scientific organisations that disagree totally with your assertions.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2007, 07:43:25 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #46 on: December 14, 2007, 07:23:43 PM »

A California friend who just moved here to Wisconsin said that he had trouble breathing our clean air at first.  Smoking actually helped him breathe more easily!


HUH?
Logged
Pravoslavbob
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #47 on: December 14, 2007, 07:40:27 PM »

I don't think any of us who posted believe it is our God-given right to pollute the environment. My family doesn't own a gas-guzzling SUV or minivan. We chose to live in a community which is close to a downtown that allows me to walk to the grocery store, post office, drug store, etc. to avoid driving as much as possible. If we had enough $$ we would invest in solar panels for our roof so we could experience the joy of seeing the meter spin the other way because we would be putting power on the grid.  Wink
Personally, I would like to see more funding put toward developing alternative fuel sources and furthing the efficiency and reducing the price of solar technology.

I'm sincerely glad to hear this!  I mean this genuinely.

Quote
However,  I don't like to see newspaper articles full of half truths and propaganda in reference to climate change. As I said before, the global warming theory has reached the level of hysteria and Carole is right, it does remind me of the fear-mongers who warned us about imminent ice age not too long ago.

Could you please provide an example of some of the "fear mongering" that you allude to.  I honestly don't get it.  I'm not American, and I really don't understand this political debate that is raging in the US over climate change.  It's not a "right versus left" issue to the degree that it is in the US anywhere else in the world.  Have you or the other posters even bothered to do their own genuine research on this issue?  In all honesty, it just doesn't look like it to me.  I was inclined to think that I was too hard on Carole, and then she tells me that acid rain is a "liberal" plot of some kind.  I should probably give her time to come back and defend herself on this one, but I have experience working in the field of lake ecology and I am shocked to see that someone who is associated with scientists would come out and say this!  I am not trying to give offence, but really.  I think I should just bow out at this point.  I don't think I'll get very far with what I want to say.  I try to provide evidence for my claims, but no one seems to have even given it a cursory glance! You seem to have all made up your minds.  I know that I have got a little "hot under the collar" during this debate and I apologize if I have offended anyone.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2007, 07:49:42 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #48 on: December 14, 2007, 07:48:38 PM »

Show evidence, please, to support this position.  The link that I provided from wikipedia gives links to many American scientific organisations that disagree totally with your assertions.

Al Gore, the demi god of environmentalism is in a good position. He can neither be questioned or challenged on his hypothesis on envionmental climate changes.

Boy, imaging if he would run for office and had to answer some serious questions for once. Everyone is accepting Al's opinion on climate change without testing the evidence.  Yes, Al is in a good position and he well knows it.  He can not be held accountable for his pronoucements because who in the politically correct media wil dare challenge him.  After all, didnt he receive the Nobel Prize, an Emmy, and an Oscar for his so called truth in environmental films?   Hmmmm,  he seems untouchable, and we all know what infalliblity is all about dont we?HuhHuhHuhHuh?

Logged
Pravoslavbob
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #49 on: December 14, 2007, 07:53:33 PM »

Al Gore, the demi god of environmentalism is in a good position. He can neither be questioned or challenged on his hypothesis on envionmental climate changes.

Why is everyone talking about Al Gore and his film?  Not once have I made a reference to Gore, so I will not attempt to defend his work.  I haven't even seen the movie.  I too have heard that there are some errors in his film, but not ones that would effectively debunk climate change as being a myth.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2007, 07:54:09 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #50 on: December 14, 2007, 08:01:20 PM »

Why is everyone talking about Al Gore and his film?  Not once have I made a reference to Gore, so I will not attempt to defend his work.  I haven't even seen the movie.  I too have heard that there are some errors in his film, but not ones that would effectively debunk climate change as being a myth.

He seems to the the Archtype of Global Warming, oh excuse me its now Climate change leadership not only here in America but Europe and now Bali.

Logged
Tamara
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Diocese of America
Posts: 2,208


+Pray for Orthodox Unity+


« Reply #51 on: December 14, 2007, 09:07:44 PM »

He seems to the the Archtype of Global Warming, oh excuse me its now Climate change leadership not only here in America but Europe and now Bali.



Yes...and it is hard to take him seriously about this issue when his mansion is an energy hog.  Angry
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,255203,00.html

Al Gore Responds to Charges He's a Hypocrite When it Comes to the Environment
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
By Brit Hume

Not Easy Being Green

Al Gore's office is responding to criticism over his energy consumption at his Nashville mansion by saying the former vice president is signed up for a program to consume 100 percent green power — has installed solar panels and uses compact fluorescent bulbs.

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research says Gore — whose global warming documentary won an Oscar Sunday, "deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy," because his 20-room mansion consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year — with an average power bill of $13,059 59 — along with a natural gas bill of more than $1,000 a month.
Logged
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #52 on: December 14, 2007, 09:54:35 PM »

Yes...and it is hard to take him seriously about this issue when his mansion is an energy hog.  Angry
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,255203,00.html

Al Gore Responds to Charges He's a Hypocrite When it Comes to the Environment
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
By Brit Hume

Not Easy Being Green

Al Gore's office is responding to criticism over his energy consumption at his Nashville mansion by saying the former vice president is signed up for a program to consume 100 percent green power — has installed solar panels and uses compact fluorescent bulbs.

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research says Gore — whose global warming documentary won an Oscar Sunday, "deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy," because his 20-room mansion consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year — with an average power bill of $13,059 59 — along with a natural gas bill of more than $1,000 a month.

It sure would be nice to be rich enough like Al to afford Carbon Offsets in order to live life as normal as other peasants try to deal with Al's rules and regulations and dealing with those restrictions place upon ordinary life.

Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,053


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #53 on: December 14, 2007, 09:56:14 PM »

Why is everyone talking about Al Gore and his film?  Not once have I made a reference to Gore, so I will not attempt to defend his work.  I haven't even seen the movie.  I too have heard that there are some errors in his film, but not ones that would effectively debunk climate change as being a myth. 

Well, I for one will not argue with the fact that the climate is changing.  However, I will say this: we should be doing everything we can do reasonably to not pollute, but one cannot make a causal statement regarding human activity and global warming; the most reasonable position I've heard came from my scientist-type friend, who said that there's no doubt that we are hurting more than helping, but we can't and shouldn't say that we're the principle cause of global warming.

I apologize for not responding to your questions earlier: I've been a bit busy lately.

Of course it has.  But were there big coastal cities at the time?  Were there 6 billion people on the face of the earth who had to deal with it?  And how rapidly did the warming happen in the other warming periods?

This does indeed increase the urgency to know.  As for your question about rate of warming, it's hard to say; who says that the current warming is "rapid?"  It is speculation, methinks.  Unless you've seen something that catalogs the rate of change that led to the last warm period.

We simply have no scientific way of verifying whether global warming is or is not behind recent changes of this kind.

Well: increased Tornadic reports corresponds directly to improvements in the reporting system.  The first spike (IIRC) occurred with the foundation of the National Weather Service.  The second spike occurred with the implementation of the spotter system.  The third spike occurred with the implementation of Doppler radar.  What is interesting is that after the initial spikes, the numbers slowly declined on average until the next reporting improvement came along (not factoring in the occasional aberration).

As for increased hurricane strength/activity, you're absolutely right.  I suspect that (at least in the short term) Global Warming will not add strength or numbers to Hurricanes because of the dropping of ocean temperatures (more ice in the water).  The ocean temperature drop will also affect areas that depend on warm currents to make them habitable (i.e. Great Britain).

However, my friend was with the Weather Service during Hurricane Katrina, and specifically was one of the folks tracking it from our area of the country (OH).  He says that the speculation that it was strengthened by Global Warming is baseless, and he actually resents the (thankfully very few) times he's heard it brought up as an example, since he feels like people's emotions are being manipulated.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #54 on: December 14, 2007, 11:32:05 PM »

There will be a debate on the science of global warming on December 17,2007. Andrew Dessler, of Texas A&M University, and Timothy Ball, a retired professor from the University of Winnipeg debate global warming and take questions from listeners. See:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/sciguy/2007/12/17/A-debate-on-the-science-of-global-warming
Logged
Tamara
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Diocese of America
Posts: 2,208


+Pray for Orthodox Unity+


« Reply #55 on: December 15, 2007, 12:37:56 AM »

It sure would be nice to be rich enough like Al to afford Carbon Offsets in order to live life as normal as other peasants try to deal with Al's rules and regulations and dealing with those restrictions place upon ordinary life.



Poor Gore...his mansion was An Inconvenient Truth  Cheesy

But his attitude is typical from the rich baby boomer set: "Peasants, do what I say, don't do what I do."






« Last Edit: December 15, 2007, 12:39:35 AM by Tamara » Logged
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #56 on: December 15, 2007, 12:33:04 PM »

Why is everyone talking about Al Gore and his film?
Because it's easier to ridicule a celebrity than to do actual research.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #57 on: December 15, 2007, 01:31:18 PM »

I'll do the climate change fear-mongers one better, I predict more than a 5 degree increase in global temperature, I predict twice that, a 10 degree increase in global temperatures. My source? A quick glance at the history of our climate over the past half a billion years, thanks to studies in paleoclimatology, tell us that we are probably at the tail end of a global ice age that started about two million years ago http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

It's rather interesting that on a planet that is about 4.5 billion years old, these climate change fear-mongers rarely include data from more than the past million years in their analysis. And yet they expect us to take them seriously. Past data suggests that climate changes do come and go rather quickly, in the grand scheme of things so it is likely that our ice age will (relatively) quickly come to an end; the planet will return to it's normal temperature of approximately 22 degrees from the frigid 12-13 degrees we are now experiencing. Now if the temperature was already around 22 degrees and rising, there may be SOME claim to human influence on the enviroment (though this has happened briefly in the past between the permian and triassic periods without human assistance, which also lead to a great explosion of life and one of the more productive periods in earth's evolutionary history, so we can't complain too much about those irresponsible creatures that allowed this to happen); but considering we're just returning to a normal global temperature, I think I'll need more evidence before I'm going to discount the natural forces that have been affecting our climate for 4.5 billion years.

So while I'll agree that we seem to be coming out of our ice age, doesn't it seem likely that this will happen without human help? Probably. Will curtailing our CO2 emissions really change anything? Looking at the historical data, I seriously doubt it.

So now comes the practical considerations, where are the economists? Where is the cost benefit analysis of 'fighting global warming'? Since it's highly unlikely that our actions will have any impact on the ending of our ice age, how can we justify bankrupting national economies to prevent it? Shouldn't we be strengthing our economies so that we can improve our technology and infastructure? We have the ability to hold back the sea, in fact the entire province of Flevoland in the Netherlands was reclaimed from the sea. I would think that levies would be better investments than destroying our economy in the pursuit of some pipe dream.

And, assuming, for the sake of argument that our bankrupting of our national economy and retarding economic development could, some how, slow global warming or even reduce it by a degree or two, would the effort be worth while? The greatest impact would be in the field of agricultural since most factories are not at the mercy of the weather. Sure certain agricultural areas in southern regions may have difficulties with increased temperatures, but we have learned long ago that soil quality and abundant irrigation resources are more important, let's invest our money in fertilizer technology and new canals rather than wasting it trying to restrict CO2 perhaps we can even give more funding to current research in genetic engineering to help the plants themselves thrive under hotter conditions, I'm sure that an overwhelming majority of farmers would agree with this approach. But this difficulty could easily be offset by the improved climate in our northern regions (which are said to be the areas that will be most dramatically affected by global warming), a similar (though less dramatic) change during the Medieval warm period led to the vast improvement of agriculture in Scandinavia and the rise of the Viking kingdoms as significant and powerful players on the world scene. Currently inhospitable climates could become productive agricultural areas; with a small investment in technology and infastructure global warming could actually HELP our economy and breathe new life into our northern regions.

So why not embrace it as a positive change in stead of running from any change in blind fear?
« Last Edit: December 15, 2007, 01:34:10 PM by greekischristian » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Panagiotis
Libertarian/Orthodox/Lush
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: The Phanar
Posts: 406


Advocating Liberty Since 1973


WWW
« Reply #58 on: December 15, 2007, 02:20:49 PM »

Well, first of all I am Nyssa's friend who had issues breathing in the air from CA to IL and now WI. I am a smoker, though I have cut back alot by the grace of God and desire to finish this habit off with a smoke free Panagiotis! Yes I had problems taking in a full breath of air since I left Los Angeles County while living in Morgan COunty, IL and now WI as I have been having issues with my oxygen intake. Even my doctor in IL told me that this does occur where we are adjusted to an intake of one substance in the air versus a lack of said substance can effect your intake overall for a period of time. Los Angeles citizens are mutants, I tell ya! Cheesy

Anyways, on to the subject:

Yes, there is Global Warming occuring. Yes there is a larger level of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Yes, this level has gone up and has been observed with the amount of growth in population levels. But something which has not been overlooked but discredited due to the skeptics who have bashed this into the ground and have also been excommunicated by their peers is thesolar activity during the last three and a half decades. Blaming everything on emissions and air pollution is like trying to blame a head gasket blowout on a loose lugnut. Its obvious what has caused our current global warming trend and we see it everyday as it rises in the east and sets in the west.

We should be the stewards of our planet as it has been given over to us to tend to, but we have done little as far as global devastation goes with the exception of being able to decimate it in war. What the issues are should not be placed upon us globally, but locally. We should tend to our homes, our neighborhoods and our communities. We should clean up there first as this effects us directly. And if this whole issue stresses us even further than it has already, then pray for our safety. May Our Father in Heaven protect us and save His Church!

But there is another issue which has been brought up that has been ridiculed here that I must state is incorrect to criticize. The United States has a global monopoly on the envrionment and has been making a ton of money on this. Evidence? My brother works for a company who has designed an alternative source for power plants and engines, usable for power stations to provide third world nations with an excellent source for heat and electricity. WHen he went to open discussion with a small nation in Africa, who has literally one power plant to provide for its one major city while the rest of the country still burns a fire pit for heat and food, he was halted and threatened by an American envirnmental agent that forced him back onto the plane, stating to him that if he releases his product in that nation he would be killed(bluntly stated almost verbatim). This nation is powered by the United States services from our Federal Branch and they have implememnted several outsources which lead directly to members of our Senate, our Congress and pirvatized organization controlled by Federal monies, all of which are "environmentally accepted by the United States Environmental Commission" which in all honesty keep this nation reliant on the US until the end of time. Now what my brother deals in is hydrogen, which the byproduct is water, nothing else. It is safe, effective and is pretty close to a 100% effectiveness in power input to output. So why did he get his life threatened by the United States for trying to help out a thrid world nation? After tracing out the investments of environmental products forced upon this small nation, its a big business. Research further showed that the United States controls most of Africa's nations forcing them to not use their natural resources and are required to maintain their third world status primarily due to their lack of infrastructure which requires power supplies to build up. The US controls the power of Africa.

Conspiracy? No, as my brother has dealt with this head on. Lying? Nope. He will be releasing this information when his company goes public, very soon. Impact? His product will change the globe and the control of energy from oil companies and oil nations to the people of every nation. Skeptical? Well lets just wait and see...

Blessings,
Panagiotis
Logged


"The first condition for the establishment of perpetual peace is the general adoption of the principles of laissez-faire capitalism"
-Ludwig Von Mises
Pravoslavbob
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #59 on: December 15, 2007, 02:39:59 PM »

I'll do the climate change fear-mongers one better, I predict more than a 5 degree increase in global temperature, I predict twice that, a 10 degree increase in global temperatures. My source? A quick glance at the history of our climate over the past half a billion years, thanks to studies in paleoclimatology, tell us that we are probably at the tail end of a global ice age that started about two million years ago http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

You might even be right, in the long run ......  

Quote
So why not embrace it as a positive change in stead of running from any change in blind fear?

..... but you might well be wrong too.  As far as I know (and please inform me of other sources that I may be ignorant of) the evidence for this kind of thing is just not that thorough.  I've often seen, though, that geologists look at things differently and get frustrated that other scientists aren't looking enough at the paleogeologic picture.  Of course, some of these geologists just seem to be looking exclusively at geology, which is also too narrow.  

Another reason why not to embrace it?  There are lots more people on the planet now than there have ever been before.  Climate change might have grave consequences for them and for the world economy.  For example, how about all the people who live in the Netherlands, much of which has been claimed from the sea.  As far as I know, things might not look so great for Manhattan and area either.  (Kinda changes things when before it was dinosaurs who had to face all these calmatous changes, and now it's human beings.)
« Last Edit: December 15, 2007, 02:42:16 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Pravoslavbob
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #60 on: December 15, 2007, 03:03:12 PM »

Yes, there is Global Warming occuring. Yes there is a larger level of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Yes, this level has gone up and has been observed with the amount of growth in population levels. But something which has not been overlooked but discredited due to the skeptics who have bashed this into the ground and have also been excommunicated by their peers is thesolar activity during the last three and a half decades. Blaming everything on emissions and air pollution is like trying to blame a head gasket blowout on a loose lugnut. Its obvious what has caused our current global warming trend and we see it everyday as it rises in the east and sets in the west.

I've heard of this theory.  I don't know that its conclusions are so obviously true, though.  Like any theory, it should be heard and considered.  From where I sit now, I think that it might not be being given enough of a hearing.  Any links on where one might find out more about it would be appreciated.

Quote
But there is another issue which has been brought up that has been ridiculed here that I must state is incorrect to criticize. The United States has a global monopoly on the envrionment and has been making a ton of money on this. Evidence? My brother works for a company who has designed an alternative source for power plants and engines, usable for power stations to provide third world nations with an excellent source for heat and electricity. WHen he went to open discussion with a small nation in Africa, who has literally one power plant to provide for its one major city while the rest of the country still burns a fire pit for heat and food, he was halted and threatened by an American envirnmental agent that forced him back onto the plane, stating to him that if he releases his product in that nation he would be killed(bluntly stated almost verbatim). This nation is powered by the United States services from our Federal Branch and they have implememnted several outsources which lead directly to members of our Senate, our Congress and pirvatized organization controlled by Federal monies, all of which are "environmentally accepted by the United States Environmental Commission" which in all honesty keep this nation reliant on the US until the end of time. Now what my brother deals in is hydrogen, which the byproduct is water, nothing else. It is safe, effective and is pretty close to a 100% effectiveness in power input to output. So why did he get his life threatened by the United States for trying to help out a thrid world nation? After tracing out the investments of environmental products forced upon this small nation, its a big business. Research further showed that the United States controls most of Africa's nations forcing them to not use their natural resources and are required to maintain their third world status primarily due to their lack of infrastructure which requires power supplies to build up. The US controls the power of Africa.

Conspiracy? No, as my brother has dealt with this head on. Lying? Nope. He will be releasing this information when his company goes public, very soon. Impact? His product will change the globe and the control of energy from oil companies and oil nations to the people of every nation. Skeptical? Well lets just wait and see...

You are right.  This kind of thing is happening every day.  The Western nations are keeping the "developing" nations under their heel.  It's shameful and shocking.  (GiC will no doubt rightly point out that it is not really so shocking, given how the history of geopolitics and colonialism has played out.)  Christians should be up in arms over this, so to speak.

To me, as an outsider, this kind of thing just draws attention to the living contradiction that is America.  On the one hand, a beacon for freedom in the world.  On the other hand, you get this kind of thing.  And if you look at the development of green technology, giving things just a quick glance, I would have to say that American companies are among those that are leading the way.  And Americans in their local communities too, at least some of the time, seem to be the ones putting their money where their mouth is and struggling to live in greener ways.   (I won't delve into what I perceive to be the negative side of the equation on the environmental scale.)

Thank you for this post.  I really hope that you report back to us on what happens in the end. 
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,964


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #61 on: December 15, 2007, 03:08:15 PM »

pravoslavbob,

1. What propaganda have you been reading?
2. Why do you believe it?

Don't be confused about what I'm asking, for I don't really want to know the evidence external to yourself that you deem convincing. These questions are more a study of epistemology than anything else. Everyone is guided by a world view (a set of presuppositions, priorities, values, personality traits, etc.) that underlies how one gathers evidence, what evidence one considers important, and how one interprets this evidence to come to a reasonable conclusion, and this world view is unique to each individual. Only in the light of this understanding do I ask the above questions.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #62 on: December 15, 2007, 03:10:02 PM »

Climatic conditions are very important within archeology.  Even slight variations can dramatically alter a society - hence there are archaeologists that do in fact specialize in climate related issues. 

Indeed. I studied dendrochronological dating in a medieval archaeology course. Climatic conditions play an important role in archaeological study.
Logged
Pravoslavbob
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #63 on: December 15, 2007, 03:14:58 PM »

I apologize for not responding to your questions earlier: I've been a bit busy lately.

No problem.

Quote
As for your question about rate of warming, it's hard to say; who says that the current warming is "rapid?"  It is speculation, methinks.  Unless you've seen something that catalogs the rate of change that led to the last warm period.

I have heard a few ecologists and biologists who are concerned that the rate of warming will be so rapid that ecosystems will not be able to adapt quickly enough.  If I find a source when I have some more time, I will let you know.

Quote
Well: increased Tornadic reports corresponds directly to improvements in the reporting system.  The first spike (IIRC) occurred with the foundation of the National Weather Service.  The second spike occurred with the implementation of the spotter system.  The third spike occurred with the implementation of Doppler radar.  What is interesting is that after the initial spikes, the numbers slowly declined on average until the next reporting improvement came along (not factoring in the occasional aberration).

Makes sense.


Quote
However, my friend was with the Weather Service during Hurricane Katrina, and specifically was one of the folks tracking it from our area of the country (OH).  He says that the speculation that it was strengthened by Global Warming is baseless, and he actually resents the (thankfully very few) times he's heard it brought up as an example, since he feels like people's emotions are being manipulated.

I think he has a point.  I wouldn't say that it's baseless, though, just that we really can't track the evidence for it in any effective way right now.
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #64 on: December 15, 2007, 03:22:32 PM »


Well, I would not say that acid rain is going to destroy the planet, buts its negative effects on lakes that are not buffered by alkaline bedrock (eg lakes on the precambrian shield), and its negative effects on vegetation  cannot be disputed.  If you and your husband truly believe that this is "junk science", then I don't know what to say.  You might want to check with him on this one. 

Sigh. . .a trip to the Adirondacks of my home state of New York would confirm that. Roughly a quarter of the lakes and ponds there are now too acidic to support aquatic life.
Logged
Pravoslavbob
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #65 on: December 15, 2007, 03:25:02 PM »

Sigh. . .a trip to the Adirondacks of my home state of New York would confirm that. Roughly a quarter of the lakes and ponds there are now too acidic to support aquatic life.

Exactly.  I have seen the same thing in lakes in Ontario.

I know some wilderness areas on the Canadian side of the border that I love dearly.  They are directly connected to the Adirondacks geologically, and in many ways ecologically too.  Smiley
« Last Edit: December 15, 2007, 03:29:42 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
observer
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 546

Vivre die Raznitsa!


« Reply #66 on: December 15, 2007, 03:38:02 PM »

What are the fear-mongers going to do about volcanoes and cosmic rays which affect climate a million times more than man?  Yes there is evidence - just Google Danish science on climate.  The world doth wax old as doth a garment.  Someone (not on this forum!) is trying to force our thinking into a tight box, I wonder who?
Logged

Thou shalt not prefer one thing to another (Law of Liberalism)
Justinian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 176


« Reply #67 on: December 15, 2007, 05:04:14 PM »


So now comes the practical considerations, where are the economists? Where is the cost benefit analysis of 'fighting global warming'? Since it's highly unlikely that our actions will have any impact on the ending of our ice age, how can we justify bankrupting national economies to prevent it? Shouldn't we be strengthing our economies so that we can improve our technology and infastructure? We have the ability to hold back the sea, in fact the entire province of Flevoland in the Netherlands was reclaimed from the sea. I would think that levies would be better investments than destroying our economy in the pursuit of some pipe dream.




Oh, they're around, but have largely been ignored.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Consensus

And my personal favorite:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjorn_Lomborg
Logged

"All this indignation have I hurled, At the pretending part of the proud world. Who, swollen with selfish vanity devise: false freedoms, holy cheats, and formal lies, Over their fellow slaves to tyrannize." - John Wilmot
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #68 on: December 15, 2007, 10:44:01 PM »


New England is getting 9 Global warming inches of snow.

 Grin
Logged
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,747



« Reply #69 on: December 15, 2007, 11:01:11 PM »

Out here in the high desert of So. Cal its been 28 degrees in the AM...

Go Pats...

Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #70 on: December 16, 2007, 01:36:15 AM »

New England is getting 9 Global warming inches of snow.

 Grin

We got more than 10 inches in just a few hours in Boston. (Completely unimpressive where I come from)

« Last Edit: December 16, 2007, 01:36:49 AM by lubeltri » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #71 on: December 16, 2007, 02:22:09 AM »

..... but you might well be wrong too.

That's a possibility, but the probability that this theory is right should be taken into any kind of economic calculus. If a change is inevitable, there's no point in trying to prevent it, you'd do better to simply adapt.

Quote
As far as I know (and please inform me of other sources that I may be ignorant of) the evidence for this kind of thing is just not that thorough.  I've often seen, though, that geologists look at things differently and get frustrated that other scientists aren't looking enough at the paleogeologic picture.  Of course, some of these geologists just seem to be looking exclusively at geology, which is also too narrow.  

I don't know that the methods for collecting data are in doubt so much as future predictions based on the data. We know that we're in an ice age, that this ice age has lasted as long or longer than ice ages in the past half a billion years, and that temperatures are getting warmer; thus, it's reasonable to conclude that we are comming out of the ice age. Of course, since we don't know enough about the factors that have thrown us into this ice age, it is entirely possible that these factors have not changed and we are artificially taking ourselves out of our ice age. But the fact that other planets such as mars are experiencing similar temperature increases would seem to suggest, to me at least, that this shift is larger than what we are capable of creating.

Quote
Another reason why not to embrace it?  There are lots more people on the planet now than there have ever been before.  Climate change might have grave consequences for them and for the world economy.  For example, how about all the people who live in the Netherlands, much of which has been claimed from the sea.  As far as I know, things might not look so great for Manhattan and area either.  (Kinda changes things when before it was dinosaurs who had to face all these calmatous changes, and now it's human beings.)

We do have more people, but we also have better technology; the same technology that the Netherlands used to reclaim their land from the sea can be used to keep the sea back. And, since the effects of global warming mean that the seas would rise slowly, we have pleanty of time to analyze the problem and implement a solution. And, in reality, does the cost of a handful of levies justify to the cost of trying to reduce CO2 emissions by even the modest amounts Kyoto calls for? Amounts that most climatologists agree are essentially ineffective?

And you're in Canada, are you not? Canada stands to have much to gain from Global Warming, the overwhelming majority of the country is cold and inhospitable, given a 10 degree increase in global temperature you would find yourselves with substantially more agricultural land. From the perspective of the northern countries in general, the benefits of global warming would seem to far outweigh the costs.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #72 on: December 16, 2007, 03:09:58 AM »

And you're in Canada, are you not? Canada stands to have much to gain from Global Warming, the overwhelming majority of the country is cold and inhospitable, given a 10 degree increase in global temperature you would find yourselves with substantially more agricultural land. From the perspective of the northern countries in general, the benefits of global warming would seem to far outweigh the costs.

There was a story about this in the Russian media not too long ago.  Increased agricultural area is just the tip of the iceberg (a reference future generations won't understand).  There are huge oil reserves believed to be under the polar ice cap.  Also, the ability to ship goods from Europe and Asia to North America over dramatically reduced distances will revolutionize the global economy.  To be politically correct, Russia will play along with the global warming charades, but in reality they stand to gain tremendously from it. 
Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #73 on: December 16, 2007, 03:13:37 AM »

The vast majority (80% +)of our oil comes from Canada and Venezuela and unless there is something contrary, these countries (at least not yet) are not funding terrorist training camps or jihadist propaganda.

Regardless of that, the majority of hard currency entering the Saudi economy is from Western petroleum consumption.  Thus, you are still funding the world wide dissemination of Wahhabism every time that you fill up the gas tank. 

Logged
Carole
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (ish)
Posts: 271


« Reply #74 on: December 16, 2007, 10:13:38 AM »

On second thought ... I'm just bowing out.  Deleting my post.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2007, 10:36:42 AM by Carole » Logged

Carole
Tamara
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Diocese of America
Posts: 2,208


+Pray for Orthodox Unity+


« Reply #75 on: December 16, 2007, 02:00:27 PM »

Don't fight, adapt
We should give up futile attempts to combat climate change

National Post  Published: Thursday, December 13, 2007   
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=165020

Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations Dec. 13, 2007

His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon Secretary-General, United Nations New York, N.Y.

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports: - Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability. - The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years. - Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/ wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.

Yours faithfully, [list of signatories below] Copy to: Heads of state of countries of the signatory persons.

---

Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia

William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand

Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg

Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany

Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment journal

Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.

Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin

Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta

R.M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand

David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma

Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University

Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia

Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands

Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario

David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak,' Australia

William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame

Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia

R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa

Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut fur Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany

Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay

Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,Wellington, New Zealand

William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project

Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut

Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia

Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona

Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA

Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis

Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman -Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling -virology, NSW, Australia

Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Olavi Karner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia

Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia

David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand

Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007

William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology

Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands

Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands

The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.

Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware

Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.

Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors

Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia

Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut fur Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany

John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand

Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.

Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph

John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia

Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand

Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University

Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University

Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia

Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden

Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia

David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia

Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia

R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University

Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota

Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan

Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences

Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University

Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief -Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force

R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology

Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.

Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway

Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA

S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service

L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario

Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH(Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden

Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager -Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC

Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia

Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia

Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany

Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia

A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #76 on: December 16, 2007, 02:17:18 PM »

Don't fight, adapt
We should give up futile attempts to combat climate change

National Post  Published: Thursday, December 13, 2007   
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=165020

Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations Dec. 13, 2007

His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon Secretary-General, United Nations New York, N.Y.

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports: - Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability. - The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years. - Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/ wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.

Yours faithfully, [list of signatories below] Copy to: Heads of state of countries of the signatory persons.

---

Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia

William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand

Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg

Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany

Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment journal

Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.

Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin

Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta

R.M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand

David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma

Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University

Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia

Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands

Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario

David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak,' Australia

William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame

Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia

R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa

Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut fur Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany

Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay

Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,Wellington, New Zealand

William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project

Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut

Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia

Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona

Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA

Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis

Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman -Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling -virology, NSW, Australia

Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Olavi Karner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia

Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia

David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand

Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007

William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology

Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands

Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands

The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.

Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware

Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.

Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors

Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia

Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut fur Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany

John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand

Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.

Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph

John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia

Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand

Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University

Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University

Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia

Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden

Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia

David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia

Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia

R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University

Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota

Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan

Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences

Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University

Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief -Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force

R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology

Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.

Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway

Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA

S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service

L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario

Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH(Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden

Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager -Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC

Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia

Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia

Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany

Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia

A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy
Does this mean that Al Gore is absolutely wrong, and those who deny climate change due to human factors are absolutely correct?[/list]
Logged
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #77 on: December 16, 2007, 08:32:46 PM »

    Does this mean that Al Gore is absolutely wrong, and those who deny climate change due to human factors are absolutely correct?[/list]

    Not completely.  Al Gore is absolutely wrong when he says that we are the major or prime reason for Global warming.  We only play a part, and that part is a very small part at that. However, we need to be as frugal in our use of resources from not only a environmental standpoint but a limited resources standpoint. They both count.

    Al Gore will not put his opinions of views up for discussion.  Nowhere will you see him being debated on this subject.  He is given a free pass by the bubble headed media who go goo goo over him.  The Europeans who have nothing better to do then down talk the U.S. and have very little to contribute other than say that We, ie , the US must pay up more money because they think we are the chief abusers.   Maybe once, but not now.  I would like to see Algor go up against the newest world (China|) power and dictate to them his montra of econuttiness.

    I think I have a good idea where the Chinese will tell Algor where to stick it.

    And for another thing, why does Algor have to go overseas, away from the US in order to bad mouth is own country and countrymen?

    « Last Edit: December 16, 2007, 08:35:03 PM by JoeS » Logged
    stanley123
    Protokentarchos
    *********
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Catholic
    Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
    Posts: 3,809


    « Reply #78 on: December 16, 2007, 11:01:05 PM »


    And for another thing, why does Algor have to go overseas, away from the US in order to bad mouth is own country and countrymen?

    I guess it's because the Noble prizes are awarded in Sweden and not in the USA.
    Logged
    Pravoslavbob
    Moderator
    Archon
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Catholic
    Jurisdiction: OCA
    Posts: 3,181


    St. Sisoes the Great


    « Reply #79 on: December 18, 2007, 01:57:16 AM »

    pravoslavbob,

    1. What propaganda have you been reading?
    2. Why do you believe it?

    Don't be confused about what I'm asking, for I don't really want to know the evidence external to yourself that you deem convincing. These questions are more a study of epistemology than anything else. Everyone is guided by a world view (a set of presuppositions, priorities, values, personality traits, etc.) that underlies how one gathers evidence, what evidence one considers important, and how one interprets this evidence to come to a reasonable conclusion, and this world view is unique to each individual. Only in the light of this understanding do I ask the above questions.

    Peter,

    I've thought about your question, and I'm not sure how fair it is to ask this question on a public forum.  As you point out, everyone has their own world view.  Perhaps everyone writing here should divulge to everyone one else what their world view involves.  My world view seems to be very different from many of the people posting here, so in your eyes I am no doubt the one holding strange opinions.  Where I live, there is no politicized debate over weather ( Wink) or not climate change is happening, so I find this debate to be quite alien.  I don't doubt that you are asking the question simply to try and understand better my POV and reference points, but again, I'm not sure if that's a fair question without asking everyone else the same thing.

    JB
    « Last Edit: December 18, 2007, 01:58:37 AM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

    Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
    GiC
    Resident Atheist
    Site Supporter
    Merarches
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Mathematician
    Posts: 9,490



    « Reply #80 on: December 18, 2007, 02:09:10 AM »

    Peter,

    I've thought about your question, and I'm not sure how fair it is to ask this question on a public forum.  As you point out, everyone has their own world view.  Perhaps everyone writing here should divulge to everyone one else what their world view involves.  My world view seems to be very different from many of the people posting here, so in your eyes I am no doubt the one holding strange opinions.  Where I live, there is no politicized debate over weather ( Wink) or not climate change is happening, so I find this debate to be quite alien.  I don't doubt that you are asking the question simply to try and understand better my POV and reference points, but again, I'm not sure if that's a fair question without asking everyone else the same thing.

    JB

    Well, then, I'll start; I believe that the reasoning behind Occam's razor is sound, there is no reason to add unnecessary variables. Thus, since paleoclimatology reveals numerous temperature shifts in earth's history and even demonstrates that we have been in a global ice age for the last 2 million years or so, I would expect one to present extraordinary evidence dismissing natural impacts on global warming before making the extraordinary claim that they should be dismissed.

    Now, your turn. Wink
    Logged

    "The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
    Pravoslavbob
    Moderator
    Archon
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Catholic
    Jurisdiction: OCA
    Posts: 3,181


    St. Sisoes the Great


    « Reply #81 on: December 18, 2007, 02:11:41 AM »

    But the fact that other planets such as mars are experiencing similar temperature increases would seem to suggest, to me at least, that this shift is larger than what we are capable of creating.

    Sure, that's possible, but what you and other posters seem to omit from your argument regarding Mars is that the Martian atmosphere is quite different from that of Earth's.

    Quote
    We do have more people, but we also have better technology; the same technology that the Netherlands used to reclaim their land from the sea can be used to keep the sea back. And, since the effects of global warming mean that the seas would rise slowly, we have pleanty of time to analyze the problem and implement a solution. And, in reality, does the cost of a handful of levies justify to the cost of trying to reduce CO2 emissions by even the modest amounts Kyoto calls for? Amounts that most climatologists agree are essentially ineffective?

    You know full well that there is much more than "the cost of a handful of levies" involved here.   Wink  I'm not touching this one.


    Quote
    And you're in Canada, are you not? Canada stands to have much to gain from Global Warming, the overwhelming majority of the country is cold and inhospitable, given a 10 degree increase in global temperature you would find yourselves with substantially more agricultural land. From the perspective of the northern countries in general, the benefits of global warming would seem to far outweigh the costs.

    It's true that Canada may be one of the countries that, in the overall scheme of things, will derive more benefit than hardship from climate change when the push comes to shove.  But with regard to the agricultural land thing:  a huge part of Canada sits on an extremely thin,acidic,nutrient-poor soil layer overlaying extremely hard bedrock that gives off very few nutrient-rich minerals.  It's commonly known as the Canadian or Precambrian Shield.  Global warming won't make that go away.
    « Last Edit: December 18, 2007, 02:15:02 AM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

    Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
    GiC
    Resident Atheist
    Site Supporter
    Merarches
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Mathematician
    Posts: 9,490



    « Reply #82 on: December 18, 2007, 02:26:54 AM »

    Sure, that's possible, but what you and other posters seem to omit from your argument regarding Mars is that the Martian atmosphere is quite different from that of Earth's.

    Granted, but to dismiss this correlation as coincidence, especially in light of the history of our climate, would seem to be rather strange. I would think that this observation would be at the forefront of our scientific analysis of global warming rather than an inconvenient truth shunned by the 'scientific' community.

    Quote
    You know full well that there is much more than "the cost of a handful of levies" involved here.   Wink  I'm not touching this one.

    Yes, there may be a bit more to it in some places, but in others a handful of levies will do the trick. Of course, any crisis that forces us to come up with new solutions and technologies can only benefit us from that perspective. One of the great qualities of the human race is its adaptability--it's the very reason that we have cities and ports.

    Quote
    It's true that Canada may be one of the countries that, in the overall scheme of things, will derive more benefit than hardship from climate change when the push comes to shove.  But with regard to the agricultural land thing:  a huge part of Canada sits on an extremely thin,acidic,nutrient-poor soil layer overlaying extremely hard bedrock that gives off very few nutrient-rich minerals.  It's commonly known as the Canadian or Precambrian Shield.  Global warming won't make that go away.

    No, it won't give the soil nutrients; but we have other technologies that will do that. I'd think that you'd just be happy with the better weather. Wink
    Logged

    "The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
    Pravoslavbob
    Moderator
    Archon
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Catholic
    Jurisdiction: OCA
    Posts: 3,181


    St. Sisoes the Great


    « Reply #83 on: December 18, 2007, 02:43:45 AM »

    Well, then, I'll start; I believe that the reasoning behind Occam's razor is sound, there is no reason to add unnecessary variables. Thus, since paleoclimatology reveals numerous temperature shifts in earth's history and even demonstrates that we have been in a global ice age for the last 2 million years or so, I would expect one to present extraordinary evidence dismissing natural impacts on global warming before making the extraordinary claim that they should be dismissed.

    Now, your turn. Wink

    I think he's looking for a bit more than this from me, don't you?

    Another further thing that I could add is that I have college training as an ecologist. Although I am not working directly in this discipline anymore, I have recently worked in related disciplines.
    Logged

    Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
    GiC
    Resident Atheist
    Site Supporter
    Merarches
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Mathematician
    Posts: 9,490



    « Reply #84 on: December 18, 2007, 02:47:58 AM »

    I think he's looking for a bit more than this from me, don't you?

    Perhaps, but I thought I'd try to move things along a bit and take a cheap shot in the process. Grin

    Quote
    Another further thing that I could add is that I have college training as an ecologist. Although I am not working directly in this discipline anymore, I have recently worked in related disciplines.

    Then perhaps you could provide actual data for us to analyze so that we could move beyond the 'he said she said' nature of most debates on climate change (which was all even the UN report on climate change ultimately amounted to).
    « Last Edit: December 18, 2007, 02:49:50 AM by greekischristian » Logged

    "The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
    Pravoslavbob
    Moderator
    Archon
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Catholic
    Jurisdiction: OCA
    Posts: 3,181


    St. Sisoes the Great


    « Reply #85 on: December 18, 2007, 02:55:39 AM »

    No, it won't give the soil nutrients; but we have other technologies that will do that.

    Well, for one thing, you'd have to make a whole lotta compost.....a lot more than we're making now!  Wink

    Quote
    I'd think that you'd just be happy with the better weather. Wink

    Actually, too many Canadians have tended to think that this is what the whole thing means.  "Global warming?  Alright!  Which way to the beach?"  They don't consider the possibilties that large areas of land may recive a lot more precipitation than before and other areas may become dessicated, or that coastal flooding may be severe, or that more extreme weather events are possible on a regular basis.
    « Last Edit: December 18, 2007, 03:25:19 AM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

    Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
    Pravoslavbob
    Moderator
    Archon
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Catholic
    Jurisdiction: OCA
    Posts: 3,181


    St. Sisoes the Great


    « Reply #86 on: December 18, 2007, 03:10:02 AM »

    Then perhaps you could provide actual data for us to analyze so that we could move beyond the 'he said she said' nature of most debates on climate change (which was all even the UN report on climate change ultimately amounted to).

    A few things:  I would have to interpret the data anyway, and many posters here have already indicated that they don't care for my opinions on the matter of climate science, so I am fighting a losing battle.  I have deeply offended a couple of people here, as far as I can tell, with something that they seem to see as relating to deeply held political and social beliefs, and I see it as relating to science.  I honestly don't know what to say when someone basically tells me (not verbatim, but still) that acid rain is a "liberal plot" when it was in my ecology textbooks at college as scientific fact. 
    Secondly, I like looking at the results of a statistical study that someone else has done, but I hate doing my own statistical studies.  I know that statistical studies are an integral part of the science of ecology, but I was so glad when I got to stop using statistics, you just don't know how glad.
    I'm quite busy right now.  But if I see a study or three that catch my eye and my imagination, I will post them.  Don't hold your breath in anticipation.  Wink
    « Last Edit: December 18, 2007, 03:16:39 AM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

    Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
    John of the North
    Protokentarchos
    *********
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Christianity
    Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
    Posts: 3,533


    Christ is Risen!

    tgild
    « Reply #87 on: December 18, 2007, 03:32:04 AM »

    Can someone explain to me why it is so important for us as a society to justify climate change or our share of the blame??

    Personally, it doesn't matter. Emissions are dangerous to our health. They can be managed far better than they are currently. Acid rain is dangerous and can be managed. Deforestation is dangerous and can be managed. Can anyone debate that?? Is anyone willing to claim that we as a society make efficient use of our resources and have little to impact on our planet??

    If you leave a car running in a closed garage and you in it, YOU DIE. Why is it any different in world outside us?? In Milan, pedestrians use gas masks on the way to work, the air is that dangerous. In Beijing for the next Summer Olympics, they are struggling to meet air standards that are safe for long distance athletes....a person/child cannot even run outside. What kind of world do we live in?? May the Lord have mercy on us all.

    Logged

    "Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
    GiC
    Resident Atheist
    Site Supporter
    Merarches
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Mathematician
    Posts: 9,490



    « Reply #88 on: December 18, 2007, 05:31:48 AM »

    A few things:  I would have to interpret the data anyway, and many posters here have already indicated that they don't care for my opinions on the matter of climate science, so I am fighting a losing battle.

    I'm a mathematician by training, let's just have the raw data, we can then debate the best methods to model and analyze it. Regardless of conclusions, at least we'll have fun getting there. Wink

    In the end, however, I believe the problem is that most models deal with far too little data and thus come up with overly simplistic models and results. Let's get everything we can together then play with evolutionary algorithms and let the AI analyze it. Grin

    Quote
    I have deeply offended a couple of people here, as far as I can tell, with something that they seem to see as relating to deeply held political and social beliefs, and I see it as relating to science.  I honestly don't know what to say when someone basically tells me (not verbatim, but still) that acid rain is a "liberal plot" when it was in my ecology textbooks at college as scientific fact.

    Well, I for one am not offended; I simply question the quality of the research behind the conclusions presented. Of course, mathematics requires such a high level of proof that all the sciences are in doubt. Wink

    In all seriousness though, I am curious as to the exact scope of the data being used for modeling and the modeling methods being implemented; while I spent most my time with theoretical mathematics and computer science, numerical analysis, evolutionary computation, and neural networds has long been a hobbies (as well as research interests and engineering projects) of mine.

    Quote
    Secondly, I like looking at the results of a statistical study that someone else has done, but I hate doing my own statistical studies.  I know that statistical studies are an integral part of the science of ecology, but I was so glad when I got to stop using statistics, you just don't know how glad.

    Now I'm offended. Grin

    The statistics and (especially) modeling of ecological phenomena are the only interesting part. Cheesy

    I personally think that everyone who wants to study these sciences should first be required to get a degree in mathematics. Wink
    Logged

    "The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
    GiC
    Resident Atheist
    Site Supporter
    Merarches
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Mathematician
    Posts: 9,490



    « Reply #89 on: December 18, 2007, 05:34:29 AM »

    Can someone explain to me why it is so important for us as a society to justify climate change or our share of the blame??

    Personally, it doesn't matter. Emissions are dangerous to our health. They can be managed far better than they are currently. Acid rain is dangerous and can be managed. Deforestation is dangerous and can be managed. Can anyone debate that?? Is anyone willing to claim that we as a society make efficient use of our resources and have little to impact on our planet??

    If you leave a car running in a closed garage and you in it, YOU DIE. Why is it any different in world outside us?? In Milan, pedestrians use gas masks on the way to work, the air is that dangerous. In Beijing for the next Summer Olympics, they are struggling to meet air standards that are safe for long distance athletes....a person/child cannot even run outside. What kind of world do we live in?? May the Lord have mercy on us all.

    Eh, that's your opinion. I'm personally more concerned with the quality of the science, resarch, and mathematical modeling behind the conclusions being presented than the actual implications. If I had the choice between good air and good science I'd choose the latter every time.
    Logged

    "The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
    Thomas
    Section Moderator
    Archon
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Eastern Orthodox
    Jurisdiction: Antiochian
    Posts: 2,790



    « Reply #90 on: December 18, 2007, 09:47:09 AM »

    This issue is just another example of where Man has corrupted the icon of God in the world. Prayer and repentance would have greater impact in restoring it as promised in the Scriptures making it into the new earth, the true image God intended. I think the key word is that man as the steward  has to repent and change himself into a true steward of what belongs to God and not to man.

    Thomas

    PS GIC---good comments!
    Logged

    Your brother in Christ ,
    Thomas
    PeterTheAleut
    The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
    Section Moderator
    Protospatharios
    *****
    Online Online

    Faith: Orthodox Christian
    Jurisdiction: OCA
    Posts: 31,964


    Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


    « Reply #91 on: December 19, 2007, 12:46:29 AM »

    Can someone explain to me why it is so important for us as a society to justify climate change or our share of the blame??

    Personally, it doesn't matter. Emissions are dangerous to our health. They can be managed far better than they are currently. Acid rain is dangerous and can be managed. Deforestation is dangerous and can be managed. Can anyone debate that?? Is anyone willing to claim that we as a society make efficient use of our resources and have little to impact on our planet??

    If you leave a car running in a closed garage and you in it, YOU DIE. Why is it any different in world outside us?? In Milan, pedestrians use gas masks on the way to work, the air is that dangerous. In Beijing for the next Summer Olympics, they are struggling to meet air standards that are safe for long distance athletes....a person/child cannot even run outside. What kind of world do we live in?? May the Lord have mercy on us all.


    I've been to Beijing.  My nose itched and ran nonstop the whole three days I was there Tongue, but, as soon as we left the city, my nose stopped itching and running.  (I made it to the top of the Wall, though--huffing and puffing.)
    « Last Edit: December 19, 2007, 12:49:14 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
    Pravoslavbob
    Moderator
    Archon
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Catholic
    Jurisdiction: OCA
    Posts: 3,181


    St. Sisoes the Great


    « Reply #92 on: December 19, 2007, 12:48:01 AM »

    This issue is just another example of where Man has corrupted the icon of God in the world. Prayer and repentance would have greater impact in restoring it as promised in the Scriptures making it into the new earth, the true image God intended. I think the key word is that man as the steward  has to repent and change himself into a true steward of what belongs to God and not to man.

    Indeed.  Some Orthodox theologians have opined that the environmental crisis facing the planet is essentially a spiritual one.  I think that prayer and repentance are what is really needed, more than anything else, in order to "solve" the environmental "problem."
    « Last Edit: December 19, 2007, 12:58:44 AM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

    Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
    Pravoslavbob
    Moderator
    Archon
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Catholic
    Jurisdiction: OCA
    Posts: 3,181


    St. Sisoes the Great


    « Reply #93 on: December 19, 2007, 12:57:29 AM »

    In the end, however, I believe the problem is that most models deal with far too little data and thus come up with overly simplistic models and results. Let's get everything we can together then play with evolutionary algorithms and let the AI analyze it. Grin

    You knew that I'd like that reference to AI, didn't ya?   laugh



    Quote
    Now I'm offended. Grin

    The statistics and (especially) modeling of ecological phenomena are the only interesting part. Cheesy

    Ha ha!  I just knew that you were going to say something like that.  Wink
    Logged

    Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
    John of the North
    Protokentarchos
    *********
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Christianity
    Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
    Posts: 3,533


    Christ is Risen!

    tgild
    « Reply #94 on: December 19, 2007, 01:31:25 AM »

    Actually it comes down to what is in our best interest. And to me that means an efficient, healthy society.
    Logged

    "Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
    FrChris
    The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
    Site Supporter
    Taxiarches
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Christian
    Posts: 7,252


    Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


    « Reply #95 on: December 19, 2007, 02:32:53 PM »

    Yes, a healthy, efficient society is everyone's goal and objective.

    And here is an article from today's Washington Times:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071219/COMMENTARY/10575140

    Year of global cooling

    Al Gore says global warming is a planetary emergency. It is difficult to see how this can be so when record low temperatures are being set all over the world. In 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards.

    Since the mid-19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn't increased significantly for nearly nine years. Antarctica is getting colder. Neither the intensity nor the frequency of hurricanes has increased. The 2007 season was the third-quietest since 1966. In 2006 not a single hurricane made landfall in the U.S.

    South America this year experienced one of its coldest winters in decades. In Buenos Aires, snow fell for the first time since the year 1918. Dozens of homeless people died from exposure. In Peru, 200 people died from the cold and thousands more became infected with respiratory diseases. Crops failed, livestock perished, and the Peruvian government declared a state of emergency.

    Unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007. Johannesburg, South Africa, had the first significant snowfall in 26 years. Australia experienced the coldest June ever. In northeastern Australia, the city of Townsville underwent the longest period of continuously cold weather since 1941. In New Zealand, the weather turned so cold that vineyards were endangered.

    Last January, $1.42 billion worth of California produce was lost to a devastating five-day freeze. Thousands of agricultural employees were thrown out of work. At the supermarket, citrus prices soared. In the wake of the freeze, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked President Bush to issue a disaster declaration for affected counties. A few months earlier, Mr. Schwarzenegger had enthusiastically signed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, a law designed to cool the climate. California Sen. Barbara Boxer continues to push for similar legislation in the U.S. Senate.

    In April, a killing freeze destroyed 95 percent of South Carolina's peach crop, and 90 percent of North Carolina's apple harvest. At Charlotte, N.C., a record low temperature of 21 degrees Fahrenheit on April 8 was the coldest ever recorded for April, breaking a record set in 1923. On June 8, Denver recorded a new low of 31 degrees Fahrenheit. Denver's temperature records extend back to 1872.

    Recent weeks have seen the return of unusually cold conditions to the Northern Hemisphere. On Dec. 7, St. Cloud, Minn., set a new record low of minus 15 degrees Fahrenheit. On the same date, record low temperatures were also recorded in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

    Extreme cold weather is occurring worldwide. On Dec. 4, in Seoul, Korea, the temperature was a record minus 5 degrees Celsius. Nov. 24, in Meacham, Ore., the minimum temperature was 12 degrees Fahrenheit colder than the previous record low set in 1952. The Canadian government warns that this winter is likely to be the coldest in 15 years.

    Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri are just emerging from a destructive ice storm that left at least 36 people dead and a million without electric power. People worldwide are being reminded of what used to be common sense: Cold temperatures are inimical to human welfare and warm weather is beneficial. Left in the dark and cold, Oklahomans rushed out to buy electric generators powered by gasoline, not solar cells. No one seemed particularly concerned about the welfare of polar bears, penguins or walruses. Fossil fuels don't seem so awful when you're in the cold and dark.

    If you think any of the preceding facts can falsify global warming, you're hopelessly naive. Nothing creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer. In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained “global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.” In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can't make this stuff up.

    Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.

    Logged

    "As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
    stanley123
    Protokentarchos
    *********
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Catholic
    Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
    Posts: 3,809


    « Reply #96 on: December 19, 2007, 02:46:34 PM »

    Yes, a healthy, efficient society is everyone's goal and objective.

    And here is an article from today's Washington Times:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071219/COMMENTARY/10575140

    Year of global cooling

    Al Gore says global warming is a planetary emergency. It is difficult to see how this can be so when record low temperatures are being set all over the world. In 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards.

    Since the mid-19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn't increased significantly for nearly nine years. Antarctica is getting colder. Neither the intensity nor the frequency of hurricanes has increased. The 2007 season was the third-quietest since 1966. In 2006 not a single hurricane made landfall in the U.S.

    South America this year experienced one of its coldest winters in decades. In Buenos Aires, snow fell for the first time since the year 1918. Dozens of homeless people died from exposure. In Peru, 200 people died from the cold and thousands more became infected with respiratory diseases. Crops failed, livestock perished, and the Peruvian government declared a state of emergency.

    Unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007. Johannesburg, South Africa, had the first significant snowfall in 26 years. Australia experienced the coldest June ever. In northeastern Australia, the city of Townsville underwent the longest period of continuously cold weather since 1941. In New Zealand, the weather turned so cold that vineyards were endangered.

    Last January, $1.42 billion worth of California produce was lost to a devastating five-day freeze. Thousands of agricultural employees were thrown out of work. At the supermarket, citrus prices soared. In the wake of the freeze, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked President Bush to issue a disaster declaration for affected counties. A few months earlier, Mr. Schwarzenegger had enthusiastically signed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, a law designed to cool the climate. California Sen. Barbara Boxer continues to push for similar legislation in the U.S. Senate.

    In April, a killing freeze destroyed 95 percent of South Carolina's peach crop, and 90 percent of North Carolina's apple harvest. At Charlotte, N.C., a record low temperature of 21 degrees Fahrenheit on April 8 was the coldest ever recorded for April, breaking a record set in 1923. On June 8, Denver recorded a new low of 31 degrees Fahrenheit. Denver's temperature records extend back to 1872.

    Recent weeks have seen the return of unusually cold conditions to the Northern Hemisphere. On Dec. 7, St. Cloud, Minn., set a new record low of minus 15 degrees Fahrenheit. On the same date, record low temperatures were also recorded in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

    Extreme cold weather is occurring worldwide. On Dec. 4, in Seoul, Korea, the temperature was a record minus 5 degrees Celsius. Nov. 24, in Meacham, Ore., the minimum temperature was 12 degrees Fahrenheit colder than the previous record low set in 1952. The Canadian government warns that this winter is likely to be the coldest in 15 years.

    Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri are just emerging from a destructive ice storm that left at least 36 people dead and a million without electric power. People worldwide are being reminded of what used to be common sense: Cold temperatures are inimical to human welfare and warm weather is beneficial. Left in the dark and cold, Oklahomans rushed out to buy electric generators powered by gasoline, not solar cells. No one seemed particularly concerned about the welfare of polar bears, penguins or walruses. Fossil fuels don't seem so awful when you're in the cold and dark.

    If you think any of the preceding facts can falsify global warming, you're hopelessly naive. Nothing creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer. In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained “global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.” In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can't make this stuff up.

    Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.


    This is an interesting article.
    But then, what is the explanation for the satellite pictures and other photographic documentation of global warming?
    http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/
    Logged
    JoeS
    (aka StMarkEofE)
    Site Supporter
    OC.net guru
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Catholic
    Jurisdiction: OCA
    Posts: 1,122


    Global Warming Enthusiast.


    « Reply #97 on: December 19, 2007, 03:37:33 PM »

    What are the fear-mongers going to do about volcanoes and cosmic rays which affect climate a million times more than man?  Yes there is evidence - just Google Danish science on climate.  The world doth wax old as doth a garment.  Someone (not on this forum!) is trying to force our thinking into a tight box, I wonder who?

    Gigantic humongus corks for the Volcanos.  Roll Eyes
    Logged
    observer
    High Elder
    ******
    Offline Offline

    Posts: 546

    Vivre die Raznitsa!


    « Reply #98 on: December 20, 2007, 08:47:25 PM »


    Science of Propaganda?

    Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
    Logged

    Thou shalt not prefer one thing to another (Law of Liberalism)
    stanley123
    Protokentarchos
    *********
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Catholic
    Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
    Posts: 3,809


    « Reply #99 on: December 20, 2007, 10:02:37 PM »

    Science of Propaganda?

    Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

    Right. But still, i don;t see the explanation for the satellite photos that I mentioned above.
    Logged
    JoeS
    (aka StMarkEofE)
    Site Supporter
    OC.net guru
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Catholic
    Jurisdiction: OCA
    Posts: 1,122


    Global Warming Enthusiast.


    « Reply #100 on: December 21, 2007, 12:44:03 AM »

    Science of Propaganda?

    Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.


    Here is the whole article:

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
    Logged
    Entscheidungsproblem
    Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
    Protokentarchos
    *********
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Machine God
    Posts: 4,495



    WWW
    « Reply #101 on: December 21, 2007, 01:04:04 AM »

    After the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age from 800 AD - 1850 AD, we should be used to, based on history, that temperatures fluctuate.
    Logged

    As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
    -- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
    ozgeorge
    I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
    Hoplitarches
    *************
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Christian
    Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
    Posts: 16,382


    My plans for retirement.


    WWW
    « Reply #102 on: December 21, 2007, 02:50:22 AM »

    This is an interesting article.
    But then, what is the explanation for the satellite pictures and other photographic documentation of global warming?
    Stanley,
    Satellite photographs are less than 40 years old. I am older than they are! Cheesy You can't look at data over something like 100 years in a system that is millions of years old and make conclusions based on that. What about the melting sea ice and glaciers during the Medieval Warm Period? What about the expanding sea ice and glaciers during the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum?
    The Earth, it's oceans and it's atmosphere are a homoeostatic system, and like all homoeostatic systems, it goes through fluctuations while it adjusts itself- just like the balance in the homoeostatic system of your body. Your blood pressure, hydration level, body temperature etc. all go through fluctuations while your body seeks to correct them and keep them in balance. In the case of the Earth, these fluctuations can take hundreds and even thousands of years due to the pace of the systems which correct them (thermohaline circulation, radiative cooling, etc). To conclude that we are all doomed to irreversible global warming based on the melting of glaciers and sea ice over the past 50 years would be like concluding that your normal body temperature is 102oF because you took your temperature while you had a fever.
    « Last Edit: December 21, 2007, 02:51:39 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

    If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
    PeterTheAleut
    The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
    Section Moderator
    Protospatharios
    *****
    Online Online

    Faith: Orthodox Christian
    Jurisdiction: OCA
    Posts: 31,964


    Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


    « Reply #103 on: December 22, 2007, 01:18:26 AM »

    Science of Propaganda?

    Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

    Just curious...  Where'd you read this?
    « Last Edit: December 22, 2007, 01:18:57 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
    Tamara
    Archon
    ********
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Christian
    Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Diocese of America
    Posts: 2,208


    +Pray for Orthodox Unity+


    « Reply #104 on: December 22, 2007, 03:56:16 AM »

    Just curious...  Where'd you read this?

    Peter,

    I think he is referring to the article JoeS posted a link to:


    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

    It is very interesting... Shocked
    Logged
    Jetavan
    Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
    Taxiarches
    **********
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Christic
    Jurisdiction: Dixie
    Posts: 6,446


    Barlaam and Josaphat


    WWW
    « Reply #105 on: December 22, 2007, 03:30:50 PM »

    Noah's generation caused global warming, thus causing the Great Flood. We should prepare, for we are in Noah's generation once again.
    Logged

    If you will, you can become all flame.
    Extra caritatem nulla salus.
    In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
    सर्वभूतहित
    Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
    "Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
    Y dduw bo'r diolch.
    ytterbiumanalyst
    Professor Emeritus, CSA
    Merarches
    ***********
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Christian
    Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
    Posts: 8,790



    « Reply #106 on: December 23, 2007, 12:19:53 AM »

    we are in Noah's generation once again.
    Darn! I knew I should have taken a left turn at Albequerque! Cheesy
    « Last Edit: December 23, 2007, 12:20:25 AM by ytterbiumanalyst » Logged

    "It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
    _Seraphim_
    High Elder
    ******
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Christian
    Jurisdiction: Serbian Diocese of Western America (under His Grace Bishop Maxim)
    Posts: 657


    May Orthodoxy become our orthopraxis


    WWW
    « Reply #107 on: December 31, 2007, 05:57:11 PM »

    I just came across a book by Patriarch Bartholomew:

    Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer:
    The Ecological Vision of the Green Patriarch Bartholomew I


    I posted about it in the Reviews section:
    http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,14114.0.html
    Logged

    "Disputes merely about words must not be suffered to divide those who think alike."
    -St. Athanasius (†444)

    Pray for Orthodox Unity

    "Behold the light of our Agreed Statement on Christology"
    http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state04.html
    Jakub
    Archon
    ********
    Offline Offline

    Posts: 2,747



    « Reply #108 on: December 31, 2007, 09:00:05 PM »

    I copied/pasted this from the book review section...



    Here is some info to chew on...Wildland Fire Stats U.S.A, add those outside of the US

    Do you think this affects the weather & climate ?

    Trying to remember where the total volume of smoke/particles are...


    Year-to-date statistics
    2007 (1/1/07 - 12/28/07) Fires: 85,583 Acres: 9,318,710
    2006 (1/1/06 - 12/28/06)  Fires: 96,326 Acres: 9,871,863
    2005 (1/1/05 - 12/28/05) Fires: 66,020 Acres: 8,681,252
    2004 (1/1/04 - 12/28/04) Fires: 65,878 Acres: 8,094,531
    2003 (1/1/03 - 12/28/03) Fires: 63,269 Acres: 3,959,223
    2002 (1/1/02 - 12/28/02)  Fires: 73,423 Acres: 7,182,979
    2001 (1/1/01 - 12/28/01) Fires: 83,996 Acres: 3,570,225
    2000 (1/1/00 - 12/28/00) Fires: 92,250 Acres: 7,393,493
    5-year average 
    2003 - 2007 Fires: 75,415 Acres: 7,985,116
    10-year average 
    1997- 2006 Fires: 78,482 Acres: 7,904,524
     
    Logged

    An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

    Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
    JoeS
    (aka StMarkEofE)
    Site Supporter
    OC.net guru
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Catholic
    Jurisdiction: OCA
    Posts: 1,122


    Global Warming Enthusiast.


    « Reply #109 on: January 01, 2008, 03:19:29 PM »

    I copied/pasted this from the book review section...



    Here is some info to chew on...Wildland Fire Stats U.S.A, add those outside of the US

    Do you think this affects the weather & climate ?

    Trying to remember where the total volume of smoke/particles are...


    Year-to-date statistics
    2007 (1/1/07 - 12/28/07) Fires: 85,583 Acres: 9,318,710
    2006 (1/1/06 - 12/28/06)  Fires: 96,326 Acres: 9,871,863
    2005 (1/1/05 - 12/28/05) Fires: 66,020 Acres: 8,681,252
    2004 (1/1/04 - 12/28/04) Fires: 65,878 Acres: 8,094,531
    2003 (1/1/03 - 12/28/03) Fires: 63,269 Acres: 3,959,223
    2002 (1/1/02 - 12/28/02)  Fires: 73,423 Acres: 7,182,979
    2001 (1/1/01 - 12/28/01) Fires: 83,996 Acres: 3,570,225
    2000 (1/1/00 - 12/28/00) Fires: 92,250 Acres: 7,393,493
    5-year average 
    2003 - 2007 Fires: 75,415 Acres: 7,985,116
    10-year average 
    1997- 2006 Fires: 78,482 Acres: 7,904,524
     

    Clear cutting of dead trees and dry debris is one of the chief causes of fires speading so fast over large areas of lands.  Clear cutting is an environmental hot  potato, becuase the greenies dont want anyone messing with the forests whatsoever, and the loggers want to use the timber for things like furniture, plywood, deck material, paper,etc. There has to be a compromise but some states, states that have vast forests forbid the clear cutting necessary in preventing small fires from becoming large fires.  For the environmental folks we have a catch-22 of sorts here.

    In any event, forest fires dont even come close to the amounts of carbons emitted from all the volcanoes around the world each and every year.

    Oh, does your survey cover the number of forest fires caused by lightning strikes, ie nature herself?
    « Last Edit: January 01, 2008, 03:21:36 PM by JoeS » Logged
    PeterTheAleut
    The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
    Section Moderator
    Protospatharios
    *****
    Online Online

    Faith: Orthodox Christian
    Jurisdiction: OCA
    Posts: 31,964


    Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


    « Reply #110 on: January 01, 2008, 05:35:49 PM »

    In any event, forest fires dont even come close to the amounts of carbons emitted from all the volcanoes around the world each and every year.
    Heck, some of the most massive volcanic eruptions in our world's history are thought to be responsible for extinction level events.  Think the supervolcano that powers the hot springs and geysers in Yellowstone National Park.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/1999/supervolcanoes.shtml
    « Last Edit: January 01, 2008, 05:39:58 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
    JoeS
    (aka StMarkEofE)
    Site Supporter
    OC.net guru
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Catholic
    Jurisdiction: OCA
    Posts: 1,122


    Global Warming Enthusiast.


    « Reply #111 on: January 01, 2008, 05:59:19 PM »

    Clear cutting of dead trees and dry debris is one of the chief causes of fires speading so fast over large areas of lands.  Clear cutting is an environmental hot  potato, becuase the greenies dont want anyone messing with the forests whatsoever, and the loggers want to use the timber for things like furniture, plywood, deck material, paper,etc. There has to be a compromise but some states, states that have vast forests forbid the clear cutting necessary in preventing small fires from becoming large fires.  For the environmental folks we have a catch-22 of sorts here.

    In any event, forest fires dont even come close to the amounts of carbons emitted from all the volcanoes around the world each and every year.

    Oh, does your survey cover the number of forest fires caused by lightning strikes, ie nature herself?

    http://forestfire.nau.edu/lightning.htm

    Nationwide, humans cause almost 80% of wildfires, but in the American Southwest, 60% to 70% of forest fires are ignited by lightning. The region leads the nation in the average number of forest fires due to lightning strikes and the number of acres burned by these fires each year (Pyne 2001, p. 6).
    Logged
    Pravoslavbob
    Moderator
    Archon
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Catholic
    Jurisdiction: OCA
    Posts: 3,181


    St. Sisoes the Great


    « Reply #112 on: January 01, 2008, 09:32:09 PM »

    Heck, some of the most massive volcanic eruptions in our world's history are thought to be responsible for extinction level events.  Think the supervolcano that powers the hot springs and geysers in Yellowstone National Park.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/1999/supervolcanoes.shtml

    I cited a similar reference earlier in this thread.
    Logged

    Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
    Pravoslavbob
    Moderator
    Archon
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Catholic
    Jurisdiction: OCA
    Posts: 3,181


    St. Sisoes the Great


    « Reply #113 on: January 01, 2008, 09:40:33 PM »

    There has to be a compromise but some states, states that have vast forests forbid the clear cutting necessary in preventing small fires from becoming large fires. 

    Clear cuts are never necessary from an environmental perspective.  See my post in the "Patriarch Bartholomew" thread. 

    Quote
    For the environmental folks we have a catch-22 of sorts here.

    Not really.  Many forest fires are necessary for the health of forests.  Severe fires sometimes happen when fires have been repressed for too long, and the resulting devastation can be nasty.  It's difficult to manage fires for many reasons:  one of the more obviously difficult things is the necessity of  keeping fires away from populated areas.  Again, I wrote a bit more in the other thread.
    « Last Edit: January 01, 2008, 09:42:11 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

    Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
    JoeS
    (aka StMarkEofE)
    Site Supporter
    OC.net guru
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Catholic
    Jurisdiction: OCA
    Posts: 1,122


    Global Warming Enthusiast.


    « Reply #114 on: January 03, 2008, 12:13:29 AM »

    Clear cuts are never necessary from an environmental perspective.  See my post in the "Patriarch Bartholomew" thread. 

    Not really.  Many forest fires are necessary for the health of forests.  Severe fires sometimes happen when fires have been repressed for too long, and the resulting devastation can be nasty.  It's difficult to manage fires for many reasons:  one of the more obviously difficult things is the necessity of  keeping fires away from populated areas.  Again, I wrote a bit more in the other thread.

    So, how does the environmentalist deal with the need for forest fires and the release of carbons because of this.  Does his head blowup and burst contemplating one over the other?
     laugh
    « Last Edit: January 03, 2008, 12:13:59 AM by JoeS » Logged
    JoeS
    (aka StMarkEofE)
    Site Supporter
    OC.net guru
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Catholic
    Jurisdiction: OCA
    Posts: 1,122


    Global Warming Enthusiast.


    « Reply #115 on: January 03, 2008, 12:26:44 AM »

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/01/science/01tier.html?_r=1&8dpc=&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin



    The New York Times:
    January 1, 2008
    Findings
    In 2008, a 100 Percent Chance of Alarm
    By JOHN TIERNEY

    (a good wrap up in the last paragraph)
    Logged
    Pravoslavbob
    Moderator
    Archon
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Catholic
    Jurisdiction: OCA
    Posts: 3,181


    St. Sisoes the Great


    « Reply #116 on: January 03, 2008, 01:21:14 AM »

    So, how does the environmentalist deal with the need for forest fires and the release of carbons because of this.  Does his head blowup and burst contemplating one over the other?
     laugh

    You know, your contemptuous tone does little for the growth of this discussion or the advancement of your points.  As Nectarios alluded to in the "science" thread, some of us may find it a bit much to see laypeople who read op-ed pages anointing themselves experts in scientific fields.  I am certainly not an expert on climate change, but I am an ecologist and I have studied it to some extent, so I do think that I have something to contribute to this discussion.  My frustration with the politicization of the climate change issue in the United States contributed to my slightly intemperate posts on this thread earlier in the game, and I'm sorry about that.  From this discussion and from other quarters I have gathered that in the US, both the "left" and the "right" on this issue must both be "shouting" quite loudly about the whole thing, and that has lead some of you to decide that, in order to be a "moderate" on this issue, one must assume that climate change may or may not be happening.  I'm sorry that both sides on this issue are distributing so much pseudo-scientific hysterical misinformation, but this does not change the fact that a vast majority of scientists say that global warming is happening, and that a not quite as vast, but still large majority assert that humans are the major cause.  Of course, it's possible that new discoveries could be made in the future, and this majority opinion could shift.  But as of right now, it's not happening.  I'm sure that politics play a role in the sciences as in other disciplines, and that those who do not "tow the line" on the current "orthodox view" are isolated or ridiculed as in other disciplines.  I just don't think that this is happening nearly as much as some people would like to think.  I also think that some minority theories should probably be given more of a look at times.  And that some are really kooky and deserve to be ignored.

    Oh, and forest fires have been happening since time immemorial.  They are a normal and healthy part of the ecological cycle.  At times, humans supress fires for too long, and catastrophic fires are eventually the result.  It is also possible that climate change may already be contributing to the severity, number and breadth of some fires in certain areas.
    « Last Edit: January 03, 2008, 02:04:01 AM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

    Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
    GiC
    Resident Atheist
    Site Supporter
    Merarches
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Mathematician
    Posts: 9,490



    « Reply #117 on: January 03, 2008, 03:08:29 AM »

    You know, your contemptuous tone does little for the growth of this discussion or the advancement of your points.  As Nectarios alluded to in the "science" thread, some of us may find it a bit much to see laypeople who read op-ed pages anointing themselves experts in scientific fields.  I am certainly not an expert on climate change, but I am an ecologist and I have studied it to some extent, so I do think that I have something to contribute to this discussion.  My frustration with the politicization of the climate change issue in the United States contributed to my slightly intemperate posts on this thread earlier in the game, and I'm sorry about that.  From this discussion and from other quarters I have gathered that in the US, both the "left" and the "right" on this issue must both be "shouting" quite loudly about the whole thing, and that has lead some of you to decide that, in order to be a "moderate" on this issue, one must assume that climate change may or may not be happening.  I'm sorry that both sides on this issue are distributing so much pseudo-scientific hysterical misinformation, but this does not change the fact that a vast majority of scientists say that global warming is happening, and that a not quite as vast, but still large majority assert that humans are the major cause.

    I believe the moderate position is that global warming is happening; however, it is uncertain whether or not it is caused by humans and even IF it is, the economic benefits of trying to somehow combat it are doubtful at best. Thus, we should ignore the issue from a policy level allowing scientists to further explore the matter without political pressure. The moderate position simply wants to see politicians get out of the debate and allow good science to decide the matter over the next few decades.

    My major objection to the human cause approach is the same objection I have read from several paleoclimatologists (which are probably far more qualified to speak on the subject than most people who are creating the models). Most these models that predict human influence completely ignore the fact that we're in the middle of a global ice age and that the median temperature of the planet is about 12 degrees warmer than what we see today. As someone who was trained in Mathematics, the models of climate change I have seen in detail seem to make far to many assumptions and be anything but rigorous (granted, the rigor of Mathematics can never be achieved in this field, but you could at least try to approach the rigor of Physics and Biology in the next 30 years or so, even if modern computers arn't powerful enough).

    Of course, I'm the kind of person who was even skeptical about the theory of evolution until I studied the (successful) predictions of computer models that resulted from the assumption of common ancestry, which were only made possible by advances in the sequencing of DNA and computational abilities of computers and were only published in the past couple years. Perhaps we should file all these predictions by the various models away (while keeping making more, of course) and keep collecting data over the next 30 years. That way we actually have a means to verify the models; if they remain consonant with data collected over the next few decades they they may have merit, but I hardly see how blindly accepting an unproven computer model is consonant with good science and the scientific method. And I would find it to be rather foolish to injure our economy based on a mere hypothesis (and data, not consensus, makes an hypothesis into a theory).

    Quote
    Of course, it's possible that new discoveries could be made in the future, and this majority opinion could shift.  But as of right now, it's not happening.  I'm sure that politics play a role in the sciences as in other disciplines, and that those who do not "tow the line" on the current "orthodox view" are isolated or ridiculed as in other disciplines.  I just don't think that this is happening nearly as much as some people would like to think.  I also think that some minority theories should probably be given more of a look at times.  And that some are really kooky and deserve to be ignored.

    I have nothing against scientists who believe humans are the cause of global warming based on their interpretation of the data; I only have problems with 'scientists' who insist on a policy change based on their interpretation of the data and before the evidence has been collected to turn it into a concrete scientific theory, which does not seem to have happened yet.
    Logged

    "The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
    JoeS
    (aka StMarkEofE)
    Site Supporter
    OC.net guru
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Catholic
    Jurisdiction: OCA
    Posts: 1,122


    Global Warming Enthusiast.


    « Reply #118 on: January 03, 2008, 10:33:58 AM »

    You know, your contemptuous tone does little for the growth of this discussion or the advancement of your points.  As Nectarios alluded to in the "science" thread, some of us may find it a bit much to see laypeople who read op-ed pages anointing themselves experts in scientific fields.

    Oh, and forest fires have been happening since time immemorial.  They are a normal and healthy part of the ecological cycle.  At times, humans supress fires for too long, and catastrophic fires are eventually the result.  It is also possible that climate change may already be contributing to the severity, number and breadth of some fires in certain areas.

    Boy, where is your sense of humour. I cant even make a funny when it is appropriate. Reminds me of another forum.  However, let me state that the environmentalists DO have will continue to have conflicting dilemas and I have stated one.  My post #115 is from the N.Y.Times.  Now all of a sudden since it appears in the Times the argument becomes more relevant for some reason. I guess if the article appeared in red state town newspaper it cant be taken as legitimate.  Funny, oops, sorry, how reality eventually shows itself even in places not known for it.
    « Last Edit: January 03, 2008, 10:37:36 AM by JoeS » Logged
    TinaG
    I am not a pessimist - I'm just grimly realistic!
    High Elder
    ******
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox
    Jurisdiction: OCA
    Posts: 870


    If only my family were this normal !


    WWW
    « Reply #119 on: January 04, 2008, 02:23:24 PM »

    Noah's generation caused global warming, thus causing the Great Flood. We should prepare, for we are in Noah's generation once again.

    Jetavan - I'm really dense sometimes, but you did mean to put one of those smiley thingeys behind your statement didn't you?  Maybe this one  Cheesy   or this one Wink , cause when I read your post I was going to put in this one  Shocked.  Can you please elaborate on just exactly how fornication and lawlessness creates greenhouse gasses?
    Logged

    On the spiritual path somewhere between the Simpsons and St. Theophan the Recluse, but I still can't see the Springfield city limits sign yet.
    Pravoslavbob
    Moderator
    Archon
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Catholic
    Jurisdiction: OCA
    Posts: 3,181


    St. Sisoes the Great


    « Reply #120 on: January 04, 2008, 04:53:51 PM »

    Boy, where is your sense of humour.

    Over there, in a box.  I didn't think that there would be enough space for it, as it's kind of large, but your tact and sensitivity didn't take much space at all, so there was plenty of room.  Wink
    Logged

    Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
    Jetavan
    Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
    Taxiarches
    **********
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Christic
    Jurisdiction: Dixie
    Posts: 6,446


    Barlaam and Josaphat


    WWW
    « Reply #121 on: January 07, 2008, 02:01:58 AM »

    Jetavan - I'm really dense sometimes, but you did mean to put one of those smiley thingeys behind your statement didn't you?  Maybe this one  Cheesy   or this one Wink , cause when I read your post I was going to put in this one  Shocked.  Can you please elaborate on just exactly how fornication and lawlessness creates greenhouse gasses?
    TinaG, I was half-joking, so I should have put a  Wink in there somewhere.

    On the other hand, I was half-serious: people lived for hundreds of years during Noah's time, life-spans that could have encouraged rapid growth of scientific knowledge (think: Atlantis!). Civilizations with much knowledge and little wisdom tend to self-destruct, in one way or another. (Or am I being half-joking again?  angel)
    « Last Edit: January 07, 2008, 02:02:52 AM by Jetavan » Logged

    If you will, you can become all flame.
    Extra caritatem nulla salus.
    In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
    सर्वभूतहित
    Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
    "Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
    Y dduw bo'r diolch.
    GiC
    Resident Atheist
    Site Supporter
    Merarches
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Mathematician
    Posts: 9,490



    « Reply #122 on: January 07, 2008, 03:38:12 AM »

    TinaG, I was half-joking, so I should have put a  Wink in there somewhere.

    On the other hand, I was half-serious: people lived for hundreds of years during Noah's time, life-spans that could have encouraged rapid growth of scientific knowledge (think: Atlantis!). Civilizations with much knowledge and little wisdom tend to self-destruct, in one way or another. (Or am I being half-joking again?  angel)

    Well, if Noah's wooden box made it, why didn't their aircraft carriers and especially submarines weather the storm? And then what about their spacecraft? Why didn't they make it? Wink

    I had a teacher once that insisted that since the bible said that everything imaginable was done by people before the flood that they had automobiles, airplanes, etc. Rather silly and absurd, granted, but this teacher held to it as dogma.
    Logged

    "The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
    TinaG
    I am not a pessimist - I'm just grimly realistic!
    High Elder
    ******
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox
    Jurisdiction: OCA
    Posts: 870


    If only my family were this normal !


    WWW
    « Reply #123 on: January 07, 2008, 09:59:05 AM »

    TinaG, I was half-joking, so I should have put a  Wink in there somewhere.
    On the other hand, I was half-serious: people lived for hundreds of years during Noah's time, life-spans that could have encouraged rapid growth of scientific knowledge (think: Atlantis!). Civilizations with much knowledge and little wisdom tend to self-destruct, in one way or another. (Or am I being half-joking again?  angel)

    You must be half-joking 'cause the Mormons still haven't explained where their great and wonderful ancient American society went.  What scientists have got to be the most optimistic (or brainwashed) despite their overwhelming record of failure?  Mormon archeologists. 

    I think you'll find just as little evidence of an Atlantis like civilization during Noah's time.  Now if you're talking space aliens, ancient astronauts, I'm all over that one.   John Carpenter's 1982 documentary The Thing, is one of my all time favorite movies.   "Chariots of the Gods, man... They practically own South America."
    Logged

    On the spiritual path somewhere between the Simpsons and St. Theophan the Recluse, but I still can't see the Springfield city limits sign yet.
    Anastasios
    Webdespota
    Administrator
    Merarches
    *******
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Eastern Orthodox
    Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
    Posts: 10,444


    Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

    anastasios0513
    WWW
    « Reply #124 on: May 19, 2008, 06:43:57 PM »

    http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/al_gore_global_warming/2008/05/19/97307.html

    31,000 Scientists Debunk Al Gore and Global Warming

    Monday, May 19, 2008 4:24 PM

    By: Philip V. Brennan    Article Font Size 

    An incredible 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science, including 9,021 Ph.D.s, have signed a petition that flatly denies Al Gore’s claims that human-caused global warming is a settled scientific fact.

    Gore calls scientists and others who question the reality of human-caused global warming “deniers” and claims they are a tiny minority among the scientific community who he insists almost universally agree that the planet is being threatened by the alleged warming of the earth.

    Gore told CBS’ Leslie Stahl on "60 Minutes" recently, "I think those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view. They're almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat."

    These 31,072 scientists do not believe the world is flat, and they say there is no convincing scientific evidence that so-called greenhouse gasses are causing catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate.

    On Monday, Dr. Arthur Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, (OISM) announced the results of a drive asking scientists to sign a petition stating: “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto Japan in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limit on greenhouse gasses would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.”

    The petition went on to say, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.”

    Robinson explained that the purpose of OISM’s petition project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong.

    Despite Gore’s extravagant claims, the petition shows that no such consensus or settled science exists.

    In 2001, OISM circulated what was known as the Oregon Petition, and according to Lawrence Solomon, executive director of Energy Probe and author of “The Deniers: The World-Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud,” that effort, spearheaded by Dr. Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences and of Rockefeller University, gathered an astounding 17,800 signatures.

    To establish that the effort was bona fide, and not spawned by kooks on the fringes of science, as global warming advocates often label the skeptics, the 2001 effort was spearheaded by Dr. Seitz, a towering figure in the world of science.

    Solomon wrote, “The Oregon Petition garnered an astounding 17,800 signatures, a number all the more astounding because of the unequivocal stance that these scientists took: Not only did they dispute that there was convincing evidence of harm from carbon dioxide emissions, they asserted that Kyoto itself would harm the global environment because increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.”

    According to Dr. Robinson, “As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.”

    Solomon asked, “How many scientists does it take to establish that a consensus does not exist on global warming?”

    © 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

    Logged

    Please Buy My Book!

    Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
    Simayan
    Site Supporter
    High Elder
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Christian
    Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate - GOA
    Posts: 816



    « Reply #125 on: May 19, 2008, 07:40:31 PM »

    I think this can be summed up in one word: Owned.
    Logged

    "He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death, nor mourning nor crying nor suffering, for the old order of things has passed away."
    Αριστοκλής
    Merarches
    ***********
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Catholic
    Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
    Posts: 10,026


    « Reply #126 on: May 19, 2008, 08:05:12 PM »

    I think this can be summed up in one word: Owned.

    I think this can be summed up in one word: Owned. Reasoned.
    Logged

    "Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
    Pravoslavbob
    Moderator
    Archon
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Catholic
    Jurisdiction: OCA
    Posts: 3,181


    St. Sisoes the Great


    « Reply #127 on: May 19, 2008, 08:19:14 PM »

    On Monday, Dr. Arthur Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, (OISM) announced the results of a drive asking scientists to sign a petition....

    The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.

    The OISM is located on a farm about 7 miles from the town of Cave Junction, Oregon (population 1,126). Located slightly east of Siskiyou National Forest, Cave Junction is one of several small towns nestled in the Illinois Valley, whose total population is 15,000. Best known as a gateway to the Oregon Caves National Monument, it is described by its chamber of commerce as "the commercial, service, and cultural center for a rural community of small farms, woodlots, crafts people, and families just living apart from the crowds. ... It's a place where going into the market can take time because people talk in the aisles and at the checkstands. Life is slower, so you have to be patient. You'll be part of that slowness because it is enjoyable to be neighborly." The main visitors are tourists who come to hike, backpack and fish in the area's many rivers and streams. Cave Junction is the sort of out-of-the-way location you might seek out if you were hoping to survive a nuclear war, but it is not known as a center for scientific and medical research. The OISM would be equally obscure itself, except for the role it played in 1998 in circulating a deceptive "scientists' petition" on global warming in collaboration with Frederick Seitz, a retired former president of the National Academy of Sciences.

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
    Logged

    Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
    Αριστοκλής
    Merarches
    ***********
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Catholic
    Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
    Posts: 10,026


    « Reply #128 on: May 19, 2008, 08:26:08 PM »

    OK. So who is SourceWatch and who funds the "Center for Media and Democracy"?

    Doesn't pass the sniff test either.
    Logged

    "Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
    Anastasios
    Webdespota
    Administrator
    Merarches
    *******
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Eastern Orthodox
    Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
    Posts: 10,444


    Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

    anastasios0513
    WWW
    « Reply #129 on: May 19, 2008, 08:57:53 PM »

    The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.

    The OISM is located on a farm about 7 miles from the town of Cave Junction, Oregon (population 1,126). Located slightly east of Siskiyou National Forest, Cave Junction is one of several small towns nestled in the Illinois Valley, whose total population is 15,000. Best known as a gateway to the Oregon Caves National Monument, it is described by its chamber of commerce as "the commercial, service, and cultural center for a rural community of small farms, woodlots, crafts people, and families just living apart from the crowds. ... It's a place where going into the market can take time because people talk in the aisles and at the checkstands. Life is slower, so you have to be patient. You'll be part of that slowness because it is enjoyable to be neighborly." The main visitors are tourists who come to hike, backpack and fish in the area's many rivers and streams. Cave Junction is the sort of out-of-the-way location you might seek out if you were hoping to survive a nuclear war, but it is not known as a center for scientific and medical research. The OISM would be equally obscure itself, except for the role it played in 1998 in circulating a deceptive "scientists' petition" on global warming in collaboration with Frederick Seitz, a retired former president of the National Academy of Sciences.

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

    OISM seems to stand for a lot of good things then from the sound of it, and that sourcewatch article just sounds like a real pathetic attempt to discredit them because some of their ideas sound old fashioned or paranoid.  And even if they were fringe (nothing in that article sounds too fringe to me) 31000 scientists just signed the pledge.

    What is deceptive about the 1998 petition? It had 17000 signatures, and now we have a petition with 31000 signatures. Sounds hard to explain away.
    Logged

    Please Buy My Book!

    Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
    Pravoslavbob
    Moderator
    Archon
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Catholic
    Jurisdiction: OCA
    Posts: 3,181


    St. Sisoes the Great


    « Reply #130 on: May 19, 2008, 10:02:11 PM »

    What is deceptive about the 1998 petition? It had 17000 signatures, and now we have a petition with 31000 signatures. Sounds hard to explain away.

    If you read the rest of the article, you will find out what is deceptive about it. 

    OK. So who is SourceWatch and who funds the "Center for Media and Democracy"?

    Doesn't pass the sniff test either.
     

    Again, please read the entire article if you are sceptical.  It has the ring of authenticity, and is not without objectivity.  But if for some reason you really don't trust Sourcewatch, there are plenty of other sources out there that debunk OISM. 
    « Last Edit: May 19, 2008, 10:03:50 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

    Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
    PeterTheAleut
    The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
    Section Moderator
    Protospatharios
    *****
    Online Online

    Faith: Orthodox Christian
    Jurisdiction: OCA
    Posts: 31,964


    Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


    « Reply #131 on: May 19, 2008, 10:51:56 PM »

    If you read the rest of the article, you will find out what is deceptive about it. 
     

    Again, please read the entire article if you are sceptical.  It has the ring of authenticity, and is not without objectivity.  But if for some reason you really don't trust Sourcewatch, there are plenty of other sources out there that debunk OISM. 

    So we have two different camps equally lacking in credibility trying to debunk each other.  Who's right?  Whoever happens to support the notions you have adopted as your own? Roll Eyes

    From my perspective, all I see is that there is no scientists' consensus that global warming is what we're told it is, and that the preachers of man-made global warming try to engineer a consensus by calling their critics kooks and otherwise trashing their credibility.  They can't address the reasoning of their opposition, so they resort to ad hominems.  Yay! Roll Eyes
    « Last Edit: May 19, 2008, 10:58:28 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
    PeterTheAleut
    The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
    Section Moderator
    Protospatharios
    *****
    Online Online

    Faith: Orthodox Christian
    Jurisdiction: OCA
    Posts: 31,964


    Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


    « Reply #132 on: May 19, 2008, 11:05:10 PM »

    OK. So who is SourceWatch and who funds the "Center for Media and Democracy"?

    Doesn't pass the sniff test either.
    Exactly.  I took one look at this SourceWatch site, and the first thought that came to my mind was, "Man, this looks a h***uvalot like Wikipedia!"  They're even set up the same way: content provided and edited by us readers.  We know how credible this format is when you want something really scholarly.  NOT! Roll Eyes
    « Last Edit: May 19, 2008, 11:05:58 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
    Pravoslavbob
    Moderator
    Archon
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Catholic
    Jurisdiction: OCA
    Posts: 3,181


    St. Sisoes the Great


    « Reply #133 on: May 19, 2008, 11:10:07 PM »

    So we have two different camps equally lacking in credibility trying to debunk each other.  Who's right?  Whoever happens to support the notions you have adopted as your own? Roll Eyes

    From my perspective, all I see is that there is no scientists' consensus that global warming is what we're told it is, and that the preachers of man-made global warming try to engineer a consensus by calling their critics kooks and otherwise trashing their credibility.  They can't address the reasoning of their opposition, so they resort to ad hominems.  Yay! Roll Eyes

    I didn't know that it had been determined that both were lacking in credibility.    Roll Eyes

    You honestly see no merit in the Sourcewatch article?  Because it seems very objective and fair to me.  Did you read or at least scan the entire article?

    Frankly, speaking as a non-American, I have a very hard time with the hysteria that this issue seems to generate among Americans, and the way that they insist on churning politics into the mix.  
    Logged

    Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
    PeterTheAleut
    The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
    Section Moderator
    Protospatharios
    *****
    Online Online

    Faith: Orthodox Christian
    Jurisdiction: OCA
    Posts: 31,964


    Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


    « Reply #134 on: May 19, 2008, 11:21:16 PM »

    I didn't know that it had been determined that both were lacking in credibility.    Roll Eyes

    You honestly see no merit in the Sourcewatch article?  Because it seems very objective and fair to me.  Did you read or at least scan the entire article?
    Yes, I read it.  It's about as credible as anything one can glean from Wikipedia, I guess.  Wikipedia is good if you just want a brief survey of an issue, but I don't trust it for any real "meat and potatoes" that I would use in a scholarly paper.

    Quote
    Frankly, speaking as a non-American, I have a very hard time with the hysteria that this issue seems to generate among Americans, and the way that they insist on churning politics into the mix. 
    And you think the IPCC is NOT political?  Scientists appointed by heads of state to represent their countries on an international panel organized by the United Nations?  Doesn't this give the appearance that these scientists were sent to represent a preformed agenda consistent with the politics of the nations that sent them and with the U.N. agencies that brought them together.  Don't you get the impression that these scientists were chosen because they toed their nations' party lines?  How is that not politics?
    « Last Edit: May 19, 2008, 11:22:29 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
    Pravoslavbob
    Moderator
    Archon
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Catholic
    Jurisdiction: OCA
    Posts: 3,181


    St. Sisoes the Great


    « Reply #135 on: May 19, 2008, 11:27:08 PM »

    Exactly.  I took one look at this SourceWatch site, and the first thought that came to my mind was, "Man, this looks a h***uvalot like Wikipedia!"  They're even set up the same way: content provided and edited by us readers.  We know how credible this format is when you want something really scholarly.  NOT! Roll Eyes

    Here we go again, round and round.  As I said earlier, fine.  Find another source that debunks OISM, there are lots of them.  I've provided plenty of links to other sources much earlier in this thread concerning this debate.  As someone with an ecological training, I know that there is no significant debate in the climatic science community about whether or not global warming is happening.  Period.  I have also said that this could change.  It just hasn't yet.  Nowhere on earth except in the US is there a public debate raging about whether or not global warming is actually happening, and this debate has been initiated by big oil and those with connections to big oil.  Of course, I am sure that you will read this and think that I have fallen victim to "liberal" propaganda, in the same way, I'm sure, that all the authors of  scientific textbooks and journals that I read in college had been hoodwinked by the same propaganda.  Wink

    The Sourcewatch site is not the same as Wikipedia.  Go to their homepage if you wish, and read about it.  For one thing, they employ a paid editor.  If you want to find a higher level of "scholarliness" on the internet, I'm sure it can be done.  I thought that this was a quite level-headed summary of the nature and mission of the OISM. 
    « Last Edit: May 19, 2008, 11:35:56 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

    Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
    Papist
    Patriarch of Pontification
    Toumarches
    ************
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Catholic
    Jurisdiction: Byzantine
    Posts: 12,189


    Praying for the Christians in Iraq


    « Reply #136 on: May 19, 2008, 11:30:41 PM »

    Stanley,
    Satellite photographs are less than 40 years old. I am older than they are! Cheesy You can't look at data over something like 100 years in a system that is millions of years old and make conclusions based on that. What about the melting sea ice and glaciers during the Medieval Warm Period? What about the expanding sea ice and glaciers during the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum?
    The Earth, it's oceans and it's atmosphere are a homoeostatic system, and like all homoeostatic systems, it goes through fluctuations while it adjusts itself- just like the balance in the homoeostatic system of your body. Your blood pressure, hydration level, body temperature etc. all go through fluctuations while your body seeks to correct them and keep them in balance. In the case of the Earth, these fluctuations can take hundreds and even thousands of years due to the pace of the systems which correct them (thermohaline circulation, radiative cooling, etc). To conclude that we are all doomed to irreversible global warming based on the melting of glaciers and sea ice over the past 50 years would be like concluding that your normal body temperature is 102oF because you took your temperature while you had a fever.
    Careful. You are starting to sound like a conservative.  Wink
    Logged

    Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
    PeterTheAleut
    The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
    Section Moderator
    Protospatharios
    *****
    Online Online

    Faith: Orthodox Christian
    Jurisdiction: OCA
    Posts: 31,964


    Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


    « Reply #137 on: May 19, 2008, 11:33:45 PM »

    Here we go again, round and round.  As I said earlier, fine.  Find another source that debunks OISM, there are lots of them.  I've provided plenty of links to other sources much earlier in this thread concerning this debate.  As someone with an ecological training, I know that there is no significant debate in the climatic science community about whether or not global warming is happening.  Period.  I have also said that this could change.  It just hasn't yet.  Nowhere on earth except in the US is there a public debate raging about whether or not global warming is actually happening, and this debate has been initiated by big oil and those with connections to big oil.  Of course, I am sure that you will read this and think that I have fallen victim to "liberal" propaganda, in the same way, I'm sure, that all the scientific textbooks and journals that I read in college had been hoodwinked by the same propaganda.  Wink
    I don't even think the issue is whether global warming is happening--I don't even see the OISM article denying thatThe real controversy is whether man is the prime causative agent behind the global warming we so readily observe.
    Logged
    Pravoslavbob
    Moderator
    Archon
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Catholic
    Jurisdiction: OCA
    Posts: 3,181


    St. Sisoes the Great


    « Reply #138 on: May 19, 2008, 11:51:17 PM »

    And you think the IPCC is NOT political?  Scientists appointed by heads of state to represent their countries on an international panel organized by the United Nations?  Doesn't this give the appearance that these scientists were sent to represent a preformed agenda consistent with the politics of the nations that sent them and with the U.N. agencies that brought them together.  Don't you get the impression that these scientists were chosen because they toed their nations' party lines?  How is that not politics?

    Of course politics are involved.  They are involved in every field of human endeavour.  It is true that there are some interesting minority views out there that assert that global warming is not caused by human activity, and these have not always received the attention that they merit.  But nowhere on the planet is the idea that global warming is not happening at all given serious consideration, with the sole exception of the United States. 
    « Last Edit: May 19, 2008, 11:52:20 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

    Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
    Pravoslavbob
    Moderator
    Archon
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Catholic
    Jurisdiction: OCA
    Posts: 3,181


    St. Sisoes the Great


    « Reply #139 on: May 19, 2008, 11:56:10 PM »

    I don't even think the issue is whether global warming is happening--I don't even see the OISM article denying thatThe real controversy is whether man is the prime causative agent behind the global warming we so readily observe.

    The OISM claims that stopping CO2 emissions will damage the environment.  This assertion is simply farcical. 
    Logged

    Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
    PeterTheAleut
    The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
    Section Moderator
    Protospatharios
    *****
    Online Online

    Faith: Orthodox Christian
    Jurisdiction: OCA
    Posts: 31,964


    Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


    « Reply #140 on: May 20, 2008, 12:02:39 AM »

    The OISM claims that stopping CO2 emissions will damage the environment.  This assertion is simply farcical. 
    Well, even a grade school understanding of biology will show that CO2 emissions, whether natural or man-made, are necessary for plant life.  But I can agree that stopping man-made CO2 emissions (outside of our own breathing) will most likely not do our environment any harm.  If anything, the environment will simply revert to its own natural production of CO2.
    Logged
    GiC
    Resident Atheist
    Site Supporter
    Merarches
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Mathematician
    Posts: 9,490



    « Reply #141 on: May 20, 2008, 12:09:26 AM »

    Here we go again, round and round.  As I said earlier, fine.  Find another source that debunks OISM, there are lots of them.  I've provided plenty of links to other sources much earlier in this thread concerning this debate.  As someone with an ecological training, I know that there is no significant debate in the climatic science community about whether or not global warming is happening.  Period.  I have also said that this could change.  It just hasn't yet.  Nowhere on earth except in the US is there a public debate raging about whether or not global warming is actually happening, and this debate has been initiated by big oil and those with connections to big oil.  Of course, I am sure that you will read this and think that I have fallen victim to "liberal" propaganda, in the same way, I'm sure, that all the authors of  scientific textbooks and journals that I read in college had been hoodwinked by the same propaganda.  Wink

    Yes, global warming is happening, but from what I know of paleoclimatology I also know that we are STILL in the middle of an ice age...the median temperature of the earth over the last billion years is about 10 kelven warmer than the current average temperature. This fact alone makes the idea that humans are causing global warming very unbelievable...if we look at the natural temperature curves over the last billion years we should be in an era of extreme rapid warming, humans or no humans. I've looked at and studied the current models that suggest we are at fault for golbal warming and as someone extensively trained in computer science and mathematical modeling I can only say that the assumptions and models are severely flawed in their assumptions. Research and publications are judged based on the virtue of their arguments and those arguing for human-influenced climate change simply don't have the science to back them up, or at least they don't have the science as judged from the standards expected from one steeped in the impossibly high standards of theoretical mathematics.
    Logged

    "The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
    Pravoslavbob
    Moderator
    Archon
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Catholic
    Jurisdiction: OCA
    Posts: 3,181


    St. Sisoes the Great


    « Reply #142 on: May 20, 2008, 02:39:10 PM »

    ^  Well, I know that theoretical mathematics must play a role.  But going back a billion years is just too difficult for us to do with any great accuracy.  Paleoclimatology is a newly emerging science.  We have only recently been able to examine clues to the past of the planet that have up until now been unavailable to us; for example, layers of sediment on the ocean floor.  So of course the models are in one sense flawed in the  that the farther back in time one goes,the more difficult it becomes to determine climatic patterns with accuracy.  But these models are the best that we have right now.  Your implication that noone is considering paleoclimatology seriously seems strange to me.  From what I can see, as I have mentioned above, paleoclimatology is an exciting, newly emerging science that is being pursued with great vigor by many.  I don't see that your conclusion about human intervention not being the cause for recent climate change follows at all.  It seems to me that this is what a clear majority of paleoclimatologists have concluded up until now. 

    Do you think that mathematicians are trying to offer theories about climate change and are being kept out of the debate?  I know that in academia, this kind of blind rivalry often happens, to the detriment of all.  I'd be interested in hearing anything you might have to say about this, if you know of any cases.  It just seems that there is actually a lot of interdisciplinary cooperation happening in the study of climate change.
    « Last Edit: May 20, 2008, 02:53:14 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

    Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
    GiC
    Resident Atheist
    Site Supporter
    Merarches
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Mathematician
    Posts: 9,490



    « Reply #143 on: May 20, 2008, 08:12:54 PM »

    ^  Well, I know that theoretical mathematics must play a role.  But going back a billion years is just too difficult for us to do with any great accuracy.  Paleoclimatology is a newly emerging science.  We have only recently been able to examine clues to the past of the planet that have up until now been unavailable to us; for example, layers of sediment on the ocean floor.  So of course the models are in one sense flawed in the  that the farther back in time one goes,the more difficult it becomes to determine climatic patterns with accuracy.  But these models are the best that we have right now.  Your implication that noone is considering paleoclimatology seriously seems strange to me.  From what I can see, as I have mentioned above, paleoclimatology is an exciting, newly emerging science that is being pursued with great vigor by many.  I don't see that your conclusion about human intervention not being the cause for recent climate change follows at all.  It seems to me that this is what a clear majority of paleoclimatologists have concluded up until now.

    I've read different and conflicting things about paleoclimatologists and this debate, though they do seem to be some of the most divided. While our data on the history of the world's climate is far from complete, it is fairly well accepted that the median temperature of the earth over the last billion years is about 10 kelvin warmer than the current temperature. Because of this Occam's razor would suggest we assume this is part of a natural cycle, unless substantial evidence can be presented to the contrary.

    Quote
    Do you think that mathematicians are trying to offer theories about climate change and are being kept out of the debate?  I know that in academia, this kind of blind rivalry often happens, to the detriment of all.  I'd be interested in hearing anything you might have to say about this, if you know of any cases.  It just seems that there is actually a lot of interdisciplinary cooperation happening in the study of climate change.

    What I have read that mathematicians have brought to this debate is what I believe to be the virtue they can bring to any scientific debate, dispassionate objectivity. In the end, the models simply arn't good enough and the data simply isn't complete enough to determine what, exactly, is causing a global rise in temperatures. It could be a result of human involvement, but even the most agressive models won't say this with any more than about 70% certainty. If a theorem was presented to be true with 70% certainty in mathematics the person presenting it would be laughed out of the room...and forbidden from ever returning...yet there are people who want to make policy based on a theorem that only claims a 70% chance of being true.

    Mathematics bring rigour to science, which is sorely need when science has become politicized like this issue has. The UN report on this issue is a perfect example of what's wrong with the scientific discussion, scientific models arn't developed and established by taking a straw-poll of current opinions, it's done by using them to make hypotheses, testing those hypotheses, and the model withstanding the test. We don't have a good scientifc theory in this field because the work being done is more a political popularity contest than hard science. Which is why mathematicians, who are even willing to entertain doubt on something as fundamental as 1+1=2, need to be the ones mediating the debate.
    Logged

    "The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
    Anastasios
    Webdespota
    Administrator
    Merarches
    *******
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Eastern Orthodox
    Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
    Posts: 10,444


    Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

    anastasios0513
    WWW
    « Reply #144 on: May 20, 2008, 08:51:22 PM »

    GisC,

    When you are not talking about religion I like what you have to say Wink
    Logged

    Please Buy My Book!

    Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
    Fr. George
    formerly "Cleveland"
    Administrator
    Stratopedarches
    *******
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
    Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
    Posts: 20,053


    May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


    « Reply #145 on: May 20, 2008, 10:22:59 PM »

    What I have read that mathematicians have brought to this debate is what I believe to be the virtue they can bring to any scientific debate, dispassionate objectivity. In the end, the models simply arn't good enough and the data simply isn't complete enough to determine what, exactly, is causing a global rise in temperatures. It could be a result of human involvement, but even the most agressive models won't say this with any more than about 70% certainty. If a theorem was presented to be true with 70% certainty in mathematics the person presenting it would be laughed out of the room...and forbidden from ever returning...yet there are people who want to make policy based on a theorem that only claims a 70% chance of being true.

    Mathematics bring rigour to science, which is sorely need when science has become politicized like this issue has. The UN report on this issue is a perfect example of what's wrong with the scientific discussion, scientific models arn't developed and established by taking a straw-poll of current opinions, it's done by using them to make hypotheses, testing those hypotheses, and the model withstanding the test. We don't have a good scientifc theory in this field because the work being done is more a political popularity contest than hard science. Which is why mathematicians, who are even willing to entertain doubt on something as fundamental as 1+1=2, need to be the ones mediating the debate. 

    Bravo.
    Logged

    "The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
    ---------------------
    Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
    Αριστοκλής
    Merarches
    ***********
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Catholic
    Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
    Posts: 10,026


    « Reply #146 on: May 20, 2008, 10:28:45 PM »

    Yeah, begrudgingly I must agree with applause (but don't get used to my complimenting him).
    Logged

    "Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
    Pravoslavbob
    Moderator
    Archon
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Catholic
    Jurisdiction: OCA
    Posts: 3,181


    St. Sisoes the Great


    « Reply #147 on: May 21, 2008, 10:48:05 PM »

    I suppose it wouldn't surprise anyone if I said that I didn't agree.  Wink
    I think GiC is coming at the  issue a bit too much from the strictly mathematical perspective.  And I do not agree at all that the genuine research that has been done in  this field has been politically motivated.
    If I may say so, IMHO some of you guys show that you really have this as a pet issue on which you will not budge no matter what when you applaud GiC on this issue.  It's really quite transparent.   
    « Last Edit: May 21, 2008, 10:59:11 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

    Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
    Credo.InDeum
    Member
    ***
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Catholic
    Jurisdiction: Roman Rite Archdiocese of Perth
    Posts: 85



    « Reply #148 on: May 25, 2008, 08:27:14 AM »

    The apocalypse of saint John the divine is notoriously obscure to modern readers yet it has a message that manages to reach across the centuries in surprising ways. This passage in chapter 11 struck me as one of those cases where the voice of the apostle has something to say about the issue of this thread.

    Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and voices could be heard shouting in heaven, calling, 'The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and his Christ, and he will reign for ever and ever.' The twenty-four elders, enthroned in the presence of God, prostrated themselves and touched the ground with their foreheads worshipping God with these words, 'We give thanks to you, Almighty Lord God, He who is, He who was, for assuming your great power and beginning your reign. The nations were in uproar and now the time has come for your retribution, and for the dead to be judged, and for your servants the prophets, for the saints and for those who fear your name, small and great alike, to be rewarded. The time has come to destroy those who are destroying the earth.' Then the sanctuary of God in heaven opened, and the ark of the covenant could be seen inside it. Then came flashes of lightning, peals of thunder and an earthquake and violent hail.
    (Revelation 11:15-19 NJB)

    Logged

    God does not simply rule by power ...His power is that of sharing in love and suffering ...God becomes small so that we can grasp his nature. - Benedict XVI
    GiC
    Resident Atheist
    Site Supporter
    Merarches
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Mathematician
    Posts: 9,490



    « Reply #149 on: May 25, 2008, 10:36:44 AM »

    I suppose it wouldn't surprise anyone if I said that I didn't agree.  Wink
    I think GiC is coming at the  issue a bit too much from the strictly mathematical perspective.

    Too mathematical? How is that even theoretically possible? Mathematics is the language and the standard of the sciences, there can be no science that is both true and useful without the aid of the principles of mathematics...the stronger the influence of mathematics the more viable the science. When Natural Philosophy consisted of arguing about which celestial body moved around what other celestial body without any mathematics to support, it was an interesting philosophical discussion but not much use as a science. When Kepler and Newton started writing equations and applied the strict principles of mathematics to physical phenomena, the modern and useful field of physics emerged as a true science, testable and falsifiable, a means to viable truth. Likewise, while biology consisted of little more than naming plants and animals and creating arbitrary classifications it was of some use but hardly a viable science, but then when Mendel was able to develop mathematical systems, testable and falsifiable by the principles of mathematics, for biological phenomena the field was transformed into a real science (well, saddly it wasn't until about 1900 when Mendel was rediscovered that these changes truly began, but without this leap from simple observation to mathematics modern biology would never have been possible).

    So, I must say, I am absolutely shocked that one who considers themselves a scientest could even suggest that there is such thing as a 'too mathematical' of an approach. It is the pursuit of the sciences to make them more mathematical and, thus, more viable and more true. It is not without good cause that Sr. Francis Bacon wrote:

    Quote
    And therefore in mathematics alone are there demonstrations of the most convincing kind through a necessary cause. And therefore here alone can a man arive at the truth from the nature of this science. Likewise in the other sciences there are doubts and opinions and contradictions on our part, so that we scarcely agee on the most trifling question or in a single sophism; for in these sciences there are from their nature no processes of drawing figures and of reckonings, by which all things must be proved true. And therefore in mathematics alone is there certainty without doubt.

    Wherefore it is evident that if in other sciences we should arrive at certainty without doubt and truth without error, it behooves us to place the foundations of knowledge in mathematics, in so far as disposed through it we are able to reach cetainty in other sciences and truth by the exclusion of error.

    Quote
    And I do not agree at all that the genuine research that has been done in  this field has been politically motivated.

    No, not all of it...but the research that has been done is hardly absolutely conclusive. And when a field starts trying to determine truth by taking opinion polls of those involved, it's very difficult to continue to take it serious as a science.

    Quote
    If I may say so, IMHO some of you guys show that you really have this as a pet issue on which you will not budge no matter what when you applaud GiC on this issue.  It's really quite transparent.   

    I confess, I do have a pet issue...I really do believe in this whole Mathematics thing...I know, it's pretty far out there, using mathematics as the standard of the sciences. I'm sure the sciences would be so much easier if we could just vote on things rather than having to deal with all those hard and confusing numbers and axioms and theorems. Cheesy
    Logged

    "The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
    stanley123
    Protokentarchos
    *********
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Catholic
    Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
    Posts: 3,809


    « Reply #150 on: May 25, 2008, 04:19:06 PM »

    Mathematics is the language and the standard of the sciences, there can be no science that is both true and useful without the aid of the principles of mathematics...the stronger the influence of mathematics the more viable the science.
    Yes. There is a nice article in wikipedia on the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences. This is a spinoff of an article by Wigner.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences

    Logged
    John of the North
    Protokentarchos
    *********
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Christianity
    Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
    Posts: 3,533


    Christ is Risen!

    tgild
    « Reply #151 on: May 25, 2008, 06:09:42 PM »

    I've read different and conflicting things about paleoclimatologists and this debate, though they do seem to be some of the most divided. While our data on the history of the world's climate is far from complete, it is fairly well accepted that the median temperature of the earth over the last billion years is about 10 kelvin warmer than the current temperature. Because of this Occam's razor would suggest we assume this is part of a natural cycle, unless substantial evidence can be presented to the contrary.


    How much evidence?? We have to wait 1 billion more years for you to simply say that 2 billion years is not enough and we need to wait even longer??

    Even if it is part of a natural cycle, does that preclude us aggravating the natural cycle. Sure the earth is warming, sure we are chopping down forests by the acre, sure we are spewing gases into the air, but hey the Earth would be warming anyway....
    Logged

    "Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
    jlerms
    High Elder
    ******
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Eastern Orthodox
    Jurisdiction: GOA
    Posts: 826


    O sweet Jesus, cleanse my soul.


    « Reply #152 on: May 25, 2008, 10:04:17 PM »

    I was talking to a research geologist  yesterday that was telling me about his work for the last few years. They have been drilling  into the earth (down to about 3 miles )to store CO 2 emissions collected from electrical plants.
    And have noted that there are no detrimental effects (unlike traditional landfills).  There is a general agreement among world climatologists that we should be in a cooling phase but instead are experiencing global warming due to  manmade outputs.  Serious replanting of trees may help for a 100 yrs or so, but we need to do something about our increase of CO2 in the long run.  As people are fond of electricity...especially airconditioning in the summertime...it would be beneficial to trap the gases and store them deep within the Earth until we can come up with a better idea.  I wish there was a way to harness  it into positive energy- or blast it into outer space.

    Juliana
    Logged
    Fr. George
    formerly "Cleveland"
    Administrator
    Stratopedarches
    *******
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
    Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
    Posts: 20,053


    May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


    « Reply #153 on: May 25, 2008, 11:38:53 PM »

    There is a general agreement among world climatologists that we should be in a cooling phase but instead are experiencing global warming due to  manmade outputs.

    Really - I'd like to see where that's stated, because I think one of the big points that has come out is that there isn't a general agreement that we should be in a cooling phase: the assertion above in this thread is that we should be in a warming phase (GiC); and the assertion of a meteorologist I know who studies global warming specifically as a part of his job is that we are in a natural warming period (which we are probably accelerating, but not causing).
    Logged

    "The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
    ---------------------
    Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
    Jetavan
    Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
    Taxiarches
    **********
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Christic
    Jurisdiction: Dixie
    Posts: 6,446


    Barlaam and Josaphat


    WWW
    « Reply #154 on: March 04, 2010, 06:39:08 PM »

    Some interesting videos on climate change skepticism.
    Logged

    If you will, you can become all flame.
    Extra caritatem nulla salus.
    In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
    सर्वभूतहित
    Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
    "Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
    Y dduw bo'r diolch.
    Irish_Melkite
    Member
    ***
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Melkite
    Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton MA
    Posts: 98


    « Reply #155 on: July 11, 2011, 10:38:30 AM »

    As for there being a "scientific consensus" that man is causing global warming... there's only one answer:  BULL.  The only "experts" who are getting press are not the consensus.
    Logged
    Jetavan
    Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
    Taxiarches
    **********
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Christic
    Jurisdiction: Dixie
    Posts: 6,446


    Barlaam and Josaphat


    WWW
    « Reply #156 on: December 12, 2012, 10:07:13 PM »

    Krugman on China:

    He continues: “If you worry about climate change, China’s growth is a wonderful human success story that could kill us all.”
    Logged

    If you will, you can become all flame.
    Extra caritatem nulla salus.
    In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
    सर्वभूतहित
    Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
    "Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
    Y dduw bo'r diolch.
    Opus118
    Site Supporter
    OC.net guru
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Posts: 1,497



    « Reply #157 on: June 13, 2013, 12:03:47 AM »

    I believe that the reasoning behind Occam's razor is sound, there is no reason to add unnecessary variables.

    From my perspective Occam's razor is sound as a starting point, but I would say that it is rare that it works with the exception of very minute and well controlled and already understood circumstances. Wish it were true, it would make my life easier, but it is far from being true in regard to discovery.

    Just using this post to spout off. My rule is that if you are working with complex systems, ignore Occam's razor as soon as things fail to fit. Don't wait, you will be better off because this old notion is rarely worthwhile other than getting you started.
    Logged
    Maria
    Orthodox Christian
    Warned
    Merarches
    ***********
    Offline Offline

    Posts: 8,987


    O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


    « Reply #158 on: May 16, 2014, 03:22:42 AM »

    It is too bad that Pope Benedict retired. I liked him and his refusal to listen to the climate change prophets of doom.

    Further news:

    Quote
    Research which heaped doubt on the rate of global warming was deliberately suppressed by scientists because it was “less than helpful” to their cause, it was claimed last night.

    In an echo of the infamous “Climategate” scandal at the University of East Anglia, one of the world’s top academic journals rejected the work of five experts after a reviewer privately denounced it as “harmful”.


    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4091344.ece
    Logged

    Glory to Jesus Christ!
    Glory to Him forever!
    Jetavan
    Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
    Taxiarches
    **********
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Christic
    Jurisdiction: Dixie
    Posts: 6,446


    Barlaam and Josaphat


    WWW
    « Reply #159 on: May 16, 2014, 08:53:59 AM »

    It is too bad that Pope Benedict retired. I liked him and his refusal to listen to the climate change prophets of doom.

    Further news:

    Quote
    Research which heaped doubt on the rate of global warming was deliberately suppressed by scientists because it was “less than helpful” to their cause, it was claimed last night.

    In an echo of the infamous “Climategate” scandal at the University of East Anglia, one of the world’s top academic journals rejected the work of five experts after a reviewer privately denounced it as “harmful”.


    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4091344.ece
    Interesting that the full article is inaccessible to non-paying customers. Wink
    Logged

    If you will, you can become all flame.
    Extra caritatem nulla salus.
    In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
    सर्वभूतहित
    Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
    "Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
    Y dduw bo'r diolch.
    ialmisry
    There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
    Warned
    Hypatos
    *****************
    Offline Offline

    Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
    Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
    Posts: 37,483



    « Reply #160 on: May 16, 2014, 09:02:44 AM »

    so this will give them something to talk about in Jerusalem.
    Logged

    Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
    A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
    and urgent strife sheds blood.
    If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
    if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                               and both come out of your mouth
    Maria
    Orthodox Christian
    Warned
    Merarches
    ***********
    Offline Offline

    Posts: 8,987


    O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


    « Reply #161 on: May 16, 2014, 03:56:48 PM »

    It is too bad that Pope Benedict retired. I liked him and his refusal to listen to the climate change prophets of doom.

    Further news:

    Quote
    Research which heaped doubt on the rate of global warming was deliberately suppressed by scientists because it was “less than helpful” to their cause, it was claimed last night.

    In an echo of the infamous “Climategate” scandal at the University of East Anglia, one of the world’s top academic journals rejected the work of five experts after a reviewer privately denounced it as “harmful”.


    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4091344.ece
    Interesting that the full article is inaccessible to non-paying customers. Wink

    Yes, I could only read the first two lines, which I copied here in hopes that someone might be able to read the entire article.
    Logged

    Glory to Jesus Christ!
    Glory to Him forever!
    Maria
    Orthodox Christian
    Warned
    Merarches
    ***********
    Offline Offline

    Posts: 8,987


    O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


    « Reply #162 on: May 16, 2014, 03:58:26 PM »

    so this will give them something to talk about in Jerusalem.

    I doubt that they will talk about this.

    Does the Green Patriarch, the EP, believe in Climate Warming?

    Pope Francis has not spoken about it.
    Logged

    Glory to Jesus Christ!
    Glory to Him forever!
    Tags: global warming ecology stewardship environmental stewardship climate change environment 
    Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Up
      Print  
     
    Jump to:  

    Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
    Page created in 0.557 seconds with 191 queries.