OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 16, 2014, 09:21:36 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags CHAT Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Pope condemns the climate change prophets of doom  (Read 30427 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pravoslavbob
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,075


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: 3,075


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: 3,075


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: 2,165


+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: 19,838


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: 3,726


« 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: 2,165


+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: 3,075


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: 3,075


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
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,401


EXTERMINATE!


« 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: 3,075


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: 3,075


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: 2,739



« 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.
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: 2,165


+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: 3,726


« 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: 3,726


    « 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: 3,075


    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: 3,075


    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: 3,075


    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: 3,075


    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: 3,075


    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
    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 0.247 seconds with 74 queries.