Banning the term climate change won’t stop the reality

[Rickster71]

This is a major distortion of what actually did in smoking in the USA. Science and medicine made a strong case against it, and that eventually won the day. This was despite the best efforts of the tobacco companies and the politicians they sponsored to promote their business. The few medical doctors (and I use that term lightly) that big tobacco brought forth to support their cause, were hired as publicity shills, not as true medical or scientific consultants.

I understand and agree with what you're saying.
As I read over my post, I see it was poorly worded. Work is really detracting from my posting time.
The Tobacco companies got what they paid for. Scientist are smart enough to know who's signing their paychecks.
It's troubling how our government simultaneously funded Big Tobacco and Anti smoking.

I'd like to ask you and anyone else to please read this and share some non-political thoughts: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf
It's ultimate point is that Carbon Trading will become a Trillion Dollar Industry

 

[3db]

I'd like to ask you and anyone else to please read this and share some non-political thoughts: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf
It's ultimate point is that Carbon Trading will become a Trillion Dollar Industry

Is it going to replace the "Bit Coin" ??

 

[gene]

Who sponsors sourcewatch?

Not sure but it doesn't matter. Joanna is NOT a climate scientist and she has a vested interest. She has NEVER submitted any of her propaganda for peer review.

 

[gene]

A cofounder of greenpeace gives his take. I don't think he's part of the right wing political process or is a known recipient of petroleum funding.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic

Really, he has no vested interest either? He's not just a hired shill to again confuse the science to the general public? hmm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)

In a December 2007 press release from his Greenspirit firm, Moore was quoted as saying, "It's completely unacceptable for these activists to call PVC 'toxic' when PVC's effects on health and the environment have been investigated at every stage from manufacture through use and on to final disposal -- in all cases vinyl has been shown to be safe and environmentally sound." The release did not disclose Moore's or the firm's financial relationship with the PVC industry.

Moore's clients - though the list has not been updated since 2000 - have included:

• B.C. Hazardous Waste Management Corporation (1991-92);
• Moore established the B.C. Carbon Project "working to achieve a common understanding of the carbon budget and the implications of global climate change for B.C." - which received a $C145,000 grant in May 1991. Moores involvement ended in 1994;
• on retainer to the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association to tour European countries to counter advocacy by environmental groups for a boycott of British Columbian forest products (1992-96);
• Westcoast Energy and BC Gas 1993-1994 "to design a public consultation process to address greenhouse gas emissions for the natural gas sector in B.C.";
• BHP Minerals to facilitate a round table on proposals to use the abandoned Island Copper mine as a landfill site (1993-94);
• Director and Vice-President, Environment and Government Affairs for Waterfurnace International 1995-1998 to "build awareness of the benefits of renewable earth energy technology." According to his website, Moore remains a member of the Board of Directors.
• Consultant to the National Association of Forest Industries in Australia for a national tour defending the logging of native forests (1996);
• consultant to the Canadian Mining Association and the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada "on the role of biodiversity in environmental policy in the mining industry," (1996);
• consultant to BHP Minerals (Canada) Ltd. to author a paper on the environmental impact of submarine tailings disposal over the 23-year life of the Island Copper Mine on Vancouver Island (1996);
• speaker for numerous timber industry associations including the American Forest and Paper Association, the Council of European Paper Industries, State Forestry Associations in Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, New York, Maine, and Florida, the National Hardwood Lumber Association (1998-1999), and at ForestLeadership conferences [11] in 2005 [12];
• gave evidence in support of bio-technology before the New Zealand Royal Commission on Genetic Modification and undertook at tour of Southeast Asia, hosted by the International Service for Assistance with Agri-Biotech Applications. "Led seminars in Bangkok and Jakarta on the benefits of biotechnology for farmers in developing countries," Moore's website states (2000);
• speaker for groups including the Filipino Society of Foresters and the Agri-Food Canada (2000); and
• consultant to the largest manufacturer of PVC in Canada, IPEX, to "intervene in the environmental policy of the Toronto 2008 Olympic Bid." The environmental guidelines adopted for the Sydney Olympics recommended against the use of PVC wherever possible.
• Newmont [13]

 

[gene]

I understand and agree with what you're saying.
As I read over my post, I see it was poorly worded. Work is really detracting from my posting time.
The Tobacco companies got what they paid for. Scientist are smart enough to know who's signing their paychecks.
It's troubling how our government simultaneously funded Big Tobacco and Anti smoking.

I'd like to ask you and anyone else to please read this and share some non-political thoughts: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf
It's ultimate point is that Carbon Trading will become a Trillion Dollar Industry

How can anyone share NON political thoughts about a piece that was written by a highly politicized and highly biased individual with vested interest to discredit manmade climate change?

 

[gene]

Nope.
I'm still on the subject of Money and Human Nature.
Key words are "Real Peer Review" (there is none) The same grant money is paying all involved.
Who would peer review themselves out of money and a job?

There are people that live their entire working lives receiving grant money.
The Grants are only given to people or organizations that accept Global Warming as a foregone conclusion. That's how this grant process works.

They're doing exactly what the Tobacco companies did with their Docs and Scientists.

It's obvious you don't have a science background to make such claims. If you truly understood what it meant to follow a strict scientific protocol or 3rd party peer review and the meaning of a scientific concensus than you wouldn't be making such claims.

Crap NASA says there is 97% consensus on manmade climate change:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

We shouldn't trust them either b/c.... they are heavily funded to say this.

What an insult to all scientists and its no wonder why our country lags behind the rest of the modern world in math and sciences.

Even the poor Koch Brothers hired scientists to independently study the data on climate change to disprove it but it backfired when the report came back with unfavorable results for their agenda.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

The circle of confusion in science is sad indeed, but I'm done commenting on these points.

Time to focus on more important stuff...audio

 

[3db]

Gene,

Something doesn't smell right when NASA and other organizations are ignoring cyclical climate change while other scientists have proven it exists. Blaming global warming on man is analogous to taking a quote from an article out of context. Everything needs to be looked at.

 

[Chu Gai]

Modeling climate means taking a lot of of factors, studying their individual impacts, their interactive impacts, with ultimately developing some kind of an equation that has the ability not only to predict what will happen, but what has happened. So you need data and that includes historical data. The thing with historical data is that the further back you go, the fuzzier it gets. Record keeping wasn't anywhere as encompassing as it is today. Some information needs to be inferred and back calculated, adding uncertainty which needs to become part of the model.

Then a model is released, refined but then we find it's unable to explain this pause we seem to be having with global temperatures having stagnated. For how long, who knows? Will it pick up with more ferocity or diminish, who knows? But we do know the model needs to be revised. Somehow something(s) were missed. It may be a term, a factor that may not act independently but something that onteracts with the other factors.

A concern I have is that there can be an inherent danger in forcing the equation to fit the observation. Let me illustrate by example. Back in the day I ran a chemical analytical lab supervising chemists and techs. Among other things we would be required to determine the concentrations of elements and metals. upper management became sold on a software package that would be capable of data analysis, report generation, and all the good things that ran on 386 and 486 computers.

One chemist, Wayne, had been charged with determining the concentrations of various solvents by gas chromatography. So, freed from having to use a scientific calculator, Wayne ran his calibration curves, ran his sample, and used the new software.

I looked over all reports, examined the data, and questioned when appropriate. So Wayne comes back with the results and I asked what the error was? None was the reply. Ummmmm...really? How was the calibration curve? Perfect, I used the new software program. Keep in mind, Wayne is a degreed chemist. What he'd done is taken his calibration data, amount vs. response, dumped it into the program and selected a best fit which spit out a 5th order polynomial. The thing is, the detector, within its limits, is a first order response. Wayne just wasn't thinking and his data, which wasn't that good looking for a first order fit, suggested there was a problem somewhere. I forget if it was standard preparation or something else but after addressing the usual suspects he then had a decent first order response that could be mathematically fitted. Not perfect but entirely reasonable.

I recount the above because IMO, this climate change mathematical modeling still has a way to go. This doesn't mean I don't believe there are issues going around climate wise. Sea levels have been creeping up and some islands are going to disappear, coast lines are going to be reshaped and so forth. Carbon credits, taxes or whatever punitive measures can be thought of don't strike me as smart or effective. Planning does. Changing where we grow certain crops sounds reasonable. Better mpg and other efficiencies sounds like a good idea. Growing government maybe not so much. Politicians by and large are whores looking to divide, segment, and exploit what's trendy.

 

[gene]

Modeling climate means taking a lot of of factors, studying their individual impacts, their interactive impacts, with ultimately developing some kind of an equation that has the ability not only to predict what will happen, but what has happened. So you need data and that includes historical data. The thing with historical data is that the further back you go, the fuzzier it gets. Record keeping wasn't anywhere as encompassing as it is today. Some information needs to be inferred and back calculated, adding uncertainty which needs to become part of the model.

Then a model is released, refined but then we find it's unable to explain this pause we seem to be having with global temperatures having stagnated. For how long, who knows? Will it pick up with more ferocity or diminish, who knows? But we do know the model needs to be revised. Somehow something(s) were missed. It may be a term, a factor that may not act independently but something that onteracts with the other factors.

A concern I have is that there can be an inherent danger in forcing the equation to fit the observation. Let me illustrate by example. Back in the day I ran a chemical analytical lab supervising chemists and techs. Among other things we would be required to determine the concentrations of elements and metals. upper management became sold on a software package that would be capable of data analysis, report generation, and all the good things that ran on 386 and 486 computers.

One chemist, Wayne, had been charged with determining the concentrations of various solvents by gas chromatography. So, freed from having to use a scientific calculator, Wayne ran his calibration curves, ran his sample, and used the new software.

I looked over all reports, examined the data, and questioned when appropriate. So Wayne comes back with the results and I asked what the error was? None was the reply. Ummmmm...really? How was the calibration curve? Perfect, I used the new software program. Keep in mind, Wayne is a degreed chemist. What he'd done is taken his calibration data, amount vs. response, dumped it into the program and selected a best fit which spit out a 5th order polynomial. The thing is, the detector, within its limits, is a first order response. Wayne just wasn't thinking and his data, which wasn't that good looking for a first order fit, suggested there was a problem somewhere. I forget if it was standard preparation or something else but after addressing the usual suspects he then had a decent first order response that could be mathematically fitted. Not perfect but entirely reasonable.

I recount the above because IMO, this climate change mathematical modeling still has a way to go. This doesn't mean I don't believe there are issues going around climate wise. Sea levels have been creeping up and some islands are going to disappear, coast lines are going to be reshaped and so forth. Carbon credits, taxes or whatever punitive measures can be thought of don't strike me as smart or effective. Planning does. Changing where we grow certain crops sounds reasonable. Better mpg and other efficiencies sounds like a good idea. Growing government maybe not so much. Politicians by and large are whores looking to divide, segment, and exploit what's trendy.

We have very accurate historical data on temperatures and atmospheric compositions for 100's of thousands of years through glacial ice. This is a very established science. There is no slowing down of temp rise. The temp rise over the last century is MUCH more significant than it's been over the last 1k years. Historically speaking, climate variations this extreme don't happen in such short time spans naturally unless there is a mass extinction event like super volcano eruptions. In this day and age it's so easy to research this and I find it quite shocking that members of this forum are so closed off to the science especially since some of the proponents here are so ardent about following a scientific process of evaluating audio.

see: http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-cores/ice-core-basics/

 

[Swerd]

It's abundantly clear that the Earth's atmosphere is warming. That much is beyond argument.

What isn't so clear is why this is happening. There are many opinions about why – some opinions are educated and some are not. A list of possible reasons why would have to include the actions of man, among others. But there is no hard evidence for it, nor is there any hard evidence to support other possible reasons why the atmosphere is warming.

Even less clear is what should be done about it. Here's where the science stops and the bare knuckle politics begins.

Please remember Thomas Robert Malthus. He was a 18th century economist who predicted the world's population would be checked by famine and disease. See Malthusian Catastrophe. His predictions, which may be correct in principle, were off in the details by quite a bit.

Malthus's ideas still may be correct with regard to the warming climate. We'll see as the details get sorted out. I, however, can't help but get nervous as we anxiously await such unforeseeable events as the appearance of practical cold fusion and warp drive.

Maybe Congress should get busy repealing the First Law of Thermodynamics – The Conservation of Energy & Matter.

 

[3db]

We have very accurate historical data on temperatures and atmospheric compositions for 100's of thousands of years through glacial ice. This is a very established science. There is no slowing down of temp rise. The temp rise over the last century is MUCH more significant than it's been over the last 1k years. Historically speaking, climate variations this extreme don't happen in such short time spans naturally unless there is a mass extinction event like super volcano eruptions. In this day and age it's so easy to research this and I find it quite shocking that members of this forum are so closed off to the science especially since some of the proponents here are so ardent about following a scientific process of evaluating audio.

see: http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-cores/ice-core-basics/

We're not closed off to scientific process. We are questioning interpretation of data and that everything is being looked at. Like I said earlier, maybe man is accelerating a process that is occuring naturally but what's causing the natural occurance part has never been determined or studied in the past. Have the scientists ever figured out why the planet was warmer a 1000 years ago than it is now? Has this fact ever been used in determining whats causing global warming other than mankind? I don't think it has.

 

[Chu Gai]

No doubt Gene but that just tells you the temperature there, not what it was at umpteen locations around the world so you could accurately estimate the global temperature.

I get the impression that you feel most folks on the left end of the political spectrum have an inherently better grasp of science. Senator Chuck Schumer is on board with the talking points, but is Chuck qualified to comment on science? Here's Chuck on banning green laser pointers.

http://chautauquatoday.com/news/details.cfm?clientid=25&id=167337#.VRL9nGt5mSP

 

[shadyJ]

It's abundantly clear that the Earth's atmosphere is warming. That much is beyond argument.

What isn't so clear is why this is happening. There are many opinions about why – some opinions are educated and some are not. A list of possible reasons why would have to include the actions of man, among others. But there is no hard evidence for it, nor is there any hard evidence to support other possible reasons why the atmosphere is warming.

Are you sure it's not clear why this is happening? Perhaps a correlation between co2 and climatic conditions? Anyway, why do people feel like they are qualified to second guess climatologists in a way that doesn't seem to extend to other scientific disciplines? You don't see Joe six pack second guessing conclusions reached by particle physicists or neurophysiologists. What makes the untrained layman so smart that they think they know better than scientists with decades of research under their belt? The situation is ridiculous. What was that phenomena called where ignorant people were found to be more confident in their own conclusions than experts?

 

[gene]

No doubt Gene but that just tells you the temperature there, not what it was at umpteen locations around the world so you could accurately estimate the global temperature.

I get the impression that you feel most folks on the left end of the political spectrum have an inherently better grasp of science. Senator Chuck Schumer is on board with the talking points, but is Chuck qualified to comment on science? Here's Chuck on banning green laser pointers.

http://chautauquatoday.com/news/details.cfm?clientid=25&id=167337#.VRL9nGt5mSP

Galcier ice exists in multiple regions of the planet and have been studied. The most extreme temperature variations that we've been recording happen at the polar extremes. You melt the ice, it doesn't reflect as much sun and the oceans absorb the heat and also get more acidic. It's a feedback loop and the causes are clear. NASA has been doing more than just studying temp. They've been studying glacial retreat, acidity levels in the oceans, atmospheric concentrations of CO2, etc. There is positive correlation.

I agree there is no clear solution but that doesn't make the science of manmade climate change untrue. There is a global consensus within the scientific community for the cause but there is no easy solution. Human nature makes us greedy. We want more energy, we want more stuff. We don't want to sacrifice our quality of life despite the fact that it's inevitable.

I firmly believe our lifestyle is not sustainable but admittedly I do very little to change on my own end (other than recycle and better insulate my home and use high efficient cooling). I still drive gas powered cars and use Class AB amps. But, I don't deny the science done by experts in the field with a strict peer review process that people seem to be ignoring and downplaying.

Again I point you to this link:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

If we can't trust NASA's data on the climate, how can we trust them to launch rockets into space and land on the moon? Seriously NASA is really the core institute of our country and I would think people should be proud of the science being done there.

As for the politics. Why is it there is one primary political party in our country that:

• denies manmade climate change?
• denies human evolution?
• attempts to confuse science with religion by giving Intelligent Design equal credence with human evolution?
• claims that educated people and universities are the "culturally elite"?
• attempts to repress rights for homosexuals and women and human reproduction?

Based on my observations of vocal majority of the Republican party, yes I conclude that they either don't have as good of a grasp of science as the other side or they are being deliberately deceptive.

 

[Rickster71]

We shouldn't trust them(NASA) or (Scientists) either b/c.... they are heavily funded to say this.

But, but.... that's exactly what you said about this article:http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf

Joanna is NOT a climate scientist and she has a vested interest. She has NEVER submitted any of her propaganda for peer review.

Neither was Al Gore, he's was just another millionaire politician that's making even more millions promoting the Monetizing of Weather and profiteering from Carbon Credits.... which is what this game is all about.

 

[3db]

Have the scientists ever figured out why the planet was warmer a 1000 years ago than it is now? Has this fact ever been used in determining what's causing global warming other than mankind?

 

[Swerd]

Are you sure it's not clear why this is happening? Perhaps a correlation between co2 and climatic conditions? Anyway, why do people feel like they are qualified to second guess climatologists in a way that doesn't seem to extend to other scientific disciplines? You don't see Joe six pack second guessing conclusions reached by particle physicists or neurophysiologists. What makes the untrained layman so smart that they think they know better than scientists with decades of research under their belt? The situation is ridiculous. What was that phenomena called where ignorant people were found to be more confident in their own conclusions than experts?

I should have said:

It's abundantly clear that the Earth's atmosphere is warming because of increased CO2 levels. That much is beyond argument.

I meant to say that. There certainly is an excellent correlation between increased CO2 and atmospheric temperature.

What is less clear is whether the atmosphere is warming only because of man's burning carbon-based fuels. That, I think is what 3db is saying too.

I do hear arguments that say if scientists can't all agree on the cause, then we can't believe them. I certainly do not agree with that! That's a false straw-man argument promoted by the fossil fuel industry.

 

[lsiberian]

Ambri's new batteries could really help us as we transition to renewable electricity sources.

 

[3db]

I should have said:

It's abundantly clear that the Earth's atmosphere is warming because of increased CO2 levels. That much is beyond argument.

I meant to say that. There certainly is an excellent correlation between increased CO2 and atmospheric temperature.

What is less clear is whether the atmosphere is warming only because of man's burning carbon-based fuels. That, I think is what 3db is saying too.

What I'm saying is that CO2 levels maybe accelerating a normal process. The question that springs to mind is will the temperature rise move past what it was a 1000 years ago?

I do hear arguments that say if scientists can't all agree on the cause, then we can't believe them. I certainly do not agree with that! That's a false straw-man argument promoted by the fossil fuel industry.

I agree. However, the strawman arguement should make scientists focus on all possible causes, not just CO2 emissions. Scientists are not looking at global warming holistically.

 

[Swerd]

Ambri's new batteries could really help us as we transition to renewable electricity sources.

Please don't distract us. We are trying to save the world here.

Now if you tried a different question, we might follow along. I have a modest suggestion:

• Bruce Jenner removes his primary & secondary male organs. The news media & public scorn him.
• Angelina Jolie removes her primary & secondary female organs. The news media & public adore her.

Talk amongst yourselves.