Why there's no sign of a climate conspiracy in hacked emails ] (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18238-why-theres-no-sign-of-a-climate-conspiracy-in-hacked-emails.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news)

Longish snippet:
The leaking of emails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, UK, has led to a media and political storm. The affair is being portrayed as a scandal that undermines the science behind climate change. It is no such thing, and here's why.

We can be 100 per cent sure the world is getting warmer

Forget about the temperature records compiled by researchers such as those whose emails were hacked. Next spring, go out into your garden or the nearby countryside and note when the leaves unfold, when flowers bloom, when migrating birds arrive and so on. Compare your findings with historical records, where available, and you'll probably find spring is coming days, even weeks earlier than a few decades ago.

You can't fake spring coming earlier, or trees growing higher up on mountains, or glaciers retreating for kilometres up valleys, or shrinking ice cover in the Arctic, or birds changing their migration times, or permafrost melting in Alaska, or the tropics expanding, or ice shelves on the Antarctic peninsula breaking up, or peak river flow occurring earlier in summer because of earlier snowmelt, or sea level rising faster and faster, or any of the thousands of similar examples.

None of these observations by themselves prove the world is warming; they could simply be regional effects, for instance. But put all the data from around the world together, and you have overwhelming evidence of a long-term warming trend.

We know greenhouse gases are the main cause of warming

There are many ways, theoretically, to warm a planet. Orbital changes might bring it closer to its star. The star itself might brighten. The planet's reflectivity – albedo – can change if white ice is replaced by darker vegetation or water. Changes in composition of the atmosphere can trap more heat, and so on.

It could even be that Earth isn't really warming overall, just that there has been a transfer of heat from the oceans to the atmosphere.

Researchers have to look at all of these factors. And they have. Direct measurements since the 1970s make it certain, for instance, that neither the sun's fluctuating brightness nor changes in the number of cosmic rays hitting Earth are responsible for the recent warming. Similarly, direct measurements over the past century show that the oceans have warmed dramatically. The planet as a whole is getting warmer.

That leaves the rising levels of greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere – which have been directly measured – as the main suspects. Working out how these changes should affect the planet's temperature in theory is extremely complicated. The only way to do it is to plug all the detailed physics into computers – create computer models, in other words. The results show that the only factor that produces anything like the temperature rise seen is the observed increase in greenhouse gases.

How do we know the models aren't wrong? From studies of past climate. To take one example, ice cores drilled from the Antarctic ice-sheet show a surprisingly close correlation between greenhouse gas levels and temperature over the past 800,000 years.

During this time, greenhouse gases have never risen as high or as fast as they are now. That means there is still a lot of uncertainty about the extent of future warming – estimates of the effect of doubling CO2, including all feedback processes, range from 2°C to 6°C. But the big picture is clear.

Is it possible that tens of thousands of scientists have got it wrong? It is incredibly unlikely. The evidence that CO2 levels are rising is irrefutable, and the idea that rising levels lead to warming has withstood more than a century of genuine scientific scepticism.

So why are scientists "fixing" the temperature data?

Some of the contents of the hacked email material, such as the "Harry_read_me.txt" file, might appear shocking, with its talk of manipulation and "tricks". But raw data almost always has to be "fixed".

For example, suppose you and your neighbour keep a record of the temperature where you live, and decide to combine your records to create an "official" record for your locality. When you compare records, however, you're surprised to find they are very different.

There are many reasons why this might be so. One or other thermometer might be faulty. Perhaps you placed your thermometer in an inherently warmer place, or where it was sometimes in direct sunshine, or took measurements at a different time of day, and so on. To combine the two records in any meaningful way, you'll need to adjust the raw data to account for any such factors.

Not doing so would be pretty dumb. Where possible, scientists should always look at their data in the context of other, comparable data. Such scrutiny can often reveal problems in the way one or other set of data was acquired, meaning it needs adjusting or discarding. Some apparent problems with the predictions of climate models, for example, have actually turned out to be due to problems with real-world data caused by the failure to correct for factors such as the gradual changes in orbits of satellites.

...

There's a far simpler sign that there isn't a conspiracy in those e-mails.

It's that the e-mails are exactly what you would expect from a group of motivated scientists who are genuinely debating the matter among themselves.

If there were a real conspiracy, I would expect either (a) seriously damaging evidence, not just the phrase "trick" in one e-mail from 10 years ago, or (b) e-mails that are as clean a whistle and show no sign of bias whatsoever, because they suspected they might be monitored later.

Of course, even if there were a conspiracy, it wouldn't affect all the independent data you're talking about, but you need not even go there.

There's a far simpler sign that there isn't a conspiracy in those e-mails.

It's that the e-mails are exactly what you would expect from a group of motivated scientists who are genuinely debating the matter among themselves.

If there were a real conspiracy, I would expect either (a) seriously damaging evidence, not just the phrase "trick" in one e-mail from 10 years ago, or (b) e-mails that are as clean a whistle and show no sign of bias whatsoever, because they suspected they might be monitored later.

Of course, even if there were a conspiracy, it wouldn't affect all the independent data you're talking about, but you need not even go there.

And neither the article that Panamah quoted nor your explanation here are going to make the slightest difference. Leaving all rhetoric aside, a lot of people divide the world into 'we' and 'them', and automatically deny anything that is said by 'them'. This may be applied to government, scientist, industry, freemasons, nebulous (and almost certainly fictional) groups like the bilderberg. To increase the we-them dichotomy detrimental motivations are inferred for the other. E.g. people who honestly believe that the Mexican flue vaccination programs are a way for governments to earn a lot of money together with the pharmaceutical industry AND at the same time either the virus or the vaccin is a secret plot to reduce the world population (the 'us' in this kind of conspiracy theories).

A newspaper here ran a series of articles on this subject a few weeks back, following the intensive anti-vaccination campaigns first against hpv campaign and later against the influenza vaccin.
A number of interesting insights they published were that people who start, join and support such campaigns start out with suspicion (or in extreme cases rejection) of government (but it can be any organisation that is classified in the 'them' category). Anything proposed by 'them' is automatically suspect and must be closely scrutinised for hidden traps. They then turn to like-minded individuals they already know, or recently to the internet, and start looking for explanations that support their suspicions. Because the internet is perceived as being ordinary people like them (in other word the 'us' group) anything found there is automatically trustworthy as long as it is in opposition to whatever 'them' group they are opposing. Once it gets to this point there is really nothing much anybody can do about changing people's minds. Any information trying to debunk the nonsense theories are automatically classified as coming from 'them' and either rejected outright or scrutinised for the tiniest inconsistency which is then interpreted to invalidated the entire rebuttal. E.g. in the quote article likely the word 'trick' in the emails alone is going to convince those who want to be convinced that the scientists were malicious because they would otherwise not have used that particular word.
Another interesting thing is that this behaviour is nothing new to humans. Throughout history there have always been plenty of people spreading conspiracy theories. However, mostly they were confined to the local pub and in so far as people were paying attention to them, interest vanished when they left the pub and the needs of day to day survival took over. Only organisations that were spread out everywhere (i.e. the church and sometimes (local) nobility) had the ability to whip up such borderline paranoia into dangerous mobs (e.g. the many anti-semitic hate stories, progroms, withchunts). Only with the arrival of mass media and especially the internet this turned into something that could not be controlled.


Eri

Not that I totally disagree with the basis of your argument, Eri, but you're applying it in an extremely bias way.

Both progressives and conservatives think that they have the 'right' answer to how the world should work, and simply don't understand how someone can have a different perspective; and therefore conclude that external factors must play a role.

Take Tuda for instance. He buys into the idea that the science is settled on global warming, and the only thing holding us back is a giant conspiracy by the oil companies infiltrating think tanks, government, and science to muddy up the process. Since the progressive position is the only right one, it's literally impossible for a rational person to come to a different conclusion unless he or she has fallen victim to the propaganda from the oil companies and their allies.

He thinks that the economics on health care are settled, and that the only way to provide health care well is a giant government program. And the thing holding us back are insurance companies infiltrating think tanks, government, and economics to muddy up the process. Since the progressive position is the only right one, it's literally impossible for a rational person to come to a different conclusion unless he or she has fallen victim to the propaganda from the insurance companies and their allies.

The primary difference between progressive and conservative conspiracy theories is that more people buy into progressive conspiracy theories, giving them the illusion of credibility.

Edit: Spelling errors

Both progressives and conservatives think that they have the 'right' answerBut here, only one group has the data to prove it.

Not that I totally disagree with the basis of your argument, Eri, but you're applying it in an extremely bias way.


Oh I am not biased about this at all. I know that this is a general attitude that has nothing to do with political orientation. The historical examples I mentioned predate the very concepts of 'left' and 'right'. And the anti-vaccination movement is entirely apolitical.


Eri

And neither the article that Panamah quoted nor your explanation here are going to make the slightest difference.
True. Because people make up their minds by listening to talk shows instead of actually reading the science.

deleted duplicate post as the one below

But here, only one group has the data to prove it.

That is because they would not let anyone with contrary data into the peer review process, and did what they could to get those scientists fired.

Big Oil Behind Copenhagen Climate Scam (http://www.infowars.com/big-oil-behind-copenhagen-climate-scam/)

The document also states that CO2 emissions need to be reduced by a staggering 50-85% by 2050, a process that would return humanity to a near stone age level of development.

And who are the radicals calling for such severe measures in the name of fighting the evil life giving gas that humans exhale and plants breathe? Greenpeace? Al Gore?

Namely – James Smith, chairman of UK Shell Oil, Tony Hayward, Group Chief Executive, British Petroleum, along with hundreds of other global corporate giants, many of whom are directly tied in with big oil, and central banks who, far from bankrolling climate change skeptics, are directly invested in the scam of human-induced global warming.

A common charge leveled against global warming skeptics is that they are on the payroll of transnational oil companies, when in fact the opposite is true, oil companies are amongst the biggest promoters of climate change propaganda, emphasized recently by Exxon Mobil’s call for a global carbon tax.

According to Exxon Mobil chief executive Rex Tillerson, the cap and trade nightmare being primed for passage in the Senate doesn’t go far enough – Tillerson wants a direct tax on carbon dioxide emissions, essentially a tax on breathing since we all exhale this life-giving gas.

That is because they would not let anyone with contrary data into the peer review process, and did what they could to get those scientists fired.What contrary data? Show it to me.A common charge leveled against global warming skeptics is that they are on the payroll of transnational oil companies, when in fact the opposite is true, oil companies are amongst the biggest promoters of climate change propaganda, emphasized recently by Exxon Mobil’s call for a global carbon tax.They're just ripping off the tactics of big tobacco, the industry that pioneered these brilliant marketing strategies.

The simple fact is, oil companies make the overwhelming majority of their money making oil, and that is the product they spend money marketing behind the scenes. As opposed to the token anti-oil gestures they make with enormous public fanfare.

Big tobacco should start a side business in marketing, teaching other big companies how to screw their customers over while simultaneously obtaining their sincere loyalty.

Tuda....

-Oil isn't nearly as co2 intensive as coal
-Oil isn't nearly US-centered as coal
-Natural gas -something all the major oil companies sell- is likely to benefit from cap and trade
-Cap and trade isn't going to lower oil use 'that much'
-Cap and trade is going to be a nuisance on the oil companies; it's a slight increase in their tax rate, not a stake through the heart.

Do the oil companies have something to lose? Sure. But it's not curtains for them by any stretch of the imagination. Coal has far more to lose from co2 regulation; but I still don't see coal companies going out of business en masse. But you talk about oil because it fits your class-warfare argument better, not because it's the more intellectually strong argument to lowering global temperatures.

I find it hilarious how progressives can still say they care about addressing the global warming 'crisis,' when you NEVER hear about how much their so-called solutions are projected to lower world temperature. That's because they, more or less, don't. A strict cap and trade scheme in the US would prevent, iirc, around 0.05 degrees C of temperature rise over the next century.

You would figure that it'd be just a 'tad' important to know what effect of policy on temperature -- "IF" our goal is to address global warming. But as far as I'm concerned, that's not their primary motivation. If you tell a progressive how cap and trade isn't going to do jack to help the climate (which again, is true), they'll list off 50 other reasons why we should do it - that have nothing to do with the environment.

Coal has far more to lose from co2 regulation; but I still don't see coal companies going out of business en masse. But you talk about oil because it fits your class-warfare argument better, not because it's the more intellectually strong argument to lowering global temperatures.No, I talk about it because the oil companies make a ton more money, and they're the ones primarily using it to spread FUD.

(And I believe I've already mentioned how coal is a major offender in greenhouse gas emissions, back when you were trying to convince me that solar and nuclear power plants emit the same amount of greenhouse gasses.)-Natural gas -something all the major oil companies sell- is likely to benefit from cap and trade
-Cap and trade isn't going to lower oil use 'that much'
-Cap and trade is going to be a nuisance on the oil companies; it's a slight increase in their tax rate, not a stake through the heart.I don't recall mentioning natural gas, "cap and trade," or any other buzzwords from the political category you seem to have pigeonholed me into.A strict cap and trade scheme in the US would prevent, iirc, around 0.05 degrees C of temperature rise over the next century.You should market your apparent ability to accurately predict the next 100 years. You'd make a fortune.

Haha...cap and trade...:bs:

Please don't make me lauph...:rolling:

It's the political correct way of saying, "We ain't changing anything"

I don't see discussion much of technology solving the problems. Like inventing carbon sinks or spraying particles into the atmosphere that emulate a volcanic eruption. Sure, kind of short term solutions but I think we're at the point where we need to resort to them.

I don't see discussion much of technology solving the problems.Technology often creates at least as many problems as it solves.

What will solve the problem is a change of opinion, which is what this thread is really about.

Once consumers demand a change, industry will follow the dollars and change faster than you think.

I doubt you can get enough people onboard to make the radical sorts of changes needed to prevent a pretty bad disaster.

I always does seem to come down to this in our debates: Get everyone to radically change their thoughts and behaviors -- like that happens -- or acknowledge that human nature is what it is and pursue some other option.

Yes, people can change but it usually is like trying to steer an iceberg. It takes generations to reshape opinions. I don't think we have the luxury of time.

I doubt you can get enough people onboard to make the radical sorts of changes needed to prevent a pretty bad disaster.

I always does seem to come down to this in our debates: Get everyone to radically change their thoughts and behaviors -- like that happens -- or acknowledge that human nature is what it is and pursue some other option.

Yes, people can change but it usually is like trying to steer an iceberg. It takes generations to reshape opinions. I don't think we have the luxury of time.

For the cynical of us, we do. Barring some pretty radical medical breakthroughs nobody currently alive is going to notice much difference in their lifetimes. Our children and grandchildren though ... :(
That is part of what makes it so hard (that, and trying to explain why a 2 degrees rise of global average temperature is a disaster)


Eri

http://www.humanevents.com/downloads-pdfs/Endangerment_comments_v7b.pdf

Research paper

http://freespeech.vo.llnwd.net/o25/pub/pp/images/august2008/190808ice.jpg

Regarding photo above, since Tuda was so concerned.. is from NASA.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/04/north-pole-ice-100-thicker-than.html

April 2009 - "North Pole: ice 100% thicker than expected"

According to collated data from the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center and the University of Illinois, Arctic ice extent was at least 30 per cent greater on August 11, 2008 than it was on the August 12, 2007. This was a conservative estimate based on the map projection.

“Under normal conditions, the ice is formed within two years and ends up being slightly above 2 meters of thickness. “Here, the thickness was as high as four meters,” said the spokesperson for the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Bremerhaven. According to the scientists, this conclusion seems to contradict the warming of the ocean water.”

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-04-21/polar.htm

Polar history shows melting ice-cap may be a natural cycle

“After researching the log-books of Arctic explorers spanning the past 300 years, scientists believe that the outer edge of sea ice may expand and contract over regular periods of 60 to 80 years. This change corresponds roughly with known cyclical changes in atmospheric temperature. The finding opens the possibility that the recent worrying changes in Arctic sea ice are simply the result of standard cyclical movements, and not a harbinger of major climate change,”

http://freespeech.vo.llnwd.net/o25/pub/pp/images/august2008/190808ice.jpgYes, there was more Arctic sea ice in 2008 compared to 2007, a nearly record low year.

But climate doesn't follow a nice straight line, and there are year to year variations. Global warming isn't a prediction of what the weather will be like at any particular point in time, just what the average trend will be. A cold day in 2100 is still going to be colder than a hot day in 2000.

So while the sea ice fluctuates, this year, the Arctic ice is already back down from the peak in 2008, and on average, it has been decreasing steadily. You can see all the data, graphs, and images here at the NSIDC's site (http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/) (this (http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png) is an overall plot).http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/04/north-pole-ice-100-thicker-than.htmlRight, again, 2007 was nearly the record low year, so an increase is not surprising. But the issue is not whether it's better than it was in 2007, but whether it's better than it was in 1907, 1957, and 1987, and what the overall trend is over time, consider all the data points.http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-04-21/polar.htm

Polar history shows melting ice-cap may be a natural cycleThat's an interesting theory, but the "data" here is just bits and pieces from historical ships' logs, not the precise scientific surveys you need to establish averages and trends.

Even the researcher involved "said the research did not suggest that global warming was not a reality," according to your source.

I doubt you can get enough people onboard to make the radical sorts of changes needed to prevent a pretty bad disaster.
Something like this would really help:

The real inconvenient truth (http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438)
The whole world needs to adopt China's one-child policy

Diane Francis, Financial Post
Published: Tuesday, December 08, 2009

The "inconvenient truth" overhanging the UN's Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world.

A planetary law, such as China's one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.

The world's other species, vegetation, resources, oceans, arable land, water supplies and atmosphere are being destroyed and pushed out of existence as a result of humanity's soaring reproduction rate.

Ironically, China, despite its dirty coal plants, is the world's leader in terms of fashioning policy to combat environmental degradation, thanks to its one-child-only edict.

The intelligence behind this is the following:

-If only one child per female was born as of now, the world's population would drop from its current 6.5 billion to 5.5 billion by 2050, according to a study done for scientific academy Vienna Institute of Demography.

-By 2075, there would be 3.43 billion humans on the planet. This would have immediate positive effects on the world's forests, other species, the oceans, atmospheric quality and living standards.

-Doing nothing, by contrast, will result in an unsustainable population of nine billion by 2050.

[More... (http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438)]

Something like this would really help:Another change of opinion that's badly needed.

Do you know that our (Christian-based) obsession with breeding is so great, that we routinely grant asylum to illegal Chinese immigrants because of China's one child policy? Over 5,000 of them just last year. And then we allow them to bring their whole family here legally.

That opinion WILL change, it's just a matter of when, and how. We can either do it now, comfortably and conveniently as China has wisely done, or wait until we have the Rwandan civil war played out on a global scale.Doing nothing, by contrast, will result in an unsustainable population of nine billion by 2050.Our current population is unsustainable, by orders of magnitude. We are currently raping (mining) the Earth in a very unsustainable manner just to maintain all those humans.

Something like this would really help:

I couldn't agree more but realistically do you see that happening in the US? Or S. America and places with Catholicism has hold? And in some parts of the world having children is developing a labor force to exploit after they've had a few years to mature.

It takes a pretty authoritarian regime to make those sorts of things work.

And of course the economy shrinks if population shrinks so the rich folks wouldn't much like that.

I couldn't agree more but realistically do you see that happening in the US?The problem is not domestic breeding in the U.S., or any other first world countries.

Once a country becomes sufficiently rich and established, breeding rates naturally drop, often way below the point of equilibrium. We're not as bad as Japan or Western Europe, where populations are literally dying out, but if it weren't for immigrants we'd probably be below the equilibrium point right now, with the population slowly aging and shrinking.

The real problem is breeding in developing countries, where breeding rates aren't being countered by the normally high death rates due to first world technology and subsidies. So they are breeding out of control, thanks to us, and our perverse values.

We need to be shipping birth control methods, not food, to developing countries, and we need to do everything possible to prevent those countries from raising their standard of living.

The problem is not domestic breeding in the U.S., or any other first world countries.

Once a country becomes sufficiently rich and established, breeding rates naturally drop, often way below the point of equilibrium. We're not as bad as Japan or Western Europe, where populations are literally dying out, but if it weren't for immigrants we'd probably be below the equilibrium point right now, with the population slowly aging and shrinking.

The real problem is breeding in developing countries, where breeding rates aren't being countered by the normally high death rates due to first world technology and subsidies. So they are breeding out of control, thanks to us, and our perverse values.

We need to be shipping birth control methods, not food, to developing countries, and we need to do everything possible to prevent those countries from raising their standard of living.

Tuda, these countries are following the same pattern that Europe and the USA followed earlier. By the time doctors accepted that washing hands was a good idea and that it was necessary to create sewers, indoor plumbing and a healthy diet the mortality rate plummeted while the birth rate remained the same.
And the critical factors are not wealth but education and women's rights. What really changed birth rates in the western world was the legal changes that altered women's position from effectively being chattel to her husband to somebody who had the education and legal protection to say 'up yours' and walk out of an unwanted marriage. Very few women in developing countries (or in China I might add) have any social or legal recourse against their husbands if they force them to do something they do not want. Like having 14 children. Look at how things are in Afghanistan or Pakistan today and realise that only a 100 years ago the same (minus the head-to-toe covering) was the everyday life for women in Europe or the USA as well.

I do entirely agree though that it is imperative to reduce birth rates throughout the world, not by force but by giving people the ability to chose for their own.


Eri

I couldn't agree more but realistically do you see that happening in the US?
In the US? Not a chance. Can you imagine the outcry from the Teabagger contingent if The Government were to even suggest that they breed less? Tyranny! :rolleyes:

It takes a pretty authoritarian regime to make those sorts of things work.
Given that population growth rates are highest in developing countries, making foreign aid contingent on the receiving countries instituting a plan to reduce birth rates might help a bit. Food for Sterilization. :) Of course, any such plan would be rabidly opposed by all of the usual suspects.

Ultimately, perhaps what the human race needs is a good pimp-slapping from Mother Nature. A thousand years from now, long after the plagues and starvation have run their course and culled the human population back to pre-industrial numbers, humanity can look back on the next century and point to it as an example of how stupid, petty and selfish mankind can be and unite to prevent it from happening again. Sadly, the lesson will come at an extreme cost to the planets biodiversity.

A thousand years from now, long after the plagues and starvation have run their course and culled the human population back to pre-industrial numbers, humanity can look back on the next century and point to it as an example of how stupid, petty and selfish mankind can be and unite to prevent it from happening again.Humans are ignoring the examples from their current past; what makes you think future humans will consider examples from their past?

We already know exactly what happens when humans overbreed to the point where the environment can't sustain them. It has happened many times throughout history, with Rwanda being the most recent example, and less than 20 years ago at that.

People ignore it.

If the population is decimated in the future, they won't be thinking about how stupid they were. They'll be thinking about how they can steal supplies (including women) from their neighbors and hack people they don't like to bits with machetes.Sadly, the lesson will come at an extreme cost to the planets biodiversity.It's too late; the sixth mass extinction is most likely inevitable by now.

Tuda, these countries are following the same pattern that Europe and the USA followed earlier.When it happened in Europe, world population was low enough to at least temporarily absorb the damage from the influx of humans, especially since the highest standard of living was practically nothing by today's standards.

Today, we simply can't let it happen when we're talking about billions of people breeding out of control, wanting an American standard of living.And the critical factors are not wealth but education and women's rights.Yes, women's rights are key. Most non-religious women don't really want to breed every two years.

But it goes hand in hand with an increase in the standard of living and secularization.

Unfortunately we can't wait for that to happen in Africa and India.

When it happened in Europe, world population was low enough to at least temporarily absorb the damage from the influx of humans, especially since the highest standard of living was practically nothing by today's standards.

Today, we simply can't let it happen when we're talking about billions of people breeding out of control, wanting an American standard of living.But why is it fair that the US and Europe can do these things during their development but we won't allow other countries to? Same thing with carbon emissions. We got to (still do) pollute like mad, deforest and all during our development and now we don't want anyone else to do it.

Doesn't actually seem fair. Oh sorry India and China, you can't advance because we already mucked everything up during the industrial revolution and beyond.

It seems to me that if we want the rest of the world to do something we need to do it ourselves.

Humans are ignoring the examples from their current past; what makes you think future humans will consider examples from their past?
I think our morality has evolved significantly over the last 1000 years. I suspect that even with a global catastrophy it will continue to do so.

We already know exactly what happens when humans overbreed to the point where the environment can't sustain them.
Most Americans have only seen it happen on a small scale with brown people in far away places. It's one thing to understand it conceptually and quite another to be caught up in it.

If the population is decimated in the future, they won't be thinking about how stupid they were. They'll be thinking about how they can steal supplies (including women) from their neighbors and hack people they don't like to bits with machetes.
I seriously doubt that our science and technology would be reduced to anywhere near that degree.

It's too late; the sixth mass extinction is most likely inevitable by now.
I guess we'd better keep those seed samples going to Svalbard.

I think our morality has evolved significantly over the last 1000 years.The Rwandan civil war (well, the latest one) was less than 20 years ago. I guess they missed out on this moral evolution of yours?

The reality is that it's not a matter of morals, but of instinct. The only reason you think the Rwandans were brutal and primitive is that you weren't there, living under those conditions. In their place, you would have done the same thing.

You're not going to change human instinct overnight through some preachy talk, and it hasn't evolved in any significant way in the past few millennia.Most Americans have only seen it happen on a small scale with brown people in far away places. It's one thing to understand it conceptually and quite another to be caught up in it.The Rwandan fertility rate dropped very slightly since the last civil war, but it is still over 5, way higher than the surrounding environment can support.

They haven't learned a damn thing, and they were right in the middle of it, with their family, friends, neighbors, raped, mutilated, slaughtered, in front of their eyes.

What makes you think we will?I seriously doubt that our science and technology would be reduced to anywhere near that degree.You think the Rwandans didn't know about guns and bombs? Machetes were simply cheaper and easier to distribute, and I suppose it was just more fun to hack off body parts.I guess we'd better keep those seed samples going to Svalbard.Seed samples are pointless, if there is no environment available for them to grow. The only point of that project is to provide a backup in case of widespread genetic contamination (GMOs) or blight -- NOT environmental disaster.

But why is it fair that the US and Europe can do these things during their development but we won't allow other countries to?Because we got there first. Tough luck for the others, that's life, and what's done is done.

The only thing we can change is what's going to happen in the future.Doesn't actually seem fair. Oh sorry India and China, you can't advance because we already mucked everything up during the industrial revolution and beyond.China and India are riding on our technological and industrial coattails, so it's more fair than you think. Besides, fairness is irrelevant.

Irrelevant to you, but I assure you it isn't to them.

Really? They believe in fairness too?

Well then I suppose they'll agree to raise their workers' wages to American levels (out of fairness) and give every other country nuclear weapons (out of fairness).

So how do you plan to implement this version of reality? What's going to make the many billions of people you want to impose strict population controls on, when you give exceptions to your own people, actually do such a thing?

I'll try to bring you down gently... it just isn't going to happen.

What's going to make the many billions of people you want to impose strict population controls on, when you give exceptions to your own people, actually do such a thing?You are confusing the past with the present. Of course we should NOW try to reduce emissions, along with other countries.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/

Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming

Climategate just got much, much bigger. And all thanks to the Russians who, with perfect timing, dropped this bombshell just as the world’s leaders are gathering in Copenhagen to discuss ways of carbon-taxing us all back to the dark ages.

...

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory




http://www.infowars.com/exclusive-lead-author-admits-deleting-inconvenient-opinions-from-ipcc-report/

The most damning part of the program is when Ben Santer, a climate researcher and lead IPCC author of Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC Working Group I Report, admits that he deleted sections of the IPCC chapter which stated that humans were not responsible for climate change

Accusing Santer of altering opinions in the IPCC report that disagreed with the man-made thesis behind climate change, Lord Monckton told the program, “In comes Santer and re-writes it for them, after the scientists have sent in their finalized draft, and that finalized draft said at five different places, there is no discernable human effect on global temperature – I’ve seen a copy of this – Santer went through, crossed out all of those and substituted a new conclusion, and this has been the official conclusion ever since.

I can't decide, between Russia (on any oil-related topic) and the second nutjob on the Alex Jones show, who is less credible.

So how do you plan to implement this version of reality? What's going to make the many billions of people you want to impose strict population controls on, when you give exceptions to your own people, actually do such a thing?

I'll try to bring you down gently... it just isn't going to happen.

Oh, I fear very much it is going to happen. The harsh way. Like with any species that can not control its population to a level the environment can sustain they grow to plague levels followed by 99 pct of the population starving (or fighting) to death. We probably can escape the mass extinction part, but natural disasters that kill millions will be become increasingly common over the years as we attempt to double the human population again within two generations.
I do agree though that there is no hope we can manage to convince even governments, let alone individuals, to have only one child per couple be the norm for a few generations.

And it looks like Swiftfox and all the other climate deniers can rest assured again. In the end it was not their doubt or denial, nor the remaining fragments of scientific uncertainty, but plain old greed and stupidity that blocked any possible progress on the front of climate change. Even the extremely modest goal of "agreeing to agree to talk about something in two years time" was not met. So now we have a bit of toilet paper that the world 'leaders' agree on to spend money already reserved to aid developing countries on forcing them to not produce as much CO2 while the two biggest polluters in the world neatly excused themselves from making any meaningful commitments.
I guess we should count ourselves lucky they at least managed to agree that increasing CO2 levels likely will cause the global average temperature to rise and that an increase of more than 2C is expected to be doing more harm than good. Of course they all agreed that doing something about this potential disaster is somebody else's problem.

Probably no sense of urgency will be felt until New York, San Francisco, Hong Kong and Shanghai start flooding on a regular basis.


Eri

Probably no sense of urgency will be felt until New York, San Francisco, Hong Kong and Shanghai start flooding on a regular basis.Not necessarily. Change in America doesn't have to happen at the federal level. California, the leading state, has been and is still making significant progress in this area. Other states have historically followed our successful examples. Much of the necessary change can now happen at the state level, at least now that the federal government is not going to get in our way.

but plain old greed and stupidity that blocked any possible progress on the front of climate changeGreed can work in our favor. It just requires a critical mass of opinion that we need to do it, then people will gladly pay money for it so that other people will like them, and then companies will be lining up to provide eco-friendly products.

We should be spending less time at climate summits and more time advertising to people how likable and sexy they'll be if they help curb global warming.

Greed can work in our favor. It just requires a critical mass of opinion that we need to do it, then people will gladly pay money for it so that other people will like them, and then companies will be lining up to provide eco-friendly products.
How many of these eco-friendly products will actually be eco-friendly? Remember, this is the country where people think they're pulling their weight in the war effort by slapping a ribbon on their SUV and where charity collectors pass on as little as 5% of the money they collect for the charities that hire them. Greedy companies will simply package their non-eco-friendly products in packaging with eco-friendly-sounding verbiage on the label and shoppers will buy it for the feel-good high it gives them.

We should be spending less time at climate summits and more time advertising to people how likable and sexy they'll be if they help curb global warming.
You're absolutely right that people will want to appear to be eco-friendly so that people will like them. You're just missing the fact that most of them will put in only enough effort to buy and do things that pay lip-service to being eco-friendly. As long as they believe they are being eco-friendly and the people they want to be liked by share that belief, actually being eco-friendly doesn't really factor in.

Really, Tuda, you're making me question your cynicism. Perhaps you're just overcome with the holiday spirit. :)

Oh, I fear very much it is going to happen. The harsh way. Like with any species that can not control its population to a level the environment can sustain they grow to plague levels followed by 99 pct of the population starving (or fighting) to death. We probably can escape the mass extinction part, but natural disasters that kill millions will be become increasingly common over the years as we attempt to double the human population again within two generations.
Be careful, people who say this sort of thing get branded by the conspiracy theorists as enemies of mankind. Eric Pianka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Pianka), a biologist at UT Austin, was reported to Homeland Security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mims-Pianka_controversy) by some of the folks Swiftfox idolizes for saying (http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~varanus/Everybody.html)that the planet would be better off with fewer humans on it.

Be careful, people who say this sort of thing get branded by the conspiracy theorists as enemies of mankind. Eric Pianka, a biologist at UT Austin, was reported to Homeland Security by some of the folks Swiftfox idolizes for saying that the planet would be better off with fewer humans on it.

I had no intention to travel to the USA anytime soon, so they can report me all they like. The "paranoia 'r us" corporation is not running the country I live in (yet).
Also, there is more reason to worry if the homeland security actually has taken serious measures/investigation against Erik Pianka because of that report. You can not prevent people from overreacting/generally being paranoid (they used to vent their frustrations in the 'letters from our readers' section of the local newspaper since the invention of newspapers, and in the local pub since the invention of pubs, a couple of million years before the invention of the wheel). But if that kind of wildly flaying about at imaginary threats has been elevated to state sanctioned paranoia then there is reason for concern as you are another step closer to a dictatorship that controls the population through fear for each other.


Eri

But if that kind of wildly flaying about at imaginary threats has been elevated to state sanctioned paranoia then there is reason for concern as you are another step closer to a dictatorship that controls the population through fear for each other.I thought we were there already.

Oh, I fear very much it is going to happen. The harsh way. Like with any species that can not control its population to a level the environment can sustain they grow to plague levels followed by 99 pct of the population starving (or fighting) to death. We probably can escape the mass extinction part, but natural disasters that kill millions will be become increasingly common over the years as we attempt to double the human population again within two generations.
I do agree though that there is no hope we can manage to convince even governments, let alone individuals, to have only one child per couple be the norm for a few generations.

And it looks like Swiftfox and all the other climate deniers can rest assured again. In the end it was not their doubt or denial, nor the remaining fragments of scientific uncertainty, but plain old greed and stupidity that blocked any possible progress on the front of climate change. Even the extremely modest goal of "agreeing to agree to talk about something in two years time" was not met. So now we have a bit of toilet paper that the world 'leaders' agree on to spend money already reserved to aid developing countries on forcing them to not produce as much CO2 while the two biggest polluters in the world neatly excused themselves from making any meaningful commitments.
I guess we should count ourselves lucky they at least managed to agree that increasing CO2 levels likely will cause the global average temperature to rise and that an increase of more than 2C is expected to be doing more harm than good. Of course they all agreed that doing something about this potential disaster is somebody else's problem.

Probably no sense of urgency will be felt until New York, San Francisco, Hong Kong and Shanghai start flooding on a regular basis.


Eri
Congratulations Erianaiel on making the this month's "Furthest detached from reality" post.

How many of these eco-friendly products will actually be eco-friendly?I'd be delighted if we ever got to the day where our biggest environmental concern is deceptive advertising.

Right now, most of the population is still in the oil company FUD/denial stage, and global warming is only slightly more believed than other "controversial" (for America) theories such as evolution.

You could convert the entire male population overnight to eco-friendly nuts who would put Berkeley residents to shame, if women would just select for it. And then women could be set up to compete with themselves for who is more eco-friendly. Use greed and instinct to your advantage, instead of fighting it.

And if ecologically friendly men smelled like pine trees, or chocolate, all the woman would prefer them. Problem solved!

Also, there is more reason to worry if the homeland security actually has taken serious measures/investigation against Erik Pianka because of that report. [...] But if that kind of wildly flaying about at imaginary threats has been elevated to state sanctioned paranoia then there is reason for concern as you are another step closer to a dictatorship that controls the population through fear for each other.

It's anyone's guess as to how the Department of Homeland Security will react to anything. In their short history they haven't exactly demonstrated a proficiency for identifying and reacting to threats proportionally. Between raising the threat levels for political reasons (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/us/21ridge.html) and their tendency to get sucked in by con artists (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/bush_admin_raised_terror_alert_based_on_con_mans_a .php), they don't inspire a lot of confidence.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm

ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) — Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm

*shrugs*
That is neither news nor secret.

The fact that carbon dioxide gets absorbed in the ocean (as well as in plants) is a fact that has been long known. Even the amount is not exactly new.

What they forgot to mention is that the ability of water to absorb carbon dioxide is limited and we may be close to the limit what can be stored in the surface water of the ocean (soda can only contain a tiny amount of co2 and that only under pressure). The degree by which ocean water of different layers mixes is unknown but believed to be minimal.

Regarding plants, we have been burning them down a lot faster than they can grow back, meaning we release more co2 back into the atmosphere that way than we store.


Eri

When the Earth Firsters got redwood cutting stopped.

Guess who benefited?

Those who supply redwood. The cost skyrocketed.

When the CFCers got their way, what happened. Huge new industry of freon reclamation and disposal. Complete retrofits of existing AC technologies, and new much more expensive refrigerants.

Same with oil companies. Quotas on oil use will drive the prices to the Ozone layer.


These so-called scientists are creating their own industry now, for themselves and for new grads to get into. There are huge paychecks in this new GREEN industry that they are making right now.

Completely predictable. Scams are, even prolific ones.

Remember that CO2 global warming is fabricated from small glass box models on the Earth, and the Venus model. Two things completely unlike the Earth.

It is vastly more plausible that the mere ambient heat load of more humans, and the heat(with more fires, engines, lights, stoves, etc) that they are giving off is warming the planet. Hell, the bioload of exhaled CO2 from humans(not including their pets and livestock) alone is enormous, when will they cap and trade that I wonder.

Regarding plants, we have been burning them down a lot faster than they can grow back, meaning we release more co2 back into the atmosphere that way than we store.
Eri

Not in the US.
There are more trees, especially, here than were here before Columbus.
And previous grasslands have been replaced with farmland, vineyards, and orchards.
There is a much more rich, diverse, and excessive plant bioload here in the US than there was pre discovery.

Your Euro countries may be different, I don't know.

Of course we do grow a lot of corn. We eat it. Which is not really a permanent storage of CO2. Maybe if we kill people, and stick them in the ground, that would solve that problem.

There are more trees, especially, here than were here before Columbus.

There is a much more rich, diverse, and excessive plant bioload here in the US than there was pre discovery.

Your Euro countries may be different, I don't know.Is this part of your bible? Because it has nothing to do with reality.

The whole Eastern half of the United States used to be covered with forest, and it was largely cut down by Europeans (link (http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/scienceques2002/20030404.htm)).

That is, it was cut down by Europeans after the Europeans finished cutting down the last of their forests, which used to cover most of their land.

Tudamorf lives in San Francisco.

He knows that that whole bunch of land was covered in grassland before Europeans came there.

It is completely covered in very mature trees now. There are a million(million) more trees there now than before Euros arrived, just on the small part of land which most people would call San Francisco.

In one of the worlds larger cities.

Drive through the Presidio or the Park if you think I'm lying. The Golden Gate was not called that because of gold, it was called that because of all the golden grass covered hills when the explorers and settlers arrived there.

The Park was a bunch of barren sand flats.

http://sfoutsidelands.com/ggp/images/photos/dmb-ggp2.jpg (http://sfoutsidelands.com/ggp/images/photos/dmb-ggp2.jpg)

I suppose he explains that as that the Indians deforested and desertified the area by farming it.

Anyone who can see an Ansel Adams pic now, and see what that place he photographed looks like today, knows that there are more trees now than before people.

Just obviously, and intuitively, there were no humans there to prevent or put out forest fires before Europeans arrived.

But none of this fits into his greenpeace tiedyed tofu eatin vegan birkenstock dogma.

Tudamorf lives in San Francisco.

He knows that that whole bunch of land was covered in grassland before Europeans came there.San Francisco is not in the Eastern United States.

San Francisco was never forested, and all the mature trees were imported.

It is also a teeny tiny, totally insignificant part of the total land area of the United States (46 square miles out of 3,750,000 million square miles in the United States).

But I suppose if you have to cherry pick one little spot in the United States in a desperate attempt to support a horribly flawed argument, totally contradicted by the data, this spot would be it. San Francisco has a huge park network, for its area.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Oldgrowth3.jpg

^ Europeans did that by the way. After they were done cutting down all their own forests.

I said nothing about Virgin Forest.

That little pictorial you posted is fn nonsense. It is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

The total bioload of trees is greater now, in the US, than ever before.

I don't care if the new trees are native or not.

I like the Eucs and Cypresses in Golden Gate. I don't care that they came from Australia or Italy. And neither does CO2.

Your argument is hippy nonsense from the 60s. Of course all the trees that were here were all cut down, or just died from old age. But there have been more planted in their place, multiplicatively so. And they have been planted where trees were absent from.

Drive to the Marble Mountains, more trees.
Drive to Stanislaus Forest, more trees.
Drive to anywhere in the Sierra Nevadas, more trees.
Drive down your street in SF, more trees.
Drive to Sonoma, more trees.

Your little picture shows those areas as wasteland, go see for yourself. Open your eyes.

It is also a teeny tiny, totally insignificant part of the total land area of the United States (46 square miles out of 3,750,000 million square miles in the United States).


It is a good model for other cities in the US.

People plant trees where they live. Your dogmatic model does not recognize that fact.

Where I live, there are 5 trees on the property. Where 300 years ago, it was grassland. Same for all of the neighbors in the area. Hundreds of more trees, where there were none before.

quote"San Francisco is not in the Eastern United States.

San Francisco was never forested, and all the mature trees were imported."

This is a fabrication. Frisco had some foresting, but, yes, it was largely grassland. Not all the mature trees were imported either.

quote"Quote:
Originally Posted by Erianaiel
Regarding plants, we have been burning them down a lot faster than they can grow back, meaning we release more co2 back into the atmosphere that way than we store.
Eri


Not in the US.
There are more trees, especially, here than were here before Columbus.
And previous grasslands have been replaced with farmland, vineyards, and orchards."


It also depends on where as well. It took places like Tennessee awhile to grow back some of their forests. While it will never be as it was before. In alot of the farmland areas of the midwest I have traveled to, I have seen not one tree for miles.

About the only other thing I would like to add on the tree issue. I prefer the commercial thinning process of deforesting, as opposed to clear cuts for various reasons. A good hard rain on the hillside of a freshly clear cut forest can make a mess of things with mudslides for a short answer, few other reasons which I won't get to.

Many lumber companies, particularly the Pacific Northwest, Frisco to Alaska, a region known for the lumber industry, plants 5 trees for every tree they cut down for obvious reasons.

quote"There are huge paychecks in this new GREEN industry "

This is just stupid. The Green Industry they are calling it. I am sure the newest rage will make them feel all better inside. While, I am all for eliminating waste which in fact makes less waste, they are not quite going about it in the right ways. In the manufacturing industry that I was in, I always wondered about certain things. Like when my employer would whine about things like the electric bill on the plant. I wondered about how the machines operate, as in could they be made more energy effienct. Many machines put off what is called British Thermal Units. As well as static and kinetic energy.

As I tend to look into certain sciences, one being perpetual motion machines, for those not in the know, perpetual motion machines once you set it in motion stay in motion, the only one built is what you see as those 5 balls that continually smack into each other, that would be it, or those fans on top of your houses venting the attic and stuff. I wondered on particular machines that put off a lot of heat, or has alot of motion, if certain things like a small fan could be installed that would cause the heat and motion processes to power build up a charge to be reused in the machines. Using less energy as well as filtering the amounts of bi products such as carbon dioxide/monoxide as well as other stuff.

Unfortunately, the idea never came to fruitration through my associates with business adminstration, or my lazy engineers more interested in their bowling game. But, the idea remains. I would bet I could rig something up that could reduce those emissions as well as reduce the amount of energy consumption with slight recycling by around 20%.

This is just stupid.
I don't think it is stupid.

I think it is deviously smart.

It is the intentional creation of a whole new industry out of thin air.

Critics of the CO2 Global Warming myth will always yack about how it is gonna cost jobs. That is completely false. It is going to create 10s of thousands of new jobs, just in the US.

Most of which are at the very very high level of the service industry. Science and tech jobs. Political and law jobs.

Do you know how hard it is to create a whole new need, a whole new market, a whole new industry out of thin air? When this thing is rolling, like 40 years from now, your kids are gonna look back and think, WoW!


Of course it is going to be the biggest conjob in history, after religion, but oh well.

It is a good model for other cities in the US.It is a good model for cities that were never forested (like San Francisco, which was mainly sand dunes).

It is a terrible model for others, like on the East Coast. If you had ever lived there, you'd know. Trees are cut down, and stay down. But given your examples, it sounds as though you have no clue what lies beyond our small region of the United States.

Also, cities make up an insignificantly small percentage of the total land area of the United States, and the little trees planted in cities are no replacement for old growth forests.

You are basically saying that it's no problem, because for every million steps backward, we take two forward. Great argument. :rolleyes:

It is the intentional creation of a whole new industry out of thin air.You say that as though there's something inherently wrong with it.

Giving people something to do, especially something positive, is generally a good thing. That's true even if they had no desire to do that thing before.Of course it is going to be the biggest conjob in history, after religion, but oh well.Right, it's a con job because, well, you just KNOW it is. You close your eyes, ignore the data, and just know it.

Someone is certainly religious around here (and it isn't the ones that accept the reality of global warming).

It is a good model for cities that were never forested (like San Francisco, which was mainly sand dunes). Of course it is. Most of the cities in the US were founded where there were little trees to begin with.


Sacramento.
Los Angeles. Every Southern California city, nothing was there but grassland before Europeans.
Las Vegas. Every Nevada city, for that matter. No trees cut.
Phoenix.

Any city in Texas.
Alaska is still having that bug problem, so they don't count.

People have been preventing natural forest fires for over a century and a half.
The forests now are at completely unnatural levels of well developed trees.

Also, cities make up an insignificantly small percentage of the total land area of the United States, and the little trees planted in cities are no replacement for old growth forests. Of course they are a small percentage, but that was where the most trees were cut down. To make room for homes and people. But people plant trees where they live.

And they have been preserving forest trees for a century and half. Preventing and putting out forest fires.


You are basically saying that it's no problem, because for every million steps backward, we take two forward. Great argument. :rolleyes: No, I am saying that there are more trees now in the US, than before Europeans came here.

You know that that is true. Regardless of your silly 4th grader Virgin Forest doodles.

Ever been through Las Vegas lately,,,,,trees everywhere. More trees in Las Vegas now than ever were in New York city(on the whole island even).
And just in case someone here does not know Las Vegas, IT WAS A FRIGGEN DESERT before Euros got here(before the Asians too).

I suppose that we are just going to keep whittling this down until you actually come up with some North East city which really has less trees now than 300 years ago. Why don't you just cut to the chase and tell us which city that is?

You say that as though there's something inherently wrong with it. If I sell you a placebo, and your ailment goes away on its own...No harm was done. Except it was a lie.

Giving people something to do, especially something positive, is generally a good thing. Sure. If you believe in that sorta crap.



Right, it's a con job because, well, you just KNOW it is. You close your eyes, ignore the data, and just know it..
You have already admitted several times in the past that the data is very limited.

It only goes back a couple of decades.

There is not enough data to form any conclusions at this time. And the models used currently are a glass box on the ground, and Venus. But then you argue that, "WE CAN'T WAIT FOR REAL DATA, THE WORLD IS COMING TO AN END, AND 6 BILLION PEOPLE WILL DIE IF WE DON'T STOP NOW".

It's all FUD.

Of course they are a small percentage, but that was where the most trees were cut down.Are you REALLY that stupid?

Or do you think that we're that stupid?

Forests were cut down EVERYWHERE, not just to clear land for cities, but to clear massive tracts of land for farming, to provide timber, and to provide fuel.

Every city I've lived in on the East Coast was once a forest, and it was ALL cut down, to make room for houses and, in the case of suburbs, sprawling lawns over acres of land. You could even see little bits and pieces of the original forest that were left in isolated spots as decoration or for privacy reasons.

Just because you have lived in deserts all your life, and can't understand what a natural forest might look like, doesn't mean they didn't exist. No, I am saying that there are more trees now in the US, than before Europeans came here.Prove it. (With real data, not your bible.)

Except it was a lie.Can you prove it?

Didn't think so.

quote"I don't think it is stupid.

I think it is deviously smart."

The reasoning behind it is completely stupid. When Bush first came in office, the legislation would have called for the reductions in carbon emissions. They pulled the legislation which would have required to be completed by 2010. Now it is the newest rage. Like Pokemon, bobbleheads, troll dolls. It has been something they should have been doing earlier anyways. Much like the napathene engine. Obsolete for over 60 years, with ways to get to and over 50 miles per gallon. Here, have some more horsepower and acceleration capability enjoy the 20 miles per gallon, clogging up your vehicle, so, you buy a new one in 5-10 years.

Get a hybrid, we won't bother to give you the plugins for it, enjoy the extra k for it. Let's add some 10k mile tires on your hybrid, because well, you are doing such a great job saving money, as well as the environment, you can get a whole new set of tires and ignore the fact that it would have been more green just to put on the 60-80k mile tires on it in the first place, and double dip the emissions on the tires alone. But, it makes you feel good to do something about those pesky emissions.

Same thing with the old incandescant light bulb being phased out. Because at the current rate of consumption, there is an estimate 35 year supply of tungsten? Let us all feel good because we are going green with our new halogen lighting system. Does the same thing, a bit more effienctly, what was it a 60 watt halogen puts off the same lumens as a 100 watt incand, and it saves electricity! Yay, we are green, we saved a squirrel, planted a tree or whatever.

That is why they are stupid. And yes it is one big scam. But, it makes you feel good. Where as I outlined above a method to save electricity in industrial, dunno about everyone else, but, the decision to keep burning coal for Tennesee main source of electricity was made in 1980. Don't be to surprised about the bill to fund alternative sources of energy hits around 2015or so for Tennessee and the Tennessee Valley Authority and the 8 states it produces for.

Now you combine my earlier idea to recycle electricity, with geothermal sources as well as wind farms and solar, and those industrial complexes could produce a self sustaining electrical capability without the need of those utilities. And thus save on even more emissions. Which does not even go into the residential districts. Then, you might have done something, reducing fossil fuel consumption by over 60%, which is a number I pulled out of my bum, if I did the math, probably accurate, as well as 60% of carbon emissions. Then, you might consider, well, I guess we really are green afterall, let's dump some toxic waste in the ocean!

Prove it. (With real data, not your bible.)

Take a look at the pictures taken in the 1800s and 1900s.
Take a look at those same shots today.

More trees.

I have already seen them. I have visited those areas myself.


Guess what, there are more trees there.
We put out forest fires. There are more trees.

Just look at any Ansel Adams' photo. Go there and see for yourself. There are more trees there now.

Just because you have lived in deserts all your life, and can't understand what a natural forest might look like, doesn't mean they didn't exist.

CO2 does not care if the forest is 'natural' or not.

You seem to think that only original growth native trees can absorb CO2.
That is silly.
It does not matter if it is redwood or eucalyptus.
It is just a bioload carbon sink.

It does not care if the forest was once pine, and is now fir.
It does not care if the forest was once maple, and now is almond or cherry.
It don't care.

Argue your EarthFirster crap some where you all buy that silly nonsense.

Just look at any Ansel Adams' photo. Go there and see for yourself. There are more trees there now.So your data consists of a few landscapes by a photographer famous for his pictures of the Southwestern desert?

Have you even been paying attention?

I suppose next you're going to tell me that deforestation in the Amazon isn't really happening, because they planted a hedgerow in Rio de Janeiro. :rolleyes:

CO2 does not care if the forest is 'natural' or not.Actually, it does. Artificial trees aren't alive and don't really any do anything for the environment, other than to take up space.You seem to think that only original growth native trees can absorb CO2.No, I seem to think that old growth forests are far more ecologically important than a few small trees planted in their place.

Hell, when they cut down the Amazon in Brazil, they do plant other stuff in its place, like grass and soybeans. I guess we shouldn't worry then, because plants are plants?

Guess what, there are more trees there.
We put out forest fires. There are more trees.Guess what this place is today:

http://www.treehugger.com/Manhattan-400-years-ago-Mannahatta-Project.jpg

Can't tell (http://themannahattaproject.org/explore/mannahatta-map/)?

Most cities, large or small, east of the Mississippi used to look like that. Those cities are all much older than the recent ones in the deserts were have lived, so there were no cameras, but it's well documented in the journals of the first European "explorers".

That looks like it's from Bryce or Vue.

And well, we have had cameras and wilderness and landscape photographers since the early 1800s.

And well, we have had cameras and wilderness and landscape photographers since the early 1800s.Photography as we know it hadn't even been invented in the early 1800s, let alone been put to common use.

There are maps and drawings, though, and of course a wealth of paleoethnobotanical data to tell us exactly how forested the United States was at any given point in the past.

Actually, it does. Artificial trees aren't alive and don't really any do anything for the environment, other than to take up space. No, I seem to think that old growth forests are far more ecologically important than a few small trees planted in their place. How old is the place you are living in right now. You better have it checked for lead paint.

CO2 does not care if a forest is new growth or old growth. It can be algae for all it cares.

Hell, when they cut down the Amazon in Brazil, they do plant other stuff in its place, like grass and soybeans. I guess we shouldn't worry then, because plants are plants? I thought you liked soybeans.

I suppose next you're going to tell me that deforestation in the Amazon isn't really happening We were discussing trees in the US, not Brazil. You nor I have any say over what the Brazilians do in their own country.

Honestly, I once considered you a formidable debating opponent. Something is happening to your intellect Tudamorf. Sadly, its frustrating. Like reading Flowers For Algernon at the end. I am sorry for your loss.

CO2 does not care if a forest is new growth or old growth.Sure it does. Old growth forests sequester carbon for centuries. When you cut them down, a lot of that is released back into the atmosphere. Even if you plant a new forest, it takes several decades for it to start working again. And the effect will not be as great until it matures and reaches the same size.

A square kilometer of tropical rainforest does not remove the same amount of carbon as a square kilometer of city with a couple of hedgerows planted. You can claim it all you want, but you are simply wrong.

And I appreciate the ad hominem attacks -- they show me just how weak you think your argument really is. Which proves that there is hope for you yet.

We were discussing trees in the US, not Brazil.Rio de Janeiro has the largest urban forest in the world. They like trees more than Americans do.

But you are claiming that Americans plant more trees than they cut down, whereas Brazilians don't.

Interesting.

At least you seem to tacitly agree with me that the Brazilians are destroying carbon sink rain forests. It's a step forward.

Oh and the soybeans are for the cattle, which are for meat. I don't eat anything that was grown on rainforest-cleared land, as you should've guessed.

And I appreciate the ad hominem attacks .
I thought I edited those out.
You must have read them before I removed them.

I apologize to you for that.

Oh and the soybeans are for the cattle, which are for meat. I don't eat anything that was grown on rainforest-cleared land, as you should've guessed.
Are they putting sources on blocks of tofu these day?

Are they putting sources on blocks of tofu these day?The more environmentally conscious brands do, or will provide sourcing information on their web site.

Besides, the issue there is U.S. versus Chinese beans, not U.S. versus Brazilian beans.

My suggestion since I was like 16.

Why don't all you Greenpeace Birkenstock hippies pool your money together and just buy up the land?

Then you can do with it what you want.

It is the epitome of your naivete and arrogance that you think that you can tell people in another country that they can't grow food. On their own land.

You waste your time ineffectually whining and wasting money on so-called environmentally conscious crap(MARKETING), when you could have been making a real difference all of these 25 some odd years.

My suggestion since I was like 16.

Why don't all you Greenpeace Birkenstock hippies pool your money together and just buy up the land?Land trusts have been around since long before you were 16.It is the epitome of your naivete and arrogance that you think that you can tell people in another country that they can't grow food. On their own land.On the contrary, we can make a very big difference by simply refusing to buy it. Then they won't grow it.

I've seen a number of U.S.-based food companies dump Chinese sources recently because of consumer demand.

So much of the environmental ruin that goes on in the world is done not for the benefit of the native country, but for rich Americans and Europeans. We have the power to stop it easily.

A libertarian should understand that concept easily.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/dailypolitics/andrewneil/2010/01/the_dam_is_cracking.html

The dam is cracking

Andrew Neil | 09:42 UK time, Tuesday, 26 January 2010

The bloggers are all over the UN IPCC 2007 report, the bible of global warming, which predicted all manner of dire outcomes for our planet unless we got a grip on rising temperatures -- and it seems to be crumbling in some pretty significant areas.

The dam began to crack towards the end of last year when leaked e-mails from one of the temples of global warming, the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, suggested that a few sleights of hand were being deployed to hide facts inconvenient to the global warming case. An official investigation into these e-mails is on-going.

This turned out to have no basis in scientific fact, even though everything the IPCC produces is meant to be rigorously peer-reviewed, but simply an error recycled by the WWF, which the IPCC swallowed whole.

The truth, as seen by India's leading expert in glaciers, is that "Himalayan glaciers have not in anyway exhibited, especially in recent years, an abnormal annual retreat."

So the 40% of the world's population that relies on the seven major river systems supplied by these glaciers can sleep a little more soundly in the knowledge that their water won't run out in 25 years after all.

Then at the weekend another howler was exposed. The IPCC 2007 report claimed that global warming was leading to an increase in extreme weather, such as hurricanes and floods. Like its claims about the glaciers, this was also based on an unpublished report which had not been subject to scientific scrutiny -- indeed several experts warned the IPCC not to rely on it.

The author, who didn't actually finish his work until a year after the IPCC had used his research, has now repudiated what he sees has its misuse of his work.

Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman often wrongly described in the media as the world's leading climate scientist (he's actually a railway engineer), at first attacked those who questioned the IPCC's alarming glacier prediction as "arrogant" and believers in "voodoo science".

He's since had to retract the prediction but can't quite manage an apology -- and is now under mounting pressure in his Indian homeland to resign.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/the-billion-dollar-hoax/story-e6frfhqf-1225823736564

ONCE global warming was the "great moral challenge of our generation". Or so claimed the Prime Minister.

But suddenly it's the great con that's falling to bits around Kevin Rudd's ears.

In fact, so fast is global warming theory collapsing that in his flurry of recent speeches to outline his policies for the new decade, Rudd has barely mentioned his "moral challenge" at all.

Take his long Australia Day reception speech on Sunday. Rudd talked of our ageing population and of building stuff, of taxes, hospitals and schools - but dared not say one word about the booga booga he used to claim could destroy our economy, Kakadu, the Great Barrier Reef and 750,000 coastal homes.

What's happened?

Answer: in just the past few months has come a cascade of evidence that the global warming scare is based on often dodgy science and even outright fraud.

Here are just the top 10 new signs that catastrophic man-made warming may be just another beat-up, like swine flu, SARS, and the Y2K bug.

1. Climategate

THE rot for Rudd started last November with the leaking of emails from the Climatic Research Unit of Britain's University of East Anglia.

Those emails from many of the world's top climate scientists showed them conspiring to sack sceptical scientists from magazines, hide data from sceptics, and cover up errors.

One of the scientists, CRU boss Phil Jones, even boasted of having found a "trick" to "hide the decline" in recent temperature records.

Jones was also on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, so influential in convincing us our gasses are heating the planet that it won the Nobel Prize.

But he showed how political the IPCC actually is by promising in yet another email that he and another colleague would do almost anything to keep sceptical studies out of IPCC reports.

Just as damning was the admission by IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth that the world isn't warming as the IPCC said it must: "We cannot account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

2. The Copenhagen farce

MORE than 40,000 politicians, scientists and activists flew to Copenhagen last month - in clouds of greenhouse gasses - to get all nations to agree to make the rest of us cut our own emissions to "stop" global warming.

This circus ended in total failure. China, the world's biggest emitter, refused to choke its growth. So did India. Now the United States is unlikely to make cuts, either, with Barack Obama's presidency badly wounded and the economy so sick.

Not only did this show that Rudd's planned tax on our emissions will now be even more suicidally useless. It also suggested world leaders can't really think global warming is so bad.

3. The Himalayan scare

RUDD has quoted the IPCC as his authority on global warming, claiming it's a group of "guys in white coats" who "just measure things". But the IPCC also just makes things up.

Take this claim from its 2007 report: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate."

In fact, we now know this bizarre claim was first made by a little-known Indian scientist in an interview for an online magazine, and then copied into a report by the green group WWF.

From there, the IPCC lifted it almost word for word for its own 2007 report, without checking if it was true.

It wasn't, of course, as the IPCC last week conceded. The glaciers will be around for at least centuries more.

But why did the IPCC run this mad claim in the first place?

The IPCC's Dr Murari Lal, the co-ordinating lead author responsible, says he knew all along there was no peer-reviewed research to back it up.

"(But) we thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians ... "

Note: you are told not the truth, but what will scare you best.

4. Pachauri's response

BUT what smells just as much is how IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri, a former railway engineer, first tried to defend this "mistake" by accusing sceptical scientists of practising "voodoo science".

Deny and abuse. That's the IPCC way.

Even more suspiciously, Syed Hasnain, the scientist who first made the false claim, then turned out to be now employed by The Energy Research Institute, headed by ... er, Pachauri.

More astonishing still, only two weeks ago TERI won up to $500,000 from the Carnegie Corporation to study exactly Hasnain's bogus claim. See how cash follows a good scare?

5. Pachauri's conflicts

IN fact, Pachauri and TERI do amazingly well from his IPCC job.

Britain's Sunday Telegraph this month revealed TERI had created a global business network since Pachauri became IPCC chairman in 2002.

Its recent donors include Deutsche Bank, Toyota, Yale University - and, sadly, Rudd, who last year handed over $1 million, hoping to win influence with such a big UN honcho.

Pachauri himself is now a director or adviser to a score of banks, investment institutions and carbon traders, many involved in areas directly affected by IPCC policies.

He denies any wrongdoing, and is not paid by the IPCC. But see again how cash follows a scare, and ask if the IPCC chief has a conflict of interest.

6. The green hand revealed

WE'VE seen how the IPCC just copied its false claims about the Himalayas from a report by WWF, a green activist group which earn donations by preaching such doom.

In fact, the IPCC's 2007 report cites WWF documents as "evidence" at least another 15 times.

Elsewhere it cites a non-scientific, non-peer-reviewed paper from another activist body, the International Institute for Sustainable Development, as its sole proof that global warming could devastate African agriculture.

Whose agenda is the IPCC pushing?

7. More fake IPCC claims

THIS week came more evidence that the IPCC sexed up its 2007 report, this time when it claimed the world had "suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s", thanks to global warming.

In fact, the claim was picked out of an unpublished report by a London risk consultant, who later changed his mind and said "the idea that catastrophes are rising in cost because of climate change is completely misleading".

8. New research on our gasses

AT least four new papers by top scientists cast doubt on the IPCC claim that our carbon dioxide emissions are strongly linked to global warming.

One, published in Nature, shows the world had ice age activity even when atmospheric CO2 was four times the level of our pre-industrial times.

Another, by NASA medallist John Christy and David Douglass, shows global temperatures did not go up as much as expected from man-made emissions over the past three decades.

9. New Australian research

JAMES Cook University researcher Peter Ridd says Australian scientists have cried wolf over the threat to the Great Barrier Reef from global warming, and the reef was actually in "bloody brilliant shape". The alarmist CSIRO this month also backed away from blaming global warming for a drought in Tasmania and in the Murray-Darling basin, saying "the jury is still out". A new paper by another Australian academic, Assoc Prof Stewart Franks, says the Murray-Darling drought is natural, and has nothing to do with man-made warming.

10. The world still won't warm

AND still the world hasn't warmed since 2001, even though we pump out more emissions than ever.

Even professional alarmist Tim Flannery, author of The Weather Makers, admits "we haven't seen a continuation of that (warming) trend" and "the computer modelling and the real world data disagree".

And with Europe, the United States and China hit with record cold and snow this winter, no wonder Kevin Rudd has suddenly gone cold on global warming, the mad faith that has cost us so many futile billions already.

And with Europe, the United States and China hit with record cold and snow this winter, no wonder Kevin Rudd has suddenly gone cold on global warmingAnyone who thinks global warming is about whether you feel hot or cold on a particular day should simply remove themselves from the discussion.

Because that is, by far, the stupidest comment I have ever seen on this issue.

No one is referring to "a day" other than you.

Read: "United States and China hit with record cold and snow this winter"

Congrats on the new stupidest comment seen on the issue.

The blue columns representing 2010 average temperatures are far lower than those from last year in red. But it wasn’t just the first two weeks of January that has been colder than usual. December, too, was actually colder than the previous December in 2008. According to the National Weather Service, it was about 30 percent colder when comparing the average temperatures of both months. The colder the average temperature over the course of a month, the more time you are going to spend heating your home and that’s going to mean a higher utility bill
http://www.jea.com/images/JanuaryRates.gif

source: http://www.jea.com/home/stories/highbill-January2010.asp

Coldest July on Record for the Midwest
August 3, 2009
Source: Mike Timlin (217) 333-8506, mtimlin@illinois.edu
Steve Hilberg (217 333-8495, hberg@illinois.edu
Editor: Lisa Sheppard (217) 244-7270, sheppard@illinois.edu
This was the coldest July on record for the nine-state Midwest region, based on
preliminary temperature data. The average temperature for the region was 68.0°F, 4.7°F
below normal. The previous record was 68.9°F in 1992. It was the coldest July on record
for Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa; the second coldest on record for Michigan, Kentucky,
Ohio, and Wisconsin; the third coldest in Minnesota, and the fourth coldest on record for
Missouri according to Mike Timlin, Regional Climatologist with the NOAA Midwestern
Regional Climate Center (http://mrcc.isws.illinois.edu). Records for the region date back
114 years.

Source " http://mrcc.isws.illinois.edu/news/releases/2009/20090803_Coldest%20July%20on%20Record%20for%20the% 20Midwest.pdf

Dozens Freeze To Death As Cold Snap Hits Asia

3:41pm UK, Monday January 04, 2010

Alison Chung, Sky News Online
Snowstorms and freezing temperatures have hit parts of India, China and South Korea, killing dozens of people and causing mayhem for travellers.

...

Heavy snow has blanketed areas of northern China, paralysing traffic on major roads and forcing the cancellation of dozens of flights.

Beijing, which in recent years has enjoyed snow-free winters, saw its biggest snowfall since 1951, with up to 20cm.

Analysts say the icy conditions could push up food prices temporarily by stalling shipments.

Source : http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Snow-And-Freezing-Temperatures-Hit-Parts-Of-Asia-Including-India-China-South-Korea-Dozens-Dead/Article/201001115513989?f=rss

MIAMI — Central Florida citrus growers, already reeling from an unusually long freeze, reported more overnight ice damage to their orange fruit and groves on Tuesday, which they feared could also hurt the 2010/11 crop.

Citrus growers in the Sunshine State, which produces more than 75 percent of the U.S. orange crop and accounts for about 40 percent of the world's orange juice supply, have been hit by more than a week of record low overnight temperatures caused by blasts of arctic air charging far south.

Florida Citrus Mutual, the state's biggest growers group, has acknowledged the citrus crop was hit by the sub-freezing temperatures at the peak of the harvest, but said it is too early to accurately estimate damage to the $9 billion industry. It also says ample inventories of orange juice still exist.

"After such a sustained period of cold, the damage has already been done," Florida Citrus Mutual spokesman Andrew Meadows said in an email to Reuters.
Source : http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20100111/NEWS-US-FLORIDA-CITRUS-FREEZE/

No one is referring to "a day" other than you.

Read: "United States and China hit with record cold and snow this winter"Anyone who thinks global warming is about whether you feel hot or cold on a particular day, a particular season, or a particular year should simply remove themselves from the discussion.

Because that is, by far, the stupidest comment I have ever seen on this issue.

Anyone who thinks global warming is about whether you feel hot or cold on a particular day, a particular season, or a particular year

To put it into perspective (without the insults):

A global annual average temperature 6 degrees celsius lower than what we have had the past couple of millenia is the difference between today's climate and approximately a layer of snow and ice a mile thick over Canada, the Soviet Union, most of Europe, half the USA and parts of China. Oh, and sea levels between 150 and 300 meters lower (the reports are uncertain about that).

It is hard to imagine or predict with sufficient reliability what a similar effect is the other way around, but the best estimate is that most of Africa, South East Asia and the Middle Americas would become too hot to live in with summer temperatures estimated to easily top 50 celsius in the summer. Southern France or Florida style climate (winter temperatures average 10 to 15 celsius, summer 25 to 30) would be found somewhere along the norwegian coast (that is the south coast of Alaska for a similar lattitude). Pretty much the entire USA would turn into a desert except for the coastal region (similar to the Sahara today). The uncertainty is primarily how such changes will affect the rainfall patterns as those can only be modeled in the abstract yet. It may give certain areas a preference for rainforests instead, but those take hundreds of thousands of years to develop fully.


Eri

The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased.

...

For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global warming has stopped. It’s not a viewpoint or a sceptic’s inaccuracy. It’s an observational fact. Clearly the world of the past 30 years is warmer than the previous decades and there is abundant evidence (in the northern hemisphere at least) that the world is responding to those elevated temperatures. But the evidence shows that global warming as such has ceased.



Source http://www.newstatesman.com/scitech/2007/12/global-warming-temperature

On a slightly different but related topic

EPA Suppresses Internal Global Warming Study

The Competitive Enterprise Institute today charged that a senior official of the U.S. Environment Protection Agency actively suppressed a scientific analysis of climate change because of political pressure to support the Administration’s policy agenda of regulating carbon dioxide.

Source http://www.globalwarming.org/2009/06/24/epa-suppresses-internal-global-warming-study/

You know, I think you guys are stuck in time about 10 years ago. The term global warming, while most likely true, has been replaced with Global Climate Change, in the recognition that what's happening is more likely wild swings in temperatures and precipitation and drought.

I think the ocean temperatures is probably a very key part of this. More so than looking at one years and saying, "See, it's not warm. It was very cold and it snowed a bunch".

The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased.I'm considering taking back my comment about the stupidest global warming comment ever.

Well, it's a toss-up really, whether it's more retarded to say global warming doesn't exist because it's cold today, or to expect the mean temperature to go up in a straight line.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute today charged that a senior official of the U.S. Environment Protection Agency actively suppressed a scientific analysis of climate change because of political pressure to support the Administration’s policy agenda of regulating carbon dioxide.So any unsupported allegation made by a small anti-environment special interest group (one which says stuff like, dioxin is good for you) is automatically true, but a study made by global mainstream organizations like WWF by definition should be dismissed because it's "a green activist group which earn donations by preaching such doom."

Right Swiftfox?

You know, I think you guys are stuck in time about 10 years ago. The term global warming, while most likely true, has been replaced with Global Climate Change, in the recognition that what's happening is more likely wild swings in temperatures and precipitation and drought.

I think the ocean temperatures is probably a very key part of this. More so than looking at one years and saying, "See, it's not warm. It was very cold and it snowed a bunch".

That's very convenient for your argument and conclusions, isn't it?

I mean,

You can then blame all above and below average precipitation and temperatures on Global Climate Change.

Just change the name, the observations, the science to match your preconceived conclusions. Makes for easy science, certainly.

Too cold, Global Climate Change.
Too hot, Global Climate Change.
Too wet, Global Climate Change.
Too dry, Global Climate Change.
Too anything else you can think of, Global Climate Change.

That's very convenient for your argument and conclusions, isn't it?

I mean,

You can then blame all above and below average precipitation and temperatures on Global Climate Change.

Just change the name, the observations, the science to match your preconceived conclusions. Makes for easy science, certainly.

Too cold, Global Climate Change.
Too hot, Global Climate Change.
Too wet, Global Climate Change.
Too dry, Global Climate Change.
Too anything else you can think of, Global Climate Change.

Comparing GLOBAL climate change to LOCAL effects. So yes, it is possible that some places get colder (for a while) while the world as a whole gets warmer.


Eri

Comparing GLOBAL climate change to LOCAL effects. So yes, it is possible that some places get colder (for a while) while the world as a whole gets warmer.Fyyr is saying that you can blame human-caused climate change for any variation.

But that is because he doesn't understand what global warming, climate change, or whatever you want to call it is all about. It's not about ANY change, but rather a specific set of changes, or range of changes, that will have an overall detrimental effect.

How can you possibly have the answer, when you haven't even grasped the question?

But the NEW thing is to throw any and all change into the equation.

The liberal media is doing it now. I saw it in an interview just the other day on CNN with Wolf Blitzen.

It just makes it completely easy for your argument.
Every observation leads to the same preconceived conclusion, before the observation is made even. Simple 'science'.

/shrug

But the NEW thing is to throw any and all change into the equation.

The liberal media is doing it now.There's your problem, you're assuming the statements of the "liberal media" are the same as those of the scientific community.

Don't listen to Al Gore. Read the science.

Comparing GLOBAL climate change to LOCAL effects. So yes, it is possible that some places get colder (for a while) while the world as a whole gets warmer.


Eri

How do you know the world is getting warmer as a whole?
Temperature readings are not even standardized now.
Let alone for the last 40 years since they have begun attempting to actually track them.

Your so-called scientists can't even get the data straight right now.
And you are giving them the power to form conclusions(well, they were already formed before there was any data, of course) for you based on that data(that they don't really have).

Look, all of these so-called scientists already have the conclusion in their heads that humans are changing the climate. It is almost defacto, a requirement to work or research in this field.

Then they try and track data to support that conclusion. And if that data does not support their conclusion(that humans are changing the weather), they either falsify the data or change their hypothesis(global warming or global cooling) to fit the ultimate conclusion.

I don't care if humans are changing the climate or not in this discussion. This is just bad science, even if humans are changing the weather.

The scientific method is thus...

Observation, Hypothesis, Experiment and Procedure, Results/Data, and THEN Conclusion.

IN THAT ORDER.

And it must be repeatable. Otherwise this is just Cold Fusion science. Your scientists are doing the whole method backwards. Your scientists, your glorified weathermen, are going in the reverse order.

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

People observe or know something about the world.
They form a hypothesis, and idea about what is happening, a prediction.
Then they form some way of experimenting to isolate that facts about that hypothesis. Or collect data to support it.
They then produce the data or results.
And then form a conclusion. Does this fit the hypothesis? Was the hypothesis accurate?
If not, they start the whole thing over, in that order.

You don't start off with the conclusion first, that humans are changing the weather, and then fit all of the pieces in backasswards to fit the hypothesis and data. That is just bad science. Regardless if humans are changing the weather or not.

It is unreliable and not repeatable. Which also makes it bad science.

And that is what you are seeing, the results of unreliable and unrepeatable scientific method. Or so-called scientists and liberal media personalities trying to fit the wrong shaped blocks in wrong shaped holes.

Read the science.
I have read your science.

Your science is flawed.

It is based on a flawed model. Popularized in the 70s by Carl Sagan. I love Carl Sagan, believe me. But the Earth is not like a glass box on the ground, and it is not like Venus.

Those are the models for the basis of this science. And its flawed. But all of the anti Oil people jumped on it, environmentalists, liberal academics, liberal scientists, liberal media. And anyone who thinks they can make a buck in a new industry with this science.

It is more plausible that human activity, industry, body heat is causing an increase in temperatures, locally and globally, than CO2.

It is a real observation. Humans beings give off heat in all of their endeavors. That heat has to go somewhere. There are more and more humans with increasing activity. More cars, more airplanes, more lights, more fireplaces, more stoves, more ovens, more camp fires.

And that hypothesis is more plausible. No flawed model is needed. No model is needed.

PS, I don't think that Big Bang Theory is good science either, btw. And there are many smart people who think that as well.

Science method...

Observation, hypothesis, experiment procedure, results/data, conclusion. Then repeatability.

Here is the observation, we know from Doppler Shift that the Universe that we can see is expanding. It is expanding, we know that.

That is the observation.

Hypothesis. If it is expanding and it is large now, then it must have all come from someplace smaller. The Universe must be have been smaller yesterday if it is expanding today.

Conclusion, the Universe at one time was a singularity. All matter, anti matter, time and stuff was in one spot at one time in the past.

Jumping over all of the meat in the middle.

Bad science. No experiment. Nor results. No data. No repeatability.

It is just as plausible that it has always, for ever and ever and ever been expanding and will always expand. With what we know now. Because we do not have the means to test the hypothesis at this time. And ever has been expanding, and never ever was created. It was always here and always expanding.

Or it is just as plausible, that what we observe is expanding. But the whole Universe is so large, that there are parts of it contracting right now, and have always been contracting.

The conclusion that there was, at some time in the distant past, a singularity which exploded....There is nothing to back it up but intuition right now. We have no data.

The model for the Big Bang is a balloon. A balloon gets big when you expand it, and it started out small. But I know that a Universe is probably NOT like a balloon. Just like I know that the Earth is not like a glass box on the ground, nor is it like Venus. Just like the Neils Bohr model of an atom, is not what atoms are really like.

PS, I don't think that Big Bang Theory is good science either, btw.
We've been over this before. You really don't understand the theory nearly as well as you think you do. If at all.

I could explain again about the experiments and the predictive elements of the theory (cosmic background radiation, the ratio of hydrogen to other elements in the universe, ages of galaxies, etc...) but you'd only be back here again in a year repeating the same tired crap.

And there are many smart people who think that as well.
Hopefully their reasons demonstrate a better understanding of the theory than yours.

Klath,

The Universe is not a balloon.
You don't have any data that shows that there was a singularity, or an explosion.



Ages of the galaxies? Gimme a break.

If you show me that a galaxy is X years old, with all of your data...
Can you show that it was not there XxN years old?
No, you can't.

Ratio of H?
What has that got to do with anything.
What if the ratio of H is less 'over there'. /points. Further than we can see with ANY technology.
Blah.

Anyway. Science really only provides one real service. The ability to predict outcomes in the future, so that we can effect a change or outcome in the future. If the understanding of anything does not allow for prediction or change, it really is not meaningful.

What prediction or change is possible with the Big Bang Theory anyway? And really is just a hypothesis because no experiment can be done to prove it, well, not until we are able to travel faster than light. Or 'see' past the Universe into any possible 'nothingness' which isn't there anyway.

Big Bang Theory is Creationism for scientists. They need the Universe to have been 'created' somehow to appease themselves. They made it up. No different than god. The idea that the Universe has always been here is just as plausible as it was created in some explosion. And if I threw 10,000 PhD physicists at that, who all wrote and published papers stating such, you would believe that instead.

Ages of the galaxies? Gimme a break.

If you show me that a galaxy is X years old, with all of your data...
Can you show that it was not there XxN years old?
No, you can't.
Yes, I can. Galaxies are made of stars and stars rely on hydrogen for fuel. As they age, the ratio of hydrogen to other elements changes. Given enough time the fuel is exhausted and they burn out. If your eternal expansion theory is to be believed it will have to explain why the ratio of hydrogen to other elements is consistently so high. For that matter, it would also have to explain why there is any hydrogen left at all or, failing that, how it is being replenished.

Anyway. Science really only provides one real service. The ability to predict outcomes in the future, so that we can effect a change or outcome in the future. If the understanding of anything does not allow for prediction or change, it really is not meaningful.

What prediction or change is possible with the Big Bang Theory anyway?
Amongst other things, it predicted the cosmic background radiation. How does your theory explain it?

And really is just a hypothesis because no experiment can be done to prove it, well, not until we are able to travel faster than light.
The value of a theory is its ability to explain existing observations and make future predictions that can be tested for. The big bang theory has done this.

Big Bang Theory is Creationism for scientists. They need the Universe to have been 'created' somehow to appease themselves. They made it up.
Did it hurt when you pulled that out of your ass?

The idea that the Universe has always been here is just as plausible as it was created in some explosion.
It may well be. However, until your theory explains observed data and makes testable predictions, it remains ass spawn.

My theory is that the Universe need not have been created at all.
It was always here. And will always be here.




Which is more plausible than that it was created.
Or that it once existed as a singularity and then exploded.
My theory is that it is not a balloon. Or like a balloon.

No more than an atom is like a ball and sticks. Or like the Bohr model.
Believe that it is a balloon. Makes no difference to anything at all.

Looking into space and seeing stuff, no matter what it is makes no difference either. One would expect to see stuff 'over there'. Cosmic background radiation, and any number of things that we have not discovered yet. Through technologies not invented yet. Of course there is stuff 'over there', there should be.

Find me a spot where there is NOTHING at all. That would prove your theory, well, make it more plausible. I suppose. Not that you found stuff, that does not prove anything other than that there is stuff 'over there'. But it could have always been there, or over there.

So, this, basically?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory

My theory is that the Universe need not have been created at all.
It was always here. And will always be here.

I see. If the universe has been expanding forever, how come stars haven't run out of hydrogen?

Does your theory make any predictions that can be tested?

By the way, cosmic microwave background radiation is more than just "stuff". It fits a particular curve that was predicted in advance of its accidental observation. As the author of xkcd put it:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/science.jpg

Find me a spot where there is NOTHING at all. That would prove your theory, well, make it more plausible. I suppose.Prove to me "god" doesn't exist. That would make atheism more plausible. I suppose.

We can forgive you for not having a clue as what the big bang theory actually says, or what evidence supports it, but these blatant logical fallacies don't become you.

How do you know the world is getting warmer as a whole?
Temperature readings are not even standardized now.
Let alone for the last 40 years since they have begun attempting to actually track them.

Temperature has been tracked a bit longer than that. For the Netherlands pretty much since the invention of the Celsius scale (though not consistently so as initially it was more a scientific interest of individuals) and there are other sequences all over Europe that are not as long but spanning the same time frame. Comparing those gives a good indication of how to interpret the numbers.
In addition to that there are other ways to infer temperature from a variety of historical data. Some of these give moderately reliable temperatures some hundred thousands years back.
The fact that there are some differences in measurement and uncertainties in interpreting other data sources is exactly why the scientists in the infamous stolen emails talked about 'massaging' the data. It was not fitting the data to the desired outcome but getting different sets of data adjusted to a common scale.


Your so-called scientists can't even get the data straight right now.
And you are giving them the power to form conclusions(well, they were already formed before there was any data, of course) for you based on that data(that they don't really have).


*shrugs* At least they do give the margin of error, and if a mistake is pointed out it will be corrected, or the false data is rejected from that point on.


Look, all of these so-called scientists already have the conclusion in their heads that humans are changing the climate. It is almost defacto, a requirement to work or research in this field.


Right. Some ten thousand scientists are all into this grand conspiracy to 'proof' that the climate is changing...

Regardless of peer pressure and scientific paradigms, when evidence is found to disqualify a previously accepted theory there may be resistance from the scientific community. This is generally considered a good thing exactly to avoid what climate change deniers are trying to do now: Pick one detail and claim it discredits the entire theory. Instead if you want to scientifically disprove an accepted theory you better come up with evidence that is (a lot) better than what the theory was based on. It provides a degree of stability to our knowledge that is otherwise based on the assumption that things are only true until proven otherwise by new insights and better experiments.



There is remarkably little scientific doubt that if you add more greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere (mainly carbon dioxide and methane) the world will warm up. This is fairly elementary physics. The uncertainty is in how this will affect climate both on the short and on the long term. Actually, on the long term there also is not much doubt here as the only thing that can happen is that things get warmer. On the short term you have to predict how the climate will be affected and our understanding of and ability to predict climate and weather is not as great as we would like it to be (or we would have a lot more accurate weather forecasts). So scientists are trying to improve their weather and climate models, and they do so by starting them with historical conditions and see how well they predict the actually observed changes. Things have gotten so accurate that the scientists actually doing the research no longer feel much need to qualify their predictions. The biggest uncertainties at this point are not whether or not human activities influenced the global average temperature, but which tipping points there are in the climate and weather system and what it takes to unbalance them. Those are the things that are going to make things interesting (in the bad meaning of the word) in a hurry, on an evolutionary time frame.

[quote]
I don't care if humans are changing the climate or not in this discussion. This is just bad science, even if humans are changing the weather.
[/quote

Or maybe the science is not so bad as you think and your understanding of what actually happens within the IPCC and all the other climate and weather research labs needs some improvement.

[quote]
The scientific method is thus...

Observation, Hypothesis, Experiment and Procedure, Results/Data, and THEN Conclusion.

IN THAT ORDER.

And it must be repeatable. Otherwise this is just Cold Fusion science. Your scientists are doing the whole method backwards. Your scientists, your glorified weathermen, are going in the reverse order.


Well, yes, that is the order for advancing scientific knowledge, but there are some limits on it. Plus you postulate that climate research is not following scientific procedure.
The limits are that in many cases a controlled experiment is not possible, or not practical, or simply not ethical. In this case it is not possible. There is no possible way to set up a double blind comparison study with the climate. We only have one planet after all, and no reset button.
That said, the underlying principle of 'more greenhouse gasses means a higher atmospheric temperature, -has- been theorised, been tested and the results have been verified.
Empirical observation shows that for the past 150.000 or so years the average temperature and the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere followed the same trends, and changed very rapidly (on the time frame of these studies). The hypothesis is that, given that physics show that CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to a higher temperature and the fact that it is easier to add CO2 than to change the amount of radiation the earth receives, that CO2 is leading and the observed changes in temperatures are following. Lacking a time machine this is an unprovable theory, but it has sufficient empirical evidence and provable theories supporting it that there is little doubt. So there you have your theory.
With the experimental observations however we run into a practical problem of having a problematic time scale, an unstable system that is being observed and the impossibility of doing a neutral baseline comparison. You could say though, that given the theory that adding CO2 increases the temperature the recommendation to stop pumping out so much of the stuff IS the experiment. We already added a lot of it to the atmosphere and the temperature IS rising as the theory predicted. If reducing the amount of CO2 will lead to lowering the temperature (or at least a slow down of the increase) then that counts as proof for the theory. The time scale problem of course bites us here, as it took about two centuries for the effect to be noticeable, and it likely will take as long for a reversal in the trend to be undeniable (or disproven if we do lower the CO2 concentration and the temperature does not follow suit within say a century).


Eri

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

* Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
* There has been no global warming since 1995
* Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes

* Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changesOf course they have.

What's your point?

That you don't follow links I guess.. or you would see that those 3 points are the ones bullet pointed at the top of the link I provided.

Even more strikingly, he also sounds much less ebullient about the basic theory, admitting that there is little difference between global warming rates in the Nineties and in two previous periods since 1860 and accepting that from 1995 to now there has been no statistically significant warming

He also leaves open the possibility, long resisted by climate change activists, that the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ from 800 to 1300 AD, and thought by many experts to be warmer than the present period, could have encompassed the entire globe.

This is an amazing retreat, since if it was both global and warmer, the green movement’s argument that our current position is ‘unprecedented’ would collapse

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1250813/MAIL-ON-SUNDAY-COMMENT-The-professors-amazing-climate-change-retreat.html#ixzz0fdFOpOOX

the green movement’s argument that our current position is ‘unprecedented’ would collapseI don't know what this "green movement" of yours is and who says that warming is "unprecedented," but every credible earth scientist will tell you that the planet has undergone many periods of warming and cooling in its history.

There have been periods of global warming in the past that make even the IPCC's high end estimates look like a warm breeze by comparison.

That is a scientific fact.

So I ask you again, what's your point?

And back to the "conspiracy in the emails" By definition it only takes 2 people to conspire and this fits the bill.

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004

Mike,
Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY - don't pass on. Relevant paras are the last
2 in section 4 on p13. As I said it is worded carefully due to Adrian knowing Eugenia
for years. He knows the're wrong, but he succumbed to her almost pleading with him
to tone it down as it might affect her proposals in the future !
I didn't say any of this, so be careful how you use it - if at all. Keep quiet also
that you have the pdf.
The attachment is a very good paper - I've been pushing Adrian over the last weeks
to get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and also
for ERA-40. The basic message is clear - you have to put enough surface and sonde
obs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand
out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice.
The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also
losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see
it.
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them
out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil
Mike,
For your interest, there is an ECMWF ERA-40 Report coming out soon, which
shows that Kalnay and Cai are wrong. It isn't that strongly worded as the first author
is a personal friend of Eugenia. The result is rather hidden in the middle of the report.
It isn't peer review, but a slimmed down version will go to a journal. KC are wrong
because
the difference between NCEP and real surface temps (CRU) over eastern N. America doesn't
happen with ERA-40. ERA-40 assimilates surface temps (which NCEP didn't) and doing
this makes the agreement with CRU better. Also ERA-40's trends in the lower atmosphere
are all physically consistent where NCEP's are not - over eastern US.

I can send if you want, but it won't be out as a report for a couple of months.
Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK

Quiz time.

Consider the following excerpts:
I. "As I said it is worded carefully due to Adrian knowing Eugenia for years. He knows the're wrong, but he succumbed to her almost pleading with him to tone it down as it might affect her proposals in the future."
II. "The attachment is a very good paper - I've been pushing Adrian over the last weeks to get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and also for ERA-40."
III. "NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice."
IV. "The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew."

1. What does "this" refer to in this sentence?
I didn't say any of this, so be careful how you use it - if at all.

A. I
B. II
C. III
D. IV
E. None of the above

2. What does "the pdf" refer to in this sentence?
Keep quiet also that you have the pdf.
A. I
B. II
C. III
D. IV
E. None of the above

3. What does "these papers" refer to in this sentence?
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report.

A. II and III
B. II and IV
C. III and IV
D. None of the above

And back to the "conspiracy in the emails" By definition it only takes 2 people to conspire and this fits the bill.The attachment is a very good paper - I've been pushing Adrian over the last weeks to get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and also for ERA-40.I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !So he conspired to keep out a paper which he admitted is "great" for him? :rolleyes:

By the way, I'll ask you the same question I asked Fyyr: Where's the data supporting your theory, Swiftfox? It usually shuts Fyyr up on this issue since he has none, how about you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKAC4kfHruQ

There are enough lies to be found that one needs to ask why and what would the motive be. If you refuse to admit you are wrong and continue to wed yourself to the idea that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant then you deserve what the globalists (Club of Rome) have in store for you. Enjoy de-industrialization and the poverty that will follow.

Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is ! It does not matter whether these papers were for or against AGW. It demonstrates collusion.

It does not matter whether these papers were for or against AGW. It demonstrates collusion.So you're saying that that they conspired to keep out a paper that SUPPORTED the theory of global warming?

I don't even know what your point is anymore (if you ever had one to begin with).

Oh and where's your data Swiftfox? What's that, you don't have any? :rolleyes:

Even this prick (http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/02/13/article-1250872-0845A9BA000005DC-871_233x377.jpg) (Professor Phil Jones) now admits: "that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming."



Your spoon fed data based on photos where they showed you glacier melt from the wrong season (It happens every summer), photo shopped inconvenient "truth" movie covers, and newspaper articles claiming polar bears are dieing off doesn't add up to **** (All lies, bull**** and exaggerations). Especially when the guy who is supposed to have all the data (Professor Phil Jones) and has virtually unlimited resources can't prove "statistically significant" warming without resorting to cheating. The warming argument is dead right there.

There is only 1 kind of customer for AGW Climate data, governments and perhaps those (Al Gore, Club of Rome type) people who have a vested interest in their "problem (Global warming), reaction (Oh no! Do something! Save us! ), solution (carbon taxes, de-industrialization, humans are all bad) scenario.

I provided a Club of Rome document where they said they "came up with the idea" (read: made up) that "Global warming" would "fit the bill" for their global agendas including population reduction. (Why don't you go first?)

Shell Oil bought the wind rights here before Global warming was all the rage. As if they didn't have a long term plan for which they are now strategically positioned to profit from. I don't recall getting my Cheque.

In the early 2000s Shell moved into alternative energy and there is now an embryonic "Renewables" business that has made investments in solar power, wind power, hydrogen, and forestry. The forestry business went the way of nuclear, coal, metals and electricity generation, and was disposed of in 2003. In 2006 Shell sold its entire solar business and in 2008, the company withdrew from the London Array which is expected to become the world's largest offshore wind farm.

Shell also is involved in large-scale hydrogen projects. HydrogenForecast.com describes Shell's approach thus far as consisting of "baby steps", but with an underlying message of "extreme optimism"

The "Big oil is the only one who is paying for non-AGW research" argument is a lie. There is plenty of information coming out all the time not funded by big oil.

These AGW climate change theorists pump out the product that is in demand because no one is buying the stuff that says warming is not being caused by humans.

There is plenty of information coming out all the time not funded by big oil.Like, what?

Where's your data Swiftfox? (I'll even take oil company sponsored data, albeit with a pound of salt.)

I want a theory, and supporting data, to explain the temperature shifts of the past 100 years.

Until you've got it, YOU are the one conspiring to spread propaganda and cover the scientific reality.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/04/post_3.html

And you are going to retort with ,that's not peer reviewed blah blah blah. I didn't get over 6 million dollars to study anything.

There's my theory "It's the sun" , Solar cycles specifically.

There's a chart on there with Data for you.
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif

If the former head of the IPCC can't show (Statistically significant) warming for 15 years, neither can you. I don't have to prove anything.

There's my theory "It's the sun" , Solar cycles specifically.It doesn't explain it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation#Global_warming

The funny thing is, even without reading that explanation of why the <0.1% variation can't account for the recent warming, just looking at your graph you can see no "statistically significant" trend since the 1940s. It moves up and down in a constant cycle.

It can't account for the warming trends in the past 100 years. Unless you'd like to explain how.If the former head of the IPCC can't show (Statistically significant) warming for 15 years, neither can you. I don't have to prove anything.Global warming isn't based on a 15 year data set. That would be foolish, considering how small the average change per decade is, and how large the normal fluctuation is.

And while in religion you don't have to prove anything, in science you do.

And while in religion you don't have to prove anything, in science you do.
Classic.


And where is your proof?
You guys are still using a model of a glass box and Venus as a model of the Earth.

But then, you have to to make your 'proof' somehow. The problem is the Earth is NOT like a glass box or Venus.

So then, what do you have left. Just sheer numbers of people who believe something to be true. With a dedicated system(movies, classrooms, books, etc) to promote and instill that belief.

And when that does not work, you guys go right to a ending Hell if what you want done is not done.

That sounds more like a religion.

There are no religions for skeptics, besides doubt perhaps.

I mean, what is so ****ing hard with actually proving your point.


This is very simple.
Show me a controlled direct causal relationship between man made CO2 in Earth's atmosphere and increased Earth temperature. Controlled as in, this proof needs to account for any other sources of heat and radiation that may increase the temperature.

You believe this to be true. Prove it.

Stop skirting the real problem. You say they are causal, show it. Simple.

Global warming isn't based on a 15 year data set.
Is it a 40 year data set?

You guys have only been collecting data since the late 70s.

With respect to the age of the Earth, the time humans have been here,,,is 15 years really any different than 40?


And you can just throw out all of the United Nations data, that stuff is just completely tainted.
The only thing that the United Nations is good at is promoting and exacerbating genocide.

And where is your proof?Science doesn't always involve direct proof, because that's not always possible.

Sure, it would be nice to magically suspend our earth, replicate 1000 identical earths, keep all variables constant on each except greenhouse gas concentrations, and come back 100 years later to check their temperature, before magically reanimating our earth and taking the appropriate action.

But we can't do that. So we do the next best thing, study how the planet's temperature has changed in the past in connection with greenhouse gas concentrations and analogize to models that we can replicate.

Your view, that we can only predict what will happen if the exact same thing happened before in exactly the same way, obviates science completely, collapsing it into one obvious conclusion.

Not that that surprises me anymore, since you're not a scientist, but rather a religious fanatic.

You guys have only been collecting data since the late 70s.Come on, you can do better than that.

The data has been "collecting" for hundreds of thousands of years.

And you can just throw out all of the United Nations data, that stuff is just completely tainted.Compared to what often passes for data in your industry, it's golden.The only thing that the United Nations is good at is promoting and exacerbating genocide.Willingly destroying the environment is asking for genocide. (At least what you call genocide, a more accurate description is conflict over resources.)

U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend
By PHILIP SHABECOFF, Special to the New York Times
Published: January 26, 1989


WASHINGTON, Jan. 25— After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period

While the nation's weather in individual years or even for periods of years has been hotter or cooler and drier or wetter than in other periods, the new study shows that over the last century there has been no trend in one direction or another.

The study, made by scientists for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was published in the current issue of Geophysical Research Letters. It is based on temperature and precipitation readings taken at weather stations around the country from 1895 to 1987.



http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/26/us/us-data-since-1895-fail-to-show-warming-trend.html?pagewanted=1

Done.

Compared to what often passes for data in your industry, it's golden.Willingly destroying the environment is asking for genocide. (At least what you call genocide, a more accurate description is conflict over resources.)
You have not proved that it is destroying the environment.

Where is your proof?
You said you had it, or at least implied it.

Where is it?



My industry is Nursing, ICU Nursing more accurately. Which data are you speaking of?

Or do you mean Healthcare in general? Well, that is so broad and encompasses a lot of territory. Includes doctors, lawyers, administrators, risk managers, radiology technologists, pharmacology(from pharma companies to pharmacists to pharm techs), insurance companies, chemists, bio chemists, biologists, sonographers, etc.

It is rather broad.

Which data specifically are you speaking of?


Wars are almost always about conflict over resources. Stating that is not great wisdom or insight. Genocide is just a tool of war(with some certain exceptions), always has been. So is rape.

By preventing people from arming themselves against those killing them, like the UN did in Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the UN directly promotes genocide. That does not take any insight either, it is plain and obvious fact. There is little difference between Amon Goeth and the UN. Except that American school children are brain washed into thinking that the UN is a good agency. It is not. It is pure and outright evil.

And American school children are also being brain washed into believing that the UN Global Warming data and warnings are accurate. And we both know that it is completely fabricated. You can admit it here, everyone here knows it is bogus. No American school children are reading this forum, you don't need to brain wash any readers here, Tuda.

Just like I keep admitting that statins only protect against the 8% of heart attacks which are caused by high LDLs. Pharma would like you to believe that it is 100%. But that is the marketing, not the data. No one is going to throw you out of a club for admitting to your sides dirty little secrets and lies. The data is the data, and everyone who cares to KNOW, knows that high LDLs only account for 8% of heart attacks; all of the data and studies show that. And they are all N=4000+ studies. The Nurses Study is like N=100K or something.

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/26/us/us-data-since-1895-fail-to-show-warming-trend.html?pagewanted=1

Done.

Of course it fails to show, unless you jury rig the data to fit your hypothesis.

In a hundred years, after all of this is just a memory.

When all of your children's children will be working in some kind of new made up 'green' industry, in this Brave New World, these global warmers have made up...

They will all be thankful at the jobs that we created out of thin air for them. And the smart ones will think to themselves, "man those people who started this whole thing were smart and devious".

But we can't do that.
So you don't have proof, and can't produce any.


That's what I thought.
Thanks for admitting it, though.

Your view, that we can only predict what will happen if the exact same thing happened before in exactly the same way, obviates science completely, collapsing it into one obvious conclusion. It is not my view. That is the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
Observation, Hypothesis, Experiment and Procedure, Results, and Conclusion, then all over again.
It has to be repeatable, and the same results need to be produced again using the same Experiment and Procedure.

That is how Science works.
You can't just skip over Observation, Experiment, Procedure, and Results to form a Conclusion from your Hypothesis. Well, you can if you a Global Warming Alarmist.
/shrug. You might even get an Oscar or Nobel prize these days.

You can't just skip over Observation, Experiment, Procedure, and Results to form a Conclusion from your Hypothesis.
You mean like you did with your eternal expansion theory of the universe?

How does your theory explain the cosmic microwave background radiation?

How does your theory explain the fact that there is still hydrogen for stars to burn?

You mean like you did with your eternal expansion theory of the universe? I am not claiming that there is any proof. He is.
I certainly am not claiming that there is any scientific method.

How does your theory explain the cosmic microwave background radiation? I told you. There is more stuff over there. And past that, more stuff. Etc.

How does your theory explain the fact that there is still hydrogen for stars to burn? I don't understand your question.

With your theory, there is a finite amount of hydrogen in the Universe, right. If there were a singularity, with everything it, it was a finite amount at one time. Where does your hydrogen come from?

Well, you could take a He atom, take off a proton and electron, and you now have two H atoms. Cool huh?

Where does the hydrogen go in your system after it is all burned up in stars? It has to be somewhere. It does not really leave the system, does it?

So why would there not always be hydrogen to burn in my forever Universe, as much as there is always hydrogen in your Big Bang Universe.

Your theory jumps over as much Scientific Method as mine does.
Your observation is the same as mine. That is to say, we can agree from our point of view on the Earth, everything is moving away from us. I agree with that.

But your intuition that the Universe is like a balloon? That it must have been smaller at one time in the past, just is not as intuitive to me. I believe that it has always been expanding, and will always continue to expand(or at least the parts around us that are expanding, that we see expanding); and just don't think that the Universe is like a balloon at all.

You are the one claiming that you have science or proof(I'm not). But you have no more, really, than I do. Hence they have an equal likelihood of being true.

He thinks that the Earth is a glass box filled with CO2.
And you think the Universe is a balloon.

I'm skeptical that either model is remotely accurate to what they are meant to model.

So you don't have proof, and can't produce any.You don't have any proof that statins will work for me if I have high cholesterol.

Does that mean all your data on them is useless, and I should ignore it, opting for my religious interpretation instead?It is not my view. That is the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
Observation, Hypothesis, Experiment and Procedure, Results, and Conclusion, then all over again.
It has to be repeatable, and the same results need to be produced again using the same Experiment and Procedure.The conclusions regarding global warming are based on many experiments that are repeatable.

You just don't realize what they are, because like your bizarre ideas about cosmology, you'd rather speculate about what the facts are and come to a religious interpretation than actually look at the data and come to a scientific one.

You don't have any proof that statins will work for me if I have high cholesterol. Well, the statin WILL work for you in lowering your cholesterol.
Statistically speaking, that is. There is a very small subset of humans that it does not work for.

I don't have any proof that YOU will have a heart attack because of high cholesterol. 8% of those with high cholesterol will. The experiments have been done, and there is a high degree of veracity to them. They have been repeated many many times. You could repeat the experiments if you like, the studies and experiments/experimenters are listed in the scientific and medical journals. All of the experimental techniques and procedures are there for anyone to glean. All of the data is available to glean, digest, and use to form your conclusions.

Does that mean all your data on them is useless, and I should ignore it, opting for my religious interpretation instead?The conclusions regarding global warming are based on many experiments that are repeatable.
What experiment directly links man made CO2 to increased global temperatures on the Earth?

I have told you, if you produce that experiment, I will buy that experiment. Where is your experiment?

I'm not 13 years old. I was here when the conclusions were made in the 70s, Tuda. The conclusions were formed before anyone started looking at any data to support it.

So where is the experiment, Tuda? Just point it out to me. In all these years I have failed to find it. If you know, just link it, please.

You just don't realize what they are, because like your bizarre ideas about cosmology, you'd rather speculate about what the facts are and come to a religious interpretation than actually look at the data and come to a scientific one. Without science, the next thing you have is speculation.
Just like you have no facts backing your claim that man made CO2 increases global Earth temperature. He has no facts to back up the claim that the Universe was a singularity.

There are no facts. All you guys have are speculations, you have no science. That makes my speculations just as valid as yours.

You guys keep saying that you have facts. I suppose they are locked in a temple somewhere. Occasionally, your priest comes out of the temple, and states what those facts are. And you just take him at his word.

I'm a skeptic. I would like to see them.

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

In a hundred years this will all seem as foolish, as this does a hundred years ago.

When your scientists SET OUT to find data, with a preconceived conclusion, to reinforce that preconceived conclusion, this is pathological science.

They are doing the same with dark matter concepts, Hawking Radiation theory, the hadron collector with the Higg's Bosun theory.

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

In a hundred years this will all seem as foolish, as this does a hundred years ago.

When your scientists SET OUT to find data, with a preconceived conclusion, to reinforce that preconceived conclusion, this is pathological science.

Actually, it is considered good science to try to come up with an experiment that confirms a theory, simply because that way you know what to look for and know you have to do some thinking when the results are not what you expect.

It only becomes pathological when you omit the last step (i.e. refuse to rethink your theory when the results are contradicting what your theory predicts should happen). The example you gave was a theory that was at the time (somewhat) plausible (and yes, I now nationalist pride was involved in formulating it). But when evidence failed to materialise that supported the theory it was quickly abandoned.
There are plenty of ludicrous scientific theories out there (just look at the ignobel prizes for illustration and a laugh), and they are all treated somewhat seriously (some really fly so much into the face of what our understanding is of how things work that only their true believers take them seriously, often fanatically so). Contrary to what you like to believe climate science does not reject any alternative theory out of hand. They do insist, and rightly so, on solid evidence to support these alternative theories. Lacking said evidence they are going to stick with the current best understanding.

For the climate change doubters and all others who think the current science involving climate and climate change is wrong to be taken (more) seriously they have to do two things:
First come up with a theory.
Second come up with evidence than can be explained by their theory but not by the generally accepted one, and make sure the evidence stands up to peer review and is repeatable by independent researchers. (and claiming sloppy science or alluding to grand conspiracies is fun for the tabloids and the paranoia press, but will not make much of an impression in a scientific debate).

If they can do these two standard things required of any new theory then you will see how quickly climate scientists around the world will accept the new theory and write the old one down as a 'it seemed a good theory at the time but now we know better'. But until then they are not going to overhaul their models every few weeks because somebody comes up with a new idea and wants it to be taken as seriously by others as he does himself.


(What most of those refusing the currently accepted theory are doing wrong is that they are picking at details of measurements and try to infer that small variations there refute the entire theory. While scientists promote their pet theories all the time very few who use the internet as their primary source of information have the necessary understanding of both the theories involved and the statistical analyses (and uncertainties involved) to understand the actual points of the debate. So instead they pick the theory which seems to state what they want to be true and cling to it with zealous fervour.)


Eri

Well, the statin WILL work for you in lowering your cholesterol.How do you know that?

I have never taken the drug.

I have never participated in those experiments.

For all you know, I could drop dead if I take them.

How do you know that?

I have never taken the drug.

I have never participated in those experiments.

For all you know, I could drop dead if I take them.

I'm not trying to convince you to change your behavior.
Don't take a statin if you don't want to.
Or any other drug. Or any other therapy.

You are trying to change. Or at least the global changers are trying to change my behavior. Engineering social change.

I'm skeptical. You still have not shown your data or science. All of the UN data is poisoned fruit btw. Got anything else?

I suppose you are trying to make a point. You could possibly overdose on statins. Rhabdomyolysis is a known negative side effect for overdosing on statins. And you certainly could die from that.

I'm not trying to convince you to change your behavior.
Don't take a statin if you don't want to.
Or any other drug. Or any other therapy.But I still have to pay for the people who do, right?

That's social change on a huge scale, that you, personally, are helping bring about, through what you admit is fraud.I'm skeptical. You still have not shown your data or science. All of the UN data is poisoned fruit btw.What do you mean, "UN data"? You mean anything that's even cited in the IPCC report automatically becomes tainted just because one unrelated contributor (out of thousands) didn't have all his ducks in a row?

Are you serious?

I told you. There is more stuff over there. And past that, more stuff. Etc.
It's clear that you don't know what the cosmic microwave background radiation is or why it's significant. Feel free to talk more about balloons though.

I don't understand your question.
I asked how your theory explains the fact that there is still hydrogen for stars to burn. Your theory is that the universe has always been expanding and that nothing is/was created. Given that stars convert hydrogen to heavier elements, why is the ration of hydrogen to heavier elements still so high?

With your theory, there is a finite amount of hydrogen in the Universe, right. If there were a singularity, with everything it, it was a finite amount at one time. Where does your hydrogen come from?
It's obvious you haven't read the theory because it explains where the hydrogen came from.

Where does the hydrogen go in your system after it is all burned up in stars? It has to be somewhere. It does not really leave the system, does it?
It's converted to heavier elements and energy.

Your theory jumps over as much Scientific Method as mine does.
How would you even know? Your understanding of the theory is little more than meaningless blather about balloons and religion.

That it must have been smaller at one time in the past, just is not as intuitive to me. I believe that it has always been expanding, and will always continue to expand(or at least the parts around us that are expanding, that we see expanding); and just don't think that the Universe is like a balloon at all.
Did you look at Pallaran's link about the steady state theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory)? There are reasons why it has been supplanted by the big bang theory.

You are the one claiming that you have science or proof(I'm not).
I'm claiming that the big bang theory does a better job of explaining our measurements and observations of the universe than your bastardized steady state theory.

But you have no more, really, than I do. Hence they have an equal likelihood of being true.
Do you understand what a theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory) is? Scientific theories are not the same as proof.

Just saw the recent Bill Maher show.

One of their main selling points is all the new expensive jobs that the Global Warming thing is going to create.

It is also funny, since the globe is not actually warming, they are all now back pedaling. And trying out acceptable new words to describe what they want to sell.

Climate Change. Seems to be the one everyone is turning to now. But it is fun to watch them stumble over their own vernacular as they are trying to get it out there and sold.

The good thing for them is that the climate always changes, and always has. So they get to have their cake and eat it too. It doesn't matter which way the mercury goes now, they can blame it on whatever man made cause they want to. The bad thing is that the climate always changes, and always has. Makes that part of the sell job, that much more difficult.

I predicted all of this years ago and posted here.

It's clear that you don't know what the cosmic microwave background radiation is or why it's significant. Feel free to talk more about balloons though. It is microwave radiation where there are no visible light from stars seen. Is that correct?


I asked how your theory explains the fact that there is still hydrogen for stars to burn. Your theory is that the universe has always been expanding and that nothing is/was created. Given that stars convert hydrogen to heavier elements, why is the ration of hydrogen to heavier elements still so high? Other elements can be broken down into Hydrogen.
Hydrogen isotope is essentially a single proton, no electron, and no neutron. You will have to admit that it is exceedingly common.


It's obvious you haven't read the theory because it explains where the hydrogen came from. No, where did it come from before it was in the singularity?
At one point, it was all in one point, according to the theory.
How did it get there?
Even if Big Bang created Space Time, it had to have been sitting there at that singularity for some of what we would call time. Unless it was instantly created out of Nothingness, in an instant, then exploded.
What put it there? How long was it there as a singularity?
Was it really just a big sphere, but singularity, of one hugely large atom of Univerally large mass, which then became all of the matter in all of its bits and smaller atoms? But where did that Universally large atom come from?

It's converted to heavier elements and energy. Heavier elements can become smaller elements.


How would you even know? Your understanding of the theory is little more than meaningless blather about balloons and religion. The Big Bang is just a metaphor for the Creation of The Universe.
And it is like a balloon, because you believe, like a balloon, that because it is expanding that it must have been smaller before it started expanding.

Not even a metaphor. Simile.
I am saying there is nothing to convince me yet that the Universe was ever created. Or that it acts like a balloon. I reject both models until there are more observations to back those conclusions up.


Did you look at Pallaran's link about the steady state theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory)? There are reasons why it has been supplanted by the big bang theory. Your link states,
In steady state views, new matter is continuously created as the universe expands, so that the perfect cosmological principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_cosmological_principle) is adhered to I suppose that new matter could be continuously created.

That theory makes as much sense, I suppose, as it being created in The Big Bang.

But then, why could it not all already been here?

I'm claiming that the big bang theory does a better job of explaining our measurements and observations of the universe than your bastardized steady state theory. I don't have a steady state theory of the Universe.


Do you understand what a theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory) is? Scientific theories are not the same as proof. I know what a scientific theory is.
A theory has a large amount of data, or experiments to back up the hypothesis. Such that it is intuitively true.
Originally a hypothesis to describe things, then later, becomes a theory.


Big Bang is really just a hypothesis. For me.
The only observation which supports it, is that with Doppler Shift, there is evidence that from our point of view in the Universe, that everything is expanding away from everything else. There is not enough data or experiments, yet, for me to believe it to be true.

But that, unless I use a balloon as a model, does not mean that it was at one point a singularity. And I rejected the notion of Creation as intuitive, when I rejected any Creators when I was 17. I am not looking for a Creation of the Universe, and in that vein, I do not reach to shove observations into a Creation scheme or model. And given that I know now, that most models that we use to explain the world, are usually more off, than they are on(but are good for helping people wrap their brains around a problem). The balloon model, is more probably wrong, than it is correct.

I doubt a Creator, I doubt a Creation. I doubt the need for even having a Creation. And as such, the notion that the Universe already, and always, existed is more intuitive. I am not shoving Genesis into Science, I don't have to. More than half of all scientists still believe in God. I don't. I don't have to make up something where there is nothing to supplant an old (maybe innate) notion.

There is not enough data or experiments for belief in the Theory of Big Bang. Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation does not prove Big Bang, it could explain any number of hypotheses, which are yet untested(or conceived). Cosmic microwave background radiation is completely consistent with the hypothesis that the Universe was always here(without a singularity), it could even be proof of it.

No, where did it come from before it was in the singularity?
At one point, it was all in one point, according to the theory.
How did it get there?I doubt a Creator, I doubt a Creation. I doubt the need for even having a Creation.:rolleyes:

Incidentally, "how we got to that point" is a different question from "what happened from that point on". Just because we're not sure how life began on our planet, does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven. If you weren't so obsessed with "Creation" you'd see this rather obvious point.

Other elements can be broken down into Hydrogen.I think you need a basic lesson in nuclear fission and fusion, and how it occurs in Nature.

It is microwave radiation where there are no visible light from stars seen. Is that correct?
Not exactly. It is radiation observable in all directions--whether there is additional light or not--and while it peaks in the microwave range (f=1.602*10^11 Hz) only about 79% of it is in the microwave range. It has the following spectrum (intensity as a function of frequency f):
I(f) = 2hf^3/c^2 * (1/(e^(hf/kT) - 1))
h is Planck's constant (6.626068 × 10^-34 m^2 kg / s)
c is the speed of light in a vacuum (299792458 m/s)
e is of course Euler's number (2.7182818)
k is the Boltzmann constant (1.3806503 × 10-23 m^2 kg/s^2 K)
T is the color temperature in degrees Kelvin (2.725 K; predicted values for this number varied somewhat)
Note that this has nonzero values outside of the microwave range (f=3*10^8 Hz..3*10^11 Hz).

No, where did it come from before it was in the singularity?
At one point, it was all in one point, according to the theory.
How did it get there?
That's beyond the scope of the Big Bang theory. It would currently be metaphysical speculation (see brane cosmology for instance), not science.

Even if Big Bang created Space Time, it had to have been sitting there at that singularity for some of what we would call time. Unless it was instantly created out of Nothingness, in an instant, then exploded.
What put it there? How long was it there as a singularity?
Was it really just a big sphere, but singularity, of one hugely large atom of Univerally large mass, which then became all of the matter in all of its bits and smaller atoms? But where did that Universally large atom come from?

Again beyond the scope of the Big Bang theory.

The Big Bang is just a metaphor for the Creation of The Universe.
And it is like a balloon, because you believe, like a balloon, that because it is expanding that it must have been smaller before it started expanding.
The balloon explanation is a simplistic simile to help explain certain aspects of the Big Bang theory, because the actual math behind it is very complex and counterintuitive. Do not confuse the balloon model with the Big Bang theory itself.

I am saying there is nothing to convince me yet that the Universe was ever created. Or that it acts like a balloon. I reject both models until there are more observations to back those conclusions up.
That's your prerogative.

I suppose that new matter could be continuously created.

That theory makes as much sense, I suppose, as it being created in The Big Bang.

But then, why could it not all already been here?
Particles decay over time.

Big Bang is really just a hypothesis. For me.
You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. The Big Bang theory is by definition a theory (and not just because "theory" is in the name), no matter how skeptical you are of it.

The only observation which supports it, is that with Doppler Shift, there is evidence that from our point of view in the Universe, that everything is expanding away from everything else.
Incorrect.

But that, unless I use a balloon as a model, does not mean that it was at one point a singularity. And I rejected the notion of Creation as intuitive, when I rejected any Creators when I was 17.
Physics is not intuitive. What made you think that it is?

I am not looking for a Creation of the Universe, and in that vein, I do not reach to shove observations into a Creation scheme or model. And given that I know now, that most models that we use to explain the world, are usually more off, than they are on(but are good for helping people wrap their brains around a problem). The balloon model, is more probably wrong, than it is correct.
That depends on how you evaluate the correctness of a model. Physics consists of models that are all approximations. Some approximations are closer than others. For instance, Newtonian mechanics (which has been superceded by general relativity) wasn't wrong, merely a good approximation that only diverges significantly from observed reality under extreme circumstances.

I doubt a Creator, I doubt a Creation. I doubt the need for even having a Creation. And as such, the notion that the Universe already, and always, existed is more intuitive.
Again, your prerogative, but physics isn't intuitive.

Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation does not prove Big Bang, it could explain any number of hypotheses, which are yet untested(or conceived).
Once again, the Big Bang theory wasn't developed to explain cosmic microwave background radiation. The Big Bang theory predicted cosmic microwave background radiation prior to its observation. This is a critical distinction.

Cosmic microwave background radiation is completely consistent with the hypothesis that the Universe was always here(without a singularity), it could even be proof of it.
Consistent, perhaps, but only if you start with the conclusion of a steady state universe and work backwards to find an explanation. It was not predicted by any steady state hypothesis.

[quote]That's beyond the scope of the Big Bang theory. It would currently be metaphysical speculation (see brane cosmology for instance), not science. Why? It is inherent of the discussion. You state, the Big Bang theory, states that there was a singularity. Where did the Hydrogen(or any other element) come from before the singularity?


Again beyond the scope of the Big Bang theory. Big Bang is scientific Creationism. You have a need to have the Universe created, by something. The Big Bang fills that need. Those questions I asked are incumbent of you and your theory to answer.


The balloon explanation is a simplistic simile to help explain certain aspects of the Big Bang theory, because the actual math behind it is very complex and counterintuitive. Do not confuse the balloon model with the Big Bang theory itself. An i r 2 stoopid 2 no maths. Dun gib me no maths.
The Big Bang theory is completely based on the balloon model. How can they not be confused, they are the same.

If the Universe is expanding like a balloon, then like a balloon it must have been smaller. If it were smaller, at one point in the distant past, before it started expanding, it must have been one point, a singularity.

I am saying, that I am skeptical that the Universe acts anything like a balloon.

My hypothesis predicts that we will always find more new stuff over there, past that, and then past that. If cosmologists find more stuff past that, and over there, does that prove my hypothesis?


Particles decay over time. Decay into what?


You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. The Big Bang theory is by definition a theory (and not just because "theory" is in the name), no matter how skeptical you are of it. There is only one matter of proof for the Big Bang theory. That the Universe from our perspective, here on the Earth, is expanding. Because everything appears to be moving away from us.

But one can imagine any matter of other theories, that this proof could prove.


Incorrect. Please post a link to any other proof.
Like Tudamorf and his PROOF of man caused Global Warming, are you going to ignore the challenge. He states that there is proof, that he has it, then when asked to provide it, he goes silent. Or states something like you implied above, that normal everyday people are too stupid to understand the proof, so why waste the time.


Physics is not intuitive. What made you think that it is? I stated that there is no reason, besides religious, to prejudge the Universe being created. I don't have a need to see the Universe having been created, so I don't fit my observations into that bias.




That depends on how you evaluate the correctness of a model. Physics consists of models that are all approximations. Some approximations are closer than others. For instance, Newtonian mechanics (which has been superceded by general relativity) wasn't wrong, merely a good approximation that only diverges significantly from observed reality under extreme circumstances.


Again, your prerogative, but physics isn't intuitive. But you are saying it is with your intuitive balloon model.
You are saying that the Universe is expanding like a balloon, and at one point was a singularity. Because intuitively, we can visualize a balloon doing this.


Once again, the Big Bang theory wasn't developed to explain cosmic microwave background radiation. The Big Bang theory predicted cosmic microwave background radiation prior to its observation. This is a critical distinction. Like noted above, my hypothesis is that we will continually find more stuff over there, past that, and further than that. When we do, does that prove my theory instead?


Consistent, perhaps, but only if you start with the conclusion of a steady state universe and work backwards to find an explanation. It was not predicted by any steady state hypothesis. I have no conclusion.
There is not enough data now to form any conclusions. Your steady state hypothesis probably unlikely, for it states that matter spontaneously creates itself. I doubt spontaneous creation of matter is true, and there is not a single point of data or observation to support that theory.

You keep throwing that steady state thing out.
A Christian walks up to me and asks, "Do you believe in God."
I say, "No."
The Christian then says, "You must believe in the Devil then."

Most probably, the theory which describes the Universe the best has not been thought up as of yet. Like it's 1850, and General Relativity has not been thought up yet. That is completely probable.

And please save your time on the "Well, all the worlds best and smartest scientists believe in the Big Bang, therefore it must be true" argument. That one may fly with the uneducated masses out there. No workie for me. That's just as pertinent as saying the worlds smartest person does not believe in the Big Bang. You don't buy that argument, do you? The Global Warmers consistently use that argument, it works for those seated in Bill Maher's audience, because well frankly they are stupid and gullible. I don't actually know if Tudamorf buys this argument, but he certainly uses it here to support his belief in Global Warming.

At one time in the past, all the world's greatest doctors believed in the Humoral Theory of Disease. They were all wrong. Great numbers of smart people believing something, is not a valid argument and certainly not proof of anything.

Like Tudamorf and his PROOF of man caused Global Warming, are you going to ignore the challenge. He states that there is proof, that he has it, then when asked to provide it, he goes silent.Actually, I've provided you with a ton of evidence. Repeatedly. You just refuse to read it.

You know, arguing these topics with you is a lot like arguing evolution with a Christian. They're so obsessed with their bible creation myths that they keep going back to those, ignoring the evidence sitting right in front of their face and making up their own facts to conform to their preexisting beliefs.

How disappointing.

Why? It is inherent of the discussion. You state, the Big Bang theory, states that there was a singularity. Where did the Hydrogen(or any other element) come from before the singularity?
Beyond the scope of the Big Bang theory. I can't put it any more plainly that that.

Big Bang is scientific Creationism. You have a need to have the Universe created, by something. The Big Bang fills that need.
Incorrect on all counts.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#misconceptions
The BBT is not about the origin of the universe. Rather, its primary focus is the development of the universe over time.

An i r 2 stoopid 2 no maths. Dun gib me no maths.
Can you make any sense of this page?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_tensor
It's difficult math. There's no getting around that. Topics can be discussed without it, but only if you're willing to take mathematical results for granted.
The metric tensor is crucial to general relativity, the framework on which the Big Bang rests.

The Big Bang theory is completely based on the balloon model. How can they not be confused, they are the same.
No. The balloon model is merely a teaching aid to explain certain limited aspects of the Big Bang theory.

My hypothesis predicts that we will always find more new stuff over there, past that, and then past that. If cosmologists find more stuff past that, and over there, does that prove my hypothesis?
Only if you can also find strong evidence that that "stuff" is significantly more than 14 billion years old.

Decay into what?
Elementary particles such as quarks.

There is only one matter of proof for the Big Bang theory. That the Universe from our perspective, here on the Earth, is expanding. Because everything appears to be moving away from us.
Please post a link to any other proof.
Like Tudamorf and his PROOF of man caused Global Warming, are you going to ignore the challenge. He states that there is proof, that he has it, then when asked to provide it, he goes silent. Or states something like you implied above, that normal everyday people are too stupid to understand the proof, so why waste the time.
There can be no proof (solipsism cannot be disproved), only evidence. And strong evidence was provided by the very specific PREDICTION and subsequent observation of cosmic microwave background radiation.
There is other evidence:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#evidence
But if you're going to discard cosmic microwave background radiation then it's pointless to discuss any of the rest.

I stated that there is no reason, besides religious, to prejudge the Universe being created. I don't have a need to see the Universe having been created, so I don't fit my observations into that bias.
You're making the incorrect assumption that the Big Bang theory necessarily describes the ultimate origin of everything. But again this gets into metaphysical speculation.

But you are saying it is with your intuitive balloon model.
You are saying that the Universe is expanding like a balloon, and at one point was a singularity. Because intuitively, we can visualize a balloon doing this.
You've got the causal relationship wrong. Strike the word "because" and you've got something approximately correct.

Beyond the scope of the Big Bang theory. I can't put it any more plainly that that. You don't know.
There is not enough information.
I will accept that.


Incorrect on all counts.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#misconceptions I will quote from your link.
There are several misconceptions hidden in these statements:
The BBT is not about the origin of the universe. Rather, its primary focus is the development of the universe over time.
BBT does not imply that the universe was ever point-like.
The origin of the universe was not an explosion of matter into already existing space.The famous cosmologist P. J. E. Peebles stated this succinctly in the January 2001 edition of Scientific American (the whole issue was about cosmology and is worth reading!): "That the universe is expanding and cooling is the essence of the big bang theory. You will notice I have said nothing about an 'explosion' - the big bang theory describes how our universe is evolving, not how it began." (p. 44). The March 2005 issue also contained an excellent article (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147) pointing out and correcting many of the usual misconceptions about BBT.
This is saying, there was no singularity.
There was no explosion.
And that the space time did not exist beyond the fringe edge of the ballooning Universe.

That sounds just like what I have been saying, doesn't it.



Can you make any sense of this page?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_tensor
It's difficult math. There's no getting around that. Topics can be discussed without it, but only if you're willing to take mathematical results for granted.
The metric tensor is crucial to general relativity, the framework on which the Big Bang rests.
I understand Differential Calculus. But I only got a B in it, and that was 20 years ago, sue me.
But really, in a nutshell what is it for, what's its use?
It is used for describing area along curved surfaces, when there is a formula for describing the curves. Or used for describing volumes in curved volumes, when a formula is known to describe that curvature. And for describing paths of movement relative to mass and energy, forces and gravity.

But which of those formulas, in particular, proves Big Bang for you.

No. The balloon model is merely a teaching aid to explain certain limited aspects of the Big Bang theory. The model is the basis for the hypothesis and theory.


Only if you can also find strong evidence that that "stuff" is significantly more than 14 billion years old. If I take some week old, from the fridge, sausage, and put it into spaghetti sauce today. How old is the spaghetti sauce today? Can you tell how old the sausage is today?

How about a month ago, when it was a pig?
Or a month before that when it was something the pig ate, like corn, or other pig parts? And so on.

How old is my spaghetti sauce?


Elementary particles such as quarks. What do they become when they decay?



There can be no proof (solipsism cannot be disproved), only evidence. And strong evidence was provided by the very specific PREDICTION and subsequent observation of cosmic microwave background radiation.
There is other evidence:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#evidence
But if you're going to discard cosmic microwave background radiation then it's pointless to discuss any of the rest. You stated that Redshift was not the only proof, yet point to a link specifically discussing Redshift as proof.

I have already given you this point. I believe that the evidence, from our point of view in the Universe, is expanding away from us in all degrees, is accurate.

I am not discarding cosmic microwave background radiation. I just don't see it as evidence of the Big Bang. I would expect to see any number of things as we look deeper into the Universe with different types of sensors.

Let me give you a model.
Say you live in Mountain View, Ca. Right across the street from where Google(which makes Google Maps) is gonna be. (not a great neighborhood right now, I know, with that dump right there).
And you build a telescope which somehow mysteriously accounts for the curvature of the Earth. But in 1970, your telescope can only see 5 miles with accuracy. You can look in the windows of people over in Oakland.

Now in 1 year, your scope can see 5 miles squared, say 25 miles. You can now look into the windows of those living in Livermore or Concord.

Next year you can cube that to 125 miles. Your technology is increasing, your are building a better scope now. So now you can look into the windows of people living in Stockton and further. Salt Lake City windows maybe.

Etc. You would expect to see people through their windows, and all the stuff that they are doing when you peer in their windows with your magical telescope. New York. London. Kiev, etc and so forth. You would expect more stuff over there.

If you had some theory, back in 1969, that such and such could be proved if we could just see people in New York. It would not prove that theory. You would expect people to be in New York already. And in 1975 or whatnot, you can see them now.

I don't really know why I went all through that. You have essentially already pointed out, or conceded, that there was no singularity, and no explosion. Which are my main skepticisms with the Big Bang theory.


You're making the incorrect assumption that the Big Bang theory necessarily describes the ultimate origin of everything. But again this gets into metaphysical speculation. You have already pointed to a link describing the Big Bang as NOT an explosion, and without a singularity. We are making headway here.


You've got the causal relationship wrong. Strike the word "because" and you've got something approximately correct. I am just going to have to say the obvious then.
I would bet my car, that virtually every scientist who ever thought about the Big Bang in any context. Had at one time in their childhood experience, experience with a balloon, or blowing up a balloon or balloons. Including the originators of the Big Bang theory.

The balloon model came first. Then the Big Bang theory. Argue the converse, if you like. You will get no convert here.