[It would appear that's precisely what you're trying to do, Tom Boy, yes.]
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
[So let us assume that you just might be wrong, Sir. Shall we risk frying to planet to find out? The burden of proof at this point is clearly on YOU, and you've done nothing I can see but demonstrate your close relation to baboons.]
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
[Tell us, tell us, tell us! Please, please, please! How are we going to get the secret info out of you? Send you to AbuGhraib? Guantanamo?]
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.
[I could not agree more, Tim: IS IT TRUE there is NO human relation to global warming, when we crank out 50,840,000,000 of CO2 per day worldwide? I would like to know where you've figured out that goes, and tell us in your next treatise. I'm afraid most of us fools think it goes directly from our tailpipes into the air.
I'm afraid you have finished your article and not told us one damn thing, Tim. I suggest you go back to graduate school and start all over again. Oh, wait! I see you wish to give us your credentials first. Thank you ever so much.]
Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com
[Just one last favor, Tim: Would you change the title to, "My Cold Hard Skull"?]
Geery lived off the grid for 15 years in an earth-sheltered, solar heated home, while his kids learned in school that solar energy isn't feasible. NAPTA hosts a page on Geery's foibles in education, and explains how he got his butt fired from a tenured teaching position. Here's a short clip of his most recent solar contraption; for more on that project, and Geery's contention that the Wright Brothers took a wrong turn, please visit his airship page (hyperblimp.com). Apparently, Geery is the only one in the world to respond to Osama bin Laden, call bullshit on him and George together, and expose them for the pansy ass rich kids that they are. Unfortunately, bin Laden has been too scared to write back and explain himsself; and George is still working hard to finish his goat book.
we should clean up our air, water and soil because they are filthy. It couldn't be humans that have dredged the sealife, shot the fowl, plunder the natural resources all to enrich the few, could it now? Heaven forbid we should clean up our acts along with the planet just because it needs to be done. Exxon might not have another record quarter.
I can't say with my hand on a stack of Bibles that global warming is real, and caused by humans, but it sure looks that way. If not caused, certainly enhanced. Why is it so hard for guys like this to just admit, it doesn't even matter any more who or what caused it, it's not a blessing, its a curse, and something needs to be done about it.
It's hard to look at a 2x4 and not think the most appropriate use for it might be knocking some sense into these quasi-scientists with their "I've got mine" attitude and get them to think of future generations instead.
by
Mark Petersen (9 articles, 73 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 50 comments)
on Wednesday, February 7, 2007 at 6:24:25 AM
'Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement'
Oh, this Youri is really something! In 1986 during the Chernobyl catastrophe he was no less than the Hydrometeorology Chief of the Soviet Union. And when the dose of radiation was in the civilian areas about 100 times higher than normal Mr. Izrael went out to TV to tell people that the 'dose was normal and there was no danger'. And now he is in the UN? On the Panel of Climate Change?
May God have mercy on our souls because we really do not know what the Hell we are doing.
by
Mark Sashine (54 articles, 19 quicklinks, 251 diaries, 3598 comments)
on Wednesday, February 7, 2007 at 7:14:45 AM
as we are apparently generating (Adding in/on) about 1% of the radient Solar output recieved by the earth, daily, and as 'thermal output' simply from burning anything/everything that "we" burn...so where does that go?
It heats the atmosphere.
CO2 doesn't cause heating? yet Venus is covered with CO2 and it's temperatures fried the Spacecraft that the Russians sent there, in very short time, and there are NO CARS or industry there, just lots of CO2...
A Least Science (the generality) is still following it's proper pathways and allowing the voice of dissent to speak, how better to know how wrong they are.
BTW Climate Science is a very complex affair, to do proper scientific studies one would need await the outcome of the experiment, this is one experiment that we do NOT want to 'await the oucome of' before we act...As this one is NOT A TEST!
by
Mr. Robin Parsons (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 64 comments)
on Wednesday, February 7, 2007 at 9:53:48 AM
I think that Geery misses Ball's argument. The argument that Ball is making is that the warming and cooling cycles of the earth have not coincided with increased CO2 use.
I would like to hear Geery or someone else respond to Ball's argument.
by
Dennis (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Wednesday, February 7, 2007 at 12:25:42 PM
If this was Dr. Ball's argument, I confess I missed it, and I herein apologize to Dr. Ball for that, and also, in particular, for my ending comment.
A quick search led me to this article, which I think more clearly makes his case than he himself did. A Chilling Perspective.
However, we have still not addressed what happens to the manmade pollution from CO2, which in absolute terms is truly staggering.
The analogy I would make is this: You're on a small plane, and the pilot for some unknown reason starts yanking wires out from the control panel. "Oh, there's no proof we need those," he tells you, when you ask him to stop. What do you think you'd do? I'm sure you can come up with many similar analogies.
We are talking here about the very planet we live in, and the burden of proof clearly MUST lay with those who advocate for further manmade change of any sort.
People sometimes call me a "liberal," even "a flaming liberal," I suspect, but the truth is quite the opposite: I say we should do EVERYTHING humanly possible to CONSERVE the planet we live on, from immediate population control measures to shifting our tragically wasted military excesses into environmental education.
Inhofe's initial argument was very well done in terms of writing and apparent research, and I thought, "Well, wouldn't this be nice! Global warming really isn't a problem!"
Then I did some homework and came upon the response dissecting and refuting Inhofe, which you may find in that diary article-which incidentally, also discusses Michael Creighton's work.
Equally or perhaps more important than all the above, is the mistaken assumption that working toward energy efficiency will somehow do damage to the economy (as if that's more important than the earth itself!), when in fact Amory and Hunter Lovins along with Paul Hawking have quite well demonstrated the fallacy of that assumption, in their truly amazing book, Natural Capitalism. Companies who have of their own accord shifted to more efficient processes and practices have greatly benefited financially from those moves, as their book clearly demonstrates.
For anyone who seeks more information on this ever-so critical topic, please visit Rocky Mountain Institute.
by
Daniel Geery (26 articles, 74 quicklinks, 123 diaries, 746 comments)
on Wednesday, February 7, 2007 at 1:59:25 PM
"from increased CO2 use" There is NO precedent in History for any of that as the manner of CO2 production today is 'un-precedented' ...so we cannot look at history to find out what is going to happen from this kind of affectation.
What we can look at are historical periods wherein we know that there was increased CO2 already in the atmosphere Generally from Volcanic sourcing, volcanoes not usually being as consistent/ongoing an output source as are all of the current sources.
P.S. If everyone is wrong (The main reason why Science [the generality] supports the rights of the dissenting arguements, just in case they are right) and The planet isn't going towards overheating, or that that drives us towards a sudden Cooling, we still need to deal with our collective polluting mannerisms as they are consequential and damaging to life...that much IS known
by
Mr. Robin Parsons (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 64 comments)
on Wednesday, February 7, 2007 at 7:47:56 PM
"It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling. "
Climate Experts Worry as 2006 Is Hottest Year on Record in U.S.
By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 10, 2007; Page A01
Last year was the warmest in the continental United States in the past 112 years -- capping a nine-year warming streak "unprecedented in the historical record" that was driven in part by the burning of fossil fuels, the government reported yesterday.
If you would like to know something about solar sunspot cycles, this is a good starter. (good pics/images links)
There is an ~ Five year separation, Historically (Paleoclimatological) of Sun Spot activity and the Earths Temperature, so recent Heating cooresponds to the last cycle of 'solar flaring' and it's five year later effects, just that We are Adding to it, no question that we are adding into it all.
What it means is that we have some time to breath, like the next five years whereafter we will known much more clearly just how much of an effect we are having.
It is one of the lines in that piece that (I) object to the most, 'Government(s) generating Hysteria and Fear in society' as in this case the fear is not 'Immediate' as a person in front of your face with a gun is, it is one that Helps as it drives us to act as to preceed with the right changes, as we can still see we have time to recover/mitigate the impacts.
After all Have you seen anyone running down the street crying out Hysterically "The Sky is falling"...Me neither.
Please don't fall for the hoax of man-made global warming and "peak oil". Warm cycles/Cold cycles/Major and minor ice ages are normal Earth cycles. As for the oil, since the late 1800's, the Rockefeller Oil Monopoly/Dynasty has always conspired to try to keep oil prices high.
The Peak Oil Theory is a hoax. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15715744/ Oil is plentiful. At current rates of production, peak oil in the Middle East will not occur until 150 years from now. Meanwhile, the Tar Sands in Alberta, Canada, are being developed with a production cost of around $20 per barrel so with current prices around $60 per barrel, the project is a go. The Rockefeller dynasty has always sought to keep oil prices high since the late 1800s through various illegal means.
There has been a lot of debate about this subject in recent years, especially with gas prices the way they are now. Is Peak Oil true or are we being duped by the powers that be? One of the insiders has recently come forward to share his first hand knowledge about one of the biggest scams in history. His lecture should be seen by everyone that doesn't like gas prices where they are today. For a free copy of this DVD, and 3 other discs, showing you the insiders' most jealously-guarded secrets of creating and amassing wealth. And proactive strategies to deal with the ups and downs of our economy and regaining your sovereignty, email me @ superiorlifestylesolutions@yahoo.com with your mailing address. Please put "Free Info Packet" in the subject line.
Why are they making record profits at the expense of our hard earned income?
by
Alex James (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Friday, February 9, 2007 at 9:56:09 AM
according to Buckminister Fuller, who calculated how long it would take Mother Nature to make a gallon at our going electrical rates, twenty years ago. So it may be worth more now.
Whether he was off a little or not doesn't matter. We should be working far more efficiently. As it is now, only 1% of the energy in a gallon of gas goes to actually moving the passenger. The rest is overcoming friction, and moving the massive car and huge steel frame--brought to us by Henry Ford, because it was the best available material at the time.
If your idea is to rip off our planet's resources in the quickest time possible--or what I'd call grand larceny from any future generations--you're on the right track.
But it happens to be the wrong track.
However, I'll gladly forgive you if you bring back the snow to the Wasatch Mountains before February is over, and/or figure a way to make what comes out of tailpipes non-polluting.
You can see my bio at the end of the article, thus can you can get a sense of where I'm coming from.
I'm sure all readers of this article would love to see your bio--why not post it as a response to this?
by
Daniel Geery (26 articles, 74 quicklinks, 123 diaries, 746 comments)
on Friday, February 9, 2007 at 10:39:14 AM
Thanks Daniel for your reply. You refer to the pollution caused by human's pumping CO2 into the atmosphere? What exactly are you referring to? I followed the links in your reply but they seemed to point only to global warming.
So I ask: what are the (bad) effects to the environment caused by industrial and vehicle CO2 emissions?
Dennis
by
Dennis (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Sunday, February 11, 2007 at 4:27:51 PM
11 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
