It is snowing in Australia at the moment

[Nepenthe]

Global warming - Is there anything it can't do?

 

I can think of one thing: remove the average joe's unfounded scorn for and distrust of science.

Nah, as long as some people let corporations do their thinking for them, nothing of the kind will happen. Have a prozac, be happy.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Global warming - Is there anything it can't do?

 

I can think of one thing: remove the average joe's unfounded scorn for and distrust of science.

It's not the science, it's the politically motivated, leftist environmentalist scientists. Oh, I forgot, the science is settled, sorry. Global Warming - the only scientific theory that predicts nothing and is confirmed by everything.

[Nepenthe]

It's not the science, it's the politically motivated, leftist environmentalist scientists. Oh, I forgot, the science is settled, sorry. Global Warming - the only scientific theory that predicts nothing and is confirmed by everything.

Yeah, and the only people who disagree with it are monetarily motivated, corporate scientists. Between the two, I know who to believe. Of course, it's always EASIER to believe the side that tells you everything is ok, please keep consuming more, right?

[Hurlshort]

Global warming, or global climate changes for those hung up on the fact it also leads to cold weather, very much exists. Our planet has gone through changes like this throughout existence. The question that hasn't been answered is whether our actions are hastening the events. It probably isn't a question that can be fully answered, given that our planet will go through changes regardless.

 

Still, pollution is bad, m'kay. We should still be actively trying to lessen our carbon footprint.

[Wrath of Dagon]

It's not the science, it's the politically motivated, leftist environmentalist scientists. Oh, I forgot, the science is settled, sorry. Global Warming - the only scientific theory that predicts nothing and is confirmed by everything.

Yeah, and the only people who disagree with it are monetarily motivated, corporate scientists. Between the two, I know who to believe. Of course, it's always EASIER to believe the side that tells you everything is ok, please keep consuming more, right?

Objectively, I don't think it's been proven either way. Personally, I think it's a big left wing scam, like Nuclear Winter and Y2K (ok, Y2K wasn't left wing, but consultant scam). Carl Sagan, the leftist wind bag who was most prominent in pushing Nuclear Winter to force unilateral disarmament by the US, predicted that the oil fires in Kuwait would have an effect on climate similar to Nuclear Winter based on their Nuclear Winter studies. He was debating Fred Singer, who is also one of the most prominent Global Warming skeptics. Singer said there would be no significant atmospheric effect from the smoke because it would be washed out by rain once it reached a certain point in the atmosphere. Singer was proven correct. I tend to believe people whose predictions actually came true, like the article I quoted earlier, rather than alarmist windbags who've never predicted a thing, like saying soon there'll be no snow at all. Here's what Time was saying in 1974, predicting a new Ice Age:

Telltale signs are everywhere

[Nepenthe]

And I'm saying that there are enough credible people supporting the concept of global warming, and not enough credible people opposing it, for me to take the risk. Unequivocal proof can only be had when it's too late, so...

 

Living in an area where you can essentially see the effect of Gulf stream every day, it's hardly a groundbreaking thought to me that an overall warming is going to inevitably create a) "strange" weather phenomena b) not necessarily make it warmer everywhere.

 

FWIW, I don't own a car and pay a little extra in my electric bill for wind energy. Motivates me to save, anyway.

Edited December 26, 2010 by Nepenthe

[Wrath of Dagon]

Well, we're not all as tough and rugged as the Finns

 

Anyway, I'm not against doing things which make sense anyway, like building nuclear power plants. As a matter of fact, Texas is #1 in the country in wind energy. But the same environmentalists who scream loudest about Global Warming are the same ones who stand in the way of any reasonable solutions.

[Humodour]

I'm sorry but science is apolitical. Global warming exists whether you choose to bury your head in the sand or not.

 

The real obstructionists are people like WoD who would prefer to pretend life is sunshine and lollipops and all will be fine rather than join those acknowledging the problem and start talking about how to fix it.

 

If scientists are environmentalists it's got nothing to do with a political ideology.

[Humodour]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12...?section=justin

[Gorth]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12...?section=justin

All this talk about 'facts' with no hint what soever as to what they base their viewpoint on...

 

"We should expect now..."

"The scientific basis is very sound"

"we can expect to see..."

"Despite the variability from year to year, there will be..."

 

The writing style reminds me of this classic:

 

[b]GLOSSARY FOR RESEARCH PAPERS[/b]
THEY WRITE						|THEY MEAN

It has long been known that...			|I haven't bothered to look up the original reference

...of great theoretical and practical		|...interesting to me
importance											  

While it has not been possible to			|The experiments didn't work
provide definite answers to these			|out, but I figured I could at 
questions.							|least get a publication out  of it.

The W-Pb system was chosen as			|The fellow in the next lab had
especially suitable to show the			|some already made up
predicted behavior...

High purity...						|Composition unknown except
Very high purity...					|for the exaggerated claims of
Extremely high purity...				|the supplier
Super-purity...
Spectroscopically pure...

A fiducial reference line...				|A scratch

Three of the samples were				|The results of the others 
chosen for detailed study...				|didn't make sense and were ignored..

...handled with extreme care during		|...not dropped on the floor
the experiments

Typical results are shown...				|The best results are shown...

Although some detail has been lost		|It is impossible to tell from 
in reproduction, it is clear from the		|the  micrograph
original micrograph that...

Presumably at longer times...			|I didn't take the time to find out

The agreement with the predicted			|fair
curve is excellent

good								|poor

satisfactory							|doubtful

fair								|imaginary

...as good as could be expected			|non-existent

These results will be reported at			|I might get around to this
a later date						|sometime

The most reliable values are those		|He was a student of mine
of Jones

It is suggested that...
It is believed that...					|I think...
It may be that...

It is generally believed that....			|I have such a good objection 
							|to this answer that I shall 
							|now raise it.

It is clear that much additional			|I don't understand it
work will be required before a
complete understanding...

Unfortunately, a quantitative theory		|Neither does anybody else
to account for these effects has not
been formulated

Correct within an order of magnitude		|Wrong

It is to be hoped that this work			|This paper isn't very good but
will stimulate further work in the field		|neither are any of the others
							|on this miserable subject

Thanks are due to Joe Glotz for			|Glotz did the work and Doe
assistance with the experiments and		|explained what it meant.
to John Doe for valuable discussions.

(Source:  C.D.  Graham Jr.  Metal Progress, 71 pg 75 (1957))

Yeah I know... forum software sucks at formatting tab columns.

[Nepenthe]

snip

I think I'm using all of those euphemisms, of course some of the more scientific things don't really for jurists.

 

And "valuable discussions" can also mean serious making out sessions in the office. Just sayin'...

[Wrath of Dagon]

Gorth Although Krezack's blind faith in scientists is quite touching.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Stumbled upon this, seems pretty credible: http://www.drroyspencer.com/

 

Edit: This is a great quote from his website:

 

Actually, this announcement is a good thing. There has been a persistent refusal on the part of the elitist, group-think, left-leaning class of climate scientists to even debate the global warming issue in public. Maybe they have considered it beneath themselves to debate those of us who are clearly wrong on the global warming issue.

 

A complaint many of us skeptics have had for years is that those who constitute the “scientific consensus” (whatever that means) will not engage in public debates on global warming. Al Gore won’t even answer questions from the press.

 

This is why you will mostly hear only politicians and U.N. bureaucrats give pronouncements on the science. They are already adept at weaving a good story with carefully selected facts and figures.

 

Why has the global warming message been presented mostly by politicians and bureaucrats up until now? Probably because it is too dangerous to put their scientists out there.

 

Scientists might admit to something counterproductive — like uncertainty — which would jeopardize what the politicians have been trying to accomplish for decades — control over energy, which is necessary for everything that humans do.

Edited December 29, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Gorth]

I don't know if they are right or wrong. I know the weather has changed the last 3-4 decades (heck, I've been there and felt it on my own body). I don't even doubt that humans contribute to it. What I do doubt is that it is all man made and question what part of the change is human contribution and what part a result of naturally occurring cycles.

 

When somebody who is on CSIRO's payroll step up and say 'Oh no, the sky falling', I question the objectivity (because her salary depends on research grants that assume the research is necessary). Likewise, I would laugh my butt off if some Haliburton sponsored scientist stands up and claims 'The sky is firmly in place'.

 

The 'mock translation' thing I posted previously was popular already when I went to the university a couple of decades ago, which was about when I decided that I cared more about finding answers than formalizing and documenting the method that lead to the answer. Too much pompousness and pretentiousness in science back then, doubt it has changed much today, where scientists scramble for research grants offered by institutions and corporations with ulterior (and not always obvious) motives and scientists have to market themselves as if they were some kind of sport stars.

 

I miss the days of idealists who wanted to find answers for the answers sake

[Nepenthe]

The grant treadmill is the main reason I'm exiting academia.

[Tigranes]

It's not any different in the humanities by and large Gorth, and if you cornered most academics about this they would confess taht they'd feel without going through those motions they know are rather farcical, they'd feel they were risking their career and even their livelihood by strangling themselves out of the funding tubes.

 

Kind of disturbing that I've realised this already, but it's good - now I'm even more determined to not end up a pure academic.

[Walsingham]

I f&&&ing love the glossary. Particularly "of great theoretical and practical importance" which I think may have come directly from some of my essays.

 

Krez: science apolitical? WTF? Please don't make me come all the way to Australia just to smack you with a plank with 'no such thing as scientific fact' written on it.

[Bos_hybrid]

I would love to see some snow right now, instead of sitting next to the AC trying to survive the 45 degree day. Can't sleep in this weather either.

[Gfted1]

Wait, wind energy costs extra?

[Nepenthe]

Wait, wind energy costs extra?

Obviously, if it cost less there would be no coal energy plants and windmills would be everywhere. So how is this exactly news?

[Gfted1]

Wait, wind energy costs extra?

Obviously, if it cost less there would be no coal energy plants and windmills would be everywhere. So how is this exactly news?

 

I assumed the theory behind wind energy was that it fed back into the grid, thus lessening the need for coal fired plants to produce the same amount of energy. Not that it would actually cost more than coal produced electricity.

[Gorth]

Wait, wind energy costs extra?

Obviously, if it cost less there would be no coal energy plants and windmills would be everywhere. So how is this exactly news?

 

I assumed the theory behind wind energy was that it fed back into the grid, thus lessening the need for coal fired plants to produce the same amount of energy. Not that it would actually cost more than coal produced electricity.

You need to adjust your sarcasm detector to the Finnish frequency band

[Nepenthe]

I assumed the theory behind wind energy was that it fed back into the grid, thus lessening the need for coal fired plants to produce the same amount of energy. Not that it would actually cost more than coal produced electricity.

The production costs are just built differently, so even though the source of energy is free, maintenance, setup and low-efficiency drive the costs up - for now, anyway. At least that's what my energy company tells me, they could be ripping me off for all I know.

 

It's also in short supply in these parts, with a lot of people willing to pay up a little bit of extra for the bad conscience their diesel SUVs give them, which could also be driving the price up.

Edited January 1, 2011 by Nepenthe

[~Di]

Has anyone heard from Hell Kitty lately? He mentioned on one thread that the floods were very near his house. Now the floods have become a huge emergency down there, and I haven't seen Hell Kitty post in quite a while.

 

I'm worried.

 

 

Edit: Never mind. I see that he posted something in Computer & Console yesterday. Phew!

Edited January 2, 2011 by ~Di

[Humodour]

These floods will cause reasonably severe energy price shocks in Europe.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12124020