Paging Algore! Cleanup in isle 7!

[Check Pilot]

That's a really good one too there Siddley Hawker.

That oughtta scare the sheep into a herding frenzy out there. That should become another scare'em and make'em pay way more taxes to the government so they can clean that one up too.

We need to keep looking for more of these so we can finally paralyze the world's population into total fear and finally demand a world government to tell us all exactly what we need to think and do. Maybe an unelected world government (kinda like the current group of alarmist Climate Change folks propose) will finally set us all straight, especially when we finally follow the dogma of giving all our earnings from working hard to those folks to make it all better for us.

I can finally see the dream of the old Orwell "1984" movie coming to fruition. We shall all live in peace and harmony then - making sure our thoughts and actions are totally in conformance with the wishes of the "State".

What a wonderful substitute for the replacement of the old time Communists they loved so well. Finally there is relief for all those that are so desperately searching for someone else to tell them how to think.

[Rockie]

It would be something worth reading if you actually had valid arguments to counter the prevailing scientific opinion, but you don't. So you revert to pointless drivel like this. It's childish.

In this article recently published in the Grope and Flail, two accomplished and very qualified scientists answer the four most common arguments used by sceptics. These arguments have appeared many times on this forum so I thought you might find it interesting. I think it's safe to say these two know a lot more about what they're talking about than anyone here including you. They represent the aggregate scientific opinion worldwide, and I think I'll go with their considered opinions over yours. Much like if I wanted a medical opinion I wouldn't be taking your advice on that either.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opi ... le1389545/

[Siddley Hawker]

Rockie, a nice counterpoint to that article would be one from either Ross McKitrick or Steve McIntyre, but do you think you'll ever see it in the Globe & Mail or The Star? You actually have to take the time and look for both sites on the internet. Remember the missing weapons of mass destruction? The press had a field day with it. The leaked e-mails - I'm calling them leaked in lieu of hacked or stolen because I'm betting on a whistle blower rather than a hacker - did to the theory of AGW what the missing weapons did for President Bush's foray into Iraq, but with very few exceptions the MSM has been awfully quiet.

Here's McKitrick's blog site...
Global Warming: Competeting Views
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/cc.html

...and McIntyre's.
Climate Audit
http://climateaudit.org/

[Rockie]

I also read the national post in keeping with my belief that the truth always lies somewhere in between the extremes. Their approach to this issue is much the same as checkpilot's. Sarcasm, ridicule and baseless statements. They too use the East Anglia revelations as absolute proof that the entire worldwide environmental sciencific community are a bunch of frauds. Total nonsense.

A quick look at McKitrick's site peaked my interest in what he had to say. But then I got to the part where he called the Friends of Science a bunch of sensible people, and his credibility disappeared. The Friends of Science are the most blatant lobbyists for the oil industry out there and should really be called the Friends of Exxon.

[Jastapilot]

Except they kind of are frauds, Rockie.

[Rockie]

Except they kind of are frauds, Rockie.

Really? The entire worldwide environmental science community, including NASA, Environment Canada and countless other organizations? Thousands and thousands of scientists and researchers who have absolutely nothing to do with East Anglia?

Really?

You can really conclude that they're all frauds because of that?

[canwhitewolf]

seems the alarmists are stilll working on information from 1779 even though it was disputed in 1845,the glaciers are coming, the glaciers are coming RUN!

but hey whatever turns hoaxenhavens crank i say

position to man-made climate change: We want proof!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEfriG06 ... r_embedded

[Check Pilot]

Rockie--you should really try to calm your inner self about your liberal left side anger with others that disagree with you. It may be helpful to argue some logic from yourself rather than just posting a link to an article supporting your view. Everyone has that opportunity to link to an opposing view too, so it does no good for you to do that. It's not helping any of your postings here. Your angst at trying to provoke a change in attitude by your methods and words is unbecoming from someone so educated and dedicated to the side of the liberals as someone such as yourself and just further alienates anyone that may have been on the fence about swaying towards your (now) misguided opinion.

For example:

"Really? The entire worldwide environmental science community, including NASA, Environment Canada and countless other organizations? Thousands and thousands of scientists and researchers who have absolutely nothing to do with East Anglia?"

Your quote!

Unfortunately for you Rockie, NASA was wrong, and admitted it, which is now proven, the Guardian UK newspaper claimed sea level rise of 498 feet!!!!!???? and Environment Canada is now wrong too.

I call bullsh*t. It's all a scam for the "new world government" to do what the so called "green" idiots want to do to the rest of the world and have us live in caves with no fire and freeze in the dark. (Kinda like I used to hope Ontario should do in the era of the infamous National Energy Program ushered in by your hero Pierre Elliot Trudeau).

What it all boils down to is the hopeful replacement of the failed communist wannabes that need some kind of redemption for their failed attempt to control civilization, their money and their thoughts and actions.

Rockie, I notice you're not yet ready for the next crises that were mentioned before.
Why not?

Your arguments have beaten you to the outside of the limits of credulity.

[Rockie]

Real science is correcting its position all the time as they learn more, as they should. Unlike the oil funded sceptic side that cherry picks select data and uses only that to continue with their agenda, as they always have. And like you have done with this statement:

Unfortunately for you Rockie, NASA was wrong, and admitted it, which is now proven, the Guardian UK newspaper claimed sea level rise of 498 feet!!!!!???? and Environment Canada is now wrong too.

I always argue from logic as well. It is perfectly logical to even a layman like me that measurable increases in proven greenhouse gas concentrations is going to have a detrimental effect on our long term climate. Cause and effect. What's difficult to determine is exactly what that effect will be in the future which is where your side gets all its ammunition from. But you use each error and corrected estimate from the scientists as proof MMGW doesn't exist at all, and that is completely illogical. In other words you ignore cause and effect completely.

You are quick to dismiss genuine science in favour of energy industry hacks and proven fraudsters who don't have the slightest technical knowledge of what they're talking about and have done literally no research on it themselves. That doesn't sound very logical to me. Tell me, if you have a problem with your airplane are you going to ask a mechanic about it or the mining executive sitting in the back who's going to lose a lot of money if he doesn't get to where he's going?

This quote from the article I referenced above says it best:

"The difference between science and ideaology is that science tries to explain all known observations, whereas ideology selects only those observations that support a preconceived notion."

Just like you've done with your NASA sea level rise contention. You use errors and corrections to support your ideological hysteria which is apparently summed up by this statement.

What it all boils down to is the hopeful replacement of the failed communist wannabes that need some kind of redemption for their failed attempt to control civilization, their money and their thoughts and actions.

What that has to do with the environment is a mystery to me. That's a senseless statement that has no connection to anything really, including reality.

[Siddley Hawker]

My bold:

"The difference between science and ideaology is that science tries to explain all known observations, whereas ideology selects only those observations that support a preconceived notion."

Which is, of course, what the CRU did in skewing their figures. Actually they were a little more thorough. They - Jones, Mann et al - not only cooked the books, they destroyed the database upon which their calculations were made. In addition, they acted to discredit any climatologist or scientist who disagreed with their version of the facts.

[Icebound]

...

I do know that volcanoes and especially forest fires put far more pollutants into the atmosphere than man ever could.


OFD

Really?

I would like to understand how you do know this interesting fact.

There are approximately 20 active volcanoes in the entire world at any one time..... (and 6 billion people)....which would mean that each volcano would have to emit pollutants equivalent to about 300 million people. Perhaps you could point out to me the volcano which is currently emitting more pollutants than all of the population of the USA?

....



...

I think your numbers are out a bit. There are 20 or so Volcanos erupting at any one time. There are about 50-70 that erupt on th order of once a year, 600 that have erupted in recorded history, and about 1500 considered to be active. The definition of this is that they have erupted within the last 10,000 years. I know this is a bit pedantic, but it wouldn't hurt to have the right data to start with when making an argument. Carry on...


http://www.volcanodiscovery.com/en/volc ... anoes.html

Sure, but you have to compare apples to apples.

People and cities pollute 24/7/365. "At any given time", 6 billion people are polluting right now.
"At any given time" over 60 cities of 4 million or more, are polluting.

Your own link says that "at any given time", there are only 20 volcanoes active.

Sure, there may be 50 or 70 or 100 different volcanoes within a year. But most lifespans are short... days or weeks.

People and Cities are for centuries.


....

[Jastapilot]

Rockie, if 'good science' was actually being done, there would be no corrections required. What is going on is BAD science, all dolled up with preconceived notions, premature conclusions, and trying to force the data fit the hypothesis. That is not how science is supposed to work.

And whoever gave you the idea that so many scientists and organizations agree with the IPCC? Oh yeah, the IPCC. The bullshit begins and ends with the IPCC. Sorry, don't buy it.

[Spokes]

Rockie, if 'good science' was actually being done, there would be no corrections required. What is going on is BAD science, all dolled up with preconceived notions, premature conclusions, and trying to force the data fit the hypothesis. That is not how science is supposed to work.

And whoever gave you the idea that so many scientists and organizations agree with the IPCC? Oh yeah, the IPCC. The bullshit begins and ends with the IPCC. Sorry, don't buy it.

Your first statement is completely wrong. Science is a self correcting endeavour. For exampe, Darwins theory of natural selection was bang on. Yet in Origin of species he gat many of the details wrong. These have been corrected over the years, and as a result, the theory itself is now stonger than it was inthe 19th century.

Rockie is correct, any branch of science nessecarily must be a continually correcting and refineing itself. If it did not, it simply would not work.

[Jastapilot]

If you're talking about a theory, I agree. I don't think the IPCC is espousing a theory. They want us to believe the world is ending.

Good science doesn't usually come to a conclusion about anything until it's been independently proven.

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

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce biased interpretations of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

The IPCC doesn't share, and doesn't like being scrutinized.

[Spokes]

I was not making a statement regarding the Theory of Global warming, only that your assertion that "good science" does not need correcting. That statement was incorrect, good science is nessecarily constantly self correcting. It is what makes science works.

The IPCC theory is that Man-made emission of CO2 from the burning of fossils fuels is creating a 'green house' effect and is changing the earths climate to a warmer one. This is a valid theory. Among other things, a theory must be testable and falsifiable. You must be able to design a test for a theory that in principle could show that theory to be wrong if it does not pass. If the theory fails the test, it is discarded(or perhaps modified). If it passes the test then it is given greater credibility. It is not however "proven". MMGW clearly fals in this catagory so it is a good theory.

This leads to your final point. Scientific theories are not "independantly proven". No scientific theory can be proven to be fact (Dawkins assertions aside). Scientific theorys are proven to be wrong, not right.

Having said all that, I do agree with you on the point of the IPCC's meathods. Clearly there is something going on, but (and for me this is a big one) there are a bunch of things that disturbs me about them.

The statement, "The science is settled" is the biggest red flag. Science is never settled, and must constantly go through the test and support or correct process. If some tests do not pass there must be correction or explanantion provided. At soem point if this is not done, theory is in danger of becoming dogma- something that no one wants.

This last email thing that came it makes it seem (to me anyway) that the IPCC seems to be cherry picking studies that support MMGW and suppressing anything that runs counter. This, if true would be 'bad science'.

The other thing that bothers me is that lately it seems that the solution to MMGW seems to be to send alot of money to the third world.

Alot of ramblings, sorry.

If you are interested in learning more about the trappings of science, the scientific meathod, might I recomend Carl Sagans "The Demon Haunted World". Excellent reading on the subject.

[Rockie]

You all want solid scientific proof that cannot be questioned before you will entertain the notion of man made global warming. To me it's self-evident because of the cause and effect aspect of it. We are after all pumping billions of tons more GHG into the atmosphere every year with the pace and quantity only increasing. That there will be a detrimental effect is a no brainer in my mind, but the hard part is quantifying it and making accurate predictions of what exactly those effects will be. Some we can see now that are easily measurable like disappearing permanent arctic ice, changing agricultural patterns and ever diminishing water reservoirs. Other potential effects can only be predicted based on computer models that certainly aren't perfect. Errors don't negate the science though which the deniers would have us believe (I don't say skeptics because skepticism is what keeps people on their toes and honest).

I can give you a perfect example that all of you will heartily agree with (except maybe jonny dangerous). Fatigue is something every human being is familiar with and we all know what causes it. Transport Canada will do nothing about it however citing constantly the lack of accurate scientific data. Measuring fatigue is extremely difficult, and quantifying its effect on people is almost impossible because everyone is different. But does that mean it doesn't exist and is not a serious problem?

Air operators don't want anything done about our duty time regulations because it will cost them money, and they have the regulator on their side. Oil companies don't want anything done about GHG's because it will cost them money, and they too have the Canadian government on their side.

[Spokes]

You all want solid scientific proof that cannot be questioned before you will entertain the notion of man made global warming. To me it's self-evident because of the cause and effect aspect of it. We are after all pumping billions of tons more GHG into the atmosphere every year with the pace and quantity only increasing. That there will be a detrimental effect is a no brainer in my mind, but the hard part is quantifying it and making accurate predictions of what exactly those effects will be. Some we can see now that are easily measurable like disappearing permanent arctic ice, changing agricultural patterns and ever diminishing water reservoirs. Other potential effects can only be predicted based on computer models that certainly aren't perfect. Errors don't negate the science though which the deniers would have us believe (I don't say skeptics because skepticism is what keeps people on their toes and honest).

...

I agree, to demand solid scientific proof of the notion of MMGW is rediculous. It Cannot be done- science does not work that way. There certainly is much evidence of a warming climate as well. Heck I can look out at the glacier here and see it has shruck alot over the years. Your point on predicting exacly what the effects will be is absoluytely true as well. It seems like (to me at any rate) that there are some who are going a long way to make things seem alot worse than they may be. Massaging the data to make the famous hockey stick is an exampe of this. Suppressing anything that shows flaws in the theory as it stands also bothers me. I have seen at times science ridiculed as 'poor' simple because it was sponsored by 'big oil'. This is not a reason to ignore or cast doubt on it. The science itself is what should be tested. Imagine a hypothysis that deforsitation is the cause of the majority of co2 increase, and that this increase was natures way of coping to accelerate vegetation growth. In the current climate (political climate I mean) if this hypothysis was put forward by scientists supported by oil companies, it would be attacked for just that. The hypothysis itself is what should be examined. Heck maybe 8 billion people exhaling is the problem, and a few disasters as a result is natures way of coping with overpopulation of air breathing species.

One of the predictions of MMGW- as I Understand it- was in regards to polar ice cap melting. The basic premis was that in colder times when there was plenty of ice, much of the suns energy in that region was reflected back, and it stayed cold enough there to keep the ice cap reletively stable. With GW, the icecap has receeded to a point where now the arctic ocean absorbs much of the solar energy, preventing ice from re-forming and of course less ice means more energy absorbed, and in a vicious circle the melting is accelerated. This should mean that the icecap should no longer expand. Lately I have heard on the news that last winter it has done this. I realise this does not disprove the entire GW theory, but in my mind things have not gone as far/bad as feared.

I do not doubt that we make an impact on our environment. It is nessecarily so. I also do not think that in the short term we can simply abandon fossil fuels. There is no real alternative. I do not think for the moment there is a viable way to keep commmerce moving without it. Ships gotta cross the ocean, airplanes gotta fly. Windmills and solar panels are nice in some applications, but will not IMHO replace fossil fuels. Nuclear? maybe, but that comes with its own set of problems. I think abandoning the oil in ALberta will cause real ecenomic damage. Like it or not, right now we need oil. Even the rainbow warrior runs on the stuff. One day it will all be gone, no doubt about that. We will be forced to adapt. But I really doubt there will come a time when there is plenty of oil left, but we do not use it. I do not think it is possible.

Maybe the solutions lie in adapting to the changes rather than trying to stop them. Change is inevitable. I have a hard time beleiving that we are somehow going to sterilize the planet so that nothing is left growing. But that is the impression I get from the 'save the planet' crowd. 90% of species were wiped out 60million years ago, yet life carried on. The human race at one point was on the verge of extinction very early on in its history, yet carried on. If Islands do sink, and as of yet none have, but may in the next few hundred years, then people will have to move. I do not think sending billions of dollars to Bangladesh will stop it though. The oil will still get burned.

Anyay, enough of my ramblings. I get the sense that you are becomeing frustrated with some posts here, and perhaps are taking some of the post personally. Some I have seen certainly read that way. It is not meant as so. I have learned plenty on the subject as a result and am still trying to wrap my head around the whole thing. The many of the articles you are posting are very helpful. Thanks for that. Asking questions is not attacking. I simply want to understand things better- get the nagging questions in my head as it were, resolved. Keep up the good work.

[Jastapilot]

Question for Rockie. Do you know what percentage of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are CO2? What's #1?

[Rockie]

Question for Rockie. Do you know what percentage of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are CO2? What's #1?

I don't know. I'm the farthest thing from an expert on this that you can imagine. Environment Canada and other reputable organizations should be able to tell you though.

CO2 is just one of them though, but it seems like the easiest thing to say and is probably misinterpreted as a result. Maybe it's better to say GHG. Collectively they are bad.

[pika]

Some light reading for anybody interested. It was half a page in the paper yesterday.

[Rockie]

Some light reading for anybody interested. It was half a page in the paper yesterday.

Meet William A. Bell, the author of the article Pika is referring to.

http://www.greatplainsexp.com/main/comp ... -10-04.pdf

For those that don't want to read the whole thing I've included the first two paragraphs here for you. It should tell you all you need to know.

CALGARY, ALBERTA, October 4, 2004, - Stephen P. Gibson, President & CEO of Great
Plains Exploration Inc. (TSX: GPX) (Great Plains) is pleased to announce that William A.
(Bill) Bell has agreed to serve on the Company’s Board of Directors.

Mr. Bell, a geologist with extensive experience in the Western Canada Basin, is currently
President of Bellport Resources Ltd., Bellport Oil and Gas Inc. and Portobello Investments Ltd.
Mr. Bell has also served as management and a director of numerous oil and gas companies both
private and public. Most recently, Mr. Bell served as Chairman of the Audit Committee on the
board of Energy Explorer Inc., which merged into Great Plains. Mr. Bell is a member of the
Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists, American Association of Petroleum Geologists and
the Association of Professional Geologists of Alberta. The board and management of Great
Plains looks forward to Mr. Bell’s continued guidance with the combined Company’s substantive
portfolio of drilling prospects.

Mr. Bell is a geologist who has spent his life looking for oil in the ground when he hasn't been managing oil companies. Aside from the fact he is as biased as they come, he has no more qualifications regarding environmental issues than I do.

[Jastapilot]

Question for Rockie. Do you know what percentage of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are CO2? What's #1?

I don't know. I'm the farthest thing from an expert on this that you can imagine. Environment Canada and other reputable organizations should be able to tell you though.

CO2 is just one of them though, but it seems like the easiest thing to say and is probably misinterpreted as a result. Maybe it's better to say GHG. Collectively they are bad.

GHG's are bad? Bad, like life on earth wouldn't exist as we know it without GHG? Got me there. Fact is, regarding greenhouse gases, is water vapour is by far the largest piece of the pie in the GHG department. No one really mentions that, do they... so does that make nuclear power plants a big contributer? Should we outlaw boiling water to make our Kraft Dinners? Where does it all end? Tax the clouds?

[Rockie]

GHG's are bad? Bad, like life on earth wouldn't exist as we know it without GHG? Got me there. Fact is, regarding greenhouse gases, is water vapour is by far the largest piece of the pie in the GHG department. No one really mentions that, do they... so does that make nuclear power plants a big contributer? Should we outlaw boiling water to make our Kraft Dinners? Where does it all end? Tax the clouds?

The earth maintains a balance conveniently suitable for us to live in. Oxygen in high enough concentrations and under pressure is toxic to us as well, but we don't live under high enough pressure and it only comprises 21% of our air with nitrogen (inert gas) forming most of the rest. We live in balance.

The billions of tons of GHG we pump into the atmosphere upsets that balance. Upset the balance and undesirable things start happening. That's the whole very obvious point.

[Jastapilot]

GHG's are bad? Bad, like life on earth wouldn't exist as we know it without GHG? Got me there. Fact is, regarding greenhouse gases, is water vapour is by far the largest piece of the pie in the GHG department. No one really mentions that, do they... so does that make nuclear power plants a big contributer? Should we outlaw boiling water to make our Kraft Dinners? Where does it all end? Tax the clouds?

The earth maintains a balance conveniently suitable for us to live in. Oxygen in high enough concentrations and under pressure is toxic to us as well, but we don't live under high enough pressure and it only comprises 21% of our air with nitrogen (inert gas) forming most of the rest. We live in balance.

The billions of tons of GHG we pump into the atmosphere upsets that balance. Upset the balance and undesirable things start happening. That's the whole very obvious point.

Really? Do you really think the balance of the atmosphere has always been this way? Has always been conveniently balanced for us to breath this exact mixture? Don't you realize that the atmosphere is a result of the life on earth, and not the other way around? Decaying plant and animal matter emits CO2, Methane, and a host of other materials. Living plants thrive on C02, for instance, and the byproduct of their living existence is producing O2. Our entire world is in a constant state of change; the land, the oceans, and yes, even the air we breath.


Check this out, and remember what plants thrive on:
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbe ... sting.html

[pika]

Hey Rockie:

Mr. Bell is a geologist who has spent his life looking for oil in the ground when he hasn't been managing oil companies. Aside from the fact he is as biased as they come, he has no more qualifications regarding environmental issues than I do.

In your opinion, neither Mr. Bell nor yourself have the qualifications to be speaking intelligently about environmental issues. Can you explain what gives Al Gore such expertise on the matter? EDIT - and why you have placed your trust in him? - EDIT