One Man One Vote...??

[solerboy]

Well, for all you hard done by Americans. No Prime Minister in the UK ever gets more than about 42% of the popular vote. In fact we dont even get to vote for the Prime Minister !

 

[ElQueso]

Whether you believe in man made global warning or not, the rolling stone article asks an important question. Why should the oil companies be allowed to dump their waste for free. No other industries are allowed to just dump their waste into the environment.

I don't believe in companies polluting. Neither oil companies, nor industrial manufacturers. But they're not candidates for anthropogenic global warming (at least not due directly to their pollution), which was what my statement involved. Also, to go after the companies because they are a threat to global life, as opposed to being polluters and making life dirty and uncomfortable, is a completely false way to deal with that particular issue.

And besides, of course other companies are allowed to dump their waste into the environment. What about mining? What about production facilities that pump gasses much more harmful than CO2 into the air? And so on, and so on. the oil industry isn't alone in that, and having worked for a drilling company and been involved in designing and writing software to help track and control issues such as these and having to interface with government agencies - oil companies are FAR from left alone.

Natural CO2 and Methane being released is also quite scary, especially when you think about just how much is being released now.

The Medieval warm period was still actually cooler than now.

That article you posted is pretty poor and full of errors.
http://rabett.blogsp...other-list.html
http://malaysia.answ...24161730AAfJ20G

I linked to the paper not because Peden is a current scientist working in atmospherics, but because he once was and has an idea what he's talking about, unlike about 90% of the people who write about either side of the debate who are just passing on the latest information they come across that matches their beliefs.

Growing up in the 70's, I remember the ozone hole scare that caused industries to completely change how they did things, related to aerosols and air conditioning, etc. Of course, it has since been shown that the ozone "hole" grows and shrinks over time.

So I started doing my own research on global warming some time ago and came to the conclusion that yes, the temperature is rising, and that it is a natural phenomenon and that it is not even a bad thing. The article by Peden pulls together a lot of the reasoning into one article and links to a wealth of data that supports it. He doesn't simply say "look, it's obvious because everyone says so." From that article, one can expand one's research quite easily and draw one's own conclusions.

I don't know what you actually did when you went to read the article, but it seems to me you glanced at the paper and then promptly went to discredit the author of the article. Here's a quote from the blog you linked to that I found a bit interesting:

...actually reads Peden's climate blather and remarks

That's two more papers than I surmised by reading part of the article. There are more errors in the paper than I want to list, but the first few are:​

and he lists them closing with

I find it difficult to conceive of a practicing scientist making so many blunders. Is Peden actually alive, or is someone else abusing a name taken from a tombstone? If he were dead that would explain the lack of papers.​

I also found the guy's writing style to be very difficult to follow - not much explanation and a bit of rambling.

The only place in there where I see any attack on Peden's "paper" is the quote above and although errors are mentioned, none are listed. The blog goes on to attack Peden's qualifications, but only saying that he exaggerates a bit.

So if it's "poor and full of errors" as you say, can you tell me what they are? Dude, I have to say, if you debate like this I can't see you winning many.

My first question was, who is this guy writing the blog? His introduction states "Eli Rabett is a not quite failed professorial techno-bunny, a chair election from retirement, at a wanna be research university that has a lot to be proud of but has swallowed the Kool-Aid..." and more stuff along those lines. I clicked on his name and got a list of users for the blog.

Peden may have exaggerated his bio a bit, but he's the first one to say he's been out of direct involvement in climatology research for quite some time - but at least he was at one time. He also clarifies that he is summarizing work from other scientists and lists the references. he also does things like link to the 100 scientists who were used by the IPCC as contributors to their anthropogenic global warming fantasies who have declared in no uncertain words that they vehemently disagree with the findings and the manner in which those findings were made and are being touted as "fact."

But that's OK. That is just one of many, many articles on global warming that doesn't support the more common "lemming" behavior. I didn't really expect anyone to read it or the information it links to, nor discuss rationally why many scientists believe that CO2 is not harmful (i.e., can't be a greenhouse gas, but if the esteemed blogger who left such a dangling lack of proofs against the paper would have argued against that, at least I'd know why HE thinks CO2 gas is truly a greenhouse gas and is dangerous istead of helpful) but indeed allows plant life to flourish, and so many other things.

I've seen many different graphs of temperatures, and I have to admit that the link to the Wikipedia entry on this was the first time I'd seen the Medeival high temperature shown higher than today, but ok, I'll even let that go without any argument. Could be, I suppose. But Mann et al 1998, the original paper that caused so many people to go nuts to begin with on anthropogenic warming, is a complete fraud and never showed anything of the sort. The IPCC grabbed on to that and has been pushing anthropogenic global warming as a man-made (hence the word "anthropogenic") disaster ever since, with good-ol' Al Gore (and many, many other so-called "liberals") grabbing on to that and making billions of dollars off of crap they spout.

Neither the paper, nor me, myself, has claimed there is no global rise in temperature. Rather, the claim is that CO2 is not the cause of it (indeed, cannot be) and man-made emmissions are so tiny compared to natural sources (such as the ocean warming, which produces many, many more times CO2 emmissions than humans). Humans certainly weren't around during the times of dinosaurs when the temperature was MUCH higher and CO2 content in the atmosphere quantum levels above what it is now. and somehow life continued, the world wasn't one big desert surrounded by almost no other dry land because sea levels were so high, or boiling oceans, or what-have-you.

There is NO SINGLE model based on the theories of those who believe in anthropogenic global warming that has been able to model what is going on. Why is that? because the theories are wrong. But that's yet another story.

Sure, the temperature is rising. But so what? Yes, higher temperatures could cause ice caps and glaciers to melt (btw - the paper I linked to links to many points of data showing that many parts of the ice caps both north and south, and many glaciers, that Al Gore has been going around telling us are about to fall from the sky are actually refreezing, but hey, let's not look at that information either) and ocean levels to rise. The temperature itself causes the oceans to expand and rise as well.

But does that mean that this is unnatural? Sure, it's going to be a problem for those who have ocean front property. It will be a problem for those who currently farm is areas that will become arid, but people who currently live in arid areas may end up having farmlands again. But because some people suffer due to natural occurences, should we start to worry about soemthing that we can't do anything about and cause the economies of the world to have serious problems because we have to stop burning fossil fuels to stop something that's can't be changed anyway? Give me a better reason to not burn fossil fuels and and a better alternative, and I'll be right behind that, I guarantee you.

My entire point about global warming and the political crap-storm that has arisen from that, was that people who are trying to get governments world-wide to change industries in such a quick and abrupt manner, to avoid a natural issue that we have no effect over, is idiocy. We need to learn to adapt to slightly higher temperatures, higher carbon content in the atmosphere, rather than destroy industry that doesn't have anything to do with that particular problem.

And guess what - methane is extremely dangerous, much more so than CO2. But do you know where the true danger comes frome? Again, it's not man's contribution in the very small amount we put out in relation to natural phenomenon. There are billions of cubic meters of methane gas pockets in places like the offshore continental shelves of the US east coast. I read an article not too long ago that was talking about what would happen if a relatively small meteorite, or the "right" earthquake, were to loose even a fraction of that gas into the air. The ENITRE EASTERN SEABOARD would die. Not from methane poisoning, but from suffocation because methane is heavier than air and would temporarily displace the atmosphere and kill every living thing that depends on oxygen and other atmospheric components to breathe.

There are so many real and true dangers in this world that concentraing on stuff we can't do anything about is the wrong thing to be worrying about. But that's just my (what I consider to be well-informed) opinion, and I refuse to vote for people that continue to advance such things for their own benefit.

Pretty sure Romney had a plan to cut taxes and still somehow cut the debt... I think the majority of people were turned off from Romney due to the crazy right in the Republican party.

I'm sure Americans would vote for a moderate conservative if they could, but the rabid pro-life, anti-gay, anti-immigration stance of the modern Republican party is too much for most of them.

Romney's record was pretty moderate before he had to go full retard to win the preliminaries.

BTW - it's been shown before (according to some analysis of data, just dpeends on what you believe at the end of the day) that cutting taxes and removing business red tape and other restrictions actually raises tax revenue. But hey, I'm a free market guy. That's my belief. Democrats for sure don't believe that, they think the only way to make things better is to take money from those who have it and give in various ways to those who don't, ignoring such things as the damage lack motivation to make money can do to an economy. They ought to come here sometime and take a look...

The religious crap is one big thing that turns me off of the Republicans as well. I don't believe in god (in any god - take your pick! And why are Christians so sure THEY have it right?), even if I did, I don't believe that making laws based on something written thousands of years ago by people supposedly under the influence of their god is the way to government everyone. When god makes his appearance and tells me what he requires of me, I'll probably change my mind.

I'm fiscally conservative. I believe that people need to work for themselves and live within ther means, and the only thing they need is that the playing field be equal for all (doesn't matter who's in power, that never has, and probably never will, happen). I've worked as many as 3 jobs at a time when I needed to, and did that to put myself through university and have done so since when times are hard. I currently work two jobs, both full time, to recover from the "crisis" of 2008+ (yes, I work EVERY day, between 10 and 12 hours a day). I'm not too proud to dig ditches, or serve people food, or whatever needs to be done to earn money. I prefer my independence, which taking handouts from the government does not provide.

I'm socially liberal (but really liberal, not neo-liberal which is what all current self-named "liberals" really are). I believe in the right for any person to marry anyone they want. I believe that what happens in your own home is your business and no one else's unless crimes are being committed against others (family members, for example). I think the war on drugs, which has consumed so many billions of dollars better spent elsewhere, and has put so many people in prison for non-violent and victimless crimes, and has caused the rise of a violent black market in answer to peoples' desire tha legislation WILL NOT remove, is one of the stupidest things we could have done. I think that the government has no place legislating anything but the most simple morals - don't kill, don't steal, don't cheat. If you do, there should consequences no matter how rich or well-connected one is.

For those who cannot provide for themselves because of physical or mental handicaps - well, absolutely they need to be helped. But put the government in there and people are going to go that route because it's so easy. I won't go on about this, but for too many there is no incentive to go the extra step to provide for yourself when the government will do it more easily, and with little or no real oversight, which by nature comes with government, or the expense needed to provide that oversight, it is too easy for those who don't need it to get it, and sometimes difficult for those who do need it to get it, and in the meantime bilions of dollars are wasted in trying to provide oversight and make it right..

It's helping your fellow man by proxy. It's relegating your repsonsibility as a human to others and washing your hands of the issue. And I can say this with no hipocrisy whatsoever: Over the decades I have helped many people by giving them a place to stay, giving them loans, food, etc, when they are down on their luck. More recently I have helped poverty here in South America more directly by teaching people and giving them the means to provide for themselves, rather than making them dependent on me for their future.

Neither party has anything but words to offer me. Words are wind.

 

[ElQueso]

BTW - a bit of a correction about the two links provided on Global Warming. The second link, which was a Yahoo!Answers link, provided the list of defects in Peden's article that were mentioned in my quote of the blogger. I admit that I skipped over the Yahoo!Answers answer - I don't much trust the site to tell the truth and didn't think much of either source. Although, having re-read some of the first source on the blogger, I still don't know who he is, but he does have a lot of people that are presenting themselves as experts.

As well, the Yahoo!Answer guy SEEMs to know what he's talking about, but to me one of the most critical items is talking about the absorption of the absorption of heat and light by CO2 molecules. He cites Hug, a nobel-prize winning physicist who's work he says disputes peden's findings, yet doesn't go on to say how far off would be Peden's numbers. Peden's numbers showed that CO2 made no difference, and the Answers guy doesn't give us an idea of how much that may be wrong.

Peden is not the only guy I've seen talk about the CO2 molecule's lack of absorption of heat from light. And the only thing I saw refuting the lack of ability for decades of scientists to come up with a model to explain WHY CO2 is causing such problems is "nature is complicated." Heh.

The biggest thing Peden says, BTW, is not that scientists are wrong about anthropogenic global warming (that's my opinion) but that they are wrong to say it is "fact" and that all the world's real scientists agree with that statement, which casues REAL problems at getting to the bottom of the truth.

Same kind of thing happens when government gets involved with things like Fusion research. Do some looking into that, where funding for research into fusion reaction is done almost entirely along Tokamak designs because that is "accepted" science and engineering, funded by the government and it is extremely difficult to get funding in other areas because of that. Everyone who is already involved in the research has a reason to keep that going so they don't lose face and lose their money, while the government listens to scientists already involved in research and that's what they give money to.

The US Navy contracted with a scientist who didn't agree, and with $20 million and a relatively short period of time, they were able to create a fusion reaction that lasted thousands of times longer than any Tokamak reaction.

 

[PhilinBSAS]

Words are wind.

Cheesy dude you just hit 3001 words in your last posting!

Some super-storm is that!

All directly attributable to climate change!

Can't dispute that. :lol:

 

[Rich One]

hola Big Cheese how did we evolve from One Man One Vote to Gobal Warming?

Any Message of more than one paragraph I only scan thru..... Sorry

 

[PhilinBSAS]

Well, for all you hard done by Americans. No Prime Minister in the UK ever gets more than about 42% of the popular vote. In fact we dont even get to vote for the Prime Minister !

Nor Head of State!

Not even the heir to the throne either.

Who would you rather vote for?

Personally were I be considered to be worthy enough to be given a choice I would after careful thought go for the koala on the right wearing the nappy as having the best chance of possibly stopping us heading off in yet another futile war to pretend to ourselves we can keep up with the USA's latest territorial ambitions - NB I dont mean the one in the hat

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4631890/Prince-Charles-and-Camilla-hug-koalas-in-Australia.html

 

[ElQueso]

You guys are right, sorry - at times I get too wordy, and often about the wrong topic! Oops...

 

[PhilinBSAS]

You guys are right, sorry - at times I get too wordy, and often about the wrong topic! Oops...

Consider it good exercise ... a rant a day keeps the doctor away(?)

 

[scotttswan]

words.....

the guy whos article you posted is NOT an atmospheric scientist and never has been!

http://www.nasa.gov/...rgy-budget.html
A new NASA study underscores the fact that greenhouse gases generated by human activity -- not changes in solar activity -- are the primary force driving global warming.

The study offers an updated calculation of the Earth's energy imbalance, the difference between the amount of solar energy absorbed by Earth's surface and the amount returned to space as heat. The researchers' calculations show that, despite unusually low solar activity between 2005 and 2010, the planet continued to absorb more energy than it returned to space.

http://www.newscient...not-humans.html
Similarly, there is no trend in direct measurements of the Sun's ultraviolet output and in cosmic rays. So for the period for which we have direct, reliable records, the Earth has warmed dramatically even though there has been no corresponding rise in any kind of solar activity.

http://stephenschnei...monLaut2004.pdf

http://thingsbreak.f...rgy-balance.pdf
"Even for a reconstruction with high variability in total irradiance, solar forcing contributed only about 0.07°C (0.03-0.13°C) to the warming since 1950."

http://arxiv.org/PS_...0901.0515v1.pdf
"We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming."

http://adsabs.harvar...JGRD..11414101B
"Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980."

rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1387.abstract
"It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is -1.3% and the 2? confidence level sets the uncertainty range of -0.7 to -1.9%."

http://pubs.giss.nas...8_Lean_Rind.pdf
"According to this analysis, solar forcing contributed negligible long-term warming in the past 25 years and 10% of the warming in the past 100 years..."

http://rspa.royalsoc...4/1367.abstract
"The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings."

www.pnas.org/content/104/10/3713.full
"Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century."

http://www.warwickhu...ockwood2007.pdf
"The observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."

http://www.mpa-garch...006/MPA2001.pdf
"The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years."

http://www.acrim.com...ng_GRL_2006.pdf
"since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone."

http://www.mps.mpg.d...olanki/c153.pdf
"during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."

http://cc.oulu.fi/~u...nature02995.pdf
reconstructs 11,400 years of sunspot numbers using radiocarbon concentrations, finding "solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades".

http://cat.inist.fr/...cpsidt=14604941
"Observational data suggest that the Sun has influenced temperatures on decadal, centennial and millennial time-scales, but radiative forcing considerations and the results of energy-balance models and general circulation models suggest that the warming during the latter part of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar effects."

http://climate.envsc...f/StottEtAl.pdf
increased climate model sensitivity to solar forcing and still found "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases."

http://www.mps.mpg.d...ERS/warming.pdf
"the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global warming since 1970."

http://www.sciencedi...364682698001138
"it is unlikely that Sun–climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970."

http://ppg.sagepub.c.../3/309.abstract
"little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend."

http://ieg.or.kr/abs...G0102523037.PDF
"solar radiative output trends contributed little of the 0.2°C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past decade."

Real atmospheric scientists have no doubts what is causing global warming.

There are so many real and true dangers in this world that concentraing on stuff we can't do anything about is the wrong thing to be worrying about. But that's just my (what I consider to be well-informed) opinion, and I refuse to vote for people that continue to advance such things for their own benefit.

That's where you are wrong. People can do things about it and burying your head in the sand saying its not happening isn't going to help.

http://www.washingto...953e_story.html
It says solar power’s share in the country’s electricity production rose to 6.1 percent from 4.1 percent. Wind power gained slightly to 8.6 percent from 8.0 percent. Biomass plants accounted for almost 6 percent.
It says all renewable energies combined accounted for about 26 percent of electricity production over the first nine months.

 

[John.St]

hola Big Cheese how did we evolve from One Man One Vote to Gobal Warming?

Any Message of more than one paragraph I only scan thru..... Sorry

can you point to 1 (one) thread on this board with more than 10 answers, which hasn't strayed from the original subject - from the exchange rate for U$S/pesos to the average weight of African elephants, etc., etc.
Debates go like that, and not only on the internet.