MMGW myth revisited

kronckew

kronckew

Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Messages
3,409
the hubris of science, believing man is significant enough in the world, and the universe to derail the course of nature.

as we enter a significant down turn cycle in solar activity that in the past has resulted in mini ice ages, notable in the 18th c. when here in the UK the thames would freeze feet thick, we have the gall to try to stop the earth from self regulating by reducing it's efforts. volcanos spew out larger volumes of greenhouse gasses than most countries. cows fart. we fart. and the sea itself gives off vast quantities of methane, which is 40 times stroinger than co2 as a greenhouse gas.

yet we spend billions upon billions trying to further cool our cooling planet. 'climatologits' (sp. deliberate) narrow focus on the last 50 years or so, rather than on millenia has provided info that allows politicians to bamboozle us into coughing up yet more taxes to pay for favoured programs from which they themselves earn votes as well as enriching their own coffers. when did you ever see a pennyless politician out of work and homeless.

anyway see This New Scientis mag. article
 
Well we fart too and our cows as well. Guess what happens to the methane stored in the oceans once they get warmer? More of it gets released which will in turn increase global warming and release even more.
Viscous cycle.
That leaves us two choices either give up and suffer or do whatever little we can to slow the process.

Also even if methane is 40 times more potent than CO2 you missed to mention how much of each substance is being released.
 
There are certainly threats to human civilization in addition to the global warming caused by the gigantic industrial plants and other technological processes that spew out vast amounts of greenhouse gases. Nature giveth and nature taketh away, but that doesn't lessen the danger of global warming caused by human activity. You might be hit by a truck swerving onto the sidewalk, but that isn't a reason to wander out into traffic on your own.

One of the greatest dangers of global warming involves the enormous amount of methane that for thousands of years has been trapped in the permafrost of Siberia and other cold areas of the earth. As the planet warms and the permafrost melts, that methane will be released, like giving global warming a shot of steroids.

No doubt a certain amount of methane is also being released into the atmosphere by natural processes that are not human-caused. This makes the danger more serious, not a justification for continuing down a road to extinction. It is a problem on a much greater scale and with much more dire consequences than the usual squabbling and self-enrichment of politicians, or the usual rivalries between countries.
 
And yet not a SINGLE one of the political agenda items proposed would have ANY impact on what is currently considered "global warming" While we can debate the cause of the global warming and it's significance all we want, one thing that has ZERO debate is that any of the so called "solutions" that are being discussed would have any impact at all. None of them. They are ALL just ways of redistributing wealth, not a single government plan would decrease the actual CO2 released, all it does is force the transfer of manufacturing to countries that are backwards enough they have no industrial manufacturing of their own OR corrupt enough they will continue polluting and even expand their pollution regardless of treaties. Does anyone really think that limiting the manufacturing done in the USA will actually save the planet? Yet that is pretty much the ONLY agenda of any of the treaties currently being spawned.
 
Shavru said:
And yet not a SINGLE one of the political agenda items proposed would have ANY impact on what is currently considered "global warming" While we can debate the cause of the global warming and it's significance all we want, one thing that has ZERO debate is that any of the so called "solutions" that are being discussed would have any impact at all. None of them. They are ALL just ways of redistributing wealth, not a single government plan would decrease the actual CO2 released, all it does is force the transfer of manufacturing to countries that are backwards enough they have no industrial manufacturing of their own OR corrupt enough they will continue polluting and even expand their pollution regardless of treaties. Does anyone really think that limiting the manufacturing done in the USA will actually save the planet? Yet that is pretty much the ONLY agenda of any of the treaties currently being spawned.
Click to expand...
True if not every country follows it it's useless for Earth as a whole, especially for everything that can be easily outsourced. In Europe it's even worse with so many countries in a smaller location. Can only produce clean electricity in Germany? German Nuclear power plants closed? Just import nuclear electricity from right across the border in France or some significantly less safe nuclear plants in the East. Globally that does nothing or is actually worse.
Locally however it can be great. The Japanese for example manage to keep their own landscape relatively untouched. They don't cut their own forests if avoidable and simply outsource deforestation to other nations. We do the same to no small extent. If we'd produce all the Chinese goods ourselves with the same lax regulations I wouldn't want to live here. I like the US in its current state.
Clean air and water are priceless, if one can afford them.

Back to global warming, wasn't there a recent success bringing some big developing nations on board?
 
Shavru said:
And yet not a SINGLE one of the political agenda items proposed would have ANY impact on what is currently considered "global warming" While we can debate the cause of the global warming and it's significance all we want, one thing that has ZERO debate is that any of the so called "solutions" that are being discussed would have any impact at all. None of them. They are ALL just ways of redistributing wealth, not a single government plan would decrease the actual CO2 released, all it does is force the transfer of manufacturing to countries that are backwards enough they have no industrial manufacturing of their own OR corrupt enough they will continue polluting and even expand their pollution regardless of treaties. Does anyone really think that limiting the manufacturing done in the USA will actually save the planet? Yet that is pretty much the ONLY agenda of any of the treaties currently being spawned.
Click to expand...

I agree that the "political agenda items" of the major parties and the major industrial countries are utterly bankrupt, just a way to pretend that they are doing something. It's like the march of the lemmings into the sea (or is it off a cliff, I forget), and the lead lemmings say, let's march a little slower and we'll be ok.

Of course it's not just a USA problem, and can't be solved by the USA alone limiting production. However, there are several ironies here. First, a good deal of USA industrial production is being limited anyway, not because of global warming, but because of cheap labor in China, other Asian countries, and Latin America. The second irony is that many of the same national leaders and ideologues who constantly talk about USA being a global leader seem to forget all that when it comes to global leadership on climate change. True leadership doesn't mean one country does it all, but there are many things that can be done internationally and the USA should be at least one of the leaders in making that happen. What we get instead are half-measures, quarter-measures, and in some circles, outright denial.

Unfortunately, the rivalries among Great Powers, and the corporate priority of profits as the highest value, make it unlikely that much will be done until coastal cities are drowning in rising sea levels, agricultural production is decimated by droughts here and floods there, and the Great Powers start to go to war over dwindling fresh water supplies.

Maybe we're starting to drift off into one of those political type discussions that the moderators frown on. My only excuse is that I didn't start it, but I'm willing to let it go for now.
 
The Eemeian was much warmer than today, at least from a period 127 000 years ago to about 120 000 years ago. Up to 2-3 degrees warmer than the current median, much more in some places... The current warm period (the 0 degree reference point) is called the Holocene, and is about 8000 years old.

Keep in mind one degree worldwide is huge...

What is shocking, when looking at the warm periods, is that they last under or at 10 000 years, and the truly frightening Ice Ages of -4 or more (compared to today) are most of the 100 000 years periods between them... With one truly abysmal 12 000 year period, just before our Holocene, that was -8... With a peak near -10...

Most of the human timespan experienced the -4 range.

Warm periods are short!

Gaston
 
The climate changes, part of how things are. But what's going on is that there's a whole bunch of people running around chanting "The shy is falling! The sky is falling!!! It's all Uplander's fault cause he's driving an old Jeep instead of riding a bicycle. We need millions of nasty old dollars to fly over to the Rivera to research how fast the sky is falling over there."
 
Well its kind like when I hear people say that they are allergic to grass because when they go mow the grass they get sick. Therefore in a simplistic approach to reality they never considered that all the pollen that has accumulated on them blades of grass since the last rain is making them sick and grass hasnt even flowered yet. Another analogy might be when a cold front blows through and winds blow 180 degrees in the other direction when you live on a fault line and the vegetation on each side of the fault line is totally different (AKA Balcones fault of Texas). They think they got a cold because they are not capable of compound reasoning. They are actually getting sick because the the pollen they are breathing is totally different from the pollens that normal prevailing south winds bring so they think "because it got cold and a cold front came through therefore they got a cold". Many people are just not capable of compound and or complex reasoning.
What im getting at is that since all the ice is melting at the same time we are burning off more fossil fuels in human history then therefore it must be us causing the problem. Sounds logical right? Unfortunately history is almost always broken by some event or series of events. Mars leaves no evidence of life due to its geologic processes but it might have been there. Unconformities of rock strata erase history as we know it on earth (eg. Cretaceous / Tertiary boundary) but climate change evidence might have been there. We're left with a puzzle and all kinds of scholars and scatterbrains to interpret the data.
There is evidence that we as humans did have a powerful effect on reversing the effect of ozone depletion by implementing CFC restrictions or did we? Was something else responsible other than all our political actions to solve this problem? Who knows for sure? NOBODY! I myself would trust the worlds greatest scientist over the media brainwashed masses. Did yall know that Budweiser is the worlds best selling beer? Hmmm? Must mean its the best beer in the world. DOOOOOOOOAH! Slap youself silly!!!
 
ndoghouse said:
Well its kind like when I hear people say that they are allergic to grass because when they go mow the grass they get sick. Therefore in a simplistic approach to reality they never considered that all the pollen that has accumulated on them blades of grass since the last rain is making them sick and grass hasnt even flowered yet. Another analogy might be when a cold front blows through and winds blow 180 degrees in the other direction when you live on a fault line and the vegetation on each side of the fault line is totally different (AKA Balcones fault of Texas). They think they got a cold because they are not capable of compound reasoning. They are actually getting sick because the the pollen they are breathing is totally different from the pollens that normal prevailing south winds bring so they think "because it got cold and a cold front came through therefore they got a cold". Many people are just not capable of compound and or complex reasoning.
What im getting at is that since all the ice is melting at the same time we are burning off more fossil fuels in human history then therefore it must be us causing the problem. Sounds logical right? Unfortunately history is almost always broken by some event or series of events. Mars leaves no evidence of life due to its geologic processes but it might have been there. Unconformities of rock strata erase history as we know it on earth (eg. Cretaceous / Tertiary boundary) but climate change evidence might have been there. We're left with a puzzle and all kinds of scholars and scatterbrains to interpret the data.
There is evidence that we as humans did have a powerful effect on reversing the effect of ozone depletion by implementing CFC restrictions or did we? Was something else responsible other than all our political actions to solve this problem? Who knows for sure? NOBODY! I myself would trust the worlds greatest scientist over the media brainwashed masses. Did yall know that Budweiser is the worlds best selling beer? Hmmm? Must mean its the best beer in the world. DOOOOOOOOAH! Slap youself silly!!!
Click to expand...
There are so many examples of how biased our perception is.
Homeopathy always helps to get rid of a cold? Maybe all those colds would have gone away without those little globuli as well? Our kid used to have so many colds until we started to forego Gluten in our food. Well the kid didn't just stop eating Gluten. It's also older now...
Anyways being aware of humans' and ones own limited perception helps to ask better questions and understand the limitations of bad studies.

Oh one thing I came across last friday. Kids who study piano and music after school are more likely to become doctors and lawyers. This ought to proof that music improves brain functions. Or does it proof that the parents are rich and who can afford music classes is also more likely to afford college? (My theory)
I don't know the answer but both sound plausible and after identifying alternative explanations a reader like us can only say the authors didn't look at alternative explanations. A scientist in that field could take the initial study apart and write a new paper about the real corellation, if she can proof it.
Also even the original paper will most likely not deal in absolutes and say something like the influence of music on brain functions seems plausible and further studies are needed. So they are not wrong but if a more mainstream media summarizes the paper it would read "Music improves the brain and success in life". Thats not what the scientists said but what most of us non scientists will read and cause some of us to role their eyes and even complain.
 
Last edited:
I regard the effort to fight global warming more as an effort to reduce pollution.
We fart, cows fart, pigs fart, but true pollution is purely a byproduct of man. And it's one that we have control over.
If you reduce pollution and want to use global warming as the excuse, go right ahead.

Just because a natural event may destroy us all at any moment, it doesn't mean we should be filthy animals and destroy everything we CAN. That's just selfish thinking.
Sheesh.

As for the politics of it- I think it's genuinely funny that the argument I heard the most AGAINST global warming was that there was not enough data to prove it (~100 years worth).
Yet, the same people who used that argument recently said (after ONE particularly cold year), that they had proof of global cooling.
Talk about modifying the facts to fit an agenda!
 
follow the money. when you have a financial interest in pushing a particular product, theory, law, pastime, etc. and a financial disincentive if you do not follow the current pet theory, you tend to get people writing papers that agree with and extend existing 'knowledge'. burning heretics is not limited to the spanish inquisition. how many ideas get tossed in the bin by peer review groups? how many researcher toe the line because they are afraid of not gaining tenure? how many research grants were issued to scientists whose application was for a theory 'everybody knows' is stupid.

heck, in 1491 everybody of any importance in the intelligentsia of europe knew the world was spherical and that you could sail west and hit japan because nothing was in the way. everybody also knew the diameter of the world correctly within a few percent which made the voyage too long to survive. bit like everybody knows going to mars is likely a suicide mission as you can't carry enough air, food, water, etc. fast enough to get there fast enough before you go crazy and die of all sorts of physical and mental problems. not to mention the martians that keep shooting down our robots. (;))
mars3.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top