Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Tread

an inconvenient truth

Recommended Posts

Guest parallax

But seriously, leave politics out of it. Look at the facts, instead of burning down Al Gore because you don't have a proper scientific rebutal.

My comparison of this debate with the intelligent design debate isn't to show how both sides have proper arguments, but to show that like intelligent design, much of the anti-Gore camp consists of rethoric that has nothing to do with proper science.

I know some people are dense, but even the US government secretly acknowledges global warming is a man-made problem, what else do you want?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest scott frizzle

Hey Repubs, see the movie before you give us the party talking points.

The definition of a right winger is one who let's others do his thinking for him. You're too smart

for that, I hope. See it and then comment.

 

Well, I'm a registered independent, but let me get this straight: Seeing one movie made by a career politician and then refusing to accept any alternative viewpoints somehow counts as not letting others do your thinking for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest scott frizzle

But seriously, leave politics out of it. Look at the facts, instead of burning down Al Gore because you don't have a proper scientific rebutal.

My comparison of this debate with the intelligent design debate isn't to show how both sides have proper arguments, but to show that like intelligent design, much of the anti-Gore camp consists of rethoric that has nothing to do with proper science.

I know some people are dense, but even the US government secretly acknowledges global warming is a man-made problem, what else do you want?

 

I agree, but you have to apply that method both ways. A couple of the things I posted were knocked because some people felt the sources may have been politically tainted, or because there was some seemingly bad humor used by the author. I didn't hear any scientific rebuttal at all. It's not better science just because it happens to reinforce your opinion.

 

I'd be happy to read any intelligent, scientific explanation as to why solar radiation cannot be causing significant global warming, for instance (maybe this is in Gore's film.) I have not made my mind up on this subject.

 

What is your source that the US Gov. "secretly" thinks that global warming is a man made problem? I guess it's not much of a secret...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest pixelthief

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but Al Gore didn't make this movie. He is the subject of the movie. It's a documentary about him traveling around giving his presentation that he's been giving for forever now.

 

He is credited solely as a cast member.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parallax

Oh i agree it should be done for both sides.

 

About solar variation theory, some snippets:

 

-----To reconcile theories of an increase in solar radiation with the measurements would require other changes either in the spectrum of the sun (which has not been observed) or in the absorption profile of the atmosphere, which would probably imply some kind of climate change.

 

Sami Solanki, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Göttingen, Germany said:

 

The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures... the brighter sun and higher levels of so-called "greenhouse gases" both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature, but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact.[19]

 

Over the last twenty years, however, Solanki agrees with the nearly unanimous scientific consensus that the marked upswing in temperatures is indeed to be attributed to human activity.

 

"Just how large this role [of solar variation] is, must still be investigated, since, according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar magnetic field, the significant increase in the Earth’s temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide." [20]

-----

 

The theories have usually represented one of three types:

 

* Solar irradiance changes directly affecting the climate. This is generally considered unlikely, as the variations seem to be too small.

* Variations in the ultraviolet component having an effect. The UV component varies by more than the total.

* Effects mediated by changes in cosmic rays (which are affected by the solar wind, which is affected by the solar output) such as changes in cloud cover.

 

Although correlations often can be found, the mechanism behind these correlations is a matter of speculation. Many of these speculative accounts have fared badly over time, and in a paper "Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations" (J. Atmos. and Solar-Terr. Phy., 2003 p801–812) Peter Laut demonstrates problems with some of the most popular, notably those by Svensmark and by Lassen (below). Damon and Laut report in Eos[21] that the apparent strong correlations displayed on these graphs have been obtained by incorrect handling of the physical data. The graphs are still widely referred to in the literature,and their misleading character has not yet been generally recognized.

 

In 1991, Knud Lassen of the Danish Meteorological Institute in Copenhagen and his colleague Eigil Friis-Christensen found a strong correlation between the length of the solar cycle and temperature changes throughout the northern hemisphere. Initially, they used sunspot and temperature measurements from 1861 to 1989, but later found that climate records dating back four centuries supported their findings. This relationship appeared to account for nearly 80 per cent of the measured temperature changes over this period (see graph.[22] Damon and Laut, however, show that when the graphs are corrected for filtering errors, the sensational agreement with the recent global warming, which drew worldwide attention, has totally disappeared. Nevertheless,the authors and other researchers keep presenting the old misleading graph.[21] Note that the prior link to "graph" is one such example of this.

 

------

 

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

 

i'm googling the 'secret' report, wich off course isn't really secret, and could also be about rising sea levels instead of Global Warming (not sure)

It was a CIA report.

 

edit:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2023835.stm

 

edit2:

 

http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2004-5/default.htm

Edited by parallax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest scott frizzle

Oh i agree it should be done for both sides.

 

About solar variation theory, some snippets:

 

-----To reconcile theories of an increase in solar radiation with the measurements would require other changes either in the spectrum of the sun (which has not been observed) or in the absorption profile of the atmosphere, which would probably imply some kind of climate change.

 

Sami Solanki, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Göttingen, Germany said:

 

The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures... the brighter sun and higher levels of so-called "greenhouse gases" both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature, but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact.[19]

 

Over the last twenty years, however, Solanki agrees with the nearly unanimous scientific consensus that the marked upswing in temperatures is indeed to be attributed to human activity.

 

"Just how large this role [of solar variation] is, must still be investigated, since, according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar magnetic field, the significant increase in the Earth’s temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide." [20]

-----

 

The theories have usually represented one of three types:

 

* Solar irradiance changes directly affecting the climate. This is generally considered unlikely, as the variations seem to be too small.

* Variations in the ultraviolet component having an effect. The UV component varies by more than the total.

* Effects mediated by changes in cosmic rays (which are affected by the solar wind, which is affected by the solar output) such as changes in cloud cover.

 

Although correlations often can be found, the mechanism behind these correlations is a matter of speculation. Many of these speculative accounts have fared badly over time, and in a paper "Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations" (J. Atmos. and Solar-Terr. Phy., 2003 p801–812) Peter Laut demonstrates problems with some of the most popular, notably those by Svensmark and by Lassen (below). Damon and Laut report in Eos[21] that the apparent strong correlations displayed on these graphs have been obtained by incorrect handling of the physical data. The graphs are still widely referred to in the literature,and their misleading character has not yet been generally recognized.

 

In 1991, Knud Lassen of the Danish Meteorological Institute in Copenhagen and his colleague Eigil Friis-Christensen found a strong correlation between the length of the solar cycle and temperature changes throughout the northern hemisphere. Initially, they used sunspot and temperature measurements from 1861 to 1989, but later found that climate records dating back four centuries supported their findings. This relationship appeared to account for nearly 80 per cent of the measured temperature changes over this period (see graph.[22] Damon and Laut, however, show that when the graphs are corrected for filtering errors, the sensational agreement with the recent global warming, which drew worldwide attention, has totally disappeared. Nevertheless,the authors and other researchers keep presenting the old misleading graph.[21] Note that the prior link to "graph" is one such example of this.

 

------

 

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

 

i'm googling the 'secret' report, wich off course isn't really secret, and could also be about rising sea levels instead of Global Warming (not sure)

It was a CIA report.

 

edit:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2023835.stm

 

edit2:

 

http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2004-5/default.htm

 

Looks like good stuff, parallax. I haven't read through it all yet, but I'll certainly make the effort. I'm not going to post another round of articles that contradict these; I think the circular argument has gone around enough times already. The more information the better, in any case.

 

I will post a couple of links that I found interesting from the author Michael Chrichton. I do not do this to convince anyone of any particular global warming angle; obviously he's no climatologist. Basically, I like his point of view on this type of thing. Take it for what it's worth.

 

I can't direct link these articles, but they're all on the main link at the bottom:

 

"Fear, Complexity, Environmental Management in the 21st Century"

 

"Testimony of Michael Crichton before the United States Senate"

 

"Environmentalism as Religion"

 

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/index.html

 

The others might be good too; I didn't read them all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest nutrition_facts

while everyone's at it, how about keeping this thread as an archive for non-biased (at least striving for that as has mostly been the case up to now) facts regarding environmental issues, solid research for mographers near and far to base their work on?

 

much props for intelligent discussion, it's been a good read.

 

:H

Edited by nutrition_facts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tread

experiments like that just release more co2 in the air. C'mon now! That's not helping the cause!

 

Shame on them.

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest nutrition_facts

really is.

 

just why not a ka insted of a hummer?

 

still... thanks, excellent find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest nutrition_facts

and clean water is hard to come by these days, but if hho could be generated from de-salinized water then we'd be getting somewhere :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tread

I dont' think this guys technology is the same thing as Hydrogen power. But what do we know. They are the scientists.

 

clean water is not hard to make. Distillation can be done with a stove and a teapot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Beaver

i think the process (breaking H2O molecules with electricity) loose more energy than it produce.

 

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

 

He's making HHO, not hydrogen, and he's got an international patent on the process, which means he probably has an efficient way of producing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ai

Copy and paste from a comment on the digg page: http://digg.com/technology/Water_Fuel_-_HHO_Gas

Let's make sure we understand what this technology is for...

 

Water is not the fuel--it's not the source of energy. Electricity from your local power plant is your source of power. Electrolysing water and then burning the result gets you around the simple problem that electricity itself doesn't burn. You can burn hydrocarbons, like butane or gasoline, but then you have to store the fuel (which can be dangerous).

 

Instead, you store water, a very stable substance. You use electricity to turn that water into fuel, then immediately burn the result, turning it back into water. You can even take that waste water and run it back through the system. You always get less power out of the system than you put into it (laws of thermodynamics in effect here); but you've effectively found a way to burn hydrogen without having to store the hydrogen and oxygen, which can be very dangerous to store.

 

A water-powered car isn't really powered by water. It's battery-powered. However, puting water into the system allows you to still use a combustion engine, rather than electric motors. It's not nearly as efficient, which is why this route isn't being pursued by auto makers. But there can be advantages, depending on your needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest scott frizzle

 

 

just why not a ka insted of a hummer?

 

 

 

The military found the armor plating on the Ka to be substandard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parallax

You wanna see some REAL science? Click here.

 

Cf

 

Finally! Proof!

 

Some 7 years ago or something i dropped a few mentos in someone's can of coke (yes, i'm like that) and the ceiling got splattered. People never believed me.

 

Up until now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest jaan

Finally! Proof!

 

Some 7 years ago or something i dropped a few mentos in someone's can of coke (yes, i'm like that) and the ceiling got splattered. People never believed me.

 

Up until now.

 

was that right after he and his utility company coworkers in their overalls helped you parallel park by picking up your car and scooting it in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sao_Bento

"A telling statistic about this is in Gore's movie. They did a random sample of scientific peer reviewed papers on global warming. Of 932 samples, ZERO disagreed with the conclusion that global warming was happening and was man made. On the other hand 56% of the articles on the subject they randomly surveyed said the jury was still out.

 

This is the long standing problem in the media of false equivalency. They take any issue and assume that there are two sides and that both sides have similar standing. So if 932 peer reviewed scientific papers say that global warming is happening and humans are causing it, and there's 932 articles written by crackpots and industry lobbyists saying the opposite, the media treat this as being two equivlanet sides of an issue. It makes good copy, but it's incredibly desceptive."

 

excerpt from a long thread on /.

http://science.slashdot.org/science/06/06/14/209235.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest scott frizzle

"A telling statistic about this is in Gore's movie. They did a random sample of scientific peer reviewed papers on global warming. Of 932 samples, ZERO disagreed with the conclusion that global warming was happening and was man made. On the other hand 56% of the articles on the subject they randomly surveyed said the jury was still out.

 

This is the long standing problem in the media of false equivalency. They take any issue and assume that there are two sides and that both sides have similar standing. So if 932 peer reviewed scientific papers say that global warming is happening and humans are causing it, and there's 932 articles written by crackpots and industry lobbyists saying the opposite, the media treat this as being two equivlanet sides of an issue. It makes good copy, but it's incredibly desceptive."

 

excerpt from a long thread on /.

http://science.slashdot.org/science/06/06/14/209235.shtml

 

See, what gets me is the instant assertion that ALL questioning of this concept is being done by crackpots and industry lobbyists. The article that is referenced in the thread you link to has quotes from several real live scientists from around the world, and mentioned a group of 60 that are calling for the Canadian government to reevaluate their stance on global warming. Now, if you can dig up concrete proof that each and every one of these guys is nuts or being paid off by big oil, great. If not, what reason do we have not to at least consider their findings?

 

I think we all agree that this whole thing is laced with politics, but I find the assertion that all of the politics are on one side and all of the science is on the other to be naive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sao_Bento

See, what gets me is the instant assertion that ALL questioning of this concept is being done by crackpots and industry lobbyists. The article that is referenced in the thread you link to has quotes from several real live scientists from around the world, and mentioned a group of 60 that are calling for the Canadian government to reevaluate their stance on global warming. Now, if you can dig up concrete proof that each and every one of these guys is nuts or being paid off by big oil, great. If not, what reason do we have not to at least consider their findings?

 

I think we all agree that this whole thing is laced with politics, but I find the assertion that all of the politics are on one side and all of the science is on the other to be naive.

Realistically, 60 people is a very small fraction of the scientific community, even in Canada.

 

I think the broader point that was made is that science is not based on one person having an opinion, then someone has an opposing opinion and they just agree to disagree. All the nay-sayers need to do is develop an alternate theory backed up by some research. For some reason no contrary theory has been published in a peer-reviewed setting.

As my previous post mentioned, the idea that there is significant opposition to the idea of global warming begins with the media, not the scientific community itself.

 

As far as considering alternate views, what is the case to be made against conservation? It's like quitting smoking or losing weight. It's hard to argue that it would be better for things to stay like they are. What's in it for the conservationists? to be right? to risk the future of mankind rather than hear an "I toldya so"? Is the fear that, somehow, someone might make money from conservation? People already make massive amounts of money from fossil fuels, so is the argument that the money should not be taken from them and given to someone else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest jennings9900

the "Canadian Free Press" article from june 14 interviews several notable scientists that say the film is hogwash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...