Spinning wheels of Global Warming

  • News
  • Thread starter Andre
  • Start date
  • #1
4,465
72
In the early days of Global Warming, the "capo di tutti global warming capi", Stephan Schneider, made his world famous public appeal to commit noble cause corruption:

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DetroitNews.pdf
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. … On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. … To avert the risk (of potentially disastrous climate change) we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public imagination. That of course means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. …Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective, and being honest.
It's likely that this appeal is one of the most successful in the history of manking condering the statements for instance in the new Summary for Policy makers of the IPCC without an assessment report which has to be amended to reflex the summary. So, the doubts are to be surpressed. Here a first example:

http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_60/iss_3/14_1.shtml [Broken]

...The PHYSICS TODAY piece is based on analysis of work by Harry Bryden, Hannah Longworth, and Stuart Cunningham,1 which concluded that the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation slowed by about 30% between 1957 and 2004. Their work inspired speculations that the anthropogenic increase in carbon dioxide may be responsible for the weakening of heat transport from the tropics, and that such an effect has now been detected.

The conclusion that the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation has decreased by 30% does not follow from the data presented by Bryden and coauthors, but is based on an incorrect treatment of measurement errors...
However:

Bryden's paper as submitted for publication to Nature included a question mark at the end of the title, suggesting only a possibility that the circulation might be slowing down. On the editor's insistence, the question mark was removed, and the title was changed into a positive statement that caused a considerable stir.
Emphasis mine, after all the command of the guru must be obeyed

More to follow
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
4,465
72
Swindle is a big word, I'd say but some think not:

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html [Broken]

So did you watch Al Gore's "inconvenient truth" and would you also go and watch this?

Channel 4 Thursday 8 March at 9pm

In a polemical and thought-provoking documentary, film-maker Martin Durkin argues that the theory of man-made global warming has become such a powerful political force that other explanations for climate change are not being properly aired.

The film brings together the arguments of leading scientists who disagree with the prevailing consensus that a 'greenhouse effect' of carbon dioxide released by human activity is the cause of rising global temperatures.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
150
0
unfortunately not only scientists feel the change in climate, animals and humans also notice the changes that is happening around them. besides u don't expect me to believe that removing half the worlds trees and increasing the use of fossil fuels would not have a dramatic effect on nature? that is not a made up scenario, this is our life now.
 
  • #4
4,465
72
That's not the point at all. But most certainly the strong dominance of Homo urbanus and the devastating effect on nature is worrying and should have the utmost attention, but using scientific fraud in an attempt to correct that is even worse.

Why, because with incorrect information we are bound to do the worng things. What would it help to sequestrate carbon and send solar radiation defectors into space at the moment that a new little ice age would start?

What would happen with the trustworthiness of environmental science when nature makes it fully clear that there is no antropogenic global warming? Whe simply should not accept the fraud.

The next scam attempt is exposed by Roger Pielke Jr here:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_politics/001131spinning_science.html
 
  • #5
960
0
That's not the point at all. But most certainly the strong dominance of Homo urbanus and the devastating effect on nature is worrying and should have the utmost attention, but using scientific fraud in an attempt to correct that is even worse.

Why, because with incorrect information we are bound to do the worng things. What would it help to sequestrate carbon and send solar radiation defectors into space at the moment that a new little ice age would start?

What would happen with the trustworthiness of environmental science when nature makes it fully clear that there is no antropogenic global warming? Whe simply should not accept the fraud.

The next scam attempt is exposed by Roger Pielke Jr here:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_politics/001131spinning_science.html
Solar radiation shields in space? I'm aware of thoughts re sequestration, hopefully the engineers would consider an on/off switch. Even if its a matter of scientists crying wolf, and a waste of $$ who cares?

This is a pointless argument IMO--one can do nothing and hope the claims are grossly exaggerated, or we clean up our act. Even if wrong re AGW, we have a cleaner world for having done so and can use the oil for better purposes than propelling a cargo fraction of 5 percent around town or using coal for generating electricity. I think this point has been like a dozen times on the various threads. Until a really cogent argument can be made for inaction....
 
  • #6
150
0
btw...with the price of such a shield that i think eventually we will need something like that. we still have a chance by planting millions of trees all around the world, and stopping population growth, India is trying to stop its population growth, and i think all the world should be forced to follow. planting trees and stopping population growth...thats the solution...and of course deminishing polution, recycling...
 
  • #7
960
0
Priceless. Of course any such shield should be a really big billboard with Exxon-Mobil ads using solar wind to drive some really cool lights.

Seriously, after Rachel Carson's book in the 60's and the understanding that there are limits to growth, and that carrying capacity is a really, really fundamental concept, the US was striving for zero population growth--that was about a 100 million ago, must all be illegal Mexican immigrants.

Even more seriously, I don't hear anything about curbing pop growth these days, why not? Is it against someone's religion?
 
  • #8
150
0
no religion that i know off has something against curbing pop growth. besides religion is translated according to the needs of the religious men...we should ask them to translate some paragraphs in religious books in the way that would save the earth :)
 
  • #9
russ_watters
Mentor
20,234
6,795
I've never heard about the US attempting to curb its population growth. The US is among the most able to handle a larger population and we certainly haven't made any attempt to cut off immigration. Here are our historical rates: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/cohn.immigration.us [Broken]

The only other place in the world where population growth is all that high right now is Africa and frankly, AIDS is going to stop that.

Regardless, curbing population growth won't do anything, since the world's economy will continue to grow and energy usage along with it. To cut pollution (either for global warming or just so people can breath outside without masks) requires making smarter choices about energy production. The easy place to start is by building a hundred nuclear plants in the US and reprocessing our spent fuel. That would allow us to close half of our coal plants and reduce our air pollution by about a 10%. It would take 20 years, but it really would be easy to do. I focus on coal because coal has a lot of other nasties in it that we should really get rid of, whereas natural gas and oil burn much cleaner. If you are a global warming proponent, then, my suggestion only helps a little bit.

Cutting carbon dioxide emissions significantly just isn't a possibility without a paradigm shift in the way we make and use energy. Carbon dioxide is one of the primary - and most desirable - products of combustion of hydrocarbon fuels.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
Evo
Mentor
23,175
2,940
I've never heard about the US attempting to curb its population growth.
You're probably too young to remember. It was an environmental activist group formed in the late 60's called Zero Population Growth. They changed their name a few years a go to "Population Connection". Here's a blurb about it.

Population Connection is an organization in the United States, formerly known as Zero Population Growth. They adopted their current name in 2002. Zero Population Growth was originally founded in 1968 by Paul R. Ehrlich, Richard Bowers, and Charles Remington, in the wake of the impact from Ehrlich's best-selling book, The Population Bomb.

According to an ad in the paperback edition of that book: Zero Population Growth Inc. is an organization which has been formed to bring the crucial issue of over-population to the attention of the general public, and more specifically, to the attention of our legislators (both state and federal): the ultimate goal of ZPG being to form a lobby group to press for legislation to implement far-reaching birth control programs, repeal of archaic legislation that runs counter to these objectives, and to press for allocation of funds for more research into population problems and research for better methods of contraception. In addition, ZPG will press for tax laws that, instead of offering incentives for having more children, will emphasize the need for population control."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_Connection
 
  • #11
russ_watters
Mentor
20,234
6,795
You're probably too young to remember.
I never get tired of hearing that :biggrin:
It was an environmental activist group formed in the late 60's called Zero Population Growth. They changed their name a few years a go to "Population Connection". Here's a blurb about it....
Ok, but I guess the point is, was it ever a significant movement? At it's peak, that group had a membership of 35,000, a drop in the bucket compared to some major environmentalist groups.

Lawmakers, from time to time, will target immigration for economic and political reasons, but I've never heard of a major push to curb population growth.
 
  • #12
Evo
Mentor
23,175
2,940
I never get tired of hearing that :biggrin: Ok, but I guess the point is, was it ever a significant movement? At it's peak, that group had a membership of 35,000, a drop in the bucket compared to some major environmentalist groups.

Lawmakers, from time to time, will target immigration for economic and political reasons, but I've never heard of a major push to curb population growth.
No, it was never anything major in the US. It seems they have since changed their focus to third world countries.
 
  • #13
960
0
No, it was never anything major in the US. It seems they have since changed their focus to third world countries.

I don't think it is properly characterized as a single environmentalist group, but more as an idea that gained considerable traction at the time. Certainly neither of my parents were a member of the group.

I do remember a college lecture ca. 1975 (evolutionary biology, irc) in a large auditorium that had three giant blackboards spanning it and a professor walking the length while drawing a horizontal line as he went, and then at the end an upwards spike, saying it would take 40 miles of horizontal blackboard to fairly represent the scale of human population growth. Obviously made an impression, guess they don't teach that sort of thing anymore. :frown:
 
  • #14
67
166
In the 1960's it was frequently referred to as the "population explosion". Evidently the earth can support a lot more people than was predicted at that time. Changes in agricultural development have increased the food supply.

On thing is for sure, we will be running out of naturally produced foods such as seafood. I read an article that said by 2048 seafood will have virtually disappeared.
 
  • #15
960
0
In the 1960's it was frequently referred to as the "population explosion". Evidently the earth can support a lot more people than was predicted at that time. Changes in agricultural development have increased the food supply.

On thing is for sure, we will be running out of naturally produced foods such as seafood. I read an article that said by 2048 seafood will have virtually disappeared.
I don't remember the numbers, but when you consider that a good number are starving as we speak, that we are running out of ground water at an alarming rate, the AGW issue, and the dependency on petro based agriculture, maybe they weren't far off, as in we have reached the plateau on the s curve and lest we find a way to reduce pollution, may be on the downward side soon. The oceans are just another symptom.
 
  • #16
191
0
what do you say to everyone when it comes time to ration food? say you live in new york where the daily food supply has to be trucked in twice a day, ouch.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
150
0
ration food? why? just shoot everyone who can't afford to buy it :P.

Well i think its dumb when you have african countries with overpopulation and starving to death, and still insist on bringing thousands of children,eventually they will self destruct, they already are half way there.. Rationing food will never occur, cause the earth always used to FIGHT over resources, and that is already what's happening in some countries, Israel invaded southern Lebanon because of the water there....I think overpopulation has to be stopped at any cost, water is not enough, food is not enough, too much pollution, too much heat, its a plan to suicide if we don't stop it now./
 
  • #18
67
166
ration food? why? just shoot everyone who can't afford to buy it :P.

Well i think its dumb when you have african countries with overpopulation and starving to death, and still insist on bringing thousands of children,eventually they will self destruct, they already are half way there.. Rationing food will never occur, cause the earth always used to FIGHT over resources, and that is already what's happening in some countries, Israel invaded southern Lebanon because of the water there....I think overpopulation has to be stopped at any cost, water is not enough, food is not enough, too much pollution, too much heat, its a plan to suicide if we don't stop it now./
I agree , we need to change and change now, but we won't.

I think to a great extent the general public is still just plain complacent. Plus in the eyes of many, science can fix everything.

The whole problem boils down to the use of fossil fuels. People, especially Americans, aren't about to give up their love of stepping on that gas pedal and zipping from zero to sixty in under 8 seconds. It is almost as if it gives us a feeling of empowerment.

The oil and coal companies are not about to give up their fabulous wealth until they decide to come up with and control alternative energy.

People who invest in the energy companies, and I know a lot of them, have a way of allowing their wallets to filter out anything they don't want to hear.

We have been told time after time that any changes could be harmful to the economy. No one wants to risk that pay check so another large group filters out the obvious.

The reasons for not doing anything about GW are so numerous and so ingrained in our lifestyle that we and generations to follow will indeed experience the consequences of our own inaction.
 
  • #19
russ_watters
Mentor
20,234
6,795
Obviously made an impression, guess they don't teach that sort of thing anymore. :frown:
Probably because it is misleading to the point of being just plain inaccurate. If you could draw that graph, you'd see the spike leveling off, but the teacher didn't say that (though perhaps back then the leveleing-off wasn't as pronounced as it is today). Similar graphs, such as the top one in this Wik link fail to adequately show the drop in population growth, while others on a shorter timescale (such as the bottom one) do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth
but when you consider that a good number are starving as we speak...
Starvation in the world is almost entirely a political problem. Besides the billions of pounds of grain the US govt buys and discards each year to pump up prices, Africa has rejected the very grain that could keep their citizens from starving to death due to enviroterrorist propaganda.
 
Last edited:
  • #20
191
0
enviroterrorist? :uhh:
 
  • #21
russ_watters
Mentor
20,234
6,795
When your environmentalism kills people or threatens to kill people to further the cause, that's terrorism (that's the definition of the word "terrorism"). In this case, it killed people.
 
  • #22
150
0
the spike leveling off, but the teacher didn't say that (though perhaps back then the leveleing-off wasn't as pronounced as it is today). Similar graphs, such as the top one in this Wik link fail to adequately show the drop in population growth, while others on a shorter timescale (such as the bottom one) do.

The problem is not the drop in population growth, its the fact that population is still increasing, and when u speak about this growth its still in the order of millions. Politics is the main factor of everything from famine, to environmental destruction.....but u got to deal with all the problems which one of them is population increase
 
  • #23
russ_watters
Mentor
20,234
6,795
The problem is not the drop in population growth, its the fact that population is still increasing, and when u speak about this growth its still in the order of millions.
But this means, despite what the first graph implies, that the world is not in danger of overpopulation because growth is not geometric and appears that it will actually stop completely in the near future.
Politics is the main factor of everything from famine, to environmental destruction.....
I agree, but some people have argued (or at least implied) that the world is not physically capable of supporting the number of people it has today or will have in the near future. This is simply not true.

Soooo.... from the second part, overpopulation is not a problem today and from the first part, overpopulation isn't going to be a problem in the future either.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
150
0
but their is a limit to how much population the earth can handle..simple calculations shows that ppl need water, where are they gonna get all the water if we were to populate the whole earth? mayb its a fictional limit but if some1 can calculate it he will obtain the population limit of the earth. 2nd people cause heat, take space, then they heat the earth.......mayb its a small fraction mayb not, but in both cases we need to calculate it to be sure
 
  • #25
960
0
But this means, despite what the first graph implies, that the world is not in danger of overpopulation because growth is not geometric and appears that it will actually stop completely in the near future. I agree, but some people have argued (or at least implied) that the world is not physically capable of supporting the number of people it has today or will have in the near future. This is simply not true.

Soooo.... from the second part, overpopulation is not a problem today and from the first part, overpopulation isn't going to be a problem in the future either.
That would be me I guess, because of the diminishing water tables in many areas of the world, and our reliance on petro based agriculture to feed the world. Just what do you think will happen when oil becomes very scarce? Or let me guess, thats all liberal propoganda/scare tactics.
 

Related Threads on Spinning wheels of Global Warming

  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
9K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
53
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • Last Post
8
Replies
180
Views
14K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
49
Views
6K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
28
Views
10K
Top