What Do We Think About Climate Change

[bntii]

"You sound like all you want is a fight...."

Yeah- I got that impression too.......
I even got tired of listening to myself talk.


but this is not the case- just how I was coming across

I have some interest that the science is known and not distorted by these sorts of debates
that is the reason I pushed on this issue which I hope we can now burrrrrryyyyyy

so I can go back to sparing with old jimbo on his "AWG crowd" statements

again appologies

[bntii]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

Thomas,

I know it's hard for you, but try to address the QUESTION rather than proffer some sort of 'cull factor' as license for you to discard as worthless the author and his argument.

Jimbo

If we BOTH agree to this we will have made significant progress



the science presented should be just that- science

MUCH more on this later- should not surprise you eh?

willing?

[Jimbo1490]

Thomas

BTW you 'winning' salvo on DDT was deeply flawed. Pyrethrins, while initially discovered in chrysanthemum blossoms, are not currently manufactured that way. The provenance of the chemical, whether natural or synthetic is furthermore of no significance as a predictor of toxicity in the body. There is NO scientific evidence that cells prefer 'natural' chemicals over synthetic ones.

Pyrethroids OTOH NEVER were of natural origin, they are entirely synthetic. In either case, the action of these pesticides is virtually identical to DDT in that they are calcium channel blockers that interfere with acetylcholine in neuro transmission. The key difference between these and DDT is dwell time. DDT is a much more durable molecule than pyrethrins, which last only a few hour to a few days vs some number of years for DDT. This is largely because pyrethrins are hydrophillic and DDT is lipohphillic.

But a super short-lived insecticide is NOT what farmers want. So chemists synthesized the pyrethroids which, like DDT, are lipophillic. Pyrethroids last from a few months to a few years in the environment. Not quite as long as DDT, but nearly so. They have been implicated as endocrine disruptors, just like DDT(this is the action suspected of causing the eggshell thinning, BTW). They are suspected estuarine contaminants, just like DDT. The fact that they are a little less persistent in the environment is meaningless in the context of a currently widely used product, which is sprayed by the ton, EVERY DAY.

And yet the raptor birds recovered.

NUMEROUS environmental groups are working constantly to get pyrethroids banned, just like DDT.

I'm not the one who confuses adult mortality with chick survival; the greens already did that during the original hearings on DDT. They took lower chick survival rates and blamed the falling numbers discovered there on the falling adult population counts, when the situation is much more complex than that.

I don't have a problem staying on topic WRT LD-50 extrapolations; YOU brought those up when YOU presented a paper that used those to establish a safe threshold for DDT and purported extrapolated pathogenisis rates outside of that threshold.

Jimbo

[safewalrus]

Yu know you can pontificate all you bloody want and go on ad infinitum, but when it gets to the bottom line there's bugger all any of you, as an individual, can do about it! And the more you 'spout' the less chance you'll ever get together as a group and do something!

Still keep talking, while your talking you ain't doing TO much damage (till some bloody numpty finds that the internet causes global warming / cooling; whichever one is popular this week! You know somebody will - you just can't help it!

[Guest-3-12-09-9-21]

Sphere of control = the area you are absolutely able to influence and control.

Sphere of influence = the area you are able to influence the outcome of (sometimes more, sometimes less).

Sphere of concern = the area that you feel the need to have control over.

I feel that to be happy you have to realize that there are many things that may concern you, but bloody very few things you have absolute control over.

It's okay to be concerned about the environment - but until you go around and stop all cows from flatuating there are areas that you will absolutely NOT be able to control.

Have you ever noticed how miserable most fanatical people are? I think it is the fact that they don't realize that they can't control something that concerns them.

I like to be happy. I only try to control items that I know are within my sphere of control. That's why cold beer makes me happy - I can control the temperature of my refrigerator, but not the temperature of the planet.

[juiceclark]

bntii wants us to change his mind...because he knows GW is a scam. But to believe it is a scam would discredit all the socialist blowhards who are so popular with the MSM these days. It's not easy when you finally reach a level of learned intelligence that reveals false idols. Truth is often ugly and sad...but the alternative is a false world. It takes courage to see the truth in a blizzard of BS.

bntii, let them go man...they are voodoo dealers of death. Those that promise to make the world fair and green if only you sign over your freedoms of self-determination are the only ones who can insure disparity and third world poverty for all but themselves.

--what's a "numpty" anyway?

[Meanz Beanz]

Originally Posted by juiceclark

--what's a "numpty" anyway?

Pommy slang yah daft Septic

1. Someone who (sometimes unwittingly) by speech or action demonstrates a lack of knowledge or misconception of a particular subject or situation to the amusement of others.
   
2. A good humoured admonition, a term of endearment
   
3. A reckless, absent minded or unwise person
   1. "No. That wisnae wit she meant, ya big numpty!"
   2. i.e. "Silly billy", "You big dafty"
   3. "That numpty's driving with no lights on!"

[Guest-3-12-09-9-21]

wow...almost like English.

[safewalrus]

More like American, it originated with the Military, yep we still have a few out there, helping you out when we can, showing you how it should be done when we can't! Trying to prevent as many clusterfucks as possible, watch that weather Chuck, not me, or it will bea complete clusterfuck ya numpty! Stay safe you hear!

[bntii]

I don't know Jimbo-
Who do you think Mcleans target audience is in this piece?
He seems to be just arguing for lessening/altering our criteria for the discernment of informations validity...

Peer review is not as I see it a measure of "truth" is a scientific sense. It is only a gatekeeper for acceptable methodology. Established scientific truths are developed by the findings in question being assimilated into the field of study- or not- as the case may be.

This is from 'Peer Review and the acceptance of new scientific ideas':

"The peer review of scientific papers submitted to journals for publication has a widely proven
record as a means to test the plausibility of new findings. However, scientists never regard peer reviewed
research as beyond criticism. Peer review of a paper is just the first stage: a hypothesis
that survives this first test must go on to be re-tested, and judged for its coherence with work in
related areas."

Thomas

[masalai]

sometimes.....

[Meanz Beanz]

Originally Posted by safewalrus

More like American, it originated with the Military, yep we still have a few out there, helping you out when we can, showing you how it should be done when we can't! Trying to prevent as many clusterfucks as possible, watch that weather Chuck, not me, or it will bea complete clusterfuck ya numpty! Stay safe you hear!

Scottish actually...

[Petros]

Warming Consensus Shattered
by Dennis T. Avery
Issue 114 - August 20, 2008

http://acuf.org/issues/issue114/080817cul.asp

The “consensus” on man-made global warming may have received a mortal wound.

Physics & Society, The journal of the 46,000-member American Physical Society, just published “Climate Sensitivity Revisited,” by Viscount Christopher Monckton. Monckton is an avowed man-made warming skeptic, and former science advisor to the late British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. (If you want to see the science, go here: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newslet...7/monckton.cfm

Viscount Monckton contends that the climate alarmists have mistakenly pre-programmed their computer models with equations that overstate the earth’s sensitivity to CO2 by 500 to 2,000 percent—thus creating a senseless First World panic that itself threatens the future of society.

Physics & Society says: “There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S.”

The journal then offers both the Monckton paper and a response by David Hafemeister and Peter Schwartz, of the California Polytechnic Institute. P&S also issued an open invitation to “further contributions from the physics community.”

It had to happen. Too much evidence has mounted against CO2 as a cause of the modern warming. Sea ice is expanding globally, not retreating (especially in the Antarctic). The oceans have stopped rising, and actually started to fall; that might be because they “stopped warming 4–5 years ago” according to NASA, based on data from the 3,000 new Argo floats now scattered world-wide. The number and intensity of hurricanes, cyclones, and tornadoes hasn’t increased. Rain has returned to Australia, reminding us again it is naturally the driest continent on earth.

The crowning blow: After nine years of non-warming, the planet actually began to cool in 2007 and 2008 for the first time in 30 years. The net warming from 1940 to 1998 had been a miniscule 0.2 degree C; the UK’s Hadley Centre says earth’s temperature has now dropped back down to about the levels of 100 years ago. There has thus been no net global warming within “living memory”!

The current cooling doesn’t mean another Ice Age is looming. There is massive global evidence of a 1,500-year warming cycle, going back 1 million years. It may be driven by the slightly varying distance between the earth and the sun. The sunspot index has had a 79 percent correlation with the earth’s thermometer record since 1860, during this time, the temperature correlation with CO2 is a dismissive 22 percent.

NASA’s Jason satellite tells us the Pacific Ocean has entered a cool phase. Historically, these have lasted 25–30 years. After that, there may be some additional warming. However, the 1,500-year cycles typically shift abruptly; we should already have most of this one’s warming. When we’ll get the inevitable cooling? Probably centuries from now.

The warming debate is far from over, but an actual debate looks likely. Reputations and huge bundles of cash have been bet on man-made warming, including billions in government funding for climate research. The UN’s reputation—and perhaps its future—are on the line.

The American Physical Society itself has issued a statement: It stands by its belief that human-emitted CO2 is “changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the earth’s climate” and notes that Physics & Society is not peer-reviewed. Nonetheless, the debate is finally and openly joined, after 20 years of the Greens proclaiming humanity’s guilt for wrecking the planet as beyond sane discussion.

Now, we look forward to a full-scale exploration of the science. We have heard quite enough from the computers.

DENNIS T. AVERY is a senior fellow for the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC and is the Director for the Center for Global Food Issues. (www.cgfi.org) He was formerly a senior analyst for the Department of State. He is co-author, with S. Fred Singer, of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Hundred Years,

[Knut Sand]

I finally have the solution, we install ice cube machines everywhere we're bothered by warming up....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Enw791vZh1s&NR=1

[safewalrus]

Originally Posted by Meanz Beanz

Scottish actually...

Some say that, but can 'ee prove it, might it not be an Englishman in Scotland after all we have a few garrisons up there!
Mostly full of local troops 'o course but hey they mix well