BIODIESEL & SVO DISCUSSION FORUMS





Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Excellent Site on Global Warming
Page 1 2 

Moderators: Shaun, The Trouts
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Excellent Site on Global Warming
 Login/Join
 
Member
posted
While reading my daily dose ofglobal warming news I came across this site. It is an excellent site that tries to remove the spin.

Is It Getting Warmer?

I recommend anyone interested in this topic spend a couple of days or more going over this site and the links provided.

Also found this one

They call this a consensus? From the article
quote:
More than six months ago, I began writing this series, The Deniers. When I began, I accepted the prevailing view that scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens the planet. I doubted only claims that the dissenters were either kooks on the margins of science or sell-outs in the pockets of the oil companies.


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Good site with some interesting information on the whole picture of global warming, not just the popular views promoted by media propaganda.

However some of the articles on biofuels present popular misinformation. For example the "Biofuels Take Food From Our Mouths" argument is based on fallacy. The two most common biofuel feedstocks, corn and soybeans, are primarily grown for animals to feed the industrial meat business producing pork, poultry and beef. Processing these feedstocks to extract sugars or oils to make biofuels, makes the byproduct 'seed cake' and 'spent mash' more digestible as animal feed. Thus the animals get more nutrition from the byproduct than the original feedstock, and less is crapped out as waste. We can get food and fuel from the same crop.

Granted that the feedstock grains and legumes could be exported to feed the starving millions instead of being used to feed meat animals. But that practice has been going on for decades, is not likely to change, and is totally external to the biofuels issue.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Lawrence Solomon?

A journalist with a flair for misrepresenting the truth?

For the third time, at least, the National Post has painted a respected international academic as a climate change "denier," regardless that the scientist is no such thing.



In the most recent instance - part of a 10-part series called "The Deniers" - writer Lawrence Solomon (left) justifiably lauds the work of that "Nigel Weiss, Professor Emeritus at the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge, past President of the Royal Astronomical Society, and a scientist as honoured as they come."

But Solomon then steps way over the line of accurate journalism. He says that Weiss believes "The science is anything but settled ... except for one virtual certainty: The world is about to enter a cooling period."

Weiss was so offended by this mischaracterization that he issued a news release , saying "Professor Nigel Weiss, an expert in solar magnetic fields, has rebutted claims that a fall in solar activity could somehow compensate for the man-made causes of global warming."


This unfortunately is the norm for a lot of these sites that continue to promote an agenda that has no merit in the scientific world. They misrepresent the truth to suit their needs

Keep posting this stuff Scarecrow it shows more than you realize


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
And as humans sometimes people make mistakes.

From the article Will the sun cool us?

The Deniers -- Part VII

Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post Published: Friday, February 02, 2007

quote:
Apology To Dr. Nigel Weiss

Nigel Weiss, professor of astrophysics at the University of Cambridge, believes that the warming trend in Earth's climate is caused by greenhouse gases produced by human activity, and that the effect of a potential future reduction in solar activity would not reverse or cancel out that trend, but might have a small effect in mitigating it. He has held these views for several years. Incorrect information appeared in a column in the Financial Post on Feb. 2. The National Post withdraws any allegation that Dr. Weiss is a global warming "denier" and regrets the embarrassment caused him by the Feb. 2 column and a further column on Feb. 9.


However, like so many on the global warming bandwagon you choose to find fault with one thing and then discount everything as false. I have intentionally done that recently and was taken to task for it, just to prove the point. If one uses that logic then the 20 or so errors and mis-leadings in Al Gores AIT makes the entire concept null and void.

quote:
This unfortunately is the norm for a lot of these sites that continue to promote an agenda that has no merit in the scientific world. They misrepresent the truth to suit their needs


Would you be speaking of the alarmist or deniers??? For it is certainly true of Al Gore, The National Geographic Society, Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and the host of other environmental organizations pushing for action now.


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
A mistake?

to misrepresent his work? I don't think so

Dr Weiss sent the post a letter to complain to the editor of the National Post

quote:
SOLAR ACTIVITY AND GLOBAL WARMING

The article by Lawrence Solomon, which portrays me as a denier of global warming, is a slanderous fabrication. I have always maintained that the current episode of warming that we are experiencing is caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and that global temperatures will rise much further unless steps are taken to halt the burning of fossil fuel. Compared to these effects, the influence of variations in solar magnetic activity is unimportant, however interesting it may be to astrophysicists like me.
For further details see the Press Release on the University of Cambridge website
Nigel Weiss


the editors apparent mistake was to give it to Solomon And what did Solomon do?

he e-mailed in return without printing the letter

quote:
Dear Dr Weiss,
I am writing in response to your letter to the editor of the National Post, in which you take issue with my characterization of you as a “denier.” I can understand your objection to having a negative term assigned to you, although my use of this term is meant to be ironic – it is clear that I am not hostile to those I describe. I use the term “denier” to describe scientists who do not believe that the “science is settled.”
I do not understand, however, what other objections you may have to my column. Have I misrepresented your statements, for example, or attributed beliefs to you that you do not hold? If I have, I would very much like to understand how I have done so.
….
Sincerely
Larry Solomon


as one can see clearly there is a problem when a so called journalist hides objections from his misrepresentations from the public. This isn't a "mistake" at all it's deliberate and with malice .A retraction wasn't printed until later perhaps after the pressure became more so

This is why I have problems with this man

this is not the only "truth" this guy has stretched I can post more if you want it


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
You sir are a denier of a different sort. Fact is, he printed the apology at the top of the article by Dr. Weiss. Apparently you don't take the time to read the things that go against your beliefs. To ignore the research is not a very smart move on your part.


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
maybe you should take your own advice and read my post

"A retraction wasn't printed until later perhaps after the pressure became more so"


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The apology is there. Your hearsay is just that. So you take issue with 1 of 23. It would appear the other 22 are legit.


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Dan I have realized that no facts or information will convince the deniers. For some it is about the money but for many it is a belief as strong as religion. If CO2 was like soot and the soot was feet thick on the ground they just would not see it it would not exist. Or they would find other reasons for the soot eg it is natural for plants to be black to protect them from the sun.

I find it interesting that scientists who report on their findings have become the enemy. Most are just doing a job to the best of their ability without fear or favour. The last time scientists were persecuted for their work was during the dark ages.
I am seeking the truth but it seems that the deniers use conjuring tricks to muddy the waters.
I was sceptical as to mans involvement in climate change but the disinformation tactics of the deniers tends to prove it is man made.
I don't think I am the only one, eventually most will realize it is just a con job by old business and a few wacko's.

On a positive note a Geothermal plant in South Australia is producing steam and will be producing power soon. They say they could supply all of South Australia's electricity needs, and not a drop of CO2. The only glitch is it is 300k from the power grid and no one wants to pay for the poles and cable.
 
Location: Nimbin Australia | Registered: December 04, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Dan I have realized that no facts or information will convince the alarmist. For some it is about the money but for many it is a belief as strong as religion.

I find it interesting that scientists who report on their findings have become the enemy. Most are just doing a job to the best of their ability without fear or favor. The last time scientists were persecuted for their work was during the dark ages.
I am seeking the truth but it seems that the alarmist use conjuring tricks to muddy the waters.
I was skeptical as to mans involvement in climate change but the disinformation tactics of the alarmist tends to prove it is not man made.
I don't think I am the only one, eventually most will realize it is just a con job by old business and a few wacko's.

I hope you can see where I am going with this. There are actually a couple of points to be made here. The first is that this entire debate has been so politicized that the alarmist and deniers twist the science in the magazines and media to mean what they want it to. Case in point was the recent story on Dr. Gray from Colorado State University. Essentially, he said that new research and new models have made him rethink his view on more storms and more violent storms in a warmer world. In fact, the most recent research is showing that a warmer world will lead to fewer hurricanes. How long before a lot of these scientist who are adjusting their opinions to meet the science will be labeled as traitors? There are scientist on both sides of the issue. Wouldn't it be nice of the government decided to fund both sides equally rather than fund the one that gives the result they want?

Which brings me to my next point. Scientists are people too. In as much as they would like to claim they have no bias many do. If you do an experiment, develop a model, or do some research and it gives the result you want, you stop there. In fact, many times you can adjust the experiment, model or research to get the result you want. Having said that, most earth scientist have an interest in the earth and it's environment, in fact, I believe you will find many consider themselves environmentalist. Hence, they use their research and position to further their cause. It is difficult to turn that off. It happens in law enforcement as well. Classic example was the Duke lacrosse players. The authorities looked at the evidence and saw what they wanted to see. And such is the case with AGW.

People who have backgrounds in science but aren't biased by their love of the earth tend to look at the data, the research, and the explanations coming form the alarmist and they get this feeling that things don't make sense. I will be honest here, I didn't give the whole notion much attention until Al Gore produced his movie. Up until then I had the opinion that the earth had been warming for several thousands of years, so the fact that it is still warming should be no big surprise. But as I watched Al's movie I had many questions. How come he only looks at 150 or 1000 years back? Why not show the whole picture and talk about that? And when he asks do the two graphs fit together - I looked at it and said they sort of fit, but it isn't an exact fit. In fact, it doesn't show any cause and effect at all. All it shows that in general is that temperature and CO2 rise together. I also questioned that he could see the exact time when the US Clean air act was passed in the ice cores. Turns out that was a misrepresentation as well. When he talks about the glaciers receding I think yea, no kidding!!! Where I live used to have a glacier over it that was a mile thick, the fact that I can now live here is proof that receding glaciers is a good thing. It's also proof that they have been melting for a long time. I guess the thing that struck me the most is in the beginning Al states
quote:
That brings up the basic science of global warming. I’m not going to spend a lot of time on this because you know it well.
My immediate thought was why doesn't he want to talk about the science?

The last thing to strike me as odd was this. He has already made the claim that the CO2 is driving the temperature. At that time I accepted that as fact. He then goes on to show where CO2 is off the chart. But you look at the chart, and temperature isn't following the CO2. In fact it looks flat.

So I went to my local web browser and started researching and looking at science. With an education and background in science I was able to determine those things that made sense and those that didn't. I figured either Al had completely missed the boat or he was trying to sell a bill of goods. What I found was interesting, there are the alarmist sites that mirror what Al is selling. But then there are the scientific sites, most of which I found to be either independent research organizations or the skeptic sites. Government sites are difficult at best. Some support the Alarmist (that is interesting) 100% others do not. What I found odd was those that support the alarmist theory often leave one with more questions than answers.

But as I dug into things, one by one the alarmist arguments began to fall. And to get real answers I sometimes had to look at things differently. For instance; What is the optimal Temperature? What is the optimal CO2 concentration? Is it better to be covered with ice or water? Heck, I knew for early childhood science classes that man took in oxygen and expelled CO2. Plant took in the CO2 and expelled oxygen. So to show how things fall apart for the alarmist I will give the CO2 concentration example. It seems that when CO2 levels reach around 3000 ppm that begin to become toxic. At 5000 ppm they start to become lethal (then again too much oxygen is lethal as well). The other thing I found was that plants do best when the CO2 level is around 1000 ppm. But probably the most damning evidence I found was a study that was done in the 80s (don't know if I can find it again, however if you browse back through my posts it is there). The study looked at plant life, CO2 concentrations, and how well the plants did. The conclusion of the study was that the amount of CO2 available for the plants was driven by the climate.

Point here is just this. Don't rely on alarmist sites for all of your information. Learn some basic science and concepts. Understand that nothing in nature is linear. Realize that the equations we use in everyday life give good approximations, but they fall apart at the boundaries. Take a look at some quantum physics and the theory of relativity. Look at what happens to things as they start moving at the speed of light. Understand biology. When you begin to understand some of these other things at least on a basic scale you will start to see things that don't make sense in the alarmist agenda. You will also be able to spot holes in the anti-alarmist as well. Wink


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Dan I have realized that no facts or information will convince the deniers. For some it is about the money but for many it is a belief as strong as religion. If CO2 was like soot and the soot was feet thick on the ground they just would not see it it would not exist. Or they would find other reasons for the soot eg it is natural for plants to be black to protect them from the sun.



Agreed. There is no point in trying.The more one tries the further out in left field they go and no amount of logic will work. I agree with the religious overtones in describing this belief.It's faith base is unshakable to the point of fanaticism.

I will always point out the inconsistencies in the claims from time to time in the hopes of presenting the truth to newbies but that it, no more debate as it's an obvious waste of time.

quote:
I find it interesting that scientists who report on their findings have become the enemy. Most are just doing a job to the best of their ability without fear or favour. The last time scientists were persecuted for their work was during the dark ages.
I am seeking the truth but it seems that the deniers use conjuring tricks to muddy the waters.
I was sceptical as to mans involvement in climate change but the disinformation tactics of the deniers tends to prove it is man made.



Yes the tactics are to attack the research and they have done a good job with the public by keeping them confused about the realities.

You right people are becoming informed about what's happening and these site will loose their funding eventually but They have delayed meaningful action and I believe that was the goal.

quote:
I don't think I am the only one, eventually most will realize it is just a con job by old business and a few wacko's.


I think it's only a mater of time and Unfortunately we don't seem to have a whole lot of that.The one thing people can do is present the truth and encourage people to look and see for them selfs so they can at least make an informed decision.

quote:
On a positive note a Geothermal plant in South Australia is producing steam and will be producing power soon. They say they could supply all of South Australia's electricity needs, and not a drop of CO2. The only glitch is it is 300k from the power grid and no one wants to pay for the poles and cable.


300 km is certainly not unheard of to transmit electricity.

My belief is we will see more of this harnessing of renewable power supplies in the future, the question will be though,will it be enough?

We tend to be a bit greedy in our energy requirements



all I can do is to try and educate,sometimes they listen some times they don't


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
300 km is certainly not unheard of to transmit electricity.


No it isn't in fact the cable from the mainland to Tasmania is nearly as long.
The problem is political, the Government is giving huge amounts of money to the coal industry to develop clean coal doh.
 
Location: Nimbin Australia | Registered: December 04, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
I had many questions. How come he only looks at 150 or 1000 years back


Because that is the time span that industrialised people made the greatest impact on the atmosphere. All before this was more or less part of the natural cycle. The graph starts to climb steeply only on the last couple of hundred year.
As for the melting glaciers, it is the greatly increased speed that this is happening that is causing concern, not the melting itself.
regards
dva
 
Location: Yorks,England | Registered: June 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Yes the tactics are to attack the research and they have done a good job with the public by keeping them confused about the realities.


And here is a perfect example from Grist -Next decade may see rapid warming, not cooling

quote:
Agreed. There is no point in trying.The more one tries the further out in left field they go and no amount of logic will work. I agree with the religious overtones in describing this belief.It's faith base is unshakable to the point of fanaticism.


Yes, but those of us to the right and center can hopefully reel in the leftist. Wink. Problem is, and I will address this later, the alarmist only look at what is convenient for them.


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Will Global Warming Take A Short Break? Improved Climate Predictions Suggest A Reduced Warming Trend During The Next 10 Years

ScienceDaily (May 5, 2008) — To date climate change projections, as published in the last IPCC report, only considered changes in future atmospheric composition. This strategy is appropriate for long-term changes in climate such as predictions for the end of the century. However, in order to predict short-term developments over the next decade, models need additional information on natural climate variations, in particular associated with ocean currents.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080502113749.htm



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
The problem is political, the Government is giving huge amounts of money to the coal industry to develop clean coal doh.


that's a much bigger hurdle than a mere 300km line is.Are the coal reserves that large in Australia?


quote:
Yes, but those of us to the right and center can hopefully reel in the leftist. Problem is, and I will address this later,



I don't suppose we could be spared this particular diatribe could we? I mean haven't we been brain washed enough by your never ending position that seems to hop around the map like a one legged pole vaulter on steroids?

Picture that if you will


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by dva:
quote:
I had many questions. How come he only looks at 150 or 1000 years back


Because that is the time span that industrialised people made the greatest impact on the atmosphere. All before this was more or less part of the natural cycle. The graph starts to climb steeply only on the last couple of hundred year.
As for the melting glaciers, it is the greatly increased speed that this is happening that is causing concern, not the melting itself.
regards
dva


Sorry to break this to you. But it is inconvenient to tell the whole truth. The alarmist don't like to look at the 15,000 year trend because where we are now looks normal on that graph. So they take a microscope and look at one small piece, which doesn't tell the entire story.

It's a 2 way street. The folks on the left only tell us what they want us to hear and are bashed for doing that. Then when the folks on the right tell the rest of the story, they get bashed too. And then there are those with true objectivity and an understanding of the science who set in the middle shaking their heads at both sides. Reality is, man has an effect on his environment, has to. The question is how much of an effect. Looking at the science as presented by both sides I tend to believe it is very little. Now it is up to the left to use science, logic, and reason to persuade me otherwise. Thats right, leave your sentimental souls and your fear waving flags in the trunk, it has no effect on me. Show me science and logic.


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by 12voltdan:
quote:
The problem is political, the Government is giving huge amounts of money to the coal industry to develop clean coal doh.


that's a much bigger hurdle than a mere 300km line is.Are the coal reserves that large in Australia?


quote:
Yes, but those of us to the right and center can hopefully reel in the leftist. Problem is, and I will address this later,



I don't suppose we could be spared this particular diatribe could we? I mean haven't we been brain washed enough by your never ending position that seems to hop around the map like a one legged pole vaulter on steroids?

Picture that if you will


The only brain washing comes from Al Gore, the IPCC, and their band of merry henchmen.


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
Allow me to explain how I know the IPCC and Al Gore are blowing smoke up our butts. Everything they say and report is negative. They find not one thing positive about global warming, nor will they come out and say that it will happen with or without mans 1/10,000 input into the system. Anybody who knows anything knows that there are pluses and minuses to everything. For instance a warmer planet will mean longer growing seasons and the ability to grow food in regions where that previously was not possible. A warmer world will mean the need for less fuel for heating. It will also mean that summer blends (which are more efficient) can be used more often. And research is also showing that there will be fewer hurricanes and they will be less intense. Intuitively obvious is the fact that if conditions are such that the hurricanes are less intense there will also be fewer hurricanes. Fewer people will die from cold related deaths and injuries.

This is the real problem. The above mentioned folks are not honest, forthcoming, and objective in their messages. They wish to mislead and hide facts that are not convenient for their quest to control and tax. In the process, they lose their credibility. Sure they have a band of blind followers, just like the pied piper. Which makes me think of a couple of other fairy tales. "Chicken Little", "The Boy who cried Wolf", and "The Emperors new Clothes". The first two are obvious, they are the environmental activist. As for "The Emperors new Clothes"; well the skeptics would be the ones who are brave enough to say the emperor is wearing no clothes.

And that my friends is The REAL Inconvenient Truth.


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
well, I was hoping.........


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2  
 

Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Excellent Site on Global Warming

© Maui Green Energy 2000 - 2014