For those interested in debunking "The Great Global Warming Swindle" on Channel 4, here's George Monbiot's take on it: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/13/channel-4s-problem-with-science/#more-1047 I notice a lot of people saying that the global warming alarmists have economic interests. I doubt very much that these economic interests, whatever they are, outweigh the economic interests of the oil companies, the car companies, the shipping companies, the airline industry, and everyone interested in cheap transportation of Chinese goods to the U.S. So whose grinding axe is bigger?
All 52 comments by...
sceneshistoriques
-
-
Here's another article debunking the "Great Global Warming Swindle": http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&Itemid=83
Posted to Resisting the War on Science
-
"All the political dogma aside crack open a chemistry book once in a while people. Carbon while the sixth most common atom in the universe doesn’t even crack the top ten elements on Earth. We have more titanium in the earths crust than carbon." This factoid would be relevant only if the commonness of an element on earth directly determines how it affects global warming. What is actually important is not how common an element is but what its chemical properties are with respect to trapping heat. "Data from fossil core samples debunks the central holy “truth” about the eco movement. …
Posted to Resisting the War on Science
-
Another example of how the sun, despite being a driving force in climate, can be a weaker effect: I'm sure some of you have seen the documentary on global dimming, which is the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface, observed since the beginning of systematic measurements in 1950s, and thought to be due to the increased presence of aerosol particles in the atmosphere caused by human action. Now despite this reduction, the temperature of the earth has increased in this time. How can this be if the sun completely determines climate, swamping all other …
Posted to Resisting the War on Science
-
Another article claiming problems with the Channel 4 program: http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece
Posted to Resisting the War on Science
-
Here's a response to the "CO2 lags global warming, not the other way round" argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change#Warming_sometimes_leads_CO2_increases Excerpt: "Close analysis of the relationship between the two curves shows that, within the uncertainties of matching their timescales, the temperature led by a few centuries. This is expected, since it was changes in the Earth’s orbital parameters (including the shape of its orbit around the Sun, and the tilt of Earth’s axis) that caused the small initial temperature rise. This then raised atmospheric CO2 levels, in part by outgassing from the oceans, causing the temperature to rise further. By amplifying each other’s response, this …
Posted to Resisting the War on Science
-
According to the link above: "Carl Wunsch, one of the scientists featured in the programme, has said that he was "completely misrepresented" in the film and had been "totally misled" when he agreed to be interviewed.[15][4] He called the film "grossly distorted" and "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two."[16] Wunsch was reported to have threatened legal action[16] and to have lodged a complaint with Ofcom, the UK broadcast regulator.[17] "
Posted to Resisting the War on Science
-
"There is not enough carbon available in the earths crust to reach 33 percent of the atmosphere as methane or CO2. To form a real greenhouse layer CO2 must reach this critical stage." Where do you get this magic number of 33 percent of the atmosphere? Is there any sort of physical science law that you can point to for justification of this number?
Posted to Resisting the War on Science
-
People who complain about government intervention to prevent or ameliorate global warming never seem to complain when the government provides massive subsidies to fossil fuels by creating and maintaining the highway system, or about the billions spent to ensure continuing access to Middle East oil (see Cheney's Energy Task Force). Since it is government policies that created the problem, it should be government policies (or abandoning of government policies) that solve them, for example, by making sure that people are paying the true cost of fossil fuels (which accounts for their global warming effects, their pollution costs, and so on), charging …
Posted to Resisting the War on Science
-
"Carbon dioxide absorbs radiation to extinction in about 10 meters of distance. At a concentration of 33 percent of the total atmosphere CO2 absorbs radiation at 3 meters which reduces the amount of radiation reflected back into space by 66 percent thus creating “warming”." I'm sure you'll have no problem providing references for this, and its applicability to global warming, since it's "Chemistry 101," as you put it. Specifically, show references that in its current concentrations in the atmosphere, CO2 cannot possibly be trapping heat. Just saying that CO2 is present in minute concentrations is not enough. Minute concentrations of dioxin …
Posted to Resisting the War on Science
-
From http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/appd_a.html "The absorption of light by fluids (here, greenhouse gases [GHGs]) can be measured by the following simple relation: A = log 10 (1/T) = epsilon c d. Equation of absorption of light by fluids where A is the absorbance or optical density of the solute (here, a GHG), epsilon (liters per mole per centimeter) is the molar extinction coefficient of the GHG at the wavelength of measurement, c (moles per liters) is the concentration of the GHG, d is the optical pathlength in centimeters, and T is the transmittance [60]. When a molecule absorbs light, it normally goes from …
Posted to Resisting the War on Science
-
More from http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/appd_a.html "Assuming steady incident radiation, the radiating power of a GHG molecule depends largely on the absorption coefficients for that GHG, which determine how much of the available radiation it absorbs in each of the wavelength ranges where it absorbs radiation. Other important factors are the concentration of the gas and its residence time, or decay time, in the atmosphere. The residence time of GHGs depends mostly on two factors, namely reactivity of GHGs and the GHG sinks in the biosphere. Plants and trees, for example, store carbon and thus serve as sinks for carbon dioxide."
Posted to Resisting the War on Science
-
Here is an example of the complexity of the "greenhouse" effect: "In climate models an increase in atmospheric temperature caused by the greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic gases will in turn lead to an increase in the water vapor content of the troposphere, with approximately constant relative humidity. The increased water vapor in turn leads to an increase in the greenhouse effect and thus a further increase in temperature; the increase in temperature leads to still further increase in atmospheric water vapor; and the feedback cycle continues until equilibrium is reached. Thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback to the …
Posted to Resisting the War on Science
-
Just as an aside, there are left/marxist deniers of global warming (e.g. Alexander Cockburn). They find it inconvenient to their politics in the sense that if resources are limited, then there's less to be shared among the workers.
Posted to Resisting the War on Science
-
"First of all let me say I’m totally against government subsidies. You actually gave a good example of what I was trying to point out to Jon B — government programs as subsidies to these fossil fuel companies are a cause of more trouble than they are worth." We're already in a subsidy environment. In this case government action would be stopping the subsidies and making people pay for the true cost of using fossil fuels. "In our city we have federally subsidized buses which must be at least a given size to qualify — the result is gas sucking vehicles …
Posted to Resisting the War on Science
-
"Some peple are in the better safe than sorry category, others are in the Ill take my chances with the excrement category." A very illuminating way of putting it.
Posted to Resisting the War on Science
-
"Label it what you want, but somethings wrong....I can see it, cant you? " To be fair to the deniers, they aren't denying the fact that the climate is changing. That is undeniable. They're denying that it's due to human activity.
Posted to Resisting the War on Science
-
Apparently after we've emitted all the CO2 and caused this humongous problem to develop our economies, the Chinese/Indians have no right to do the same. The answer is for us to give the Chinese the technology they need to develop efficiently. Because the Chinese have little existing energy infrastructure, it's easier to provide them with new efficient and cleaner power plants than it would be to upgrade power plants in already developed countries. You get a lot more bang for the buck in terms of CO2 reduction by providing developing countries with cleaner and more efficient technologies. "The costs might be …
Posted to Resisting the War on Science
-
I'm wondering if there is anything that could convince deniers that human-induced climate change is happening. Are their theories even falsifiable? Remember that even if sea levels rise and millions are killed, the deniers can still claim it has nothing to do with human activity. Assuming for the sake of argument that climate change is being caused by the activity of the sun, shouldn't there be an associated increase in whatever solar activity (frequency of sunspots? solar magnetic activity?) that the deniers claim is causing climate change? Even if CO2 increases lag solar-activity-induced climate changes, shouldn't there then be increased solar …
Posted to Resisting the War on Science
-
An article by George Monbiot on so-called climate change censorship: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2053519,00.html Excerpt: "If you want to know what real censorship looks like, let me show you what has been happening on the other side of the fence. Scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have been repeatedly threatened and silenced and their findings edited or suppressed. The Union of Concerned Scientists found that 58% of the 279 climate scientists working at federal agencies in the US who responded to its survey reported that they had experienced one of the following constraints: 1. Pressure to eliminate the words "climate …
Posted to Resisting the War on Science
-
The letter from the scientist Carl Wunsch to the makers of "The Great Global Warming Swindle": -----8<---------------- Mr. Steven Green Head of Production Wag TV 2D Leroy House 436 Essex Road London N1 3QP 10 March 2007 Dear Mr. Green: I am writing to record what I told you on the telephone yesterday about your Channel 4 film "The Global Warming Swindle." Fundamentally, I am the one who was swindled---please read the email below that was sent to me (and re-sent by you). Based upon this email and subsequent telephone conversations, and discussions with the Director, Martin Durkin, I thought I …
Posted to Resisting the War on Science
-
(Letter from Carl Wunsch, continued) An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context: I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more carbon dioxide than it absorbs -- thus exacerbating the greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It was used in the film, through its context, to imply that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which are literally what I said, comes close to fraud. I have some experience in dealing with TV and print reporters and do …
Posted to Resisting the War on Science
-
I just noticed that in Carl Wunsch's letter he writes something very relevant to what was posted earlier on this forum by texasindependent: "There are so many examples, its hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to infer that means it couldnt really matter. But even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director not intending to produce pure …
Posted to Resisting the War on Science
-
Earlier in this discussion someone posted this to indicate that scientists have been wrong before: "There was the forthcoming Ice Age of 1975 lore." Here's a response to that myth: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94
Posted to Resisting the War on Science
-
Could you provide the quote from your son's chemistry book that you think is relevant to our argument. "Meteorology casts chicken bones to divine the weather at less than 50 percent accuracy." That would be relevant if we were discussing predicting the weather. But we're talking about climate change, not predicting the weather. It's quite possible to not be able to predict the weather two days from now in New York City, but still be able to make very reliable statements about the climate in the Northwest. "Chemistry uses the scientific method and a few hundred years of research and data …
Posted to Resisting the War on Science
-
"I double checked my professional references to be sure of the absorption rate of radiation of CO2. It absorbs radiation at 10 meters of distance." I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "It absorbs radiation at 10 meters of distance." Perhaps you can explain a little more about this. Then explain how this means it cannot possibly be a greenhouse gas. As far as I understand, greenhouse gases absorb radiation reflected by the earth's surface, and they then emit this radiation again. The longer they remain in the atmosphere, the greater their influence on the "greenhouse effect."
Posted to Resisting the War on Science
-
Here's a document on the absorption characteristics of greenhouse gases, especially CO2: http://forecast.uchicago.edu/text_revised.doc I think texasindependent might be talking about the supposed "band saturation" of CO2. This document deals with that. (See the section titled 'band saturation")
Posted to Resisting the War on Science
-
"The comparison of CO2 and dioxin is perhaps the most ridiculous statement I have ever read." The comparison wasn't made to suggest that CO2 is poisonous, but that an element can contribute to some effect (whether greenhouse or toxicity) even if it is present in small amounts. "CO2 plays a very minor role in this process on Earth." From http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/ "Whenever three or more contrarians are gathered together, one will inevitably claim that water vapour is being unjustly neglected by 'IPCC' scientists. "Why isn't water vapour acknowledged as a greenhouse gas?", "Why does anyone even care about the other greenhouse gases …
Posted to Resisting the War on Science
-
"It’s very possible that all the scientists could be operating from the wrong paradigm or many could or most. again, truth is not determined by majority vote and there ARE scientists who disagree here." True, but you have to deal with each scientific argument one-at-a-time, rather than refer all discussions about science to a book by some philosopher who is skeptical about commies/socialists/pinkos, or the "Marshall Inst ref." To convince anyone you need to deal with the *specific argument*, rather than refer your readers to a whole book, where they're supposed to find out which part of the book applies to …
Posted to Resisting the War on Science
-
"And as concentration increases the distance of radiation absorption decreases thus increasing reflectivity exponentially. In simple terms the greater the concentration of CO2 the more radiation absorbed and released as heat energy. Thank you LB" You left out the part where he said that your experimental result does not apply to natural atmospheric CO2. Therefore it is not of relevance to the current discussion. "[The radiation] is re-emitted and re-absorbed over time in all directions, so that by iteration the amount of IR absorbed increases and spreads through the troposphere. Also, the fact that CO2 molecules are relatively widely spaced in …
Posted to Resisting the War on Science
-
"Look, I gave refs that take issue with what you are stating here, I dont have the time or space to replicate their arguments here so I refer to refs." It's fine to give references. Everyone does that. But if you point to a large reference on a broad topic, it is unclear to the reader of this discussion where exactly to find the material that is relevant to the specific discussion we're having. So, for example, if someone here makes the claim that CO2 increases have always followed temperature increases in the past, and I post a reference explaining why …
Posted to Resisting the War on Science
-
"There is not in modern world the strict wall between the two that you imply." Are you saying that one's politics determines the actual truth "out there?" I myself believe that human-induced global warming is either happening or it isn't; but whether or not it is happening is not dependent on our political beliefs.
Posted to Resisting the War on Science
-
I'm no expert, but plug-in hybrids seem to be a good compromise between fully electric cars (with their range limitations) and gasoline cars. You can plug it in overnight, and if your day's driving is not long range, you'd have used only electricity. On those days when your driving has to be long-range, the gasoline engine kicks in after the battery is exhausted. Unfortunately (as far as I'm aware) plug-in hybrids are not available from manufacturers right now, but after-market modifications are available. Of course, this is not a long-term solution to fossil fuel emissions, because the electricity you're using in …
Posted to Resisting the War on Science
-
Would a solar panel on the roof really be able to power a car? Wouldn't it have to be pretty gigantic to do that? I know that very sleek cars that are one-seaters (e.g. GM's Sunraycer) can be powered purely using solar energy, but I doubt that a practical car could.
Posted to Resisting the War on Science
-
Re your comments about Amsterdam, I am reading a book now called "Field Notes from a Catastrophe," which is an excellent and very readable book about global warming, and it mentions the measures that the Netherlands is taking to adjust to flooding in the future, including amphibious houses. This book was part of the reason that skeptic Michael Shermer was converted to a believer in global warming.
Posted to Resisting the War on Science
-
Water is definitely important. I've seen some articles come out where they take climate change for granted and as irreversible. So basically they're suggesting we should just adapt to it. Here's one: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200704/global-warming An excerpt from an interview with the author: "If your goal is reduce greenhouse gases, it’s far more logical to spend your money and invest your capital in China and India than it is in the United States, because the bang for your buck in terms of greenhouse gas reduction there is many orders of magnitude higher there than it is here. A lot of the people who …
Posted to Resisting the War on Science
-
Same interview, where the author gets asked the question "Why shouldn’t the government, with all its resources, take a much more active role in finding a solution—like, say, funding a research scheme along the lines of the Manhattan project, as many commentators have suggested?" This is his answer: "Oh, God, the last thing you want is for the government to try to figure out a solution! What the government needs to do is price the problem. In economics, greenhouse gases are a free good, there’s no cost involved in emitting them, so no one has any profit incentive to reduce the …
Posted to Resisting the War on Science
-
"A problem in the world is that most countries refuse to have their wells inspected as to oil left in the field. This is because no country wants the price of oil to sharply increase due to panic if it were to become known a big field is drying up. Oil producing countries don't mind a slow increase in price, but everyone is interested in a stable price." I've read that the reason has more to do with the fact that the OPEC production quotas are based on estimated reserves. If an oil producing country is found to have reduced reserves, …
Posted to Resisting the War on Science
-
As well, with oil prices being what they are for the last few years, it is now increasingly profitable to extract oil sands/bitumen and manufacture synthetic crude oil. Up here in Canada in the Athabasca Oil Sands , down in Venezuela (Orinco Sands) and in the USA midwest there are HUGE deposits of oil sands that are recoverable at prices quite a bit lower than current oil prices. This is quite unlikely. If this were true, it's most likely that these deposits would be extracted (unless you think the oil companies are in a conspiracy to keep these deposits from being …
Posted to Resisting the War on Science
-
Exactly what is "quite unlikely" ? That "oil sands that are recoverable at prices quite a bit lower than current oil prices." If they really are 300 billion barrels of oil recoverable at prices quite a bit lower than current oil prices, they would be recovered very quickly. What's preventing the Canadians from becoming the world's preeminent producer of oil? Remember in the whole industrial age, we've used up a trillion barrels of oil. 300 billion is one-third of all the oil we've used so far.
Posted to Resisting the War on Science
-
Seems very short-sighted to use up a finite, valuable resource (that also fouls the air!)quicker rather than at a more moderate pace. It also seems silly to use up our finite sources of oil and natural gas, which took millions of years to accumulate, as sources of energy when they are our main source of petrochemicals (plastics), fertilizer and pesticides (on which our green revolution in agriculture, which enables us to feed billions, depends).
Posted to Resisting the War on Science
-
I have a question for those who complain about Luke 19:26-27 being taken out of context. What do YOU think this passage means? Sure it's a parable (though I think verse 27 might not be part of the parable), but in the real world, who is the King, and who are the people that will be killed if they will not accept the King? Isn't the King Jesus, and those who do not accept him are to be killed? I understand that this is not a command to kill unbelievers now, but this does tell us a great deal about Jesus's …
Posted to Preaching Revolution
-
Also, it is important to keep in mind the context in which Christians are supposed to forgive others: Romans 12:20, No, "if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads." So basically it sounds like such good works are to be done in order to send your enemies to hell. Any alternative interpretation?
Posted to Preaching Revolution
-
I guess I'll take the good works, whatever reason they're done for. Because it's better that people do good works to you even if they hate you, and are hoping you go to hell. Because hell doesn't exist.
Posted to Preaching Revolution
-
Re the day of Judgment, it appears that Jesus doesn't want any but the select few to avoid hell: To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables; so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they should turn again, and be forgiven.
Posted to Preaching Revolution
-
Now given a choice between Jesus on the one hand and Gandhi, who seems the better person?
Posted to Preaching Revolution
-
The shame interpretation is not the only possible one. I'd argue that my interpretation is closer to the actual intention, given the other places in the Bible where it is clear that only a select pre-chosen few will go to heaven. The work of "evangelism" is not to save souls, but to ensure that people will have no excuse when they're sent to hell. Hope doesn't come into it. God chooses who repents and who doesn't ahead of time.
Posted to Preaching Revolution
-
Paul, the writer of Romans, makes it clear that those who are saved are selected in advance by God. However, if the people who are chosen to go to hell haven't been warned by evangelists, it might seem unjust. So evangelists are there to provide an excuse to God. Verse, 14, seen in this context, does not show a desire to save souls, but to condemn them.
Posted to Preaching Revolution
-
Those verses don't contradict what I'm saying. God chooses who will call on his name and be saved ahead of time. Nothing an evangelist can do can change that. The evangelist says his piece. God hardens the hearts of some, and opens the hearts of others. Since those who were chosen to be sent to hell have now been warned, they have no excuse. From Romans: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have …
Posted to Preaching Revolution
-
I'd agree that Holocaust caricatures and anti-black cartoons probably wouldn't have been re-published. However, keep in mind the context in which the initial publishing and the republishing happened. The initial publishing happened in a climate where a Dutch filmmaker had been killed for making a film critical of Islam, and no one could be found to illustrate the prophet Mohammed in a children's book. After the Rushdie affair, people living in Europe are more scared of publishing anything critical of Islam than they are of any other religion. The re-publishing only happened after the cartoons--meant for a Danish audience--were internationalized by …
Posted to What was your first reaction to the controversy surrounding the Danish cartoons?
-
Earlier, someone said: "And hasn’t it occurred to anyone that a certain amount of anger concerning the cartoons has nothing to do with the pictures themselves but reflects a much broader feeling of anger about the war in Iraq and perhaps the plight of the Palestinians." If that's true, why aren't there coordinated sustained demonstrations about the Palestinian and Iraqi situations? Why is it that many Arab countries can normalize ties with Israel, with nary a peep from the street? Why weren't they protesting in Nigeria and burning the American embassy when Madeline Albright said it was "worth it" to kill …
Posted to What was your first reaction to the controversy surrounding the Danish cartoons?
-
"Does the Arab street speak to you only with violent riots." The point is that It seems to speak that way when Danish cartoons are involved, but not against the constant depredations of the U.S. and Israel. Therefore the idea that the cartoons are REALLY a protest about something else is probably incorrect. If they're REALLY a protest against Iraq or Palestine, then why the much greater anger about the prophet caricatures. This idea sounds to me like typical elitist theorizing about fundamentalists: they're really concerned about something quite different from what they're openly protesting. For the disparity in the Islamic …
Posted to What was your first reaction to the controversy surrounding the Danish cartoons?
Return to sceneshistoriques's profile
- Joined February 21, 2006
- Last Visit April 19, 2007
Other Profiles
IN THESE TIMES COMMUNITY MEMBERS
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
Ignoring Outrage, Obama Set to Expand Pentagon Presence in Colombia
- 9.
- 10.
RSS Feed