Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kazan on July 07, 2004, 06:07:18 pm
-
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040308&c=1&s=kennedy
They distort the truth about tobacco, pesticides, ozone depletion, dioxin, acid rain and global warming. In their attempt to undermine the credible basis for public action (by positing that all opinions are politically driven and therefore any one is as true as any other), they also undermine belief in the integrity of the scientific process.
Now Congress and this White House have used federal power for the same purpose. Led by the President, the Republicans have gutted scientific research budgets and politicized science within the federal agencies. ... The very ideologues who derided Bill Clinton as a liar have now institutionalized dishonesty and made it the reigning culture of America's federal agencies.
-
Interesting editorial... That is all. I can't say anything more except I wish it had hard evidence I can look at (ie. references).
-
um READ CLOSER for those references, use google on the names
if you for a second thing that this article is unsubstantiated you're living with blinders on
-
I saw this in there banner add and decided that it wasn't worth reading further
(http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/blackwater/banner.jpg)
obviusly this is a politicaly motivated site and can't be trusted
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
I saw this in there banner add and decided that it wasn't worth reading further
(http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/blackwater/banner.jpg)
obviusly this is a politicaly motivated site and can't be trusted
:lol:
-
Not everything he's saying is hot air.
NY Times on the scientist accusations (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/18/science/18CND-RESE.html?ex=1089345600&en=b9ab6409bb2c7ab6&ei=5070)
-
Now moonsword's I'd rather read...
-
none of it is hot air
bobboau: they don't have to authorize the banner ads - they don't manage those themselves
don't you know anything about web adverts j00 n00b :P
-
I don't happen to think he's blowing hot air, I was providing tangible proof that at leaat part of his statements weren't.
I agree with Kazan and Kennedy, and find this alarming. The fact that this is not the first report on the situation lends some credibility to the claims therein.
-
The Nation is indeed a political journal, leftward specifically. But that doesn't mean the information isn't accurate, or that the picture it paints is not truthful.
...
YESSSSSSS!
I go to read the article, innocently enough, but what should I see? An advert for The Corporation on the website, and considering that The Nation is one of the biggest bastions of the left, this means that The Corporation is finally recieving mainstream attention.
*does happy dance*
-
I read most of the first page and didn't feel like going further as it seemed to go in circles already.
you know this guy is/was an "environmental lawer" sounds like he makes a liveing by pushing a certan agenda, at the very least he is not an unbiased source. he's part of the environmental lobby, and you can't listen to him any more that you should someone from the tobaco lobby, the logging lobby, the oil lobby, or the council for the furtherment of family values (I made that last one up ;) )
-
bobboau: alteast his facts can be correlated independantly
when the **** did you go conservative
-
I didn't, I have an extreemly high threshold of proof for things that have political ramifications becase there are astronomical amounts of power and money pushing in both directions.
-
so do i - i just pay a lot of attention so this article isn't anything i haven't heard before numerous times and have seen the evidence for
-
Originally posted by Kazan
[...]
Wait, everybody knows the stuff in your list is bad, so if Bush lies about it...? Hoorra, that means tobacco isn't dangerous after all!
Pffff.
-
The problem with statistics with a political bias is they are easy to fudge on because the people with the power often don't have the understanding to make informed decisions based on available data.
You can perform tests that bias your findings with a certain political agenda, and I(who has an different political agenda) can perform the same tests in a different way to bias the results toward my POV.
It's almost impossible to get an unbiased, policy free, truly scientific results from anyplace of renown. Somebody pays the bills and that somebody has to be kept happy.
Global Warming for instance, Eco-Nuts can produce studies that say mankind has at best 10 years and we'll all suffocate in our own pollution. I on the other hand, do not believe that mankind has anywhere near the capacity to wreck a planetary enviroment. Small pieces of it, sure, but the whole thing? After all we only have about 200-300 years of scientifically recorded data to use to make guesses about climatic change. Many of the thing Eco-Wackos assume to be caused by man could just as easily be part of some cycle that we can't perceive because it's so long.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Global Warming for instance, Eco-Nuts can produce studies that say mankind has at best 10 years and we'll all suffocate in our own pollution. I on the other hand, do not believe that mankind has anywhere near the capacity to wreck a planetary enviroment. Small pieces of it, sure, but the whole thing? After all we only have about 200-300 years of scientifically recorded data to use to make guesses about climatic change. Many of the thing Eco-Wackos assume to be caused by man could just as easily be part of some cycle that we can't perceive because it's so long.
Except that I haven't seen a single recent scientific paper that disputes global warming.
You've actually hit upon a good example of exactly the kind of problem that Bush's policies on science are causing. Instead of listening to the scientists you dismiss anyone who disagrees with your stupid, ill-informed attitude as an Eco-Nut.
You'll forgive me if I prefer the data presented by 2,500 climatologists in a recent IPCC report to the comments of Liberator who (And lets be fair to him) knows BUGGER ALL about climate change.
-
Shhh, blasphemer, Liberator Spokes Teh Truth!!1
-
Originally posted by Nico
Wait, everybody knows the stuff in your list is bad, so if Bush lies about it...? Hoorra, that means tobacco isn't dangerous after all!
Pffff.
wtf are you talking about - every reputable study shows that tobacco is universally harmful
-
I'm sure you did it on purpose. You can't be that dense, right?
-
Let's see here - why your comemnt doesn't make sense
A) Bush & Co (in particular his Tobacco Industry friends) would want to say that Tobacco is harmless and try to twist things to say this
B) the Tobacco industry was trying to claim that it was harmless for decades
C) it is a proven fact that the Tobacco industry performed studies, found it to be harmful themselves and then quickly supressed those studies and/or altered their results
D) every reputable study show tobacco smoke being harmful
now perhaps your post would make sense of Buch & Co was freely admitting that it's harmful - but then that would just be a case of him actually owning up to the overwhelming content of independant studies --- no matter how much you try and distort the facts, some of them will always bite you in the ass
-
As for Liberator's Post - we have every power to make this planet unable to support human life, without affecting the global average temperature
I however think global warming is bunk-science as well - the temperature goes through flux, always has and always will, I've never been shown sufficien data to support that we are playing a significant roll in the current upturn in GAT --- We are however perfectly capapble of producing enough greenhouse gasses _if_ we're not careful. I don't see any reason not to play it on the safe side.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Let's see here - why your comemnt doesn't make sense
A) Bush & Co (in particular his Tobacco Industry friends) would want to say that Tobacco is harmless and try to twist things to say this
B) the Tobacco industry was trying to claim that it was harmless for decades
C) it is a proven fact that the Tobacco industry performed studies, found it to be harmful themselves and then quickly supressed those studies and/or altered their results
D) every reputable study show tobacco smoke being harmful
now perhaps your post would make sense of Buch & Co was freely admitting that it's harmful - but then that would just be a case of him actually owning up to the overwhelming content of independant studies --- no matter how much you try and distort the facts, some of them will always bite you in the ass
You didn't do it on purpose. I'm frightened. Somebody explain to him, please :o
-
Originally posted by Kazan
I however think global warming is bunk-science as well - the temperature goes through flux, always has and always will, I've never been shown sufficien data to support that we are playing a significant roll in the current upturn in GAT --- We are however perfectly capapble of producing enough greenhouse gasses _if_ we're not careful. I don't see any reason not to play it on the safe side.
You're almost as bad as Liberator then :rolleyes:
Papers in Science and Nature both support the view that the worlds temperature is changing. Papers also support the fact that it is the sheer quantity of CO2 (amongst other gases) that has been dumped in the atmophere that has caused this
Here. Get some facts.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/WG1_TAR-FRONT.PDF
-
@Kaz:
You're right that global temperature is in constant flux.
But it's the speed of those changes, which has been increased by a couple of magnitudes, as a direct effect of human CO2 exhaust.
And we're already too late to play on the safe side, it takes somthing around 50-100 years until a positive effect would be noticable, IF we would lower our CO2 output.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
wtf are you talking about - every reputable study shows that tobacco is universally harmful
Error 257634: Sarcasm lost in connection.
-
I thought it was pretty obvious that the US government - whoever it is - is beholden to campaign contributors?
NB: Apparently, the Earth has a tendency towards violent climate change between relative warmth and cold - i.e lurching in and out of ice ages - readinds from Greenland ice cores show an 8 degree difference in temperature over 10 years. It's apparently unexplained why human history has occured in such a relatively stable climatic period (Holocence). Some people might think that global warming would act against an ice age, but the converse could happen - more heat means more evaporation, means more clouds, means more snow lies for longer -> more cold, and an ice age.
In the last 50 years, the sea around the West Antartic Ice Sheet has warmed by 2.5 degrees (C) - this has resulted in ncreasing collapses, whic could lead to larger scale collapses (ice melting) and a global sea level rise of 4.5-6.5 metres.
-
Thorn & Nico - it's hard to tell when someone is being sarcastic online
Furthermore the ammount of CO2 we released is negligible next to how much is naturally released by VOLCANOS and other animals. One volcanic eruption is 40 years worth of our pollution.
Furthermore 30-40 years ago they were talking about _global_ _cooling_ - This is the only time you'll find me agreeing with the conservatives _partially_ on an environmental issue: Global Warming is bunk science. We are not causing global warming, we're just enduring it.
However I don't think that should give us a free license to increase CO2 emissions, etc - there is no reason not to play it on the safe side
-
Apparently (it says here (http://www.uky.edu/AS/Geology/howell/110/notes10-globalchange-gly110-spring04.html) the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is ~25% greater than any time in the last 750ka (kilo anu7m, apparently), and ~30% higher than before the industrial revolution.
Now, according to his thing - http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/causes.htm - CO2 emissions from volcanoes are much less than that from man-made causes. (also http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/paleoclimate.htm#1000years). Now, the thing at the very bottom is interesting, as it indicates 2 cases where climate change appears to have been caused by greenhouse gas emissions (specifically a methane release and an asteroid impact releasing CO2 from rocks).
Now, I'm not sure on how much animals contribute - i simply don;t have the time to properly look into all the info - but IIRC we live on a climatic knife edge, so even a comparatively [/i]minor change of atmoshperic conditions[/i] could send us off that knife edge.
Oh, and 'global warming' can contribute to a cooling effect (the whole evaporation thingie I mentioned earlier). Presumably the climate is sufficiently complex to make it extremely difficult to raise exact answers & predictions - i.e. events can have different causes / combinations of causes. Nevertheless, from what I've seen, it does seem very convincing that human activity has cause climate change thorugh increased greehouse gas emissions and deforestation. Depending on how sensitive the balance is - I'm not qualified to say - this could have disasterous on negligable consequences.
EDIT; This (http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html) seems to give a bit more info on volcanic vs human emissions, on an average scale (not per-eruption). Worth notings it's estimates, though - i.e. don't know how many underwater volcanoes there are.
-
Mmh, I've seen a very interesting thing on TV the other day: basically, the global warmth would lead to a much colder climate in the northern hemisphere in not long:
You all know the glufstream, right? It's a result from the water of the eurasian rivers meeting with the much colder northern seas. The gulfstearm is what keeps our local climates. The thing is, because of global warmth, the amount of water from said rivers has decreased a lot. The result is the Gulfstream might simply disappear. W/o the gulfstream, the temperature would drop dramatically. And that's expected for our generation.
Wheeee!
-
aldo: my apologies but you are commiting a fallicious argumentum ad verecundiam - your source is not expert
the claim that human CO2 emissions are GREATER than Volcanic CO2 emissions is pure total and complete BS, you would get laughed at by thousands of geologists
Methane is around 26 times more potant per volume as a green house gas than CO2 - if any gas we're emitting is affecting globla temperature it's much more likely to be the methane.
Your volcanic data is looking at "calm" periods - ie low volcanic activity - it is NOT looking at eruption events - eruption events massively overwhelm our emissions
I am not denying that we can have an affect on the G.A.T. however in this case i have not seen sufficient evidence that our CO2 emissions are - everythnig i have ever seen is CORRELATION at best, not causation - i see a very strong CORRELATION but not a causation.
It's more likely an agregrate causation - Deforestration+planktin kills AND Human CO2 and CH4 emissions
-
Nico: the "Gulfstream Collapse Theory" remains a theory
-
If Rhode Island were to up and dissapear the Gulf Stream would shift a few miles to the west, and Nova Scotia would have a climate similar to Vancouver's.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
aldo: my apologies but you are commiting a fallicious argumentum ad verecundiam - your source is not expert
the claim that human CO2 emissions are GREATER than Volcanic CO2 emissions is pure total and complete BS, you would get laughed at by thousands of geologists
Methane is around 26 times more potant per volume as a green house gas than CO2 - if any gas we're emitting is affecting globla temperature it's much more likely to be the methane.
Your volcanic data is looking at "calm" periods - ie low volcanic activity - it is NOT looking at eruption events - eruption events massively overwhelm our emissions
I am not denying that we can have an affect on the G.A.T. however in this case i have not seen sufficient evidence that our CO2 emissions are - everythnig i have ever seen is CORRELATION at best, not causation - i see a very strong CORRELATION but not a causation.
It's more likely an agregrate causation - Deforestration+planktin kills AND Human CO2 and CH4 emissions
Firstly, I should have made it clear I didn't have much time to spend searching this - I was just curious.
Secondly, can you post some expert sources, then. It's all very well posting stuff like '"you would get laughed at by thousands of geologists" (etc - which does seem pretty insulting in the context you're using it), but you need to actually provide some form of evidence to support it. I've made the - small admittedly - effort to see what I could find on this topic, I have no objection to being corrected if you can provide the information for me too look at*. There's not much point telling someone they're wrong if you don't explain why, y'see.
Cheers.
NB: What VEI scale do you mean by 'eruption event'?
* actually, I probably won;t look at cos I'm too busy / lazy. But it helps
-
I keep waiting to hear "Nuclear Explosion on Rhode Island, island sinks, Newfies suspected" on the news..
:D:D
Nothing is too great a sacrfice for warm weather.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Nico: the "Gulfstream Collapse Theory" remains a theory
Much like everything until it happens.
-
Nico: i was implying that it is a merely whimiscal theory with modest support at best - not enough support to start chicken-littling
This guys playing devil's advocate in this thread - but you note before hand that he's personally advocating caution in committing to a certain position - which is what i am doing. I have not seen sufficient hard evidence to attribute global warming primarily to us
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=112967
According to David Johnson, “the warming trend
we have been experiencing since the Little Ice Age has actually slowed
during the past 50 years-the one period in history in which mankind
has produced significant “greenhouse gases.” (2)
Even though the earth’s surface temperatures have been rising, the
atmospheric temperatures have actually been cooling in some areas. The
relationship between the earth’s surface temperatures compared to
atmospheric temperatures has given no credence to the theory of global
warming. “According to computerised climate models, the warming should
spread right through the troposphere, the bottom ten kilometres or so
of the atmosphere. Sceptics argue that if the models are wrong about
how surface warming influences temperatures in the troposphere, they
are also likely to be wrong about the movement of water vapour between
the surface and the upper troposphere. That in turn may mean they are
wrong about water-vapour feedback - one of the vital mechanisms behind
global warming.”
Periods of global warming are evidenced in history, and are not
peculiar to today. Scientific evidence points to occurences in the
past when the warming of the earth’s surface was similar to today. A
March 2002 article by Science magazine states that “a tree ring
analysis found striking similarities between 20th century increases in
global temperature and the Medieval Warm Period -- a period lasting
from 1330 AD to 1600 AD which saw similar increases in temperature.”(5)
Although few scientists would refute the fact that the earth’s
surface is in a warming trend, the question remains : Is global
warming a product of man’s ignorance and destructiveness, or is it all
part of a natural cycle? It is important to realize that we have only
had the ability to measure the earth's surface and atmospheric
temperature for a very short time. What occurred in times past is mere
speculation. Until mankind can be proven to be overwhelmingly
responsible for the “unnatural” increase in the earths’s temperature,
it is only prudent to remain cautious in making any judgements
concerning the thousands of years of climatic changes concerning our
planet.
-
"however in this case i have not seen sufficient evidence that..."
it seems you have fund yourself in a position similar to that wich I have found myself on ocasion.
insidently I agree with your stance, not enough conclucive evidence, but no reason to go hog whild on the CO2 (ect).
and just to piss you off :)
"tobacco is universally harmful" (http://www.neurologychannel.com/neurology/NeurologyWorld/chemical.shtml)
-
Originally posted by Kazan
aldo: my apologies but you are commiting a fallicious argumentum ad verecundiam - your source is not expert
While your source is..... Oh. You've failed to give any sources at all besides what goes on in the mind of Kazan. For all your complaints in other threads about Liberator making assertions he doesn't back up I don't see you pointing to much data.
Originally posted by Kazan
Methane is around 26 times more potant per volume as a green house gas than CO2 - if any gas we're emitting is affecting globla temperature it's much more likely to be the methane.
:rolleyes: I really expected better from you than a comment like this. Quite simply we're emitting more CO2 than methane. If we emit more than 26 time more CO2 than we do methane then your guess is wrong. Guess what. We emit more than 26 times more CO2 than methane. Your guess is wrong.
And that's without counting the fact that it may take longer for CO2 to be removed from the atmosphere once it's released.
Methane does have a contributory effect but CO2 is the big problem. That's why climatologists always talk about it rather than anything else.
Originally posted by Kazan
the claim that human CO2 emissions are GREATER than Volcanic CO2 emissions is pure total and complete BS, you would get laughed at by thousands of geologists
The eruption of Mount Pinatubo released 42 Megatons of CO2 into the atmosphere (source) (http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Projects/Emissions/Reports/Pinatubo/pinatubo_abs.html)
The USA however produces emissions of 5,500 Megatons each year (source) (http://www.wri.org/wr-98-99/kyoto.htm)
(another source) (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778287.html)
Feel free to find me some hard data that shows that volcanos produce more than 5,000 Mt of CO2 a year.
Originally posted by Kazan
I am not denying that we can have an affect on the G.A.T. however in this case i have not seen sufficient evidence that our CO2 emissions are - everythnig i have ever seen is CORRELATION at best, not causation - i see a very strong CORRELATION but not a causation.
That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. It isn't one shared by the majority of climatologists though.
Originally posted by Kazan
It's more likely an agregrate causation - Deforestration+planktin kills AND Human CO2 and CH4 emissions
What effect do you think that deforestration and plankton kills would have on the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere? Both of those are CO2 sinks. When the scientists say that mankinds actions are causing a rise in CO2 they aren't saying that burning fossil fuels == gloabal warning. They are on about the whole spectrum of human activities including removing CO2 sinks.
-
I'de just like to point out that just because you (Kazan, Bobbauo..anyone) has not seen evidence, that does not mean the evidecne does not exist. I'm sure that mere mortals don't have access to certain research information regarding the issue, and even then, I would venture to guess that few outside the scientific community have the knowledge to interpret the data. Don't be offended, but I'd rather side with scientisist who have dedicated their entire lives into researching the subject, instead of you.
But even if you're right, and its not as bad as people think, is there any reason why we shouldn't be cautious anyway? We're standing on thin ice, and just because its has not yet broken doesn't mean we should jump up and down on it.
-
There is no reason for them to restrict information on this rictor - the essence of science is access to the information to be able to verify it
It isn't one shared by the majority of climatologists though.
the majority of climatologists are being reactionary
i'm not advocating ignoring a possible problem - i'm saying don't go chicken little
-
I seem to recall deep-ice samples from the Antartic proving that global warming always preceeded an Ice Age anyway?
I won't say that the crap we are pumping into our atmosphere, not just CO2 but all kinds of stuff, isn't having a negative effect. But I would say that people, far more than the environment itself, will pay the price first.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Nico: i was implying that it is a merely whimiscal theory with modest support at best - not enough support to start chicken-littling
NB: Should also point out that a lot of key scientific discoveries started out as little supported (by the scientific community) theories - tectonic plates being a notable example IIRC. So maybe 'modest support' isn't the most relevant qay to quanitfy its scientific value.
:)
-
aldo_14: however people didn';t start "chicken-litting" about tectonic plates
"OH GNOES! THE EARTH IS LIKE AN EGG! THE CRUST IS CRACKED! THE INSIDES ARE GOING TO OOZE OUT UNLESS WE ..."
-
Originally posted by Kazan
aldo_14: however people didn';t start "chicken-litting" about tectonic plates
"OH GNOES! THE EARTH IS LIKE AN EGG! THE CRUST IS CRACKED! THE INSIDES ARE GOING TO OOZE OUT UNLESS WE ..."
I didn't say that, though, did I? *shrugs*
-
Originally posted by Kazan
There is no reason for them to restrict information on this rictor - the essence of science is access to the information to be able to verify it
The real hard evidence the scientific journals are hard to get at however. Not many of us could understand anything beyond the abstracts anyway but that means that it is actually hard to find the info quickly.
Looking for data for this thread has proved that to me :)
Originally posted by Kazan
the majority of climatologists are being reactionary
i'm not advocating ignoring a possible problem - i'm saying don't go chicken little
Or maybe you're sticking your head in the sand and hoping it all goes away. For a man of science I've not been hugely impressed with your attitude on this thread Kazan.
The fact that I've had to correct you time and time again makes me think that you don't actually know that much about the subject. Certainly not enough to have a informed opinion on the matter. Almost all your assertions could have been shown to be incorrect had you bothered to do 5 minutes research on the matter, which makes me wonder how hard you've actually looked at all the data on global warming, how hard you've looked at the alternative data and how well you understood it.
But what really gets on my nerves is that on top of being wrong you've been condesending with it.
Originally posted by Kazan
the claim that human CO2 emissions are GREATER than Volcanic CO2 emissions is pure total and complete BS, you would get laughed at by thousands of geologists
Really? Well here's a vulcanologist (http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html) who wouldn't find it so funny. In case you're wondering I make the figure given by Gerlach to work out as 112Mt of CO2 a year from volcanos. That's less than the output of South Africa. Even if the estimate is an order of magnitude wrong it would still be less than the US puts out.
The simple fact is that I'm not a climatologist. Like you I'm just someone who knows the general science behind the matter. I'm more than happy to let the people who do understand the subject give reccomendations because I know that they understand the subject better than I do.
-
As you can tell i haven't kept up _recent_ because no hard evidence has come forth and if it was it's certain that i would hear about it - so i haven't heard about the minor details
Until hard evidence [more than just correlation] comes up i'm going to advise moderation in the reation - no chickenlittling, going chickenlittle gets you ignored even when you're right
-
I wasn't aware there was such thing as a minor detail in science.
-
Bah. Go on about chicken littling all you like. To not act on the best evidence you have is irrational
Besides I really don't hold a lot of faith in your ability to realise the difference between chicken-littling and honest fear and frustration at the fact that nothing is being done about a clear and present danger.
Even if you disagree with where the problem is coming from surely you agree that taking steps to cool the planet would be a good idea.
-
[color=66ff00]GWB and his flunkies undermining your religion K?[/color]
Sorry, couldn't resist -_^
-
Originally posted by Kazan
As you can tell i haven't kept up _recent_ because no hard evidence has come forth and if it was it's certain that i would hear about it - so i haven't heard about the minor details
Glad to se we've got an omnipotent scientist here :D
Wonder how would you have reacted to Einstein theory in his day, after all, it was only a theory, nothing proved it :p
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Even if you disagree with where the problem is coming from surely you agree that taking steps to cool the planet would be a good idea.
OK, so what we do is...first we build a machine, based on the crackpot theories os some shut-in scientist. We'll pay him like 15 billion dollars, cause hey - its the Earth. Alright, next, we need to recruit a pimple-faced teenager, but he's like the best hacker ever. We need to put him in a cave somewhere, cause he's allergic to sunlight, and we need to feed his ass some pop-tarts. But again, its all worth it, cause that dude can like totally HAXXORS THE PLANET.
So, whats next? Oh right, right, the crew. So, we need a beautiful yet intelligent woman onboard - gender equality and all that, besides, the mission to save the Earth can't be a sausage-fest. Oh, and we need some sort of "brave leader" type guy in there, but luckily they're a dime a dozen. And the round it all off, we can throw in some minorities, for comic relief you understand. A Russian would be good, they talk funny. Well, we'll think of something.
So, in order to save the Earth, what we do is - we have to drill to the centre of the Earth. Past the dinosaur bones and rock-hard granite and Morlocks. And then, we drop a few nukes in there, at the centre of the Earth, and that will just fix everything up. Cause nukes are good you see, they're like tape, you can fix anything with them. The nuclear blast will cause the molten centre of the Earth to spin faster...or was the slower, and then the magnetic interference patterns in the neutrino spectrum will produce exactly the effect we're after. Anyway, everything goes smoothly, despite the odds being spectacularly stacked against the mission, except someone, maybe the Russian or the crazy scientist, they get stuck at the centre of the Earth, and in order to save everyone else, they make a noble sacrifice to die, so that the ship can outrun the nuclear blast.
Upon returning to the surface, everyone is a hero and they all become hundredaires - no, thousandaires - and the Earth lives happily ever after. And we can all get back to our rampant, unchecked production and consumption, our air conditioners and SUVs, safe in the knowledge that the Earth is finally safe fromthe tyranny of nature.
-
ROFL Do I detect just a smidgeon of sarcasm slipped in there? ;)
-
No, look, I'm totally serious. I already have a prototype of the craft built, I can show it to you if you want. NASA won't return my calls, but I'm having some high-level talks with the Russians.
I'm afraid recruiting is going a bit slowly though. People want payment before the mission, but I keep telling them that one or more of them are not expected to survive, so why should I waste my precious money?
*sigh*
True genius in never appreaciated.
-
karajorma: chickenlittling is when the response is disproportionately reactionary
MAeglamer: sorry but science is not religion, go pick up a dictionary bub
-
:rolleyes:
Oh ****, here we go again..........
-
yeah maeglamor had to choose to start that argument
I'll preempt him
"Science requires faith!!!!!!1111oneone"
Nope, sorry - science systematic skepticism, it tells explicity not to have faith (belief without evidence) and faith proves nothing
Since there is no faith involved it's not a religion
End Of Story
This flamewar preemption brought to you by "Logic: It not jsut for nerds anymore"
-
RIGHT! Before this goes any further;
(http://www.intheteam.com/images/club/1575/zippy.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Kazan
karajorma: chickenlittling is when the response is disproportionately reactionary
I know what chickenlittling is. But lets say that Chicken Little actually had evidence that the sky was falling then there would be nothing wrong with what he did. What made it a story is that he blew a tiny event into a big problem. If the sky had been falling telling everyone about it would have been a damn good idea.
You're denying that there is a problem at all or saying lets spend 20 years studying the problem even though we have plenty of evidence until it's too late to do anything about it. What's more you don't even understand the evidence. This thread has made that plainly clear so I really don't know what makes you think you're qualified to claim it's an over reaction.
65 Million years ago you'd probably have been the one telling the other dinosaurs that they had nothing to worry about from that bright new star in the sky. :)
-
karajorma: i'm saying NEITHER - i saying people's reaction is disproportionate -- too many hollywood apocolyptic films -- the science supporting global warming is being consumed in the emotional frenzy
stop the attacks on my intelligence simply because i am pointing out the lack of hard evidence, and the overreaction of certain people
-
Originally posted by Kazan
stop the attacks on my intelligence simply because i am pointing out the lack of hard evidence, and the overreaction of certain people
Can I just ask - do you regard someone saying you made a (honest) mistake as an 'attack' on your intelligence?
-
I'm not attacking your intelligence. I was attacking your knowledge :D There is a huge difference.
And just the same as I would tell a creationist to read The Selfish Gene and come back to me when he actually understood what he was talking about I'm telling you to read up on the subject (the link I gave earlier to the IPCC study is a good place to start) before you start attacking the intelligence of the scientists involved in studying climate change by claiming that they are over reacting.
Sure their are idiots who are getting caught up in hysteria about the subject. There is no cause so right that you won't find an idiot following it.
But that doesn't mean that the science is flawed or incomplete.
Stop listening to the words of Greenpeace when you claim the science isn't there and start actually reading what the scientist themselves have to say.
Seriously Kazan. What would you do about global warming?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
OK, so what we do is...first we build a machine, based on the crackpot theories os some shut-in scientist. We'll pay him like 15 billion dollars, cause hey - its the Earth. Alright, next, we need to recruit a pimple-faced teenager, but he's like the best hacker ever. We need to put him in a cave somewhere, cause he's allergic to sunlight, and we need to feed his ass some pop-tarts. But again, its all worth it, cause that dude can like totally HAXXORS THE PLANET.
So, whats next? Oh right, right, the crew. So, we need a beautiful yet intelligent woman onboard - gender equality and all that, besides, the mission to save the Earth can't be a sausage-fest. Oh, and we need some sort of "brave leader" type guy in there, but luckily they're a dime a dozen. And the round it all off, we can throw in some minorities, for comic relief you understand. A Russian would be good, they talk funny. Well, we'll think of something.
So, in order to save the Earth, what we do is - we have to drill to the centre of the Earth. Past the dinosaur bones and rock-hard granite and Morlocks. And then, we drop a few nukes in there, at the centre of the Earth, and that will just fix everything up. Cause nukes are good you see, they're like tape, you can fix anything with them. The nuclear blast will cause the molten centre of the Earth to spin faster...or was the slower, and then the magnetic interference patterns in the neutrino spectrum will produce exactly the effect we're after. Anyway, everything goes smoothly, despite the odds being spectacularly stacked against the mission, except someone, maybe the Russian or the crazy scientist, they get stuck at the centre of the Earth, and in order to save everyone else, they make a noble sacrifice to die, so that the ship can outrun the nuclear blast.
Upon returning to the surface, everyone is a hero and they all become hundredaires - no, thousandaires - and the Earth lives happily ever after. And we can all get back to our rampant, unchecked production and consumption, our air conditioners and SUVs, safe in the knowledge that the Earth is finally safe fromthe tyranny of nature.
Rictor, the Morlocks happen during a timeloop sequence when they discover what happens if their mission fails. :p
-
Originally posted by Rictor
OK, so what we do is...first we build a machine, based on the crackpot theories os some shut-in scientist. We'll pay him like 15 billion dollars, cause hey - its the Earth. Alright, next, we need to recruit a pimple-faced teenager, but he's like the best hacker ever. We need to put him in a cave somewhere, cause he's allergic to sunlight, and we need to feed his ass some pop-tarts. But again, its all worth it, cause that dude can like totally HAXXORS THE PLANET.
So, whats next? Oh right, right, the crew. So, we need a beautiful yet intelligent woman onboard - gender equality and all that, besides, the mission to save the Earth can't be a sausage-fest. Oh, and we need some sort of "brave leader" type guy in there, but luckily they're a dime a dozen. And the round it all off, we can throw in some minorities, for comic relief you understand. A Russian would be good, they talk funny. Well, we'll think of something.
So, in order to save the Earth, what we do is - we have to drill to the centre of the Earth. Past the dinosaur bones and rock-hard granite and Morlocks. And then, we drop a few nukes in there, at the centre of the Earth, and that will just fix everything up. Cause nukes are good you see, they're like tape, you can fix anything with them. The nuclear blast will cause the molten centre of the Earth to spin faster...or was the slower, and then the magnetic interference patterns in the neutrino spectrum will produce exactly the effect we're after. Anyway, everything goes smoothly, despite the odds being spectacularly stacked against the mission, except someone, maybe the Russian or the crazy scientist, they get stuck at the centre of the Earth, and in order to save everyone else, they make a noble sacrifice to die, so that the ship can outrun the nuclear blast.
Upon returning to the surface, everyone is a hero and they all become hundredaires - no, thousandaires - and the Earth lives happily ever after. And we can all get back to our rampant, unchecked production and consumption, our air conditioners and SUVs, safe in the knowledge that the Earth is finally safe fromthe tyranny of nature.
Or you could just plant a few more trees and do a little more research into fusion and electric cars.
But hey. Don't let me stop your fun :)
-
Originally posted by karajorma
65 Million years ago you'd probably have been the one telling the other dinosaurs that they had nothing to worry about from that bright new star in the sky. :)
this is attacking my intelligence
-
eliminate usage of fossil fuels in the US by 2010
-
Originally posted by Kazan
eliminate usage of fossil fuels in the US by 2010
How? By dropping the H-bomb? :)
Seriously though that's an almost unobtainable goal and far beyond the reccomendations of the scientists you claim are chicken-littling. But fine at least you finally seem to be taking the threat seriously.
Originally posted by Kazan
this is attacking my intelligence
If you take that as an attack no wonder you're so angry all the time.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
eliminate usage of fossil fuels in the US by 2010
In favor of what praytell?
Electric? Fossil Fuels provide something on the order of 80% of the World's elctricity.
The conundrum is to find something that can provide a permanent, non-polluting/less polluting that FF energy source that is renewable and cheap to produce. Nuclear is the only option with the potential to generate enough juice to replace FF as the primary enegy source for the Western World which also is more and more including alot of the Eastern World as well.
-
I'd say hydrogen acting as an intermediary between (primaraly) nuclear run by the government and the end consumer would be the best case. at least with nuclear power all the nasty waste gets cramed into one tight easy to burry package, unlike ff were the waste is losely dispersed into the air.
-
Wind and solar power are alternatives. Solar power can produce between 50% and 100% of a household's energy supplies, depending on how well they conserve. If it were a lower figure, something like 20 or 30%, it would still be possible to cut that much off the household energy consupmtion of an entire nation, which adds up to ALOT of energy.
Wind power is also good, they're implementing that quite heavily in Europe AFAIK. In America, and especially in Canada, there are huge, uninhabited spaces, which are perfect for wind mills (whatever you call them).
All this, put together, could concievably cut 50% or more off America's household energy usage, if the initiative was there, which I think you will agree, is a huge amount.
-
I think a big problem is just people consume resources in stupid ways.
Take for instance a lot of people's houses when I head over. Several TVs on when no one is watching them. Lights on in every room when it's a sunny day and you're not getting any extra lighting.
It's one thing if this was one or two people, but when just about every household you visit throughout the country is like this...
I'm not talking about "work in the dark, it'll save trees" I'm talking about simple, common sense things like turning off your damn TV when you're not watching it.
Anyway, if people were smarter with power consumption, solar and wind would be viable electricity choices.
Hydrogen fuel cars are also a good idea, that is if the cracking stations are using solar or wind.
Of course, the ideal would be to convert the solar system into a dyson sphere :p
-
Solar Power is eco-friendly and easy to get, the problem is that it is incoherently expensive to implement and maintain on the kind of scale we're talking about. The only way it becomes cost-effective is if some kind of massive network of orbital collectors were to be established.
Wind is worse in terms of cost of both implementation and maintenance. The only place in the US where there is sufficient open space to build the number and size of wind farms in the Great Plains and most of them are wild life sanctuaries/National Forests/National Parks. Also, one natural disaster(which in the Great Plains means tornadoes) and a large segment of the country is without power for weeks while the damaged windmills are replaced.
It good that you're thinking, but you're also buying to the eco-nonsense that we can become a non-impact species.
I mean the idea that we can just toss Fossil Fuels is bunk. Even if we managed to switch out energy reliance over to something eco-friendly, FFs would still be needed for countless industrial uses from plastic production to cost effective lubricants.
Of course, the ideal would be to convert the solar system into a dyson sphere
There's not enough raw material in the entire system to build one of those.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
The only way it becomes cost-effective is if some kind of massive network of orbital collectors were to be established.
Now, that's what I'm talkin' about ;)
Seriously though, a network of satillites transmitting the power to Earth (either laser or maser) would work well.
Of course, cost to launch the necessary network would be high, so a space elevator would be required.
This isn't some flight of fancy idea either.
Fossil fuels will still be needed for things such as plastics, lubricants, etc. Having solar/hydrogen for "standard" every day consumption allows for fossil fuels to be spent on things such as the plastics.
Originally posted by Liberator
There's not enough raw material in the entire system to build one of those.
True, that was more of a joke then anything. :)
-
what about Kupiers belt(sp?)...there's got to be plenty of roids out there for our needs...
-
Nope, the solar system including all KBOs has only a small percent of what's needed for a dyson like construct.
Keep in mind, comets and KBOs are effectively snowballs, not a whole lot there.
-
Other problems arise when you take into some of the more "eccentric" theroies out there, such as the one the suggests Sol has a brown dwarf companion on an 11,000 year cycle. :lol: Bear in mind that if that was true Jupiter, Saturn and the rest couldn't exist in the gravitational enviroment because if such a thing exists it would be very close astronomically or traveling incredibly fast relative to Sol. Either way the gravity would be different and Gas Giants would be either smaller or nonexistent.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Solar Power is eco-friendly and easy to get, the problem is that it is incoherently expensive to implement and maintain on the kind of scale we're talking about. The only way it becomes cost-effective is if some kind of massive network of orbital collectors were to be established.
It won't be for long thanks to a nice discovery made at the DOE facility I work at
Originally posted by Liberator
Wind is worse in terms of cost of both implementation and maintenance. The only place in the US where there is sufficient open space to build the number and size of wind farms in the Great Plains and most of them are wild life sanctuaries/National Forests/National Parks. Also, one natural disaster(which in the Great Plains means tornadoes) and a large segment of the country is without power for weeks while the damaged windmills are replaced.
Wrong again - there are plenty of places in which to build win generation arrays in the great plains that are _NOT_ parks -- They've doing it in iowa extensively.
They can also build them in windy coastal regions - like california
Originally posted by Liberator
It good that you're thinking, but you're also buying to the eco-nonsense that we can become a non-impact species.
Did I say we could become a non-impact species you windbag? We're always going to have an impact - however our dependance upon fossil fuel is total and completely bull****
Originally posted by Liberator
I mean the idea that we can just toss Fossil Fuels is bunk. Even if we managed to switch out energy reliance over to something eco-friendly, FFs would still be needed for countless industrial uses from plastic production to cost effective lubricants.
Wrong again -- they have excellent non-petroleum plastics and lubricants, infact the non-petro lubricants are in several was superior
-
oh Kara - implying that i cannot 'see the writing on the wall' (dinosaur comment) is rather insulting, and you intended it to be
as for "taking this seriously" - there is a difference between taking the threat of humanity seriously, and advising caution on jumping to conclusions on a specific theory
-
I think we could do a lot more to build more self-reliant houses. I.e. Solar panels for power, water collections systems, heating based on combination of above, etc. Sure, it's initially a limiting system but with enough money put into it you could develop a very effective and eco-friendly self-sufficient house (within reason).
That'd cut down on a lot of consumption, and business taxes could cover the larger more industrial systems that still required the national grid.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
The only place in the US where there is sufficient open space to build the number and size of wind farms in the Great Plains and most of them are wild life sanctuaries/National Forests/National Parks. Also, one natural disaster(which in the Great Plains means tornadoes) and a large segment of the country is without power for weeks while the damaged windmills are replaced.
:lol:
You have a country as big as a continent, and you're telling us there's no room for some eol... dunno how you say in english ?
I wonder how they did in Holland :doubt:
-
Originally posted by Kazan
oh Kara - implying that i cannot 'see the writing on the wall' (dinosaur comment) is rather insulting, and you intended it to be
as for "taking this seriously" - there is a difference between taking the threat of humanity seriously, and advising caution on jumping to conclusions on a specific theory
Your first comment on the global warming issue was to claim that the science was bunk and that the scientists are being over reactionary. You then post a link to a quote claiming that humans aren't responsible for global warming.
Besides if you really do believe that there is no strong evidence for humans causing global warming why are you suggesting that we cut down CO2 production?
How can you then claim that you see the writing on the wall? You basically claimed that humans aren't causing global warming. Have you changed your mind on that matter?
-
Liberator, I don't think this is an everything or nothing situation. We don't necessarily have to stop using all fossil fuels over-night. If over the next several years, a certain percentage of energy consumption can be switched to renewable sources, thats good and worth investing in. AAll I'm saying is that there is a lot that could be done but isn't.
Hybrid gas/electric cars, electric cars and other ways of propulsion, they're a great thing, and if implemented on any large scale could be a big step towards cutting down hazardous emissions. But the problem is that oil being the single most profitable industry in the world, there are alot of very powerful people who are not too keen on seeing hybrid cars becoming mainstream.
I believe that the best way to get some of these things off the ground, due to the sheer scale of the undertaking, is by cooperation between the government and citizens. A government initiative, like Bush's broadband plan only for energy, could make it much easier to implement certain renewable energy measures. For example, becuase solar cells are a bit costly to install, split the cost between the person and the government. If I knew that the government would pay 40% of the cost, I'de be more willing to consider putting up solar cells. A no brainer would be to enforce fuel efficiency standards on the major car manufacturers. Its just standard practice, every administration for decades has been doing it.
I'm just listing stuff off the top of my head here, but you get the idea. If either the government or the citizen has to pay the entire cost, either will be reluctant to do it. But if you split the costs, that might nudge people to take up renewable energy. Its not like Uncle Sam can't afford it.
-
Why not use the Sahara, etc, desert for wind farms / solar farms on a global scale?
:)
-
The sand ****s the turbines up and burries the panels.
I don't get why they don't just build like a million nuclear power plants.
By the time the toxic waste gets to be a real problem we'll have advanced enough to be able to just shoot it off towards the Sun.
-
has anyone here looked into the Thermal Conversion Process developed by Changeing World Technologies? aparently they have a test plant sucesfuly proccessing meat house waste into fuel, and are about to open a production facility this fall. and the great thing about it is it turns an oil economy green, no more additional CO2 would be pumped into the atmosphere (all fuel produced by the proces is made from carbon removed from the atmosphere by plants wich were then subsquently eaten by animals wich were then slaughtered and there unused remains procesed into fuel, it's essentaly solar power converted into oil)
best thing of all it stands to make the oil companies (the ones that invest in it) fantasticly rich, so they'll actualy develop it rather than try to burry it.
http://www.changingworldtech.com/techfr.htm
-
We could always try nuclear fusion instead of nuclear fission... now to get that cold fusion issue...
-
"cold fusion" = bull****
however real fusion is a distinct possibility
-
Originally posted by Kazan
"cold fusion" = bull****
however real fusion is a distinct possibility
How's that?
-
Because cold-fusion defies the laws of physics and normal-fusion is in the testing stages.
-
because cold-fusion defies the laws of physics and was a hoax
and they can create stable microfusion by sonoluminescence
-
Originally posted by Kazan
because cold-fusion defies the laws of physics and was a hoax
Cold fusion wasn't really a hoax. A hoax implies that the people behind it knew it wasn't true. What we had here was a case of glory seeking stupidity :D
What happened apparently was that a couple of physical chemists did an experiment involving hydrogen adsorbed onto metal surfaces and claimed that they had got some energy reading higher than would be possible through any normal chemical reaction.
Instead of checking their instruments careful, repeating the experiments and publishing in a peer reviewed journal like any sensible scientist would they instead decided to leap at the nobel prize by calling a press conferance announcing that they had discovered cold fusion.
Basically after a few months when no other scientist including those who originally carried out the experiment could repeat it the research was considered to be nonsense and is now ignored by the scientific community. Last I heard one of the scientists was still committing career suicide trying to repeat the experiment.
Basically the Cold Fusion scientists deserve their position on the list of scientists who destroyed their career by publishing very poor research (Although they go below the idiot who published "The Memory of Water" paper in Nature with a flaw in it so large that I saw it the second I heard how the experiment was done).
-
http://www.twm.co.nz/water.html
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993817
This? :confused:
How the **** can water retain memory if it's molecules are constantly moving (if no substance is present to "guide" them)?
-
The second one mentions Jacques Benveniste who is the guy I was on about.
For the sake of fun I'll describe the experiment and lets see if anyone can spot the flaw before I get to it :D I'm going from memory but I think I've got the basics down.
He was studying allergic reactions. The chemical that caused the allergic reaction was made into a solution in water. When added to the blood cells and cell that reacted would turn bluish. A researcher would then stare at a slide under a microscope and manually count the cells that turned blue.
What the researchers found was that when they diluted the solution down to a level where it should have no effect and repeated the experiment with new cells they found that some of the cells still turned blue. They continued to dilute the solution and repeat the experiment, eventually getting it down to a level where the odds were good that there wasn't even a single molecule of the chemical in the solution but still the cells would always be blue.
Jacques thought that this might be proof that water was somehow "remembering" the chemical that had been present in the solution and designed an experiment to prove it.
One set of cells were given water while another set of cells were given a highly diluted solution that was so diluted that it should have no more of an effect than plain water. The researcher again sat down at the microscope and counted the number of stained cells from the water sample and then from the diluted sample.
The result was that the highly diluted sample always had a much higher number of blue cells than the water sample even though there was very little chance of there actually being any of the allergen in it.
A paper on the subject was written up and submitted to Nature who hated it. They said that since this was an amazing claim they would only publish it if they were allowed to send their own experts there to verify the experiment. The paper was published and then the experts went in (James Randi a famous debunker was also sent along).
This time the experts insisted that the researcher who counted the cells didn't know which was the dilute sample and which was the water sample. At this point the bottom fell out of the entire experiment and Jacques dream of a nobel prize failed completely.
What had of course been happening was that if a cell looked a little blue the researchers were counting it for the dilute sample and discarding it for the water sample. :rolleyes: As soon as the person doing the counting didn't know which sample was which the reults were more accurate.
What amazed me is that a man who was considered on the track to a nobel prize didn't even consider doing a double (or even single) blind test on something this important. :)
EDIT : Here's a link to the BBC Horizon (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtml) programme on the subject. :)
It mentions that there is a 1 Million pound prize for anyone who can prove that homeopathy (i.e memory of water) works under lab conditions :)
2nd Edit : Hopefully some more clarity added :)
-
Originally posted by karajorma
What the researchers found was that when they diluted the solution down to a level where it should have no effect they found that some of the cells still had a bluish colour to them.
(...)
One set of cells were given water while another set of cells were given a highly diluted solution that should have had the same effect as water. The researcher again sat down at the microscope and counted the number of stained cells from the water sample and then from the diluted sample.
The result was that the diluted sample always had a much higher number of blue cells than the water sample.
:wtf:
Everything is wrong?
In the first quote they were still blue because of the effects of the previous samples...
On the second, of course a much diluted sample is going to get larger amounts of blue cells compared to a sample of pure water!
-
*Stares around in utter confusion*
This is all way over my head. Though the thing Bob. linked to sounds pretty original. I think the way to shake off our dependence of fossil fuels and make energy production more eco friendly is using a vareity of sources, not just one.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
:wtf:
Everything is wrong?
In the first quote they were still blue because of the effects of the previous samples...
On the second, of course a much diluted sample is going to get larger amounts of blue cells compared to a sample of pure water!
RE1: I think that means new cells were tested with the dilute - still blue, I think, means the reaction still occurred.
RE2: The sample was diluted to a point where it should have been ineffectual - i.e. any effect would have had to have been from the water retaining a 'memory' of its previous, less dilute state (or something)
The experiment was biased by the experimentors foreknowledge of what each sample was, and what result they expected..
-
Oh... :p sorry
-
Yeah. Aldo has got it in one :)
Editing the original post to make it a little clearer
Originally posted by Rictor
*Stares around in utter confusion*
This is all way over my head.
Sorry to hear that Rictor. I tried to explain it in terms a non scientist would understand. Let me try explaining it in simpler terms.
Suppose I have a glass of poison (not a hugely nasty one but one that makes you ill).
I give 10 volunteers a cup of water from a 10 litre tank of water. I then take 1 drop of the poison and add it to the tank and stir it. There is not supposed to be enough poison in the tank to make anyone ill now as it's too dilute. I then give another 10 volunteers a drink from the tank telling them I poisoned it.
I wait and see who gets ill. Would you be surprised if the number of people who drunk from the tainted tank was higher? Of course not. We can guess that there would be a reversed placebo effect and people would go "oh no. The water was poisoned. I feel ill" I could probably have the same effect even if I didn't add the poison but just told the volunteers I did.
What this scientist did was to publish a paper saying more people who drunk from the poisoned tank got ill so the water in the tank must somehow be amplifying the effect of the poison by some previously unknown chemical ability of water.
Of course that isn't true, a fact you can easily prove by repeating the test but not telling anyone who drunk the tainted water.
Hope that was simple enough to follow :)
-
Originally posted by Nico
:lol:
You have a country as big as a continent, and you're telling us there's no room for some eol... dunno how you say in english ?
I wonder how they did in Holland :doubt:
Best. Reply. Ever. :lol: