Fora

WORDT DEEL VAN DE COMMUNITY
REGISTREERINLOGGEN

Conspiracy Theory? by Leilani Münter, Race car driver, environmental activist.

@Mel
@Pungoteague_Dave
I did not believe my post was nasty. I agree it was to an extent condescending. It was certainly straight to the point. I asked Pungoteague_Dave for some evidence for just one of his statements and offered to research it. Rather than provide a single example, Pungoteague_Dave followed up with yet more opinion, such as " intentionally distorted to make points", again without any evidence to support it.

I 'accept' the evidence for Climate Change, and will provide links to the data and research to support it. I find that Climate Change denialists do not. I 'believe' that, due to the lack of meaningful progress on mitigating Climate Change, we are condemning billions of people, for generations, to hardship, struggle and death. Do I think that is is okay for individuals to promulgate baseless opinions which cause this lack of action to happen? No I do not. Do I think that those people get offended by me taking them to task? Yes I do.

The solution to this is either:
1) The denialists debate on the facts rather than opinion
2) I do not aggressively take them to task

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" http://tartarus.org/martin/essays/burkequote.html

Haha when DOESNT a thread get hijacked into a global warming argue fest? :)

That might happen when people do not digress.
IOW, not frequently.
Although in this case the digression was perhaps not entirely unexpected.
(Saving up for a few kilowatts of solar and a Tesla) :-)

Bb0tin, I really enjoy your arguments. You just get very upset . We are all on the same side.

Hey, P_D:

Do religious leaders have an agenda when they say 'thou shall believe in such and such'? Of course they do. Yet, religions are followed by billions of 'sheep'. At least, GW is a theory promoted by known scientists, not charlatans.

That scandalous enough for you Brian?

jbunn;
The spawn used in that test were imported from warm Japanese waters and unable to survive the cold NW. Typical.

The spawn in that study were Crassostrea gigas - the Pacific Oyster which were originally imported from Asia but are the prevalent cultivated oyster on the west coast.

Oyster hatcheries have run in native Pacific Northwest waters since the 70's. Taylor Shellfish is a good example of a local Puget sound based oyster produce as well as an oyster hatchery. Great place. Tasty oysters. It's incorrect to state that the oyster span was imported.

The study was done at a commercial oyster hatchery in Netarts bay Oregon, and the hatchery and scientists were able to rule out other causes. The viability of young oysters negatively correlates with elevated carbon dioxide levels. This is a direct link to the actual study.

http://www.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_57/issue_3/0698.html

Here is an easier to read article describing the same pH related oyster collapse at other West Coast oyster hatcheries.

http://www.oysterworldcongress2012.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/OWC-Wo...

Your statement is not supported by the research and the experience at multiple hatcheries over many years.

I must say, I am truly impressed by the seriousness of this forum. My expectation was that this should have degraded into an argument over Team Lelani vs. Team Danica long before now.

I had a big-ass response teed up, but it got zapped somehow. Short version, We are worried about acidification, which is measurable. Source is not clear. I don't fall into the dueling links club, sorry. I had a whole outline of my last meeting with Al Gore in 2007 in London at his office, suffice it to say he and his staff admitted in so many words that his job is create demand for green investing. If we follow the money, there is no such thing in the climate "science" world as independence. What we see is answers looking for proof, with the scientific method be damned.

Having read everything put out by the IPCC and others on the warmist side, I see flaws and hypothetical thinking turned into unsupportable facts. I see the same and worse from the denier side. The biggest problem is one of perspective. Almost all data in these studies starts in the 1800's because that when we started trapping temperatures scientifically. When we look back further there is a ton of evidence of warmer periods and periods with far higher atmospheric carbon load than we see today. I am out of this discussion from here.

@Pungoteague_Dave
You said:
"I had a whole outline of my last meeting with Al Gore in 2007 in London at his office, suffice it to say he and his staff admitted in so many words that his job is create demand for green investing. If we follow the money, there is no such thing in the climate "science" world as independence. What we see is answers looking for proof, with the scientific method be damned."

You say "We are worried about acidification, which is measurable. Source is not clear." Really? Acidification is happening all over the world. Why is the simple cause of increased CO2 not good enough for you? It is simple physics and chemistry but you refuse to accept it.

Once again, your post is all opinion and rhetoric with absolutely no data to back it up. "scientific method be damned" you say. Where is your scientific method?

@ Pungoteague_Dave,

"When we look back further there is a ton of evidence of warmer periods and periods with far higher atmospheric carbon load than we see today."

Perhaps, but those warmer periods with higher carbon load occurred naturally and on their own timeframes. Just because our planet has gone through warmer periods doesn't somehow dismiss our most current warming period as "ok". Our recent warming trend (aka hockey stick graph) is man made and that is the difference. When a planet does something on its own, there is a balance to things. But when we humans start to mess with things, we screw up other things.

Past incidences of high carbon load or warming were also accompanied by greater volcanic activity spewing out greenhouse gasses. Today the thousands of refineries and plants, plus commercial activity and automobiles, methane from factory farming, etc. all take the place of what used to happen naturally and over millennia. Back when we had higher carbon load and warmer temps, we also had much higher oxygen and nitrogen levels in the atmosphere. We don't have that balance today, instead we are just spiking our CO2 and methane levels.

On an even more fundamental level, we are releasing CO2, methane and other gasses that nature sequestered. Nature traps CO2 gas in plants and animals, underground, captures it in minerals and water, etc. Methane is trapped inside of plant material, under the ocean floor, etc. As we release these compounds into the air - which is just another type of ocean - where do people think these gasses are going to go?

The earth has taken hundreds of millions of years to sequester enough CO2 and other greenhouse gasses to give us the climate that we have today. Nature is doing nothing extraordinary to release those gasses, but man is.

The hockey stick graph has been completely debunked by very reputable scientists. Even Al has stopped using it.

I can't find the complete debunking by very reputable scientists, but I did find this quote from Al Gore on his blog within the last 5 years.

Hockey Stick September 16, 2008 : 8:29 PM

Contrary to what the skeptics and deniers will tell you, the Hockey Stick graph, similar to the one I featured in "An Inconvenient Truth", is proving to be completely true.

Al has removed it from his standard meriting pitch slide show.

PD;
Install the Lazarus add-on and your entries are saved as you type. You can set the save duration to suit, and search the d/b. So every entry is available for x weeks.

Mueller is a pretty serious source. I thought I recalled his name from work with George Smoot on cosmic anisotropy.

I read the article in the link. Mueller has questions about the variability of the data, but the excerpts that the op-ed writer quotes are more questions and musings from Mueller than downright condemnation of the hockey stick.

I don't know if an op-ed is a "complete debunking", but I do take Mueller's opinion as important.

Here is a link to the actual summary of the temperature data study (BEST) carried out by Richard Muller et al published July 2012:
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-announcement-jul-29-1...

The opening quote is:
"According to a new Berkeley Earth study released today, the average temperature of the Earth’s land has risen by 1.5 °C over the past 250 years. The good match between the new temperature record and historical carbon dioxide records suggests that the most straightforward explanation for this warming is human greenhouse gas emissions."

As for the "hockey stick" graph itself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

A quote from the above link:
"More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Ten or more subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008, have supported these general conclusions."

Let's be clear - there are thousands of peer reviewed studies related to changes caused by Climate Change, but not limited to, temperature, ice melt, sea-level rise, ocean acidification, droughts, wildfires, deluges, plant seasons, plant and animal habitat. There are thousands of papers related to the possible causes of Climate Change, such as, but not limited to, solar flux, volcanism, clouds, CO2, natural variability, cosmic rays.
To deny anthropomorphic Climate Change is to deny all the science. It is to believe that thousands of scientists, from all over the world, from all political factions, over decades, are all involved in a grand conspiracy, and successfully so.
To delay action to mitigate Climate Change is to delay a cleaner, safer, sustainable future.
The irony is that, as a result of this delay, the financial cost and government intervention required will be far higher than if action is taken now.
As indiviiduals we need to ask ourselves the question: What will your answer be in 20 years if asked "What did you do to try and prevent the climate disasters we are now suffering?"
It cannot be that you were not aware of the science.

@ Pungoteague_Dave,

Nothing in the op-ed you linked debunks anything. It simply quotes hypothetical musings, no real facts or data. An op-ed is not a debunking, and writers of op-ed pieces are not usually qualified to draw any conclusions from climate data. The fact that our latest warming trend is man made is what is alarming. Prior events were natural, this one is not. And it's happening very quickly.

Lets make it simple. If you cannot be in a closed garage with your gas car running, why is it OK to be in a closed system like earth with millions of cars running? Are there new sources to sink this carbon and other harmful chemical output?

Wow, @Redshift, that was what @AR said to BrianH, but much more succinct. +1

@redshift. Really? I can't be in my garage with a bonfire, or argon gas, or pure nitrogen, or even water flooded to the roof. Yes the world is a closed system. Excellent point. The world definitely has a fixed amount of carbon. How it gets shifted around is the question. Remember how the world was never going to recover from the BP spill? Nature took care of it in a matter of months though unexpected and massive bacterial action, with no human intervention. Scientists were shocked and flummoxed, as it fit no model. They were predicting beach wastelands and lost shellfish stocks for decades, perhaps millennia. Our biggest competition in the oyster business remains cheap product from the gulf, which set record harvests over the past two years. The earth is remarkably self-patching.

Thankfully global warming has made places like Kansas possible, created the Chesapeake Bay, the country's largest estuary, etc. The only constant is change. I embrace it, especially sitting here in 73 degrees on the first day of winter. So you greenies never have a fire in your fireplace, use a gas range, or use a grill? I am fairly certain that my family is one of only a few in the US with a truly negative carbon footprint, by many tons per year. I believe in minimizing our impact on the world, and have put a lot of money into that commitment, but it doesn't mean I have to drink apocalyptic koolaid like so many do. For some, buying a Tesla is a means to assuage resource usage guilt. For me it is a damn fine car.

Stupid. The planet needs and uses carbon dioxide. CO is a short-lived poison, irrelevant.

Here're a few excerpts from a prominent scientist's responses to some UK Parliament challenges:

1. Late September the IPCC published Climate Change 2013: the Physical Science Basis, a document of over 2200 pages, which will be read by very few people, and an accompanying "Summary for Policymakers" (SPM) of 36 pages, which will be the document that is generally read by politicians, officials and the media. In my opinion the main point to appreciate is that as it has the purpose of addressing policy makers, the SPM can not be a scientific document. When writing the SPM, the authors are facing a dilemma: either they speak as scientists and must therefore recognize that there are too many unknowns to make reliable predictions, both in the mechanisms at play and in the available data; or they try to convey what they "consensually" think is the right message but at the price of giving up scientific rigour. They deliberately chose the latter option. The result is they have distorted the scientific message into an alarmist message asking for urgent reaction, which is quite contrary to what the scientific message conveys.
.
In most physical problems, however, and particularly in climate science, statistical uncertainties are largely irrelevant. What matters are systematic uncertainties that result in a large part from our lack of understanding of the mechanisms at play, and also in part from the lack of relevant data. In quantifying such ignorance the way they have done it, the SPM authors have lost credibility with many scientists. Such behaviour is unacceptable. A proper scientific summary must rephrase the main SPM conclusions in a way that describes properly the factors that contribute to the uncertainties attached to such conclusions.
.
'How effective is AR5 and the summary for polfcymakers in conveying what is meant by uncertainty in scientific terms? Would a focus on risk rather than uncertainty be useful?'
The way the SPM deals with uncertainties (e.g. claiming something is 95% certain) is shocking and deeply unscientific. For a scientist, this simple fact is sufficient to throw discredit on the whole summary. The SPM gives the wrong idea that one can quantify precisely our confidence in the model predictions, which is far from being the case.
.
'Does the AR5 address the reliability of climate models?'
Even if it does it in several places in the report, it lacks too often the critical attitude that should be expected, sometimes eluding rather than facing embarrassing questions. The SPM does not address in a proper way the issue of the reliability of the climate models.
.
'Has AR5 sufficiently explained the reasons behind the widely reported hiatus in the global surface temperature record?'
Of course not, how could it? One can only suggest hypotheses. The coming decade should help us with understanding much better what is most relevant.
.
'Do the AR5 Physical Science Basis report's conclusions strengthen or weaken the economic case for action to prevent dangerous climate change?'
In the short term, it weakens the case for taking urgent action. In the long term, it supports the importance of taking global warming as an important factor in decisions affecting the. future of the planet, together with energy policy, management of natural resources, social, financial, economic and geopolitical considerations.
.
'Is the IPCC process an effective mechanism for assessing scientific knowledge? Or has it focussed on providing a justification for political commitment?'
The mission given to the IPCC of addressing policy makers rather than scientists has contributed to the deterioration of the quality of the climate debate up to a point that may well now be no return. One may claim today that it was predictable, but I do not think that one could have predicted that it could reach such a depressingly aggressive and irrational level.

Like the Believer blather in this thread.

P_D,

Way to not answer my question.

Where are these new carbon sinks in nature? Don't be so sure about nature cleaning up after all our messes.
If nature would clean up all our messes there would be no pollution.

Extrapolating your sea faring wisdom to global warming without offering any proof is not a convincing argument.

@Brian

"Stupid. The planet needs and uses carbon dioxide. CO is a short-lived poison. irrelevant"

Alcohol is a short lived poison, let us all start drinking 3 cases of wine everyday.

Also, Brian: I believe you should get refund on all the courses you may have taken and all the books you have read.

@BrianH
Please post some facts and scientifc studies to support your viewpoint if you must post. Your level of argument consists of a gish gallup followed by you immediately ignoring any factual counter argument.

@Everyone
Google volkerize buffoon

Why would anyone be against wine ?

Mel,

I love wine and enjoy different varieties here in California. Even use it in my reduction on the gourmet pizza I make at home.

I love to drink, but not be drunk all the time.

@ Brian H,

The article you quoted quotes a scientist who believes this:

"I am prepared to adhere to some precaution principle and accept that we should be careful with injecting CO2 in the atmosphere at the scale of what it already contains when we do not know enough to be sure that it is reasonably harmless; I understand that answering many of the open questions in climate science may require more time than we can afford to wait."

So you are actually disproving your own point that you are trying to make.


X Deutschland Site Besuchen