Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 435 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Topic Options
#16571 - 09/21/06 08:58 PM Re: Global Warming IS Fault of Man (and Woman).
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
So Exxon Mobil Corp. have splashed out $2.9 million to 39 organizations 'researching' Global Warming. No prizes for guessing how much of the research has been contrary to the consensus.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html

Blacknad.

Top
.
#16572 - 09/22/06 10:17 AM Re: Global Warming IS Fault of Man (and Woman).
RicS Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/26/06
Posts: 310
Loc: Sydney, Australia
Hi Blacknad,

There is no science in this thread. It is either personal knowledge because of who I know or my own opinion.

To your post. This is the trouble with quoting news articles. They can be out of date, just plain wrong or seriously distort the scientific report or whatever.

In this case, the link is to a newspaper, who in turn is quoting an organisation that is in turn providing figures on what another organisation is supposed to be doing.

ExxonMobil HAS stopped funding the groups such as those mentioned. It funds a huge amount of things including pure research but being an oil company and therefore it must be the devil incarnate, anything it funds must be biased, distorted and just plain wrong. It is because of this perception that ExxonMobil has stopped funding. Now some serious research has lost its funding and I'm not talking about Global Warming.

Just how did it come to pass that a huge multi national corporation cannot be seen to fund anything of a charitable or research nature because it pollutes the ability of that charity or research to be published or taints them so badly that the exercise becomes one in futility?

A hate to say this but before Global Warming created a huge lode of funds from governments, donations to environmental causes and the like, the only source of funding for most serious but pure research without immediate practical benefit came from companies just like ExxonMobil, who believed it their corporate duty to set aside a very small amount of their profits for such purposes. So ExxonMobil cannot fund cancer research because the argument will now be they will pressure the research into saying it is not caused by gasoline fumes (forget for a moment that the research was probably into a cancer where there was absolutely no causal link between environment and the cancer).

I cannot say why I know about ExxonMobil's funding withdrawal, only that I do. It has nothing to do with what I am doing but it has had a significant effect on someone I know and coincidently the subject was discussed only a few hours before your post.

Please tell me why research paid for by Greenpeace (not known for its objective assessment of ... well anything) or some other environmental lobby group is obviously unbiased and uninfluenced by its source of funding yet if funded by industry, which traditionally has funded most of pure research, obviously must mean that it is just a front for their propaganda. If big industry companies want spin, they have think tanks and lobbyists and publicists for that. It has been my experience that funding from such sources either comes with strings if it may have a practical application, the strings being that the funder has first crack at the profits to be made from such practical application, or with no strings at all.

This amazing development is a consequence of Global Warming. I was speaking with a researcher whom I admire and asked how did their conclusion end up saying something like "And the results show ... which is a clear consequence of Global Warming and is man made".

I asked if they believed this. They said, no that it was garbage but they had to add that type of comment into the conclusion otherwise funding would be withdrawn for other projects. It was "a condition of the funding". Do you suggest this is unbiased? Oh and by the way the researcher does believe in global warming and that CO2 is a primary factor. The garbage comment was about whether the research had any connection to establishing this as stated in the conclusion.

Now I could be making all this up because I cannot back any of this up with references to anyone involved. I wouldn't know this information if I was the type of person that would provide proof in breach of a confidence. Indeed, even this comment is sort of borderline and a little uncomfortable for me but I am in the happy position of being in touch with a number of people with no one else knowing that I am so I?ll go as far as I have but no further.

If you think for a moment about the many billions of dollars that go into the industry of Global Warming both the positive and negative, whether it be pure research, lobbying or spin, there is no way anyone with even a modicum of common sense would believe that the whole thing has not a chance of being unbiased and fairly studied or reported. I do not greatly care about the truth of global warming or otherwise. If it is true then research is needed to work out how it will progress and how to adapt. If it is false, well along the way human knowledge into climate science has developed greatly. Funding for tornado and hurricane research means practical benefits will result. And if less fossil fuels are used, a finite resource will be preserved a bit longer, there will be less pollution and man might stuff up his environment a little less. If it means that the Indonesians do not burn down half of Indonesia each year because Global Warming has brought this absurd behaviour to world attention then that?s a good thing.

Unlike some who doubt the science of global warming, I have no trouble at all believing that humans have had a profound effect on the planet. Locally they affect climate greatly. But I?m not a big fan of environmental causes just because they give the participant a warm fuzzy feeling.

Recycling paper is idiotic. It uses six times the energy to recycle paper than it does to utilize plantation timber. The long term pollution caused by de-inking etc is truly horrific. Yet try telling this to those that separate their newspaper from other rubbish. Actually if you really thought CO2 was a really big problem then you would never recycle paper. By putting it in landfill, you are locking up the CO2 that will be released in the recycling process (not to mention the huge amount released to create the energy to recycle the paper). I do have a concern that some idiot will try to stop global warming. Not Kyoto or making cars more efficient. That?s fine. Actually a great deal of anti global warming ideas are really just anti-pollution ideas. That is a good thing, in my view.

If governments want to add a tax to business in the form of carbon credits, aside from making a bunch of people that do not deserve it filthy rich, what?s the harm. The concern I have is that someone will try to ?reverse? the effects of global warming at exactly the same time as the sun decides to turn down the thermostat a bit. I thought that I didn?t have to worry because no ?practical? solutions existed. The cost would just be too much and require too many resourses but in the past three months have read four separate papers on reducing global warming that are not too expensive or impractical. The one that truly disturbed me involved introducing material into the atmosphere which would result in ?shinier? clouds and many more of them. Clever solution. Easy to do. The resultant pollution, while nasty, is such that those that fervently believe in the Al Gore philosophy that there will be no human life on earth in 100 years unless we act now, will not find it too objectionable. And likely to really reduce temperatures ? by a lot. And there was a knock on effect that was truly frightening.

To those that keep on saying, what's in it for the scientists etc that report global warming, the answer is money, publicity, prestige, a reason for being, the congratulations and admiration of others who think alike etc. plus the real biggie, the herd mentality of scientists. Scientists are smart as individuals. As a group they are often morons. Think of pretty much any scientific theory and you will have an example that fits this hypothesis. Darwin. Gallileo. Wegener. Actually the last one is a bit unfair. His theory might have been right but his reasoning as to how were really bad.

Take one small Global Warming example that really happened. The way it happened as explained here is me making a point. Say I study history. It gets funded in small ways but I see that while for many years Earth Sciences received almost no funding and it was impossible to do post graduate work unless you were rich (which is the reason why there are so few Climatologists with higher degrees in the world - when they were studying it, it was the very worst of the sciences for funding). Because my field of history includes the recent past I know that my earth science colleagues attempted to obtain some funding in the 70s through some publicity into the global cooling scare but, while it might have made the odd writer rich, in the main it failed. However, I know that from the late 80s on the funding trickled and then flooded into Earth Sciences because of global warming. Now I?m not a good enough historian to get funding in my own field directly so up till now all I?ve been able to do is teach and be sneered at by my colleagues because I haven?t published. Academics don?t use money to determine status and seniority and superiority of their group, they use number of publications as their currency.

Now I'm not the greatest Historian. I'm not at a really prestigious university but I am ambitious so what do I do? I write a paper on Global Warming! Huh, but I?m an historian not a climate scientist. Doesn?t matter as long as my results are very pro global warming. How about an 100% result in favour of global warming? That should do it, the historian thinks.

Not being a climate scientist, all I do is analyse the scientists that study climate (actually most of them are not climate scientists either but that?s getting off the point). I already know that the opposition to the "fact" of global warming dried up long ago because it was the only sure way to have that flood of funding cut off so I also know that whatever I look at will prove the "fact" of global warming providing I confine my study to the conclusions of Climate scientists who have been published in the last 20 years.

And what happens. My really lame and flawed study in a field I know nothing about gets accepted for publication straight away, flies through peer review without a whisper of ?This is lame. It does not add to the body of knowledge of man at all. It does not even follow good scientific methods. It is not verifiable.? It is touted by many as brilliant, is quoted in newspapers around the world as finally a ?sensible? study that shows that all scientists agree on global warming, and I get to go on to be considered to be a world authority on the field, even to be quoted often whenever global warming is discussed.

Now this could refer to anyone and is not intended to refer to any individual. Please do not post who you think it might be. I do not want this forum or me to be threatened with a lawsuit. It is a satirical account meant to emphasise the point I am making (end of legal disclaimer).

Climbing off my soap box now. How about a new thread that we can really discuss some aspect of global warming with real science? I?ll even make a suggestion. Someone challenge me by citing a real global warming study and I?ll discuss the scientific methods used. A bit too ?I?m the greatest? of a suggestion? Don?t actually mean it that way but it at least should be able to be a thread where the science is discussed. Maybe we could even sets some rules. No opinions at all except those that relate directly to the study and then you have to back them up with science by quoting studies or experiments and provide references or links (and no links to newspapers, summaries or anything other than the original research or paper). Everyone is allowed to participate and suggest the rules. The moderator of the group decides on the rules (but just for this thread). Any takers or any suggestions for other threads where we can discuss the science without just calling each other names or endlessly expressing opinions (and that is not the case of the pot calling the kettle black I don?t know what is). Another suggested rule. All entries in the thread have to be run through a spell checker but no critiscm of someone just because their English structure.


Regards


Richard
_________________________
Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness

Top
#16573 - 09/22/06 10:34 AM Re: Global Warming IS Fault of Man (and Woman).
RicS Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/26/06
Posts: 310
Loc: Sydney, Australia
Hi,

Off topic completely!

No I didn't lie. I'm not in hospital because it is Friday. Not going to explain that.

Have an infection but this happens to those in wheelchairs or in bed for long periods. Am rooting for the little fellows that are white or carry around the little T shaped shields but the war still rages. Reinforcements are being sent in in the form of high level bombing of large pink pills, they then open up and out pops a bunch of little warriors known as the Anti-Bs. They might be on the good guys' side but they are also war criminals of the worst order. They slaughter anyone that is of a certain colour. They kill good guys if they get in their way. They are mass murderers of the highest order. Hundreds of millions of innocents are now dying because of the need for these reinforcements.

The only good thing that can be said of the Anti-Bs is they also kill the enemy and end the end they don't even have to be tried for their war crimes. They don't make it to the end of the war no matter who wins.

So, who's winning. Well the goodies, have flooded the war zone in an attempt to drown the baddies and to concentrate the good guys where the bad guys are. They have started to light fires all over the place in an attempt to make life rather uncomfortable for the baddies. They have even cut through the outer layer in several places so all the dead bodies that could start to stink up the place can be thrown out.

But the baddies have numbers on their side, plus they attacked an area that was a rest and recreation area and had much less active troops than would normally be found. They have taken a large area and have marked it with either little red markers or much larger red splotches to prove they are in their fighting and have gained territory. They also have little respect for the rules of war and are currently engaging in deliberate torture through the deliberate attack of communication systems sometimes known as nerve endings.

Because it is Friday, the last line of defence, the overwhelming application of Anti-Bs has to wait so the poor defenders are doing it tough right now. The next 24 hours are critical. If a breakout occurs then I wouldn't like to be the poor defenders of other areas and it might be much harder to use the ultimate weapon.

Reporting from the front line, this is Richard, signing off.
_________________________
Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness

Top
#16574 - 09/22/06 02:48 PM Re: Global Warming IS Fault of Man (and Woman).
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
ok, Blacknad, ill accept that appology.

As I said, im something of a camelion. I have a tendacy to treat others precisely as they treat me. The other poster i mentioned was constant on the attack with childish insults, which i eventually responded with.

Just so you know, while he was at it for at least a year, i have only been posting here for the last few months. I believe my first post was in March.

You should check out some of the threads that RicS and I went back and forth on. While some of the debate was simi intense, not one insult every past between us, not one put down, not one bit of disrespect. In the end, I learned a lot, and would like to think I might have even taught a few people things.

If you wish to discuss things, I ask that you act like RicS and not like the other. It would be more pleasant for all concerned.

As far as what the future holds if I am wrong, I dont believe that there would be much harm compare to the damage caused by the real problems that have been proven to be a factor. There has never yet been a proven connection between co2 increases and an increase in temperature as a result. There has been links proven between the rise in temperature to mans building, his roads, and his method of farming and ranching. Yet you try to mention this to anyone concerned with Global warming, and they will look at you like you the devil himself. They will accuse you of being in league with BIG OIL. Why, because there is nothing that can be done easily. No one would even consider trying to lower the population to reduce the temperature. No one would even entertain the thought that something must be done about cities to get control over GW. No one would even listen to the idea that the number of cows and sheep (both of which are in much greater number than any time in history and both replace animals that produced less methane) might be a rather large cause of increases in greenhouse gasses. Why, when the solution to this part would be easy, replace herd animals that produce methane with ones that produce none or little? simple, that means that they cant have their hamburgers, the port chops. Instead they want to get rid of the major companies that polute and cause everyone else to have to give up cars and such.

I have never said that man was not in some way responsible for part of the increase in the temperature, although there are times i doubt that his increases in co2 has caused any of it.

the thing is, there are things that are proven, beyound any possible doubt, to be in some way responsible for an increase in temperature, yet GWA's dont want to deal with those. Why? because it means that they are the culprets instead of some other "Big Oil" exec, or perhaps Bush and his cronies.

There are ways we could be moving away from Big Oil and possible many reason to do so, but I dont believe Global Warming is one of them. The reason to do so are more in the known and proven areas. Polution. Ozone in homes. Damage to sea life from polutiants dumped into the sea. Oil spills. These things are known, they are reason to move away from oil, and things like it, BUT they there is no proof that GW is.

I dont see how putting the spot light on global warming will do a thing for the future, but if we instead focus on things that are wrong now, and are known to be destroy the earths environment, then perhaps that will aid the temperature of the future if I am wrong. The danger is, if we focus on global warming, we will take away the spot light from the known areas of danger. If we take care of them, much of the problem with greenhouse gasses will fall away.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16575 - 09/22/06 07:19 PM Re: Global Warming IS Fault of Man (and Woman).
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
Richard,

Loved your picture of bodily warfare.

But with your posts, could you possibly be a bit more compact? When I see a block of text 800 words long I tend to just skip through it (if I can be bothered to read it at all) and I'm probably missing a few gems in the process.

The same with dehammer.

Maybe at least make some of your major points in BOLD to break it up and make it slightly more appetizing to the eye.

I think it may be where some of the disagreement comes from - where people do not read through your posts in their entirety.

And think of poor Amaranth, who reads every posts on the board. She's started loosing weight because she's not finding enough time to eat in between reading your ginormous posts smile

Ta.

Blacknad.

Top
#16576 - 09/22/06 08:10 PM Re: Global Warming IS Fault of Man (and Woman).
RicS Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/26/06
Posts: 310
Loc: Sydney, Australia
Hi,

Blacknad. Good point. Mentioned this before. My brain works but not like it should because of my condition. So reviewing and being able to take the time to make my posts compact is very difficult for me to do. Many posts would just not exist if I tried (what? did I hear cheering in the background).



  • I type fast

    IE 7 stops popups unless I switch them off every time I want to use UBB

    But I like your idea and will use it.

    Maybe a bold summary at the beginning or the end of each point. I do that in my writing. Good idea?

    How about a different post for each subject with the above summary?

Richard
_________________________
Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness

Top
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.