|
|  |
| |
|
| | The Innovation Network Network is not currently active and cannot accept new posts | | The Reality of Climate Change | Views: 1176 | | Jan 18, 2010 12:17 pm | | The Reality of Climate Change | # | 
John Stephen Veitch | | I was somewhat distressed leading up to COP15, at the misuse of this open forum, to support a propaganda effort to discredit the strong science behind climate change.
I'm not going to permit that to happen again. To that end there will be new posting rules for this network in the next couple of days. Essentially YOU, need to state your OWN personal point of view. To put your reputation on the line. Then if you want to add supporting evidence from some source, by all means do so.
So let's begin now.
I'm not a scientist, but I've read over a thousand pages on this topic in the last three months, and I'm totally convinced that the anti-climate change propaganda we have recently been subjected to is malicious, dishonest, and destructive of both the environment and in the longer run the economy. Moreover that failure to discuss the topic in a proper way was destructive to this network.
Even if the science was proven wrong in some way, the sorts of things humanity needs to do to adapt to climate change are things that are worthwhile anyway.
Here's little story about science getting it wrong.
In the 1840's thousands of Londoners died of disease, thought to be carried in the sewers. Science of the time described this as "the miasma" and it carried scarlet fever, small-pox and cholera to its' victims. It was thought that the SMELL for the open sewers caused the deaths.
The Sewer Commissioners called for submissions, and they got 137 suggestions, none of which were acceptable. Edwin Chandwick, the Poor Law Commissioner ordered the flushing of the sewers. That didn't stop the deaths. Child mortality was common. Often the death rate was so high the bodies couldn't be buried.
In 1849 14,000 Londoners died of Colera. The Chief statistician William Farr was tracking the places were deaths occurred. There was a geographic pattern to the deaths that he could make no sense of.
Dr. John Snow developed a theory that the geographic feature of the death pattern might have something to do with drinking water. In 1853 the cholera returned and Dr Snow had one suspicious water source closed and the epidemic stopped.
In 1856 Joseph Bazalgette, an engineer developed a plan for an enclosed sewerage system to get rid of the smell. The system involved bricked in sewers, which were self cleansing and large pumps to raise the sewerage into holding ponds.
Politicians rejected the plan. But 1858 was the year of the "great stink" so bad that parliament was closed. A few weeks later three million pounds was approved for the building of Bazalgette's sewer. The work involved 20,000 men with picks and shovels, and it took almost 14 years.
However as the work proceeded the incidence of cholera dropped. "Getting rid of the smell" obviously "worked".
In 1866, in an area which had been cholera free for some time, suddenly had several deaths. Together William Farr and John Snow quickly identified a reason. Eels were found in the water supply pipes. This pipe was not yet fully isolated from the sewers. Dr Snow died several years before the real cause of Cholera was discovered.
Bazalgettes sewer was completed in 1870, and London never again suffered from a cholera epidemic.
***********
My point is this. Even though the real reason for the epidemics was wasn't understood, the open sewers were correctly identified as the problem. The engineering work on the sewers was very expensive, and the politicians reluctant, but the work was needed and should have been approved many years earlier.
This is typical of how human societies behave. We can see the same thing now regarding climate change.
I do have evidence to support my view.
It's so Cold, there can't be Global Warming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDTUuckNHgc
John Stephen Veitch; The Network Ambassador
Open Future Limited - http://www.openfuture.co.nz/
Innovation Network - http://veech-network.ryze.com/
Building an Open Future - http://openfuture-network.ryze.com/Private Reply to John Stephen Veitch | | Jan 18, 2010 3:54 pm | | re: The Reality of Climate Change | # | 
Ken Hilving | | I am discouraged with COP15, and both the intentional and unintentional efforts by all sides of the discussion to use propaganda to discredit the other positions. What has been missed by this I think is the core point of contention - the unintentional consequences of large scale government intervention.
"The law of unintended consequences is what happens when a simple system tries to regulate a complex system."
This is the clearest definition I have found, and it is relevant to both climate change initiatives and the example of London's sewers.
Finding the link between sewage and disease was a very positive event. No argument that this understanding has led to disease avoidance on a grand scale, advanced other aspects of health, improved the quality of life for many, and saved the lives of millions.
Along the way, however, it has also enabled ever larger concentrations of humanity. These concentrations of humanity have become increasingly dependent on services from "officials" for sanitation and water. These concentrations of humanity moved food production from primarily an individual responsibility to a service industry. This dependance has grown to where a disruption of services leaves most of the population helpless to provide for their own survival. The catastrophic impacts of natural events on these population centers is an unintended consequence of advances in public sewer and water services.
A central agency for such services has an additional consequence. Centralized responsibility and authority acts to constrain innovation. Thanks to rules and regulations, the general direction of any new improvements are limited to the vision of a small group of "directors" motivated to retain a status quo. Independent approaches become illegal. The increasing population, ever more dependent and constrained, generates proportionally fewer ideas of how critical needs can be met.
_____
Which brings us back to what I see as the fundamental flaw in an international treaty and global authority to address climate change - the law of unintended consequences.
Global climate is far more complex that any combination of city services. Yet a global authority will be as simple as any of our current governments, with all the attended focuses on single solutions, common approaches, and codes, rules, and regulations controlled by those motivated to maintain status. Instead of the potential of 6 billion minds innovating solutions to 6 billion unique needs, we will have "approaches" limited to the vision, understanding, and creativity of less than a percent of this resource.
And that scares me more than the climate change.Private Reply to Ken Hilving | | Jan 18, 2010 7:09 pm | | re: The Reality of Climate Change | # | 
Thomas Holford | | > I was somewhat distressed leading up to COP15, at the misuse of this open forum, to support a propaganda effort to discredit the strong science behind climate change.
> . . . I'm not going to permit that to happen again.
> Essentially YOU, need to state your OWN personal point of view. To put your reputation on the line.
Hello. My name is Thomas G. Holford. And I am a Climate Change Skeptic.
I have a Bachelors Degree in Chemistry from Northwestern University, and I have completed graduate coursework in Chemistry at the California Institute of Technology. I have co-authored scientific research papers that have appeard in peer reviewed scientific journals.
> Then if you want to add supporting evidence from some source, by all means do so.
I have an extensive personal library of books and articles relating to global warming, I have compiled an extensive reading list of additional books on global warming (available on Amazon.com), and I have a vast number of links to websites and discussion lists that address global warming.
> I'm totally convinced that the anti-climate change propaganda we have recently been subjected to is malicious, dishonest, and destructive of both the environment and in the longer run the economy.
Could you please specify acceptable format and content for "anti-climate change propaganda" that you would deem to NOT be "malicious, dishonest, and destructive of both the envirnoment and . . . the economy".
OPENING STATEMENT on "The Reality of Climate Change"
No one disputes "the reality of climate change". The earth's climate is dynamic and has been continually changing over it's entire history. The same is true of other planets as well.
The essential issue, from my perspective, is: To what extent does human activity cause irreversible long team changes to the earth's climate.
And my answer is: as a practical matter, the effect of human activity on earth's climite is negligible.
The fact that local climatic effects, as a consequence of human activity, can be detected and measured does NOT prove that human caused climatic effects are significant. It only proves that detection and measurement techniques are highly sensitive, and that large, complex systems such as earth's climate can be perturbed from a stable state and require a finite time to return to stability.
> Even if the science was proven wrong in some way, the sorts of things humanity needs to do to adapt to climate change are things that are worthwhile anyway.
A. Many specific claims and assertions fo those advocating "human caused globally warming" have fail to be supported with a high degree of scientific confidence.
B. Humanity already knows who to adapt to changing environmental and climatic conditions, and has been doing so over its entire history.
> Here's little story about science getting it wrong.
Scientists DO get it wrong. It is my belief that the leading proponents of the theory of human caused global warming -- James Hansen, Michael Mann, Al Gore -- have gotten it wrong.
YOUR TURN
Please cite what you believe to be "the strong science behind climate change."
Keep in mind, the issue is NOT "climate change" per se, but the significance of human activity in causing permanent, irreversible GLOBAL WARMING.
T. Holford
Private Reply to Thomas Holford | | Jan 19, 2010 2:26 am | | re: re: The Reality of Climate Change | # |
John Stephen Veitch | | Thank you Thomas.
I should make it quite plain now, that you have always been up front about what you believe. When I tried to analyze the previous discussions there were only two strong points made, both by yourself. Everything else was smoke screens and mirrors, time wasting rubbish.
Your two strong points Thomas were:
"This is more government control, that fact demonstrated by the intention to tax carbon use."
And the point you've just made: "That climate change is happening, but "there is no convincing evidence that it's caused by human activity."
If that's the case, and if nobody else wants to chip in, this thread is more or less finished. We need to open two new threads to discuss the two outstanding issues.
So tell me before we continue Thomas, are those two issues the things you really need to talk about?
John Stephen Veitch; The Network Ambassador
Open Future Limited - http://www.openfuture.co.nz/
Innovation Network - http://veech-network.ryze.com/
Building an Open Future - http://openfuture-network.ryze.com/Private Reply to John Stephen Veitch | | Jan 19, 2010 3:08 am | | Population - Feeding Ourselves - World Government - | # |
John Stephen Veitch | | Thank you Ken for your contribution.
So we discovered how to control disease and that allows large numbers of people to live in a small space. We have used that knowledge to increase BOTH human life span and the total human population.
While I agree that if everyone was happy to live like a Chinese peasant, that the total number of people living on the planet is not our major problem, the fact is that people are not prepared to live like that.
Chinese peasants and Indian slum dwellers and Ethiopian farmers all expect to earn good incomes and to have the luxuries of modern life, commonly available in developed countries.
When I was learning economics one of the key papers was "Development Economics", and it was strongly anticipated that with modern "economic knowledge" that within a few years poverty would be consigned to history. It was a simple matter of investment. The model was the reconstruction of Europe after WWI.
What's more, we were told that we ourselves could expect in a few short years to work a 20 hour week, and to retire at 50. The expectation was that depressions were the result of economic ignorance and that prosperity for all was an achievable objective.
Thirty years later where are we? Here in New Zealand and also in the USA, the average person is poorer, and has less economic opportunity than his father had. Real wages in the USA have been falling for all of the last 30 years. (Here too.)
What's the problem? I suggest it's limits; limits to growth, we are trying to get more and more out of less and less, and we've been trained not to see the barriers preventing our "success".
We have a problem. It's not possible for all the people in the world to live in developed counties, and to be wealthy in the sense that Americans have been wealthy for the last 50 years. It's not even possible for Americans to live like that any more.
What's more, we're in the process of discovering that trying to be "richer and richer" is destroying the environment inside which the economy operates. When populations were small and when population concentration was low, the environment used to clean up human waste as a free service. But once cities and industrial plants become common alongside a river for instance, the ability of the river to cleanse itself vanishes. Suddenly, the cost of doing business rises. Suddenly, the "free water" citizens expected to have, becomes expensive water to provide.
I don't believe that individuals and private companies can solve this problem without strong government. What's more, government at a global level is essential if we are going to solve the problems without resource wars.
I think it's quite unlikely that this will occur. So we are faced with the model of self destruction established on Easter Island, repeating itself. We'll proceed into some sort of global meltdown, world population will fall to something like 1.5 billion and then the sort of solution you would like to see, Ken, will be viable.
John Stephen Veitch; The Network Ambassador
Open Future Limited - http://www.openfuture.co.nz/
Innovation Network - http://veech-network.ryze.com/
Building an Open Future - http://openfuture-network.ryze.com/Private Reply to John Stephen Veitch | | Jan 19, 2010 2:48 pm | | re: The Reality of Climate Change - World Government | # |
Ken Hilving | | I am going to drop population and food for the time being.
The point in my initial post was unintended consequences, the element that makes me oppose such efforts as COP15 in dealing with global issues like climate change. One of the unintended consequences is the trait exhibited by those in power to become focused on process and focused on a narrow range of acceptable approaches, in effect excluding other approaches or solutions.
Let me give you a metaphor for this. This is not a critique of your intention or its merits.
As network owner, you are the "strong government" of Innovation Network. In this thread, you have established a particular presentation criteria, focusing on the method above the information shared. As such, you are now faced with a greater level of moderation effort which is using up the time resources available to you. You are using threat of force to insure compliance.
The unintended consequences include constraints on how individual members may participate as an Advocate Leader, an Opposition Leader, a Follower, or a Bystander. Meeting the process criteria becomes more important than fulfilling a role that you have identified elsewhere as necessary in your paraphrase of Dr. Peter Senge.
"Senge claims that when all four types of participants are engaged in a discussion, the result is likely to keep the discussion moving towards a useful outcome."
Now this is a small network in the scale of human interactions. You have expressed strong support for open discussion, and have created this network in promotion of innovation. Yet by governance you have created contradiction and constraints and limited the free exchange of ideas and innovations. In effect, you have by exclusion reduced the range.
If someone with your demonstrated values is subject to such unintended consequences, what faith can I have in government leadership that has a global and historical record of abuse of power?
Any member here can of course choose to leave if unhappy with you. None of us will have the option with a global government.
Private Reply to Ken Hilving | | Jan 19, 2010 6:23 pm | | re: re: The Reality of Climate Change - World Government | # |
Thomas Holford | | Ken Hilving sayeth:
> Now this is a small network in the scale of human interactions. You have expressed strong support for open discussion, and have created this network in promotion of innovation. Yet by governance you have created contradiction and constraints and limited the free exchange of ideas and innovations. In effect, you have by exclusion reduced the range.
> If someone with your demonstrated values is subject to such unintended consequences, what faith can I have in government leadership that has a global and historical record of abuse of power?
Exactly!
In a world of six billion people, there are millions or hundreds of millions of people each of whom has a plan for how everyone else should live their lives to achieve global harmony/prosperity/order/enlightenment/peace/whatever/whatever/whatever.
Some of the plans are self-serving buncombe; many of the plans are unworkable delusions; a few of the plans might be pure genious.
But no one knows how to idenity that genius plan and to get everyone else to go along.
T. Holford
Private Reply to Thomas Holford | | Jan 19, 2010 6:41 pm | | re: re: re: The Reality of Climate Change | # |
Thomas Holford | | John Stephen Veitch sayeth:
> Your two strong points Thomas were:
> "This is more government control, that fact demonstrated by the intention to tax carbon use."
> And the point you've just made: "That climate change is happening, but "there is no convincing evidence that it's caused by human activity."
Actually, the core scientific issue is: "there is no convincing evidence that [global warming] is caused by human activity."
Or, to formulate this as a classical debate proposition:
RESOLVED, human activity is a significant cause of global warming.
For the AFFIRMATIVE: John Stephen Veitch
For the NEGATIVE: Thomas G. Holford
Opening statement for the AFFIRMATIVE: (to be determined)
Opening statement for the NEGATIVE: "The burden of proof is on the AFFIRMATIVE proposition, and the AFFIRMATIVE position has not provided compelling, unambiguous evidence based on the scientific method and sound epistemological principles that human activity is a significant cause of global warming."
T. HolfordPrivate Reply to Thomas Holford | | Jan 19, 2010 6:54 pm | | The Reality of Climate Change - Discipline in this network | # |
John Stephen Veitch | | Thanks Kenneth,
So now we need to open another thread. About governance.
I agree Kenneth that creating "rules" can be counter productive. In an online group ONE person can very easily destroy the function of the group. As moderator my role to protect the group is to intervene in some way if that seems to be happening.
With the "35 Inconvenient Truths" non-debate, the network was flooded with posts. Those posts were filled with propaganda that needed replying too or correction.
I put over 40 hours into trying to get on top of the topic. Thomas was the only one of the deniers to actually make any sort of personal statement of his own belief. All the rest was reposting of page after page of misleading and erroneous propaganda from various web sites. That was an abuse of this network, and disrespectful of the members and their time.
I did try to encourage other people to get involved, to bring in the bystanders. However, the environment wasn't "safe" mostly because Thomas was quite prepared to be totally scathing and dismissive of anyone who tried to stand up for the truth about, climate change. There was one post I deleted. That post, by Thomas, ripped into someone who was a "bystander" who had the courage to enter the discussion, in a manner that was completely inappropriate and was entirely destructive of what we are trying to achieve here.
Thomas, you came very close to losing your posting rights here. But I guess you know that.
However, Ron Sam, was on reflection, probably the one who did the most damage. Ron posted post after post. When I tried to re-read those posts to find out what Ron himself said, the answer was, "nothing at all".
So, Kenneth, the idea that we can all get along without rules or moderation or government, isn't valid. Human groups need to establish norms of behaviour which people obey. Online, in groups, those norms are seldom fully stated, but it's assumed that everyone understands what the norms are. The sort of abusive flaming that was a characteristic of Usenet, is seldom seen on any of the networks I'm a member of today. Generally, people know the limits and keep within them. These "limits" are socially set. That's why it's correct to call these groups "social networks".
With a minimal set of rules I hope this network will continue to be a safe place for open discussions. Sadly, towards the end of last year that wasn't the case.
John Stephen Veitch; The Network Ambassador
Open Future Limited - http://www.openfuture.co.nz/
Innovation Network - http://veech-network.ryze.com/
Building an Open Future - http://openfuture-network.ryze.com/Private Reply to John Stephen Veitch | | Jan 19, 2010 8:16 pm | | re: The Reality of Climate Change - Discipline in this network | # |
Thomas Holford | | John Stephen Veitch:
> I did try to encourage other people to get involved, to bring in the bystanders. However, the environment wasn't "safe" mostly because Thomas was quite prepared to be totally scathing and dismissive of anyone who tried to stand up for the truth about, climate change. There was one post I deleted. That post, by Thomas, ripped into someone who was a "bystander" who had the courage to enter the discussion, in a manner that was completely inappropriate and was entirely destructive of what we are trying to achieve here.
> Thomas, you came very close to losing your posting rights here. But I guess you know that.
If this is going to be an issue, I suggest that you declare the issue to be "settled science" (as has been done by Al Gore, AAAS, and others), remove me from the list, and declare victory.
I don't regard my critiques as "scathing and dismissive"; I regard them as targeted and penetrating.
Engaging in meaningful debate in the realm of substantive philosophical and scientific ideas is NOT for the timid or people with delicate self esteem.
Public debate is not a comfortable or therapeutic "win-win" seminar. It is intellectual "WIN-LOSE" hand to hand combat.
If one is not prepared to risk damage and sustain wounds to one's ego or self-esteem, don't engage in it.
One of the realities of the modern era is that ninety-nine percent of humanity are NOT disciplined thinkers. They have been conditioned by society to think in narcissitic terms: "So and so is attacking my idea, so he is attacking ME! He is being a scathing and dismissive meanie!"
Because people are not disciplined thinkers, they easily fall prey to silly, foolish, or logically erroneous arguments. People with large egos and small brains often believe that their ideas are superior because they themselves are superior.
But a flawed idea is a flawed idea no matter who thinks it. People with large egos generally do not give much credence to esoteric arguments beyond their experience. The aguments that are impactful, i.e. that potentially can cause insight or learning, are those arguments that engage their egos, not their intellects.
So, it is a fact of life that the way to cause thinking to occur in many people is to present to them an argument that engages their ego in a naked, painful way. Or in other words, if a person is asserting a flawed, foolish idea, the way to change their thinking is to expose their foolishness and put it on display.
After enduring the emotional trauma of clinging to a foolish idea, maybe a person will invest the effort to actually THINK about their ideas and embrace a more rational, defensible position.
T. HolfordPrivate Reply to Thomas Holford | | Jan 19, 2010 10:25 pm | | re: re: The Reality of Climate Change - Discipline in this network | # |
John Stephen Veitch | | Hello Thomas Holford Esquire,
When I read your posts attacking other people I often end up rolling on the floor laughing.
The only person on this network who is consistently egotistical is THOMAS HOLFORD.
I didn't understand what a sophist was until I met one, and that person was THOMAS HOLFORD.
THOMAS HOLFORD is very keen to tell other people where they get off, but he consistently projects, the faults he finds in others are in fact the true reflection of THOMAS HOLFORD.
I can't imagine that I would call anybody narcissistic, but THOMAS HOLFORD might be the exception.
On the 19th November THOMAS HOLFORD wrote:
"Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., scion of the segregationist Senator, Albert Arnold Gore, Sr. (who himself was a protege of Soviet agent of influence Armand Hammer), Academy Award Winning documentary film producer, Nobel Peace Prize winner, ethically challenged political fundraiser, and Vice President in the corrupt administration of impeached president William Jefferson Clinton, got a grade of "C" in the only science course he took while an undergraduate student at Harvard. After Harvard, Gore attended Vanderbilt University Divinity School, but eventually dropped out.
I would say that Al Gore, the Ayatollah of Human Caused Global, really has no credible training in climate science, or any other science for that matter."
In my estimation, the person who wrote that is slightly insane, obsessed by Al Gore in a way that makes no rational sense.
In the same long post THOMAS HOLFORD, declares that he knows the truth. To quote:
"Now, for the REAL science:
+ The earth's climate has been cooling for the last twenty years.
+ The "hockey stick chart" has been thoroughly debunked and discredited."
Now that is exactly what a sophist (according to modern definition) does. Takes an argument with little or no validity and declares it to be a universal law. As I said, there are many examples of THOMAS HOLFORD being a sophist.
In a Nutshell, THOMAS HOLFORD on 23rd September, demonstrated both sophism and projection, as he describes himself here:
"In a nutshell, Leftists are solipsists and believe that there is no external objective reality, only the reality they perceive inside of their heads. By definition, they are the smartest intelligence in the universe. The Leftist is his own God."
I think that's 100% correct THOMAS, except that sophist that you are it's YOU who has those qualities.
John Stephen Veitch; The Network Ambassador
Open Future Limited - http://www.openfuture.co.nz/
Innovation Network - http://veech-network.ryze.com/
Building an Open Future - http://openfuture-network.ryze.com/Private Reply to John Stephen Veitch | | Jan 20, 2010 2:14 am | | re: re: re: The Reality of Climate Change - Discipline in this network | # |
abbeboulah | | Abbé Boulah, reverently doffing his slightly superannuated hat to John for having the gall to take up this issue up once more, in the face of overwhelming experience:
“I gotta hand it to ya, John ye din’ give up easily. But”, he intones, with just a hint of pomposity from His High Perch on the bar stool of the Fog Island Tavern (an entirely unintended consequence of His Scientific Testing of the Differential Cogitational Impact Efficiency of Malbec Clobberme-Slopiton versus Sonoma County Zinfulfandel, research not funded by a Few Charitable Trusts): “is it possible that good ol’ Veech got himself infected by the social network slugitout fever? That he actually is inviting ol’ HeWhoSayethWhateverIdisagree to some lastguy standing pays the last round of ol Tennisshoe contest? For ain’t it obvious, as ever an issue was, that this is one that can only have spectator enjoyment value?... That this is a Prime Example of an IQ issue?
Y’er asking why, Bog-hubert? What’s an IQ issue? Well, us ol’ folks call it a wrong question, them polite guys say “Inapproprate Question”, but if’n you ask me, I think they are trying to sneak in some sideways attack on your Intelligence there... But jus’ consider: I think it’s a wrong question for a bunch of reasons:
First off: Is there anyone here who can offer real valid scientific-like proof of anything we’re discussifying here about Global Warming? Anyone? Didn’t think so. All we can do here is to dig out some quotes from one scientist or another. And from what I’ve heard so far, there are plenty of scientists to pick from who’ll say one thing, and plenty who’ll say the opposite. So we’d just be throwing quotes at each other ‘till we’re blue in the face. Well me, I have no good way of telling who’s right and who’s wrong -- everybody says the other side is cheatin’ on their data or their models, so I guess they are all cheating. Because, the scientists, it seems to me, have all -- like the main contestants here --
(which is the Second reason): -- have all made up their minds about which side they’re on already. Now I love a good fight as much as anyone, (to watch, anyway) -- but aren’t there two possible assumptions here about what these here discussions are for? Sure, it’s a rare critter who actually wants to learn something -- which means one of two things, in my zinful mind: to add something to what he (stop kicking me shin, Aurelia -- I know I shoulda said ‘he or she’ or at least ‘she or he’ but it just screws up me grandiloquent flow of rhetoric, don't ya know) -- all right all right: what She knows already, or to get Her to change her mind (stop kicking me shin, Bog-Hubert -- I know you don’t think She ever will...) It takes an open mind and a genuine thirst for knowledge. Talkin’ about which -- can you get some of the hot air outa this glass, Vodçek? Thanks.
So do we have any scientific-like evidence for that bein’ the case here? No: we have clear statements that people have their point of view (stop kickin’ me shin, Bog-Hubert -- I know some wise guy said a point of view is a mental horizon with a radius of zero -- I just didn’t want to insult anybody here...) all made up and set in steroidcrete: they just wanna win. Oh Kay. So it’s a sport, like. Spectator sport. A wrestlin’ match. Fine. Mudwrestlin, you say? Nah -- these fine learned gentlemen? It’s just the rules are a bit different, eh?
First off, for the folks who really want to learn: could they spell out what would be a good enough reason for them to change their mind? -- Because reasons for keeping it stuck on their point are aplenty (they don’t take too much thinking, for one - just repeating...) so what we’ want to know just what qualifies as good evidence for the opposite position. Hear anything like that? And the mudwrestlers -- not that I’d want to demean their fighting ethics in the least, mind you -- but what are the rules there? and what counts for winning? Who keeps the score? What befogs me -- and that takes a bit, me sitting here on Fog Island -- is that the fighting seems to always slide into callin’ the other guy names. Now if there were some interesting creative new names there, that’d be something -- but they are all the ol’ “idiot”, “moron”, -- worn-out things like that, nothing with any real innovative zest. And of course, it don’t have anything to do with any of the evidence or reasons, which is understandable as we’ve seen in point One above. But it gets old real fast.
Any more points, you ask? Well you are right, Bog-Hubert: anybody crying IQ should be called on the carpet to say what the real issue is. So here goes:
Third: Since we can’t decide in this here social forum, which side is right, we should consider What We Ought to Do -- and for both possibilities. Why, Bog-Hubert? Well, obviously, if there’s even a slight chance that us humans are doing bad things to the environment -- even apart from causing the old ball to heat up some -- then it’s a fair question what we ought to do about it, isn’t it? I mean: we’re doin’ some serious polluting, overfishing, causing dead zones of ocean in the Gulf because of all the fertilizers we spread on the cornfields -- and there is some reason to think we might some day run out of oil, isn’t there? And the places where there is oil are run by folks some of whom don’t like us much, so they might shut it off or overcharge us like they learned from our good ol' US credit card companies? And some of the things they want us to do -- they say -- would be smart things to do even if it doesn’t have much to do with global warming -- so wouldn’t that be something we should discuss?
Fourth -- yeah, I can feel you’r kickin’ me shin again, Aurelia -- I know what y’er going to say: the real issue is: who gets the say about what we’re going to do? No? Ahh -- it’s “who profits?” Right. Depending on what we are going to do or not going to do, there’ll be different folks who are going to make the big bucks. And what you are saying, ifn’ I understand yer kickin’ proper-like, is: whether that might have anything to do with the mental horizon -- sorry -- point of view -- they are going to take in their mudwrestlin’ pit. Well, that’s just a plumb un-patriotic kind of thing to say. It borders on the socialist or even worse, so I don’t know if we even can discuss that in po-lite comp'ny.
What’s that, Bog-Hubert? Ah yes, number Five: the question isn’t just the profit but the Big Gummint? The fear of the Big Evil World Government that’s going to take away our freedoms and tell us what to do? What’s that you say? Whether it’s the US government or the Big Global Financial Corporations or the Oil Companies or the World Government -- who they are so sure is going to be anti-US and anticapitalist and undemocratic -- that’s going to tell everybody what to do? Well that’s even more unpatriotic -- you really think folks are truly going to discuss that, reasonable-like?
Now Aurelia, I’m telling ya: quit that kickin’. I know what’s bugging you. Six: Whatever they -- whoever They are -- will come up with: who’s going to pay for it, and how? Right. They’re just goin’ to tax you and fine you and cap’ntrade you to the highest bidder, that’s what’s botherin’ you? Can’t say I blame you. They have duped us too many times already, with all their talk about how growth is going to pay for itself and stuff like that -- so yes, that’d be useful to talk about. Hard to say what would count for winning and losing though in that -- especially if they don’t come up with anything more creative than the old flea market -- sorry, free market -- or borrow, spend and tax gimmicks. Yeah, I hear you, Bog-Hubert: they’ve trumpeted both of them at the same time and done both of them at the same time, (while blaming the other party for doing the opposite) and see where it got us? Yeah, let’s talk about that.
Now Aurelia, don’t be so pessimistic -- I see you roll yer eyeballs. What’s that you are intimidatin here? -- we should find out whether the folks here are looking for a mudwrestlin’ spectacle? For which the folks who say they wanna learn something are sissysqualifing themselves? Or whether there are really some oddballs here who think we can learn something from a discussion, and think the mudwrestlers have already disqualified themselves from such discussion by admitting they’ve got their mind made up? We can’t have it both ways? You think we can sort out those IQ points? No? Well, what’s on TV?”
Private Reply to abbeboulah | | Jan 20, 2010 3:21 am | | re: re: The Reality of Climate Change | # | 
Reg Charie | | Thomas said:
>The essential issue, from my perspective, is: To what extent does human activity cause irreversible long team changes to the earth's climate.
>>And my answer is: as a practical matter, the effect of human activity on earth's climite is negligible.
We must live in different world Thomas.
I have seen whole forests turn brown due to acid rain.
I have watched wildlife and dwindle and species hunted/fished into oblivion.
I have seen the destruction of countless habitats, including some belonging to humans. (They paved paradise and put in a parking lot).
I have sailed through countless miles of plastic and debris in the Sargasso Sea.
I have seen a switch from trusting tap water to buying bottled.
I've seen what happens to the land when it is strip mined, over farmed and over forested.
I've seen fresh clean water polluted by the effluent of cities. Just check the beach reports around Toronto in the summer.
How about the holes in the ozone layer?
And you say we don't have any effect?
Do we have ENOUGH of an effect to cause global warming should be the question.
Species are extinct, whole ecosystems are being removed from existence, does stripping SA of it's rain forests put more carbon dioxide in the air?
Look at this paragraph:
"All trees, nearly all plants from cold climates, and most agricultural crops respond to increasing atmospheric CO 2 levels by increasing the amount of CO 2 they take up for photosynthesis . It is believed that the increased uptake in land plants from rising atmospheric CO 2 levels roughly counterbalanced the CO 2 released from cutting down tropical rain forests and other agricultural practices in the decade of the 1980s. In the 1990s, the land biosphere was estimated to take up approximately 1 Pg more CO 2 than it released each year.
Read more: Carbon Dioxide in the Ocean and Atmosphere - sea, depth, oceans, important, system, plants, marine, oxygen, human, Pacific http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.html#ixzz0d7Nbnv1g
"Today, CO 2 concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing as a direct result of human activities such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels (e.g., coal and oil). Over the past 150 years, CO 2 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased by as much as 30 percent (from 280 to 370 ppm).
Are we having a cumulative effect? Sure looks like it.
As the oceans warm, and they are warming, they lose their ability to scrub co2 and switch into reverse, releasing instead of absorbing.
As they release more, as humanity becomes more developed and uses more co2 producing processes the imbalance grows.
As for a governing power stepping in and setting things "right" - just bloody good luck.
I don't think I will be around to see it.
There is much too much at stake to even seriously consider a drastic reduction in the carbon footprint.
Too much money, too much effort, reduced profit margins, investor's demands for high returns, all wield power in slowing the change to green processes.
The day will come as a matter of survival, but at what expense? The deaths of billions?
2009 Client SEO report:
You rank better than 4,577,263,956 other websites.
http://dotcom-productions.com
Hosting http://0grief.com/special_hosting_accounts_for_my_ryze_friends.htmPrivate Reply to Reg Charie | | Jan 20, 2010 6:12 am | | re: re: re: The Reality of Climate Change - Discipline in this network | # |
Thomas Holford | | John Stephen Veitch:
> Hello Thomas Holford Esquire,
> When I read your posts attacking other people I often end up rolling on the floor laughing.
> The only person on this network who is consistently egotistical is THOMAS HOLFORD.
I beg your pardon: Is this your compelling science-based evidence in support of human caused global warming?
T. Holford
Private Reply to Thomas Holford | | Jan 20, 2010 6:28 am | | re: re: re: The Reality of Climate Change | # |
Thomas Holford | | Reg Charie sayeth:
> Thomas said:
>The essential issue, from my perspective, is: To what extent does human activity cause irreversible long team changes to the earth's climate.
>>And my answer is: as a practical matter, the effect of human activity on earth's climite is negligible.
> We must live in different world Thomas.
I'm sure we do. And I've written an extensive posting in just that topic.
> I have seen whole forests turn brown due to acid rain.
I have watched wildlife and dwindle and species hunted/fished into oblivion.
> I have seen the destruction of countless habitats, including some belonging to humans. (They paved paradise and put in a parking lot).
> I have sailed through countless miles of plastic and debris in the Sargasso Sea.
> I have seen a switch from trusting tap water to buying bottled.
> I've seen what happens to the land when it is strip mined, over farmed and over forested.
> I've seen fresh clean water polluted by the effluent of cities. Just check the beach reports around Toronto in the summer.
> How about the holes in the ozone layer?
> And you say we don't have any effect?
Which illustrates perfectly my point about the inability of people to think in a disciplined way because NONE of this laundry list has any bearing on whether or not human activity causes global warming.
If you think any of this provides evidentiary support for the proposition that human activity causes global warming you would earn a richly deserved "F" in any serious institution of science learning.
> Do we have ENOUGH of an effect to cause global warming should be the question.
No. It's not the question.
Merely proving that we have ENOUGH of an effect to cause global warming is NOT the same as proving that we ACTUALLY CAUSE global warming. Global warming has occurred long before humans roamed the earth, and what global warming that HAS occurred in the human era is not consistently correlated with human activity.
Science is rigorous. Science makes distinctions because distinction is about understanding.
Politics blurs distinctions because politics is about displacing understanding with emotion.
T. Holford
Private Reply to Thomas Holford | | Jan 20, 2010 10:30 am | | re: The Reality of Climate Change - Discipline in this network | # |
John Stephen Veitch | | I've just found a NZ blog on Climate Science.
The UK Met Office graphic gives the lie to two bold statements Thomas made about climate science.
THOMAS HOLFORD, declares that he knows the truth. To quote:
"Now, for the REAL science:
+ The earth's climate has been cooling for the last twenty years.
+ The "hockey stick chart" has been thoroughly debunked and discredited."
http://hot-topic.co.nz/2000s-warmest-decade-ever-2009-to-be-5th-warmest-year/
John Stephen Veitch; The Network Ambassador
Open Future Limited - http://www.openfuture.co.nz/
Innovation Network - http://veech-network.ryze.com/
Building an Open Future - http://openfuture-network.ryze.com/Private Reply to John Stephen Veitch | | Jan 20, 2010 11:41 am | | re: The Reality of Climate Change - Discipline in this network | # | 
James Booth | | .
Had hoped to chime in here earlier, but due to time constraints, the “initial conclusion” had already been published ...
"Population - Feeding Ourselves - World Government"
Now the proposed new structure seems to have devolved somewhat.
Neither a scientist nor a politician, I simply love breathing the air and drinking the water in (on) the only home (Planet Earth) I know of in the Universe where I can, as a physical organism, survive and prosper.
Regarding *Climate Change* it seems clear to me the subject is one of several we need to know more about, and as quickly as possible, if we are to survive as a species on this planet - for that matter, whether some other forms of life presently occupying this planet survive may hinge upon what we learn, and how soon we acquire that knowledge and put it into effect.
We need to support science, and scientists, engaged in producing unadulterated results, without distraction and without diversion, and we need to subdue as much as possible any attempts to subvert or derail real scientific research which may provide answers we need to improve the quality of our own actions relative to maintaining an environment which will continue to sustain life, and / or to prepare ourselves to "weather" very different climactic conditions which may naturally occur with or without human input.
That scientific inquiry sometimes leads us down dead ends is all the more reason we need to clear the way as much as possible for scientists to conduct research and publish results untainted by political pressures designed to profit some few who pretend to rule us all.
_
Because of the turn this thread has taken ...
However much I love Ron for his apparent desire to be "involved," rarely have I directly responded to his posts because so many of them seem to be reactions to a “crisis du jour,” and over time I have come to question whether he may be a willing, or unwitting, agent of those who manufacture scarcity for the rest of us, not only for their profit, but to keep us in fear and arguing with and amongst each other so as to dilute effectiveness of our independent individual and collective energies, thus dependent on “them” for security against fears "they" invest billions of dollars to conjure up for us.
On the other hand, while I appreciate knowledge Thomas brings to discussions, I cannot ignore that so much of what he says is delivered under one word which, to me, says that he feels he, or his knowledge, is superior: "sayeth" seems to me to mock and so detracts from the capacity to teach others.
_
Present human population is easy to blame when thinking about Earth's sustainability, but blame only puts off real solutions to real problems.
With adequate planning, there are not too many people for this planet.
At the rate some of us are consuming raw materials, there are too many of us today, and because some of us are ignoring our responsibilities of "housekeeping" and overrunning Earth's ability to naturally recycle waste material, there are too many of us.
Adequate planning at least requires we produce materials and products which maximize existing resources; instead, we continue to manufacture "throwaway" products designed to be replaced in a short time in order to "sustain" an "economy" which is in no way economical, nor sustainable, but does serve to maintain a constant flow of profits required for our current cyclical financial system.
Efforts to reduce population increase need to be accompanied by resource distribution which minimizes poverty that in turn produces more children, and by real education which, again, requires that our efforts support science producing unadulterated results, without distraction and without diversion.
_
That among millions or hundreds of millions of people, or billions of people for that matter, each has a plan, does not make each and every one of those plans viable.
Anyone with a plan "for how everyone else should live their lives" for whatever reason must first have a plan that works for himself, then for his neighbour, his community, and so on.
That anyone has even a workable plan does not mean that person can *enforce* that plan, nor is there any requirement that any plan should be enforced.
Those who can enforce a plan on a national, or even global, scale, do not necessarily have a plan that is good for humanity, however likely it is a self-serving plan.
Unworkable plans fail; plans imposed on others can be, and are, resisted, if they are not good for the majority of people.
What is required is a society open to possibilities and actions built on knowledge arising out of the experience of previous generations, followed by a free and open distribution of the fruits of those actions - a society in which reasonable recompense is realized by those who contribute new and improved technologies while not hoarding technologies and their benefits for some select group.
_
We do not know, but need to know, and very soon, how much *change* one person, or one plant or corporation, makes to our air, to our water, to our soil, with all the variety of actions each individual or other entity creates, on a daily basis, cumulatively - just to know temperature.
A tremendous order to fulfill, yet results of those efforts must then be combined with data related to forces external to Earth itself, forces which affect all the planets - particle, plasma and magnetic radiation from the sun and beyond, just as one example.
No law, no tax, no political agenda or coercion is going to produce such results for us.
_
In an earlier thread I attempted to get members to focus on solutions, or at least ideas for solutions.
Unless I misread what followed, I could count only two people who contributed something toward progress.
Not surprising to me, but nonetheless appalling, it seemed most of those who had engaged in "discussion" did so for the "entertainment value" of a fight, an argument, a contest or emotional tangle, yet when called on to move forward, they could only stand still.
Yes, disciplined thinkers are required, and they need to exist and be allowed to function freely in an atmosphere free of fear, free from belligerence, among people determined to acquire what is necessary for our collective survival.
The way I see it all ...
JB
Private Reply to James Booth | | Jan 20, 2010 12:35 pm | | re: re: The Reality of Climate Change - Discipline in this network | # |
James Booth | | .
John, hot-topic.co.nz headline says:
"2000s warmest decade ever ..."
Look at historical data and you will find that is not true.
JBPrivate Reply to James Booth | | Jan 20, 2010 3:37 pm | | re: re: re: The Reality of Climate Change - Discipline in this network | # |
abbeboulah | | Let's see if we can get a little more global view of this thing.
A phenomenon is recognized:
Changes are observed in the environment:
1 Air is getting polluted
2 Water is getting polluted (rives, lakes, oceans)
3 Species of plants and animals are disappearing
4 Soil is depleted and polluted with fertilizers
5 Forests are disappearing
6 Polar icecaps are melting
7 Glaciers are melting,
8 Holes develop in the ozone layer
9 Precipitation goes sour (aka acid rain) killing vegetation
etc.
This is happening at the same time human activity is increasing, and 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9 are obviously directly related to human activity. So some people are beginning to suspect that 3, 6, 7 might have something to do with human activity as well. They try to find common measures that link those activities with the effects. Some suspect there is a common denominator in that CO2 levels are consistently rising in correlation with human activity, and try to find data to support this hunch.
Meanwhile, people get worried about the whole set of items above, and realize that if it goes on unabated, the effects will get cumulatively worse in the future. They try to raise support for doing something. They seize on the suspected global warming denominator as an argument to get humanity to change the problematic activities. The changes include recommendations to use less fossil fuels which are the main contributors to rising CO2 levels in the air.
We now see some reactions:
A.
Any consequence of such change would have economic implications. Specifically, the industries involved in the exploitation of fossil fuels are getting nervous that they will lose the basis of their considerable profits they have earned from this activity. So they are resisting the proposed changes, and support efforts by scientists who want to poke holes in the hypothesis that global warming is the main culprit and that it is caused by human activity -- which would allow those industries to keep doing what they are doing, and profiting from it.
B.
Any consequence of changes to human activities affecting 1 through 9 will require better coordination and control of activities on a global scale. This seems to require an improved or more effective form of global governance. People who are now exerting much of global domination are concerned about losing their influence, as are any folks who suspect that any entities with great power (including the existing ones) are liable to abuse it, knowing that we have yet to find really effective means to control power. So both of these groups resist implementation of the changes -- but for different reasons.
C.
Any significant changes in the human activities suspected of influencing the listed effects will require significant funding. Equally, many of the means of controlling and enforcing the implementation of activity changes and CO2 generation, for example, involve financial aspects, which ultimately will have to be paid for by somebody. The predominant payer -- whether in the short or long run -- will be the taxpayers. So there is an understandable concern about what those financial burdens will be -- and those who are also worried about justice and equality, have justifiable suspicions about who will end up with all that money.
Would the controversy be resolved by conclusive data as to whether human activity also causes global warming? (Which I have suggested we are in no position to do on this forum) If it would be demonstrated that global warming is indeed influenced by human activity, the people in group A would still be concerned and opposed to the proposed necessary changes. Do they have any convincing suggestions as to what should be done instead? Conversely: what if it were conclusively shown that global warming is not caused by human activity? (In this case, by the way, the puzzling contradiction in the argument would have to be cleared up: on the one hand, it is claimed that there IS no global warming -- but then why are the ice caps disappearing? On the other hand, there are the arguments that global warming is a naturally occurring phenomenon that happens after every ice age or so anyway, -- so which is it?) So that would eliminate human activity as causing 6 and 7, maybe 3? But then what about items 1,2,4,5,8,9... ? Would there be necessary changes to deal with those? Would these changes be largely the same as those proposed for dealing with global warming? (So that Gore et al. just used the wrong justification for things that need to be done anyway, for a number of other arguable reasons?) Or would those changes be different? What are the ideas for this, and have any parties proposed solutions that should be discussed?
As for concerns (B): If any global coordination is needed for various reasons including or excluding measures to deal with global warming, and there are legitimate concerns about the desirability and effectiveness as well as the possibility of controlling the power of a global governance entity: what are the alternative proposals for addressing this concern? Can we rely of ‘free market’ mechanisms? Who will guarantee that the markets are really free? (Back to square 1?) Are they saying that there should be no change -- that the US should keep this role of de facto global control it has tried so hard to maintain for the past half century? Or let evolution take its course here as well, which probably means that China will soon be it?
About concerns (C): Some actually suspect that regardless of which side is going to ‘win’ on the global warming issue, things are already rigged nicely enough for the same entities to walk away with the profits in the end. (This is due to the widely if not universally accepted mechanisms of financing, growth, interest etc. that govern the global money flow). But what, if any serious ideas are out there that should be discussed in connection with this environmental impact issue?
The global warming debate may be a grand diversionary manipulation: the strings are being pulled behind the scenes by entities who are serious about maintaining control and getting the benefits (profits) from whatever we are going to do, regardless of what that might be.
These issues are a bit more serious than the fun and games about winning or losing a mudwrestling debate on a social forum. But if that’s what y’all are looking for here: have fun, guys.
Private Reply to abbeboulah | | Jan 22, 2010 12:35 am | | re: re: re: re: The Reality of Climate Change - Discipline in this network | # |
Thomas Holford | | Thorbjoern sayeth:
> Changes are observed in the environment:
1 Air is getting polluted
2 Water is getting polluted (rives, lakes, oceans)
3 Species of plants and animals are disappearing
4 Soil is depleted and polluted with fertilizers
5 Forests are disappearing
6 Polar icecaps are melting
7 Glaciers are melting,
8 Holes develop in the ozone layer
9 Precipitation goes sour (aka acid rain) killing vegetation
etc.
I suggest that you check your facts and your sources VERY carefully.
I know that you and everyone else have likely read or heard these assertions in the news, but that does NOT necessarily making them factual or accurate.
Item 1 ("Air is getting polluted")
In California, air is getting CLEANER. The emissions be automobiles have been reduced by ninety-nine percent since emission controls were first introduced.
The number of days per year that exceeded pollution norms has decreased steadily until it was zero. So, the air pollution bureaucrats had to establish new, more stringent limits so they could again have "pollution alerts". (Gotta keep them bureacrats employed.)
Item 2 ("Water is getting polluted")
It is also getting cleaned up. The STUPID, EVIL environmentalists got the bureacrats to require gasoline to be "oxygenated" to reduce air pollution. The chemical that was approved for use by the oil companies was MTBE, which it was later learned, persisted in the environment and polluted the ground water.
When PUBLIC OUTCRY forced the air pollution control bureacrats to stop using MTBE, WATER QUALITY IMPROVED.
Item 5 ("Forests are disappearing".)
Because of modern fire control technologies, there are MORE acres if forest land in the United States TODAY than at the founding of the USA in 1776. The "native Americans" were very careless in controlling their use of fire.
Item 7 ("Glaciers are melting")
The UN IPCC just admitted that they were WRONG to project that the Himalayan ice caps were melting. They're not.
etc. etc. etc.
NEVER, NEVER accept facts from advocacy groups at face value.
ALWAYS check the claims of people who benefit from grants from government programs. I.e. "environmentalists" and "global warming" advocates.
T. Holford
Private Reply to Thomas Holford | | Jan 22, 2010 2:25 am | | re: re: re: re: re: The Reality of Climate Change - Discipline in this network | # |
Ken Hilving | | I thought Thomas had covered the issue of local versus global trends elsewhere. I see he has made the same error he pointed out as poor science, taking a localized trend as proof of a global trend. :-P
There is also an error in logic regarding pollution reduction. Reductions in per unit pollution (per capita, or per vehicle) have to match growth (population, or total vehicles) to stay flat. The reductions in pollution must exceed the growth in polluters to achieve an overall reduction.Private Reply to Ken Hilving | | Jan 22, 2010 3:09 am | | re: re: re: re: The Reality of Climate Change - Discipline in this network | # |
Thomas Holford | | Thorbjoern sayeth:
> Would the controversy be resolved by conclusive data as to whether human activity also causes global warming? (Which I have suggested we are in no position to do on this forum)
I half agree.
Since it is virtually impossible to prove a negative proposition (i.e., "human activity DOESN'T cause global warming"), I doubt that I or anyone else will be able to say authoritatively that humans DON'T cause global warming.
On the other hand, I will allow the possibility that someone MIGHT be able to prove convincingly that human activity DOES cause global warming.
T. HolfordPrivate Reply to Thomas Holford | | Jan 22, 2010 5:31 am | | re: re: re: re: re: The Reality of Climate Change - Discipline in this network | # |
abbeboulah | | Thank you, Mr. Holford, for making my point, inadvertent as it may be. The assertion that in some places the effects of human action are getting cleaned up seems to support the claim that they happened in the first place, doesn’t it? And for some of these items, I have first hand experience with them (air pollution, water pollution, glaciers melting -- the ones I’ve seen are in the Alps, though, and old Ötzi the Ice man would still be hidden in that glacier if it hadn’t been melting. But of course none of them qualify as conclusive evidence.
The fact that some of the remedial measures urged by those EVIL environmentalists now allow you to claim that the air is improving, (in some places but not in, say, China, as visitors to the Olympic Games have reported) while others were counterproductive and ill-advised, support both the suspicion that they were human caused, and my urging that we discuss what to do about them. I acknowledge that I cannot currently come to a definitive conclusion whether human activities such as these also contribute to global warming. So while maintaining due skepticism with regard to activist reports whether they come from this side or the other (especially when they are propounded with denunciations of the reporters as evil and stupid etc. -- I become suspicious when the arguments cannot stand on their substance but seem to need invectives to become conclusive), I remain open to the possibility. But in my opinion, the discussion should be about what we ought to do about these things -- and the environmental as well as economic and political impacts are so closely interrelated that they are difficult to separate: Even if global warming isn’t happening, or if it is happening but independently of human action (both arguments are put forth here, strangely enough) there is arguably a need to do some things for enough other reasons, that also might have some relationship to climate change.
I apologize for again suggesting that the question of this thread is not only one about which participants seem to have unshakeable predetermined positions, and that cannot be settled by the means at our disposal (the continued barrage of url - ing opposing quotes of authorities at each other seems to prove this) but is also the ‘wrong question’. (Yes, never believe any of those activist reports -- but dont you believe Abbé Boulah!??) Perhaps you should throw me off this thread for changing the subject, John. Private Reply to abbeboulah | | Feb 23, 2010 8:51 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: The Reality of Climate Change - Discipline in this network | # | 
Richard Weisenberger | | http://climate.nasa.gov/warmingworld/
Read NASA's link on global warming. I don't think NASA would be an organization to alter their data to suit any political view. They are all about the science and accurate facts.Private Reply to Richard Weisenberger | | Feb 24, 2010 2:10 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: The Reality of Climate Change - Discipline in this network | # | 
Joseph Lynders | | " ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "
Oddly the populations of all the worlds larger polluter nations are melting away leaving fewer and fewer people to do the polluting.
If we don't begin to grow more folks in these polluting countries soon the burden of supporting global warming is going to become too great to sustain much longer.
It is a sort of tug-of-war between increased pollution and demographic winter and the outcome is not clear at this time.
But is interesting to speculate.
Have a good IDea today,
02/23/10 Joseph F. Lynders FTg/M/?Private Reply to Joseph Lynders | | Feb 24, 2010 2:30 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: The Reality of Climate Change - Discipline in this network | # |
Jaskowiak | | I seem to recall that James Hansen, while at NASA, was at the center of controversy related to global warming. Private Reply to Jaskowiak | | Feb 24, 2010 4:15 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: The Reality of Climate Change - Discipline in this network | # |
Thomas Holford | | Richard Weisenberger sayeth:
> I don't think NASA would be an organization to alter their data to suit any political view. They are all about the science and accurate facts.
Richard:
Are you familiar with the criticisms that have been made of NASA, its political motivations, and the integrity and credibility of some of its science. Are you familiar, in particular, with the controversies surrounding Dr. James E. Hansen, chief climate scientist of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies?
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/
Would you like to spend the rest of your life explaining and defending James Hansen?
Let me know. We'll make sure you're fully occupied.
T. Holford
Private Reply to Thomas Holford | | Feb 25, 2010 10:12 am | | re: re: The Reality of Climate Change - Discipline in this network | # |
John Stephen Veitch | | Thomas
When you engaged in an unprincipled attack on leftists and liberals. You accused them of being sophists, meaning that they used cunning and the devices of language to misrepresent the facts. A sophist would argue that black was white and make it sound absolutely logical.
You managed to prove that the only sophist in our ranks was yourself. I took you to task on that issue once before.
As Thorbjoern has already pointed out, in seeking to attack his examples, you countermanded all the principles you've tried to hold other people to over several months.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you choose to be abusive and unfairly critical towards other people, if you choose to misrepresent the facts, to call well founded opinion a lie, and to represent your own garbled version of reality as gospel, you shouldn't be too surprised that your status as an authority here is declining.
Taking your response to Thorbjoern as an example.
Item 1 ("Air is getting polluted")
"In California, air is getting CLEANER."
A key principle you've harped on about for months is that man is too puny to alter the environment in any significant way. Hence global warming must be a hoax.
Now you admit that cars have polluted the air.
And you admit that it's possible to make it cleaner.
I also note that you seem to think this is an unnecessary action. You don't seem to like bureacrats either. It's just as well we don't have spelling police or you and I would both be in trouble, Thomas. (bureaucrats)
Item 2 ("Water is getting polluted")
Calling people "STUPID, EVIL environmentalists" is inappropriate. Environmentalists might indeed be wrong, but it's my guess is that "wrongness" a common problem among people.
Once again, PEOPLE pollute the water and people if they choose are quite able to clean it up.
Sadly, in my neck of the woods, Canterbury, NZ, there is a demand from farmers for water rights, from rivers that are already "100% allocated". The body responsible for protecting the rivers opposed the applications. Now a new report commissioned by the government (The National Party was originally a rural party.) recommends the abolition of that authority for incompetence. Criminal acts against the environment continue, all dressed up as "legal process".
Item 5 ("Forests are disappearing".)
Certainly not true in New Zealand. The destruction of the forest by Maori was minimal. Europeans cut it down, to make pasture. They went far too far, and severe erosion of high country slopes occurred. NZ forest lands are about stable now. The expectation is that carbon pricing will encourage strong regeneration of NZ forests.
Item 7 ("Glaciers are melting")
"The UN IPCC just admitted that they were WRONG to project that the Himalayan ice caps were melting. They're not."
See the sophist at work again. Thomas, in an information age the truly stupid and evil people are the one's who deliberately spread misinformation. You, Thomas, are one of those people. I have no idea what you expect to achieve from it. From where I sit, it just leaves you looking incredibly foolish.
Take the small example above. Glaciers are melting almost everywhere. They have been in retreat in NZ for over 50 years. Glaciers are also in retreat in the Himalayas. That's of great concern on two fronts, excessive flooding, and lack of water supply in the dry season.
The Himalayan glaciers ARE melting, but the sophist, Thomas Holford, chooses to argue that black is white.
"The UN IPCC just admitted that they were WRONG to project that the Himalayan ice caps were melting."
You neglected to finish that statement Thomas. You know perfectly well that the IPCC didn't do what you've suggested. That, Thomas, when it's deliberate, and I'm sure it was, is evil, because you are seeking to mislead us, you are acting against us. You are betraying the other members of the network.
The IPCC said that an estimate in their peer reviewed report contains an error. Here is what the report actually said:
"The paragraph at issue reads: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high."
The claim has been criticized by numerous glaciologists for being highly implausible
On 20th January, 2010.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change acknowledged today that it had erred in projecting the rate and impacts of retreating Himalayan glaciers in a 2007 report. The faulty information appears in one paragraph of a 900-plus page Working Group II report. “In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly,” the group explained in a prepared statement.
In fact, glaciologist Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University said this afternoon, Himalayan glaciers are thinning and retreating at a rapid pace, but not at a demonstrably faster rate than in many other parts of the world.
In fact, he said, it’s hard to fully understand how the Himalayas are responding to Earth’s warming because only about 600 of some 46,000 glaciers in that region are being monitored. Of those, 95 percent are in retreat. But it’s hard to understand how much mass the glaciers are losing, Thompson says, without first knowing the depth of affected glaciers — a measure of how much water they hold. And currently, such data are largely nonexistent.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/55455/title/Science_%2B_the_Public__IPCC_admits_Himalayan_glacier_error
Your quote, Thomas: "The UN IPCC just admitted that they were WRONG to project that the Himalayan ice caps were melting." Is intended to be misleading. Why should we be the subject of your dishonest propaganda?
So Thomas as the moderator here, I think you should apologise and withdraw. I leave that to your decision. I consider your behaviour less than honourable.
In any case I ask you to cease trying to confuse and mislead people by making clearly erroneous statements. That's an abuse of all of us, and it's not acceptable.
John Stephen Veitch; The Network Ambassador
Open Future Limited - http://www.openfuture.co.nz/
Innovation Network - http://veech-network.ryze.com/
Building an Open Future - http://openfuture-network.ryze.com/Private Reply to John Stephen Veitch | | Feb 25, 2010 4:45 pm | | re: re: re: The Reality of Climate Change - Discipline in this network | # |
Thomas Holford | | John Stephen Veitch sayeth:
> So Thomas as the moderator here, I think you should apologise and withdraw. I leave that to your decision. I consider your behaviour less than honourable.
John:
Thank you for your thoughtful invitation for me to self-censor.
But, no thank you.
I will defer to your privilege to impose censorship.
Nonetheless, your frustration and distress suggests to me that my work here is done.
The majority of the American public now realizes that "human caused global warming" is a sham and a power grab.
The genie is out of the bottle, and the toothpaste is out of the tube and can't be put back in.
T. Holford
Private Reply to Thomas Holford | | Feb 26, 2010 3:58 pm | | re: re: re: The Reality of Climate Change - Discipline in this network | # |
Joseph Lynders | | " ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "
JV - "it's my guess is that "wrongness" a common problem among people." - JV
You don't hear that much anymore.
Usually it is only implied and it is usually understood to be "wrongness" is a common problem among "OTHER" people or maybe even more commonly, "wrongness" is a common problem among "OTHER" people I select.
It is likely just one of the overwhelming weaknesses of our information age.
Have a good IDea today,
02/26/2010 Joseph F. Lynders FTg/M/?Private Reply to Joseph Lynders | | Feb 26, 2010 5:54 pm | | re: re: re: The Reality of Climate Change - Discipline in this network | # |
Reg Charie | | Well said John.
If Thomas is less than honest in his posts he either lies or is just too dang dumb to understand the truth.
I don't really see any other options, especially since we have the internet at our fingertips to see the effects humanity has on the environment.
Is it reversible?
It *might* be if man were to disappear.
Things could come back to a balance imposed by nature if man was not around to dump growing amounts of waste products into the environment.
The glaciers are not melting?
I don't have to go far afield to confirm they are.
We have our own glacier here in the Comox Valley and the local newspaper reported this last Dec.
Glacier's dramatic disappearing act
Shock evidence shows just how fast Comox Valley icon is melting away
Philip Round, Comox Valley Echo
Published: Tuesday, December 22, 2009
(http://www2.canada.com/comoxvalleyecho/story.html?id=39076993-47ed-4276-9979-63f3c4e9c5d4)
Want to see if this is worldwide?
Since 1980, a significant global warming has led to glacier retreat becoming increasingly rapid and ubiquitous, so much so that some glaciers have disappeared altogether, and the existence of a great number of the remaining glaciers of the world is threatened. In locations such as the Andes of South America and Himalayas in Asia, the demise of glaciers in these regions will have potential impact on water supplies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
In light of the truth, and what you say Thomas, you would be better off to take your leave as John suggests.
2009 Client SEO report:
You rank better than 4,577,263,956 other websites.
http://dotcom-productions.com
Hosting http://0grief.com/special_hosting_accounts_for_my_ryze_friends.htmPrivate Reply to Reg Charie | | Feb 26, 2010 7:33 pm | | re: re: re: re: The Reality of Climate Change - Discipline in this network | # |
Ken Hilving | | Things will come back to a balance imposed by nature. The issue is the effect that balance will have on us as a species.
We, too, are part of nature. Man does not, cannot not, do something "unnatural" unless you believe we are somehow outside of the natural environment.
Both the polluting of the world and the effort by many to live in harmony with the world are natural traits of our species.
We are about to find out the true meaning of blind justice. Nature is impartial in both judgment and punishment. Private Reply to Ken Hilving | | Feb 26, 2010 10:08 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: The Reality of Climate Change - Discipline in this network | # |
Joseph Lynders | | " ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "
KH - "We are about to find out the true meaning of blind justice. Nature is impartial in both judgment and punishment." - KH
How is Nature in the area of reward?
Have a good IDea today,
02/26/2010 Joseph F. Lynders FTg/M/?Private Reply to Joseph Lynders | | Feb 27, 2010 1:15 am | | re: re: re: re: The Reality of Climate Change - Discipline in this network | # |
Thomas Holford | | Reg Charie sayeth:
> If Thomas is less than honest in his posts he either lies or is just too dang dumb to understand the truth.
> The glaciers are not melting?
I don't have to go far afield to confirm they are.
We have our own glacier here in the Comox Valley and the local newspaper reported this last Dec.
> Glacier's dramatic disappearing act
Shock evidence shows just how fast Comox Valley icon is melting away
You wouldn't be less than honest about what I have posted, would you?
Or, you wouldn't be too dang dumb to understand the truth of what I posted, would you?
I have never said glaciers weren't melting. Of course they're melting. We're coming out of an ice age. We have been coming out of an ice age for twenty thousand years.
The sea level has risen 160 meters in the last twenty thousand years BECAUSE the glaciers are melting.
It's natural. It's not caused by human activity.
Didn't you get that?
T. Holford
Private Reply to Thomas Holford | | Feb 27, 2010 4:24 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: The Reality of Climate Change - Discipline in this network | # |
Ken Hilving | | JL - I should have left it as "Nature is impartial in judgment." Private Reply to Ken Hilving | | Feb 27, 2010 5:14 am | | re: re: re: re: re: The Reality of Climate Change - Discipline in this network | # |
Reg Charie | | Lets look at one of those "truths" you posted Thomas.
>Item 7 ("Glaciers are melting")
>The UN IPCC just admitted that they were WRONG to project >that the Himalayan ice caps were melting. They're not.
I did a search on the Himalayan ice caps.
Here is what I found.
-----
The fact that glaciers in the Himalayan mountains are thinning is not disputed. However, few researchers have attempted to rigorously examine and quantify the causes. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory scientist Surabi Menon set out to isolate the impacts of the most commonly blamed culprit—greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide—from other particles in the air that may be causing the melting. Menon and her collaborators found that airborne black carbon aerosols, or soot, from India is a major contributor to the decline in snow and ice cover on the glaciers.
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/feature-stories/2010/02/03/black-carbon-himalayan-glaciers/
---
Mount Kilimanjaro's top, shown in June, has lost 26 percent of its ice since 2000, a study says.
Eighty-five percent of the ice cover that was present in 1912 has vanished, the scientists said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/world/africa/03melt.html
----------------
The Earth's ice cover is melting in more places and at higher rates than at any time since record keeping began. Reports from around the world compiled by the Worldwatch Institute (see attached data table) show that global ice melting accelerated during the 1990s-which was also the warmest decade on record.
Scientists suspect that the enhanced melting is among the first observable signs of human-induced global warming, caused by the unprecedented release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases over the past century. Glaciers and other ice features are particularly sensitive to temperature shifts.
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/1673
-----------------
The Khumbu Glacier in Nepal, where Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay began their ascent of Everest, has retreated more than three miles since they climbed the mountain in 1953.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article542883.ece
---------
Aside from a few that claim that the Himalayan glaciers are not retreating, substantive measurements show that they are.
"The studies, according to the report, show that “All the glaciers under observation during the last three decades of 20th century have shown cumulative negative mass balance.” Degeneration of the glacier mass has been the highest in Jammu & Kashmir, relatively
lower in Himachal Pradesh, even lower in Uttarakhand and the lowest in Sikkim.”
And given that a significant population of India depends heavily on the run off water to survive, and that India is fighting any emission standards the Indian Government is doing all it can to put a "No shrinkage" spin on the problem.
However, the Web site Science Daily reported in 2007 that “satellite-imagery derived glacier surface topographies obtained at intervals of a few years were adjusted and compared. Calculations indicated that 915 square kilometers of Himalayan glaciers of the test region…thinned by an annual average of 0.85m between 1999 and 2004.” Satellite data from the Indian Space Applications Center in Ahmedabad, indicates that from 1962 to 2004, more than 1,000 Himalayan glaciers have retreated by around 16 percent. According to the Chinese Academy of Sciences, China’s glaciers have shrunk by 5 percent since 1950s.
There is more.
Much more supported by actual measurement and observation.
Less than honest? Hardly.
2009 Client SEO report:
You rank better than 4,577,263,956 other websites.
http://dotcom-productions.com
Hosting http://0grief.com/special_hosting_accounts_for_my_ryze_friends.htmPrivate Reply to Reg Charie | | Feb 28, 2010 2:49 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: The Reality of Climate Change - Discipline in this network | # |
Joseph Lynders | | " ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "
KH - "Nature is impartial in judgment." - KH
I wonder if it might be beneficial in some way if we tried following Nature's judgment approach once in a while.
Have a good IDea today,
02/27/2010 Joseph F. Lynders FTg/M/?
Private Reply to Joseph Lynders | | Feb 28, 2010 3:11 pm | | re: The Reality of Climate Change as meme ... | # |
James Booth | | .
Thank you, John
_
" A meme is a dominant social theme with the strength for propagation from one generation to another.
A dominant social theme is a belief system (usually concerning a purported social or natural problem) promoted by the monetary or power elite. The related problem, as it is presented, may be centered on people themselves (overpopulation) or be caused by people (global warming).
A dominant social theme typically is launched from one or more centers of the elite's global architecture, such as the United Nations, World Bank, World Trade Organization or World Health Organization. The theme is then rebroadcast by the mainstream media. Dominant social themes are notable for their resistance to contrary evidence, and they invariably imply a need for unaccountable, elite authorities to impose a solution.
With sufficient repetition in the mass media (including "news" and entertainment presentations) and through enshrinement in school curricula, a dominant social theme can become so engrained in the public mind that it is passed from one generation to the next, as though it were folk wisdom. It becomes virtually exempt from questioning.
The fear of over-population is a meme, as the worry now has spanned generations. A generalized fear that the world may run out of resources, including basic resources such as oil and water, appears on its way to becoming a meme.
According to various sources, The British scientist Richard Dawkins presented the term in his book, The Selfish Gene (1976). It was his idea that a meme encapsulated the spread of ideas and could evolve in some sense as a gene could. The term has become very popular over the decades, especially since the advent of the Internet which could be seen, in some sense, as validating the concept. "
- http://www.thedailybell.com/654/Meme.html
.Private Reply to James Booth | | Feb 28, 2010 3:50 pm | | re: re: The Reality of Climate Change as meme ... | # |
Thomas Holford | | James Booth sayeth:
> " A meme is a dominant social theme with the strength for propagation from one generation to another.
> A dominant social theme is a belief system (usually concerning a purported social or natural problem) promoted by the monetary or power elite. The related problem, as it is presented, may be centered on people themselves (overpopulation) or be caused by people (global warming).
James:
An excellent synopsis.
Although the term "meme" is relatively new, the phenomenon is a lot older.
Charles Mackay published a well known book in 1841 which describes various "memes": 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowdness'.
He talks about things like The South Sea Bubble, Tulipmania, the Mississipi Plan, etc. etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_Popular_Delusions_and_the_Madness_of_Crowds
If he had known about Global Warming, he surely have included it.
T. HolfordPrivate Reply to Thomas Holford | | Mar 02, 2010 6:09 am | | re: re: re: The Reality of Climate Change as meme ... | # |
Ken Hilving | | Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed it is the only thing that ever has. -Margaret Mead
_____
So the fallacy of the DOMINANT social meme is that it must be promoted by the monetary or power elite. It seems more a case of monetary and power elite recognizing a dominant social theme or belief system and adopting it. What passes for leadership is all too often simply a knack for getting to the front of the parade consistently.
Meanwhile, small groups of thoughtful and committed individuals anonymously work at changing the world.
Cream isn't the only thing that floats to the top. ;-)Private Reply to Ken Hilving | | Mar 02, 2010 9:23 pm | | re: re: re: re: The Reality of Climate Change as meme ... | # |
Joseph Lynders | | " ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "
KH - What passes for leadership is all too often simply a knack for getting to the front of the parade consistently." - KH
Isn't that called line jumping and when did that become a good thing?
Have a good IDea today,
03/02/10 Joseph F. Lynders FTg/M/?Private Reply to Joseph Lynders | | |
| |
| |
