The public debate on climate change

Oct 17, 2011 by Anuradha K. Herath
Scientists are studing how the Sun affects Earth’s climate. Credit: NASA

Even after years of scientific research that points to how human activity is causing climate change, pundits, policymakers and the general public are still debating the issue.

For scientists, there is very little debate about the main cause of our current climate change. Ninety-seven percent of scientists who study the issue say it is the result of fossil-fuel burning and other man-made alterations to the environment.

However, much of the public discussion on climate change doesn’t reflect the scientific reality. Influencing the discussion are groups such as The Heartland Institute, a political organization whose goal is to promote free market policies. When it comes to climate change, the group’s objective is to “dispute the claim that global warming is a crisis.” Its president, Joseph Bast, talking to the journal Nature recently, claimed that they had swayed public and political opinions toward their view. But he expressed frustration that they had not been able to convince scientists.

However, scientists are more likely to be convinced by data than by opinions. And climate scientists are frustrated that such political organizations -- and the larger public -- downplay the data that show climate change is occurring because of the actions of man.

Gavin Schmidt, climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the public debate about climate change gives a mistaken impression of what scientists are actually debating. Scientists are questioning the degree of the change, and at what rate climate changes will occur in the future. But they aren’t debating the primary causes of it.

“There aren't 'two sides' to the science,” Schmidt said. “[The pubic debate] implies that the whole thing is just a matter of an opinion – it is not.”

For many years the discussion in the mainstream media asked whether climate change was occurring at all. Now this public debate has shifted, with many politicians and media pundits acknowledging that climate change is a fact but questioning the cause of it. Is the trend toward global warming the result of man-made activities, or through the uncontrollable variations of Nature such as the Sun’s total output or the Earth’s shift in orbit? As it turns out, scientists have already taken a close look at these questions.

The Sun's Energy

Scientists and astronomers have studied the impact of the Sun on the Earth's climate as far back as the early 1800s. Historians have traced the earliest such studies to the research of Sir William Herschel, who tried to link the frequency of sunspots to the price of wheat. His belief was that the number of sunspots would be indicative of the amount of the Sun's energy that is received by the Earth. That energy would affect the amount of wheat produced, which would affect the price.

Herschel’s study didn’t make a big impact at the time because he did not have access to historical temperature records to make any useful comparisons. However, there has been a significant amount of research conducted since then to show that variations in the Sun's energy output have an impact on changes in Earth’s climate.

One such study, published earlier this year in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, provides more evidence of this link between the Sun and the Earth. Through their analysis of historic temperature deviations, geomagnetic activity and the frequency of sunspots, the authors concluded that “the Sun has a significant role to play in the long-term and short-term climate change.”

Alterations in Earth’s orbit around the Sun over time. Image Credit: oceanworld.tamu.edu

“With more and more data available, it may provoke some thought to further explore the solar influence on Earth's climate with geomagnetic activity acting as a possible link,” said lead author Mufti Sabi ud din, scientist of the Astrophysical Sciences Division at the Bhabha Atomic Research Center in India's Department of Atomic Energy. “It may evoke some response so as to bring to the fore the substantial role of the natural forcing at work on the observed climate variability.”

Mufti, however, noted that the evidence does not indicate the Sun and other natural forces are the main drivers behind current climate change.

“We do not rule out the natural forcings at work,” he said, “but there isn't enough quantitative evidence to say that natural forcings are the dominant cause of current climate change. We have made it amply clear that the anthropogenic origins cannot also be ruled out."

According to Schmidt, while the Sun does have some impact, it is definitively not the reason for current patterns of climate change. Among the many studies that looked closely at the variations in solar output over time to see if they can be linked to changes in climate, the consensus has been that while the Sun affects Earth’s climate, the changes in the Sun have been relatively minor, and they cannot account for the more radical changes in climate we are experiencing today.

“There is an effect,” Schmidt said, “but it is hard to detect in surface records, and is certainly not responsible for recent trends.”

Orbital Change

Another natural occurrence that has caused major changes in the Earth's climate in the past is shifts in the Earth's orbit. Consider the Sahara desert, for example. There is a wide acceptance among scientists that the Sahara transformed from a fertile grassland to a desert because of a change to the Earth's orbit. This shift in how the Earth circled the Sun affected the amount of sunlight that region of Africa received.

A shift in the Earth’s orbit is said to have transformed the Sahara from a grassland into a desert. Credit: Map by Robert Simmon and Reto Stöckli

The Earth's orbital tilt is said to vary between 22 and 25 degrees roughly every 41,000 years. While a natural event such as this could bring about major changes to the climate, some scientists are warning that there is a possibility for reverse feedback. In other words, instead of an orbital tilt causing climate change, such as the one that took place in the African continent, current changes in climate could end up causing changes in the Earth's axial tilt.

In an article published late last year, Astrobiology Magazine reported on such a prediction: “Scientists from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory say that the current melting of ice in Greenland is already causing the tilt to change at a rate of approximately 2.6 centimeters each year. They predict that his change could increase in the years ahead.”

While fascinating, 2.6 centimeters is an infinitesimally small fraction of a single degree, and scientists say this is far too small of a change in Earth’s tilt to have a noticeable impact on climate.

The Politics of Climate

Hundreds of scientists around the world have conducted research that show human activities contribute the most to today’s climate change. We are changing the Earth’s atmosphere by emitting huge amounts of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, most of which comes from the burning of . Other human activities include agriculture and changes in land-use patterns. They all work to tip the Earth’s energy balance by trapping more heat.

Most scientists note that while natural changes will cause temperature fluctuations on Earth, the impact caused by man at present is far greater.

Perhaps the most well-known spokesperson on climate change, former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, recently attracted a lot of media attention for an emotional speech regarding climate skeptics. When he spoke at the Aspen Institution in Boulder, Colorado in early August, he compared climate skeptics to those who argued that smoking was not harmful to human health in the 1960s.

"There are about 10 other memes that are out there, and when you go and talk to any audience about climate, you hear them washing back at you the same crap, over and over and over again,” Gore said. “There is no longer shared reality on an issue like climate, even though the very existence of our civilization is threatened."

Although the climate scientists who say that the climate is changing (about 97 percent by some estimates) far outnumber those who don’t, Gore's comments indicate the strength of feeling and potential influence of those who argue against climate change.

The Brookings Institute released a report in April on the public opinion on climate change in the United States and Canada. In a survey of 2,130 people, the report found that there is a progressive decrease in the number of people who think there is “solid evidence of global warming” and an increase in the number who think there is no solid evidence. In the fall of 2008, 17 percent of people did not believe in global warming. In the fall of 2010, that number had increased to 26 percent. Even though the number of climate change believers has decreased, the majority of people still believed that the Earth is undergoing global warming and most of them (61 percent of Americans and 57 percent of Canadians) felt it was a “very serious” problem.

Moving On

Despite knowing the difference between weather and climate, both climate-change supporters and opponents in politics and in the media often can't refrain from using short-term weather patterns to bolster their respective arguments. Harsh winters are used as evidence of no global warming while scorching summers are used to support the viewpoint of human-caused warming of the Earth. Individual seasonal weather events such as a “snowmageddon” or heat waves cannot be directly attributed to either argument of the climate change debate because such events alone are temporary. Climate change, on the other hand, is a long-term problem. However, an increasing frequency of such extreme weather events can be another indication that climate change is in fact a reality.

In this complex and highly politicized debate, there is now an increasing number of scientists and other observers who say need to move on, to respond to the Earth's reactions to instead of still debating the issue.


Climate change affects nearly every other sector of society. Take, for example, public health. Some of the diseases that impact global populations the most, such as malaria and diarrhea that kill millions each year, are highly sensitive to climatic conditions. Then there is the inequity of these risks. China is now the world’s top emitter of greenhouse gases, but developed countries, primarily the United States, are still mainly responsible for causing climate change after having emitted the most pollution for the longest time. But the populations that suffer the most from climatic changes will be those in developing countries – countries that have contributed the least to climate change and populations who have the least access to resources that could help them deal with the consequences.

There are numerous other reports which show the impact of climate change on various other sectors such as agriculture, energy, insurance and even national security. Schmidt expressed the urgency of addressing climate change now.

“The consequences of increase, and they increase quite rapidly as the temperatures rise,” Schmidt said. “The faster we act, the less bad the peak warming will be. It will take a long time to turn this around.”

But Schmidt rejects the idea that there is a point of no return.

“This idea that there's just one point, I think that makes people complacent now and then it would make people fatalistic afterwards,” Schmidt said. “Whatever the situation is, there will be choices that we can make as a society that will make it better in the future or worse. The longer we let it go without doing anything, the worse the consequences will be before it comes back down and we get it back under control, but there's never a point at which there's nothing that can be done. There is an urgency to acting but it's not because there's a point of no return.”

Explore further: Monitoring heavy metals using mussels

More information: Leslie Mullen contributed to this report.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

The climate change debate: Man versus nature

Oct 03, 2011

The public discussion on climate change has become so polarized that some scientists don’t even acknowledge there is a debate. Climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Gavin ...

Climate is warming - despite 'ups and downs'

Dec 28, 2010

Periodic short-term cooling in global temperatures should not be misinterpreted as signalling an end to global warming, according to an Honorary Research Fellow with CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Barrie Hunt.

How Earth's orbital shift shaped the Sahara

Dec 21, 2010

A change in the Earth’s orbit, many scientists believe, transformed the “Green Sahara” into what is now the largest desert on the planet. While scientists are still trying to find out if the ...

Plants protect from climate impacts

Aug 02, 2011

Native vegetation must be restored to protect Australia’s unique ecosystems from the impacts of climate change, according to scientists from the Australian National University.

Monsoons spinning the Earth's plates: study

Apr 13, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Scientists have for the first time shown a link between intensifying climate events and tectonic plate movement in findings that could provide a valuable insight into why huge tremors occur.

Recommended for you

Monitoring heavy metals using mussels

2 hours ago

A research team in Malaysia has concluded that caged mussels are useful for monitoring heavy metal contamination in coastal waters in the Strait of Johore. Initial results indicate more pollution in the eastern ...

Climate change report identifies 'the most vulnerable'

4 hours ago

Extreme weather events leave populations with not enough food both in the short- and the long-term. A new report by the Environmental Change Institute (ECI) at the School of Geography and the Environment ...

Obama readies climate change push at UN summit

7 hours ago

President Barack Obama will seek to galvanize international support in the fight against climate change on Tuesday when he addresses the United Nations, with time running out on his hopes of leaving a lasting ...

New toxic spill traced to Mexico mine

7 hours ago

Civil protection authorities have confirmed new toxic spills in northwestern Mexico, where a massive acid spill from a copper mine contaminated waterways.

User comments : 142

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

LVT
2 / 5 (38) Oct 17, 2011
>Ninety-seven percent of scientists who study the issue

Would they by any chance therefore have a vested interest in continuing grants for their scare stories?

From junk computer models to outright lying the game's up for the grants for scares industry.
mememine69
2 / 5 (33) Oct 17, 2011
If you love the planet and honest science, you would be happy like us to realize that CO2 dangers were tragic exaggerations from lab coat consultants. And if a climate crisis really were real, the thousands of scientists would be acting like its the worst disaster imaginable; CO2 climate crisis. Do you see the countless thousands of scientists marching in the streets and yelling all over CNN? It was a legal exaggeration.
Pollution is real, death CO2 not.
SCVGoodToGo
2.3 / 5 (16) Oct 17, 2011
In before Oliver goes THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU and spams Neutron Repulsion (tm).
mememine69
1.5 / 5 (33) Oct 17, 2011
Science and Scientists:
Thanks for 25 years of needless CO2 panic, the pesticides you gave us that you denied being toxic, germ warfare, landmine and deep sea drilling technology.............WE DON'T TRUST OR RESPECT YOU.
kaasinees
2.1 / 5 (27) Oct 17, 2011
climate crisis IS real. We use 60% of the planets fresh water for agriculture, 40% land, how much will we use and how much soil will we destroy when we reach 9 billion?
Doug_Huffman
2 / 5 (11) Oct 17, 2011
E. T. Jaynes explains extreme cultural polarization as due to credibility effects in section 5.2 'Converging and diverging views' of his Probability Theory: The Logic of Science in Bayesian epistemology and inference.

Once credibility is lost then instruction effect continuum ranges from zero to opposite of desired.
mememine69
1.5 / 5 (23) Oct 17, 2011
kassines: CO2 climate crisis isn't about sustainability, it's a specific CO2 death threat to billions of children. Spreading fear is not progressive or civilized and if you really think the world is ending, start acting like it is and get a THE END IS NEAR sign and start warning the world of the worst crisis imaginable, climate crisis.
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (27) Oct 17, 2011
The sad mix of politics and science at the base of the global climate scandal and world government apparently started at the Bilderberg [1,2] in 1967.

It developed into a worldwide problem after international agreements in ~1971 to dismiss evidence of Earth's unstable heat source [3-6]:

1. http://en.wikiped...rg_Group

2. http://adsabs.har...oPh.3.5G

3. http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf

4. http://judithcurr...t-121893

5. www.physorg.com/n...ole.html

6. Earth's heat source - the Sun

http://dl.dropbox...ture.pdf

www.omatumr.com/a...enon.pdf

www.nature.com/na...9a0.html

www.omatumr.com/a...nces.pdf

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

God will control; We can console

Oliver K. Manuel
JDoddsGW
1.4 / 5 (28) Oct 17, 2011
SO CO2 causes climate change does it?
Just how does it create the extra energy required to produce warming in the greenhouse effect?
The ONLY way is to increase the amount of energy photons coming in. Adding CO2 does NOT do that. It just adds more unused excess CO2 or unused GHG water vapor. which just sits there until an extra added energy photon (from the sun OR gravity) causes more of the greenhouse effect.
UNTIL you so called climate scientists realize that, that more energy (sun) in the morning causes warming, less sun energy at night causes qooling, that more CO2 can NOT create more energy, there is no point in discussing the fraud that is current climate science.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (31) Oct 17, 2011
"Even after years of scientific research "
Quantity does not equal quality.
Sinister1811
3.2 / 5 (36) Oct 17, 2011
The problem is that the denialists believe that they have more data than the actual climatologists.
Arkaleus
1.7 / 5 (29) Oct 17, 2011
The informed segment of the Western world already knows "AGW" bullshit is driven by the fusion of political, scientific, and financial interests. This unholy combination of power factions latched on to climate change as a plausible crisis that would be perpetual, intractable, and help them build a permanent global power center around its funding.

Scientists were tempted by the promise of life-long funding and elevated authority in a forever-crisis requiring their "expertise."

Political powers embrace an AGW cirsis because of the promise of additional taxation and expanded powers to regulate human behavior.

Financial power centers joined the scam once they realized the profits they could make from the vast sums channeled through "carbon trading" and its derivatives. They originally resisted because they thought the scam would diminish their revenues by restricting commerce, but as the globalists gained power and de-industrialized the West they eagerly joined the new game.
frenchie
3.9 / 5 (29) Oct 17, 2011
It's actually amazing to see how many people are are delusional.

@JDoddsGW - should learn to spell and do some basic science research, try typing Greenhouse Effect in a browser.

@Ryggesogn2 - you're right, your posts pretty much prove that saying.

@mememine69 - Just because you dont like the possible consequences of climate change does not make it any less true. As for scientists in the street...you're a funny man.

@omatur - typical reply. nothing new.

@mememine69 - Just because you dont like the possible consequences of climate change does not make it any less true. As for scientists in the street...you're a funny man. You point to our attempt at rational, civil discourse as the clear indication that this is a hoax / ploy to steal more money from the rich / redistribution of wealth / greedy scientists (because clearly that's our problem)....or whatever other stupid excuse denialists are gonna come up with today.

I pity you fools.

RAA
1.5 / 5 (22) Oct 17, 2011
All atmospheric gases cool the earth. They don't warm it. Any mass between you and a radiant energy source will cool you. Why is that? Some of the incoming radiation will be reflected back away from you by the mass present. If you hang a blanket between you and a fireplace you will feel cooler. Nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere all will make the earth cooler than if no gases were there. Common sense 101 - it seems no one takes that course anymore! AGW should be changed to AATM because it is All About The Money, there is no science to it.
rawa1
2.1 / 5 (12) Oct 17, 2011
Any mass between you and a radiant energy source will cool you.
The function of greenhouse is based just on the fact, the glass is not only shielding the sunlight, but reflecting it back too. We should say clearly, every idea, which would force the people to find the replacement of fossil fuels is basically a good one - as it not only prohibits the ecological catastrophe, but it prevents the formation of global geopolitical crisis and the nuclear wars for the rest of fossil fuel sources. For example, we have twenty years already the cold fusion replacement of all fossil fuels. But the fossil fuel lobby and the politicians connected with it are trying to protect their investments obstinately. With such ignorant approach we are facing nuclear war for energy, while literally swimming in the ocean of cold fusion energy. Am I the only person on the world, which perceives such result as a a somehow premature and silly end of human civilization?
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (22) Oct 17, 2011
The APS statement says it all.
' APS declares: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes. The evidence is incontrovertible: global warming is occurring."
http://www.telegr...est.html
What else is incontrovertible in science? Speed of light?
RAA
1.6 / 5 (14) Oct 17, 2011
The APS statement cannot be based on science. Some warming did occur but CFC destruction of stratospheric ozone caused that (about 0.5C rise from 1966 to 1998). All CFC production has now been banned The emissions of carbon dioxide from man's activities is only some 12 ppmv with nature providing the rest (some 380 ppmv) of the total 392 ppmv. All atmospheric gases are cooling the earth but the carbon dioxide concentration is so small the cooling effect could never be measured by man's instrumentation. The cooling effect of water vapor, another so-called greenhouse gas occurred during the three days after 9-11 when no planes were flying. The absence of contrail water vapor increased the earth temperature some 1.1 C over those three days.
brant
1.6 / 5 (14) Oct 17, 2011
The problem is that the denialists believe that they have more data than the actual climatologists.


No, the problem is that the climatologists actually think their model is accurate.. And takes into account what the sun really does in UV variability.
brant
2.9 / 5 (14) Oct 17, 2011
It's actually amazing to see how many people are are delusional.

I pity you fools.



Its amazing the response you get when you tell people that questioning the party line is a normal part of science...
Voleure
4.2 / 5 (19) Oct 17, 2011
Gavin makes clear and concise points above. The scientists ceased debating human induced global warming a decade ago. The evidence is overwhelming now.

Man's ever increasing technological population has been stressing many of our planets systems. We see it on the land. We see it in the oceans. One might wonder why the surprise that we are profoundly affecting the thin layer of air above us as well.

As is typical the deniers project their own reality (a core of them are paid directly or indirectly by industrial interests) of a political agenda on the part of the science community for calling attention to the issue as part of the ongoing research. Science simply moves ahead. Looking now at the severity, unswayed by political tactics (such as flooding forums with rhetoric), steadily improving our understanding of our planet.

Bravo to scientists like Gavin taking the time to write as well!
runrig
4.6 / 5 (19) Oct 17, 2011
For those on here who have no grasp of ( several posts are scientific nonsense )From Wikipedia ....
""A greenhouse gas" is a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect.[1] The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. In the Solar System, the atmospheres of Venus, Mars, and Titan also contain gases that cause greenhouse effects. Greenhouse gases greatly affect the temperature of the Earth; without them, Earth's surface would be on average about 33 °C (59 °F)colder than at present."
Also, the post 9-11 temperature effect (if anything) is due to the increased outward radiation at night leading to lower minima beause of less cirrus cloud - an effect I have seen play out countless times whilst on night shifts in a weather office. A much more marked effect than a thin cirrus shield lowering the maxima
3432682
1.8 / 5 (32) Oct 17, 2011
Global warming is a belief, not a fact. All the predictions of warming, disease, storms, droughts, etc. are failures. The elaborate climate models all predicted far more warming for today than has occurred. The warm-mongers are left wing activists who are trying to take control of all energy and thus economic activity. Earth is doing just fine, thanks.
Doc_aymz
1.8 / 5 (20) Oct 17, 2011
A consensus is not science. 97% of scientists used to believe that the human body would explode above 30mph, or that going faster than sound was impossible. They were even able to produce evidence to confirm their theories. But it didn't make them correct.
RAA
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 17, 2011
Wikipedia? Dr. David Travis, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Wisconsin,looked at how temperatures for those three days compared to other days when planes were flying. They analyzed maximum and minimum temperature data from about 4,000 weather stations throughout the conterminous (48 states) United States for the period 19712000, and compared those to the conditions that prevailed during the three-day aircraft grounding period and the three days when planes were flying before and after the grounding period.

They found that the average daily temperature range between highs and lows was 1.1 degrees C higher during September 11-14 compared to September 8-11 and September 14-17 with normal air traffic. The data proved that contrails (condensed water vapor trails) have a net cooling effect. You cannot just look at a nighttime effect only, like the IPCC climatologists and meteorologists have done, both day and night must be included to determine the overall effec
Arkaleus
1.4 / 5 (22) Oct 17, 2011
Thank God for the providence of natural weather variability. The AGW combine gambled a great deal on how the weather would go based on their computer model witch-doctory. If the climate happened to appear to match their doom prophecies, we would not have been able to resist them. I suspect they will continue to divorce themselves from their poor predictions, and try to ram their schemes through by less rational and more non-democratic means.

The "debate" is truly over; "AGW" is no longer a scientific debate or even a theoretical discussion whatsoever. It is now a devilish subterfuge and a treasonous insurrection of highly motivated charlatans, anti-national ideological nut balls, anti-human authoritarians and lucre-maddened money interests.

Resist them with every fiber of your being if you love reason, peace, and liberty.

_nigmatic10
1.5 / 5 (12) Oct 17, 2011
I liken the entire global warming escapade to a game of 52 card pick up. Everyone THINKS they have all the cards and can play the game now, only to find out they're missing cards. The end note here is not all of the cards are picked up yet.
emsquared
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 17, 2011
Some really interesting responses here from both ends of the spectrum...

Regardless of what portion of climate change may be due to AGCO2, the acidification of the oceans is something that is indisputable, and if you can agree that we emit CO2 faster than the earth can uptake it, then what is it worth to you to preserve oceanic ecosystems, reefs, game fish, the largest mammals on earth, etc.? You don't have to favor reducing CO2 to prevent global warming. There are a thousand other beneficial results of reducing consumption of fossil fuels.

Is it worth crippling our economy? No. That will kill us faster than even pollution. Is it worth getting a bike and pedaling to work? Well, that is your call. Is it worth the effort of drying your clothes outside? Or not using those uber-convenient plastic bags at the grocery store? Or running your thermostat a little cooler in the winter and dressing warmer, or a little warmer in the summer?

The picture is SO much bigger than CO2, so is the fix.
ted208
1.5 / 5 (24) Oct 17, 2011
Yes finally there is no debate the warmers have destroyed any meaningful dialogue!

Keep in mind this is a warmist site so they lean heavy on the doom and gloom aspect of climate.

This article and the comments show the death bed of the global warming pushers and supporters. CO2 is not a pollutant as the EPA and IPPC want us to belive, and a 1000 junk in junk out models can't prove this. That's why there are so many skeptics. Yes there are major pollutants like soot partials, chemicals, and problems of over population etc.. And yes we need to address them but the warmers have blown the CO2 raise increase out of all and any believable portion, and we simply don't trust them anymore, and we no longer have the financial ability to address the real world and ecological problems. Why? because the IPPC and the warmers hitched their wagon's to CO2 and data manipulation and the wheels are/have falling off!

Sound the retreat and fall of the doomsday gang!
Howhot
3.1 / 5 (19) Oct 17, 2011
Humm... More paid for trolling by the "How ignorant can we make the people" Republican Party idiots.
Jeddy_Mctedder
1.8 / 5 (12) Oct 17, 2011
the whole issue here is policy. if you are going to make policy on prediction about a complex system, you should make them based on reasonable expectations.

a lot of the specific predictions of global warming are that the end of the world in near because of c02. the way i see it.........there's plenty of good reasons other than c02 to persuade people that dramatic energy policy changes are required.

how about the fact that renewables are RENEWABLE and thus ultimately a more profitable source of energy than fossil fuels , which are not only limited, but require vast amounts of war and cleanup from spills, and particulates in the air that factually cause black lung for miners, and asthma for many kids, and higher cancer levels in smoggy areas. , not to mention they ruin the skyline view and visibility.

also FAR MORE IMPORTANTLY. if we can transition the civil energy economy to renewables, the supply surplus will make both electricity and oil in particular cheaper for the military.
omatumr
1 / 5 (19) Oct 17, 2011
scientists are more likely to be convinced by data than by opinions


That is why experimental data that falsified the Bilderberg solar model were hidden or ignored:

1. The Apollo Mission to the Moon

"Solar abundances of the elements", Meteoritics 18, 209-222 (1983)

www.omatumr.com/a...nces.pdf

2. Isotope analysis of meteorites

"Isotopes of Te, Xe & Kr in the Allende meteorite retain record of nucleosynthesis", Nature 277, 615-620 (1979)

www.nature.com/na...5a0.html

3. The Galileo Probe of Jupiter

"Isotopic ratios in Jupiter confirm intra-solar diffusion", MPS 33-A97, 5011 (1998)

www.lpi.usra.edu/...5011.pdf

4. Nuclear Rest Mass and Cross-section Data

"Neutron Repulsion", APEIRON J, in press (2011)

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

Solar composition from n-capture cross sections", 36th LPSC 1033 (2005)

http://arxiv.org/...412502v1

OM
http://dl.dropbox...reer.pdf
Jotaf
3.8 / 5 (17) Oct 17, 2011
Sorry guys. Scientists study this, you don't. They settled the issue years ago. You lose.
Shootist
2 / 5 (22) Oct 17, 2011
Humm... More paid for trolling by the "How ignorant can we make the people" Republican Party idiots.


Son, I'm nearly 60 years old. I've worked campaigns. Republicans don't get paid to do as you describe.

BREAKING: An IPCC backchannel cloud was apparently established to hide IPCC deliberations from FOIA.

http://wattsupwit...om-foia/

"The Polar Bears will be fine." - Freeman Dyson.

Howhot
3.4 / 5 (16) Oct 18, 2011
Yeap Shootist, too bad the Republicons decided years ago to support fossil fuels over something sustainable like solar or bio. Do repugs even listen to what environmentalists say? I thought not. But logically, science is beyond yours or mine petty arguments. Science says we are in deep shit. IPCC what ever you BS argument you want; EARTH IS IN TROUBLE.

Polar Bears are going extinct.

brianweymes
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 18, 2011
Good article, and you can tell it is because it's brought out every single denialist on the site. Yet still not a single of their posts have been ranked above a 2.5, whereas most of the posts supporting the moderate consensus position receive well above that. Warms my heart.
ralityreturns
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 18, 2011
Why when I post anything scientifically refuting the weak alarming man-made global warming hypothesis (with links) is it met with some stupid warmist propaganda message from Wiki and not posted?

No wonder there are few dissenters from CAGW here, frredom of speach is not allowed.
ralityreturns
2 / 5 (8) Oct 18, 2011
omatumr is a professor of Nuclear Physics for those who try to refute the the sceptics and their sound messages of dissent from the state brainwashing.
jsdarkdestruction
2.7 / 5 (15) Oct 18, 2011
omatumr is also a convicted child molestor. all 4 of his living children allege he repeatedly sexually assaulted them. he is a disgrace amd has no right to be called a man of science. He is not. He has no training in any of the fields he claims are lying when experts pick his theory apart for the garbage it is. Dont think his nuclear chemistry degree makes him an expert in other fields he has NO training or knowledge in. He is a disgrace to the scientific community.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (17) Oct 18, 2011
How typical!
If moral character is a requirement before acceptance of a scientific theory, you will have to disregard much of modern science today.
Not many were paragons of virtue.
But darky, where is the data to support you assertions? This is supposed to be a science based site.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (17) Oct 18, 2011
Don't think scientists are not profiting in some fashion.
The Anderson Research Group is funded by climate research funding. Anderson himself is quite a wild eyed prophet for AGW. I have witnessed that personnaly.
http://www.arp.harvard.edu/
What professor in his right mind wants to actually teach at a university. Much better to have your own research company under the aegis of Harvard.
jsdarkdestruction
2.8 / 5 (11) Oct 18, 2011
olivers attack scientists integrity over and over yet when i tell the truth about his past its bad? get real, your bias is sad.
Robert_Wells
3.9 / 5 (8) Oct 18, 2011
this article for sure brought out the crazies. I've never seen such a collection of nuts, well except in an old coffee can in the garage. least those are useful from time to time...
Seeker2
2 / 5 (7) Oct 20, 2011
...Earth is doing just fine, thanks.

Has anybody been to Glacier Mountain National Park recently? Are there any glaciers there anymore?

...They found that the average daily temperature range between highs and lows was 1.1 degrees C higher during September 11-14 compared to September 8-11 and September 14-17 with normal air traffic.

Is there any statistical significance for this observation?

Seeker2
1.6 / 5 (8) Oct 20, 2011
...we are facing nuclear war for energy, while literally swimming in the ocean of cold fusion energy

I don't know about cold fusion, but there sure is plenty of hot fusion coming at us during daylight hours. Solar energy is doubly efficient for cooling with roof panels: First of all you prevent the sun from heating your building by absorbing the heat, plus you use that heat to generate electricity for cooling. Seems like someone should have figured that out.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (5) Oct 20, 2011
cont...
I can't see electric vehicles as being that great if you have to recharge from coal-powered outlets. The dumb way to solve this with solar power is to use inverters to convert solar power to a/c and then use rectifiers in the ev to convert it back to DC. Solar cell DC voltages are higher than individual battery cells in the ev, so you should be able to switch all battery cells in parallel and charge them directly from the solar cells with no inverters or rectifiers. Trick is to get the ev manufacturers to build the switching mechanism for solar cell charging as an option.

omatumr
1 / 5 (13) Oct 20, 2011
See Donna Laframboises new book exposing the UNs IPCC:

The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the Worlds Top Climate Expert: An Expose of the IPCC.

http://nofrakking...is-born/

2. Public comments and reviews of the book at Amazon and on Professor Curry's blog:

http://judithcurr...he-ipcc/

Howhot
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 20, 2011
@seeker2; if the country and all urban areas could switch to EVs it a remarkable improvement for human kinds future existence. The effects would be immediate with urban pollution being reduced dramatically.

Sure, the burden of the energy source is shifted from oil to the "GRID", but the grid's source of energy is varied, flexible. It could be coal, but it could be wind, or solar farms, or even grid-tied solar. As people recognize man-made global warming to be the crisis it really is, wind, solar and hyrdo nuclear(?) will form the dominate backbone of electrical suppliers. EV is good. Grid is good.

Save the oil for trucking, trains and jets; and transition them to 100% green bio-diesel, bio-jet fuel.

Forget coal/oil; Next generation is going to realize how stupid we were arguing about AGW (man made global warming) and not doing anything about it.
jsdarkdestruction
3.5 / 5 (13) Oct 20, 2011
you want proof?
http://www.homefa...uel.html
liver Manuel's recent efforts to plaster Physorg.com and other public news sites with his theories and personal URLs are a bit puzzling, as scientists have a variety of publications available to communicate directly to each other in. My best guess is that he is desperately trying to prop up his legacy in light of his arrest in his university office on 7 charges of rape and sodomy based on allegations by 4 of his own children. The charges have been reduced to one count of felony attempted sodomy, not necessarily because of his innocence, but because of the statute of limitations. One can only guess how the recent charges and decades of family strife have affected his ability to reason rationally and to remain objective while defending his unpopular theories.

http://www.connec...id=10140
http://www.komu.c...816.page
http://blogs.colu...assault/
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 20, 2011
omatumr is a professor of Nuclear Physics
Unfortunatly he is also a notorious Crank.

For instance this line in his post:
That is why experimental data that falsified the Bilderberg solar mode
Is rubbish.

Oliver recently made the mistake of actually posting a link to the Biblderberg Paper.

http://adsabs.har....3....5G

Now we know that Oliver didn't read it as it doesn't have any of the claims he makes about it. Its just a model of the photosphere and chromosphere that reached no definite conclusions, made no claim that the Sun is completely stable, has nothing to do with any global warming theory, and isn't part of the standard model he hates so much.

It is over 40 years old and had no computer modeling, no Al Gore, no anything that supports his bizarre attacks on it. Heck it doesn't even deal with the Sun's core in anyway and thus could have been written exactly the same way if they had used his self-contradicted Pulsar Sun model.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (17) Oct 20, 2011
http://scholarsmi...d9c.html

When AGWite can't support their claims with data they must smear and threaten those that question their faith. Typical socialist tactics.

Some here think I am a politician in MA and have threatened to actually to go to his house and confront him. Please, do.
You will be unpleasantly surprised.
Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 20, 2011
Please, do. You will be unpleasantly surprised.
That still isn't saying that you and he are not the same person. Funny how you still can't bring yourself to do that. By the way SH isn't isn't around much anymore and he never actually made such a threat.

And the tactics you impute to socialism do fit you quite well. Perhaps we could call it Marjonist Pravda.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (17) Oct 20, 2011
he never actually made such a threat.


Yes, he did.

And you support and defend personal attacks on those who disagree with you on matters of science?
omatumr
1 / 5 (14) Oct 20, 2011
The Berkeley Surface Temperature Report is out:

http://judithcurr...t-125009

I see nothing new there. We must still decide if global climate changes are:

a.) Natural
b.) Caused by humans, or
c.) Used by politicians to take control [1] and rule through tyranny [2,3]

Near the end of the Little Ice Age, Thomas Jefferson recognized how very fragile self-government is:

"I regret that I am now to die in the belief, that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776, to acquire self-government and happiness to their country, is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be, that I live not to weep over it." [2]

1. http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf

2. http://teachingam...cument=4

3. http://www.online...ll/1984/
Doom1974
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 20, 2011
Wow!!! Really I have started getting disappointing of Physorg. Such a collection of nonsensical fools!!! If you guys are smart enough to prove the scientists wrong go ahead and publish yourself. Ohhh you will complain about the system is corrupt and will refuse your idiotic comments. Go ahead publish in the media.

You idiotic cranks!! I sure hop god see her fallacy and rids the world of the idiot fools.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (15) Oct 20, 2011
Doom attacks instead of defending his faith.
Seeker2
3.1 / 5 (7) Oct 20, 2011
Howhot:
...the grid's source of energy is varied, flexible. It could be coal, but it could be wind, or solar farms, or even grid-tied solar.

Hopefully not coal, at least according to an email I have from the Sierra Club:

"U.S. coal plants pump more than 48 tons of mercury into the air each year, but it takes only one-seventieth of a teaspoon to pollute a 20-acre lake and make its fish unsafe to eat."

Hothot:
...Next generation is going to realize how stupid we were arguing about AGW (man made global warming) and not doing anything about it.

Worth repeating.

Doom1974
5 / 5 (7) Oct 21, 2011
Doom attacks instead of defending his faith.


My faith is in science. I have tried to explain in this forum, but people do not understand physics, do not understand the premise of models, are hiding behind their fingers. If people have closed minds and ears and are spewing idiotic rants, there is no way they can be debated, they can be convinced, or even offer a convincing, scientifically based argument.

Meantime, we are condemning our grand-kids and great-grand-kids, with a complete disrespect of the environment. The idea that nature will take care of our follies, is completely and utterly wrong.

So, feel attacked, but see you at the next water and land wars!! See how the inundation of Asian cities, will help the world progress. In the mean time stick your head in the sand and pray to your faith. Good Luck!!
rawa1
1 / 5 (5) Oct 21, 2011
Currently it has no meaning to invest the (fossil fuel) energy into fight with global warming generated with fossil fuel energy. Even if the connection of global warming and fossil fuels burning would be completely relevant, this high level thought illustrates, this way just makes the things worse.

The only relevant way is the fossil fuel replacement. The nuclear sources are limited and the more advanced ways of nuclear fission will increase the danger of nuclear accidents because of instability of nuclear reactors. The hidden cost of so-called the renewable sources is in their material consumption, environmental impact and instability.

But people are having the true gift from heavens already: the cold fusion. The cold fusion is the only viable way, how to fight both with energetic crisis, AGW, pollution of life environment and geopolitical instability at the same moment. The fact, mainstream science ignores cold fusion research for twenty years is unjustifiable and unforgivable.
LVT
1 / 5 (8) Oct 21, 2011
The basic maths behind Exponential Error wreck any predictive value of longer term (2 weeks) recursive simulation of climate (the one's used by the grants for scares industry). So that's one plank of their well-funded and media repeated scare story that's an obvious lie (to anyone who knows anything).

The other part is the "mitigating" actions, i.e. a world wide tax! The evidence that bureaucrat managed economies are greener economies was falsified by the USSR. The reason for this is that "green" is a luxury good and taxation destroys wealth so that it is no longer an affordable product.
rawa1
1.5 / 5 (6) Oct 21, 2011
that "green" is a luxury good and taxation destroys wealth
I personally don't disagree. The human civilisation just needs the external financial stimulation to switch the fossil fuel sources sooner, before they will get completely depleted. The free market Laissez-faire economy doesn't work at the case of oil prices, which are kept artificially low. It's because the overestimation of fossil fuel supplies enables the local companies to keep their mining quotas high to maximize their profit flow. These local companies and governments don't care about global future of human civilization.

So that the fossil fuel price itself cannot serve as a good financial motivation in fossil fuel replacement, until its price will jump suddenly. The sudden jumps of oil price are just indicating, the free market economy doesn't work well for fossil energy market. Our consumption of oil doesn't fluctuate so much to justify such sudden jumps.
rawa1
1.5 / 5 (6) Oct 21, 2011
It means, I'm not an enemy of free-market economy in any way - but the price of product must be able to follow its offer-demand equilibrium smoothly for being able to serve as a global regulation factor. If it doesn't behave so, then we should apply some artificial control of the consumption of product.

The problem is, many conservatives and proponents of free market economy have just a very poor knowledge of how the economy is actually working - they're idealists of their own kind in the same way, like the commies at North Korea and former USSR. And every idealism is expensive and potentially dangerous "luxury" in the same way, like carbon tax market.
rawa1
1.4 / 5 (7) Oct 21, 2011
Whereas I'm rather supporter or carbon tax, I'm not so optimistic with emissions trading at all. The biggest problem of emissions trading is the fact, it virtualizes the main purpose of carbon tax, i.e. the providing of economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants, the collection of money into introduction of green-house gases free technologies in particular.

Instead of it, the rich companies of western word are sponsoring the introduction of older fossil carbon technologies into the less developed countries and nothing forces them to limit their own production of green-house gases. In this sense, the carbon trading accelerates the global warming instead of prohibiting it.

So we should always analyse the impact of economical incentives thoroughly with respect to their actual form.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Oct 21, 2011
All atmospheric gases cool the earth. They don't warm it. Any mass between you and a radiant energy source will cool you. Why is that? Some of the incoming radiation will be reflected back away from you by the mass present.

This is quite simply wrong. Some materials are transparent to some wavelengths while not being transparent to others.

CO2 is transparent to visible light (and shorter wavelengths) but not so much to infrared. Such light from the sun goes through and hits the Earth. There it gets absorbed and eventually is radiated back (mostly as light of lower wavelength like infrared. If it didn't then the Earth's spectrum would be just like that of the sun. But the Earth's spectrum has a peak at much lower energies).

The emitted infrared photons do interact with the CO2. Via vibration (kinetic energy) that interaction is passed on to the rest of the atmospheric gases. This kinetic energy cannot escape.

Voila: trapped heat.

Or is that too hard to understand?
rawa1
2 / 5 (9) Oct 21, 2011
All atmospheric gases cool the earth. They don't warm it.
Without atmosphere the surface temperature of Venus (460 degrees Celsius) would be comparable to mean surface temperature of Mercury (169.35 degrees Celsius), if not much lower because of its larger distance from Sun. It can serve as a tangible evidence of greenhouse effect.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Oct 21, 2011
oseph Bast, talking to the journal Nature recently, claimed that they had swayed public and political opinions toward their view. But he expressed frustration that they had not been able to convince scientists.

So what if he has swayed public opinion? Does anyone think that public opinion should influence how a general must dispose his forces on a battlefield? Why should general opinion influence scientific finindgs in any way? Science is not a matter of opinion.

Policy makers, on the other hand, are in a bit of a fix (at least the democratically elected ones). Since their jobs are dependent on public opinion they are unlikely to have the backbone to go against it and do what's right instead of what suits their personal interests.

A lot of people here have a very muddled idea of what science is. It's not:
"Let's find out that X causes Y"
but rather:
"Let's study whether there are any correlations between X and Y and let's publish the findings no matter what they are."
rawa1
1 / 5 (5) Oct 21, 2011
..have a very muddled idea of what science is.. whether there are any correlations between X and Y..
OK, but it would literally mean, the science as such is not competent to judge the impact of humans to global warming at all. In general, I explained already many times, that the idea, the science is/should be dealing only with HOW questions but not WHY question is deeply hypocritical and misleading.

http://www.youtub...Pe-DwULM

The science indeed not only avoids the answering of WHY questions, but it solves such a question routinely, in particular because every WHY question could be converted to HOW question simply with changing its semantic ("WHY phenomena occurs" = "HOW its causality appears"). For example, when scientists are describing the evolution of stars of living species, they're actually answering the HOW question of the causality of their evolution. Science is not just about geometry, it deals with temporal connections too.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 21, 2011
Since their jobs are dependent on public opinion they are unlikely to have the backbone to go against it and do what's right

So a dictatorship of the educated elite is the preferred option?

Anti, ever look at the atmospheric transmission curves? CO2 has VERY narrow absorption bands at a 3 or 4 places across the IR spectrum. H2O has many very BROAD IR absorption bands.
rawa1
1 / 5 (7) Oct 21, 2011
I explained many times, the formal science is incompetent to answer the questions about nature of photon, gravity field and/or magnetism, just because it adheres on formal approach, based on atemporal math. The formal math doesn't recognize the time concept, all equations are valid in it at the same moment. So if we reduce the understanding of phenomena to their formal description, we'll lose an important information about their causality. This is not problem of only contemporal physics and/or climatology, but the whole contemporary approach to contemporary science. The people replaced the understanding of phenomena with their formal regressions and they're getting locked with their approach, when the expanding scope of human knowledge reverses the causality arrow of human understanding. Now we cannot improve the human understanding with increasing of number of theories and formal descriptions - but with their mutual reconciliation and reduction of their number.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Oct 21, 2011
OK, but it would literally mean, the science as such is not competent to judge the impact of humans to global warming at all.

What do you mean by 'judge'? Scientists investigate, find a correlation (or not) and publish the results. That's it. If you don't like the findings - tough luck. Science isn't there to please you.

And who, pray tell, is competent to judge whether there is human caused global warming? Public opinion? Elected officials? the rawa1/Calippo sockpuppet-team?

Or shouldn't it rather be informed individuals. Informed by hard data gathered by scientists?

ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Oct 21, 2011
This kinetic energy cannot escape.

BS
If true the earth would have burned up millions of years ago.

Meantime, we are condemning our grand-kids and great-grand-kids,

Yes we are with too much govt spending and regulations.
If you really understand the poor fidelity of the global climate models why are you so eager to embraced the socialism the AGW faithful propose?

Or shouldn't it rather be informed individuals. Informed by hard data gathered by scientists?

That 'hard' data was slapped down not long ago breaking the AGW icon hockey stock. Did Mann et all use 'hard' data? No, but the faithful were eager to believe.
rawa1
1 / 5 (7) Oct 21, 2011
CO2 has VERY narrow absorption bands at a 3 or 4 places across the IR spectrum. H2O has many very BROAD IR absorption bands
This is just the reason, we aren't talking about water vapour during discussions about AGW, just about carbon dioxide. The increased concentration of water in atmosphere could increase the global temperature as likely, as the decreased concentration of it - this effect just depends on the size of the droplets and the droplet/vapour ratio. If we don't know about exact influence of water to global warming, why to dispute it?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Oct 21, 2011
BS
If true the earth would have burned up millions of years ago.

Oh man. I don't even know where to begin with that. Take an introductory physics course. Please. Do.
Ther's a whole host of energy transfer mechanisms (just like infrared can be converted into kinetic energy vibrations can be converted into infrared - or even chemical bonds). The point is that the tranfer of heat from Earth to space is slowed down by greenhouse gases.

If you have ever been in a greenhouse you will notice that it's pretty warm in there - even without any additional heating. But that with increased temperature the heat transfer from the greenhouse to the outside reaches a new equilibrium. Just at a higher temperature. That is why we build greenhouses (out of glas!), you know?
Greenhouses don't burn up. They shift the equilibrium temperature under the glas (or the gas in the case of the Earth) upwards.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 21, 2011
If we don't know about exact influence of water to global warming,

Then why pin the blame on CO2? Because CO2 is easy to measure globally and it is a 'bad' gas the greenies believe they should control with with more state power.
The real hard science is measuring the effects of water in all its forms on the climate. A very high resolution model with high fidelity is required to accomplish this analysis.
And in the end, how will the AGWites control the water to 'save the planet'?
rawa1
1 / 5 (2) Oct 21, 2011
why are you so eager to embraced the socialism the AGW faithful propose
The capitalism cannot feedback the effects, until they're not expressed in money directly. The capitalism tends to destroy the life environment and wipe out all enangered species and just after then to put the questions about their real price for human civilization. Until the price of eradicated species and clean life environment cannot be expressed in money and negotiated at market, then the free market economy has nothing to say about it.

But what if we find, the corals contain the cancer cure just after few years after the elevated carbon dioxide will wipe them all? It's naive example, but it is exactly the way, in which conservatives are thinking about life environment. They cannot recognize time dimension, because the free market economy always operates with actual, momentary prices.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (16) Oct 21, 2011
Anti if you know anything about physics your comment that ALL energy is trapped on the earth by the atm is BS.
reaches a new equilibrium.

To do so kinetic energy MUST escape! But anti said it could NOT escape.
Which is it?
rawa1
1.3 / 5 (7) Oct 21, 2011
why pin the blame on CO2? Because CO2 is easy to measure globally
Because we are sure with its green house effect and it's increasing is undeniable. I support the fight against fossil fuel economy, because it's the only way, how not to get surprised one day, when most fossil fuels will get depleted and the people will start the global nuclear war for the rest of their sources. The free market economy is not able of long-term strategic decisions. As the periodic economical crisis are demonstrating, it's principally unstable system, which can not even drive itself, not to say about some fossil fuel consumption.

IMO when the price of oil will exceed 200 - 400 USD per barrel, then the risk of global nuclear conflict will become unavoidable. It's simple causal dependence, a consequence of thermodynamic equilibrium.

http://www.global...aid=1928
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (16) Oct 21, 2011
rawa1 capitalism provides feedback via pricing trillions of time every day.
If govts get out of the business of legal plundering and protect private property rights, then you will find a way to 'save the planet'.
Ownership rights of an elephant herd were recognized and enforced. What happened? The elephant herd prospered. So much so they needed to cull the herd and wanted to sell the ivory. But were banned from doing so.
clean life environment cannot be expressed in money and negotiated at market

Yes it can is done every day all over the world.
antialias_physorg
4.8 / 5 (5) Oct 21, 2011
The kinetic energy cannot escape (unless a particle drifts off into space...which is probably not much of a factor or we'd have lost all our atmosphere a long time ago)

But excited patricles can fall back into ground states and reemit an infrared photon (which might get caught again or might escape). Or the vibrational energy could be used to facilitate an endothermic reaction (locking the energy in a chemical bond). so there is ways that the heat can be transformed into something else or entirely leave the Earth.
(Like a greenhouse made of glas will eventually be warmed by the warm air inside (vibrating air molecules) and start radiating as much heat back as it gets at the equilibrium point)

But that's not the point. The point is that at any one time, thanks to an increased amount of greenhouse gases, more energy is stored in the atmosphere than without the gas present. So the temperature equilibrium point is raised until, again, as much is radiated off as is received.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (16) Oct 21, 2011
Because we are sure with its green house effect and it's increasing is undeniable.

What undeniable?
Correlation is not causation.
Why was the global temperature higher over 1000 years ago with lower CO2?
The free market economy is not able of long-term strategic decisions

Of course it is and has done so many times, if govt stays out of the way and stops wasting resources on Solyndra like companies.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (15) Oct 21, 2011
unless a particle drifts off into space..

No, the energy is RADIATED into space. The earth radiates energy into space as we speak.
Particles don't have to drift off into space.
equilibrium point is raised until, again, as much is radiated off as is received.

But said it could NOT escape, and now you say it can?
rawa1
1.9 / 5 (8) Oct 21, 2011
capitalism provides feedback via pricing trillions of time
Indeed - at the local level - and it's extremely useful for it. But at the global level the price of commodities is not driven with offer-demand equilibrium, but with various strategical and political decisions and free market economy cannot be used for its control anymore. As I explained above, the fluctuations in fossil fuel prices have nothing to do with actual demand and market equilibrium - they exhibit a deep hysteresis, which is devastating for global economy.

Briefly speaking, the belief, that laissez faire economy could itself control the human civilization at general level is the same - just dual - utopia, like the belief, the communism could control the economy at the local, communal level. After all, if it would be true, we wouldn't keep the governments and central banks and the day of tax freedom wouldn't converge to the mid of year. I do believe in deep dualism of both these approaches.
rawa1
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 21, 2011
It's similar to evolution of stars - until the massive body remains small, then the local equilibrium of attractive and repulsive forces remains sufficient for keeping the whole body stable. But when the mass of star increases, this local equilibrium is not sufficient to maintain the stability of the whole body anymore because of limited speed of energy spreading. And the star will change into periodically exploding Cepheid in the same way, like the free-market economy suffering with periodical economical crisis.

We just need to think more physically about global economy. Our understanding of economy is as rudimentary, as our understanding of the physics with dense aether model. And of course, it's still strongly biased politically ("the communism is an evil"). Actually, the contemporary western democracies are more socialistic today by their very nature, than many socialistic countries of former East block.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Oct 21, 2011
No, the energy is RADIATED into space.

You were asking about my statement that energy locked in vibrating molecules cannot escape and I told you. THAT form of energy (kinetic) cannot escape - unless the vibrating particle leaves the Earth.

If that vibrating particle, however, manages to fall back to a ground state and in doing so reemits a photon (transforming the kinetic energy back into infrared radiation) then that is an energy form that can escape.

Through the intermediate storage time as kinetic energy the total amount of energy stored at any one time (and hence the temperature) in the atmosphere is higher than if such a storage were not possible (which would be the case if no greenhouse gases were present).

Think of it like a water hose with a reservoir in the middle. After a time the amount of water in and out are the same with or without the reservoir. But with the reservoir the amount retained in the system is higher at any time than without it.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 21, 2011
Yes, he did.

And you support and defend personal attacks on those who disagree with you on matters of science?
No he didn't you just can't read English.

I support personal attacks on people that make personal attacks. That covers YOU and Oliver.

I deal with Oliver's bad science by using good science, which he hates. When he makes personal attacks, which is nearly as frequently as you, I return the favor.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Oct 21, 2011
If that vibrating particle, however, manages to fall back to a ground state and in doing so reemits a photon (transforming the kinetic energy back into infrared radiation) then that is an energy form that can escape.

Photons have kinetic energy.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 21, 2011
Our understanding of economy is as rudimentary

YOUR understanding of economy is rudimentary.
contemporary western democracies are more socialistic today

It is not by their nature they are socialistic.
Why is it so difficult to understand that more socialism lead to a declining economy?
My understanding of this is quite clear. Why can't you see it rawa?

Pricing works at ALL levels of the economy, localy AND globally.

I can see you have a very poor understanding of economics.
the fluctuations in fossil fuel prices have nothing to do with actual demand and market equilibrium -

Of course they do, but lately price fluctuations are due to inflation, too many worthless dollars. Oil prized in Swiss francs has been quite stable, until they start devaluing their currency by inflating it.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 22, 2011
. But at the global level the price of commodities is not driven with offer-demand equilibrium,

"China's biggest producer of rare earths is suspending production for one month in hopes of boosting slumping prices"
"Companies are restarting production in Canada, California, Russia and elsewhere "
http://www.physor...firstCmt
Au-Pu
1 / 5 (7) Oct 22, 2011
What a lot of useless waffle!
We ARE in an interglacial period.
We have not as yet reached its tipping point for it to start to cool.
Therefor we are still in the warming phase of the interglacial period.
So humans have not caused global warming. It is part of the planets natural cycle.
The questions to ask are; can we cause it to accelerate its rate of warming and can we slow its rate of warming
So why can we not cut all the waffle and concentrate on the two important questions?
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Oct 22, 2011
Pricing works at ALL levels of the economy, localy AND globally
Pricing yes, but supply-demand equilibrium not. If the supply-demand equilibrium would work so, then all our cars would run on cold fusion generators already. But the supply-demand equilibrium is not the only aspect of "pricing". For example, the tendency for protection of investments is another aspect of "pricing" and it tends to go against the supply-demand equilibrium because of its conservative nature. The (relatively) low prices of oil are given by many political pressures. The formation of monopoles is natural result of supply-demand equillibrium, but monopols aren't motivated to maintain the supply-demand equillibrium anymore - they tend to maximize their own profit only. Which is why the governments are fighting against monopoles in the name of "free market protection". How is it possible, the result of free market becomes harmful for free market? Well, it's just a question of scale/scope, again.
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2011
We have not as yet reached its tipping point for it to start to cool. Therefor we are still in the warming phase of the interglacial period. So humans have not caused global warming. It is part of the planets natural cycle.
This is just a theory. The another AGW skeptics are saying instead, the global warming is BS, because new ice age is already underway...;-)

http://www.21stce...Age.html

As you can see, I could defeat your skeptical "arguments" with "arguments" of another skeptics easily, because you all are just inventing stuffs. You can simply say what you want about climate and you'll always remain right - which is why nobody will take care about it.
BaconBits
5 / 5 (3) Oct 22, 2011
Denying human induced warming of the planet seems to be a pathological condition that isn't treatable with reason, evidence or discourse. Kudos to A_P for even trying.

If we can invest $700 Billion a year into military employment, weapons technology, bombs & munitions etc. on the anticipation of future threats to our security then what makes threats from environmental degradation so off limits to anticipate and invest in to prepare for? The actual military impacts that we have faced have killed far fewer Americans (citizens & soldiers) than the deaths from the health effects of pollution over the past 50 years. http://pubs.aeawe...1.5.1649 The faction that is so strongly committed to denying global warming is the same faction that has used all manner of existential threats from evildoers to justify trillions of dollars be spent preparing for those threats.
BaconBits
5 / 5 (3) Oct 22, 2011
Denying human induced warming of the planet seems to be a pathological condition that isn't treatable with reason, evidence or discourse. Kudos to A_P for even trying.

If we can invest $700 Billion a year into military employment, weapons technology, bombs & munitions etc. on the anticipation of future threats to our security then what makes threats from environmental degradation so off limits to anticipate and invest in to prepare for? The actual military impacts that we have faced have killed far fewer Americans (citizens & soldiers) than the deaths from the health effects of pollution over the past 50 years. http://pubs.aeawe...1.5.1649 The faction that is so strongly committed to denying global warming is the same faction that has used all manner of existential threats from evildoers to justify trillions of dollars be spent preparing for those threats.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Oct 22, 2011
The problems is, we are producing these billions just with fossil fuel burning. So if we would invest them into fight with global warming, we will just make the things worse. The true fight with AGW consists of fossil fuel replacement with technology, which really saves the money and life environment. If we would implement the cold fusion, we wouldn't need to invest the money into wars for fossil fuel sources anymore, these saved money will increase the yield of this technology even more.

http://pesn.com/2...s_E-Cat/

Without fossil fuel replacement all theories of fight with AGW (or whatever else) are just utopia.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Oct 22, 2011
The true fight with AGW consists of fossil fuel replacement with technology,

But that is not what the AGWites are doing. They chose the political path, the socialist path, the central planning path which stifles innovation and technology.
Socialism is as socialism does.
AGWites want control and power more than prosperity.
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Oct 22, 2011
Socialism is as socialism does
Well, but the question is, whether the opponents of AGW fighting don't politicize this movement more, than its proponents. You should realize, the fight with AGW is global political decision, which cannot be monetarized at free market at all. Which profit would you get, if you limit the carbon emission in your company? Absolutely nothing - everything is based on the belief, if all people would do the very same, it would have some noticeable effect. Such belief is basically socialistic in its very nature.

We can just ask after then, whether the free market economy is capable of such strategic decisions at all.

Actually, it's the main problem with introduction of cold fusion. It's a technology, which could be extremely useful for humans as a whole, but from individual entrepreneur perspective doesn't provide large space for profit and its introduction will restrict the profit of many people, who are influential by now.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 22, 2011
restrict the profit of many people, who are influential by now.

They have influence because of socialistic govts.
from individual entrepreneur perspective doesn't provide large space for profit

Why not?
BaconBits
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 22, 2011
Denying human induced warming of the planet seems to be a pathological condition that isn't treatable with reason, evidence or discourse. Kudos to A_P for even trying.

If we can invest $700 Billion a year into military employment, weapons technology, bombs & munitions etc. on the anticipation of future threats to our security then what makes threats from environmental degradation so off limits to anticipate and invest in to prepare for? The actual military impacts that we have faced have killed far fewer Americans (citizens & soldiers) than the deaths from the health effects of pollution over the past 50 years.
http://pubs.aeawe...1.5.1649

The faction that is so strongly committed to denying global warming is the same faction that has used all manner of existential threats from evildoers to justify trillions of dollars be spent preparing for those threats.

Seem like disingenuous BS to me.
Callippo
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 22, 2011
They have influence because of socialistic govts.
Nope, the fossil fuel lobby is powerful at all countries on the world, just because the energy management is everything for contemporary human civilization. Who controls the energy controls the power too.
Why not?
Because it's basically so cheap and easy process, which everyone could imitate and it requires just a small amount of raw materials. It's like the selling of bottled air with minimal value added. Don't forget, the cold fusion of hydrogen at nickel was revealed quite accidentally during common biochemical experiment. It doesn't require any research and/or expensive devices, it's literally free. Which makes a problem in market driven society and it could have many unexpected side effects.
dlr
2 / 5 (4) Oct 22, 2011
Well, what do you expect when almost all of the 'scientists' doing the 'research' are dedicated environment activists. I trust their conclusions as much as I trust the pronoucements of the tobacco companies on smoking and lung cancer.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (15) Oct 22, 2011
the fossil fuel lobby is powerful

Only if the govt empowers them.
How powerful are they in the US when the govt prevents them from drilling or building a refinery?
The govt is addicted to the tax revenue generated by gas taxes and oil leases.
A limited, not socialist state, would not need the revenue.
Callippo
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 23, 2011
what do you expect when almost all of the 'scientists' doing the 'research' are dedicated environment activists
What else do you expect, when almost all climatologists are payed from mandatory fees? The climate research has no impact to convertible commodities, cannot be patented and its results have always global impact. If you enjoy the climate research, you must have a strong socialistic feeling in your very nature...;-)

We can ask again, how the free market could handle such research under conditions of Laissez-faire economy.
Callippo
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 23, 2011
Only if the govt empowers them.
And it does so. The fossil fuel lobby is usually the main source of gross domestic product - until you're not living in Japan, indeed. It's not accidental, the first AGW treaty was signed in Kyoto, not Warsaw for example (the Poland is main exporter of coal in Europe and strong fighter against AGW movement).

http://blog.herit...-poland/
Ethelred
1 / 5 (3) Oct 23, 2011
We ARE in an interglacial period.
This is like asking for a intermediate lifeform that exists today. We are NOT in an interglacial period. This is because those can only be defined by between to REAL glacial periods. I don't see us as being in an glacial period and I don't even see them growing. IF in the milenia to follow glaciers start to grow and form continental glaciers and that isn't millions of years from now THEN it will be reasonable to call this period an interglacial because it will have been between two glacial periods.

We do NOT know that another glacial period is coming. Unless of course you have access to a time machine.

Ethelred
Ethelred
1.2 / 5 (5) Oct 23, 2011
BaconBits

Posting the same thing twice could just be you were impatient. We saw the post. YOU saw the post.

So the third time was pure spam. Ranked at one and reported.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Oct 23, 2011
We can ask again, how the free market could handle such research under conditions of Laissez-faire economy.

Those who are in a position to loose money due to "climate change" fund the research.
"The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is an independent, nonprofit, scientific, and educational organization dedicated to reducing the losses deaths, injuries, and property damage from crashes on the nation's highways."
And are supported by auto insurers. IIHS has more rigorous tests than the federal govt and auto companies take extra effort to pass their safety tests.
Disaster relief and flood insurance are subsidized by the US govt.
Commodity markets and capitalists need research to predict future profits and earning.
Maybe the question should be is why how has climate research been handled by govt and its zealots?
Seeker2
1 / 5 (4) Oct 23, 2011
ryggesogn2:
...If you really understand the poor fidelity of the global climate models

Forget the models. Look at the evidence.

...why are you so eager to embraced the socialism the AGW faithful propose?

Why defend your country from foreign invaders? Is declaration of war socialism? Some threats require central planning for survival so that we can have freedom and democracy.

Are mandatory vaccinations to prevent an epidemic a form of central planning? Is florination good for public health? Smoking bans? Gun control?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 23, 2011
Forget the models. Look at the evidence.

The 'evidence' for CO2 is based upon the low fidelity models.

What is the treat? Threat projections are based upon low fidelity climate models.

Is florination good for public health?

No.
Gun Control?

No.
Are mandatory vaccinations to prevent an epidemic a form of central planning?
No.

Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (7) Oct 23, 2011
rawa1:
...The increased concentration of water in atmosphere could increase the global temperature

Could be a more important factor than CO2. When the artic ice melted it means another ocean to fuel evaporation, accelerating GW.

Climate modelers used to talk about rising sea levels. Actually increased ocean temperatures increase evaporation causing sea levels to fall rather than rise?
Seeker2
1 / 5 (3) Oct 23, 2011
ryggesogn2:
...The 'evidence' for CO2 is based upon the low fidelity models.

So what do the hi-fi models say? I'm not looking for evidence of CO2 or AGW but why the glaciers are melting. They seem to end up as waves of water flowing UP the street in front of my house.

Like they say, all politics is local.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (3) Oct 23, 2011
dlr:
...what do you expect when almost all of the 'scientists' doing the 'research' are dedicated environment activists

Maybe they're just smarter than the average bear.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 23, 2011
So what do the hi-fi models say?

They don't exist.
Seeker2
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 23, 2011
Callippo:
...If you enjoy the climate research, you must have a strong socialistic feeling in your very nature...;-)

I don't enjoy or do the research I pay for it. Think of it as an investment - sort of like life insurance. Or maybe seat belts.

...We can ask again, how the free market could handle such research under conditions of Laissez-faire economy.

Without such research there may not be much of any economy.
jsdarkdestruction
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2011
Oliver Manuel's recent efforts to plaster Physorg.com and other public news sites with his theories and personal URLs are a bit puzzling, as scientists have a variety of publications available to communicate directly to each other in. My best guess is that he is desperately trying to prop up his legacy in light of his arrest in his university office on 7 charges of rape and sodomy based on allegations by 4 of his own children. The charges have been reduced to one count of felony attempted sodomy, not necessarily because of his innocence, but because of the statute of limitations. One can only guess how the recent charges and decades of family strife have affected his ability to reason rationally and to remain objective while defending his unpopular theories.

http://mominer.ms...hildren/

http://www.homefa...uel.html

antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2011
Well, what do you expect when almost all of the 'scientists' doing the 'research' are dedicated environment activists.

Source?

Anyways: the reason they are environmental activists (something I haven't seen any indication of) would be that they can read the numbers of the measurements they take.

They don't forge the measurements so that they come up with numbers that support some environmental activist propaganda. (if they did then different groups would come up with different numbers).

Once you can read the data and see what it says then you turn into an environmentally _conscious_ person pretty quickly.

Much like if you have ever been in an accident you will surely be very conscious in the future about the use of seatbelts.

Activism implies some agenda which is not based on facts - and if there is anything that characterizes a person who has spent years/decades to become a scientist it is the love of facts over 'gut feelings'.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 27, 2011
We can ask again, how the free market could handle such research under conditions of Laissez-faire economy.

Without such research there may not be much of any economy.

Which is why there would be a demand.
Profit motivates the free market. Mitigating risks is profitable which is why insurance companies created UL to test electric appliances for fire safety and why they created the IIHS to test autos for safety AND to limit the costs of repair.
Ethelred
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2011
And just what company is going to pay the cost of researching the climate.

This I have just got to hear.

The energy producers? The advertisers that convince people to burn coal and oil? The toll road owners? Who? In what companies interest is it? ALL is not an answer as ALL don't do specific research.

Ethelred
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Oct 27, 2011
In what companies interest is it?

Though I agree that no company has the means to do global research into climate change there are companies who benfit immensely from the data and the scenarios: Insurance companies.

By extension governments should also be able to profit fom such research as investment now into safeguards will be much more cost effective than investment into remedies/cleanup 10-20 years down the road.

Unfortunately I have yet to witness the government that is able - or willing - to plan that far ahead. Maximum attention span seems to be until the next elections (or in the case of autocratic/totalitarian/dictatorial regimes: none at all. Because there the ruling individuals, by definition, don't even pretend to care about the subjects and have enough wealth to buy shelter from climate change for themselves)
Ethelred
1 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2011
Insurance companies don't care. They can and do call things Acts of God and then don't pay. They research things they have to pay out on.

Ethelred
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Oct 27, 2011
Insurance companies use the data to calculate what kind of premiums they must charge in order to cover their (potential) expenses. You can buy insurance against flooding, lightning strikes, tsunami damage, tornado damage and whatnot. If you're betting against these events (which is what insurance basically is) then you'd better know the odds.

On the other hand if insurance companies were to play the 'Act of God' card all the time then no one would buy insurance.
(And the world becoming more and more atheist the 'Act of God' card shouldn't work anymore for too long, anyhow)
Ethelred
1 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2011
Act of God means natural causes and usually includes Acts of War as well. All that stuff preceeding whatnot is stuff you have a REAL hard time getting insurance for unless the Government is supporting it.

The question was for Marjon who thinks EVERYTHING, except maybe military and Somalia doesn't have an effective military, can be done without a government.

I expect him to evade. He knows the insurance companies aren't paying to research into Global Warming. Since they aren't doing that I think your are attempting to ram a square peg into a round hole. Remember there is no such thing as a monopoly in Marjon's world, thus no company can be big enough to handle serious natural disasters.

See it is not just a matter of knowing the odds. It is also a matter of being able to pay and in a timely manner. A basement flooded by burst pipes is ONE basement. What basement had an insurance payout in New Orleans?

Ethelred
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Oct 27, 2011
The question was for Marjon who thinks EVERYTHING, except maybe military and Somalia doesn't have an effective military, can be done without a government.

Oh, I totally agree that governments are necessary for a host of problems (healtcare, the actual protection from a variety of natural desasters - not just the money to pay for it, infrastructure, fundamental research, legislation, etc. )

Just saying that climate research isn't some "just for the heck of it" research but that the results can have very real (i.e. fiscally important) ramifications for some companies and it is therefore in the interest of some companies to get these results (insurance, shipping, avaition, ... ).

Insurance companies are probably not the best companies to ask, though, because they will charge higher premiums because of global warming - whether it is happening or not.
omatumr
1 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2011
Update:

1. Princeton Plasma Physics has an intriguing report on the Sun's mysterious magnetic fields:

www.princeton.edu...featured

Features of the Sun's magnetic activity are like the pulsar core of the Crab nebula!

2. Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) also acknowledges that the solar magnetic field plays a strong role in producing hugh temperature changes between the "surface" of the Sun (photosphere) and the planets:

www.physorg.com/n...sun.html

"Scientists have detected that helium in the solar wind is eight times hotter than hydrogen, though they dont know why."

This may be related to [1]:

a.) Acceleration of He+2 versus H+1, and/or

b.) Production of He by H-fusion (27 MeV) and H by neutron-decay (O.782 MeV)

1. "Neutron Repulsion", The APEIRON Journal, in press (2011)

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1
omatumr
1 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2011
1. Features of the Sun's magnetic activity are like the pulsar core of the Crab nebula:

www.princeton.edu...featured

2. Helium in the solar wind is eight times hotter than Hydrogen:

www.physorg.com/n...sun.html

3. Production of He by H-fusion (27 MeV) and H by neutron-decay (O.782 MeV):

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1


These empirical facts must be understood if we are to understand why Earth's climate changes.
Nerdyguy
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2011
And just what company is going to pay the cost of researching the climate.

This I have just got to hear.

The energy producers? The advertisers that convince people to burn coal and oil? The toll road owners? Who? In what companies interest is it? ALL is not an answer as ALL don't do specific research.

Ethelred


Agreed. This shouldn't be a business issue, any more than we should penalize corporations for, let's say, not doing more to support research about the impact of comets on species extinction.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 27, 2011
Insurance companies are probably not the best companies to ask, though,

Why not? They have the most to loose if they screw up.
Do you think housing and buildings in hurricane prone areas would be better built if insurance companies set the building codes instead of local govts dependent upon the local builder lobby?
Want to buy a house? Have the cash? No? Then you get a mortgage. The mortgage company wants an insurance policy to cover their losses of the house is damaged by fire, wind, etc. They also have a stake in loaning money on a sound structure. The insurance company needs to evaluate their risk so they need to know if the beach is eroding or if the sea level is rising.
But if govts pay for it or subsidize houses on hillsides that turn to mud (CA), insurance companies are off the hook don't need to do their homework.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Oct 28, 2011
And, of course, investors and corporations would fund research to evaluate future investments that would be affected by changes in climate.
Enron invested heavily into the Clinton administration lobbying for Koyto to profit from their natural gas business. But this type of 'investment' has nothing to do with free markets.
'Green' companies have 'invested' heavily in the Obama administration just as other companies 'invested' in similar projects in the Carter admim.
Get the govt out of the way and businesses will be forced by their competitors and customers to fund research.
Ethelred
1 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2011
Funny I don't you see you answering the challenge. I see you evading as usual. And you waited to ride in on other's efforts.

Where is the insurance company that is doing expensive research on the possibility of global warming? And satellites, weather stations, radar, and scientists all cost money. A lot of money.

Waving your hands and saying they would fund it is real easy. Only it makes little sense to prove to others that your company might be doing things that are bad for the marks. The marks might sue. Don't know where they would sue in Marjon's world so I guess all they would really need to invest in is armament.

Get the govt out of the way and businesses will be forced by their competitors and customers to fund research.
A chorus of ROTFLMAOF seems appropriate. Forced how? With no research being done in the first place and no way to force people to do anything except with weaponry that is a pretty silly statement.

Ethelred
Arkaleus
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2011
Welcome to the "Ethelred Forum," where all thinking minds come to have their views corrected by he.

So deep and insightful are the wizened announcements from the great Ethelred that all debate must include his nuncios. Birds cease from their song, animals from their grazing, and all the creatures of the earth tilt their ears towards the great one speaking.

Hail Ethelred, the mightiest of the forum-trolls clan! He leaves no opinion unmolested, no theory unaccosted, and will always-have-the-last-word. Period.

How would we continue without the added value of the wisdom of Ethelred? Who could tease truth from fiction, separate light from darkness, or even find the correct way to let out one's water without our great Ethelred to guide us?
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2011
Where is the insurance company that is doing expensive research on the possibility of global warming?

Why should they? The govt is doing it for them.
However, because the govt funded research on automobile safety is inadequate, they do fund the IIHS which is driving product safety better than the govt.

I would also suspect many companies have commissioned their own private studies for stategic planning, but they won't share.
Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2011
Food for thought: what information, exactly, would suffice to convince the massive egos on here who are so certain of their own infallibility?

I am deeply curious to know, as it seems to me that the vast majority of you have staked out an opinion and spend most of your time ridiculing anyone who challenges it. It's obvious that neither side of this debate is learning a damn thing from the other.

I'm clearly on the fence with this and would like to see more definitive information and whole lot less name-calling. Am I the only one?

So, again, what information would suffice? Is there such a beast?
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2011
When all is said and done who cares what the populace thinks? Those who can decide policy are the ones who need to be convinced (and optimally those should be smarter than the average voter - so easily able to understand the facts)

convincing the people is a 'nice to have' feature. But by no means essential.

I mean you could tell most people that a tsunami approaches and they wouldn't believe you until they are 20 feet under water. Sometimes survival decisions must be made without the consent of everybody - especially when it's about the survival of the species.
Arkaleus
2 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2011
"Sometimes survival decisions must be made without the consent of everybody - especially when it's about the survival of the species."

Sure, but you need to be prepared to make war you seek to rule with your autocratic determinations.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (12) Oct 28, 2011
Nerd, it seems to me it is the socialist/AGWite who is so sure of their infallibility. They must believe humans are the cause of climate change so humans can implement the cure.
If humans are not the cause, humans are diminished in their minds as there is nothing we can do but adapt, again.
Socialism trends along similar lines as the socialist believes they can predict and control emergent systems like climate and and the economy.
Look back at the 'progressives' in the early 1900s: Teddy and Woodrow Wilson. They were great believers that the state could and must be the vehicle to create economic prosperity. They had the formula to counter those messy free markets.
So they created the Federal Reserve that caused the Great Depression and started the War to End All Wars that spawned WWII and the Cold War.
Since Ehrlich proclaimed global cooling in the 70s and the Limits to Growth, I can't trust their proclamations regarding emergent systems.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Oct 28, 2011
Sure, but you need to be prepared to make war you seek to rule with your autocratic determinations.

Does one? I have seen countries wage wars on other countries against popular opinion - or make any number of unpopular decisions (raise taxes, pay bailouts, go into debt and whatnot) and there has been no need for armed conflict against those who weren't in favor of these actions.

Governments are well able to make unpopular decisions.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 28, 2011
no need for armed conflict

Tyrants first make sure those who oppose are disarmed.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Oct 28, 2011
And people who truly believe in a working democracy have no need for weapons.

Only those who want "democracy as long as it suits them" demand to stay armed.
Ethelred
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2011
Who could tease truth from fiction, separate light from darkness, or even find the correct way to let out one's water without our great Ethelred to guide us?
Still arrogantly assuming that you speak for everyone I see. Still trying to shut me up by pretending I am sort of tyrant with massive powers.

If people listen to me more than they do you or your idol Oliver K. Manuel it might just be that you and he don't make much sense.

Ethelred
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Oct 29, 2011
what information, exactly, would suffice to convince the massive egos on here who are so certain of their own infallibility?
I am curious. Just who fits that for you? I mean beside Oliver and Marjon.

as it seems to me that the vast majority of you have staked out an opinion
Oh horseshit. Most of us have opinions but will change them given enough evidence or a clearly and logically written statement, just don't expect the change overnight. About twenty percent or so, I consulted a Great Sage for that number, the Right Honorable WAG, so it is incontrovertible, are here to push political agendas and about half a dozen are Cranking.

as it seems to me that the vast majority of you have staked out an opinion
No. Only those that here specifically to push a political agenda are doing that. You can see who by checking their profiles and looking at what articles they discuss. If it is almost all about climate in some way they have a clear agenda.>>
Ethelred
1 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2011
Am I the only one?
No.

So, again, what information would suffice?
For some nothing would. For others I think the next decade will tell us a lot.

If you were to look over these discussion for the last two years you will find that there has been a change from a total denial of global warming to a claim that humans have nothing to do with it. Minds do not change overnight.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2011
And people who truly believe in a working democracy have no need for weapons.

And these people also believe in the tooth fairy and AGW.
What stops 50% 1 of the people from subjugating the minority? That is a functioning democracy, majority rules.
Two wolves and a sheep voting what's for dinner is a democracy.
omatumr
1 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2011
If you were to look over these discussion for the last two years you will find that there has been a change from a total denial of global warming to a claim that humans have nothing to do with it. Minds do not change overnight.


Really?

1. Global warming scientists:

http://judithcurr...ientists

http://pielkeclim...entists/

2. US Space Center:
http://www.physor...uth.html

3. Princeton:
http://www.prince...featured

4. Harvard:
http://www.physor...sun.html

5. Penn State and Nicolaus Copernicus University:
http://live.psu.e...ry/56029

http://www.physor...lar.html

6. Mars News:

http://www.foxnew...c6W6l2Zf
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2011
Yes, Oliver really, the discussions on THIS site .

I don't expect hard core denialists that are pushing politics or crank pseudo science to change their thinking. For instance YOU posted that idiotic paper that claimed that the atmosphere doesn't warm the Earth. After I showed just how ludicrous it was you haven't posted it again BUT you refuse to acknowledge that was wrong. That is hardcore head in the sand behavior.

As for your links.

1 That wasn't anyone discussing GW on this site and is from a hard core denialist cherry picking what to quote.

2 Not GW. Despite you spamming the discussion.

3 Not GW nor does it support your nonsense about the Sun having a neutronium pulsar core.

4 Same comment

5 Same comment

6 Such an unbiased source you have there. FOX. Yet it still isn't about GW and it still doesn't support you.

Sorry that was major fail to support your claim that I was wrong.

Ethelred