View Full Version : Bad science

11-05-2006, 08:40 AM
I guess this involves politics is an obtuse sort of way.....but it does involve boating, also indirectly.
It's kind of long, but very interesting.
To see the original article w/ all the graphs and references, go here;

Climate chaos? Don't believe it
By Christopher Monckton, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:14am GMT 05/11/2006

The Stern report last week predicted dire economic and social effects of unchecked global warming. In what many will see as a highly controversial polemic, Christopher Monckton disputes the 'facts' of this impending apocalypse and accuses the UN and its scientists of distorting the truth

Biblical droughts, floods, plagues and extinctions?

Last week, Gordon Brown and his chief economist both said global warming was the worst "market failure" ever. That loaded soundbite suggests that the "climate-change" scare is less about saving the planet than, in Jacques Chirac's chilling phrase, "creating world government". This week and next, I'll reveal how politicians, scientists and bureaucrats contrived a threat of Biblical floods, droughts, plagues, and extinctions worthier of St John the Divine than of science.

Sir Nicholas Stern's report on the economics of climate change, which was published last week, says that the debate is over. It isn't. There are more greenhouse gases in the air than there were, so the world should warm a bit, but that's as far as the "consensus" goes. After the recent hysteria, you may not find the truth easy to believe. So you can find all my references and detailed calculations here.

The Royal Society says there's a worldwide scientific consensus. It brands Apocalypse-deniers as paid lackeys of coal and oil corporations. I declare my interest: I once took the taxpayer's shilling and advised Margaret Thatcher, FRS, on scientific scams and scares. Alas, not a red cent from Exxon.

In 1988, James Hansen, a climatologist, told the US Congress that temperature would rise 0.3C by the end of the century (it rose 0.1C), and that sea level would rise several feet (no, one inch). The UN set up a transnational bureaucracy, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The UK taxpayer unwittingly meets the entire cost of its scientific team, which, in 2001, produced the Third Assessment Report, a Bible-length document presenting apocalyptic conclusions well beyond previous reports.

advertisementThis week, I'll show how the UN undervalued the sun's effects on historical and contemporary climate, slashed the natural greenhouse effect, overstated the past century's temperature increase, repealed a fundamental law of physics and tripled the man-made greenhouse effect.

Next week, I'll demonstrate the atrocious economic, political and environmental cost of the high-tax, zero-freedom, bureaucratic centralism implicit in Stern's report; I'll compare the global-warming scare with previous sci-fi alarums; and I'll show how the environmentalists' "precautionary principle" (get the state to interfere now, just in case) is killing people.

So to the scare. First, the UN implies that carbon dioxide ended the last four ice ages. It displays two 450,000-year graphs: a sawtooth curve of temperature and a sawtooth of airborne CO2 that's scaled to look similar. Usually, similar curves are superimposed for comparison. The UN didn't do that. If it had, the truth would have shown: the changes in temperature preceded the changes in CO2 levels.

Next, the UN abolished the medieval warm period (the global warming at the end of the First Millennium AD). In 1995, David Deming, a geoscientist at the University of Oklahoma, had written an article reconstructing 150 years of North American temperatures from borehole data. He later wrote: "With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. One of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said: 'We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.' "

So they did. The UN's second assessment report, in 1996, showed a 1,000-year graph demonstrating that temperature in the Middle Ages was warmer than today. But the 2001 report contained a new graph showing no medieval warm period. It wrongly concluded that the 20th century was the warmest for 1,000 years. The graph looked like an ice hockey-stick. The wrongly flat AD1000-AD1900 temperature line was the shaft: the uptick from 1900 to 2000 was the blade. Here's how they did it:

They gave one technique for reconstructing pre-thermometer temperature 390 times more weight than any other (but didn't say so).

The technique they overweighted was one which the UN's 1996 report had said was unsafe: measurement of tree-rings from bristlecone pines. Tree-rings are wider in warmer years, but pine-rings are also wider when there's more carbon dioxide in the air: it's plant food. This carbon dioxide fertilisation distorts the calculations.

They said they had included 24 data sets going back to 1400. Without saying so, they left out the set showing the medieval warm period, tucking it into a folder marked "Censored Data".

They used a computer model to draw the graph from the data, but scientists later found that the model almost always drew hockey-sticks even if they fed in random, electronic "red noise".

The large, full-colour "hockey-stick" was the key graph in the UN's 2001 report, and the only one to appear six times. The Canadian Government copied it to every household. Four years passed before a leading scientific journal would publish the truth about the graph. Did the UN or the Canadian government apologise? Of course not. The UN still uses the graph in its publications.

Even after the "hockey stick" graph was exposed, scientific papers apparently confirming its abolition of the medieval warm period appeared. The US Senate asked independent statisticians to investigate. They found that the graph was meretricious, and that known associates of the scientists who had compiled it had written many of the papers supporting its conclusion.

The UN, echoed by Stern, says the graph isn't important. It is. Scores of scientific papers show that the medieval warm period was real, global and up to 3C warmer than now. Then, there were no glaciers in the tropical Andes: today they're there. There were Viking farms in Greenland: now they're under permafrost. There was little ice at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found none.

The Antarctic, which holds 90 per cent of the world's ice and nearly all its 160,000 glaciers, has cooled and gained ice-mass in the past 30 years, reversing a 6,000-year melting trend. Data from 6,000 boreholes worldwide show global temperatures were higher in the Middle Ages than now. And the snows of Kilimanjaro are vanishing not because summit temperature is rising (it isn't) but because post-colonial deforestation has dried the air. Al Gore please note.

In some places it was also warmer than now in the Bronze Age and in Roman times. It wasn't CO2 that caused those warm periods. It was the sun. So the UN adjusted the maths and all but extinguished the sun's role in today's warming. Here's how:

The UN dated its list of "forcings" (influences on temperature) from 1750, when the sun, and consequently air temperature, was almost as warm as now. But its start-date for the increase in world temperature was 1900, when the sun, and temperature, were much cooler.

Every "forcing" produces "climate feedbacks" making temperature rise faster. For instance, as temperature rises in response to a forcing, the air carries more water vapour, the most important greenhouse gas; and polar ice melts, increasing heat absorption. Up goes the temperature again. The UN more than doubled the base forcings from greenhouse gases to allow for climate feedbacks. It didn't do the same for the base solar forcing.

Two centuries ago, the astronomer William Herschel was reading Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations when he noticed that quoted grain prices fell when the number of sunspots rose. Gales of laughter ensued, but he was right. At solar maxima, when the sun was at its hottest and sunspots showed, temperature was warmer, grain grew faster and prices fell. Such observations show that even small solar changes affect climate detectably. But recent solar changes have been big.

Sami Solanki, a solar physicist, says that in the past half-century the sun has been warmer, for longer, than at any time in at least the past 11,400 years, contributing a base forcing equivalent to a quarter of the past century's warming. That's before adding climate feedbacks.

The UN expresses its heat-energy forcings in watts per square metre per second. It estimates that the sun caused just 0.3 watts of forcing since 1750. Begin in 1900 to match the temperature start-date, and the base solar forcing more than doubles to 0.7 watts. Multiply by 2.7, which the Royal Society suggests is the UN's current factor for climate feedbacks, and you get 1.9 watts more than six times the UN's figure.

The entire 20th-century warming from all sources was below 2 watts. The sun could have caused just about all of it.

Next, the UN slashed the natural greenhouse effect by 40 per cent from 33C in the climate-physics textbooks to 20C, making the man-made additions appear bigger.

Then the UN chose the biggest 20th-century temperature increase it could find. Stern says: "As anticipated by scientists, global mean surface temperatures have risen over the past century." As anticipated? Only 30 years ago, scientists were anticipating a new Ice Age and writing books called The Cooling.

In the US, where weather records have been more reliable than elsewhere, 20th-century temperature went up by only 0.3C. AccuWeather, a worldwide meteorological service, reckons world temperature rose by 0.45C. The US National Climate Data Centre says 0.5C. Any advance on 0.5? The UN went for 0.6C, probably distorted by urban growth near many of the world's fast-disappearing temperature stations.

The number of temperature stations round the world peaked at 6,000 in 1970. It's fallen by two-thirds to 2,000 now: a real "hockey-stick" curve, and an instance of the UN's growing reliance on computer guesswork rather than facts.

Even a 0.6C temperature rise wasn't enough. So the UN repealed a fundamental physical law. Buried in a sub-chapter in its 2001 report is a short but revealing section discussing "lambda": the crucial factor converting forcings to temperature. The UN said its climate models had found lambda near-invariant at 0.5C per watt of forcing.

You don't need computer models to "find" lambda. Its value is given by a century-old law, derived experimentally by a Slovenian professor and proved by his Austrian student (who later committed suicide when his scientific compatriots refused to believe in atoms). The Stefan-Boltzmann law, not mentioned once in the UN's 2001 report, is as central to the thermodynamics of climate as Einstein's later equation is to astrophysics. Like Einstein's, it relates energy to the square of the speed of light, but by reference to temperature rather than mass.

The bigger the value of lambda, the bigger the temperature increase the UN could predict. Using poor Ludwig Boltzmann's law, lambda's true value is just 0.22-0.3C per watt. In 2001, the UN effectively repealed the law, doubling lambda to 0.5C per watt. A recent paper by James Hansen says lambda should be 0.67, 0.75 or 1C: take your pick. Sir John Houghton, who chaired the UN's scientific assessment working group until recently, tells me it now puts lambda at 0.8C: that's 3C for a 3.7-watt doubling of airborne CO2. Most of the UN's computer models have used 1C. Stern implies 1.9C.

On the UN's figures, the entire greenhouse-gas forcing in the 20th century was 2 watts. Multiplying by the correct value of lambda gives a temperature increase of 0.44 to 0.6C, in line with observation. But using Stern's 1.9C per watt gives 3.8C. Where did 85 per cent of his imagined 20th-century warming go? As Professor Dick Lindzen of MIT pointed out in The Sunday Telegraph last week, the UK's Hadley Centre had the same problem, and solved it by dividing its modelled output by three to "predict" 20th-century temperature correctly.

A spate of recent scientific papers, gearing up for the UN's fourth report next year, gives a different reason for the failure of reality to keep up with prediction. The oceans, we're now told, are acting as a giant heat-sink. In these papers the well-known, central flaw (not mentioned by Stern) is that the computer models' "predictions" of past ocean temperature changes only approach reality if they are averaged over a depth of at least a mile and a quarter.

Deep-ocean temperature hasn't changed at all, it's barely above freezing. The models tend to over-predict the warming of the climate-relevant surface layer up to threefold. A recent paper by John Lyman, of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, reports that the oceans have cooled sharply in the past two years. The computers didn't predict this. Sea level is scarcely rising faster today than a century ago: an inch every 15 years. Hansen now says that the oceanic "flywheel effect" gives us extra time to act, so Stern's alarmism is misplaced.

Finally, the UN's predictions are founded not only on an exaggerated forcing-to-temperature conversion factor justified neither by observation nor by physical law, but also on an excessive rate of increase in airborne carbon dioxide. The true rate is 0.38 per cent year on year since records began in 1958. The models assume 1 per cent per annum, more than two and a half times too high. In 2001, the UN used these and other adjustments to predict a 21st-century temperature increase of 1.5 to 6C. Stern suggests up to 10C.

Dick Lindzen emailed me last week to say that constant repetition of wrong numbers doesn't make them right. Removing the UN's solecisms, and using reasonable data and assumptions, a simple global model shows that temperature will rise by just 0.1 to 1.4C in the coming century, with a best estimate of 0.6C, well within the medieval temperature range and only a fifth of the UN's new, central projection.

Why haven't air or sea temperatures turned out as the UN's models predicted? Because the science is bad, the "consensus" is wrong, and Herr Professor Ludwig Boltzmann, FRS, was as right about energy-to-temperature as he was about atoms.

Carl C
11-05-2006, 08:57 AM
Damn, George, did you type all that??:eek!: We could use a little "global warming" up here! Year round recreational boating on the Great Lakes:yippie: This is a controversial topic and I don't personally think that we can do much to stop the climate cycles. Some greenies would hit this country with immensely expensive regulations that will probably have ZERO effect.:bonk:

11-05-2006, 04:59 PM
Indeed an interesting read, George, with an equally interesting source!

Christopher Monckton (Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Bre nchley) has quite a storied family history, wiith himself being the first chairman of the Defense System, Ltd. (Option) a leading player in the international mercenary industry!

Recently, DSL was bought by Armor Holdings, formerly a bankrupt company called American Body Armor and Equipment, Co. of Jacksonville, FL. Current Armor Director Richard C. Bartlett is also chairman and trustee of the Nature Conservancy of Texas, as well as chair of the Direct Selling Education Foundation and vice chair of Mary Kay Cosmetics!

Other Armor directors include:
* Nicholas Sokolow, a former partner in the rabidly Anglophile Wall Street law firm of Coudert Brothers, is now a senior partner in the Paris-based firm of Sokolow, Dunaud, Mercadier, and Carreras.
* Thomas W. Strauss, was vice chairman of Salomon Brothers, until he was forced to resign, over a 1992 insider trading scandal, involving the manipulation of sales of U.S. government securities.

Here is a short article outlining greenhouse gas emissions. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/30/AR2006103000145.html) Here's another one about the ozone hole (http://news.com.com/Ozone+hole+over+South+Pole+growing/2100-11395_3-6128168.html) above the South Pole.

George, it is easy to find articles refuting the existance of greenhouse gasses and the resultant global warming. Trouble is, about 90% of scientists worldwide disagree with them!


11-05-2006, 05:11 PM
ya lost me about the 4th paragraph...


11-05-2006, 07:05 PM
Tony, it's no surprise so many scientists disagree with this thesis since most are involved in academia and have rather left leaning, even anti-capitslist beliefs. It's very convenient for most of them to believe in Global Warming. Of all the scientists who have ponied up their beliefs though, almost none are climatologists.
Even if all the "sky-is-falling" reports are true, you can't let the worlds two largest poluters, China and India, off the hook. I think Kioto is COMPLETELY political and is an attempt to change the order of Western, First World economies. That seems to be the continuing agenda of the UN today.
There is no doubt that there is incontravertible evidence there was a long, very warm period in the 1000-1200 AD period that is completely ignored in these arguments. For instance, the Vikings colonized Greenland and raised crops there. That can't be done today. There's also the incident of the US P-38s and B-17s that landed on the Greenland ice during WW-II. One of the P-38s was recovered about 10 years ago and it was under 200' of ice!!!!! All in only 55 years. It's obviously much colder today in Greenland than it was 800 years ago.
The charts in the article are, I feel, very interesting.
Tony there may well be a warming trend, and it is probably natural.
Science today is all over the place, very inconsistant, and often wrong. I'll never forget in the '70's there was a "Coming Ice Age" scare. Many of the "Global Warming" voices today were there in the '70's. Would you want to be on the wrong side of this argument if indeed it is political and the fall out of trying to engineer the probably impossible task of weather change ruins the world economy? Would the First World ever recover?
As far as the ozone hole, there has been a change of use of varius chemicals, and if they were the culprit, we'll see a difference over time. But it may be a scenario of not having good info from the time before NASA was capable of collecting data on such things. Ozone, like the weather, may also be cyclical. Who know for sure?

Just Say N20
11-05-2006, 10:08 PM
I will confess, I didn't read the whole thing. Maybe later, but I have always been troubled by some of the stuff I have heard.

I remember when the original Freon for air conditioners had to be done away with, because it was destroying the ozone. I thought that freon is heavier than air, so once it all does the "sneaky escape" from our AC stuff, how does it get all the way up into the atmosphere where the Ozone lives to destroy it?

And, I will admit to never trying to find out how much freon we have used since we figured out how to use it, but it would seem to me that the amount would have to be insignificant compared to the sheer volume of nasty stuff hurled into the atmosphere from ONE volcanic eruption (which actually does propel stuff miles into the air, where it might be able to effect something).

I remember watching the videos of Mt. Saint Helens erupting, and being in awe at the absolute enormity of it. I remember thinking if you took all the spray cans, of everything we have ever produced on the planet, and stood on the top of Mt. Saint Helens, and fired them off all at the same time, it wouldn't even begin to compare with what the real eruption was like.

Volcanos have been erupting since the beginning, and the earth seems to be doing fine with it.

Ed Donnelly
11-05-2006, 10:34 PM
N2O; Freon is 4Xs heavier than air.....Ed

Ed Donnelly
11-06-2006, 07:55 PM
Seems that even though freon is 4 x's heavier than air, it takes between 20 to 30 yrs for the freon to chemically brake down, THEN it heads skyward..
So what is destroying the ozone layer is what leaked out in the 60's....Ed

Just Say N20
11-09-2006, 07:20 PM

I'm intrigued. Freon itself is bad for the Ozone, but it can't get to where the Ozone is. What it breaks down into gets there. What does it break down into, and is that actually capable of harming ozone?

If the components of what freon breaks down into is actually bad for the Ozone (which it might be, I don't know), it is from freon from 20 to 30 years ago. I still have a hard time believing that the amount of freon that escaped into the atmosphere prior to 20 years ago, could be significant on a global scale.

I try to keep things in perspective. I remember years ago when the Russian nuclear accident happened, and there was news coverage showing pictures of this enormous cloud circling the global. There were "scientists" back then that were predicting that this event would most certainly trigger the next global ice age. There was all sorts of gloom and doom predicted to happen. Don't missunderstand my point. I am not saying the accident was a good thing; far from it. But it helps me keep things in perspective. That was an event of tremendous proportions (like the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan), like Mt. St. Helens, but when looked at in a planetary, historical perspective, it doesn't even show up as a blip on the radar screen.

But, the relatively small amount of freon we have used (up to 20 years ago), has the ability to destroy the Ozone layer. It has had an impact greater than the sun? Or all the volcanos from the dawn of time? It seems unlikely to me.

I am for responsible use of resourses, and management of the environment, but some of the stuff that is put forth just seems too ridiculous to be credible.

What am I missing here?

Ed Donnelly
11-09-2006, 10:23 PM
N2O; I ve asked quite a few refrigeration techs today, what exactly harms the ozone after the freon breaks down and they say it is mainly the clorine that does the harm... I am sure we have a few A/C guys on this site that could explain it better....Ed

Just Say N20
11-10-2006, 10:26 AM
Ed thanks for the additional information. A quick bit of snooping around the internet for volcanic gas information yielded some interesting info.

It would appear that between 1983 and 1986, just one volcano in Hawaii (Kilauea volcano) put contributed over 400,000 TONS of SO2 into the atmosphere. One volcano, 4 years, 400,000 Tons. :eek!: I just makes me wonder. . .

11-10-2006, 01:07 PM
These environmental alarmists seem to be glad to ignore natural prenomina.
I'm truly grateful we don't have the UN as our government, as some would want.....we would be stripped naked in no time if it were so, because in their minds we are responsible for every thing bad that happens and nothing good.
I wonder why so many people want to imigrate here?:confused:

Carl C
11-10-2006, 01:19 PM
I think we should outlaw volcanos.:eek!:

11-10-2006, 02:19 PM
I read an article in my local paper yesterday. It was about 2 Univ. of TN professors and a "scientist" that held a "teach-in" at Oak Ridge High School concerning the dangers of global warming. - http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/local_news/article/0,1406,KNS_347_5129570,00.html
So what are the credentials of these professors? 1 is a political science professor and the other is an agriculturalist!
I guess this scientist could be qualified - you never really know. He is not a meteorologists - http://www.esd.ornl.gov/~wmp/cv.pdf
George - what is your response to this which seems contary to your information -
Post said studies show carbon dioxide levels are climbing virtually in tandem with rising global temperatures and are at their highest point in the last 360,000 years.
Global temperatures have hovered in a fairly tight range since the year 1000, but started spiking upwards in 1850 and now show a "fairly striking departure from long-term temperatures," Post said.

11-10-2006, 10:53 PM
Here's the backup data for the artical;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf;jsessionid=0UYYOLH224L05QFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ0I V0
I didn't read all 40 pages...but it's pretty interesting.
My response;
The artical describes how the UN, the "Club of Despots" has managed to eradicate any temperature transients from history. It's kind of like saying "We didn't have any thermometers 1000 years ago, so who are you to tell us there was anything other than normal temperatures during that time?"
I guess you just have to decide what you believe?.....people with a political agenda who want to seperate us from our money and ruin our economy, or use a little common sense, take it with a grain of salt. If we're to do anything, EVERYONE has to be involved, you can't exclude China and India. That's what makes me so mad. That fact is the proof it's a scam.

11-14-2006, 04:01 PM
evidence that this subject is more about politics than science;

Spokesman for U.S. senator says global warming skeptics are 'demonized'
Nov 14 12:23 PM US/Eastern

Spokesman for U.S. senator says global warming skeptics are 'demonized' ELIZABETH KENNEDY NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) - A spokesman for the U.S. senator who described global warming as a hoax showed up at a gathering of believers Tuesday, claiming scientific dissent on the issue was being suppressed and demonized.
One scholar shot back that the Senate aide must be living on another planet. The exchange took place at the UN conference on climate change, which has drawn more than 5,000 diplomats, activists and scientists to consider new steps in combating global warming.

"The skeptics who get vocal are vilified," said Marc Morano, director of communications for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The committee chairman, Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, has enraged environmentalists by calling global warming alarmist and a hoax.

Morano was invited to be part of a panel discussion on how best to convey the issue of climate change in the media. His fellow panelists, including Jules Boykoff of Pacific University in Oregon, argued that skeptics actually get too much attention in the press.

Efforts by journalists to create "balanced" stories on global warming allow "a handful of skeptics . . . to be treated as equals to thousands of scientists," said Boykoff, an assistant professor in the department of politics and government.

Liisa Antilla, a geographer and scholar of global warming, said it was wrong for journalists to "frame climate science as uncertain."

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN network of more than 2,000 climate and other scientists, says rising temperatures will expand oceans via heat and runoff of melting land ice; shift climate zones, disrupting agriculture, and lead to more frequent and intense climate events, such as the drought now in its fourth year in East Africa.

Major climate scientists point out that skeptics on global warming rarely publish in peer-reviewed journals, the cornerstone of modern science. As evidence of climate change has mounted in recent years, the skeptics' voices have lessened.

"The shrillness of these skeptics and their numbers have been on the decline," Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, told The Associated Press before the panel discussion.

But Morano referred to the two-week UN conference as an "echo chamber" where "the media and climate alarmists demonize climate skeptics."

Pal Prestrud, director of the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research, shot back that "we're on different planets or maybe even different galaxies."

Scientists attribute at least some of the past century's 0.6-degree- Celsius rise in global temperatures to the accumulation in the atmosphere of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, byproducts of power plants, automobiles and other fossil-fuel-burning sources.

The United States and Australia are the only major industrialized countries to reject the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which calls for mandatory cuts in greenhouse gases. U.S. President George W. Bush says it would harm the U.S. economy, and that it should have required emissions cuts in poorer countries as well.

11-16-2006, 09:26 AM
George, here is an article that speaks to real life scenario's .........

11-16-2006, 12:55 PM
George, here is an article that speaks to real life scenario's .........
That's interesting Boxy.
I know there are climate changes going on. Just like the new series of more potent hurricanes now going on. I'm old enough to have gone through one, and part of another of these storm cycles.
However, I believe there have been such temperature cycles before. I believe there is evidance of it. And this point is critical, if there HAS been such warming previously, then it can't be blamed on man and his technology.
If, though, the UN and its supporters can manipulate data to "proove" the West is responsible, tremendous pressure can be exerted to cause the West to structurally change the way we live. It won't be some Natives living in the far North suffering some major inconveniences, it's going to be ALL of us. There will be massive unemployment brought about by regulatory change in how every industry operates. There will be massive taxes paid to the UN to re-distribute that money to Third World countries. In fact, if the UN had its way, they would be the de-facto world government.
This is a very serious subject that most folks don't have an inkling of the consequenses.
And the most frustrating facet of this plan is that China and India get off scot free.
Why is that?
Is anyone even curious?

Formula Jr
11-17-2006, 05:01 AM
George, I don't know how much flying you have done over the world.
I have done a bit. What strikes me mostly, is what we as humans have done to alter this world. You look down everywhere and there are households. Each has a chemical load that will eventually need to be delt with. And man made stuff, some of which doesn't have a quick breakdown point since there are no natural processes to beak down the chemicals to their constituent parts that can then be recombined in some fashion. We don't deal well with this. If you had a 55 gal drum of Raid insect killer, people would be all over you as having toxic waste on your property. They might rightly even think you were a terrorist with ill intent. Yet no one cares or understands that 15 oz, multiplied by 120 million households is a lot more neurotoxins then that 55 gal, drum. Its just spread out. Its still a load on the total space anyway. The Raid example is just one of thousands that are in place and in the front load of what we have done. The Original Atmosphere of Earth was CO2. Before man, and before aguatic plants fixed the CO2 and fell down into the oceans and changed it to air as we know it; The default was CO2. All the CO2 is still there - it was locked away. We are are just pumping it out as fast as we can in the form of oil and re-putting it back up in the air.

You can say man isn't such a big factor. But look at the world as you fly over it. Multiply all of what you see. Then man isn't so inconcequential. Its a billion point sources of release.

11-17-2006, 07:23 PM
George, I don't know how much flying you have done over the world.
I have done a bit. What strikes me mostly, is what we as humans have done to alter this world. You look down everywhere and there are households. Each has a chemical load that will eventually need to be delt with. And man made stuff, some of which doesn't have a quick breakdown point since there are no natural processes to beak down the chemicals to their constituent parts that can then be recombined in some fashion. We don't deal well with this. If you had a 55 gal drum of Raid insect killer, people would be all over you as having toxic waste on your property. They might rightly even think you were a terrorist with ill intent. Yet no one cares or understands that 15 oz, multiplied by 120 million households is a lot more neurotoxins then that 55 gal, drum. Its just spread out. Its still a load on the total space anyway. The Raid example is just one of thousands that are in place and in the front load of what we have done. The Original Atmosphere of Earth was CO2. Before man, and before aguatic plants fixed the CO2 and fell down into the oceans and changed it to air as we know it; The default was CO2. All the CO2 is still there - it was locked away. We are are just pumping it out as fast as we can in the form of oil and re-putting it back up in the air.

You can say man isn't such a big factor. But look at the world as you fly over it. Multiply all of what you see. Then man isn't so inconcequential. Its a billion point sources of release.
Well stated Owen, I can't argue with anything you say.

I've read that the worlds biggest contributer of CO2 is the oceans and that man's impact is less than 3% of the total. If there are natural cycles of warming and cooling that are going to occur regadless of what man does and if the worlds governments decide that the solution is to put the worlds most productive economies into a downward spiral that they may never recover from, would it be worth it?
The truth is, we don't know if ANYTHING man could do would make any impact at all. Would it be worth putting North America into a state of 12%-15% unemployment just so that China and India don't have to make any changes?
This is what the argument is about.
I'm all for ever improving clean technology, alternative fuels, fuel cells, and over all lower emissions. I think we've led the world in this sort of technology. But it woud take 15-20 years to replace all the vehicles on the roads if they were available today. It would probably take a similar period to convert the majority of power plants in North america to atomic, or clean fuels.
This ongoing argument is about politics. I believe there is an agenda by groups of countries, and peoples who view this as an opportunity to take what we have accomplished and redistribute it to the rest of the world.
It's really pretty simple.