quote Originally posted by Red88FF: Personally? I think this "man made" GW is pure unadulterated BS perpetuated by self serving con artists for either financial or power gains and of course redistribution of wealth schemes.

My position exactly!
We are the herons in this, not the villains.
We have kept the Canadian from having to move to our southwest. And saved the lives of those that would have been too stubborn to move.
All I heard about when I was a kid was global cooling, but there was no money in that, just buy more clothes.
But now global warming, the would call for wealth distribution in order to cure that.

quote Originally posted by newf: Ok I'll give you a few points of the top of my head. First one that comes to mind is the Water Cycle hear on earth. Where do you think the water that we drink and turn into "pee" comes from? Second you'd have to figure out how many people pee in the ocean and the volume of that compared to the volume of the ocean. It's a silly arguement IMO there is no evidence to suggest any cause effect relationship as there seems to be with what Scientists are claiming about Climate Change and C02 leves.

Thank you. You just gave my argument against anthropogenic global warming.
Here endeth the lesson.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Thank you. You just gave my argument against anthropogenic global warming. Here endeth the lesson.

Do tell.

quote Originally posted by newf: Have any proof? Or just more conjecture and conspiracy theories? You must have texts and lots of evidence or was it just something spoken around the camp fire? I think the Oil companies are behind the movement to confuse the issue of Climate Change. It's good business for them to keep everyone on fossil fuels, there is some evedence that some have funded internet sites and sponsored people to speak against it but I can't say it's certain. Not sure why people think reducing oil dependance and pollution is a bad thing. Years ago very few people recycled as well, does that mean we shouldn't now as well? They sprayed DDT years ago, should we continue? Should companies be allowed to disregard the environement and public safety all together?

Actually it was a left handed American style joke.
The first thing that they teach you when visiting a foreign country is not to try and tell a joke, or try to interpret one!

quote Originally posted by newf: Do tell.

I'm not going to repeat myself. Re-read the thread.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: I'm not going to repeat myself. Re-read the thread.

Oh... must be the pirates.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.u...een-in-my-long-life/
US physics professor: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life'

quote Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Here is his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society. Anthony Watts describes it thus: This is an important moment in science history. I would describe it as a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door. It is worthy of repeating this letter in entirety on every blog that discusses science. It’s so utterly damning that I’m going to run it in full without further comment. (H/T GWPF, Richard Brearley). Dear Curt: When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be? How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society. It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist. So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example: 1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate 2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake. 3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work. 4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.< 5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council. 6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition. APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization? I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question. I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends. Hal Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)

Dude, this is how this thread started.

it's the same letter.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 10-18-2010).]

Well, it's been awhile since I have visited my thread. My my! It's grown so big!

I find it interesting how quickly this escalated. I also find it interesting that even though I disagree with Newf he seems one of the very few level headed people actively partaking in the debate. No offense intended to anyone else, but Newf is admitting that nobody has a DEFINITE answer, but that because of the facts that he has been given, it seems LIKELY that this is happening and that we have contributed a large portion to GW. And he's suggesting we try and stop it now before our great great great grandchildren start suffering.

He's trying to prevent pushing our problems onto future generations.

To say that GW is NOT HAPPENING AT ALL AND THAT'S A FACT or IT'S NOT OUR FAULT AND THAT'S A FACT is just short sighted. The science has not proven beyond all reasonable doubt EITHER WAY.

I think we need to quit putting money into researching the whole idea and FIRST worry about our current problems. Anyone hear of "take the stick out of your own eye before getting the splinter out of a friend's eye"? We simply don't have the money to put into this research when it could be used to take us out of our rut that we are in financially as a country. But if this continues at an alarming rate then perhaps we'll look into it way in the future. It's just too early to tell.

So basically I think we need to be open to the fact that we may be a big contributor, but also relax and just focus on the problems at hand first. More or less what Avengador (I think it was him) said about the spray paint and mask. If he chooses not to wear it, then okay that's his choice. Don't have a government mandate on that. If I want to drive a car that puts out pollution and smoke cigarettes, whatever... let me do it. Don't tell me I can't just because you THINK it's causing problems.

Thanks, and fair enough.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me about such issues, I've mentioned before I like a good discussion and it's nothing personal. I try to challenge peoples thoughts and like to be challenged as well. No offense is intended (well normally )
I try not to get into attacks or name calling even though I know that sometimes tone and inflection are hard to convey on forums at times.

quote Originally posted by newf: They sprayed DDT years ago, should we continue? Should companies be allowed to disregard the environement and public safety all together?

HAHAHAHAHA! Oh, man, got you there!

Do you know how many millions died because of the DDT ban? It turned out to be BULLSHIT. Oh, but don't stop believin', newf.

snicker snicker. what a chump.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: HAHAHAHAHA! Oh, man, got you there! Do you know how many millions died because of the DDT ban? It turned out to be BULLSHIT. Oh, but don't stop believin', newf. snicker snicker. what a chump.

Ahhhhh yes only humans matter, never mind that bird you use as a national symbol or the rest of the ecology was threatened.

Pretty good though you "got me" on one point. You must be very proud. It is a competition after all.

quote Originally posted by newf: Keeping fear alive.

Mine or yours?

hahaha you made me laugh anyways ya old fart.

quote Originally posted by newf: hahaha you made me laugh anyways ya old fart.

What's your age?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: What's your age?

Oh oh.

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: Oh oh.

Maybe we're dealing with a young whipper-snapper who needs to be taught a less in respecting his elders (read: old farts)?

37

Oh sorry, maybe you're not old. I just thought no one could be as jaded and such a curmudgeon with out being an older person .
It is possible you are not old but just an azz I guess

just kidding

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 10-19-2010).]

quote Originally posted by newf: 37 Oh sorry, maybe you're not old. I just thought no one could be as jaded and such a curmudgeon with out being an older person . It is possible you are not old but just an azz I guess just kidding

LOL

I'm 46, drinking Johnny Walker Black, and laughing my ass off. It's all good, you young punk.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: drinking Johnny Walker Black

Suddenly everything makes sense

quote Originally posted by newf: Suddenly everything makes sense

I'm still making a good argument, complete with references. What's your excuse?

I heard something the other day from another scientist that said oil wasnt from fossilized matter. He believes oil is the result of the heat at the earths core. Its produced there and bubbles up, so its basicly a never ending supply thats replenished naturally from below continuously. Can anyone prove or disprove that. I think its stupid, but theres no way to contradict it I know of....

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: I heard something the other day from another scientist that said oil wasnt from fossilized matter. He believes oil is the result of the heat at the earths core. Its produced there and bubbles up, so its basicly a never ending supply thats replenished naturally from below continuously. Can anyone prove or disprove that. I think its stupid, but theres no way to contradict it I know of....

Yes, it's called the "abiotic" or "deep oil" theory.

Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...nic_petroleum_origin

I read another article recently suggesting that there might be a natural nuclear reactor at the core of the earth, which would be creating elements, but I couldn't find it again.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: The problem is, this isn't just some casual discussion. There are governments prepared to move TRILLIONS of dollars around the world because of this unproven hypothesis. Maybe I should bring this closer to home for you. How much more are YOU willing to pay in electricity, home heating and gasoline for an unproven theory? Double? Triple? Think about that before you give so much latitude to the ones pushing global warming.

You didn't quote my whole comment.

quote I think we need to quit putting money into researching the whole idea and FIRST worry about our current problems. Anyone hear of "take the stick out of your own eye before getting the splinter out of a friend's eye"? We simply don't have the money to put into this research when it could be used to take us out of our rut that we are in financially as a country. But if this continues at an alarming rate then perhaps we'll look into it way in the future. It's just too early to tell. So basically I think we need to be open to the fact that we may be a big contributor, but also relax and just focus on the problems at hand first. More or less what Avengador (I think it was him) said about the spray paint and mask. If he chooses not to wear it, then okay that's his choice. Don't have a government mandate on that. If I want to drive a car that puts out pollution and smoke cigarettes, whatever... let me do it. Don't tell me I can't just because you THINK it's causing problems.

See, I'm not for putting money into Global Climate Change research right now.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Yes, it's called the "abiotic" or "deep oil" theory. Link http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...nic_petroleum_origin I read another article recently suggesting that there might be a natural nuclear reactor at the core of the earth, which would be creating elements, but I couldn't find it again.

"abiotic" or "deep oil" theory. now there is fringe science
it makes about as much sense as VOODOO OR TRICKLE DOWN bs !!!

YES THERE IS A NATURAL REACTION FROM ELEMENTS DECAY
THAT IS WHY THE EARTHS CORE IS LIQUID and has not cooled into a solid lump
that process is not making crude oil or anything in oil in anyway

quote Originally posted by ray b: "abiotic" or "deep oil" theory. now there is fringe science it makes about as much sense as VOODOO OR TRICKLE DOWN bs !!! YES THERE IS A NATURAL REACTION FROM ELEMENTS DECAY THAT IS WHY THE EARTHS CORE IS LIQUID and has not cooled into a solid lump that process is not making crude oil or anything in oil in anyway

Then how do you explain the abundance of methane and hydrocarbons in the atmosphere of Saturn's moon, Titan? At the cryogenic temperature conditions there, life as a source is highly unlikely.

Ray, its a theory like all others. At present time theres no way to prove or disprove it. You have to go into the molten core of the earth to find out.

I could say little elves in the core make oil. I obviously cant prove that any more than you can disprove it. I actually know a few people that believe the earth is only a few thousand years old and dinosaurs died out just before man became civilized and built cities. Even though most of us know you can prove when one died, they just believe scientists are munipulating the findings. One I know will argue that till hes red in the face no matter what facts you can show him.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: ... dinosaurs died out just before man became civilized and built cities. Even though most of us know you can prove when one died, they just believe scientists are munipulating the findings..

Or they might believe scientists are using things which have been proven inaccurate, (like carbon dating) to prove things.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Or they might believe scientists are using things which have been proven inaccurate, (like carbon dating) to prove things.

I had not heard this? Is it true?

I had not heard this? Is it true? NO IT IS NOT

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Or they might believe scientists are using things which have been proven inaccurate, (like carbon dating) to prove things.

this is pure creationist BS that the hard core thumpers try to spread
they love jump on small deviations in carbon isotope type dates
everyone who understands the core science understands the range errors ie 5000 + or - 500 ect

quote Originally posted by ray b: I had not heard this? Is it true? NO IT IS NOT this is pure creationist BS that the hard core thumpers try to spread they love jump on small deviations in carbon isotope type dates everyone who understands the core science understands the range errors ie 5000 + or - 500 ect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik..._dating#cite_note-14

The need for calibration

A raw BP date cannot be used directly as a calendar date, because the level of atmospheric 14C has not been strictly constant during the span of time that can be radiocarbon dated. The level is affected by variations in the cosmic ray intensity which is in turn affected by variations in the Earth's magnetosphere [12]. In addition, there are substantial reservoirs of carbon in organic matter, the ocean, ocean sediments (see methane hydrate), and sedimentary rocks. Changes in the Earth's climate can affect the carbon flows between these reservoirs and the atmosphere, leading to changes in the atmosphere's 14C fraction.
Aside from these changes due to natural processes, the level has also been affected by human activities. From the beginning of the industrial revolution in the 18th century to the 1950s, the fractional level of 14C decreased because of the admixture of large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere, due to the excavated oil reserves and combustion production of fossil fuel. This decline is known as the Suess effect, and also affects the 13C isotope. However, atmospheric 14C was almost doubled for a short period during the 1950s and 1960s due to atmospheric atomic bomb tests.
As a consequence, the radiocarbon method shows limitations on dating of materials that are younger than the industrial era. Due to these fluctuations, greater carbon-14 content cannot be taken to mean a lesser age. It is expected that in the future the radiocarbon method will become less effective. A calibration curve must sometimes be combined with contextual analysis, because there is not always a direct relationship between age and carbon-14 content.

Calibration methods

The raw radiocarbon dates, in BP years, are calibrated to give calendar dates. Standard calibration curves are available, based on comparison of radiocarbon dates of samples that can be dated independently by other methods such as examination of tree growth rings (dendrochronology), deep ocean sediment cores, lake sediment varves, coral samples, and speleothems (cave deposits).
The calibration curves can vary significantly from a straight line, so comparison of uncalibrated radiocarbon dates (e.g., plotting them on a graph or subtracting dates to give elapsed time) is likely to give misleading results. There are also significant plateaus in the curves, such as the one from 11,000 to 10,000 radiocarbon years BP, which is believed to be associated with changing ocean circulation during the Younger Dryas period. Over the historical period from 0 to 10,000 years BP, the average width of the uncertainty of calibrated dates was found to be 335 years, although in well-behaved regions of the calibration curve the width decreased to about 113 years while in ill-behaved regions it increased to a maximum of 801 years. Significantly, in the ill-behaved regions of the calibration curve, increasing the precision of the measurements does not have a significant effect on increasing the accuracy of the dates.[14]
The 2004 version of the calibration curve extends back quite accurately to 26,000 years BP. Any errors in the calibration curve do not contribute more than ±16 years to the measurement error during the historic and late prehistoric periods (0–6,000 yrs BP) and no more than ±163 years over the entire 26,000 years of the curve, although its shape can reduce the accuracy as mentioned above.[15]
In late 2009, the journal Radiocarbon announced agreement on the INTCAL09 standard, which extends a more accurate calibration curve to 50,000 years.[16][17]

=============

While a useful tool, it's not accurate to a point. The calibrations are so many, and we are finding more inaccuracies every year. It's NOT accurate.

It can give rough estimates, but it's also been proven very wrong very many times.

All true. It is difficult to use carbon dating in many circumstances due to variability in soil conditions, past tectonic activity, or even fires. However, it pales in comparison to trying to predict weather. To predict long term weather accurately you have to start with predicting the Sun's activity. From there you have to predict the earth's reaction to radiation fluctuations from the Sun, and from there the change in ocean currents due to all the above.

Hence, the criticism of allegations that Global Warming is caused by mankind. The effect of the CO2 produced by mankind has been described by stating that if we simply removed all of mankinds activity in the world, the impact would be less than 3% on the total greenhouse effect. Now that kind of puts in perspective for me.



Moreover, the paleontology supports this fact. Here is the CO2 and World Average Temperture record, pre-1950. In terms of the paleontological record we are way cool.



Arn

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: All true. It is difficult to use carbon dating in many circumstances due to variability in soil conditions, past tectonic activity, or even fires. However, it pales in comparison to trying to predict weather. To predict long term weather accurately you have to start with predicting the Sun's activity. From there you have to predict the earth's reaction to radiation fluctuations from the Sun, and from there the change in ocean currents due to all the above. Hence, the criticism of allegations that Global Warming is caused by mankind. The effect of the CO2 produced by mankind has been described by stating that if we simply removed all of mankinds activity in the world, the impact would be less than 3% on the total greenhouse effect. Now that kind of puts in perspective for me. Arn

Now look up how much the earth can absorb and what the carbon signature of the C02 in the atmosphere is.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 10-20-2010).]

quote Dude, this is how this thread started. it's the same letter.

I pasted it here as a refresher to those who haven't been at the beginning of this thread. If you need something fresher to read try this.
https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum6/HTML/079093.html

Already looked at it. Yet another opinion on a blog. Wake me up when you actually have something though.