# Another great Global Warming movie.......



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

This one will piss off quite a few of you............

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

Give it up already :zzz:


----------



## mandocaster (Jan 11, 2007)

Accept2 said:


> This one will piss off quite a few of you............
> 
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831


Nope, I'm not pissed off.

But, as a refereed & peer reviewed scientist, I'm furious. The amount of CRAP these imposters call science is, well, frightening. 

But this is a guitar forum, and I'm gonna plug into my squirrel-driven alternator and crank the bejeezus outta my old Super.


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

I hear ya mandocaster,

I am working on an article right now and people have no idea of the amount of work you have to do to get published in a legit journal.

I'm a social scientist with an ever increasing interest in media studies and science. What is passed off to the public as "scientific research" is just frightening. It's not that the public is stupid, most people simply lack the knowledge, "vocabulary", or "literacy", to make sense of this stuff.

I almost have my PhD but I don't pretend I understand the science behind this. However, I know enough about methodology and research design to weed pseudo-science from real research and know this is just a PR campaign and media flak for big oil and industry.

TG





mandocaster said:


> Nope, I'm not pissed off.
> 
> But, as a refereed & peer reviewed scientist, I'm furious. The amount of CRAP these imposters call science is, well, frightening.


----------



## mrdylan (Apr 22, 2006)

I stopped watching when one guy said that if Global warming went away 10's of thousands of jobs would go away as well.

Sounds like something straight out of the Cheney/Bush administration to me. The majority of politicians are or were trying to hide Global warming not the other way around.

We are force fed so much crap on a daily basis it is impossible to know what is actually happening or going to happen for that matter.


----------



## coyoteblue (Feb 8, 2006)

Ditto. 

Here's a politiely worded attack on Al Gore in the New York Times, and its less polite deconstruction in Grist.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?ex=1331438400&en=2df9d6e7a5aa6ed6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/12/233737/021


----------



## mandocaster (Jan 11, 2007)

traynor_garnet said:


> I almost have my PhD but I don't pretend I understand the science behind this. However, I know enough about methodology and research design to weed pseudo-science from real research and know this is just a PR campaign and media flak for big oil and industry.
> 
> TG


Sorry, I think you misunderstand me....

Umm, I don't perscribe to the idea of Big Oil _per se_, and at the risk of being a scientific pariah, I did watch the whole program, and I am of the informed opinion that the pseudo-scientists are the ones ascribing significance to CO2 in the Earth's thermal budget.

Unfortunately, or fortunately (for me) I do have a good understanding of the physical science behind Global Smarming (or utter lack thereof), as it is a large component of my doctorate in Earth Science. The bandwagon effect has swept all good science (and critical thought) under the carpet as regards this issue. The issue of global warming has NOT undergone the rigorous scrutiny of science, because to do so is to practically guarantee banishment by the people holding vested interest in "proving" that it is a real threat. And nobody from "Big Oil" is paying me to say this. The physical facts simply do not support the theory. If someone were to present them as, for example, the contents of a doctoral dissertation (in the absence of the colossal political pressure associated with the issue), the dissertation would fail miserably. That is the point presented so well in this documentary.

....now back to my Super. I need to play some music to negate the aghast feeling I have every time I see some folk science pundit leaping onto the wagon. It sickens me, no, it terrifies me.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

*"I'm right, you're mistaken, he's crazy"*



mandocaster said:


> Sorry, I think you misunderstand me....
> 
> Umm, I don't perscribe to the idea of Big Oil _per se_, and at the risk of being a scientific pariah, I did watch the whole program, and I am of the informed opinion that the pseudo-scientists are the ones ascribing significance to CO2 in the Earth's thermal budget.
> 
> ...


Don't speak too loudly, MC! Scientific pariahs may not be allowed to graduate!

What immediately struck me about the David Roberts "rebuttal" CoyoteBlue posted was the tone: "...there's really a lot of trash here to shovel through."

Is that the kind of language we usually see in a scientific debate? All the opposing points are "trash"? 

He then proceeds to the claim of an unnatural speed of change. "Double hockey sticks", anyone? I'm referring of course to the infamous and discredited curve of recent historical temperature variations purporting to show steep spikes like the blades of hockey sticks.

He sites the IPCC report as a source from "scientific mainstream", yet that source is PRECISELY the most contested by many climatologists! What is the IPCC report? The latest stones from Mount Sinai? It came from the UN, for Pete's sake! We are supposed to believe it's not at all political? This is the organization that puts the worst offenders at the head of human rights commissions!

Take a look at many of the names of scientists on that report and google their backgrounds. It's quite interesting...

He then attacks a man named Kevin Vranes. I hadn't heard of Mr. Vranes before but apparently since he's not famous enough by Mr. Roberts' standards his words can't possibly be true.

What are we supposed to do to judge the truth of a source, count how many articles someone has published? Science by concensus?!! 

Eppur se move!

This Mr. Roberts reminds me of Rush Limbaugh or Howard Stern. Very entertaining in small doses but hardly a reliable source. He smells like just another zealot to me.

I notice there are a few "pariahs" popping up in the media these days with contrary views on climate change. The man who helped found GreenPeace and the man who coined the Gaiea concept, for just a couple.

Unfortunately, I haven't taken the time to count how many articles they've had published but I didn't hear a trace of ad hominem in their words. That in itself lends credibility to my ears.


----------



## coyoteblue (Feb 8, 2006)

Sounds like some people haven't been outside for a few years. Just so you know, in Canada we've had about 8-9 of the hottest years on record in the past decade. This is even more than a hockey stick of escalation.The ice caps are melting. The boreal forests are being destroyed by bugs that would never have survived this far north ten years ago. Australia is suffering a skin cancer epidemic. And the list goes on.

And to dismiss the IPCC report because it's sponsored by the UN...please... what is their agenda by reporting that global warming is occuring? To destroy the gas guzzling nations of the world? There are always dissenters...some people think the US never went to the moon and that cigarette smoking does not cause cancer and that being gay is "unnatural" and that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, and so on.

It's interesting to see how misinformation starts/continues. It was suggested that the scientist who create the Gaia theory was a skeptic. The opposite is true...here's the link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5150816.stm


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

The sky is falling! Were all gonna die! Send money through UN agents to Africa, and buy our wind power and all will be magically fixed.............


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

coyoteblue said:


> And to dismiss the IPCC report because it's sponsored by the UN...please... what is their agenda by reporting that global warming is occuring? To destroy the gas guzzling nations of the world?


No, to get more of their money! Isn't that what Kyoto is really all about?

To exempt countries like China as "developing" when they have atom bombs and space programs...



coyoteblue said:


> It's interesting to see how misinformation starts/continues. It was suggested that the scientist who create the Gaia theory was a skeptic. The opposite is true...here's the link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5150816.stm


I stand corrected on Professor Lovelock's stand on climate change. I did find it interesting that he's a champion of nuclear power as a positive agent to resist global warming. Must drive a lot of the pack schizo as to how they feel about him...:wink:


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Accept2 said:


> The sky is falling! Were all gonna die! Send money through UN agents to Africa, and buy our wind power and all will be magically fixed.............



Exactly!

I still stand by my point that any one who argues in a shrill and strident ad hominem manner should be distrusted...


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

The guy who made this documentary (Martin Durkin) is also the same guy who made a documentary claiming that breast implants reduce the risk of cancer and are therefore a health benefit to women! :confused-smiley-010 

His last documentary on the Environment received so many complaints (from people in the documentary and those watching) that the Independent Television Commission ruled Durkin had purposely distorted, via editing, interviewer's comments and misled participants about the content and purpose of the documentary.

In the film linked to this post, Professor Carl Wunsch (professor of physical oceanography at the MIT) has this to say about his appearance in the film:

"I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them . . . I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on . . . [it is] an almost inescapable conclusion if man adds excess CO2 to the atmosphere, the climate will warm"

It seems Durkin has a history of taking a contentious point, and then using it as "proof" for a completely different and spurious conclusion. 

TG


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> I still stand by my point that any one who argues in a shrill and strident ad hominem manner should be distrusted...


And yet here are two quotes from your previous posts in this thread:



> "No, to get more of their money! Isn't that what Kyoto is really all about?"


 (i.e. Something Cannot be true _simply because_ it was touched by the UN)



> "Don't speak too loudly, MC! Scientific pariahs may not be allowed to graduate!"


 (Directed at me, a supposed scientific pariah and therefore not worth listening too although, yes, you did borrow this term from another person's post].



> What are we supposed to do to judge the truth of a source, count how many articles someone has published? Science by concensus?!!


Like or not, a person's publishing record is a large part of their credentials. Getting published in legit, mainstream, peer reviewed journals is hard.

Your flippant remark about "science by consensus" is, ironically, fairly accurate. In all these debates (past and present) you rely upon a naive ontological realism that most scientists abandoned 300 years ago. Science just doesn't work that way . . .

TG


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

It is hard to overlook the connection to Big Oil and those who are "skeptical" of global warming. Of course, I am not suggesting everyone/anyone who questions the science is an oil puppet!

I do, however, find it hard to overlook that video's from the "Friend's of Science", Fred Singer's work, the Marshall Institute etc all have direct links to oil and/or "free market" organizations. Many of these people are not publishing in academic journals (no peer review), do not do research, and are liked to every "contra position" going (smoking, cancer, etc etc). Again, this isn't to suggest any contra position is linked to such interests.

From what I have read, there IS empirical support for global warming but, like any theory, there are some anomalies and the causal inference for data is open to interpretation. Read my previous post regarding the people interviewed in the movie and how their views were portrayed.

BTW, what is your article called and where is it published? I wouldn't mind taking a look at it. Where are you doing your PhD?

TG









mandocaster said:


> Umm, I don't perscribe to the idea of Big Oil _per se_, . . .
> Unfortunately, or fortunately (for me) I do have a good understanding of the physical science behind Global Smarming (or utter lack thereof), as it is a large component of my doctorate in Earth Science. The bandwagon effect has swept all good science (and critical thought) under the carpet as regards this issue. The issue of global warming has NOT undergone the rigorous scrutiny of science, because to do so is to practically guarantee banishment by the people holding vested interest in "proving" that it is a real threat. And nobody from "Big Oil" is paying me to say this. The physical facts simply do not support the theory. If someone were to present them as, for example, the contents of a doctoral dissertation (in the absence of the colossal political pressure associated with the issue), the dissertation would fail miserably. That is the point presented so well in this documentary.
> e.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Exactly!
> I still stand by my point that any one who argues in a shrill and strident ad hominem manner should be distrusted...



...even if they're right?

i especially enjoy the claims that global warming is a liberal conspiracy to attack big business. stephen harper fell for that one big time.

-dh


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Its not attacking big business its creating new busnesses. Dion even ranted that this was an opportunity to make mega bucks, when he was Environment minister. Last week they released a report that a new interprovincial carbon market to trade carbon emissions could be cretated and generate $12B for transfer payments to and from the provinces. It said Quebec (surprise, surprise) has clean power, and Albeta has dirty power. I never saw that coming, but hey, these guys are brilliant when it comes to shifty deals............


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...even if they're right?
> 
> -dh


How can I tell, David? Many of them spout out their premises in an elitist arrogant manner and dismiss any criticism as coming from "climate change DENIERS!"

We've all seen posts implying that anyone who disagrees with the posted premise must be either ignorant or in the pocket of big business/oil/whatever.

If you won't accept their premise then you're immediately brushed off. The idea that perhaps you didn't make a good proof of your case is never considered. If their premise asks me to disregard what I've learned for myself over the years of course I'm gonna balk! I need it explained to me in a way I can understand. Just because someone has lots of footnotes to his paper or initials after his name doesn't mean I'll just turn off my own brain and allow him to wash in his own beliefs. The worst at this are those that believe their own BS. Give me an honest con artist any day! It took me a number of years to learn the difference between sincerity and truth. A lot of folks are very sincere and thus are easy to trust. You still have to weigh their premises. Nice folks can still be wrong!

Yes, "they" could be right but I've never been one to change my mind just because I've been insulted or declared a "pariah". Usually I've found that if someone can't give me a good reason to change my opinion he either doesn't have one or worse yet, doesn't feel he needs one!

If someone doesn't agree with me it doesn't bother me a whit. I can still have a beer with them. My prejudices lean more towards the musical than political. I don't like to drink with whining cowboys or disco players.:2guns:


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Not only do they attack people as being in bed with big business, they claim that anyone who disagrees with them is against the environment. I am a Libertarian. Libertarians dont believe in Kyoto. Libertarians dont buy into the whole climate change idea. They must be evil anti environment right? Libertarians believe ALL pollution is illegal, and the government has a responsibility to fix ALL pollution. The ideal Libertarian solution is to utilize the best (nuclear) technology on this planet regardless of where it comes from or what it costs. We dont care if we have to buy from China, France, Russia, or even Iran. Libertarians see no VFM from Kyoto, wind power, carbon markets and all of this bullshit. We must simply be evil creatures who want to see the earth destroyed.......


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Accept2 said:


> Not only do they attack people as being in bed with big business, they claim that anyone who disagrees with them is against the environment. I am a Libertarian. Libertarians dont believe in Kyoto. Libertarians dont buy into the whole climate change idea...We must simply be evil creatures who want to see the earth destroyed.......


Libertarian, eh? Thought you might be. Libertarians tend to be quite rational in their arguments. Myself, I guess I'm similar but more like a classic Liberal. This of course is nothing like what calls itself a liberal today.

One of Heinlein's characters described himself as a "rational anarchist". This is someone who gives blind obedience to no law at all but rather makes a conscious choice in every situation for himself. This type of personality views blind obedience as abdication of being a moral or ethical being - an escape of personal responsibility.

I wouldn't go so far as to call myself such but I do feel guilty if I find myself hiding behind the excuse that "I did what I was told!" or "Everyone else was doing it!"

Anyhow, when you mention how "they" view all who disagree as "being in bed with big business" reminds me of a native spokeswoman from Caledonia in our local paper. She categorized the townspeoples' resentment of the native protest actions as being "racism".

This just blew me away! Personally, I agree with the bulk of the native's grievances but their actions towards the townspeople were and continue to be unfair harassment. They used the townspeople as pawns in their dispute with the government. They blocked convenient travel through the town, beat up not just some tv cameramen but an old man and his wife who inadvertently drove too close to the protest line, set fire to a Hydro transformer and killed the power to the town for a day or two and continue to harass folks who live adjacent to the disputed lands by driving through their backyards on ATVs at night, with music blaring and shining headlights into bedroom windows.

It's equivalent to me punching you in the face and then telling you that you have no right to get angry at me because someone else (in this case the government) MADE you do it!

And if you're still angry at me, then you must be a racist!

Everybody's a victim today, it seems. And everybody's claiming victim's rights...


----------



## Hamm Guitars (Jan 12, 2007)

Yikes! This is getting ugly....

The way I look at it is I have kids, and it really doesn't take that much effort on my part to reduce my C02 emmissions, so I'll do it. If nothing else, the place will smell better.

What about those diesel cars? Ever get stuck behind a volkswagon in traffic? Pee-yew, and my eyes are burnin.... That can't be good for you. Ban diesel cars, that would be a good start. Diesel is for big engines only. - Don't think this will happen anytime soon, allthough it makes sense to me.


----------



## noobcake (Mar 8, 2006)

Don't worry guys, we'll be living on Mars by the time global warming eats us up:banana: .


----------



## PaulS (Feb 27, 2006)

Hamm Guitars said:


> Yikes! This is getting ugly....
> 
> The way I look at it is I have kids, and it really doesn't take that much effort on my part to reduce my C02 emmissions, so I'll do it. If nothing else, the place will smell better.
> 
> What about those diesel cars? Ever get stuck behind a volkswagon in traffic? Pee-yew, and my eyes are burnin.... That can't be good for you. Ban diesel cars, that would be a good start. Diesel is for big engines only. - Don't think this will happen anytime soon, allthough it makes sense to me.


Why ban diesel ??? In europe Volkswagon has developed new generation diesels that are cleaner than regular gas auto's. 
http://www.touareg.ca/2008_touareg_blue2

Isn't time North American auto makers stepped up to the plate ????


----------



## mandocaster (Jan 11, 2007)

Wild Bill said:


> Don't speak too loudly, MC! Scientific pariahs may not be allowed to graduate!


Too late, I graduated some time ago.

Fortunately, at least in my day, pariahs were exactly ENCOURAGED to express their views, and they graduated in droves! The Philosophiæ Doctor degree is awarded for originality of thought. Mind you, if you irk your academic committee for the hell of it, one doesn't curry favor, but: A lucid arguement away from the mainstream is precisely what gets the goods. And, too late, I already spilled the apple cart.



Wild Bill said:


> I notice there are a few "pariahs" popping up in the media these days with contrary views on climate change. The man who helped found GreenPeace and the man who coined the Gaiea concept, for just a couple.
> 
> Unfortunately, I haven't taken the time to count how many articles they've had published but I didn't hear a trace of ad hominem in their words. That in itself lends credibility to my ears.


I found Mr. Watson to be the most amazingly credible witness to the sideskidding of the environmental movement. And yes, his presentation was both lucid and gracious in its lack of the usual goring (excuse the slip).

(background strains of 12AX7's, 7025's & 6L6GC's)


----------



## mandocaster (Jan 11, 2007)

traynor_garnet said:


> Like or not, a person's publishing record is a large part of their credentials. Getting published in legit, mainstream, peer reviewed journals is hard.


Hard doesn't describe it! Well, yes it does....actually. The peer review process is terrifying for a writer...or at least for me it was. I managed a number of refereed publications, and it was exhilarating.


----------



## mandocaster (Jan 11, 2007)

traynor_garnet said:


> BTW, what is your article called and where is it published? I wouldn't mind taking a look at it. Where are you doing your PhD?
> 
> TG


I DID my doc at UofT in 1987-1992. Geological. It involved the climatic influences on sedimentary deposits of the Jurassic of the red rock desert regions of SW Colorado. Pithy stuff. Stop snoring. In order to defend I needed to read volumes on the physics of climate. One very interesting point about the geochemistry of carbon dioxide: All carbonate minerals, calcite, dolomite, and all the others too numerous to list, are a metal oxide which reacted with carbon dioxide to form a carbonate. From the volume of limestone [a carbonate rock] in the record (the front ranges of the Rockies, for instance), speaks volumes of the importance of CO2 in the earth's history & formation, and, as correctly noted in the documentary, its engine-like exsolution and resorbtion by the oceans. Without CO2 the reefs of the world will die. Not to mention the enormously overwhelming importance of water vapor....and the outgassing of volcanoes.....

....Oh brother....

 :zzz:


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Hamm Guitars said:


> Yikes! This is getting ugly....


Ah, I see by the number of blocked posts from certain quarters that you're probably reading some "distressing rudeness".

Don't be dismayed, Andy! Every board has a few. Don't let it bother you.

If you find it too offensive there's a great tool under "user CP" you may want to try. You can put specific users on an "ignore" list. When you log in the board will automatically block their posting for you, leaving only those you care to read.

Anyhow, you might want to give it a try. It can really clean things up and leave you free to converse with the people you find more polite.


----------



## Hamm Guitars (Jan 12, 2007)

PaulS said:


> Why ban diesel ??? In europe Volkswagon has developed new generation diesels that are cleaner than regular gas auto's.
> http://www.touareg.ca/2008_touareg_blue2
> 
> Isn't time North American auto makers stepped up to the plate ????


Hi Paul,

I was just trying to throw a curve ball into things and maybe lighten things up a bit.

I have been to Europe on a few occasions, and most countries I have been to don't have any polution controll at all on their cars. Gas powered vehicles spew out black smoke, as do the diesels.

The pudrid smell and eye burning of a diesel really bugs me, and I will pass a volkswagon on the road at all costs to stay out of their wake. There should be some way to clean them up as we have done with gas powered engines, or at least they should have a stack to keep the exhaust out of my eyes/lungs.

I wear contact lenses, the diesel burning eye thing is really bad.


----------



## Hamm Guitars (Jan 12, 2007)

Wild Bill said:


> Ah, I see by the number of blocked posts from certain quarters that you're probably reading some "distressing rudeness".
> 
> Don't be dismayed, Andy! Every board has a few. Don't let it bother you.
> 
> ...


Hi Bill,

Political and religeous debates allways end up being emotionally heated, so I have learned to try to avaoid them. There was a line early on in that clip that almost set me off, but I'll refrane from comenting on it as I know some people would find what I believe to be the truth offensive.

I respect other people's opinions, especially if they are willing to fight for them, so I don't like to censor anyone else's thoughts.

I find it hard to judge people's tone from their writing, I often read back things that I have written and think that I come off as a bleeding a--hole. I think this comes from doing technical writing, or it may be that I am just an a--hole....


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

Hey MC,

I don't think anyone is suggesting CO2 should be eliminated or that it plays an unimportant role in the earth's ecosystem. An excess of anything, however, can throw a system for a loop (like water intoxication!). I don't know of anyone who, pro or con global warming, thinks it is beneficial to dump large amounts of CO2 into the air; many of those who don't support global warming still argue that we _should_ curb C02 emissions. I'm not really sure why you choose this line of argument because it kind of seems like a Red Herring.

Was the research you reviewed for your Phd part of the global warming research or related to CO2's role in geological formations? The early 90s were a lone time ago so that research, like me, could be dated.

U of T eh! I did my MA at Queens (the limestone city) and grew up in Cobourg. We must have lived in Toronto at the same time because in the early 90s I was going to Humber College (ok, that is in Etobicoke not Toronto).

TG




mandocaster said:


> One very interesting point about the geochemistry of carbon dioxide: All carbonate minerals, calcite, dolomite, and all the others too numerous to list, are a metal oxide which reacted with carbon dioxide to form a carbonate. From the volume of limestone [a carbonate rock] in the record (the front ranges of the Rockies, for instance), speaks volumes of the importance of CO2 in the earth's history & formation, and, as correctly noted in the documentary, its engine-like exsolution and resorbtion by the oceans. Without CO2 the reefs of the world will die. Not to mention the enormously overwhelming importance of water vapor....and the outgassing of volcanoes.....
> 
> .
> 
> :zzz:


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Hamm Guitars said:


> Hi Bill,
> 
> Political and religeous debates allways end up being emotionally heated, so I have learned to try to avaoid them. There was a line early on in that clip that almost set me off, but I'll refrane from comenting on it as I know some people would find what I believe to be the truth offensive.
> 
> ...


Yeah, judging tone can be difficult but with some on this forum it's quite easy. They come right out and call you an a--hole! Fortunately the moderators do a good job.

This is the only "open" forum on the board and is the place for controversy. Mostly it stays civilized. Far more than what we see on many other boards, at least.

Controversy is a great teacher but insult slinging of course is just a puerile waste of time. It's like a Michael Moore movie, where being a great smartass is passed off as being correct in debatable premises.

Me, I find using the "ignore" list takes the edge of from the one or two (they may be the same guy with an alias!) posters who are the most blatant to my tastes. And if the thread gets too carried away then its easier to just walk away. It's only an online forum, for Pete's sake. I don't know of any of us here influential enough to actually make a change in any of the areas we debate. Me, I've always got an amp or two I should be repairing anyway!

It's just as easy for someone to put ME on their "ignore" list but I suspect its not happening. Different personality types with different needs and approaches, I guess. Chaque a son gout.

My advice is to just jump in only as deep as you feel comfortable. If you find some of the company too unpleasant then jump out for a while. Rude people need an audience. There's no law written that you must provide them with one.

Let me say that I have no problem at all discussing controversial issues with you, HG! You've been quite civilized. You'd make a great beer-drinking partner.:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> And if the thread gets too carried away then its easier to just walk away. It's only an online forum, for Pete's sake.


If only more would do just that, I wouldn't have to lock any threads. :smile:


----------



## mandocaster (Jan 11, 2007)

traynor_garnet said:


> Hey MC,
> 
> I don't think anyone is suggesting CO2 should be eliminated or that it plays an unimportant role in the earth's ecosystem. An excess of anything, however, can throw a system for a loop (like water intoxication!). I don't know of anyone who, pro or con global warming, thinks it is beneficial to dump large amounts of CO2 into the air; many of those who don't support global warming still argue that we _should_ curb C02 emissions. I'm not really sure why you choose this line of argument because it kind of seems like a Red Herring.


I'm not choosing a line of arguement that suggests that CO2 is some kind of eco-wundergas. I'm just pointing out that it's there, and the earth has obviously included it in the system.

Now think of this little idea....right now China is using vast reserves of brown sub-bituminous coal as an industrial fuel, with little or no regulation on its particulate emissions. This soot is floating on the northern jet stream and settling out in the Arctic, increasing the albedo of snow and ice (its heat absorption properties), which is most certainly contributing to the rapid springtime melt. Nobody, pro or con, is focussing on this fact....the smog from this can be seen in the northern sunset. Not good....!

In answer to your question about the focus of the resarch readings, no, its primary focus was not climate mechanics or global warming (the latter buzzword was not yet a buzzword at the time). And while late eighties research may be dated, a lot of it is also the basis for all up-to-date research.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

mandocaster said:


> Now think of this little idea....right now China is using vast reserves of brown sub-bituminous coal as an industrial fuel, with little or no regulation on its particulate emissions. This soot is floating on the northern jet stream and settling out in the Arctic, increasing the albedo of snow and ice (its heat absorption properties), which is most certainly contributing to the rapid springtime melt. Nobody, pro or con, is focussing on this fact....the smog from this can be seen in the northern sunset. Not good....!


This is one of the main reasons I have such little confidence in the Kyoto Accord. Can you suggest any scientific reason why China should be allowed to continue this practice?

I can think of a host of political ones.

If a country is releasing particulates that are a major cause of polar melting, why is no one pointing any fingers at that country? If China is the cause of the supposed die-off of polar bears in the Canadian north, does she not owe us compensation?

I guess countries are reluctant to bring claim against others for fear of claims being made against themselves!

Meanwhile Mr. MC, have you read any of the reports of the effects of jet fuel exhaust gases on global warming? I'd appreciate hearing any thoughts. This is another area that no one seems willling to talk about. If true, this is possibly enough of a contributor to make the contributions of those of us on the ground trivial in comparison. It seems standard political practice to get us all spinning our wheels thinking that we're to blame and that it's up to us to make the sacrifices to fix it as a diversion to let the real offenders off the hook.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> How can I tell, David?


...not by the sound of their voices, i'm guessing.

a non-partisan debate on global warming? great idea. we need the straight goods from the scientific community, rather than inanely labelling anyone who shows any concern for the environment as a granola-eating, birkenstock-wearing hippie tree-hugging do-gooder.

politicized discussions on the issue i don't get. how does it advance the debate to speculate that global warming is a "left-wing conspiracy"?

however, that is pretty much all i'm seeing and hearing.

-dh


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...not by the sound of their voices, i'm guessing.
> 
> a non-partisan debate on global warming? great idea. we need the straight goods from the scientific community, rather than inanely labelling anyone who shows any concern for the environment as a granola-eating, birkenstock-wearing hippie tree-hugging do-gooder.
> 
> ...


Well, it may look that way sometimes. I don't recall saying any such thing myself. However, we "deniers" don't really judge an argument by its shoes. It doesn't matter if you are a tree-hugger or wear a tie (I've done both!). If you propose a solution and it sounds loopy then who cares if your sandals are gold-plated or that your heart is pure.

A thing either works or it doesn't.

The media is also a big part of the problem in seeing both sides of the issue. The CBC is famous for carefully choosing the members of a discussion panel. They pick the most articulate members for their "side" and find some lame ass guys to take the other. It's like if you have a panel on gun control and for the "bear arms" side you pick some schizo named Bubba. Most times the audience never realises they've been had.

The politicizing comes in when a proposed solution like Kyoto doesn't seem to be a good vehicle to fix the problem. If you actually read it you will see that it's really a massive foreign aid program. Since it was written by the UN under a "one-country, one vote" policy and there are far more third world countries than "rich" ones it's not hard to understand why.

And yes, it does specifically let China off the hook. Bye bye polar bears...

Developing countries actually have an advantage over us in "going green". If you look at things without politics and simply from a technical perspective you see that when you start from scratch you can start with the latest and greatest. "Ebonia" doesn't have to spend zillions cleaning up a century old blast furnace like Stelco or Dofasco to begin producing steel. They've never had one so the first one they build can take advantage of the latest technologies! 

China has never had to develop and continue to support an infrastructure of telephone poles. They essentially started off with cellular technology. Saved a lot of trees.

So it would appear that the people who support the Kyoto concept that developing countries have a right to pollute as they catch up to the West in industrialization are making the assumption that they first have to go back a century or two and go through every stage that we did!

We should not be too quick to accept every new "green" law or proposal. Did you know that it would likely be illegal to make guitar amp tubes in North America, due to our pollution laws?

It must be a conspiracy by the makers of the Roland Cube...


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

jroberts said:


> Whether the Kyoto Accord is a good idea or not has absolutely nothing to do with the science of climate change. You keep trying to convince people that anyone who believes that mankind is contributing to extrordinarily high CO2 levels in the atmosphere must automatically support the Kyoto Accord. That is purely a straw man, and is an argument not befitting a man who ostensibly holds logic in such high regard.


THANK YOU!!  :wink: 

People conflate these issues all the time and it drives me nuts.

Regarding our logical friend Wild Bill, I get the feeling he has put both of us on his ignore list and so he doesn't see our posts.

If you check through the old thread you will find a post where he claims "he keeps an open mind and listens to all views" right before he waxes fantastic about the ignore button's marvelous ability to weed out views he doesn't agree with! Pretty much says it all None 

That said, the man knows amps and is quite good at explaining how they work.

BTW, did you ever pick up that BF Deluxe Reverb?
TG


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

Ok the thread has turned from a discussion on the issues to a discussion attacking members regarding things they've said or done!

Thread closed!


----------

