it's not happening, we need another 5-year study

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

State officials talk of freedom THEY-TALK

In this country that we live in THEY-TALK

Free to be harassed and be beaten by the pigs YOUR RIGHTS-NO RIGHTS

Till your fucking broken, crippled, or until you're fucking dead

 

They pass laws unfair to gays THEIR-WORK

And separatist laws to keep the non-whites in their place THEIR-WORK

Family values as a smoke screen blowing in your face THEIR TRUTH-NO TRUTH

Family values isn't something that should be based on hate

based on hate

 

Justice presides over them, late into the night

A blind fold covering their eyes but something isn't right...

Under their arms there are shackles on her legs

And the hands that once held up her scales are bound, are bound in chains

 

And behind their closed doors they conspire through the night MORE WORK-SICK WORK

And they won't stop until this nation is all straight and all white

 

They call it a free nation, but all it is, is a nazi nation

 

Edited December 18, 2002 by Dr_Flash_Amazing

[allthumbs]

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord

He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored,

He has loosed the fateful lightening of His terrible swift sword

His truth is marching on.

 

 

[j_b]

I read more arrogance into the stances of folks sure how *other* people should be forced to pay for what they value and forced to live their lives in accordance with the social goals of the viewer

 

it has nothing to do with values: if you mess up *our* environment, you should pay, because it is costing everyone of us money, lifespan, etc .. so don't reduce it to subjective concepts again. For someone so concerned about freedom of the individual you for sure don't seem too concerned about other people's freedom like that of not having to live on your spew.

[Fairweather]

In another 500million years, or perhaps sooner, as our star leaves its main sequence and begins to swell as its hydrogen is consumed, we will all be seriously fucked. This is assuming we aren't blasted by a large asteroid, cometary fragment, gamma burst, itinerante black hole, ... or eachother before that time.

 

The supreme goal of the human race in the meantime should be to explore, and settle the rest of this galaxy. Unfortunately, the speed-of-light seems to be a major barrier. (Too bad Clinton killed the Superconducting-Supercollider project. ) Even if we succeed with this undertaking, one must still deal with an ever expanding universe that grows colder and colder, or a universe that collapses back on itself. Here again, we're screwed.

 

 

I think SSui may be right...we humans are only here for the blink of an eye.

 

 

Am I saying we shouldn't be good stewards of the planet we're on? Hell No! But it will never be possible to leave this place without making a bit of a mess ie: the physical and social infrastructure required for said undertaking. A balanced approach will, no doubt, be necessary.

 

I don't deny global warming is happening. While I am a big time "human caused" global warming skeptic, my New Year's Resolution for 2003 is to read all I can about the topic and try to seperate the politics from the science. Not that it matters a rip, but I am willing to change my position if any non-hysterical, non-activist, non-socialist, is willing to convince me.

 

[glen]

fairweather, look up some of the research by Lisa Sloan and Jim Zachos at UC Santa Cruz. They do good work and do both modelling and data collection from the geologic record.

[ScottP]

I don't buy the rock theory, preferring instead the more direct means for calculating the Earth's age which is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.

And how is this superior to the Pb-Th system?

[allthumbs]

Are you fucking serious? Go polish your purple helmet.

[ScottP]

I think SSui may be right...we humans are only here for the blink of an eye.

 

"We are, indeed, nothing in the greater scheme. Nought but a grand experiment in a rather large petrie dish."

-Anonymous

[glen]

Th-Pb and U-Pb are closely related. U decays to Th on the way to decaying to Pb (with Po, Ra, Bi, Tl, At, Ac, Pa, and Fr on the way) along the U-Pb decay series. So the primary point is that the half life (ie, decay constant) of U-Pb is different than Th-Pb. Half life of U=2.8 by, while Th is 9 by. For this application, which is 'better' is dependent on the rock sample and how long it's been sitting around, and for the most part, esoteric. I mean, geez, it's not like anybody proposed using Ra to date the earth...

[j_b]

Climate models don't even include solar variability or possible solar wind interactions with cloud formation if I understand correctly, so whatever predictions they make without including such variables are innately flawed.

 

and

 

The idea that a majority of scientists feel warming is driven by human CO2 emissions is a fiction.

 

Can the observed changes be explained by natural variability, including changes in solar output?

 

"the contribution of direct solar irradiance forcing is small compared to the greenhouse gas component."

 

"While Milankovitch cycles have tremendous value as a theory to explain ice-ages and long-term changes in the climate, they are unlikely to have very much impact on the decade-century timescale. Over several centuries, it may be possible to observe the effect of these orbital parameters, however for the prediction of climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases"

 

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q10

 

Are greenhouse gases increasing?

 

"Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are about 370 ppmv. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration)"

 

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q2

 

what would we do without NOAA?

 

What's happening is happening and what relates to that is actual, physical, concrete *proof*, not a show of hands, and certainly not models which cannot possibly recreate an entire planet nor the millions of variables active on it.

 

yeah right, a top-notch physical process model of climate would be further from reality than a certain political model which claims to "recreates an entire planet with millions of variable" and concludes we should be waging war for peace? Your concept of proofs is apparently subjective as well.

 

[MtnGoat]

"The site linked to is a front for the conservative think tank "national center for policy research".....the usual culprits in the climate science conservative media blitzkrieg."

 

You mean folks who disagree with the climate assesments link up with other folks who also disagree? How shocking! That proves they must be slanted... or they actually agree they disagree with others who interpret all this in an entirely different way.

 

Calling people even you admit have the necessary credentials "mouthpieces" and so on, doesn't begin to touch on their data or their arguments, instead showing a preference for worrying more about their associations and your view of same than the arguments they present. I could likewise view the list of sources provided at NOAA and other agencies as "mouthpieces" and so on, since govt affiliation has never exactly been the gold standard for objectivity as far as I know.

 

 

[MtnGoat]

"While Milankovitch cycles have tremendous value as a theory to explain ice-ages and long-term changes in the climate, they are unlikely to have very much impact on the decade-century timescale."

 

So now proof consists of the conjecture that it's "unlikely" it has an impact? Talk about subjective. Does this indicate the influence is not in the models this fellow references?

 

"however for the prediction of climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases"

 

And he knows this because? How will they decide what is forced and what is not, if they do not *quantify* solar forcing?

 

"yeah right, a top-notch physical process model of climate would be further from reality than a certain political model which claims to "recreates an entire planet with millions of variable" and concludes we should be waging war for peace?"

 

Since the conclusions of war for peace are not expected to be empirical and provable, as climate models are claimed to be, there is no comparison possible. If you are referencing any claim you think I have made that political actions or models are provable or empirical, you'd better rethink your position because I have never ever made such a claim.

 

However, you do claim climate models are both provable and empirical, and your own statement seems to imply "top notch physical process models" are not very good either. An interesting statement.

 

 

 

 

[MtnGoat]

"it has nothing to do with values: if you mess up *our* environment, you should pay, because it is costing everyone of us money, lifespan, etc .."

 

If it's costing us lifespan, it's not showing in the US or other industrialized nations where lifespan continues to increase.

 

 

[MtnGoat]

http://www.senate.gov/%7Eepw/lin_0502.htm

 

so much for agreement of the worlds scientists, from an expert who actually headed up one section of the ipcc report.

 

" The vast majority of participants played no role in preparing the summary, and were not asked for agreement.

 

The draft of the Policymakers Summary was significantly modified at Shanghai. The IPCC, in response to the fact that the Policymakers Summary was not prepared by participating scientists, claimed that the draft of the Summary was prepared by a (selected) subset of the 14 coordinating lead authors.

 

However, the final version of the summary differed significantly from the draft. For example the draft concluded the following concerning attribution:

 

"From the body of evidence since IPCC (1996), we conclude that there has been a discernible human influence on global climate. Studies are beginning to separate the contributions to observed climate change attributable to individual external influences, both anthropogenic and natural. This work suggests that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are a substantial contributor to the observed warming, especially over the past 30 years. However, the accuracy of these estimates continues to be limited by uncertainties in estimates of internal variability, natural and anthropogenic forcing, and the climate response to external forcing."

 

The version that emerged from Shanghai concludes instead:

 

 

"In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

 

In point of fact, there may not have been any significant warming in the last 60 years. Moreover, such warming as may have occurred was associated with jumps that are inconsistent with greenhouse warming.

 

The preparation of the report, itself, was subject to pressure. There were usually several people working on every few pages. Naturally there were disagreements, but these were usually hammered out in a civilized manner. However, throughout the drafting sessions, IPCC 'coordinators' would go around insisting that criticism of models be toned down, and that 'motherhood' statements be inserted to the effect that models might still be correct despite the cited faults. Refusals were occasionally met with ad hominem attacks. I personally witnessed coauthors forced to assert their 'green' credentials in defense of their statements.

 

None of the above should be surprising. The IPCC was created to support the negotiations concerning CO2 emission reductions. Although the press frequently refers to the hundreds and even thousands of participants as the world's leading climate scientists, such a claim is misleading on several grounds.

 

First, climate science, itself, has traditionally been a scientific backwater. There is little question that the best science students traditionally went into physics, math and, more recently, computer science. Thus, speaking of "thousands" of the world's leading climate scientists is not especially meaningful. Even within climate science, most of the top researchers (at least in the US) avoid the IPCC because it is extremely time consuming and non-productive. Somewhat ashamedly I must admit to being the only active participant in my department. None of this matters a great deal to the IPCC.

 

As a UN activity, it is far more important to have participants from a hundred countries many of which have almost no active efforts in climate research. For most of these participants, involvement with the IPCC gains them prestige beyond what would normally be available, and these, not surprisingly, are likely to be particularly supportive of the IPCC.

 

Finally, judging from the Citation Index, the leaders of the IPCC process like Sir John Houghton, Dr. Robert Watson, and Prof. Bert Bolin have never been major contributors to basic climate research. They are, however, enthusiasts for the negotiating process without which there would be no IPCC, which is to say that the IPCC represents an interest in its own right. Of course, this hardly distinguishes the IPCC from other organizations."

 

read the whole thing, it blows holes in the IPCC process of summary writing, which have been released to the press and marketed as representing scientific consensus. It also points out some non certainties presented *here* in this thread as proven points instead of still unresolved issues.

 

Further, since the IPCC *itself* was formed to justify the foregone conclusion that carbon control was a necessity, it shows there is every bit as much reason for *them* to reach conclusions they like, just as other interests are being accused of.

 

Don't bother attacking the source, deal with the data.

 

Edited December 18, 2002 by MtnGoat

[MtnGoat]

"Summary of Findings:

 

The UN IPCC WG1 Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the Third Assessment Report is not an assessment of climate change science, even though it claims to be. Rather, it is an artfully constructed presentation of just the science that supports the fear of human induced climate change. It is as one sided as a legal brief, which it resembles.

 

Line by line analysis of the SPM reveals that all of the science that cuts against the theory of human interference with climate has been systematically omitted. In some cases the leading arguments against human interference are actually touched on, but without being revealed or discussed. In other cases the evidence against human interference is simply ignored. Because of these strategic omissions, the SPM voices a degree of certainty that is entirely false.

 

Glaring omissions are only glaring to experts, so the "policymakers" -- including the press and the public -- who read the SPM will not realize they are being told only one side of a story. But the scientists who drafted the SPM know the truth, as revealed by the sometimes artful way they conceal it. This deliberate distortion can only be explained by the fact that the UN IPCC is part of an advocacy process, organized by the United Nations Environment Program and supporting the Kyoto Protocol.

 

What is systematically omitted from the SPM are precisely the uncertainties and positive counter evidence that might negate the human interference theory. Instead of assessing these objections, the Summary confidently asserts just those findings that support its case. In short, this is advocacy, not assessment."

 

 

 

read it all here:

http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm

 

find out how error and uncertainty has been removed and hidden systematically in detailed examples using the actual text of the reports.

 

deal with the data, instead of sidetracking us with personalities and boogymen.

[MtnGoat]

And I'm still waiting to see some jusitification for the Kyoto protocol, which doesn't even include developing nations. Seems to me if you're so sure the climate is in such dire trouble, you'd not only be beating up on the US, all those mean nasty SUV's, and industrial civilization, but *demanding* ALL nations be forced to reduce CO2 emissions because that is what it will take to do anything meaningful in terms of climate. Even the Kyoto advocates here are dead silent on Kyoto's predicted impact given it's *own* science assesment, that it will at best result in a tiny change and what is really needed is total and drastic controls immediately.

 

What's more important, what's convenient and politically feasible, or saving the earth? Is it better to go around around feeling caring and superior, while not really supporting what actually needs to be done, or bite the bullet and actually demand huge, unpleasant, drastic changes NOW? Nope, that would muddy the agenda now, wouldn't it? Instead support the minor cosmetic agreement that provides for lots of nice speeches and wonderful feelings, while costing hundreds of billions and having minor impact.

[allthumbs]

God you're boring Mtn. Goat

 

You don't seriously think anyone in their right mind reads that shit do you?

[iain]

I believe I made a clear warning about this a couple pages back. Did anyone heed it? No!

[allthumbs]

He has 6 long posts in a row, essentially talking to himself. The subject matter is bizarre and too deep for any but a nerd. What's this idiot's problem anyway? I think he needs to get laid.

[iain]

"deep" is an awfully generous adjective to use in this case.

[j_b]

You mean folks who disagree with the climate assesments link up with other folks who also disagree? How shocking!

 

no I mean folks who link up with a conservative think tank funded by the oil industry and the coors foundation and pretend to make their point of view pass as science. Note this think tank could not get more ~30 names, some of which have clearly nothing to with climate science and/or research, others are the usual individuals (and the associations mentioned in my previous post on this) promoting the same tangential ideas that are dismissed by the mainstream of the community, and others appear to be ok, regular scientists (as far as my 10minutes of perusal let's me know). That's what I mean.

 

Now if you want to portray expressing a scientific point of view while funded by NOAA as similar to expressing it on an oil industry mouthpiece considering the obvious conflict of interest it represents, be my guest.

[Greg_W]

Now if you want to portray expressing a scientific point of view while funded by NOAA as similar to expressing it on an oil industry mouthpiece considering the obvious conflict of interest it represents, be my guest.

 

Why would one believe that NOAA is free from scientific bias?

[iain]

yeah just because he's herding all those animal couples around in some ark doesn't mean he knows jack about climate change...oh wrong noah er noaa.

[allthumbs]

NOAA moors one of their ships in front of my cabin about twice a year. Usually there's some hotties running around the deck in skimpy bikinis, cavorting and frolicking and showing their tits to us when we run out to them in our boats. There's definitely some "hanky-panky" going on with NOAA.

[j_b]

"While Milankovitch cycles have tremendous value as a theory to explain ice-ages and long-term changes in the climate, they are unlikely to have very much impact on the decade-century timescale."

 

So now proof consists of the conjecture that it's "unlikely" it has an impact? Talk about subjective. Does this indicate the influence is not in the models this fellow references?

 

no it just means that no significant impact has been found despite uncertainties in measurement. Ergo no effect even if we improve our methods.

 

"however for the prediction of climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases"

 

And he knows this because? How will they decide what is forced and what is not, if they do not *quantify* solar forcing?

 

it is quantified and just not important.

 

"yeah right, a top-notch physical process model of climate would be further from reality than a certain political model which claims to "recreates an entire planet with millions of variable" and concludes we should be waging war for peace?"

 

Since the conclusions of war for peace are not expected to be empirical and provable, as climate models are claimed to be, there is no comparison possible. If you are referencing any claim you think I have made that political actions or models are provable or empirical, you'd better rethink your position because I have never ever made such a claim.

 

I was only pointing out that you fully endorse conceptual world models without validation, and are criticized by a majority of world political scientists and casual observers. Yet, you fully reject physically based models (i.e. with constraints and validations) that are assessed as valuable tools in our assessment of climate change by the majority of the climate science community.

 

The process of validation and constraints is the same for all sciences, hard or 'soft'. There are probably more variables and feedback in a political model of waging war for peace than in a climate model. So be consistent, that's all.

 

However, you do claim climate models are both provable and empirical, and your own statement seems to imply "top notch physical process models" are not very good either. An interesting statement.

 

I have not claimed anything except that climate models are very good and useful to make some types of predictions yet not completely representative of the athmosphere/ocean/earth system. You should not use scientific caution to promote unwarranted distrust, but it has not stopped you before.