If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
RichA wrote:
> > Two years ago, the Canadian government set up a $70m fund for > scientific research into global warming. One of the stiputations of > it was that you'd only get the money if you were trying to prove it's > existence, if you held an alternate view, you wouldn't get any money. > So much for scientific integrity. I don't recall this, and I'd be interested to find out more (I'll poke around a bit), but it certainly doesn't surprise me. This is one of those issues where a lone voice like me has nothing to lose by speaking out, whereas it would be political suicide for a politician to speak out against the mainstream alarmist view. The Canadian lib media would draw and quarter 'em. |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
pawn wrote:
> rw wrote: > >> I saw a report today that the acidity of the oceans in increasing. >> About one third of the CO2 we produce from fossil fuels is absorbed by >> the ocean, and that produces carbolic acid. No fancy theories or >> computer models or difficult measurements are required. It's high >> school chemistry. > > > Hmmm, please provide this report. I'd like to see the level of increase. Sorry. I assumed that you read the newspaper or knew how to google: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3571152.stm http://www.thestatesman.net/page.new...ess=1&id=81584 and many other recent news reports. Of course, you'll dismiss this because it's a study by the Royal Society, Britain's leading scientific organization, and they've obviously been co-opted by the radical left enviro loonies. Since the start of the industrial revolution, according to this report, oceanic acidity has risen about 0.1 on the pH scale. As I'm sure you know, the pH scale is logarithmic, so that increase of 0.1 corresponds to about 30 percent more concentration of hydrogen ions in ocean water. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 20:29:59 GMT, rw >
wrote: >Spike wrote: >> >> Even rw acknowledges that the climate models are really sucky. If so, >> how can a determination be based on such imperfection and be so >> accepted as the one and only true view? > >The climate models do suck, but they're only one part of the story. >They're used to predict the outcome of global warming, and because they >suck those predictions are very uncertain, to say the least. > >A more important part of the story is the evidence that warming is >actually occurring, and that evidence is, as far as I'm concerned, >overwhelming. > >The next question is: Are man-made causes an important factor? That's >slightly less certain, but an answer of "yes" agrees with common sense. >Fossil fuel burning and other man-made activities pump about 25 billion >metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere per year, and CO2 is a known >greenhouse gas, and its increased concentration in the atmosphere is >very well documented. Scientists have been predicting a greenhouse >effect for many years. Now we're seeing it. Of course they are important. I've never denied that. It still remains to be seen whether or not the human impact is a great as natural factors. And before scientists were predicting a greenhouse effect, they were predicting a nuclear winter, and had all manner of documentation to support what they claimed would happen. Now they have all manner of documentation to support the opposite. How long before they once again change directions? And can anyone who has witnessed this change within the scientific community believe whatever they happen to espouse? I can see where someone who has grown up with only the global warming/greenhouse effect would accept the present position, but it gets a bit questionable when they swear up and down were going to blot out the sun with pollution and bring on a nuclear winter, and then say were going to blot out the sun with pollution and bring on a greenhouse effect. It must be easy for some people to simple accept what they are told and never question. Guess that's just not me. > >I saw a report today that the acidity of the oceans in increasing. About >one third of the CO2 we produce from fossil fuels is absorbed by the >ocean, and that produces carbolic acid. No fancy theories or computer >models or difficult measurements are required. It's high school chemistry. Last I read, the melting of the polar ice would result in lower salinity. Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Speech |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 00:11:04 GMT, rw > wrote: >pawn wrote: >> rw wrote: >> >>> I saw a report today that the acidity of the oceans in increasing. >>> About one third of the CO2 we produce from fossil fuels is absorbed by >>> the ocean, and that produces carbolic acid. No fancy theories or >>> computer models or difficult measurements are required. It's high >>> school chemistry. >> >> >> Hmmm, please provide this report. I'd like to see the level of increase. > >Sorry. I assumed that you read the newspaper or knew how to google: >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3571152.stm >http://www.thestatesman.net/page.new...ess=1&id=81584 >and many other recent news reports. You know what they say about assuming something.... like assuming that every scientific report is an unbiased evaluation with no errors or deviation. I read the papers, and watch the news. I did not see this. As for Google... I don't sit and run Google searches all day to see what's there in the event I happen into a discussion of something. My Google searches are primarily directed toward things related to my car, reading and music. > >Of course, you'll dismiss this because it's a study by the Royal >Society, Britain's leading scientific organization, and they've >obviously been co-opted by the radical left enviro loonies. I would not dismiss the Royal Society out of hand. But, neither do I accept every word publish as being absolute. Even the Brit scientists can make mistakes. > >Since the start of the industrial revolution, according to this report, >oceanic acidity has risen about 0.1 on the pH scale. As I'm sure you >know, the pH scale is logarithmic, so that increase of 0.1 corresponds >to about 30 percent more concentration of hydrogen ions in ocean water. I was not aware that anyone tracked the acidity of the ocean since the start of the industrial revolution. Could that be because those who started it knew then that it would lead to problems of today and wanted to keep track of how well they were doing? And were the samples taken everywhere? Or just around population centers where industrial and human waste was dumped into the seas? Lots of ocean out there to test. Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Speech |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Actually, through the past decades, there have been a number of
studies, not just in Canada, where in the funding was provided only to those who published in support of the entity providing the funding. Not surprisingly, quite a number of papers were published in support, and later debunked. One of those, IIRC, about 25 years ago had to do with nuclear winter and pollution. On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 15:47:00 -0400, RichA > wrote: >On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 01:19:30 -0400, pawn > wrote: > >>rw wrote: >> >>> >>> You're wrong that, Spike. Peer-reviewed scientific opinion is unanimous >>> that man-made green-house-gas pollution is affecting the climate. It's >>> completely consistent with common sense if you look at the trend for CO2 >>> in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution: >> >>Junk plain and simple. You're simply spewing the same crap the sprout >>eaters have been blabbing to the media for years. There was never any >>pier review involved in the so-called consensus, which was never >>unanimous, ever, even in the wildest dreams of the most sprout eating >>sprout eater. >> > >Two years ago, the Canadian government set up a $70m fund for >scientific research into global warming. One of the stiputations of >it was that you'd only get the money if you were trying to prove it's >existence, if you held an alternate view, you wouldn't get any money. >So much for scientific integrity. >-Rich > Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Speech |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Spike wrote:
> > I was not aware that anyone tracked the acidity of the ocean since the > start of the industrial revolution. Could that be because those who > started it knew then that it would lead to problems of today and > wanted to keep track of how well they were doing? And were the samples > taken everywhere? Or just around population centers where industrial > and human waste was dumped into the seas? Lots of ocean out there to > test. Samples of ocean water and even of the atmosphere dating from the industrial revolution and well before are readily available. More anti-scientific mumbo jumbo, spike. You disappoint me. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Spike wrote:
> > Of course they are important. I've never denied that. It still remains > to be seen whether or not the human impact is a great as natural > factors. And before scientists were predicting a greenhouse effect, > they were predicting a nuclear winter, and had all manner of > documentation to support what they claimed would happen. That's either disingenuous or ignorant. The "nuclear winter" scenarios were a prediction of what would happen after a full-scale nuclear war. They had nothing to do with global warming, CO2, or climate change. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 20:16:01 GMT, rw >
wrote: >Spike wrote: >> Don't bother thinking for myself? What? And accept whatever I'm told, >> without question, as if it were the gospel according to St rw? That >> seems a strange position for one so sure of their views to take. To >> add insult rather than accept that others have views which differ, >> does nothing to induce someone to accept those views held. >> >> I've listened to your views, as I have others, and respect them. That >> doesn't mean I must agree with them. Nor does it mean that you should >> insult me because my views are different from yours. I suppose there >> are those people who just can't stand it when someone does not agree >> with their views. > >You're right, Spike. I spoke out of turn and I apologize. I accept your apology. although I did not ask for one, nor was one expected. I give you more respect for having done so. Perhaps you will consider that we likely come from different times and experiences, and therefore have different views. I acknowledge that others' lives have not been identical to mine and that their views may be different. I do not judge them as being absolutely wrong. I make allowance for the possibility that they may be right. It's a matter of respecting others as individuals with minds of their own. > >What is frustrating to me, however, about your arguments, on this and >some other topics, is that you seem to assume there are always two >opposed but equally valid positions, and then you feel free to take the >position that suits you personal best interest as you perceive it. And >then if someone criticises your position you cry "foul." It comes across >to me as a way of avoiding facing up to harsh realities. Gas prices >increasing? It must be OPEC's fault. Global warming? Not enough >evidence. Kerry releases complete military records with no blemishes? >Stop criticizing Bush. Your frustration may be that I do not cave in and simply accept whatever I am told in some blind, mindless fashion. I like to dig and find out for myself to the extent I can, and then make up my own mind. I do not choose the position that serves my personal best interest. I choose the position which I happen to believe, as I think you do. In what manner would my personal interest be served? I am not an author foisting a book upon the public. Nor do I gain from the rising price of fuel. And Kerry's record, true or false, do not alter my life in any way. Global warming? Do I gain if I am wrong and the world ends in a runaway greenhouse effect? Do I gain if it ends by nuclear winter? The circumstances you cited wherein we disagree, are no different than this situation. If you will recall, I have never put you down for having opposing views. I have simply indicated that I do not particularly agree with them. In our exchanges, you will note that I have always indicated the possibility that I might be wrong, something you do not seem to be able to do. For example, at no time did I say that OPEC was solely responsible for rising fuel prices. Nor did I say Kerry's records were false. I did provide you with personal experience gleaned from within the military establishment during and while serving in Vietnam, which might (notice I said "might") explain why other members of his unit disagreed with him. You absolutely rejected any such possibility, and flatly stated that it was a bunch of men angry over Kerry's post Vietnam activities, conducted in collusion with the GOP. As if the men from that unit were not entitled to think on their own, nor think without bias. Yet, you find no problem in attacking the President with nothing more for proof than accusations, innuendo, and rumor. As I have said to you over each exchange, I accept that you have different views to which you are entitled. Did I not? And did I not provide you with the benefit of my experience, which you rejected without consideration? Much as you have accused me in the matter of global warming? I respect you for your beliefs, even though I disagree, whether in whole or in part. Just as I respect others for their religious beliefs, or their political beliefs. (My own brother was a draft evader during Vietnam, and I still respect that he had the guts to stand up for his convictions and to accept the punishment meted out for his refusal, rather than to run and hide in a foreign country, even as I was ducking bullets. He in turn, has never put me down for my convictions which took me there.) From out of all this, perhaps you, and some others will look inward at the way you react to those who disagree with you; to those who see things differently, or are different in some way. Maybe you will see that everyone is entitled to their own views, whether in your view they are right or wrong, and that insults, rejection, argument, browbeating, etc, does not reflect well on the one who denies them the right to dissent. If everyone were to be so understanding, there might be a lot less conflict in the world, and people might be able to better work together to solve the ills of the world. I have yet to find reason to feel frustrated by your responses simply because you disagree with me. Nor over the fact that you and some others are so willing to attack my views, yet unwilling to accept anyone who does not agree with yours. That's something you have to live with. Who knows? There might yet be some subject wherein we are in total agreement. Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Speech |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
rw wrote:
> pawn wrote: >> Hmmm, please provide this report. I'd like to see the level of increase. > > Sorry. I assumed that you read the newspaper or knew how to google: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3571152.stm > http://www.thestatesman.net/page.new...ess=1&id=81584 > and many other recent news reports. > You obviously have little tolerance for real discussion, which, if you go back and read my response, is all I was soliciting. Anyway, your first link references a study that will happen (or will have happened, based on the date), with no analysis or conclusions. The second one references a report, with a selective synopsis. I said I would like to see the report, not a sensationalized summary of alarming conclusions, without any backup. In another post, you chastise Spike for asking the obvious questions: are the measurements taken near urban centres? Is it a localized effect? Is it the surface only? Have they attempted to measure the pH at depth? Any rational person would want to know these things, and more, before blindly accepting such alarmism. I mean, you said you saw the report. Have you? Where? What was the answer to any of my questions above? Furthermore, you posted earlier that "man-made activities pump about 25 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere per year" (let's forget that it's metric tonnes, not metric tons). Your first link above states that "some 20-25 million tonnes of carbon dioxide are being added to the oceans each day". Then you go on to say "one third of the CO2 we produce from fossil fuels is absorbed by the ocean", your second link says "About half of the CO2 produced remains in the atmosphere while the rest dissolves in the oceans". So, you're really all over the map here. I mean, if your number of roughly a third is correct, then the amount of CO2 we pump into the atmosphere is closer to 75B tonnes, not 25. Which is it? Personally, I think you go around reading dumbed down newspaper bits, and if they fit into your alarmist, arm flapping view of the world, you accept it as fact. When a true scientific analysis, that follows conventional methods, and the entire report is handed to you to review, such as the McKitrick & McIntyre report and link I gave you, you dismiss it offhand. (if it doesn't fit into your pre-concluded view of the issue). Then laughably accuse other people of the same behaviour. > Of course, you'll dismiss this because it's a study by the Royal > Society, Britain's leading scientific organization, and they've > obviously been co-opted by the radical left enviro loonies. > Actually, based on your selective snipping, and complete lack of response to every single corner I've boxed you into, I don't really think I need to accept or dismiss anything you've said or provided. It's like I'm talking to a wall. > Since the start of the industrial revolution, according to this report, > oceanic acidity has risen about 0.1 on the pH scale. As I'm sure you > know, the pH scale is logarithmic, so that increase of 0.1 corresponds > to about 30 percent more concentration of hydrogen ions in ocean water. Well, it's been a while since I studied acids and bases, but I'm confident you don't know **** about them based on your statement above (BTW, it's 26%, and it's not a "concentration" of H+, a term you seem to be very hung up on, it's the amount of H+). |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Yeah, my parents said that too, and then I surpassed every wish they
ever had for me and my siblings, while they, straight A honor students both, failed to live up to expectations. And did I say they didn't take samples? No. I said I was not aware they did. That is not "anti" scientific. I do however wonder what their purpose was, and whether the quality of testing was as good then as now. And it is a valid point regarding where they were doing the testing. The same would apply today. If, as many people have across the US, you had a well for water, would the purity testing of that water be accurate if I tested water from a well four states over? I think not. On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 02:43:53 GMT, rw > wrote: >Spike wrote: >> >> I was not aware that anyone tracked the acidity of the ocean since the >> start of the industrial revolution. Could that be because those who >> started it knew then that it would lead to problems of today and >> wanted to keep track of how well they were doing? And were the samples >> taken everywhere? Or just around population centers where industrial >> and human waste was dumped into the seas? Lots of ocean out there to >> test. > >Samples of ocean water and even of the atmosphere dating from the >industrial revolution and well before are readily available. More >anti-scientific mumbo jumbo, spike. You disappoint me. Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Speech |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GT4 Rrius Challenge. | [email protected] | Simulators | 0 | April 5th 05 04:56 AM |
Need opinions on F1 Challenge multiplayer | Pickaxe | Simulators | 0 | March 18th 05 03:52 AM |
1st Enviro Teaming up with Green Prix... Developing Formula F3 Game and Need Drivers for 100 Real Events... | Don Wilshe | Simulators | 3 | January 8th 05 05:18 PM |
Most realistic mod for F1 Challenge | Jiyang Chen | Simulators | 0 | January 3rd 05 07:54 PM |
Press Release: Russell Harrison Communication's challenge to the men's lifestyle publication industry | Russ Harrison | Audi | 0 | August 19th 04 02:42 AM |