Climate Change

[VictorBravo]

The author is uncertain of future trends but says that if we needed to raise the earth's temperature we "can release more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere" (p. 141). It seems conservatives were fine with the idea that increasing carbon dioxide increases global temperatures when it helped their argument in the '70s.

I remember those debates well, and your last sentence brought a wry smile.

Just a general observation about these things: we ought to be better stewards, no question. In some ways we collectively have gotten better (I remember the Hudson River was considered too dangerous to stick your toe in, now it is much cleaner; we are much better on air pollution than we were in the 60s, etc.). Other ways, we are perhaps worse. As a once-upon-a-time scientist, I sometimes am dismayed at the alarmism I've seen both on both swings of the pendulum. Rarely is the overarching tendency toward equilibrium (which I consider to be the balancing hand of God) seriously discussed.

For example, I looked at some of the recent CO2 models, and they will say warmer oceans will result in lower CO2 solubility (reducing removal from the atmosphere), but seem to forget other aspects of equilibrium, such as increased plankton growth, which results in increased carbon sequestration.

And so forth....

 

[kvanlaan]

Edward, the fox has proclaimed the henhouse safe indeed. That the East Anglians were proclaimed free of wrongdoing by those who work shoulder to shoulder with them, organize their grants, and promote the same agenda as they do should be no great surprise. I always wonder just how truly unbiased a man can be when he must perpetuate a certain line of thinking for his paycheque to continue showing up in his mailbox, whether the data supports it or not. Were Dawkins to say, 'yes, this is all a sham, the Almighty did create the heavens, sea, and all that in them is in six days', his position as an evolutionary biologist at Oxford would come to a dramatic end, and his books sales would no doubt slump. If I want a grant to study the effects of seasonal changes on squirrels' nut gathering habits, I would be hard pressed to see a dime from anyone. But if I want to investigate the effects of seasonal changes on squirrels' nut gathering habits in the context of global warming, it would be a whole different story. I don't know that it even constitutes empirical study anymore.

 

[Edward]

I don't know that it even constitutes empirical study anymore.

Start looking for the word 'consensus' in the discussions on 'climate change'. They are trying to shut down debate and avoid appeals to evidence.

 

[CuriousNdenver]

I don't know that it even constitutes empirical study anymore.

I think not, for those who have arrived at their conclusions before gathering data.

 

[J Miles]

Since your article is from 2009, you may not have heard that the scientists behind "Climategate" have been cleared of wrongdoing by a House of Commons Inquiry, an independent scientific panel, Pennsylvania State University, the EPA, and the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Commerce, and the National Science Foundation.

The US Inspector General for the Department of Commerce "did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures".

The fox has proclaimed the henhouse safe.

I will assume from your statement you were implying that the before mentioned individual was in bed with some form of secret conspiracy to defraud the government or the people of the United States.

I thought it was against the 9th commandment and forum rules to spread false testimony or to engage in slander.

I think accusing any official of criminal wrongdoing with no evidence would fall under that category. You and I both know that if I changed the words "did not" to "did" you would have fully supported the statement, despite not knowing who wrote the report or even having read the report yourself you pronounce judgment upon them for a mere statement which does not agree with your own preconceived opinion.

That is hypocrisy.

 

[J Miles]

That the East Anglians were proclaimed free of wrongdoing by those who work shoulder to shoulder with them, organize their grants, and promote the same agenda as they do should be no great surprise.

You again form a conspiracy theory lacking in evidence. You further your shame by comparing your nonsensical theory to the Puritans being arrested for non-conformity to the Anglican church. That is disgusting.

If we are persecuted, we must be persecuted because are righteous, not because we want to disagree with science over something not even in the bible.

I always wonder just how truly unbiased a man can be when he must perpetuate a certain line of thinking for his paycheque to continue showing up in his mailbox, whether the data supports it or not.

Can you even name the above mentioned official, let alone can you present actual evidence against him? Or his conclusion the only reason for stating that he has a conflict of interest.

Were Dawkins to say, 'yes, this is all a sham, the Almighty did create the heavens, sea, and all that in them is in six days', his position as an evolutionary biologist at Oxford would come to a dramatic end, and his books sales would no doubt slump.

Your logic failing, you introduce an example using Dawkins to illustrate a conflict of interest where there is none. You have not proven that the inspector even has a conflict of interest, let alone that he sells books or lectures like Dawkins.

If I want a grant to study the effects of seasonal changes on squirrels' nut gathering habits, I would be hard pressed to see a dime from anyone.

A US researcher was recently paid $385,000 dollars to study duck genitalia for the government.

Besides the government of Canada has already studied nut gathering habits of most squirrel species anyways.

They also pay several hundred thousand dollars each year to study owl scat at a university level.

I am not joking.

Government’s wasteful spending includes $385G duck penis study | New York Post

But if I want to investigate the effects of seasonal changes on squirrels' nut gathering habits in the context of global warming, it would be a whole different story. I don't know that it even constitutes empirical study anymore.

Squirrels are important to both forestry and the fur industry. Ironically, this is not the first time Puritans have conflicted with squirrels. In over 150 years of settlement in New England they still had no idea how trees reproduced, or how they spread.

In the end it was the squirrels.

There have been few useful points mentioned in this thread, so I am done here.

 

[Edward]

I will assume from your statement you were implying that the before mentioned individual was in bed with some form of secret conspiracy to defraud the government or the people of the United States.

I thought it was against the 9th commandment and forum rules to spread false testimony or to engage in slander.

I think accusing any official of criminal wrongdoing with no evidence would fall under that category. You and I both know that if I changed the words "did not" to "did" you would have fully supported the statement, despite not knowing who wrote the report or even having read the report yourself you pronounce judgment upon them for a mere statement which does not agree with your own preconceived opinion.

That is hypocrisy.

Inhofe released a statement thanking the Inspector General and highlighting the eight messages singled out for detailed review. In the statement, Inhofe says, "This report shows that some NOAA employees potentially violated federal contract law and engaged in data manipulation."

However, the Inspector General concluded that there was no evidence of any such manipulation.

Post Carbon - Commerce Dept. report clears U.S. scientists in 'climategate'

From the IG's response: http://www.oig.doc.gov/OIGPublications/2011.02.18-IG-to-Inhofe.pdf (emphasis supplied)

In our review of the CRU emails, we did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data comprising the GHCN-M dataset or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures.

So the question isn't whether the data was manipulated, the question is whether the manipulation was 'inappropriate'.

But I recommend that all interested read the report themselves and draw their own conclusions.

accusing any official of criminal wrongdoing

I'm going to have to demand a retraction of that statement.

 

[Free Christian]

What do they blame for changes from long ago? Places that in the Bible, and history shows as well, that were once thriving and alive but are now desolate and almost desert like. They now dig up from under the desert type regions proof of long ago civilisations that once were there when things were much different.
Places that had agriculture, water but now the area is desolate. In Australia in some of our desert regions are small pockets here and there of almost tropical like environments that once would have been very much larger but are now just remnants. Proof of a world in decline and changing as it winds down.
Yes I believe man has a lot to answer for in regards to his stewardship of the land/world but change has been occurring long before our modern day impact with industrialisation. Like my sister once said, I suppose it makes people feel better to tell them "we have made a mess but we can make it better by doing this and doing that" as opposed to telling them "we live in a sinful world in decline that is only finite and have a God to answer to."

 

[kvanlaan]

Um, Mr Miles, the reason I use the term 'East Anglians' has nothing to do with Puritans (or Anglicans) but everything to do with the University of East Anglia, where the climate charlatans who conducted this 'research' were based.

 

[Mushroom]

Um, Mr Miles, the reason I use the term 'East Anglians' has nothing to do with Puritans (or Anglicans) but everything to do with the University of East Anglia, where the climate charlatans who conducted this 'research' were based. Just sayin'. Kool-aid, anyone?

[video=youtube;V3FnpaWQJO0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3FnpaWQJO0[/video]