|
|  |
|
|
|
| |
| Dec 06, 2009 5:24 pm |
|
reviewing the thread "35 Inconvenient Truths" ... |
James Booth
| |
.
Whether a debate will happen between Christopher Monckton and Al Gore I think is a call for another side show
- more entertainment and no solutions to be found there.
Not properly introduced in the initial post, "Ms. Kreider" is Al Gore's spokesman and "environment advisor," Ms. Kalee Kreider, according to the scienceandpublicpolicy.org article entitled "35 Inconvenient Truths"
A call was put forth to "argue science" rather than pose "charlatans".
Complaints were registered regarding "the almost complete extinction of the practice of serious science" and "Global Warming Science" as "religion" - "distortions" and "marketing strategy" of deception.
Then, "In order to establish the validity of the human caused global warming
proposition, proponents need to carefully establish a lengthy and complicated
chain of causality"
- a reasonable acceptance that humans are contributing to the formation of greenhouses gases does not equate to "human caused global warming".
Claims and counter-claims do not support existence of a "climate crisis"
- not in terms of atmospheric temperature change; however ...
Nowhere in this so-called "debate" is there mention of short- and long-term effects on human physical health (and consequent "economics") resulting from toxins (of which CO2 is NOT one) emitted by industry, both front-end (in production cycles) and later ("after market" recycling efforts), or the sustainability of an environment polluted beyond habitation by not only human, but all life forms: human *DISease* - both physical and mental - is a significant force in the current U. S. economy.
Once again, a call was made to "argue science" rather than tend some "political stance".
A discussion of charlatans followed.
"Treat the earth with respect, as it is organic and alive" seems good advice.
The problem with portraying CO2 levels in Earth's atmosphere farther than about 100 million years ago: we can at best only guess.
The "politics" which finally allowed "global warming" to become an "accepted" issue are rooted in "economic potential" (profits) - a profit-making scheme, but nothing to do with human health or environmental sustainability.
CO2 in upper atmosphere does more to increase temperature through "trapping" yet also does more to decrease temperature by reflecting heat: what is the end result - higher or lower temperature ?
Focusing tightly on CO2 in earth's atmosphere says nothing about changes in ocean temperature due to "gyres" (islands of plastic debris which surely reflect sunlight that would otherwise penetrate ocean water), or changes in ocean temperature resulting from overfishing (which allows excessive growth of organisms that would otherwise be consumed by species now in decline): human activities which apparently are not yet "economical" to control through some taxation scheme.
Attempt was made to reduce the issue to "Socrates vs. the Sophists".
The word "charlatan" was defined and artwork on the cover of Al Gore's new book was critiqued.
Al Gore sued by over 30,000 Scientists for Global Warming fraud, finally.
Comment that Nobel Peace Prize has become "an icon or monument to a greater farce".
Comment that a Peace Prize should be awarded to whoever interrupted the "Al Gore rhythm".
No one seemed to want to mention than Nancy Pelosi is more interested in bringing hackers to "justice" that in prosecuting the conspiracy of lies exposed by those hackers.
Aussie MPs resign "in disgust over carbon tax".
Someone stepped in "netertainment" muck and forgot to take his shoes off.
Some humour and actual entertainment was shared.
Muckraking was finally interrupted by scientific opinion
... and I said I liked that.
It was pointed out that most of us are not scientists and apparently have no inclination to consult scientists or to be distracted by scientific conclusions.
A request was made to "list some basic assumptions and positions"
... to which I added some thoughts.
It was pointed out that most of what had transpired in the thread was opinion, with little science.
Comment was made that "discipline, patience, and time" would cause effort to "list some basic assumptions and positions" to devolve into meaningless polling.
Reiteration that IPCC *non-science* (majority of those "2500 scientists" are not scientists) has "demeaned and debased the practice of science".
A renewed "Global warming? Damm right" based on selected data - broadcasting "worst" news only - posing "man" (humans) as "virus".
An article by Christopher Booker on "climategate".
Comment that the quality of the "debate" has improved, accompanied by personal observations of local environmental damage resulting from "economic growth" and our need to be "responsible stewards" - that "The whole world environment has been transformed by the activities of people" - with a call to determine how much of the damage is human caused, and what can be done to change that activity.
Finally, observations on conditions of our oceans, and we can agree that "man is having an effect on his environment".
Objection to deletion of ad hominem attacks.
Comment that "There have been NO controlled experiments which show that human activity is the prodominant cause of global warming" - a good reminder that while "man is having an effect" there is more to the story.
Articles on scientific fraud, government reaction, potential consequences for fraudsters, etc.
Comments on the "economics" of "climate change".
A reversion to polarized thinking: us versus them.
Questioning who has a right to make decisions for others.
Touching on population control as a means of "saving the planet".
Personal observations of life and conditions in Copenhagen.
Dr. Albert A. Bartlett's presentation on "Arithmetic, Population, and Energy" - "if we don't stop it ourselves some other force will choose a way to force stoppage upon us" - seems to overlook the "need to keep the money going around" is itself contrary to sustainability of LIFE on Planet Earth.
Reminder that the current long-term trend of "Earth's temperature" is UP - regardless activities of man: the rise in temperature would exist even without human presence because it is largely a result of cyclical factors which have always been the workings of the Universe itself - all of which is NOT to say that "man" does not have responsibility to do his part in maintaining a sustainable environment for life on Planet Earth.
Yes, "artifacts" have been discovered - exposed as glaciers have retreated over time - and more will be found before glaciers begin to grow again, as will inevitably happen, as has always happened.
Average Global Temperature chart contrasted (for a closer look) with a Sea Level Chart, devolves to more ad hominem clutter.
"To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail".
_
My question: has anyone gained any new insights as result of all this ?
JB
Private Reply to James Booth (new win) |
|
| |
|
