Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

News Briefs 12-07-2007

By Gregon

The Daily Grail: your source for squid news.

Thanks Rick.

Quote of the Day:

Human consciousness arose but a minute before midnight on the geological clock. Yet we mayflies try to bend an ancient world to our purposes, ignorant perhaps of the messages buried in its long history. Let us hope that we are still in the early morning of our April day.

Stephen Jay Gould

Greg
Editor
Greg is the owner-editor of The Daily Grail, as well as the author of a number of books including Stop Worrying, There Probably is an Afterlife.
Related

56 Comments

  1. Sun’s output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.
    “A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun’s output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.”

    By Richard Black
    BBC Environment Correspondent
    Last Updated: Tuesday, 10 July 2007, 23:00 GMT 00:00 UK

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm

    —————————–

    “Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says” .. “Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.”

    Kate Ravilious
    for National Geographic News
    February 28, 2007

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

    ___________________________

    So who’s right? BBC or the national geographic?

    ——————————–

    “Wednesday, November 15, 2006
    Sun causing climate change?

    In 2003, a scientist from the Columbia University in NYC studied over two decades of satellite data and came to the conclusion that solar output has increased – ie the Sun is sending more energy our way, and that it is a factor in global warming. Other scientists used that data and have determined that in 1980-2002, rises in solar output contributed at least 10 to 30 percent of increases to Earth’s surface temperatures.”

    http://terramortis.com/news/2006/11/sun-causing-climate-change.html
    _________________________________

    When are we going to stop the political bullcrap and get to the real science of global warming.

    It logically makes no sense on what the BBC is saying. The sun is outputting more energy and you’re going to tell me that the planets climate is unaffected? Makes no sense whatsoever.

    I’ll trust what the national geographic says over a political news article.

    1. The BBC story
      Have you noticed that we live in a world of “one report” science.
      When people can not in good conscience, go along with the pronouncements of the “Church of Global Warming” they are termed “deniers” or worse if they happen to be scientists, “in the pockets of the big energy producers” – meaning of course, the oil companies.
      Who funds the “Greenies”? Are we to assume that they, in their spare time when not do their research, are on street corners – cup in hand? Or would it be best not to care who may or may not be funding either side, as long as the science they are doing is REAL science.
      We have come to be a society where “consensus science” is considered real science. (I think people like Galileo and Eienstein among others, if still alive would take exception with that) and where “theory” becomes “dogma” not based on PROOF, rather on popularity.
      To paraphrase Mort Sahl, “There were four million people in the American Colonies and we had Jefferson and Franklin. Now we have over 200 million and we live our lives based on “consensus science” and “rock concerts” to save this or that, What can you draw from this? Darwin was wrong!”

      1. hi Dale
        you are completely correct in all you said!
        I think people are more then capable to think, but they go on auto pilot and just “believe”. Might be for convenience or their just lazy.

        If I were to conquor a planet, I would go about it by creating many distracting stories while I went about what I really wanted to do.

        Hope Bill reads this….climate change/global warming caused by co2 is all hogwash.

        “Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told.”
        LRF.

        1. Global Warming
          I also agree that the Global Warming issue is becoming Consensus Science, and I criticize it for being so. Yes, different evidential versions should all be aired. But are some thinking people being put off man’s contribution to climate change simply because it is becoming Consensus Science?
          Could this be the exception to the rule where it is correct?
          I think man is responsible. Yes, other factors come into it, but these are all natural cycles, which the planet is able to eventually deal with. As I’ve said before, our contribution is unnatural – above the system. And if this is so, our effect – possibly slight in true percentages – nonetheless becomes greater for being outside the natural cycle.

          …

          Reality, like time, is relative to the observer

          Anthony North

          1. Hogwash
            “As I’ve said before, our contribution is unnatural – above the system”

            What a load of you know what. Humans are as natural to this planet as any other life form and as such, whatever we do is natural. Beavers build dams, termites build towers, we build cars. And everything we do is done with the basic elements found on this planet. We follow our instincts and we employ our natural abilities in doing so. The “religion” that sees humanity as an alien virus is not just laughable, but dangerous. It is a slippery slope that others have pursued before. With horrific consequences.

            BTW…notice how only pro-Global Warming stories manage to make it onto TDG radar? At best, the ratio of pro to con links is absurd. But of course that is the strategy of the open-minded and tolerant – declare the debate over and silence any opposing voices. And naturally, the debate then turns to redistributing wealth as a solution for “fixing” the climate (or whatever issue the Left views as an incremental path to its goals). Think we’ll ever see a Michael Moore mockumentary entitled “Imposing Socialism: the end justifies the means”?

          2. Natural?
            I keep hearing this argument about us being natural because we are of the planet. And whilst it may be true in part, certain activities go beyond what we can consider natural.
            This barrier comes in terms of over-loading a particular ecosystem. Take a natural human activity such as going to the toilet. Have a community of humans who live naturally with the planet, naturally dispersed across a wide area – say a million or so – and they will deposit their excrement in such a way as the ecosystem can cope with it; even thrives because of it.
            Now take your million humans and put them in a city. The natural way of depositing excrement will make it a smelly city indeed. The ecosystem has been overloaded. And nature requires additional, unnatural, technology to deal with it.
            Humans may be a natural part of the planet, but our actions can become unnatural through overloading the ecosystem.

            …

            I’m fanatical about moderation

            Anthony North

          3. Natural
            “I keep hearing this argument about us being natural because we are of the planet. And whilst it may be true in part, certain activities go beyond what we can consider natural.”

            “In part”? Do tell – what part(s) do you consider natural and unnatural? And what science do you use in support of this opinion? And for those “unnatural” activities, where did they originate and what defines them as unnatural?

            Somehow I think your lines of delineation will coincide with your politics.

          4. “Now take your million
            “Now take your million humans and put them in a city. The natural way of depositing excrement will make it a smelly city indeed. The ecosystem has been overloaded.”

            Ever seen a watering hole in Africa during the dry season? I guess that’s “unnatural” as well. Thankfully, we have the natural ability to innovate and solve such problems. We use the natural resources of the earth to devise methods and build tools to disposed of our waste.

            What a ludicrous example.

          5. global warming conversations
            Remember the concerns for “Global Cooling?” I remember reading an interview recently with one of the remaining scientists who were part of that alarm .. Most have died of old age.
            He maintains that it is global Cooling, a coming ice age that IS still the concern. He indicates that the warming is, historically, the preliminary event to the cool down.
            Are we driving the whole show? While that would be in-line with our egocentric tendencies as a species – we seem to have the urge to feel that we are in control. Perhaps it comes from buying into Darwinism as being dogma, rather than what it is .. Theory.
            Think about this, when was his concept put forward and where? In Victoria England .. Late 1800s … can you find a more ego-centered society? Not saying it is wholly right .. Or wrong. But think about it, if you want to put forward an idea you have that we have evolved and in effect are at the top of the heap .. Could you have asked for a better audience?
            I think what frightens me the most, is that … say, if by magic would could INSTANTLY cease human contribution to the wrecking of the environment … I seriously doubt that one would see a reversal in the process. What then?
            I do believe that we should move to change .. ALWAYS a good idea. But at this moment we are too fixated on whole we can point a finger at. Something that we seem to be also quite good at. When trying to do that, fellow humans works out quite nicely, as neither the sun nor nature really give a rat’s rump how many fingers are pointing at them.
            What, I think, we need to be concentrating on (along with the other fine things as well … gee, don’t we love to brag how good we are at “multi-tasking?”) is understanding the change and learning and proceeding to ADAPT to the change.

          6. who cares?
            Anonymous,

            definition: ecosystem; “a system formed by the interaction of a community of organisms with their environment.”

            definition: natural; ” existing in or formed by nature”

            You are correct sir. The arguments that you are going to get will be irrational because the idea that humans could somehow do something unnatural is irrational. We are incapable of doing anything unnatural, and as a vital participant in an ecosystem, we are incapable of being anything BUT natural.

            So the question of whether or not humans are responsible for global warming is a pointless conjecture.

            Is there anything that we can do to stop global warming? Should we try even if we have the ability to do so? Who cares? If you want to get involved then the answer is “yes”. If you don’t want to get involved then the answer is “no”. Those who believe in human overpopulation and global warming will argue that this is one of the most important issues of our times. They will believe that you are stupid for not agreeing with them. They will blame you for the demise of the earth because you did not “do you part” to save the planet…big ego’s believe that they are all important somehow.

            This whole Global Warming debacle is just like the pro choice/pro life, and the gay marriage debates. If you don’t believe in abortion, don’t have one. If you don’t believe in gay marriage, don’t have one. None of this matters. If humans choose to try to change global warming and overpopulation then that’s our role. If we choose not to get involved then THAT will be our role. If we choose both, then that will be our roles. Humans are going to do what humans do. The Earth is going to do what it is going to do. 5000 years from now none of this will matter anyway…we will still be here(maybe not as humans, but our energy will be here: see the laws of thermodynamics)…and we’ll probably be debating some pointless supposed calamity then too.

            I will leave you with a warning: it is just as pointless to get into a debate about global warming and human over population as it is to get into a debate about religion, politics, homosexuality, or abortion. You will never get a rational argument. People are “religious” about their beliefs regarding these things and every thing that spews forth from their minds will be tainted by dogma, doctrine, and opinion. You obviously have a good mind. Don’t cast your pearls before swine. They will only trample them.

            For those dogmatics out there: Wanna do something for humanity? Help us evolve. Use your minds to fuel Timothy Leary’s SMILE. Space migration. Increase intelligence. Life extension. Let the planet save itself….it should be pretty good at it by now…it’s had a few billion years to practice.

            Dustin

          7. Rational Arguments
            “it is just as pointless to get into a debate about global warming and human over population as it is to get into a debate about religion, politics, homosexuality, or abortion. You will never get a rational argument”

            I agree. Trouble is, these people are doing what they can to pass laws that will affect us all. For that reason alone, the debate must be joined.

          8. Absurd?
            [quote=Anonymous]BTW…notice how only pro-Global Warming stories manage to make it onto TDG radar? At best, the ratio of pro to con links is absurd. But of course that is the strategy of the open-minded and tolerant – declare the debate over and silence any opposing voices.[/quote]

            One of the most interesting things I find in the day-to-day running of TDG is watching confirmation bias at work. Anonymous, you might find it illuminating to sit down with a pen and paper, and mark a tally up of the pro and anti GW stories on TDG (and also compare to coverage in the MSM). It would prove an interesting exercise in perception vs objectivity…

            To get you started, contra to your statement “only pro-Global Warming stories manage to make it onto TDG radar” (from a quick search of TDG):

            http://dailygrail.com/node/4661
            http://dailygrail.com/node/4444
            http://dailygrail.com/node/4845
            http://dailygrail.com/node/4307
            http://dailygrail.com/node/2862
            http://dailygrail.com/node/4279
            http://dailygrail.com/node/4893
            http://dailygrail.com/node/4341
            http://dailygrail.com/node/4217
            http://dailygrail.com/node/4615
            http://dailygrail.com/node/4189
            http://dailygrail.com/node/3585
            http://dailygrail.com/node/3277
            http://dailygrail.com/node/1091
            http://dailygrail.com/node/742
            http://dailygrail.com/node/3582

            Kind regards,
            Greg
            ——————————————-
            You monkeys only think you’re running things

          9. planet dealings
            Even if the human influence now dominates those natural cycles, the planet can deal with it just fine. There have been natural cycles resulting in much more severe warming (and cooling). The planet wass able to deal with those just fine.

            Even human civilization will be able to deal with the predicted warming just fine.

            Life on earth is not in danger.

            —-
            meetings, n.:
            Where minutes are kept, and hours are lost.

          10. Life on Earth
            I agree life on Earth is not in danger. Nature will always recover until the Sun goes out – maybe even survive this. I’m not so sure that humanity isn’t. This isn’t being a doommonger – simply leaving the question open. It is not possible to be absolutely sure. Science itself will never be able to answer.
            With such uncertainty, I agree with the precautionary principle.

            …

            I’m fanatical about moderation

            Anthony North

          11. “With such uncertainty, I
            “With such uncertainty, I agree with the precautionary principle.”

            Which, of course, is a cop out for the purpose imposing a political agenda even when science, proof or debate fails you.

            Hey, it’s inevitable that Earth will one day be devastated by a huge asteroid or comet. So, as a “precaution”, we should impose a 90% tax rate on anyone who makes more money than us in order to build massive underground cities for all liberals and obedient Democrats to live in for when that fateful day arrives. Problem solved.

          12. caution
            The first precautionary principle should be to prepare to deal with some of the effects of global warming, in case we cannot stop it. This is independent of why we can’t stop it.

            If, when and where the negative effects happen, what do we do?

            Solely relying on an uncertain attempt to prevent global warming seems very risky to me.

            —-
            meetings, n.:
            Where minutes are kept, and hours are lost.

          13. Life on Earth
            Ah… great point .. and you may well have found the real focus of the concern.
            Actually the biggest cause of man’s contribution to the changing eco-structure … and it is one that is NEVER mentioned, is that there are just too many people.
            Watch … mark my words, some idiot with an audience somehwere down the line will propose Genocide as being the sure fired solution to the problem … AND there’ll be scores of folks who’ll agree … Frightening thought.

          14. History
            “Watch … mark my words, some idiot with an audience somehwere down the line will propose Genocide as being the sure fired solution to the problem … AND there’ll be scores of folks who’ll agree … Frightening thought.”

            It’s already happened (in other contexts). The important point is that history does tend to repeat itself.

          15. History
            “The important point is that history does tend to repeat itself.”
            And isn’t it so amazing, we never seem to learn from it.
            Got to admit one thing .. if indeed there is a creator, there is no doubt that it/he/she (take your pick) has a sense of hurmor … as we are more often than not, a laugh a minute.

            Dale

          16. Earth to Earthling
            So you have no problem drinking polluted water and breathing toxic air?

            Even if GW is a natural cycle, that still doesn’t excuse us for polluting and destroying the environment. Human activity is causing major and irreversible damage to the Earth’s ecosystems — anyone who thinks the Earth is fine is living with their head up their arse.

          17. False
            “Human activity is causing major and irreversible damage to the Earth’s ecosystems”

            Even nuclear fallout is not permanent or irreversible. Emotion is no substitute for science.

          18. now now
            I merely said that global warming is not a threat to the planet, and that it is not a threat to human civilization as such.

            If you want to somehow see anything in there about water quality or air quality, then you should calm down and examine where your own head is.

            CO2 emissions are something quite different from water pollution and toxic air. CO2 is not toxic, even in the worst scenarios of the climate change estimates.

            —-
            meetings, n.:
            Where minutes are kept, and hours are lost.

          19. Don’t you just love how, if
            Don’t you just love how, if you don’t tow the line and agree, then you must WANT dirty air, dirty water, dead old people, mutated frogs and birth defects in brown people.

          20. Anonymous
            Hi Anonymous,
            I want to congratulate you for your posts on this thread. First, I’ve now advanced to a ‘liberal’ rather than out-and-out leftist of past exchanges. Looks like it’s you setting the political agenda, doesn’t it?
            What is ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’? Unnatural is any activity which overloads an ecosystem, OR, an activity that reduces diversity in an ecosystem. Is this science? Perhaps not. It is a barrier I think to be right. But it isn’t emotional either. More labels – by you.
            In the end, I think you are a marvellous ambassador for man-made global warming. You do an excellent job in turning people off anything you believe in.

            …

            The balanced adult retains an inner child

            Anthony North

          21. natural
            Staying with global warming – the natural forces and cycles continue no matter what we do. The currently promoted majority view is that humans has changed the natural cycles. Nobody who is serious thinks that the natural forces have stopped.

            Related is the view that natural cycles are good for all parts of the ecosystem. For example that natural cycles help maintain species diversity. This is not always true. Some natural cycles are terrible. The next ice age will reduce biodiversity and destroy many habitats, in a completely natural way. The next natural major asteroid impact will do likewise.

            Another scary term from the media is “climate change”. As if there ever was a stable climate. Or as if there is such a thing as a normal climate. We will experience climate change no matter what we do, we can’t keep things as they are now. This doesn’t mean we should do nothing. There are many reasons to clean up our industries and agriculture. But it does mean that we can’t expect to have our favourite climate at any point in the future. We can’t have it.

            On the technical side, I have located the simulation program and related info used by the UN to come up with their reports (the IPCC reports everyone references). The software is publically available. Not that people of ordinary means can run it usefully on their home computers. But that is entirely because home computers are not fast enough. You can run it yourself.

            —-
            meetings, n.:
            Where minutes are kept, and hours are lost.

          22. Natural cycles
            Yes, there are times when natural cycles degrade diversity, as you rightly say. But in geological terms it is a blink of an eye. Take the extinction of the dinosaurs. The result was a renewal of life in all its diversity. If I remember right, the American Plains are strangled by certain plants until they are burnt out. The Native Americans often did this. They lived naturally – were part of the ecosystem. Human involvement as one to make things more diverse. The next ice age will be another point of death and renewal.
            Can we keep our present climate? Of course we can’t. Natural cycles DO change. But this should not be an excuse for us making it worse. Should we prepare for climate change? Of course we should. That’s common sense. But we should not just accept that change and allow our contribution to continue. If we’re responsible, or partly responsible, we can assist.
            Personally, I think we ARE a major part of the cause. That feeling is not political, not emotional. When I look at what we’re doing to the planet, it is rational.

            …

            I’m fanatical about moderation

            Anthony North

          23. ok
            Given our present knowledge, it is only reasonable to try to minimize our impact.

            What is not reasonable is to attack people who say we cannot control the climate, and who point out that our impact will not kill the climate. As I have been attacked, and I do believe that is unreasonable. And taking the current holy grail, reducing carbon emissions, as the sole solution to all this problems is silly. It is not the only solution and it won’t work.

            It also won’t work to start a new religion, which is well under way. And I will keep saying that, no matter who likes it or doesn’t like it. Because I am interested in actually solving problems.

            —-
            meetings, n.:
            Where minutes are kept, and hours are lost.

          24. ok, 2
            Good morning everyone,
            First of all, Earthling, I did not attack you. Second, of course there is more to do than just reduce carbon emissions, but this is the subject we’re discussing, so obviously I’ll focus on this.
            Read what I say. Don’t assume. It’s unscientific.

            …

            Reality, like time, is relative to the observer

            Anthony North

          25. wasn’t you
            Wasn’t you, it was Rick MG who attacked me.

            Of course if we want to reduce greenhouse gases, we also have to reduce the emissions from cows. Methane specifically. And for those vegans out there, the cows include the Indian cows who do not get eaten.

            —-
            meetings, n.:
            Where minutes are kept, and hours are lost.

          26. Labels
            “First, I’ve now advanced to a ‘liberal’ rather than out-and-out leftist of past exchanges.”

            Bah…I use the two interchangably because in today’s political climate, there’s little difference, effectively.

            “Unnatural is any activity which overloads an ecosystem OR, an activity that reduces diversity in an ecosystem”

            Nonsense. If it’s within nature’s ability to “overload” an ecosystem, than it’s perfectly “natural” to do so. Mt. St. Helens did a fine job of overloading the ecosystem of an entire forest without a single human’s assistance.

          27. Thankyou
            ‘If it’s within nature’s ability to “overload” an ecosystem, than it’s perfectly “natural” to do so.’

            Thankyou, Anonymous. You’ve just admitted that we’re damaging the environment.

            Anthony North

          28. 2012
            An interesting thing to add to this debate is that, according to some scientists, 2012 will be the year that the sun will reach it’s peak of activity in its 11-year cycle of storms.

            http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11701699/

            Aaaaaand as every self-respected TDG reader SHOULD know, 2012 is the much feared date in which the mayas predicted the end of the world.

            Things that make you go Mmmm, right? 😉

            ____________________

            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

        2. Global Hogwash
          Hi Floppy1,

          It’s good to read that many are seeing that GW is a scam. You are absolutely correct – hogwash. The planet has been warming since the end of the last ice age 11,000 or so years ago. Despite the conclusions of scientific heavyweights like Al Gore, Cher, and Robert Redford, there is no evidence to support a case for anthropogenic causes.

          Since I’ve been sayin this since 2000 on TDG I should be smiling with an “itoldyouso” grin, but I’m not. In the Congress of the United States there is serious debate going on for a carbon tax. As you know, taxes have nothing to do with money. Taxes are about control. Find a problrm that only the government can solve, frighten the population with fabricated threats, and make the subjects pay for more covernment intervention. Better yet, give some money to the UN so that they can impose fines for violations of GW-mythology and junk science.

          I used to laugh at GW and the silly computer-climate models that didn’t include oceans and clouds. I invited people to show us one piece of valid evidence to support the anthropogenic GW thesis. I’m no longer laughing. The one-world government folks are going to use this to tax us into submission. (No, corporations don’t pay taxes. People pay taxes.)

          Those recent Greenland ice core samples show that there’s another phrase for global warming. It’s “good weather”. If we are making some minute contribution to that weather then good for us.

          Bill

          1. GW
            Hi Bill,

            ‘If we are making some minute contribution to that weather then good for us.’

            Again I see an admission that we may be adding to the cause by people who say it is ‘hogwash.’ This is not a criticism of you, but of the arguments on both sides.
            It is not possible to be definite one way or the other because science is involved, and science is always probabilistic. But surely it is better to be safe than sorry.
            Why are people so against this premise? Because government and big money is moving into the arena, and are about to capitalise on the threat. This is disgusting, and somehow we must not allow it. But this does not mean we should ditch the possibility of our involvement, which, as I say, you’ve just admitted.

            …

            I’m fanatical about moderation

            Anthony North

          2. HI Anthony
            As I started this crazy thread by saying global warming/climate change is not caused by our co2 output. I need to define alittle. Humans do create problems in the inviroment. No doubt. This does effect climate on a micro level. No doubt. As for our co2, there is no evidence that would stand full evaluation to surport it. Even the IPCC has said this but not in a clear way. Their own studies and studies done by third parties all agree the stratosphere is cooling. The only spikes in temperture in the last 70 years are from volcanic eruptions. The weather will always vary. But I do believe the sun has more to do with this then anything else. It is still going through a very active phase and will keep going for a few more years.

            If we have done anything to stuff up the climate, it would take decades before we would feel any effect. No we have only been heavily industrialised for a short time. So our effect will not be noticed for years to come.

            Now I believe we are stuffing up the planet. We should stop. But it is more to do with how we farm and what we plant and eat then what we let into the atmosphere.

            There is no way industry would have anything to do with “global warming” if there was not a buck to be made. You may notice that industry got into the debate before goverment. This is because industry control goverment. Economics control industry.

            All the evidence is not conclusive enough to convince me that co2 emissions are causing climate change/global warming. Until I see evidence that is not patchy and massaged to suit a need, I will not be convinced.

            “Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told.”
            LRF.

          3. IPCC
            I’m not sure if anyone else has looked for the often “quoted” IPCC report that, supposedly, gives new and convincing evidence of global warming.

            That report is not available at this point in time. The only part available is the summary for policy makers. This report talks about many things, how to deal with CO2 in various ways mostly.

            BUT the available report says NOTHING about how they came up with the warming estimates.

            Look for yourself, and correct me if I have not found the 2007 report.

            I would say that a scientific report of this global importance, to everyone on the planet, should be available for free. Not just as a book to appear in a few months.

            In the meantime, important decisions are made, on the political level, while the basic information is not available to the public.

            Why is that? I smell a rat.

            —-
            meetings, n.:
            Where minutes are kept, and hours are lost.

          4. Science cannot prove anything
            Science cannot prove anything. Therefore, as I’ve already said, man-made global warming will never be absolutely proved. Earthling smells a rat. So do I. Just because I accept man may be disproportionately responsible does mean I like Consensus Science, or the manipulations of government or business to capitalise on it.
            I never accept scientific evidence unless it can be backed up by commonsense or ancient wisdom. To me the former applies. If something is taken out of the atmosphere over hundreds of millions of years and then spurted back in less than 200 years, then it has to have an effect, even if as delicate as the flap of a butterfly’s wings. And as we know, they cause hurricanes, don’t they.
            Now, are you 100% certain that I’m wrong. If you are, then you make of science more than it can deliver. If you’re not, then let’s take precautions. Let’s try to curtail big-business in the way most of us want anyway.

            …

            I’m fanatical about moderation

            Anthony North

          5. precautions are fine
            I put on my safety belt in cars and airplanes, no matter the local regulations. I don’t smoke. I don’t jog in the woods in thunderstorms. I’m not really stupid.

            But I want to be allowed to see the evidence. Is there something wrong with that?

            You say that science cannot prove anything. I take that to mean that the proof cannot ever be conclusive. That would be correct.

            But then you base your argument on conclusions from scientists, which you accept as being msot likely correct.

            If I can find the evidence I will let everyone know.
            —-
            meetings, n.:
            Where minutes are kept, and hours are lost.

          6. Commonsense
            I said:

            ‘If something is taken out of the atmosphere over hundreds of millions of years and then spurted back in less than 200 years, then it has to have an effect, even if as delicate as the flap of a butterfly’s wings. And as we know, they cause hurricanes, don’t they.
            Now, are you 100% certain that I’m wrong.’

            I got no answer.

          7. indeed
            Indeed recycling a substantial amount of carbon is going to have an effect. What effect it has is not obvious.

            But neither you or I can quantify that effect. If you can quantify it, tell me.

            So I keep looking for the data, the evidence and the simulations.

            I don’t know if you are wrong or right, and be honest, neither do you. You are operating on your best guess, which is all that we can do.

            I am simply trying to get more data, in the (perhaps vain) hope that we can make a better guess.

            Do you think that is wrong?

            —-
            meetings, n.:
            Where minutes are kept, and hours are lost.

          8. Be honest
            You ask me to be honest. I’ve already said, below:

            ‘For whilst I cannot prove it, neither can you prove the opposite …’

            So I’ve already been honest.
            Yes, we must search out the ‘evidence’, but knowing it can never be absolute. And yes, it is my best guess. Yes, too, I think it better to air on caution. So no, I don’t think that is wrong.
            And as usual, Earthling, we end up agreeing. From different perspectives, of course. But it’s always fun getting there.

            Anthony North

          9. perhaps
            Perhaps you can look for the evidence too.

            There is a Mr Liu, at the IPCC in Switzerland, he supposedly knows about these things. He is at +41-22-730-8576

            He is a very friendly chap, but does not seem to know any details, just gave me another phone number. I will look further.

            —-
            meetings, n.:
            Where minutes are kept, and hours are lost.

          10. Minute
            Hi Anthony

            I was making a joke. The entire concept is silly.

            “minute” means “very small”. Every energy transfer on the planet contributes to the total. See the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

            You typing on your keyboard is generating heat that must be absorbed by the atmosphere. But your contribution is minute. This does not mean that you should stop typing on the keyboard. Your small contribution is easily absorbed by the planet. You are not causing GW. Neither is the entire population of the planet.

            I invite you to offer any proof to the contrary. No, Al Gore is not proof.

            Bill

          11. The thing I like …
            The thing I like about TDG is that we have intelligent debates about all manner of things that cannot be proven. Suddenly, when I’m agreeing with a subject that just happens to be agreed by ‘the establishment’, proof is repeatedly demanded when I’ve already said, many times, it does not – cannot – exist.
            Below me, Earthling is harping on about the ‘evidence’. All the summaries to the reports state scientists are ‘90%’ certain. That is not proof, but probability. You are asking of me the impossible – and I suspect you know it.
            Read my above comment and answer that. For whilst I cannot prove it, neither can you prove the opposite. If I’m wrong, then we’ve still done a service to planet and people. If you’re wrong – bye, bye …
            Which is the most reasonable argument.

            …

            Sin is what you’ve done once you’ve been caught

            Anthony North

        3. I Basically Agree With You; But,…
          Floppy

          CO2 is a factor in my opinion. But, it isn’t the major factor that people want to make it out to be! There are many other factors involved, ie. the heat created by our mechanized society. But, this being said, the earth seems to be going through a warming phase that could easily be followed by a cooling phase. But, the most important point is that people, like Al Gore, are making assumptions and pronouncements without the research to back them up. What we need is more research and less Al Gore and his kind!

          What do you think?

          cnnek

          {You Can Teach People How To Think Or What To Think; But, You Can’t Do Both! It Is Better To Teach People How To Think!!!}

  2. This is what industrial and
    This is what industrial and mining companies think of documentaries such as Durkin’s Swindle:

    “It’s refreshing that we’re now being presented with views that challenge the widely-accepted view that climate change is somehow the exclusive fault of industrial activities in the Western world,’ Association of Mining and Exploration Companies spokesman Ian Loftus said. from an article in the Herald Sun

    Yes, industry is now playing the victim violin. Boo hoo. Pass them a tissue please. They’re all really nice guys who look after the environment, please don’t pick on them, environmental damage isn’t their fault at all. The latest example of a mining company not responsible for environmental havoc. I won’t even bother telling you about the Australian mining company that has poisoned a major Papua New Guinean river and ecosystem.

    So that’s my point, Anonymous. Manipulative, deceiving documentaries such as Swindle are giving those who are destroying the environment the excuse they’re looking for to tell us “pollution is out friend!” I feel like I’m back in the 1950s, with my doctor telling me cigarettes will help my asthma.

    Forget Global Warming and pollution, it’s attitudes like yours that are making us and the Earth sick, Anonymous.

    1. Modern industry
      Hi Rick,
      We can feel a distinct loathing of big business today, but why do we feel like this? We can attach the same old tags – they’re only interested in profit; they’re empire-building, etc. These are all true, but maybe the problem goes much deeper than that.
      Following World War Two, Collectivism became the ‘in thing’. Communism is the most obvious example, but socialism broke out in the UK and other places.
      In April 1947 a large number of economists met to form the Mont Pelerin Society. With a distinct monetarist ideology of economic individualism, they existed to begin an intellectual assault on collectivism. This was its sole aim.
      Members included Hayek, Friedman and Popper. Hayek’s ‘The Road To Serfdom’ was a major book of the time. By the 1980s, they had created so many think tanks that it was inevitable anti-collectivist governments would take up the cause.
      Reaganomics and Thatcherism were the result, and it was an incredible success, rightly smashing collectivism around the world in economic terms. But the point is, it was so successful because it was an intellectual weapon aimed directly at the heart of collectivism.
      Unfortunately, when the ‘war’ was won, we forgot to turn off the weapon. It has gone on ravaging, and it is called Globalisation.

      …

      I’m fanatical about moderation

      Anthony North

      1. political debate bla bla
        Ok folks, this is not citicism of anyone here on TDG, so perhaps we can get somewhere together.

        I have been looking for the climate model that has been used by the IPCC. Not the summary report, I want the precise model.

        I have found the simulation program they used (earliear post), but of course it depends on many parameters and assumptions about old climate data.

        And none of that seems to be available publicly.

        Aside from political, philosophical differences and such, I want the stinking scientific evidence that all this is based on.

        I want to look at the primary evidence myself. Telling me that my computer is not fast enough, or that I’m too stupid and uneducated does not count. I want the stinking evidence. I want to look at it, and see if I can figure it out myself.

        Don’t you ?

        —-
        meetings, n.:
        Where minutes are kept, and hours are lost.

      2. Globalization
        A couple of thoughts. First, Money goes where it’s well treated. Second, jobs go where labor is cheap. That’s not Globalization, that’s Business doing what Business does.

        Reaganomics and Thatcherism were largely an illusion, one where people tried to pretend that parts of the world could exist apart from the whole. Did they have an effect? They surely did: the Great Unwashed thought they were getting a good deal while a relative handful of people got even more obscenely rich than they already were.

        As to your views on Collectivism, well, come on. When the October revolution overthrew the Tzars, it was inevitable that a new and equally bizarre status quo would be imposed.
        It’s an expression of the oldest law: When a pendulum has swung too far one way, it will swing too far the other and if you look closely at the extremes of the pendulum’s swing you will see very little difference…once the initial idealism dies down the old beast is replaced by a new one, with very little net difference to the peasants.

        There is nothing new…this shit has been going on forever and it will continue, merely with different labels, simply because Human nature is what it is.

        Cheers

        Good News: There’s a guiding force at work in the Universe. Bad News: It’s Irony.

        1. Globalisation
          Good morning everyone,
          Yes, Binro, you’re quite right. And we’re in one of those ‘extreme’ phases right now – globalisation. It may be what people do, but there are two subtle differences this time.
          In the past, people have known when they were ruled by an ideology. Today, people don’t. They actually think it’s normal – which is a perfect example of the irony you worship.
          Also, in the past, our extremisms were not big enough to cause serious global damage. Today they are, and I’m not just talking pollution and other obvious dangers.
          Today, we are degrading diversity on a global scale. Diversity is essential to nature and evolution. Hence, for the first time we can be said to be counter-evolutionary.
          The bland acceptance that it is just us doing what we’ve always done isn’t good enough this time.

          …

          I’m fanatical about moderation

          Anthony North

          1. something to think about…….
            never before in history has humans been intouch around the world instantly. We are just in the “primary school” age of the internet. It’s joining with mobile phones and it will bring even more contact. The shareing of information and feelings around the world so quickly amongst everyday people is bound to bring quick change to any society.

            It will be our savior……..but could be our downfall.

            Economic globalisation has been around for many years, but now is more efficient because of technology. But technology is a double ended sword. The same tech that helps the multi-nationals gain control is the same tech we use to see what they are up to.

            But we can let them steamroll us or stop them. In the end it is up to the people who pay…..

            “Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told.”
            LRF.

          2. The people who pay
            Hi Floppy,
            You’re absolutely right, but for people to make the correct decision, they need to know the various reasons and ideas behind the world in which they exist.
            It has never been easier to accept what is going on, for the simple fact is it panders to what people want. It provides luxury, entertainment, etc. This reduces the ability to question it.
            But if they realised this was all a definite ideology, and they are increasingly becoming serfs, then it could be stopped quickly, by not paying.
            And I’m not saying, here, that it should stop. I like my luxuries as much as the next man. I simply feel capitalism should change – smaller companies, giving governments back their power to allow their national cultures to re-emerge, for instance.
            New, smaller, thriving companies investing in proper technologies that move away from fossil fuels. New pharmacological enterprises that look more closely at what nature has to offer in terms of remedy. The possibilities for sensible capitalism are endless.

            …

            Reality, like time, is relative to the observer

            Anthony North

          3. Anthony
            look mate……we agree on most things….sure, but what you have just surgested is idealism. Hangon…umm…whats the word? > uphoric existance……….

            No..I’m just kidding.

            I had an intersesting debate with my “well schooled” neice last night. It swayed between world problems and then centered on indigenious problems here in OZ. Now we touched on biblical aspects of history and many other theories which would be a “book” to mention.

            BUT, what was interesting was her perspective of indigenious peoples life NOW and how to help it out of the MESS it seems to be in.

            So I put forward an hypothesis, “what if we were all brought up with the “absolute truth” of who we are and what the meaning of life is”.

            Her responce was to say ” we all need to know our own truths’.

            I then replied with ” But if the ultimate truth was known, then would people be as they are, they don’t need to find the truth as it has been told and demonstrated as the truth, confirmed and proven”.

            We ended then as I thought this could end badley.
            But, the simple truth is, if we had an undoubted, real and proven past and present, in the god thing and spirituality thatb was PROVEN with out a doubt, then I feel life would be very different on this planet………and I mean so much better!!!

            “Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told.”
            LRF.

          4. Meaning of …
            Jeez, Floppy. I’m glad you admitted responsibility for this ‘crazy’ thread earlier. We’re edging close to a debate on the meaning of … well, everything.
            I think ‘truth’ is always an expression of what we think we are at the time. It is always a ‘fairy tale’, but it is required, ‘cos it gives us meaning, purpose.
            The main problems here are (a) to try to stop one ‘truth’ trampling over others and (b) accept that a probable meaning of life is to learn to tolerate ‘truths’ held by others.
            What I’m saying is: the ultimate truth is that there probably isn’t one. Which is a contradiction in itself, ‘cos I’ve just spouted a possible ‘truth.’
            Would an absolute, proven truth make life better? I’m not so sure. It would give us a kind of Utopia. It would seem to satisfy us. Would this mean we’d stop evolving, stop advancing, because we’re happy with our lot, safe in the assurance that we know everything?
            I think I’d hate that, ‘cos our species is wrongly named. We’re really ‘homo curious.’ We have to know what this means, what that leads to, what’s round the corner. Without that curiosity, I don’t think we’d be human.
            Jeez, is that another meaning of life?

            …

            Reality, like time, is relative to the observer

            Anthony North

          5. History disagrees with you.
            Man is ruled by one thing: Force. It has been that way since the first Big Man told people what to do and cracked their heads open if they didn’t, unless those people could open his head for him, and nothing has changed since our first tribal moments. If ideology plays a role at all, it functions mostly just as a convenient rationalization, allowing people to explain to themselves why they’ve submitted to Force.

            That Force may be naked and overt or it may be so swaddled in good intentions as to appear benign but Force is still what it is…look at any society you wish and you will find that the ultimate answer to nonconformity is some form of Force and not sweet reason. Why should it be otherwise? We are not a rational species and we have a long history of behaving badly when not constrained by rules. That certainly doesn’t mean that we’ve behaved well with rules but the carnage has been less than it might have been.

            As to your thoughts on diversity…get a grip. Firstly, we don’t even know how much life there is; new species are being discovered with some regularlity. (Not long ago there was a news item posted here on TDG about some fellow wandering through a fish market and “discovering” 20 previously unknown species of shark.) The diversity of life currently on this planet represents less than a tenth of a percent of all the species that have ever existed and life still manages to get along…and it frankly amazes me how many people think that Man is having any major impact on the process.

            Two examples, the panda and the polar bear. The panda is so overspecialized that it subsists on just one kind of food and people around the world moan about its threatened status. Why? Because it’s cute and no other reason: it certainly isn’t important in any ecological sense. The polar bear on the other hand has recently been observed to be having its cubs on land rather than out on the ice, presumably in a response to the shrinking extent of ice cover. That’s life…life changes, life adapts, or it goes extinct. Your assertion that we are somehow counter-evolutionary is simply absurd; evolution is getting along just fine. The world may not wind up looking like what we once knew but so what? Much of the life we currently know is apt to go extinct for reasons unconnected to us; that’s the way life works.

            We’re the only species on the planet with the ability to influence its environment in any way, good or bad, and however irrational we may be I have little doubt that Man will survive in some way. Some folks think that every other species on Earth has a right to exist but that Man does not; that looks a lot like self-hatred to me.

            Oh, BTW, I don’t worship irony…or anything else for that matter. (Well, possibly my girlfirend, but that’s just because she’s perfect. I know because she keeps telling me so…)

            Cheers.

            Good News: There’s a guiding force at work in the Universe. Bad News: It’s Irony.

          6. Counter-evolutionary
            Hi Binro,
            Two quotes from the above:

            ‘…it frankly amazes me how many people think that Man is having any major impact on the process.’

            ‘We’re the only species on the planet with the ability to influence its environment in any way …’

            If we’re ruled by Force, then if we can, we will. Hence, your argument could be seen as contradictory.
            Will people stop coming out with false accusations such as environmentalists hating mankind. Okay, I can’t speak for them all, only myself, but I love mankind. I think we’re a glorious, vibrant, curious, fascinating, intelligent species. So why the hell have we stopped evolving?
            Why are we reduced to trivial culture? Why are we marking time, indulging ourselves in ideological consumerism?
            Why, for profit, of course – which gives more power. To some.
            It’s time to move on. Discover what we are again.

            Oh, by the way, Binro, I’m not sure we were always ruled by force. Anthropological studies showed that we were most likely ruled by an animistic relationship between man and nature, existing in two worlds, the physical and the spiritual (to me, this means psychological).
            From this was birthed religion and hierarchies. And powerful men realised this system was naive and easy to manipulate.
            We live as thus still.

            …

            Reality, like time, is relative to the observer

            Anthony North

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal