PDA

View Full Version : Conspiracy Theorists are Nuts!



CivilWarBuff1863
03-21-2007, 01:20 AM
Hey guys! The following is a letter sent to me from a conspiracy theorist who believes that our own government created 9/11 and is involved in a cover-up and he goes on to say stuff about our troops. Here is the letter from a YouTube.com member and tell me what you think of these Conspiracy Theorist:

"DiamondsAreTheBest says:

First off, I would never go to fight in a war to help line the pockets of a few neo conservatives, and to further degrade everything our forefathers fought for. That war has nothing to do with "Freedom" or "Liberty". It has everything to do with "Imperialism" and "the end of Freedom". Sadly, those soldiers are pawns put forth to fight and die for the expansion of American imperialism. Nothing more. Nothing less. That war along with the one we are about to go into with Iran, and soon to create a total WW3 was put in motion based on a giv't sponsored false flag attack: The attacks of 9/11. Nothing more. Nothing less. (Read the PNAC, and read what Leo Strauss and Kristol taught - that will help). You need understand why, before you freak out and jump up and down with your delusional claims that our government would never do such a a thing.

The reason "Operation Northwoods" is so important is becasue it shows that it isn't unheard of to create a fake terror attack upon it's own people. It clearly talks of staging terror attacks in DC, Miami and other places. It clearly talks of sinking an American ship. If you try to justify to yourself that that document doesn't simply state that our government intended to stage terror attacks by killing innocent people to fool the public into going to war, then you need to go back take a deep breathe and read it again. I'll say to you again, I'll fight for freedom, not to destroy it. You time in the military doesn't impress me. The Vietnam War was not about the expansion of freedom. It had nothing to do with defending our country. Like Iraq, Iran and soon to be the rest. The wars in Iraq by the way are going exactly as planned. The public blindly thinks that it's going poorly due to incomptence, while that serves as a perfect cover for their intentions: by using our military as pawns they want to create totla unrest in the middle east, further creating an enemy that was never there before in order to futher justify expanding it. No different than what they did with 9/11: create an enemy out of thin air. I again urge you to read the work of Leo Strauss and the rest of the neo con teachers.

A very informative documentary on google video created by the BBC called "The Power Of Nightmares" goes into deep detail about how the neoo cons movement was created, it's theology, one that finds freedom of thought and expression to be an enemy of the state - as it creates a mass of people not rallied behind one idea; one that finds lying to it's people to help further build that oneness bond - religion is a great example of that - the neo cons called religion similar to Playto's 'noble lie'. Once Russia was no longer a threat the neo conservatives needed a new threat to further expand America, they saw it as an open window of opportunity. Particularly with a perfect moron patsy like Bush to blame everything on. Sorry to tell you sir, but 9/11 was created by the neo conservatives. They had the means motive and opportunity, and they did a sloppy sloppy job of covering it up. "Operation Northwoods" is very important as it shows that this government has thoguht of and carfeully planned false flag terror attacks on it's own people to sway public opinion for war. And to compare your little 'white whither' stories... I watched those people jump from those buildings, and I also know a man that was in the basement who is heavily scarred from a bomb that went off moments before the the first plane hit the towers. The evidence is all over the place, but much of the American people are both too stubborn and too frightened at the idea of looking into it. But that's going to change... I along with the rest of the brave Americans willing to step up to defend this Republic are going to expose it. Because we believe in teh rule of law and fight for something genuinely worth fighting for."

Rob
03-21-2007, 05:11 AM
Having read all of these 9/11 theories, including ones about non-airliners (military-type aircraft) being "substituted" for the actual planes, Israelis piloting the planes by remote control using hacked Global Hawk technology, and others you probably never heard of, I can tell you one thing:

If the official version of what happened that day were put out there on the 'Net by some yahoo as a "conspiracy theory", it just might be the least believable version of all.

...

(Can we get back to the Civil War now?)

sbl
03-21-2007, 05:18 AM
I enjoyed South Park's take on the "conspiracy", that the Govt. wished that we thought it was powerful and competent enough to fake an attack.

How about that St. Alban's Raid?

Pvt_Jack_Bauer
03-21-2007, 05:43 AM
I enjoyed South Park's take on the "conspiracy", that the Govt. wished that we thought it was powerful and competent enough to fake an attack.

How about that St. Alban's Raid?

I believe South Parks version :)

CivilWarBuff1863
03-21-2007, 09:42 AM
I believe South Parks version :)

Yeah I know these conspiracy theorist are wackos and South Park captured the essence of those kinds of people in a funny kind of way. :)

What gets me though is why bring up an old outdated plan, "Operation Northwoods", that McNamera shot down in 1962? Are these Conspiracy nutcases actually gonna back to the time of the Civil War and pick stuff out of context to pin it on the government from back then? I hope not!

sbl
03-21-2007, 11:02 AM
Wil,

Have you heard of Otto Eisenschiml?

CivilWarBuff1863
03-21-2007, 01:29 PM
Wil,

Have you heard of Otto Eisenschiml?

To honestly say? No I haven't!

sbl
03-21-2007, 05:09 PM
Wil,

The conspiracy business goes back a ways...

Otto Eisenschiml
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Otto Eisenschiml (June 16, 1880 December 7, 1963)
".....He also wrote a book called Why Was Lincoln Murdered? (pub. 1937) in which he propounded his theory that the assassination of Abraham Lincoln was set up by Edwin Stanton, the Secretary of War. The book was popular at the time, but attacked by professional historians as consisting of nothing but "disconnected implication and innuendo" (J. G. Hamilton).

toptimlrd
03-22-2007, 12:47 AM
Wil,

The conspiracy business goes back a ways...

Otto Eisenschiml
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Otto Eisenschiml (June 16, 1880 December 7, 1963)
".....He also wrote a book called Why Was Lincoln Murdered? (pub. 1937) in which he propounded his theory that the assassination of Abraham Lincoln was set up by Edwin Stanton, the Secretary of War. The book was popular at the time, but attacked by professional historians as consisting of nothing but "disconnected implication and innuendo" (J. G. Hamilton).

Scott,

On this we defintiely agree. Most conspiracy theories simply don't hold water at all. After all for most of these conspiracies to work, there would have to be way too many people in on it and you know about keeping secrets........... "Two men can keep a secret as long as one of them is dead".

Pete K
03-22-2007, 06:43 AM
The conspiracy must be true. Rosie O'Donnell and Charlie Sheen said so. Check their blogs.

toptimlrd
03-22-2007, 08:06 AM
The conspiracy must be true. Rosie O'Donnell and Charlie Sheen said so. Check their blogs.


Rosie and Charlie CONFIRMED IT??????? OH NO WE"RE DOOMED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

sbl
03-22-2007, 09:09 AM
THE SUPPRESSED TRUTH
about the
ASSASSINATION Of ABRAHAM LINCOLN
Written and Compiled by
BURKE McCARTY, Ex-Romanist
Originally Published by
Arya Varta Publishing Company
P. O. Box 456
Haverhill, MS
Published in 1924
Reprint February 1964
Reprint February 1973
Reprint April 1982
Published in HTML format in 1999



http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/abe_lincoln_truth1.htm

vamick
03-22-2007, 02:52 PM
you can believe em, er not believe em, but that doesnt make em false, believeing that conspiracy never happens is much dumber!...there is no end to what some minds can concieve:evil:

reddcorp
03-22-2007, 04:30 PM
That letter illustrates why straightjackets and mental facilities are around.
Just hope the writer doesn't breed and stays on his meds.
A.W.Redd

CivilWarBuff1863
03-22-2007, 05:48 PM
Wow this has turned into a full blown debate. COOL! :cool:

"Otto Eisenschiml (June 16, 1880 December 7, 1963)
".....He also wrote a book called Why Was Lincoln Murdered? (pub. 1937) in which he propounded his theory that the assassination of Abraham Lincoln was set up by Edwin Stanton, the Secretary of War. The book was popular at the time, but attacked by professional historians as consisting of nothing but "disconnected implication and innuendo" (J. G. Hamilton)."

Thanks for the information there SBL! :D

Reddcorp, I know tell me about it. That guy that wrote me that letter needs a padded cell and a straight jacket. :rolleyes:

bob 125th nysvi
03-23-2007, 02:08 PM
most conspiracy theorists are wacky BECAUSE no matter what proof is provided they refuse to beleive anything but their version of the events. There is a clinical term for that kind of delusion.

What's the line out of Star Trek:NG 'When a conspiracy is known it is never true and when it is true it is never known.'

In reality you have to look at who the conspiractors are. The US government.

These are the same people who can't simplify a tax code and yet never manage to collect all the taxes their owed. Can't balance a budget in the richest nation in the world. Can't agree on the definition of sex as in "I Never had Sex with that women." Ban saccarhine as a carcinogin and then bring it back on the market, etc, etc, etc etc.

Yet we are expected to beleive that they shot Lincoln, Kennedy (and anyone else you care to name). Sank the Maine, allowed the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor, never landed a man on the moon, etc. etc. etc.

And yet NO ONE in an official position every EVER writes a tell-all book or gives an interveiw, not even on their deathbed.

Come on, we know the intimate details of the lives of half the stars in America. Mobsters write tell all books. We know Marsha Brady did drugs for heaven's sake.

Yet no one in an authoritative position, not one, has ever admitted to a conspiracy.

It's the same old propaganda nonsense we see all the time to fit someone's delusional ideas of the politics of the world. I remember my nephew came home from college, spouting nonsense about how the Bush admistration was invading Iraq for oil and was reinstituing the draft. So I gave him a couple of internet projects which included finding out who America bought oil from and who in Congress was trying to get bills on the floor to reinstitute the draft.

Boy was he shocked when he found out Iraq was way down on the list of countries America bought oil from and that many of the ones higher on the list would be easier to invade and take over (like SA where we already had a massive military presence) and the only people trying to get draft bills passed were democrats.

But it suited his professors to spread rumors to support their political beliefs and unfortunately the vast majority of Americans never bother to "check the facts".

And that is where conspiracy nuts operate in the grey twilight world of fantasy.

Trooper Graham
03-23-2007, 02:48 PM
In reality you have to look at who the conspiractors are.

Star Trek

.

...and they are usually same ones that have been abducted by aliens and had implants put in. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


You were close Bob.

CivilWarBuff1863
03-23-2007, 03:09 PM
...and they are usually same ones that have been abducted by aliens and had implants put in. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


You were close Bob.


I see your point there Bob and that quote: "When a conspiracy is known it is never true and when it is true it is never known." is so true.

LOL Graham! I'm literally busting a gut from laughing from that. :lol: Don't forget the anal probes! :mrgreen:

Trooper Graham
03-23-2007, 03:52 PM
: Don't forget the anal probes! :mrgreen:

I can't, had one this morning at the VA hospital......:evil:

tompritchett
03-23-2007, 05:27 PM
Boy was he shocked when he found out Iraq was way down on the list of countries America bought oil from and that many of the ones higher on the list would be easier to invade and take over (like SA where we already had a massive military presence) and the only people trying to get draft bills passed were democrats.

Mexico is number two on the list, we could always invade them and take over. At the rate things are going, most of their citizens will either being working here or are being supported by someone working here. :wink: Number one is Canada and, frankly, it is probably just too big a bite to swallow.

jthlmnn
03-23-2007, 07:10 PM
Number one is Canada and, frankly, it is probably just too big a bite to swallow.

We've invaded them twice before, and failed each time. :)

CivilWarBuff1863
03-23-2007, 08:03 PM
I can't, had one this morning at the VA hospital......:evil:

Oh no! They probed you? Darn! Now tell me was it those little grey aliens with big eyes and heads or was it a sexy nurse? :)

tompritchett
03-23-2007, 08:17 PM
was it a sexy nurse?

If it was a sexy nurse, Trooper Graham's biggest regret would be that he was the probee and not the prober. :D

Trooper Graham
03-23-2007, 08:31 PM
If it was a sexy nurse, Trooper Graham's biggest regret would be that he was the probee
:D

I wish but at my age they are only memories..........:( for the record though, it was a nurse with a butch haircut, no makeup and in trousers. Quite the opposite of my memories. :D

toptimlrd
03-23-2007, 09:45 PM
I wish but at my age they are only memories..........:( for the record though, it was a nurse with a butch haircut, no makeup and in trousers. Quite the opposite of my memories. :D


They saw you coming. :-D

Brian Wolle
03-24-2007, 03:21 AM
You are all intelligent people, but we are lined up on two sides wanting to believe our chosen side, not giving an inch. But I ask the discounters: do you actually trust the government? Both sides talk a good story.

I also think we owe a debt of gratitude to people like Eisenschimmel; that we have a right to hear all the evidence and make up our own mind. That if they didn't throw out this stuff for us to peruse, we would not have the opportunity at all. This is the stuff of being American, my friends. You ARE FREE to expose something you see evidence of and not disappear from sight in some prison. Even that dimwit Bush would grant us all that.

sbl
03-24-2007, 05:27 AM
Brian,

Good point. I first heard about Eisenschimmel when I read a book "debunking" the Lincoln conspiracies. In this case his book caused someone else to do MORE research.

CivilWarBuff1863
03-24-2007, 09:34 AM
I can't stop laughing! :mrgreen: :-D :lol:

I understand where you're coming from Brian but the thing here is respecting your Commander in Chief. Alot of Civil War Veterans respected their leaders choices reguardless of any situation they were in, including the U.S. Government. Take "Pickett's Charge" for example, those men knew what was going to happen and they knew that they were doing it for their beliefs in a system that would make things better. After the war and after Lincoln got shot the South was in revolt and were saddened by the news of his death because they thought that Lincoln was so passionate of "letting them up easy" that things would get better. Throughout those 4 dark and dreary years of War, the South still respected the U.S. Government and alot of southern generals, such as Robert E. Lee, were heartfelt going up against their own friends whom they went through military school with. It just runs alot deeper than anyone thinks, the will to act and to do it accordingly can make anyone feel great about themselves.

Brian Wolle
03-24-2007, 11:10 AM
I know what you are saying, Civil War Buff, and thanks. But I have a copy of a Harper's weekly showing Abe Raising the flag at Independence Hall on the front, and getting completely trashed in a cartoon on the back. Presidents have to expect this kind of thing because we are so passionate about our sides. And again, that's a good thing. Apathy doesn't work in this country.

There were,I might add, plenty of ticked off Southerners. Some three thousand officers left for Brazil at war's end. At least THEY still had slavery.

Hey, although I might be on the same side, I wouldn't trust Secretary Stanton and his kind as far as I could throw them. So I would be apt to believe anything conspiratorial they might say about him.

CivilWarBuff1863
03-24-2007, 03:30 PM
I know what you are saying, Civil War Buff, and thanks. But I have a copy of a Harper's weekly showing Abe Raising the flag at Independence Hall on the front, and getting completely trashed in a cartoon on the back. Presidents have to expect this kind of thing because we are so passionate about our sides. And again, that's a good thing. Apathy doesn't work in this country.

There were,I might add, plenty of ticked off Southerners. Some three thousand officers left for Brazil at war's end. At least THEY still had slavery.

Hey, although I might be on the same side, I wouldn't trust Secretary Stanton and his kind as far as I could throw them. So I would be apt to believe anything conspiratorial they might say about him.

Don't mention it Brian. I'm glad I can help those who need it more than I do to understand what's going on. I might be 27 yrs. old but I know.

Presidents do have to expect things. Clinton expected that he would be investigated in his little sex scandal and Bush is suspecting that 25% of the people will most likely try to implicate him into the events of 9/11. It's a great thing to have the 1st Amendment but to abuse it is just wrong of course. Abusing the power this country gives people can create alot of stuff and maybe we are a little "out of control". It's good to learn from history so as dare not to repeat it. Let's hope there'll never be another 9/11 again.

Trooper Graham
03-24-2007, 03:40 PM
It's good to learn from history so as dare not to repeat it.


History always repeats itself as it has done already.








Let's hope there'll never be another 9/11 again.

At my age, maybe not, but at 27 you can bet on it. ;)

CivilWarBuff1863
03-24-2007, 04:33 PM
History always repeats itself as it has done already.
At my age, maybe not, but at 27 you can bet on it. ;)

Well it can repeat itself if we're not careful, which we aren't sometimes. You're right! I hope there'll never be another 9/11 as long as I live. I pray to God it won't happen. :)

PS: My birthday's Sept. 12. :(

Brian Wolle
03-26-2007, 02:45 AM
History repeating itself is what my poem "Because" is about that I posted a week ago. It got shifted to the Whine Cellar because someone thought it was religious in nature. Check it out if you want. I'd like to get anyone's opinions, good or bad.

CivilWarBuff1863
03-26-2007, 09:20 PM
History repeating itself is what my poem "Because" is about that I posted a week ago. It got shifted to the Whine Cellar because someone thought it was religious in nature. Check it out if you want. I'd like to get anyone's opinions, good or bad.


It's a wonderful poem there Brian! Wish I could come up with a nice poem myself. Great work!

reb64
03-27-2007, 12:40 AM
History repeating itself is what my poem "Because" is about that I posted a week ago. It got shifted to the Whine Cellar because someone thought it was religious in nature. Check it out if you want. I'd like to get anyone's opinions, good or bad.
I

I read that piece and was wondering what the heck that was about. it made no sense to me and looks llike the work of a sensory depraved depressed medicated writer.

sbl
03-27-2007, 05:13 AM
Reb,

Nothing about "Bucket" and "Nantucket?"

CivilWarBuff1863
03-27-2007, 07:10 PM
Reb,

Nothing about "Bucket" and "Nantucket?"

That reminds me of a funny poem:

There was once a man from Nantucket
He drank coffee by the bucket
As he hacked on his keys
His computer did freeze
So he threw up his hands and said: "F*** IT!" :rolleyes::o

Ocaliman
11-01-2007, 02:34 PM
Oh no! They probed you? Darn! Now tell me was it those little grey aliens with big eyes and heads or was it a sexy nurse? :)

Come now... When have you ever seen a sexy nurse at a VA Hospital? ;)

Charles Reynolds
11-02-2007, 11:52 AM
Have a brother-in-law who is well educated a belives the theory. Lost lot of respect for him.
Chuck

bob 125th nysvi
11-07-2007, 11:55 PM
Have a brother-in-law who is well educated a belives the theory. Lost lot of respect for him.
Chuck

fit into someone's world view that's why they believe or don't believe them. It has nothing to do with intelligence or facts.

We discard facts that don't fit into our world view all the time.

As a comtemporary example many people want to blame the Earth's warming trend exclusively on humans (despite the fact that this planet has been both much warmer and much colder than it is now well before humans existed or had the ability to affect the environment).

Yet Mars has no humans and is going through a gobal warming period. Those who would like to exclusively blame humans don't want to hear that Mars is going through gobal warming. It punches holes in their nice little theory.

That doesn't change the fact that conspiracy nuts are just that NUTS!

sbl
11-08-2007, 07:29 AM
"Yet Mars has no humans and is going through a gobal warming period."

Bob, Mars is having dust storms....


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming_2.html

yankeecav
11-09-2007, 03:39 PM
Sure 9-11 was a government conspiracy. They said it was another Pearl Harbor and we all know that Pearl Harbor was a conspiracy hatched by FDR, that he knew we were going to be attacked and did nothing so that we could enter WW2. In fact he provoked the attack by all the embargoes placed on Japan and the demands for them to withdraw from China.

(Place smilie icon with tongue in cheek here)

There will always be nuts. Make a "Payday" and put a smile on.

sbl
11-09-2007, 06:39 PM
Tom,

How about the "Thornton Affair" ?

yankeecav
11-09-2007, 06:54 PM
Scott,

And there are so many associated with the Seminole wars that I wouldnt know where to start.

sbl
11-09-2007, 09:30 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thornton_Affair

bob 125th nysvi
11-10-2007, 10:49 PM
"Yet Mars has no humans and is going through a gobal warming period."

Bob, Mars is having dust storms....


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming_2.html

You reenforced my point that planets go through changes all the time. Why at this time is Mars having global dust storms? What has changed to cause them now that wasn't happening 20 years ago? We don't know.

And that is the point about global warming, we can point to the effect, yet we can't be sure of the cause.

Yet people act like they have "the answer" and expect everybody to conform to thier version of "the facts".

Has this planet been both much warmer and cooler than it is today? Yes it has scientists have proven that.

We believe that all the land was once one big mass, then split apart and now seems to be trying to get back together (you can check with the people in LA who get daily reminders their part of the surface is trying to get under the part Phoenix is on). Are humans causinbg that?

What is now the central part of the US was once the bottom of the ocean. Did humans drain the water or raise the land?

The Appallachins were once much taller than they are today, even taller than the Rockies are. Did humans knock them down or build up the rockies?

SUNY Stony Brook a couple of years ago funded an expedition to Antartica to conduct a second study of the ozone hole there. They expected (based on their computer models and the global warming theory) that the hole would have expanded and were shocked to find the opposite had occured it was smaller. Why?

Is the planet warming, it does seem to be but we have also gone through short warming periods before, some records seem to indicate that colonial America was warmer than the east coast is today.

Is the planet anywhere near as warm as it has been, no definitely not, the dinosaurs inhabited a substantially warmer planet for a much longer period than humans have existed.

There seems to be geological evidence of the 'Great Flood' spoken about in the 'Book of Gilgamesh' and copied into the Bible. Did humans create that?

In the 1970s the models were predicting that we were probably headed for another iceage (based on the cycles of the known ice ages). That was going to destroy humans.

Today it is gobal warming and it is our fault.

In reality, as George Carlin says, 'Some day the world is going to decide humanity wasn't such a good idea and shake us off like a bad case of fleas.'

It is only our collective hubris that believes we will destroy nature and it will not be the other way around. It is only our collective hubris that thinks the world will stay this way because we want it too.

And it is only the delusional hubris of 'conspiracy nuts' that thinks that they somehow have secret inner knowledge of events caused by evil forces that the rest of lack.

I mean come on, the government can't even figure out who is or is not spy within our midst when after they are revealed the evidence is as plain as the nose on our faces.

Do you really think that if they had knocked off Kennedy or found little green men it wouldn't have been proven by now or somebody wouldn't have written a tell all book and been on Oprah?

sbl
11-10-2007, 11:15 PM
Bob,

I was hoping that the National Geographic Society still had some "cred."

bob 125th nysvi
11-11-2007, 09:50 AM
Bob,

I was hoping that the National Geographic Society still had some "cred."

and they have described why Mars is cooling but not the base of the why (what is causing such dust storms now when the planet has had millions of years to do so).

And they have been known to be wrong in the past. In the 60's they ran stories about how peaceful and in touch with nature certain mezo-american cultures where in what is now the Yuccatan.

That was based on what the anthopologists wanted to believe at the time. Then archeologists start to dig a little deeper and discovered they were quite blood thirsty and today there is a wide spread belief that the civilizations collapsed quickly because they stretched the eco-system past its breaking point (notice it has recovered).

Science has had a distressing habit of taking a lot of its own 'today's facts' and turning them into tomorrows nonsense.

It pays to keep an open mind but it also pays to not jump ahead of the facts.

sbl
11-11-2007, 10:07 AM
Bob,

The point is that Mars' sand storms fail to reflect the sun's heat and each planet now warming have there own factors. Earth's is green house gases and we may be able to do something about it.

What appears as a "flip-flop" by science is just the correction of new information and reexamination of the old. I tend to trust institutions like the National Geographic Society as opposed to industry spokesmen.

The movie Apocalypto (2006) dramatized the latter view of the Yucatan civilization, but Mel Gibson isn't exactly known for historical facts getting in the way of a good story. (and Apocalypto is a pretty good adventure movie BTW)

flattop32355
11-11-2007, 03:07 PM
There are a number of reputable scientists who say the global warming "threat" is a hoax. So, whom does one believe?

I tend to distrust the ones with an obvious political agenda.

sbl
11-11-2007, 03:55 PM
"reputable scientists"

Bernard,

Could you please name them and who they work for. Otherwise this is just "folks say."

tompritchett
11-11-2007, 04:24 PM
Could you please name them and who they work for. Otherwise this is just "folks say."

They are out there, Dr. Gray at Colorado State, the founder of the Weather Channel, and a small number of others. However, the vast majority of climatologists and meteorologists now accept that man is having an impact on our climate which started become noticeable in the mid 1990's. Within this group there is a minority that argue that we can not gauge whether or not these changes will end up being significant relative to the natural variability of the Earth's climate in the last billion years. However, this is a minority. Instead you have organizations such the National Academies of Science from 11 of the most prominent economic nations (including all the G8 nations) issuing a joint statement saying that "Climate Change is Real", "there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring" and "This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's Climate". Similar statements have been made by the American Meteorology Society (the U.S. premier professional society for meteorologists) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (the premier professional society for scientists of all disciplines). In regards to the issue of climate variability and historical ranges of greenhouse gases - yes, the Earth's climate has been significantly hotter than it is today and concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been almost 2 times higher than they are today,but our climate is now as hot as it had ever been AND greenhouse gas concentrations are now significantly higher than they have ever been both since man has been a species.

Yes the Earth will adapt as she always has, but as she does so will she continue to be able to support the current and near future human population? That, my friends is the ultimate question that we, our children and grandchildren will face during the rest of this Century and into the beginning of the 22nd Century. You ask for 100% certainty on the dangers of Global Warming. I ask for the same certainty for a favorable outcome to my question if we continue doing nothing.

bob 125th nysvi
11-11-2007, 10:49 PM
wasn't getting warmer.

What I have argued is that it has been both hotter and colder than it is today and no one can dispute that.

That these warmer and cooler periods have both predated man and his modern industrial society.

Thus to assume that this warming period is caused by humans and soley by humans is a fundementally flawed conclusion based on a geologically insignificant time period.

Furthermore information that runs counter to the 'global warming' theory or computer models that don't conform are buried and I don't know why.

Do I believe that there is a great conspiracy by scientists to convince the world of something that isn't true is for their own devious purposes?

No I don't.

Do I believe people on both sides of the argument are taking stands that are consistant with their own personal biases and discarding any contradictory information?

You betcha I do. There are a lot of dollars at stake on both sides of the issue INCLUDING massive research funding to support the current popular theory.

Suppose we disrupt the economies of the world to somehow reduce the human effect on the planet and things don't improve just worsen. What then do we say "OH sorry my bad."

Do I think that reducing polution is a great idea?

Yes I do, in fact I'm a better recycler reuser than all my liberal friends are. (Funny thing about liberals they want change things for the 'better' but they want you to asorb the pain of the change instead of bearing it themselves.)

I'm for solar power, wind power and nuclear power as alternatives for oil and coal. I'm for tax incentives for being a non-polluter and penalties for polluting.

But I am also NOT for spending massive amounts of MY money to sooth the conscience of some old hippy who hasn't realized the flower power movement wasn't really where it was at or that effective.

And I find it ironic that Al Gore is pushing his global warming nonsence and being respected for it as if he was some kind of Stphen Hawking of climatology. He should look in the mirror first, how much of his fortune is based on the people killed by his tobacco farming ancestors or created by people greasing his and his father's pockets in order to get political favor?

flattop32355
11-11-2007, 10:55 PM
Could you please name them and who they work for. Otherwise this is just "folks say."

Dr. John Cristy, professor of Atmospheric Science and director of the Earth System Center at the University of Alabama. He also served as a lead author of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel.

Dr. Bill Gray, professor emeritus , Atmospheric Science Department, Colorado State University. He predicts the number of hurricanes that will form each year.

...to name a few.

DaveGink
11-12-2007, 12:21 AM
wasn't getting warmer.

What I have argued is that it has been both hotter and colder than it is today and no one can dispute that.

That these warmer and cooler periods have both predated man and his modern industrial society.

Thus to assume that this warming period is caused by humans and soley by humans is a fundementally flawed conclusion based on a geologically insignificant time period.

Furthermore information that runs counter to the 'global warming' theory or computer models that don't conform are buried and I don't know why.

Do I believe that there is a great conspiracy by scientists to convince the world of something that isn't true is for their own devious purposes?

No I don't.

Do I believe people on both sides of the argument are taking stands that are consistant with their own personal biases and discarding any contradictory information?

You betcha I do. There are a lot of dollars at stake on both sides of the issue INCLUDING massive research funding to support the current popular theory.

Suppose we disrupt the economies of the world to somehow reduce the human effect on the planet and things don't improve just worsen. What then do we say "OH sorry my bad."

Do I think that reducing polution is a great idea?

Yes I do, in fact I'm a better recycler reuser than all my liberal friends are. (Funny thing about liberals they want change things for the 'better' but they want you to asorb the pain of the change instead of bearing it themselves.)

I'm for solar power, wind power and nuclear power as alternatives for oil and coal. I'm for tax incentives for being a non-polluter and penalties for polluting.

But I am also NOT for spending massive amounts of MY money to sooth the conscience of some old hippy who hasn't realized the flower power movement wasn't really where it was at or that effective.

And I find it ironic that Al Gore is pushing his global warming nonsence and being respected for it as if he was some kind of Stphen Hawking of climatology. He should look in the mirror first, how much of his fortune is based on the people killed by his tobacco farming ancestors or created by people greasing his and his father's pockets in order to get political favor?

Hear Hear. Well said.

sbl
11-12-2007, 07:30 AM
Hear Hear. Well said.


Dave,


The last paragraghs are just "Shooting the messenger."

sbl
11-12-2007, 07:30 AM
Thanks,

I was looking for names to "google."

tompritchett
11-12-2007, 11:28 AM
wasn't getting warmer.

What I have argued is that it has been both hotter and colder than it is today and no one can dispute that.

That these warmer and cooler periods have both predated man and his modern industrial society.

Yes they have and we understand the causes. They include variations in the Earth's orbit and tilt relative to the sun (cause of initiation of the Ice Ages), the movement of the continents and their effect on ocean currents that transport heat trapped in the oceans around the globe, and in some cases massive releases of geological stored greenhouse gases that affected the Earth's climate for thousands of years thereafter until the gases were re-absorbed (the eruption of the Siberian lava flats for 100's of years around 250 million years ago).


Thus to assume that this warming period is caused by humans and soley by humans is a fundementally flawed conclusion based on a geologically insignificant time period.

Ever study that I have read models both the non-man climate effects as well as the man induced climate effects so that assumption is not made in the scientific studies, just in how the media (and critics) then picks up the conclusions and reports them.


Furthermore information that runs counter to the 'global warming' theory or computer models that don't conform are buried and I don't know why.

Actually, the "truthing" or validation of models is actually done by starting them at least 100 years in the past at the conditions back then and then running them through the present to the future date(s) being projected. Only those models that can accurately predict todays conditions are accepted for their predictions of future conditions.


Do I believe that there is a great conspiracy by scientists to convince the world of something that isn't true is for their own devious purposes?

No I don't.

Do I believe people on both sides of the argument are taking stands that are consistant with their own personal biases and discarding any contradictory information?

You betcha I do. There are a lot of dollars at stake on both sides of the issue INCLUDING massive research funding to support the current popular theory.

Unfortunately biases apply to both sides of the argument. Yes, Dr. Hansen of NASA is more likely to look at data that supports his theory. However, the same can be said for Dr. Gray, the eminent hurricane predictor at Colorado State University, because he has, in essence, stacked his professional reputation to his stance that the variations will be insignificant. For either to back down would now result in some eating of crow. And then there is Dr. Christie of the University of Alabama who runs major remote sensing programs (measurement of temperatures from satellite data) at NASA. For years he argued that his remote sensing data was not agreeing with the surface temperature data and, therefore the surface temperatures must be biased high by the "heat island" effects of cities (never did hear he explain how the highest differences were in the arctic where there are no significant human habitations). However, after an extended outside review of his satellite data and the very complex calculations and assumptions used to convert them to actual temperature readings at specific depths in the atmosphere, he basically had to concede publicly last year in the Journal Science that his calculations were in error and that the revised data did indeed agree with the surface calculations. Now, it appears that Dr. Christie has a chip on his shoulder on any portion of the Global Warming Issue. In other words, all scientists are human and that humanity, especially ego, can come into play when evaluating this issue.

As far as funding, most climate research is funded through governments. A great deal of fundamental advances have been accomplished in this field in the U.S. directly by government scientists and indirectly through government funded research since 2000 in spite of an administration that was for the longest time openly hostile to the possibility of global warming and which, at least initially, had the purse strings for global warming research controlled by former lobbyists for the energy industries who actually had leading several U.S. government advocates for global warming fired in the first two years of Bush's first term. And let's not forget that not all the scientific data for supporting global warming came from the U.S. A great deal of research has also come out of Great Britain from such government funded centers such as the Hadley Center well before Tony Blair's administration jumped on the band wagon. In fact, Tony Blair's


Suppose we disrupt the economies of the world to somehow reduce the human effect on the planet and things don't improve just worsen. What then do we say "OH sorry my bad."

Do I think that reducing polution is a great idea?

Yes I do, in fact I'm a better recycler reuser than all my liberal friends are. (Funny thing about liberals they want change things for the 'better' but they want you to asorb the pain of the change instead of bearing it themselves.)

I'm for solar power, wind power and nuclear power as alternatives for oil and coal. I'm for tax incentives for being a non-polluter and penalties for polluting.

But I am also NOT for spending massive amounts of MY money to sooth the conscience of some old hippy who hasn't realized the flower power movement wasn't really where it was at or that effective.

And I find it ironic that Al Gore is pushing his global warming nonsence and being respected for it as if he was some kind of Stphen Hawking of climatology. He should look in the mirror first, how much of his fortune is based on the people killed by his tobacco farming ancestors or created by people greasing his and his father's pockets in order to get political favor?[/QUOTE]

tompritchett
11-12-2007, 01:04 PM
The above is not a finished reply. The software timed out on me twice and it is getting late in the day. I will return and post a part II of the response.

sbl
11-12-2007, 01:21 PM
Thanks Thomas. I'm looking forward to it.

tompritchett
11-12-2007, 01:24 PM
Word about Christy. He headed up the group at NASA that was calculating the temperatures in the atmosphere at different depths using remote sensing data collected from satellites. For the longest time he was claiming that his satellite data was contradicting the surface temperature data and that the surface temperature data must have been biased high due to what is known as the 'Urban Heat Island Effect". Unfortunately, his explanation for bias could not explain why some of the largest discrepancies between his calculated surface temperatures and the measured surface temperatures where highest in the ocean and polar regions where there are no cities. Ultimately, and after the National Academy Sciences in an overall report to Congress several years back on Global Warming, dismissed Christy's calculated temperatures in favor for the observed measurement primarly because the calculations were not robust and would give significantly different results with slight differences in the data and when performed by independent scientists, an external and independent review of Christy's temperature calculations was performed and found that indeed his calculated temperatures were in error. Subsquently, in Fall 2006 there was a joint paper in Science authored by Christy and the many of the reviewer, in which the revised temperature data was presented and found to be consistent with the observed surface concentrations. In my opinion it now appears that Christy has a chip on his shoulder towards Global Warming research.

P.S. I also believe that there is a professor emeritis in either climatology or meteorology at either New Mexico State or University of Mexico that also has come out publically against global warming. There is also a senior Scandanvian researcher that is arguing that much, if not all, of the current rise in global temperatures is due to a reduction of galactic cosmic rays hitting our Earth's atmosphere and creating clouds that block portions of the sun's energy. This reduction in cosmic rays, which is caused by variations in the sun's electromagetic field (the field acts as a shield against galactic cosmic rays for the solar system), reduces the clouds which, in turn, increases the amount of energy the Earth actually receives from the sun.

tompritchett
11-12-2007, 05:41 PM
I am actually starting this part with a continuation of my last chain of thought before addressing the remaining points. I will italicize my material contained in the previous part so that you will know where the new material starts but I need the previous material to make the new material make sense.


Do I believe that there is a great conspiracy by scientists to convince the world of something that isn't true is for their own devious purposes?

No I don't.

Do I believe people on both sides of the argument are taking stands that are consistant with their own personal biases and discarding any contradictory information?

You betcha I do. There are a lot of dollars at stake on both sides of the issue INCLUDING massive research funding to support the current popular theory.

...

As far as funding, most climate research is funded through governments. A great deal of fundamental advances have been accomplished in this field in the U.S. directly by government scientists and indirectly through government funded research since 2000 in spite of an administration that was for the longest time openly hostile to the possibility of global warming and which, at least initially, had the purse strings for global warming research controlled by former lobbyists for the energy industries who actually had leading several U.S. government advocates for global warming fired in the first two years of Bush's first term. And let's not forget that not all the scientific data for supporting global warming came from the U.S. A great deal of research has also come out of Great Britain from such government funded centers such as the Hadley Center well before Tony Blair's administration jumped on the band wagon. In fact, I can remember several years ago when Tony Blair’s public comments on global warming took an 180 degree shift from indifference to extreme seriousness. As a result of such a major shift in his stated policies I immediately starting researching what could have caused it. It appears that in February 2006 the Hadley Center held an international conference on Avoiding Abrupt Climate Change hosted by the Queen. Evidently the conference made a strong impact on both the Queen and Mr. Blair as Mr. Blair wrote the opening introduction of the Conference Proceeding in which he made the following statement:

Climate change is the world’s greatest environmental challenge.
It is now plain that the emission of greenhouse gases,
associated with industrialisation [sic] and economic growth from
a world population that has increased six-fold in 200 years,
is causing global warming at a rate that is unsustainable.

That is why I set climate change as one of the top priorities
for the UK’s Presidency of the G8 and the European
Union in 2005.

Of course not all the government funding for global warming research is limited to Great Britain and the U.S. Scientific research institutions in other nations have also been looking into the issue such as Germany and other European Agencies, the European Environmental Agency and even agencies in Australia, where the Prime Minister is even more hostile to Global Warming than Bush was until just recently. In the majority of cases the primary research into the actual science of Global Warming has been conducted directly by government agencies or indirectly by government funding and not by special interest groups with particular agendas. However, if one wants to conduct research contradicting Global Warming there is substantial money available to fund that research through institutions directly funded by the energy industry, especially some oil companies such as Mobile/Exxon. In fact, just prior to and immediately after the release of An Inconvenient Truth one such Exxon funded organization was posting a bounty for any scientist who would submit a paper refuting Global Warming. So, if you want to make the money argument, I would suggest that, if there is such a money based bias for slanting the research, since the beginning of this century such a bias is more likely to be seen in the anti-Global Warming side of the argument than in the pro-Global side.

tompritchett
11-12-2007, 05:43 PM
Suppose we disrupt the economies of the world to somehow reduce the human effect on the planet and things don't improve just worsen. What then do we say "OH sorry my bad."

In all the various reports that I have read to date, I have yet to see anyone propose that we had to shut down or otherwise “disrupt” the world’s economic engines. In fact the most thorough analysis to date of the world-wide economic impacts of addressing the threat of Global Warming would have to be the Stern report. The report basically addresses the percent of the world’s GDP that would be required to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at specific future target based upon how long the world delayed started to address the issue. If we started now, the projection was approximately 2 – 3% . However, the report also concluded that the longer the world waited before addressing the problem, the greater percentage of our GDP would be required. So, the longer we wait to address the threat, the more likely and more severe the required “disruptions” will be.

Yes, seriously addressing the threat of Global Warming will slow down certain industries, especially those that are the most energy intensive. However, addressing the issue will also promote other industries such as renewable energy related industries, energy conservation industries, industries for recovering waste heat for the generation of new energy, carbon capture and sequestration related industries, etc. It will likely require that governments rearrange some of their priorities in order to achieve these goals. For example here in the U.S. we could stop the development and future deployment of a whole new family of nuclear warheads, something that, given Russia and China’s very strong objections, I personally consider to be extremely destabilizing to our relations with the other world nuclear powers, and instead invest that money in the development of methods to incorporate existing technologies such as Sterling engines and non-steam based turbines to recover significant waste heat generated by existing power plants for the purpose of generating additional electricity for every ton of coal or every cubic foot of natural gas burned for the current production of power.

Finally, when I hear arguments about the negative economic impacts of addressing Global Warming, I never hear the flip side of the argument of how the unabated impacts of global warming will affect world economies. For example, just last month there was a study published in The Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences where a group of scientist looked at the relationship between rises in ocean temperature and historical mass extinction events of ocean species (greater than 50% of all known species becoming extinct) recorded in the fossil record. Unfortunately, the authors found that there was a strong correlation between these mass extinctions and rises in ocean temperatures expected by the end of this century or the beginning of the next century if Global Warming is allowed to continue unabated. The study also found that the extinctions occurred essential instantaneously on a geological timescale and that the recovery took substantially longer than the extinctions. In light of this study, what would be the economic impact if all the world’s fisheries collapsed in the space of just a few decades? Similarly, what will be the economic impact of the migration of 100’s of millions of people displaced by rising oceans? What will be the economic impact of the major geographic shifts in agricultural zones as regions become to arid to support substantial crop growing as others become more fertile? What will be the economic impact when major watersheds fed by melting glaciers and abundant rainfall as the source glaciers disappear and those regions no longer get sufficient rains to make up the difference? What will be the economic impact of shifts in the duration, location and even occurrence in monsoon seasons that can occur due to major changes and disruptions predicted under some of the more severe Global Warming impact scenarios? What will be the economic impact of more frequent and increased duration El Nino events as have been predicted (and are starting to be seen) in some of the Global Warming models? What will be the economic impacts of polar migration of tree destroying pest into forests that evolved without the presence of such pest and therefore have no defenses (two notes, short-lived pests adapt much faster to changes in the environment than trees with more longer live and such shifts are being observed in North America)?

In summary, do not talk economic impacts unless you are willing to look at both sides of the issue because there are also potentially severe economic impacts of inaction which, IMHO, are far greater than the impacts of acting. However, if you are interested in looking at the totality of economic impacts, there are such studies out there. First of course is the Stern Report which looks at the issue from a world-wide view. I also know that several years ago the state of Washington conducted a study on the economic impacts of global warming would have on their state as well as the economic impacts of acting on the issue. The European Environmental Agency periodically issues reports detailing the economic impact of unabated Global Warming on different regions of Europe. There have been several reports on the national security impacts of global warming, starting first with an internal study several years ago within DoD, then one by the CAN Corporation, a national defense think tank staffed by retired generals and admirals, and finally a study recently jointly released by the Center for a New American Security and the Center for Strategic & International Studies with the title “Age of Consequences: The Foreign Policy and National Security Implications of Global Climate Change”. Also Re, the world’s largest insurance underwriter commissioned a study on the economic impact of unabated climate change on the insurance industry. The title of this study is “Climate Change Futures Health, Ecological and Economic Dimensions”


Do I think that reducing polution is a great idea?

Yes I do, in fact I'm a better recycler reuser than all my liberal friends are. (Funny thing about liberals they want change things for the 'better' but they want you to asorb the pain of the change instead of bearing it themselves.)

I'm for solar power, wind power and nuclear power as alternatives for oil and coal. I'm for tax incentives for being a non-polluter and penalties for polluting.

We are in agreement that pollution is a bad idea. However, I am starting to become annoyed in how “liberal” has become the new 4 letter word in politics, especially when it is applied to all that do not share one’s political beliefs. Christine Whitman probably best describes that annoyance for Republicans such as myself in her book “It’s my Party Too”. My observation is that basing political and societal beliefs based upon the advice of talking heads and fads is not just limited to the “liberal” side of the hobby (I too have a liberal friend who suffers from such mental blinders) but applies equally to both sides of the political spectrum.

As far as renewable energy sources, I too support the use of solar, wind, geothermal, bio-gas, tidal, wave, and micro-hydro based methods for the generation of electricity as well as the production of cellulose based bio-ethanol, algae based and waste vegetable oil based production of bio-diesel, as well as other renewable technologies not listed. The current problem with renewables is their relatively minor size relative to our overall usage of energy and the current growth in our demand of energy. For example, about a year ago I calculated that, given the current growth in our demand for additional electricity each year, it will take until approximately 2025 before the annual growth in solar and wind based electricity will be large enough to meet the increase in overall demand yet alone start replacing conventional fossil fuel based sources of electricity. Energy conservation is needed to have any immediate impact. Similarly, increasing the average fuel efficiency of every automobile in the U.S. just 1 mile a gallon, will save us more gasoline per year than would be replaced by all the corn-based bio-ethanol projected to be produced by the end of this decade. Fortunately, the market forces of higher energy costs are now driving such conservation efforts. Businesses and industries are now finding that within just a few years they can recover the costs of making new processes and building so energy efficient that, with addition of onsite generation of renewable energy the process or building achieves what is known as a net-zero energy status (i.e., they draw a net zero energy from the U.S. energy grid).

While I agree that the production of electricity by nuclear power generates no greenhouse gases and no pollution when done properly, nuclear power has a major Achilles heel in the permanent storage of high level radioactive wastes – spent fuel rods and the reactor components from decommissioned, disassembled fission reactors. There are currently enough spent fuel rods in temporary storage and fuels rods currently in use that, when Yucca Mountain finally receives it final operating permit and starts to receive this waste, there will be a large enough backlog of such waste to fill it to capacity. And this is without the construction of any new nuclear power plants. If the government is indeed serious about promoting the growth of nuclear power, it must get serious about dealing with the nuclear waste issue instead of giving it the mere lip service that it has received over the past decade. When the issue of additional storage capacity is resolved, then any objections that I have to nuclear power will disappear.

tompritchett
11-12-2007, 05:45 PM
But I am also NOT for spending massive amounts of MY money to sooth the conscience of some old hippy who hasn't realized the flower power movement wasn't really where it was at or that effective.

Personally, I could care less about what the old hippies think. Yes, I have encountered such people who are trying to use the Global Warming issue as a band wagon to push through more substantial ways to preach their vision of what our future society should look like. I respectfully listen to what they have to say and then make up my own mind based upon everything else that I have read. If you do want a reason, think about the world that you will be passing on to your children and grandchildren (in my case, being childless, my great and great-great nieces and nephews) and whether or not our inactions will be creating a far more unpredictable and less hospitable for them to live in.


And I find it ironic that Al Gore is pushing his global warming nonsence and being respected for it as if he was some kind of Stphen Hawking of climatology. He should look in the mirror first, how much of his fortune is based on the people killed by his tobacco farming ancestors or created by people greasing his and his father's pockets in order to get political favor?

As Scottt mentioned earlier, this is a case of condemning the messenger because of the apparent sins and hypocrisies on just one of thousands of the messengers. This would be analogous to judging the truth of Christianity because of the sins and hypocrisies of selected television evangelists, preachers, priests, and popes.

Robert A Mosher
11-12-2007, 06:04 PM
Personally, as I have said in other settings, I don't need to know why the boat is leaking when it is obvious that we need to start bailing it out.

Robert A. Mosher

bill watson
11-12-2007, 07:01 PM
I just want to thank whoever it was who got Tom Pritchett so worked up. That was just brilliant.

tompritchett
11-12-2007, 07:14 PM
I just want to thank whoever it was who got Tom Pritchett so worked up.
Bob Sandusky(bob 125th nysvi) gets all the credit. :)

tompritchett
11-12-2007, 07:17 PM
Personally, as I have said in other settings, I don't need to know why the boat is leaking when it is obvious that we need to start bailing it out.

The only problem, to use your analogy, is when the occupants of the boat either refuse to acknowledge that is it indeed leaking or refuse to believe that we need to start bailing because they argue the size of the leak is not sufficient to be a risk to sink the boat.

Rob
11-12-2007, 08:36 PM
Food for thought:

"It would seem that men and women need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum such as motivation seemed to have ceased to exist or have yet to be found. The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor... Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose." (Emphasis added)

"Democracy will be made to seem responsible for the lagging economy, the scarcity and uncertainties. The very concept of democracy could then be brought into question and allow for the seizure of power by extremists of one brand or the other.

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. The real enemy [of the elites and their minions] then is humanity itself."

- The First Global Revolution (1991) published by the Club of Rome. Members of the Club of Rome include: Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Bill Gates, George Soros, and author of the Kyoto Protocols, Maurice Strong.

Doug Cooper
11-12-2007, 08:43 PM
Its about 50/50 natural cycle and human acceleration based on the most learned and balanced studies from the private and public sector using real data from the last 400,000 years. While I find it the height of arrogance for any human to say we should "save the planet" it is not much of a stretch to say we ought to "help save our present way of life."

The planet will do just fine thank you...but we humans get a bit uncomfy if things are not perfect.

And whether we agree on why it is happening...it is in fact happening, and what's more, the private sector is working hard on the problem, and the public sector is definitely beginning to do something about it as well. The one area that lags of course is the people - things will need to get much worse before the SUV goes the way of the Stegosaurus.

Hugely ironic is the fact that what's good for the climate is not necessarily good for the rest of environment. Nuclear power is the best example. If we could devote the kind of energy and resources we did for Apollo or the Manhattan Project toward converting coal and gas fired plants to nuclear, we would make a huge dent in green house gases, remove much of the dependence on foreign oil and the sticky national security issues therein and get cheaper, more reliable energy to boot...and no dead birds and noise (wind power), works everywhere, is cheap and is proven (unlike solar), does not use food for fuel (ethanol from corn)...

...but there is that nuclear waste thing.

The politics of green make that hard, even if it makes great economic and climatic sense. Instead we get endless debate from folks who cannot compromise due to their political bias - "they are against it so I am for it" attitude that doomed any reform of social security, real tax reform, health care...or make winning wars so hard for that matter. We have the technology to make every car get 50 mpg...but we lack even the intestinal fortitude to vote the standards in over 20 years, much less the next few years.

We need to make it a race I guess...just like Apollo.

bob 125th nysvi
11-12-2007, 08:49 PM
The only problem, to use your analogy, is when the occupants of the boat either refuse to acknowledge that is it indeed leaking or refuse to believe that we need to start bailing because they argue the size of the leak is not sufficient to be a risk to sink the boat.

the analogy works well but not for the reasons you think.

The boat needs to be bailed but why it is leaking is just as important that the fact that it is leaking and how the leak is to be repaired is just as important.

Suppose, just suppose for a moment that the global warming is not being caused by man or even being pushed along by man and we put all our eggs in the 'manmade global warming' basket only to discover the data was wrong.

All the effects of global warming due to natural causes will still happen and the resources devoted to 'preventing' global warming will not be available to relocate population centers (the vast majority of America's population mass is in low lying areas) and supporting infrastructure.

Tom it is nice to see that you have done a lot of research on this and it is obvious which studies you find creditable.

Yet I have seen equally creditable opposite studies and know for a fact (because I have met some of the people involved) that when SUNY Stony Brook didn't find data to support their theory they monkeyed with the computer models to try and fit both the facts (the ozone hole was smaller than projected) and their belief that man was causing it.

That is not objective science.

For the sake of decorum, since we can point-counterpoint each other based on the studies we chose to believe that we leave our dispute to be argued over by future historians who will decide how stupid 20th-21st Century humans were to either not pay attention to the warning signs or expend massive amounts of resources solving the wrong problem while the real problem remained unaddressed.

It was a nice series of counter-points though. Nicely done.

Now have I gotten you worked up enough to take that stone wall at the 145th for Bobby Lee?

bob 125th nysvi
11-12-2007, 08:53 PM
Food for thought:

"It would seem that men and women need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum such as motivation seemed to have ceased to exist or have yet to be found. The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor... Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose." (Emphasis added)

"Democracy will be made to seem responsible for the lagging economy, the scarcity and uncertainties. The very concept of democracy could then be brought into question and allow for the seizure of power by extremists of one brand or the other.

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. The real enemy [of the elites and their minions] then is humanity itself."

- The First Global Revolution (1991) published by the Club of Rome. Members of the Club of Rome include: Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Bill Gates, George Soros, and author of the Kyoto Protocols, Maurice Strong.

fact that people can be swayed to do things not in their interest and some of those things truly horrific, when the specter of an outside enemy is raised.

it is also a histroical fact that many of those "enemies" were either never a threat or non-existant.

tompritchett
11-12-2007, 08:58 PM
it is also a histroical fact that many of those "enemies" were either never a threat or non-existant.

Something that I personally do not believe is applicable in this case.

bob 125th nysvi
11-12-2007, 09:03 PM
Dave,


The last paragraghs are just "Shooting the messenger."

messenger should be shot.

Remember that a messenger with an agenda is not a neutral party and therefore everything they say has to be analyzed with an eye toward is the intent of the messenger to relay unbiased information or to get you to act in a manner that forwards their agenda.

I can respect scientists who are having a good faith debate based on their expertise and their interpetation of the data presented.

To the best of my knowledge Mr. Gore has no scientific background nor has conducted any studies on this own that have been open to scientific review or debate.

What he did was cherry pick among those studies that suited his personal biases and used whatever influence his name has to further his cause.

That is the very definition of an 'agenda'.

And again NOW that Mr. Gore is wealth (wealth built upon the very policies and industrial base he is now attacking) and is finished with his political career he has found a conscience?

I would be a lot more impressed if he worked on attacking poverty by first giving up his fortune and high end life style.

Ghandi had a message and a mission and he lived it.

Al isn't.

tompritchett
11-12-2007, 09:10 PM
Tom it is nice to see that you have done a lot of research on this and it is obvious which studies you find creditable.

Given the length of time that I have been studying this issue (since the late 90's) and the depth that I have gone to in going to the orginal studies rather than just media reports of the studies, I tend to doubt that. BTW, I also read the contradictory studies as well as the follow-up rebutals.


Yet I have seen equally creditable opposite studies and know for a fact (because I have met some of the people involved) that when SUNY Stony Brook didn't find data to support their theory they monkeyed with the computer models to try and fit both the facts (the ozone hole was smaller than projected) and their belief that man was causing it.

While I can not speak directly to the SUNY computer models I am very familiar with the mechanisms behind the formation of the ozone holes, as well as the failures of the original models to adequately predict the size of the holes (the initial models did not account for the surface reactions that occurred on the surface of ice particles in the stratospheric clouds that formed in during the polar winters). Consequently, I am also familiar with how the cooling of the stratosphere predicted to accompanying global warming, thus increasing the size of the winter stratospheric clouds, will decrease the healing of the ozone holes as the levels of Chloine and Bromine are slowly removed through natural processes. Remember you are now arguing in one of my particular areas of scientific expertise.



That is not objective science.

Again, I can not address the specific modeling study you are discussing, but part of the scientific method is constantly revising hypotheses, and thereby models based upon those hypotheses, until they can adequately explain the observed facts.


Now have I gotten you worked up enough to take that stone wall at the 145th for Bobby Lee?

Only if I am a member of one the units that is scripted to do so.

bob 125th nysvi
11-12-2007, 09:20 PM
While I can not speak directly to the SUNY computer models I am very familiar with the mechanisms behind the formation of the ozone holes, as well as the failures of the original models to adequately predict the size of the holes (the initial models did not account for the surface reactions that occurred on the surface of ice particles in the stratospheric clouds that formed in during the polar winters). Consequently, I am also familiar with how the cooling of the stratosphere predicted to accompanying global warming, thus increasing the size of the winter stratospheric clouds, will decrease the healing of the ozone holes as the levels of Chloine and Bromine are slowly removed through natural processes. Remember you are now arguing in one of my particular areas of scientific expertise.

Again, I can not address the specific modeling study you are discussing, but part of the scientific method is constantly revising hypotheses, and thereby models based upon those hypotheses, until they can adequately explain the observed facts.

And based on the above you admit that computer models can be flawed, have data left out or unaccounted for, yes?

Are you also willing to admit that a computer model by its very form can be adapted to in a number of ways to account for observable facts?

It has always been my understanding that a model is not supposed to be adapted to support the hypothosis but to explain the observable facts even if it runs counter to the hypothosis? Am I wrong in that?

And if I am not wrong then how can a model ever be considered reliable if it is adapted to prove the hypothosis and not to provide an explanation of the facts despite the hypothosis.

What is the old saying: "Figures lie and liars figure."

tompritchett
11-12-2007, 09:25 PM
Rob, I was not aware of that quote and you are right is very thought provoking. However, the executive summaries of the IPCC reports, and Gore's Inconvenient Truth are just a minor portion of the literature that I have studied on this issue. Instead, I went in the Technical portions of the prior IPCC report (the last time I checked the technical portions of the current report have not been posted on-line) and have read many other scientific papers and reports from a variety of sources that are fully independent of the Club of Rome. One of the major criticisms that have come from the IPCC Climate Change 2001 study is the degree that it under-predicted the impacts that we are already seeing. Also, I did not see Gore's Inconvenient Truth until well after it left the theaters and I found that his presentations were extremely simplistic and significantly glossed over key issues and findings. I was not even all that impressed with his book as much of the data was based on studies conducted before the turn of the Century. For example, when he showed Dr. Hansen's graphs on the correlation between the concentrations of greenhouse gases and temperatures during the ice ages, he strongly implied that the greenhouse gases were what initially brought the end of the ice ages rather than variations of the Earth's tilt and orbit. He also missed Dr. Hansen's point that, although the concentrations of greenhouse gases lagged behind the initial rises in temperature, the warming of the Earth started the release of these gases which set in motion a feedback lope that resulted in higher temperatures than would be expected strictly due to the variations (the term that Dr. Hansen uses in "climate forcings") and that these levels delayed the time it took for the Earth cooled back down once the variations in the Earth's orbit and tilt dictated that the Earth's climate would again cool.

tompritchett
11-12-2007, 09:50 PM
And based on the above you admit that computer models can be flawed, have data left out or unaccounted for, yes?

Are you also willing to admit that a computer model by its very form can be adapted to in a number of ways to account for observable facts?

Yes they can be inaccurate as was the case with the models of the early 90's and, yes, they can be be adapted to make them fit the data but only under certain limits. In the case of the ozone hole models, they were modified with more accurate assessments of the rate constants of the various reactions involved based upon experimental data acquired in the laboratory. Again, in the case of the ozone hole models of the late 80's and early 90's, the fact that the models were not fitting caused the atmospheric scientists to go back to the laboratory to find out what they were doing wrong and what they were missing in their models. This led to the more accurate reaction rate measurements and the discover of the importance of the surface reactions on the ice crystals in the stratospheric clouds, which greatly accelerate the degradation of ozone by releasing free Chlorine radicals that otherwise would have been trapped in inactive molecules. In the case of the Global Warming models of the same time period, which then were over predicting the overall warming of the atmosphere, it led to incorporating of the absorption of heat and carbon dioxide by the oceans into the models, mechanisms that had not previously included in because of a lack of experimental data on either, but which, based upon experimental data collected since, we now know to be a significant factor.

In other words, these models are not tweaked arbitrarily to make them fit but are modified went based upon new data acquired as a direct result of prior failures of the models to accurately predict current conditions from starting points in the past.


It has always been my understanding that a model is not supposed to be adapted to support the hypothosis but to explain the observable facts even if it runs counter to the hypothosis? Am I wrong in that?

No you are not. What happens instead is that the details of the hypotheses are modified based upon new experimental data and these revised hypotheses are then incorporated into the models.


And if I am not wrong then how can a model ever be considered reliable if it is adapted to prove the hypothosis and not to provide an explanation of the facts despite the hypothosis.

And that is why Global Warming models are typically started in the 1800's and run through the present to validate the model prior to using its results to predict the future. If the model cannot accurately fit the data, new studies are performed to acquire more accurate data in order to revise the hypotheses until the hypotheses can adequately explain the observations.

sbl
11-12-2007, 11:08 PM
"I would be a lot more impressed if he worked on attacking poverty by first giving up his fortune and high end life style."

Bob,

Come on.....whenever a rich person tries to do something good he's treated like a traitor to his class.


"To the best of my knowledge Mr. Gore has no scientific background nor has conducted any studies on this own that have been open to scientific review or debate."

He could be playing golf and a be a social drinker to. That would be a help.

bob 125th nysvi
11-15-2007, 10:35 PM
"I would be a lot more impressed if he worked on attacking poverty by first giving up his fortune and high end life style."

Bob,

Come on.....whenever a rich person tries to do something good he's treated like a traitor to his class.


"To the best of my knowledge Mr. Gore has no scientific background nor has conducted any studies on this own that have been open to scientific review or debate."

He could be playing golf and a be a social drinker to. That would be a help.

and quite honestly he isn't being a traitor to his class. Al is still making money hand over fist and I really don't see him doing anything to alleviate any of the problems he is pointing out other than pointing them out.

Do you really think Al is driving the highest milage sub-compact out there or better yet taking public transporation?

No he isn't and I'll bet his car costs much more than yours or mine.

Has he moved into a subterranian energy efficent solar home? Or better yet set up a windmill on his property and tied it into the energy grid to produce clean energy?

Men like Gore have the PERSONAL ability through their fortunes to make a significant impact in the lives of people by disposing of that income in the advancement of their cause.

But typically that isn't what happens, they call on the government to solve the problem (meaning you and I foot the bill) and even IF they pay their fair share of taxes it still leaves them signifcantly farther from the poverty line than you and I will ever be.

And before you tell me he earned it, tell me by doing what, advancing up the publically funded ladder? Inheriting it from Daddy (who also made money on the publically funded ladder)?

When a rich man sells all he has in the advancement of his cause and moves in next door, he can lecture me, until then it is all transparent hype.

And before you tell me that I am against rich people I'll tell you that my household income puts me in the top 20% of household incomes in this country. So when politicans talk about taxing the rich, I'm part of the group they are talking about.

So if they want me to foot the bill, I want them to lead the way.

I don't see any leadership here.

Let's not cannonize people before they start acying like saints.

tompritchett
11-16-2007, 12:41 AM
Has he moved into a subterranian energy efficent solar home? Or better yet set up a windmill on his property and tied it into the energy grid to produce clean energy?

While you might be right about much of your comments about Gore, his request for a zoning variance to install solar roof panels was finally approved recently after being held up for about 2 years.

Dunn Browne
11-23-2007, 04:01 PM
I noticed that most, if not all the folks screaming about global warming like to blame the Oil Companies, Industry, SUVs, and Politicians as long as they belong to the GOP. Assuming that humans are more than an extremely minor contributing factor to global warming, they never want to blame those really responsible, because that would start by taking a good look in the mirror. That includes Mr. Gore, who I am sure has burned more fossil fuel promoting his movie than my entire family will use in our lifetimes put together.

sbl
11-23-2007, 04:18 PM
"....That includes Mr. Gore, who I am sure has burned more fossil fuel promoting his movie than my entire family will use in our lifetimes put together...."

Should Paul Revere have stayed home cause the horse might poop on Lexington Green?


Check it out..You decide.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp

Tarheel57
11-24-2007, 01:11 PM
"....That includes Mr. Gore, who I am sure has burned more fossil fuel promoting his movie than my entire family will use in our lifetimes put together...."

Should Paul Revere have stayed home cause the horse might poop on Lexington Green?


Check it out..You decide.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp

I agree that the power bill thing is pretty trivial. But Gore's refusal to speak on behalf of the U'Wa people threatened by Occidental oil's operations in Colombia; and his vast royalties from zinc mining, which generates huge amounts of pollution, do seem a bit hypocritical.

sbl
11-24-2007, 01:34 PM
Enoch,

A lot of that story is from 2000. I don't remember Scrooge giving up his counting house. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occidental_Petroleum#Gore_family_ties

Gore family ties

"..Occidental's coal interests were represented for many years by attorney and former U.S. Senator Albert Gore, Sr., among others. Gore, who had a long-time close friendship with Hammer, became the head of its subsidiary Island Creek Coal Company upon his election loss in the Senate. Much of Oxy's coal and phosphate production was from Tennessee, the state Gore represented in the Senate, and Gore owned shares of stock in the company. Because the stock passed to his estate after his death, his son and executor at the time, former Vice President Albert Gore, Jr. received much criticism from environmentalists.[8][10] However, Al Gore Jr. did not exercise control over the stock, which was eventually sold when the estate closed.[11][12].."

(12) http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2006-08-16-gore-letters_x.htm

"The assertion by author Peter Schweizer that the Gores were swimming in Occidental stock is also off base. At Mr. Gore's request, all of his father's stock in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum was sold almost six years ago as the estate was closed."

Tarheel57
11-24-2007, 04:59 PM
Enoch,

A lot of that story is from 2000. I don't remember Scrooge giving up his counting house. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occidental_Petroleum#Gore_family_ties

Gore family ties

"..Occidental's coal interests were represented for many years by attorney and former U.S. Senator Albert Gore, Sr., among others. Gore, who had a long-time close friendship with Hammer, became the head of its subsidiary Island Creek Coal Company upon his election loss in the Senate. Much of Oxy's coal and phosphate production was from Tennessee, the state Gore represented in the Senate, and Gore owned shares of stock in the company. Because the stock passed to his estate after his death, his son and executor at the time, former Vice President Albert Gore, Jr. received much criticism from environmentalists.[8][10] However, Al Gore Jr. did not exercise control over the stock, which was eventually sold when the estate closed.[11][12].."

(12) http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2006-08-16-gore-letters_x.htm

"The assertion by author Peter Schweizer that the Gores were swimming in Occidental stock is also off base. At Mr. Gore's request, all of his father's stock in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum was sold almost six years ago as the estate was closed."


Here is an interesting debate from earlier this year:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259902,00.html

sbl
11-24-2007, 05:47 PM
Thanks Enoch,

HANNITY and combes..(sign).

They did have Betsy Rosenberg on at least to talk over.