Notices
Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: NAS members on CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE INTEGRITY OF SCIENCE

  1. #1 NAS members on CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE INTEGRITY OF SCIENCE 
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    http://www.pacinst.org/climate/climate_statement.pdf


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Here is an interesting article outlining the strategy of those who organized the statement.

    Climate scientists to fight back at skeptics

    It's interesting that the strategies and tactics advocated are not much different than the ones many AGW advocates accuse skeptics of using presumably to raise doubt about the skeptics credibility.

    Debate is an interesting affair.


     

  4. #3  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    It's interesting that the strategies and tactics advocated are not much different than the ones many AGW advocates accuse skeptics of using presumably to raise doubt about the skeptics credibility.
    No, the goal is to raise understanding of the science among the public and lawmakers. However, considering the funds available to the anti-science side I doubt if this new effort will have much success.
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    It's interesting that the strategies and tactics advocated are not much different than the ones many AGW advocates accuse skeptics of using presumably to raise doubt about the skeptics credibility.
    No, the goal is to raise understanding of the science among the public and lawmakers.
    Good point, it's primary purpose is propaganda, not debate.
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Bunbury; On another forum referring to the identical link, I posted the following. I'm not sure what relevance it has to your motive here, since there were no comments on the opening post.


    We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.
    From your op link; If there is indeed "uncertainty" associated with scientific conclusions (extremely arguable, what conclusions have been made), then why should actions taken be any less certain as to remedies. Said another way, one point I've consistently made since the 1960's (in vain), is that those actions taken, themselves can be and have been more destructive than the original perceived problem itself. Not only are they suggesting impossible remedies, a total change and overnight (relatively speaking) to the lifestyle of all society, they may be advising on premature evidence including the adverse consequences.

    No one is denying the planet has been warming, certainly since the period science told us it was cooling and there is no argument that mans activity, itself is PART of the EVENTS (warming and cooling) or otherwise said part of the environment that naturally controls the weather patterns on planet earth or in fact what's naturally being changed in the atmosphere. The question should be asked, what if the science is wrong and those "risk" if actions are indeed successful and we some how dropped CO2, to levels of 300ppm, when mans influence was about a tenth of what it is today, or less.

    For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5 billion years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14 billion years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today's organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: There is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.
    'Apples and Oranges'; I can recite you history, give you my understandings of what was and how it developed to what is today and with unlimited evidence and it will be "overwhelmingly accepted" by historians, but necessary all of them, same on most all issues and in particular AGW. What I can't do or can computer models used today or likely ever accurately predict the future. There is not one item under warming/cooling/CO2 Atmospheric Composition/Temperatures/Solar Flares or anything thing else in nature, that has not been before, likely to be again or be in extremes to those probabilities. There are simply too many variables that natural adjustment by nature itself, will follow or correct, mans activity probably the least important. One may very well be the current Iceland Volcano eruption, ongoing today.

    (i) through (v)
    These are all based on questionable *if's* and all could be argued by a good many skeptical SCIENTIST, in the relative fields. I'm tired of going over these thousands of people that have made their counter points, over and over again or the recorded history of the many political movements that led to a consolidation under AGW.

    Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.
    One self inflicted argument by the author of the article, among many; "unprecedented in modern times", validating what I've been saying. Al Gore, the modern day self proclaimed spokesperson for all extremist environment movements, buys an Ocean Front Property, on the Pacific where he once predicted would be under water, think by 2010. Somebody, please make sense of this...

    On the list of names; How much would you bet these people and those still with NASA in the US are funded (dependent on Government) for their jobs, creditability, purpose, have them because they simply WILL NOT be skeptical of an ongoing political issue?



    Bunbury
    No, the goal is to raise understanding of the science among the public and lawmakers. However, considering the funds available to the anti-science side I doubt if this new effort will have much success.
    Where is you think, a good share on money for R&D comes from, if not the various Governments? In my mind too much of science theory is already involved in public policy, which in my mind cause more problems than problems solved.
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    Exxon Mobil are working with top public relations firms and using many of the same tactics and personnel as those employed by Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds to dispute the cigarette-cancer link in the 1990s. Exxon Mobil sought out those willing to question the science behind climate change, providing funding for some of them, their organizations and their studies.
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    It's interesting that the strategies and tactics advocated are not much different than the ones many AGW advocates accuse skeptics of using presumably to raise doubt about the skeptics credibility.
    No, the goal is to raise understanding of the science among the public and lawmakers.
    Good point, it's primary purpose is propaganda, not debate.
    Indeed, and when I went to school to learn arithmetic and spelling, that was propaganda too.
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    By the way, as I'm sure some of you know, the Inter Academy Council is to conduct a review of the IPCC, aimed, I believe, mainly at helping to improve its quality control procedures if and where necessary. You can submit comments here:

    http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/comments.html
     

  10. #9 Re: NAS members on CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE INTEGRITY OF SCIEN 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    http://www.pacinst.org/climate/climate_statement.pdf
    Sorry mate, there's nowhere close to 700 signatories on that piece of rubbish.
     

  11. #10 Re: NAS members on CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE INTEGRITY OF SCIEN 
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    http://www.pacinst.org/climate/climate_statement.pdf
    Sorry mate, there's nowhere close to 700 signatories on that piece of rubbish.
    As me old mum used ter say, it's the quality wot counts, not 'ow big it is.
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Sophomore LunchBox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    132
    (ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.
    I like this quote...this is the keystone of the pro-AGW argument. I wish they had included a reference to the technological breakthrough that allows scientists to scan a barcode on CO2 molecules, and tell exactly where they came from.

    (iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth's climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.
    "You" have no credible way of knowing that, and it is speculation. There is no control group..."you" don't even know where we're 'supposed' to be. "You're" guessing... My guess is we're teetering on the brink of the next ice age...but I'm not basing that on politics, or government funding...I'm basing it on the FACT that it's happened almost 20 times in the last 2 million years...when our atmoshpere experiences...the same things we're seeing today.

    It's a pattern...it was a pattern before we were here, and it'll be a pattern after we're gone. We're much smaller than we think. Religion was invented so people can feel that their place on this planet is special, and that they are "bigger" than they really are. See the connection?
    "Let your anger be as a monkey in a pinata, hiding with the candy, hoping the children do not break through with a stick."

    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." *Einstein
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by LunchBox
    We're much smaller than we think.
    Speaking of skeptics, one presumes!

    More seriously, human beings may be a miniscule species on the planet, but the amount of sequestered carbon pumped out of the ground and injected into the air easily rivals that of volcanic activity and other geological processes that you would have no difficulty accepting contribute to climate.

    Billions of cars, billions of tailpipes, millions of smokestacks, belching fossil fuels constantly, for decades.
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by LunchBox
    (ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.
    I like this quote...this is the keystone of the pro-AGW argument. I wish they had included a reference to the technological breakthrough that allows scientists to scan a barcode on CO2 molecules, and tell exactly where they came from.
    Actually we've had pretty much that available for nearly half a century by measure of the carbon isotope ratio, specifically lowering 13C/12C as a by product of burning fossil and living plants compared to the natural ratio. The calculation are also substantiated and completely consistent with estimates of fossil fuels burned for energy and forest areas burned for clearing over the past century and a half. Essentially there's virtually no doubt that most of the increase Co2 is due to human action--it's not only a case where the hypothesis matched the observations very closely, but also there is no other available hypothesis that's even comes close to explaining the increases.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore LunchBox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    132
    LOL...and I will agree that they have an effect...but one that is nearly impossible to gauge accurately.
    "Let your anger be as a monkey in a pinata, hiding with the candy, hoping the children do not break through with a stick."

    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." *Einstein
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by LunchBox
    My guess is we're teetering on the brink of the next ice age...
    If by "teetering on the brink" you mean sometime within the next 100,000 years you could be right.

    but I'm not basing that on politics, or government funding...I'm basing it on the FACT that it's happened almost 20 times in the last 2 million years...when our atmoshpere experiences...the same things we're seeing today.
    Such as? Give us some details of the things we're experiencing that lead you to "guess" there's an ice age coming.
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore LunchBox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Quote Originally Posted by LunchBox
    My guess is we're teetering on the brink of the next ice age...
    If by "teetering on the brink" you mean sometime within the next 100,000 years you could be right.

    but I'm not basing that on politics, or government funding...I'm basing it on the FACT that it's happened almost 20 times in the last 2 million years...when our atmoshpere experiences...the same things we're seeing today.
    Such as? Give us some details of the things we're experiencing that lead you to "guess" there's an ice age coming.
    Sure:



    I showed a graph similar to this to my 7th grade students, and one of them (the 7th grade science subject award winner) said, "So when the graph drops off, there's another ice age?" I said yes, to which he replied, "Looks to me like we're overdue."

    I just think we're getting ourselves all worked up over something largely out of our hands. I see all these complex calculations attempting to account for all sorts of variables...when common sense is staring us in the face...which is one reason I love the Einstein quote in my sig line.
    "Let your anger be as a monkey in a pinata, hiding with the candy, hoping the children do not break through with a stick."

    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." *Einstein
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    You probably should have explained the difference though between past events and what's projects.

    Orbital eccentricity of the earth around the sun, and tilt are both approaching minimums and will weaken astronomical forcing for the next 20,000 years or so. The next ice age will be very mild, the cooling gradual and likely completely eclipsed by the green house gas forcing we've already put into the atmosphere for the next several thousand years.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by LunchBox


    I showed a graph similar to this to my 7th grade students, and one of them (the 7th grade science subject award winner) said, "So when the graph drops off, there's another ice age?" I said yes, to which he replied, "Looks to me like we're overdue."
    Obvious lie.
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore LunchBox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    You probably should have explained the difference though between past events and what's projects.

    Orbital eccentricity of the earth around the sun, and tilt are both approaching minimums and will weaken astronomical forcing for the next 20,000 years or so. The next ice age will be very mild, the cooling gradual and likely completely eclipsed by the green house gas forcing we've already put into the atmosphere for the next several thousand years.
    We're talking about American 7th graders...I'm lucky if they know the Earth orbits the sun when I get them at the start of the year.



    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    Quote Originally Posted by LunchBox


    I showed a graph similar to this to my 7th grade students, and one of them (the 7th grade science subject award winner) said, "So when the graph drops off, there's another ice age?" I said yes, to which he replied, "Looks to me like we're overdue."
    Obvious lie.
    Who's lying? Me? The graph? You?...to yourself, when you think you have something to add to the conversation? Seriously...You seem to like popping in, throwing a vague fit, then never responding with any substance whatsoever that even indicates you have some measure of information, or what we're even talking about. Dude...if you want to disagree, that's great...that's what science is all about...but make an actual point.
    "Let your anger be as a monkey in a pinata, hiding with the candy, hoping the children do not break through with a stick."

    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." *Einstein
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by LunchBox
    Who's lying? Me?
    Yes, you. The graph does not suggest we are overdue, so your story is quite obviously made up, and most likely intentional propaganda. (Even 7th graders understand that!)

    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    From your op link; If there is indeed "uncertainty" associated with scientific conclusions (extremely arguable, what conclusions have been made), then why should actions taken be any less certain as to remedies.
    Can you prove you'll die if you jump out of a window? No? So what are you waiting for?


    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Not only are they suggesting impossible remedies, a total change and overnight (relatively speaking) to the lifestyle of all society,
    It's been known at least since eighties that CO2 is harmful. Why is it so surprising we are running out of time?
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    The next ice age will be very mild, the cooling gradual and likely completely eclipsed by the green house gas forcing we've already put into the atmosphere for the next several thousand years.
    LF; Are you saying at no time in the past, GHG were never as they are today by percentage of what WAS atmosphere or that the simple fact mankind exist, is the problem.

    water vapor
    carbon dioxide
    Atmospheric methane
    nitrous oxide
    ozone
    chlorofluorocarbons

    Earth has had three atmospheres, each different in chemical composition. The first of Earth's atmospheres, formed when the planet was still very young, was primarily hydrogen and helium. This atmosphere is about 4.57 billion years old, and was short-lived – heat from the molten crust and solar wind dissipated this layer. Hydrogen and helium are not heavy enough to make up a stable atmosphere unless the planet is very massive – these elements are more likely to gain escape velocity during random thermal fluctuations. This is part of the reason why hydrogen and helium are very rare in Earth's atmosphere today.
    http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-...atmosphere.htm

    These events didn't happen overnight and whatever is next won't either. As mentioned on this thread and possibly 5000 others, there are too many variables to conclude anything, especially in my opinion, mankind and it's activity has influenced to any large degree any trend (warming/cooling).

    Maybe methane should be reduced or nearly eliminated. We could kill off all the termites and fill in Wetlands. Oh, I forgot we seem to need wetland and DDT would be worse than the termites. But those are older environmental movements which cured other problems, AT A COST*.

    Wetlands. Natural wetlands are responsible for the majority of global methane emissions from natural sources, accounting for about 170 Tg of methane per year (range 105-278 Tg per year)....

    Termites. Global emissions of methane due to termites are estimated to be between 2 and 22 Tg per year, making them the second largest natural source of methane emissions.
    http://epa.gov/methane/sources.html

    *
    Herein we will show how rapidly malaria is increasing, examine the patterns of resurgent malaria in relationship to the Global Malaria Control Strategy (1), and test the hypothesis that increased malaria is due to decreased spraying of homes with DDT. Also, we will discuss recent actions to ban DDT, the health costs of such a ban, perspectives on DDT use in agriculture versus malaria control, and costs versus benefits of DDT and alternative insecticides.
    http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol3no3/roberts.htm

    Can you prove you'll die if you jump out of a window? No? So what are you waiting for?
    Twit; Exactly, since science cannot and probably never will be able to predict the future with any certainty, then why jump....Change life styles, maybe bankrupt society and return to the dark ages, socially speaking.

    It's been known at least since eighties that CO2 is harmful. Why is it so surprising we are running out of time?
    For the record, CO2 is not toxic or harmful to life itself, at rates 100 times plus, that's in the Atmosphere, your breathing in that on most any urban road or enclosed building today. We may be running out of time but I'd bet the reason will have nothing to do with CO2 or anything man could possibly prevent.

    Think about this, PLANTLIFE requires CO2, does 50% better where CO2 levels can be maintained at levels above 1000ppm (Greenhouses) and guess what beside the food you eat or the food animals you eat need, they produce the one thing most complex life on this planet MUST have. Do you know what that might be....?
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    I just think we're getting ourselves all worked up over something largely out of our hands. I see all these complex calculations attempting to account for all sorts of variables...when common sense is staring us in the face
    It's not out of our hands; there is lots we can do, but we're mostly too selfish and lazy to do them.

    I do complex calculations every day. Perhaps if you made some attempt to understand, if not the calculations themselves, then at least the reasoning behind them, you might gain some respect here. As it is you came in full of sarcasm and ignorance and I have no time for you.
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    jackson33: You are an idiot...
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •