Global cooling back again?

david letterman enjoys making a mockery of this topic too, saying on warm days they give al gore another oscar and on cool ones they take it back. Anyway, the earth does go on a cyclical basis for temperature. Recent data suggests that recent levels are out of the norm, but who knows.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

The temperature isn't too far from the norm, it's the CO2 levels which are way way higher than anything before. And as a rule, CO2 levels tend to correlate with the temperature.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by RABicle

The temperature isn't too far from the norm, it's the CO2 levels which are way way higher than anything before. And as a rule, CO2 levels tend to correlate with the temperature.

Science more.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

That's logic, not science. Science would be pointing out that Atmospheric CO2 reflects sunlight and heat and in fact is quite capable of causing warming.

I was speaking idiomatically.

It just occurred to me that it seems pretty silly to be referring to science as the ultimate arbiter in this debate. I mean, on the one hand, yeah, what other option do you have right? On the other, you've got scientists running research funded by the green lobby which says omg those bad people with their bad CO2 are killing the world, and you've got other scientists running research funded by people with other interests saying omg CO2 is negligible.

So talking about what Science would say at this point seems a bit like talking about what a person with multiple personality disorder might claim on any given day.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Arainach

Science would be pointing out that Atmospheric CO2 reflects sunlight and heat and in fact is quite capable of causing warming.

Science more.

The scientific method is a logical and methodical application of observation. If one is to properly perform and understand science, one must have a good understanding of, and adherence to, the logic that defines it. Therefore application of logic specifically relevant to the scientific method is, by definition, science.


It should also be noted that in many complex systems, such as human biochemistry, or THE FUCKING EARTH, trends of its components derived in smaller scale observations (i.e. labs) often do not manifest themselves as directly or simply as one is naively apt to assume.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Radez29

It just occurred to me that it seems pretty silly to be referring to science as the ultimate arbiter in this debate. I mean, on the one hand, yeah, what other option do you have right? On the other, you've got scientists running research funded by the green lobby which says omg those bad people with their bad CO2 are killing the world, and you've got other scientists running research funded by people with other interests saying omg CO2 is negligible.

So talking about what Science would say at this point seems a bit like talking about what a person with multiple personality disorder might claim on any given day.

You confuse science with think tanks. There is no great debate in the scientific world; the vast majority of minds and the overwhelming majority of evidence points in one direction.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Arainach

You confuse science with think tanks. There is no great debate in the scientific world; the vast majority of minds and the overwhelming majority of evidence points in one direction.

True, but Radez has a good point if we take the censorship and manipulation of the media into account.

The scientific method is only good for understanding what's going on now. Philosophy is guiding our knowledge of the future based on what we know from the past.

To be honest, I'm more worried about what's going to happen when the magnetic poles of Earth switch again. Apparently we're 150,000 years overdue. What would be even worse is if we have an explosion of methane gas that escapes from pockets at the bottom of the ocean. Once ignited it would wipe out everything on the surface within seconds and create a "nuclear" winter. Or how about when that meteor might hit the Earth when it "passes by" in the next 10 years or so. It's all happened before!

Sadly, nothing in life lasts forever. Not even our planet.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Arainach

You confuse science with think tanks. There is no great debate in the scientific world; the vast majority of minds and the overwhelming majority of evidence points in one direction.

The overwhelming majority in a situation where there's lots and lots of money to be made by agreeing and confirming etc etc.

Basically all I'm saying is that everything everyone is saying is suspect because of the vast, overwhelming amount of interest in the damn subject.

Which in turn means you can talk about the overwhelming majority all you want, and I can talk about social pressure, marketing, government funding and its effect on careers all I want, either of us could spin "science" to completely support either view point.

It's almost like interpreting the bible, in a somewhat ironic manner.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by HolyCaribou

I'm more worried about what's going to happen when the magnetic poles of Earth switch again

Our ancestors lived through magnetic reversals. Whatever happens isn't going to kill us, assuming that it has any effect other than compasses pointing south.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

It would probably fuck with our communications network wildly, maybe knock out a couple of powerplants.

80% of the world would be completely unaffected, and it'd be a painful transition for us but no doomsday scenario.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Interrobang

Our ancestors lived through magnetic reversals. Whatever happens isn't going to kill us, assuming that it has any effect other than compasses pointing south.

Our ancestors also didn't have any reliance on devices powered by electrons.

In contrast, modern MRI machines have magnetic fields of greater intensity than the earth, and thus far we haven't seen a spontaneous destruction of the electronics near them. Current models of the process suggest that it won't be an instantaneous shift from one to another; rather it will take hundreds, even thousands, of years. In fact, it is speculated that for a period of time the poles are likely to lie somewhere along the equator.
Alas it would probably be better if the process were instantaneous, since problems in devices that rely on the earth's magnetic poles for various functions (such as GPS) could easily be resolved by one quick firmware update.

I highly doubt communication and power systems will be affected in the least by this.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Earth's poles reverse quite randomly, and the transition is pretty damn speedy. Some folks guestimate that it is within maybe a century or two.

Think of the poles as a dipole magnet (the old magnet bars you screwed around with as a kid. N & S ends). When the poles swap, the bar that the Earth basically forms inverts. The N & S sides shrink at the same pace, then once they meet in the middle, the N comes out the originally S side, and the S comes out the originally N side, and the polar intensity increases.

Now, you may be talking about technological updates, firmware, etc which is all good. But bear in mind the amount of time this will go across. Hell, there could be a brief stint where compasses are more or less useless around the middle of all this.

One of the main concerns, though, is that the magnetic field around the Earth shields it come crazy-ass UV rays. Some scientists theorize that there is a pretty brief warming period as the poles get situated once they near their "meeting point" around the core. Plus, it is quite important in atmospheric formation. For a contrast, the moon has, like, zero magnetic field. This is due to its solid insides, whereas the Earth's liquid outer core serves as a mechanism for causing this dipole magnet effect.

Oh wait. Global Warming thread.

HolyCaribou --
We aren't really "overdue". As far as I know, scientists don't know how to tack down what causes the pole reversals. They're quite random.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I always thought that the extreme cold temps was a sign that global warming really WAS kicking in, as the coldness (and tornadoes in the Midwest) was mother nature trying to counterbalance last year and this summer.

FELIPE NO

It has been a cold spring in central Manitoba.... could be global cooling...? Geez, I hope not...

I just got used to no snow till December and snow gone by early March....

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Radez29

Which in turn means you can talk about the overwhelming majority all you want, and I can talk about social pressure, marketing, government funding and its effect on careers all I want, either of us could spin "science" to completely support either view point.

The real difference is that you're choosing to believe in a conspiracy. The thing I dislike about conspiracies is that it's easy to say one is happening without providing an inkling of evidence, other than "ppl are evil yo." You might as well jump on the "vaccinations cause autism" bandwagon since they use the same theories you do (and are just as outweighed on the evidence as your stance is).

And well, we could just end the whole debate by saying that the dramatic increase in gases ruins air quality and water quality for humans, so it's in our best interest anyway, but someone would probably try to argue that too.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by FallDragon

The real difference is that you're choosing to believe in a conspiracy. The thing I dislike about conspiracies is that it's easy to say one is happening without providing an inkling of evidence, other than "ppl are evil yo."

There is evidence -- this is a scare tactic with half-baked science. Take once glance in to the "evidence" in favor of this and you begin to see more holes than swiss cheese.

1) Most of the world's temperature change would begin to show in the oceanic temperatures. The ocean's temperatures haven't changed at all since these were deployed. The temperatures actually cooled in the past five years (although not enough to instill a crazy cold-wave).

2) A group of GEOPHYSICISTS (real scientists. Not poseurs like these Environmental Studies wackos that are writing articles) looked over temperature changes in the Antarctic across the past 50 years. Despite how folks are panicking about ice melting marginally at present, this is a normal trend. The temperature in Antarctica has been relatively constant for the past 50 years (when these studies began), except for one region. That region got colder.

3) CO2 has never been proven as a cause of this. It's just a likely source to blame since industrial countries give it off in loads. In addition to this, the computer models constantly in use are so flawed that they're laughable. It is based upon weather predicting software which in itself is horribly inaccurate outside of a mere week. That inaccuracy gets exponentially worse as time draws on. Tag on to this that we're talking about a world-wide trend. Every year, scientists make a prediction on weather (due to Global Warming supposedly happening) and it ends up being horribly wrong. Increase in hurricanes in the Gulf? Nada. I was in the Gulf of Mexico in the summer and I must say that it was pretty darn tame.

There is no "pure intention" behind this. There are selfish gains to be had in pursuing and branding this topic. The lackluster science will fool many eyes, but not all of them. Al Gore isn't a scientist nor does he know much on this topic. For reference, he refuses to debate with a specialist, and his questions he answers on the air are screened and relatively softball questions. But the IPCC is probably your main focus on this subject, right? Well, the IPCC is a political organization. Plus, its scientists are lacking in credentials considerably. You may tout a "consensus" in a post or two (which does not exist in the first place. It's just a convenient false-justification to shut people up), but let me tell you first-hand that scientists do not believe in consensus. If they did, we'd still be healing people with leeches and thinking that all the planets revolve around the Earth.

You want to see debates where progress was RUINED thanks to a lack of science causing a scare? Let's look at two similar past scares that are very, very similar to the hype caused by Global Warming.

a) Nuclear Power. There was a movie called The China Syndrome released about two weeks before Three Mile Island melted down. Following the melt-down, folks went in to scare-mode and demanded that nuclear power should be abandoned. Even though NO ONE was killed or even exposed to radioactive material. You may point to Chernobyl, but that was shoddy Russian engineering at its worst. The reactor had a meltdown in the 1980s, but the plant was built in the 60s. Even by 1960s Russian standards, it was deemed as very poorly-built. That is THE absolute worst-case scenario. If nuclear power hadn't been canned, I can't begin to imagine how far along our technology in the field would be by now.

b) DDT. There was a supposed thinning of egg shells which was NEVER PROVEN. There was strong evidence of bird species in the area flourishing rather than crashing. It was tested on mice for carcinogenic response, as well. The mice got cancer, but that's because they were fed old, molded cheese (as per normal that day). Feeding them this food eventually resulted in cancer just the same. The banning of DDT use resulted in Malaria epidemics in third world countries, resulting in more deaths than Hitler... And counting. Weigh that situation in your mind for a spell.

Despite what folks think, doubting Global Warming isn't akin to denying the moon landing or thinking JFK was killed by aliens. The vast majority of folks bumbling through this subject are in fact armchair "scientists" who actually are just rooting for a team because they "sound better". In politics, over 80% of people are too lazy to thoroughly research and weigh the people running. They will obsess over one platform and scrutinize over that. Out of that base number, even LESS make it to the polls to vote.

This isn't politics; this is science. Unfortunately, it has found its way in to the political realm. The 20% that DO look in to the subject matter in elections? That number is even smaller on Global Warming, simply because most folks don't have the background or knowledge to properly follow it. What's going on is the "sheep" mentality, I'm afraid.

You may love to say "oh well, debate is over. Facts are in," but Atmospheric Sciences is a VERY young science. If you ask a scientist what he thinks the problem is on something that he CAN'T ANSWER, he will give a hypothesis. That hypothesis is grabbed by someone along the grapevine as a theory. Before you know it, that is in the papers as a purported fact and is being used as fuel for a politicized scientific debate.

We can't even get weather predicting straight, and now you want to take the researchers' word on this without question? You talk about the opposition having lacking evidence, but the fact is that it's the side CLAIMING Global Warming that is lacking in evidence. It'll fib or show a tiny grain of truth caked in a glob of bullshit and that's good enough to fool most people.

I wouldn't brand this as people and scientists being evil. I'd brand them as being human. There is money to be made in the environmental sector for once, and you've got a big ol' gravy train building up that folks are hopping onto without any second thoughts. Environmental journalism was CREATED by this debate. With the thousands of people whose talons are hooked in to this, there's no way they want it to go down. Many folks don't see this as a chance to "save the world." They see it as a way to make money.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by FallDragon

And well, we could just end the whole debate by saying that the dramatic increase in gases ruins air quality and water quality for humans, so it's in our best interest anyway, but someone would probably try to argue that too.

Well, that wouldn't necessarily end the debate, but that is by far the most sound reason for reducing emissions and other polluting processes. Clean air and water are essentially the most widespread common good, and it is in our best interests to make sure they are of the best quality.

If the issue on pollution was centered around the well being of people due to quality of environment and generating less waste rather than something more photogenic and easily manipulated like global warming, things would go around much faster.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Gechmir, I'm not going to debate you on the science because I'm not that knowledgeable about it. What I do know is that far more scientists, scientific associations, and scientific studies support global warming than disapprove it. For every article you post claiming there is no warming, I can post 5 that say there is. The facts aren't the point in a debate like this, because this is exactly like the debate I had with people who claim vaccination causes autism. No matter how many studies one points out to them proving no link, all they need to do is cry 'cover up' or 'paid off' and point to their 3-4 studies that support their theory. The main issue of a debate like this is whether or not a conspiracy is likely happening.

Originally Posted by Gechmir

You may tout a "consensus" in a post or two (which does not exist in the first place. It's just a convenient false-justification to shut people up), but let me tell you first-hand that scientists do not believe in consensus. If they did, we'd still be healing people with leeches and thinking that all the planets revolve around the Earth.

So now, as well as there being no evidence for global warming, there's also no general global consensus as is claimed by worldwide news sources. This is your second conspiracy, then?

And I knew this whole "healing people with leeches" thing would come up, even though it's completely ridiculous to make that association considering the giant advances in science and scientific method/research in the past 100 years. Don't resort to cheap tricks.

Originally Posted by Gechmir

If nuclear power hadn't been canned, I can't begin to imagine how far along our technology in the field would be by now.

Nuclear power was canned because of public fear. Not because of the scientific community lying to us about facts and theories. Your comparison fails.

Originally Posted by Gechmir

Blah blah DTTs blah

Your claim concerning DDTs is a more relevant comparison but it still doesn't work. You say DDTs don't cause egg shell thinning, and you are correct. DDE does(a DDT metabolite), and specifically for raptors. --A nice summary-- The case you sited about the mice, as well as a case from Japan, were debunked by the scientific community themselves, so how exactly is this proving that the scientific community can't be trusted? Scientists aren't responsible for all the environmental activists continuing to claim that DDT thins the shells of all birds, so if you want to blame somebody for getting DDT banned, blame activists that exaggerate claims of science or for politicians rushing to make policy that killed millions when there was little scientific support. And anyway, stopping greenhouse gasses isn't exactly equivalent to letting millions of people die of malaria, in case you thought this was an rational comparison.

So both of your examples prove nothing about the scientific community other than that, occasionally, studies can claim a correlation exists where none does (specifically in instances where no decent body of evidence is already established), and that these inaccurate correlations are then rebuked by the scientific community itself when repeated trials can't replicate the same results or a flaw was found with the trial. How exactly is this conducive to your argument of conspiracy?

Next up, we have your "scientists are greedy/being pressured by progreen energy" conspiracy. It's interesting that you think the pressure and greed stemming from green energy could somehow outweigh the pressure and greed stemming from oil companies at the moment. You think environmental journalism and green energy products are worth two shits compared to the significance of the oil industry? It's not like green energy companies have coffers filled with billions and billions of dollars and political push like the already established oil companies. Sure, one day, maybe the green industry will rank up with the likes of oil, but right now it's definitely not, so who the hell is spending the money to bribe all these scientists?

By all accounts, if there really was a conspiracy concerning the pressuring of scientists, we would all think global warming is all a lie because the oil companies would've paid the higher dollar for the studies and produced copious amounts of them to inundate the scientific community. I mean for gods sake, the administration of the President edited out the "harsher" sections of government reports on pollution and the environment so it sound like everything was hunky dorrie. Do you really think the idea of a conspiracy against oil companies, which is basically what this is, makes any sense considering the track record of deception so far?

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by FallDragon

Gechmir, I'm not going to debate you on the science because I'm not that knowledgeable about it. What I do know is that far more scientists, scientific associations, and scientific studies support global warming than disapprove it.

And therein lies the very heart of this whole global warming bullshit.
Its a massive (but incidental) circle-jerk between scientists who don't know the science but cite vague news reports as gospel, overconfident climatologists who have their moment to shine and feel important(and get funding grants), and the politicians who love to point at the intangible, but convenient to invoke, black box that is the "scientific community" to get votes.

Oh, and little online twats who like to argue that they don't have to understand facts relevant to the point they're making because a lot of other people with degrees also believe it. But they're really not in the circle-jerk. They're peeking in through the window, fapping to the mental image that they're there, getting their hard shaft stroked by the supple hands of Al Gore.

I hear your style of argument in some of the most fucking retarded Christian circles actually. These people don't really understand the facts(or lack thereof) behind their faith, but they sit there and devote themselves to it, because after all, look at those other famous people. They must know something. They have philosophy, history, and theology degrees. I don't really need to understand the facts. That they do, and that they believe is enough for me.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by FallDragon

Gechmir, I'm not going to debate you on the science because I'm not that knowledgeable about it. What I do know is that far more scientists, scientific associations, and scientific studies support global warming than disapprove it. For every article you post claiming there is no warming, I can post 5 that say there is. The facts aren't the point in a debate like this, because this is exactly like the debate I had with people who claim vaccination causes autism. No matter how many studies one points out to them proving no link, all they need to do is cry 'cover up' or 'paid off' and point to their 3-4 studies that support their theory. The main issue of a debate like this is whether or not a conspiracy is likely happening.

Let me re-state this: there is not a warming period going on at present. The main claim is that Antarctica is melting, but the article I mentioned showed that there HASN'T been large-scale melting. There is marginal melting, yes; that is caused naturally by water brushing against the ice bodies. In addition to this, sea temperatures are NOT increasing, even though that is the best indicator for warming. What we're seeing is just scatter-plot weather, and whether we're warming or cooling, it is too minute to be concerned with. I've said it before in past threads, so I won't say much about it here: I've researched this topic and talked with a number of specialists in the field. The professors at my alma mater (Texas A&M) support man-made global warming, but after speaking candidly with one of the folks who made the decision, he ADMITTED to doing this so he could get more funding. He told me that if a professor popped up and said "there is warming going on and I want to research it," they will get several grants provided they can show they know their elbow from their asshole. People who OPPOSE the warming theory are genuinely black-listed, and receive little to no grants. You said yourself that you don't know the science behind this, but I do. In addition to this, I've researched it as well as spoken with specialists. This isn't something I "read on FoxNews." The US is stuck in a mental blame-game and wants to go down the "green energy path." As a result of this, the funding is very lopsided on subject matter. In typical scientific studies or research fields, whether you choose option A or B it won't affect you too horribly, but if you do so in a topic that is politicized like this, there IS a "right" and "wrong" answer as far as the money-flow is concerned.

Quote:

So now, as well as there being no evidence for global warming, there's also no general global consensus as is claimed by worldwide news sources. This is your second conspiracy, then?

And I knew this whole "healing people with leeches" thing would come up, even though it's completely ridiculous to make that association considering the giant advances in science and scientific method/research in the past 100 years. Don't resort to cheap tricks.

Listening to worldwide news sources and taking everything they spout as gospel? Who's silly now, eh? Read some god damn scientific journals, you clod.

You saw it coming? Dandy. Here's a cookie. I don't see it as a "cheap trick," but as RELEVANT. People continued doing it for YEARS because "oh. So-and-so said it works." The same applies to Copernicism and Galileo. The Earth's placement in the universe was questioned and there was massive peer-pressure and black-listing going on. Pardon me for not going along with the sheep mentality on this debate. I guess it's my fault for specializing on the subject.

Quote:

Nuclear power was canned because of public fear. Not because of the scientific community lying to us about facts and theories. Your comparison fails.

Nuclear power was canned due to public fear, and hysteria is also fueling this climate debate. Science doesn't just involve numbers -- it involves FACTS. No one was harmed following TMI but that wasn't publicized. The problem here is that science didn't man up, step forward, and allowed this craziness to run rampant. As a result of this, a power source that should be seen as relatively clean and safe (provided that it is looked after) is now synonymous with "the big evil" and "certain melt-down." I apologize if you don't see where I was coming from on this, but I saw it as science being at fault for not, well, "speaking up." As a result, nuclear power has a stigma that few folks have tried to remove.

Quote:

Your claim concerning DDTs is a more relevant comparison but it still doesn't work. You say DDTs don't cause egg shell thinning, and you are correct. DDE does(a DDT metabolite), and specifically for raptors. The case you sited about the mice, as well as a case from Japan, were debunked by the scientific community themselves, so how exactly is this proving that the scientific community can't be trusted? Scientists aren't responsible for all the environmental activists continuing to claim that DDT thins the shells of all birds, so if you want to blame somebody for getting DDT banned, blame activists that exaggerate claims of science or for politicians rushing to make policy that killed millions when there was little scientific support. And anyway, stopping greenhouse gasses isn't exactly equivalent to letting millions of people die of malaria, in case you thought this was an rational comparison.

I see your website you linked is selling magazines with "Flight of the Neocons" on the front cover as well as articles trying to "smoke out" McCain. Yup! Sounds very unbiased as a news source, buddy. I'm not a fanboy of either, but a site that has two things along those lines definitely has a strong bias of sorts. Now, go get down to what you linked, nitty-gritty wise. I am referring to a fuck-up akin to this shit in Global Warming led to dire consequences -- namely millions of deaths. Strict legislation and what-not in Washington could cripple the oil industry and lead to a pretty vicious depression. I'm saying that things of this scale have fuck-ups if they're done half-cocked. Scrutiny is a necessity, but lots of folks are just looking the other way in this debate, as I've come to find out.

DDE can cause thinning, but you need a TREMENDOUS amount of it which usually isn't found in nature:

Originally Posted by Excerpt

Many experiments on caged-birds demonstrate that DDT and its metabolites (DDD and DDE) do not cause serious egg shell thinning, even at levels many hundreds of times greater than wild birds would ever accumulate.

Cecil, HC et al. 1971. Poultry Science 50: 656-659 (No effects of DDT or DDE, if adequate calcium is in diet); Chang, ES & ELR Stokstad. 1975. Poultry Science 54: 3-10 1975. (No effects of DDT on shells); Edwards, JG. 1971. Chem Eng News p. 6 & 59 (August 16, 1971) (Summary of egg shell- thinning and refutations presented revealing all data); Hazeltine, WE. 1974. Statement and affidavit, EPA Hearings on Tussock Moth Control, Portland Oregon, p. 9 (January 14, 1974); Jeffries, DJ. 1969. J Wildlife Management 32: 441-456 (Shells 7 percent thicker after two years on DDT diet); Robson, WA et al. 1976. Poultry Science 55:2222- 2227; Scott, ML et al. 1975. Poultry Science 54: 350-368 (Egg production, hatchability and shell quality depend on calcium, and are not effected by DDT and its metabolites); Spears, G & P. Waibel. 1972. Minn. Science 28(3):4-5; Tucker, RK & HA Haegele. 1970. Bull Environ Contam. Toxicol 5:191-194 (Neither egg weight nor shell thickness affected by 300 parts per million DDT in daily diet);Edwards, JG. 1973. Statement and affidavit, U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, 24 pages, October 24, 1973; Poult Sci 1979 Nov;58(6):1432-49 ("There was no correlation between concentrations of pesticides and egg shell thinning] .")

I hope those sources will suffice. By digging around, thinning of egg shells has a large number of causes. It's akin to two women giving birth and one child being much larger than the other -- there are too many variables to call.

What can cause a thinning egg shell? Oil, lead, and mercury content in the diet (meaning if they are eating from a contaminated food source), stress from noise, disease, fear, etc are more causes. There's also the fact that older birds produce thinner shells and bigger birds produce thicker ones. The eggs also thin as the embryo absorbs the calcium from the inner egg-shell. You also need to take in to account dehydration, temperature, less light coverage (less illumination = thinner shell), human or predator intrusion, a phosphorus deficiency, and calcium deficiency.

Lets break these down to potential causes. These birds were being monitored in captivity. Now, if you read up on some journals on the topic, the birds being watched were ALREADY on a low calcium diet. Dieldrin was added to the diet as well which happens to cause shell-thinning. Canadian terns were tested, whose eggs contained 100ppm of DDE. Despite these very high levels, the shells were NOT thinner than normal.

Bald eagles? They were on the extinction list by 1921 (25yrs before DDT usage). Alaska also posted BOUNTIES on Bald Eagles, encouraging hunting of them (1917-1942). They paid over $100k for the ~115k Bald Eagles that were killed. Bald Eagles in England were already GONE by 1937. When Bald Eagles were counted up 15 years after DDT having "ravaged" the bird populace, the bird population was actually 25% larger than it was before DDT. Just so you know, birds don't bounce back too fast on repopulating, particularly Bald Eagles.

DDE by itself was tested on bald eagles and their eggs showed NO thinning. The Canadian Wildlife Service manuscript issued an article on this if you're curious. Postupalsky, 1971. To add to this, all Bald Eagles that were found dead from 1961-1977 were collected. None of them died due to DDT exposure.

I could go in to the specifics on other species, but I'll hit the mainstream bird populace which supposedly plummeted. The raptor was on a decline that was tied to matters outside of DDE, DDT, etc. By the 1960s, its population was in the middle of exploding. DDT was banned in 1972, just so you know. In fact, some birds grew so great in number BEFORE the ban on DDT, that they actually became pests of sorts for people.

Quote:

So both of your examples prove nothing about the scientific community other than that, occasionally, studies can claim a correlation exists where none does (specifically in instances where no decent body of evidence is already established), and that these inaccurate correlations are then rebuked by the scientific community itself when repeated trials can't replicate the same results or a flaw was found with the trial. How exactly is this conducive to your argument of conspiracy?

Prove nothing? I beg to differ. DDT was a knee-jerk reaction to a bluff made by some environmentalist chump that wasn't worth her salt. Scientists were picking sides just the same as Global Warming. You may not believe it, but I've worked with them. Politics in the lab are very real, and quite often, the researchers in these fields have picked a path that meant more green. That green means money, in their eyes.

Conspiracy is a birthchild of mis-information. People didn't read in to DDT and just browsed the headlines on a few articles and listened to the loudest voices. Politicians pick what helps them keep their job, and since the book that caused the DDT scare was so popular, the choice was clear very quickly. The claims that DDT was killing birds left-and-right are untrue, the modern viewpoint on it spanning from the original misinformation and hysteria.

Global Warming is the same. You said yourself that you don't know the science, but you're more than willing to listen to what a news source tells you since "it's their job." Sorry, but you've got to dig if you want to find gold, bud.

Quote:

Next up, we have your "scientists are greedy/being pressured by progreen energy" conspiracy. It's interesting that you think the pressure and greed stemming from green energy could somehow outweigh the pressure and greed stemming from oil companies at the moment. You think environmental journalism and green energy products are worth two shits compared to the significance of the oil industry? It's not like green energy companies have coffers filled with billions and billions of dollars and political push like the already established oil companies. Sure, one day, maybe the green industry will rank up with the likes of oil, but right now it's definitely not, so who the hell is spending the money to bribe all these scientists?

In case you haven't noticed, the Green industry has set root already in to things. There was a political committee put before some Oil Execs the other day, asking them why prices were so high. The high cost is due to upstream and downstream development. Getting more oil is getting harder these days, and the money is going in to branching out.

Following this, they were asked "why aren't you putting 10% of your revenue towards alternative, Green energy?" You may talk about the billions of dollars chugging through oil, but Green is a current hot topic amid the sheep and the crooks in Washington. The government is stepping in and TELLING a business what to do with its money. I don't know about you, but that's pretty damn ridiculous. What Green is doing is establishing the Oil industry as evil and making itself the good guy in this argument. You don't need the cash of the oil industry if you can obtain a moral high-ground in the publics eyes.

And regarding "evil scientists," look higher up in my post. I've spoken with researchers who have ADMITTED that they are just aiming for "greener pastures" and picking the side that'll give them more funding. Hell, I used to work for a fella who did aerosol particle research. After DeLay got indicted, all the grants he championed were snagged and I was left out of work since my employer lost his funding. Want to guess where all that funding went? ALL of it? Global Warming. If you think there isn't money to be had in this, then you're blind.

Quote:

By all accounts, if there really was a conspiracy concerning the pressuring of scientists, we would all think global warming is all a lie because the oil companies would've paid the higher dollar for the studies and produced copious amounts of them to inundate the scientific community. I mean for gods sake, the administration of the President edited out the "harsher" sections of government reports on pollution and the environment so it sound like everything was hunky dorrie. Do you really think the idea of a conspiracy against oil companies, which is basically what this is, makes any sense considering the track record of deception so far?

The oil company has deceived in the past, but I think folks are overstating everything they do as them doing evil. Something done by an oil company folks don't like? There must be an evil reason why. You may tag this to my argument saying I'm being hypocritical, but there is a difference. Lots of things tagged on oil industries is seen as conjecture. What I'm tacking on to this debate is what I've researched and seen PERSONALLY as fact. There is a difference.

I see this as a potential chance to look past oil and to another fuel source. Oil isn't infinite, and the population is growing. What I DON'T like is how people are going to legislate and do crazy shit so they can "save the planet" from bursting in to flames. Are fossil fuels good for the environment? Not particularly. Look at the smog in LA & Houston, for starters. The problem is that this debate is scaring people in to doing shit NOW NOW NOW FAST, when in actuality, there is no big bad climate that's going to kill us all. If we try to move too fast and do too much at once, things will really, REALLY get ugly.

If we get off oil, that's fine. I'd much rather that we do it slowly, though.

Is the oil industry's record spotless? Lord no. Is the green industry? Definitely not. It's business, and business is dirty.

And on that note, I'm off. Boats to ride, planes to catch =( Back in two days.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by packrat

Oh, and little online twats who like to argue that they don't have to understand facts relevant to the point they're making because a lot of other people with degrees also believe it. But they're really not in the circle-jerk. They're peeking in through the window, fapping to the mental image that they're there, getting their hard shaft stroked by the supple hands of Al Gore.

Aw packrat, so sublimely calling me a little online twat. Keep thinking you're in a secret club of skepticism and knowledge if that's what gets you hard.

Originally Posted by packrat

I hear your style of argument in some of the most fucking retarded Christian circles actually. These people don't really understand the facts(or lack thereof) behind their faith, but they sit there and devote themselves to it, because after all, look at those other famous people.

The fact that you're comparing a scientific debate to a religious debate tells me that you really have no fucking clue how to make logical associations. You fail.

Originally Posted by Gechmir

You said yourself that you don't know the science behind this, but I do.

I know what scientists claim and why they draw certain conclusions, just as you do. You can claim all the shit you want, but all you're going to do is lead me to scientific studies and theories that were conducted/written by somebody else to prove your side. There's no point in us arguing the facts because all we're going to do is cite somebody else's work, unless you've recently created your own models on temperature changes and sea changes throughout the globe with your own equipment?

For example, I can easily understand and post this article:

Antarctica melting super fast omg!

Does that prove to you that it's true? Probably not, because I'm sure you have studies that say it isn't. And then I can show more studies that say your studies are wrong. Etc, etc, etc. This will only become a citation showdown, and I'll end up winning since more scientists believe in global warming.

Originally Posted by Gechmir

I've researched this topic and talked with a number of specialists in the field. The professors at my alma mater (Texas A&M) support man-made global warming, but after speaking candidly with one of the folks who made the decision, he ADMITTED to doing this so he could get more funding. He told me that if a professor popped up and said "there is warming going on and I want to research it," they will get several grants provided they can show they know their elbow from their asshole.

Of course a professor has to show an interest in the subject he's researching in order to get a grant for it for Christ's sake. And your story leaves a lot of the facts to be desired. Did the professor just tell the man "I want to prove global warming happens regardless of the evidence so give me money" or did he say "I want to research the possibilities of the impact of global warming so give me money" or what, exactly? You're somehow implying a correlation exists between showing interest in researching global warming and sabotaging data to show certain results, which is a whole lot of bullshit without evidence. Also, your personal story about losing grants to global warming is irrelevant. Give me statistics about the percent of grants given to global warming compared to percent of grants given to other scientific pursuits if you want to say global warming has some magical, massive money appeal that converts scientists into liars and deceivers of the world.

Originally Posted by Gechmir

Read some god damn scientific journals, you clod.

First of all, scientific journals don't have articles dedicated to whether or not there's a majority consensus on global warming. The media associated with science, and occasionally scientists themselves, comment on that. And so far, of all the media and scientists I've heard/read on the specific subject of consensus say that it is indeed happening.

Though, one of your theories must be that scientific journals are evenly divided on the issue of global warming. Well then, do you read all the scientific journals? Do you keep a running tally of how many articles vote for the one theory and how many vote for the other? You really should, since it seems that whenever I glance over the articles the majority of them are in global warmings favor. Do you keep track of which scientists have which motives for their data? All their personal histories, associations with corporate companies, possible evidence of corruption? Because if you know as much as you claim you do, you really should write a book illuminating the whole world on this giant conspiracy instead of putzing around in GFF. Also, be sure to include your detailed theory on why, how, and by who the IPCC is paid off and how all their evidence is skewered and how this has avoided the backlash of the scientific community and news media so far.

Originally Posted by Gechmir

The problem here is that science didn't man up, step forward, and allowed this craziness to run rampant.

Yes, because we all know what giant sway the opinion of scientists hold over the mainstream media.

Originally Posted by Gechmir

Sounds very unbiased as a news source, buddy.


blahblahblah,DTTs are coolblahblahblah

The article I posted was a quick summary of the different studies done on DDTs. I didn't say it should be cited in a research paper. However, the article did cite it's own sources, one of which is a much lengthier consolidation of many studies on DTTs, but I guess you didn't pay attention to that:

DDT and its derivatives: environmental aspects (EHC 83, 1989)

It says things like:

"Porter & Wiemeyer (1972) fed American kestrels on a diet containing p,p' -DDE at a concentration of 2.8 mg/kg. Two birds died after 14 and 16 months of treatment; they showed residues of DDE in braintissues of 212 and 301 mg/kg, respectively. This compared with meanresidues of 14.9 (range: 4.47-26.6) mg/kg in 11 adult males sacrificed after 12-16 months on the diet. Van Velzen et al. (1972) investigated the lethal effect of stored DDT mobilization by brown-headed cowbirds. Cowbirds were fed for 13 days on a diet containing 100, 200, or 300 mg p,p' -DDT/kg, and were then given reduced rations of approximately 43% of normal daily intake for a 6-day period. Of 30 birds dosed, 21 died (6, 7, and 8 from the three dose levels, respectively). After 4 months, the remaining birds were subjected to a second period of 6 days on a reduced diet. Four more birds, out of six, died. In a second experiment, cowbirds were fed 100 mg p,p' -DDT/kg diet for 13 days and then subjected to 4 days of
reduced food intake. Seven out of 20 birds died. There were no deaths in any of the control groups (i.e., birds dosed but not starved, undosed and starved, or undosed and unstarved)."

And this:

"DDT, or more specifically its metabolite DDE, causes the shells of birds' eggs to be thinner than normal. Results on eggshell thinning are summarized in Table 7. There is considerable variation between species for this effect. Galliform species are very resistant to shell thinning whereas birds of prey are particularly susceptible."

And this:

"DDT and its metabolites can lower the reproductive rate of birds by causing eggshell thinning (which leads to egg breakage) and by causing embryo deaths. However, different groups of birds vary greatly in their sensitivity to these chemicals; predatory birds are extremely sensitive and, in the wild, often show marked shell thinning, whilst gallinaceous birds are relatively insensitive. Because of the difficulties of breeding birds of prey in captivity, most of the experimental work has been done with insensitive species, which have often shown little or no shell thinning. The few studies on more sensitive species have shown shell thinning at levels similar to those found in the wild. The lowest dietary concentration of DDT reported to cause shell thinning experimentally was 0.6 mg/kg for the black duck. The mechanism of shell thinning is not fully understood."

The article was "published under the joint sponsorship of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organisation, and the World Health Organization" in 1989. It says that this chemical can have averse affects on shell width, newborn survival rate, survival behavior, reproduction behavior, and survival rate when not fed. It also shows various correlations between eggshell thinning of birds and the widespread introduction of DDTs in 1947, particularly in the UK. So is this yet another one of your conspiracies of science? That all these organization are just BS'ing and corrupting data, just like global warming? *sigh*

Originally Posted by Gechmir

The government is stepping in and TELLING a business what to do with its money. I don't know about you, but that's pretty damn ridiculous.

It can yell all it wants but the government has no real control over the business or it's money.

Originally Posted by Gechmir

What I'm tacking on to this debate is what I've researched and seen PERSONALLY as fact. There is a difference.

Two or three personal stories aren't enough for a thing to be true, especially considering the scope of your accusations.

Originally Posted by Gechmir

If we try to move too fast and do too much at once, things will really, REALLY get ugly.

I agree this is a reasonable concern, but global climate change theories have been around for 50+ years and only now is it taking hold of political debate and policy. That doesn't really seem like moving too fast, IMO.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by FallDragon

I'll end up winning since more scientists believe in global warming.

MAJORITY OPINION

By the way, let's look over your style of "debate":

What you expect of yourself:
"whenever I glance over the articles"

What you expect of others:
"be sure to include your detailed theory"
"Give me statistics about the percent of grants given to global warming compared to percent of grants given to other scientific pursuits"

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

For example, I can easily understand and post this article:

Antarctica melting super fast omg!

Does that prove to you that it's true? Probably not, because I'm sure you have studies that say it isn't. And then I can show more studies that say your studies are wrong. Etc, etc, etc. This will only become a citation showdown, and I'll end up winning since more scientists believe in global warming.

I don't think Gech ever denied the increased melting of Antarctica, I think he actually mentioned that it's speeding up a bit. What he did state was that it's not caused by global warming.

Quote:

West Antarctic Glaciers Melting At 20 Times Former Rate, Rock Analysis Shows

ScienceDaily (Mar. 2, 2008) — Boulders the size footballs could help scientists predict the West Antarctic Ice Sheet's (WAIS) contribution to sea-level rise according to new research.
See also:
Earth & Climate

* Global Warming
* Ice Ages
* Climate

Fossils & Ruins

* Early Climate
* Fossils
* Origin of Life

Reference

* Antarctic ice sheet
* Ice sheet
* Greenland ice sheet
* Ice shelf

Scientists from British Antarctic Survey (BAS), Durham University and Germany's Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research (AWI) collected boulders deposited by three glaciers in the Amundsen Sea Embayment -- a region currently the focus of intense international scientific attention because it is changing faster than anywhere else on the WAIS and it has the potential to raise sea-level by around 1.5 metres.

Analysis of the boulders has enabled the scientists to start constructing a long-term picture of glacier behaviour in the region. An urgent task is to put recent ice sheet changes into a historical context, and determine if these are part of a natural retreat since the end of the last glacial period (about 20 thousands years ago), or if they are a result of recent human-induced climate change.

Lead author Dr Joanne Johnson of BAS says, "Until now we didn't know much about the long-term history of this part of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet because the region is incredibly remote and inaccessible. Our geological findings add a new piece to the jigsaw and will be used for improving computer models -- the most important tools we have for predicting future change."

Initial results show that Pine Island Glacier has 'thinned' by around 4 centimetres per year over the past 5,000 years, while Smith and Pope Glaciers thinned by just over 2 cm per year during the past 14,500 years. These rates are more than 20 times slower than recent changes: satellite, airborne and ground based observations made since the 1990s show that Pine Island Glacier has thinned by around 1.6 metres per year in recent years.

The scientists reached their conclusions by investigating how long the boulders have been exposed to cosmic radiation rather than being shielded by ice or sediment.

Co-author Dr Mike Bentley from the University of Durham said, "When rocks are left high and dry by thinning glaciers they are exposed to high energy cosmic rays which bombard the rock. This creates atoms of particular elements that we can extract and measure in the laboratory - the longer they have been exposed the greater the build-up of these elements. The discovery that we can place a fix on when rocks were left behind by the ice has revolutionised our understanding of how the Antarctic ice sheet has behaved in the past. "

Collapse of West Antarctic Ice Sheet?

The Amundsen Sea Embayment (ASE) lies on the side of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS). It is an area that has always caused glaciologists concern, because here the bedrock beneath the ice is a long way below sea-level and the ice is only kept in place because it is thick enough to rest on the bed. Thinning of the ice around the coast could lead to glacier acceleration and further thinning of the ice sheet. Essentially, the ice sheet may be unstable, and the recent pattern of thinning could be a precursor to wholesale loss of the ASE ice sheet (implying a sea-level rise of around 1.5 m).

Complete collapse of the WAIS would result in a rise of about 5 m in global sea level. Most scientists working in the area think that complete collapse within the next few hundred years is unlikely, but even loss of one sector of the ice sheet would imply that projections of sea-level rise are at present too low.

Fieldwork

The ASE is a notoriously difficult place in which to undertake fieldwork, it is cold, windy and is more than 1400 km from any research station.

Using a helicopter from the German research vessel Polarstern during an expedition led by Karsten Gohl (AWI) BAS scientist Joanne Johnson and colleagues visited remote rock outcrops protruding from Pine Island, Pope and Smith glaciers on the vast West Antarctic Ice Sheet. They collected samples from boulders that have lain ice-free for thousands of years.

Pine Island Glacier is of great interest to scientists worldwide as it has been thinning at a rate of more than 1 m/year and its flow rate has accelerated over the past 15 years. The location at which the glacier starts to float on the sea also retreated at a rate of more than 1 km/year during part of this period.

Cosmogenic isotopes (eg Beryllium-10 and Aluminium-26) are created in rocks when they are bombarded by cosmic rays that penetrate the atmosphere from outer space. The accumulation of these isotopes within a rock surface can be used to establish its 'surface exposure age', i.e., how long it has been exposed to cosmic radiation rather than being shielded by ice or sediment.

Journal reference: First exposure ages from the Amundsen Sea Embayment, West Antarctica: The Late Quaternary context for recent thinning of Pine Island, Smith and Pope Glaciers by Joanne S. Johnson, Michael J. Bentley and Karsten Gohl is published in the March issue of the journal Geology.

Notice how it never mentions anything about global warming/climate change? That's because these scientists (and author of the article) understand what their research was based around, and didn't try to extrapolate it to another theory it had nothing to do with.

Quote:

By all accounts, if there really was a conspiracy concerning the pressuring of scientists, we would all think global warming is all a lie because the oil companies would've paid the higher dollar for the studies and produced copious amounts of them to inundate the scientific community. I mean for gods sake, the administration of the President edited out the "harsher" sections of government reports on pollution and the environment so it sound like everything was hunky dorrie. Do you really think the idea of a conspiracy against oil companies, which is basically what this is, makes any sense considering the track record of deception so far?

With the oil companies posting record profits, do you think they feel any need to fund research they don't even need? Look at Shell, they're actually using it to their advantage. They've just started an ad campaign about their natural-gas based fuel which is cleaner than oil.

There's nowhere I can't reach.