[JimmyDimples]

Hey, guys… while I was checking out the Drudge Report for my morning news fix, I came across this article:

http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272612158.shtml

Long story short:  it seems like going environmental seems to be dead-set on upending, uprooting, and getting rid of what it means by being a classic John Wayne type male.

This particular paragraph is what prompted me to post it here:

"Many environmentalists believe that the earth is a living organism, personified by the Greek goddess Gaia. Conveniently, it turns out that Gaia is a shrew, who demands that her men be reduced to henpecked, metrosexual noodles. Manliness makes Gaia angry, and we wouldn't like her when she's angry, because she'll turn into a green monster and start smashing everything to bits. Hell hath no fury like an earth goddess exposed to excessive cattle-produced methane emissions."

So what's your take on it? 

[David C. Matthews]

Seems pretty on-target to me. I'd only add that the agenda of the radical environmentalists includes trashing traditional definitions of "masculinity" as part and parcel of trying to destroy the whole of Western Civlization.

Look at how limited the choices of alternatives to petroleum would be if we took their advice: Can't use wind power, that kills migratory birds who get caught in the windmill blades. Hydroelectric? Hell no! too much destruction of wilderness when we dam up a river. And don't even mention nuclear power – evil! evil! (At least when American utilities propose it; strange that there are no protests from the anti-nuke crowd of Iran's and North Korea's nuclear programs…) The greens won't be happy until the rest of us are reduced to living in caves, burning our own excrement for heat (can't cut down trees, y'know), and scrounging for twigs and berries to eat (not allowed to farm, not allowed to raise food animals)…

I am happy to see the amount of attention that the efforts on the part of global-warming alarmists to ban any discussion or dissension from climate change dogma are receiving. I am a global-warming skeptic myself; there's too much evidence of other, non-man-made factors (including increased solar activity), and too many instances of cycles of warming and cooling in the past, for me to believe that the current warming (if it's happening) is totally or even largely man-made and requires massive disruptions of our economic and cultural lives to "combat". To hear that my opinion ought to subject me to a Nuremburg-style war crimes trial frightens me more than any provision of the Patriot Act.

The UK's Channel 4 recently aired a 90-minute documentary, "The Great Global Warming Swindle", which debunks the alarmism.

[Zespara Alathar]

Excellent, Dave, testify brother!  ;D

I'm one of those who also don't subscribe to the greatest of myths, global warming! At least as presented by Mr. Gore et al who only 30 years ago told us that we were in the midst of a global freeze!  The world is not even as warm as we were in the 1930's for Pete's sake.

I was listening to the radio (prefered to TV by 4 out of 5 in the know  ;)) and there was a good point presented from the Al Gore crapumentery.  If you overlayed a couple of his charts it would contradict what he was saying about the warming but of course you'll never hear that from him.

The planet has been warming and cooling in cycles since the dawn of time.  The Ice Ages have all ended without the interference of human beings.  There have been many studies conducted which have debunked the global warming myth.  But don't you dare throw facts at the environmentalists!  Hell, if they were around at the time there probably would be no Grand Canyon! 

Just let the earth go through its natural cycles and don't get me started on the feminization of men in the U.S.

Z

[cpbell0033944]

Seems pretty on-target to me. I'd only add that the agenda of the radical environmentalists includes trashing traditional definitions of "masculinity" as part and parcel of trying to destroy the whole of Western Civlization.

Look at how limited the choices of alternatives to petroleum would be if we took their advice: Can't use wind power, that kills migratory birds who get caught in the windmill blades. Hydroelectric? Hell no! too much destruction of wilderness when we dam up a river. And don't even mention nuclear power – evil! evil! (At least when American utilities propose it; strange that there are no protests from the anti-nuke crowd of Iran's and North Korea's nuclear programs…) The greens won't be happy until the rest of us are reduced to living in caves, burning our own excrement for heat (can't cut down trees, y'know), and scrounging for twigs and berries to eat (not allowed to farm, not allowed to raise food animals)…

I am happy to see the amount of attention that the efforts on the part of global-warming alarmists to ban any discussion or dissension from climate change dogma are receiving. I am a global-warming skeptic myself; there's too much evidence of other, non-man-made factors (including increased solar activity), and too many instances of cycles of warming and cooling in the past, for me to believe that the current warming (if it's happening) is totally or even largely man-made and requires massive disruptions of our economic and cultural lives to "combat". To hear that my opinion ought to subject me to a Nuremburg-style war crimes trial frightens me more than any provision of the Patriot Act.

The UK's Channel 4 recently aired a 90-minute documentary, "The Great Global Warming Swindle", which debunks the alarmism.

Unfortunately, the TV programme to which you refer is bunk.  I read New Scientist journal and a vey well-written article by a leading researcher explained that the idea that global warming is entirely due to natural cycles is taking a grain of truth (a small part of it might be to do with non-human activities) and extrapolating that truth to a ridiculous degree in order to suggest that it's "business as usual". (New Scientist issue 2595, March 20th 2007)

  There's no valid evidence to suggest that solar cycles or similar phenomena are anywhere near strong enough to cause all, or even the majority of observed warming.  The recent international agreed document (which is decided upon by huge numbers of climate scientists from around the world, yes, even from the US) recently was neutered by politicians – key references to the acceleration of climate change due to positive feedback mechanisms were either erased completely or watered-down.  Even after this, it still makes for scary reading.

I must confess that I fail to understand the American psyche on this issue.  Why should global warming be a massive conspiracy by the rest of the world against the USA?  What is so hard to accept about the idea that if we pump, day and night, for decade after decade vast amounts of pollutants into a finite atmosphere, we are likely to do serious damage?  It seems as if Americans are so wedded to the idea of economic growth, the right to drive huge, highly fuel-inefficient vehicles, that their considered response as a nation is "Hell to the rest of the world – we're alright, and that's all that matters."  Fine if you're American (although the US will eventully reap the whirlwind, trust me), but if you're not…? >:(
The thing I really don't get, though, is the idea that being environmentally-aware reduces a man's masculinity.  A load of mumbo-jumbo about Gaia not liking masculinity is hardly the same as logical, fact-seeking science, is it?  Here on Amaz0ns.com, we are a group of people (mainly male) who are attracted to muscular women.  Many men traditionally dislike female muscularity because they see it as a challenge to their masculinity.  You dislike the idea of environmental awareness because you see it as a challenge to YOUR masculinity.
Am I the only one to see the irony here?

I'd be the first to agree that we cannot (and in fact do not need to) revert to a caveman lifestyle.  However, extremists are found in almost any group, and by reading articles, such as those found in the aforementioned publication that are written by reasonable, rational climate-change researchers, one can see that, yes, a lifestyle change is necessary, but it doesn't have to be THAT extreme.  In my part of the UK (East Anglia) there is a debate going-on about land-borne wind farms; many people are against the idea, although Norfolk still has a very prominent pair of huge turbines and associated visitor/educational centre around 20 miles from where I live.  However, there is already a fairly sizeable offshore wind farm in the North Sea (off the East Anglian coast between us and Holland) and there are plans for huge wind farms offshore in the Thames Estuary (the triangle of North Sea between the coast of Essex and Kent, on the approaches to London from the East), and these are generally welcomed.  Yes, there are concerns with migrating birds, but technology can make the spinning blades "visible" to birds to reduce the problem.
I think that half the difficulty here is that, Katrina aside, the US climate, being continental, is less vulnerable to climate change than Britain, with its changeable, maritime climate.  Having said that, I do know that many people living along the Alaskan coastline feel that the current US administration is ignoing the threat to their communities (caused by rising sea levels) because it suits them politically to do so. 

All I know is that, on top of all the peer-reviewed scientific evidence for global warming, I have seen anacdotal evidence of it in the weather patterns of my home area.  More intense summer heatwaves (I think statistically, 9 of the 10 hottest British summers in recorded history have been in something like the last 15 years), the most intense and violent electrical storms I can ever remember taking place one night last July, 19 degrees celcius in Norfolk last week, when the average should have been about 8 degrees, more violent winds, more intense rainstrorms, longer drought periods (much of southern England baked to a crisp last summer) – it's all happening.  Yet British men aren't turning into asexual pussycats by trying to do their bit.

Fair enough; keep on driving your Hummers, keep on polluting, but do the rest of the world one favour, will you, as a nation (I don't mean you personally, Dave)?
Don't come crying to the rest of the world when climate change bites US territory, because, then, as my home area disappears under the sea, I'll stop on my way to the Northern hills of Britain to escape the rising waters, I'll turn to face West, and I'll say:
"We gave you the warnings and you chose not to heed them.  We're all in this together now."

[egad]

Would the similar warming occuring on Mars be evidence enough that solar cycles are causing a significant amount of warming?  I believe it does, although I will admit there is disagreement on the cause.  Or would the fact that the Max Planck institute believes that solar activity over the last 60 years has been at its highest level in  the past 8000 years?  Furthermore, Milankovitch Cyclicity indicates that the Earth should be currently warming due to natural cycles.
Or maybe you could look at the fact that the Earth has been both much hotter and much cooler than its current climate, both occurred without human assistance. What we know is that the Earth is the hotter now than it has been in the last 400 years.  So the planet is hotter now than it has been since the little ice age; a stunning scientific discovery.  Furthermore accurate temperature measurements have only been around for about a century.  So we are using a hundred years of accurate data to predict variations of cycles of up to 400,000 years.  A variation of less than 1 degree C, which given the accuracy of the historic data falls well within the margin of error.
Also, the so called consensus on global warming is a political propaganda carefully chosen to give the impression that all scientist agree, when in fact many very well respected and distinguished scientists disagree for a variety of reasons.
So the worshipers of the church of environmentalism can freak out over their coming apocalypse, I'll what until I see real evidence before I worry about it.

BTW, good posts Dave and Jimmy.

[cpbell0033944]

Would the similar warming occuring on Mars be evidence enough that solar cycles are causing a significant amount of warming?  I believe it does, although I will admit there is disagreement on the cause.  Or would the fact that the Max Planck institute believes that solar activity over the last 60 years has been at its highest level in  the past 8000 years?  Furthermore, Milankovitch Cyclicity indicates that the Earth should be currently warming due to natural cycles.
Or maybe you could look at the fact that the Earth has been both much hotter and much cooler than its current climate, both occurred without human assistance. What we know is that the Earth is the hotter now than it has been in the last 400 years.  So the planet is hotter now than it has been since the little ice age; a stunning scientific discovery.  Furthermore accurate temperature measurements have only been around for about a century.  So we are using a hundred years of accurate data to predict variations of cycles of up to 400,000 years.  A variation of less than 1 degree C, which given the accuracy of the historic data falls well within the margin of error.
Also, the so called consensus on global warming is a political propaganda carefully chosen to give the impression that all scientist agree, when in fact many very well respected and distinguished scientists disagree for a variety of reasons.
So the worshipers of the church of environmentalism can freak out over their coming apocalypse, I'll what until I see real evidence before I worry about it.

BTW, good posts Dave and Jimmy.

If everyone's OK with the idea, I'll respond to egad's reply mainly in bullet points.  Before I do, though, I'd just like to clarify a point.  I'm NOT a climate-change scientist, but I AM a scientist by training (I have a BSc Honours degree in Biology), and therefore I'm defending the scientific principle against the "I don't want to believe in X, Y or Z, so I'll call the scientists liars." philosophy that pervades much of Western society nowadays.

1./ Given that Mars is in a different position in the solar system, I don't think that comparing it to our situation is very helpful.  Anyway, I did say that the evidence and expert views that I've read state that solar activity could be a contributory factor, but NOT the major factor.  The people at the Max Planck Institute are probably correct, but that doesn't explain the warming by itself.  To quote the New Scientist article I referred before (written by Alan Thorpe, Chief Executive of the UK's Natural Environment Research Council):

First, let's deal with the main thesis: that the presence or absence of cosmic rays in Earth's atmosphere is a better explanation for temperature variation than the concentration of CO2 and other gases.  This is not a new assertion and it is patently wrong: there is no credible evidence that cosmic rays play a significant role.  The climate system is complex and it is likely that many factors affect it, cosmic rays among them.  But to claim they are a major influence is disingenuous.  There is far greater evidence suggesting Co2 is the major source of warming.

There's the scientific way in action: first, do the research, then interpret the findings.  Formulate a model or theory based on the conclusions drawn from the evidence that has been gathered, and use that model until such time as compelling new evidence appears that contradicts the model.  Assess the new evidence, and either modify or abandon the model as necessary.  Repeat until the model is proven, then the theory becomes a principle or Law.  As Thorpe himself says:

Given the high stakes, it is hardly surprising that scientist's methods and conclusions are coming under considerable scrutiny.  This is as it should be.  after all, scepticism is fundamental to the scientific method.

2./  Milankovitch cycles.  Yes, these are the pacemakers of ice ages and interglacial periods, but they cause positive feedback loops which usually result in increases or decreases of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere – these are changes, as Thorpe puts it:

…which amplify the change in temperature.

This suggests that the cynic's view – that the observation of a lag time between changes in temperature and CO2 concentrations through the last several thousand years (Arctic ice cores help assess these changes) discredit the notion of CO2 increasing global temperatures – is wrong because the Milankovitch cycle starts the warming process, but it is then made much worse by increased CO2 concentration.

3./  Accuracy of data.  Using ice cores, soil cores and many other techniques, climate change scientists have probably as good an understanding of temperatures thousands of years ago as early weather observers did when thermometers came about 300 or so years ago.  And anyway, temperatures may have only been recorded in the US for 100 years or so, but regional UK records go back much further.  For example, the English Midlands, measurements called the Central England Temperature records have been taken daily since 1772, and monthly since 1659.  (Source: http://www.ecn.ac.uk/iccuk/indicators/1.htm).

4./  Disagreement between scientists.  Yes, I'm sure the are sceptics within the climate research world, but I'd direct you back to my point about the scientific method.  There is an onus on sceptical researchers to produce good, compelling evidence against a human-made primary cause for global warming, NOT for those whose research has already provided evidence for a causal relationship between human activity and rising temperature to have to defend themselves against scepticism without foundation.  Don't forget, the fame (and research grants) that would come the way or the team that disproved the idea that human activity is the main force behind climate change would be huge. 

[egad]

First if we are going to throw out degrees, I have an M.S.E and have conducted research using numerical modeling, and am aware of some of the inherent drawbacks. One of which is that input values with high degrees of error cause error in the modeled results regardless of the elegance and accuracy mathematical algorithms the model is based on.  In layman's terms: junk in = junk out.  However, I too am not involved in climate change research, although I would believe as you clearly do about yourself, that I am capable of evaluating the literature and reaching my own conclusions.  Furthermore you indirectly accuse me of being a cynic.  I find your choice of words revealing.  I would have said skeptic to describe myself, and as one of you quotes described, skepticism is important to good research.  Skepticism insures that you are seeing what you believe you see in your research, and is highly important when doing numerical research.  Also, I did not call anyone a liar in my post, although I did admittedly disparage what I consider to be an environmental extremist position.  I found it humorous, apparently I was wrong.

Comparing Mars' climate situation to Earth's is relevant as the main heat source of that planet is the sun.  Geothermal energy is also present.  If the southern ice cap on Mars is melting it implies that something is causing the temperature on Mars to increase, or at least the temperature at the pole.  As in global warming, there is disagreement on the cause.  The fact that both have been occurring at roughly the same point in time should at least arouse curiosity.

I did not bring up Milankovitch cyclicity to argue the CO2 lag theory, if I had I would have mentioned it.  I merely brought it up as a reference to the natural climate observations taken from the geologic record and though I forgot to mention it the vast amount of time that these cycles cover.  The Milankovitch's theory is based on these observations is basically that the Earth's climate oscillates between two extremes that he called greenhouse and icebox Earth.  The oscillation between these two states are governed by many natural cycles, the shortest of with last 12,000 years. 

You linked to the wrong page on point three, but I will not argue the point that temperature readings taken from ice cores and other historical sources are likely as accurate as temperatures measured pre-1850.  However, that does not make these readings accurate by any means.  Considering that these readings are likely accurate to at best plus or minus .5 degrees C and more likely on the scale at least plus or minus one degrees C, the argument that an increase of .6-1 degree C over the last hundred years is unnatural is hard to support. 

The onus is only on the skeptics to disprove a proven theory.  The theory that global warming is being greatly influenced by man is not proven.  Hence the proponents must also continue to produce the body of evidence, i.e. a definite relationship not merely a casual one.
Also, it should be noted the vast majority of the grant money in this field is being paid to research to prove global warming, and anyone who speaks out against it has been slandered and had their academic integrity brought into question. 

BTW, I didn't mind the bullet points at all.  Much more organized than my rambling posts.

Awaiting the next logical step of the phd to appear in this thread.

[cpbell0033944]

Egad, sorry for my slightly ambiguous statements.  I didn't suggest that you specifically were calling climate-change scientists liars.  I was referring to a general trend in society that puts the wisdom of "the common man/woman" above that of years or decades of research, in whatever subject or area of contention you might like to name.  As far as sceptic vs. cynic is concerned, it's probably quite a subjective distinction that we make.  I must confess that I (obviously incorrectly) got the idea from your post that you held your views pretty trenchantly, and that it would take a seismic shock (in evidence terms) to get to you to rethink.
I must also confess that I didn't realise that you were also scientifically-trained, indeed to a higher level than I am!  I normally don't throw my qualifications into an argument, because I'm usually a modest sort of chap – I tend to suffer from a lack of self-confidence (honestly).  The only reason that I mentioned it here is because I thought that if I quoted a respected scientist (Alan Thorpe), someone might have suggested that I was out of my depth, by assuming that I had no scientific training at all.  In addition, as someone who always found mathematics difficult, I find the topic of your Post-grad studies intimidating and will certainly refer any issues of mathematics on Amaz0ns to you in future! 🙂
I'll concede that Mars is perhaps a better indicator of solar activity than I suggested, but is it possible that its darker surface colour is a contributory factor in its response to solar activity?  Of course, 2/3rds of Earth's surface is water, which has a very high specific heat capacity, hence why maritime areas tend to have a more temperate climate in winter than inland areas, as I'm sure you know.  It looks to me as though we agree on Milankovitch cycles, as I don't deny that they are very important factors in the world's climate.  All I meant was that they often trigger extra release of CO2, thus accelerating warming.

Without wishing to sound rude, I did link the page that I intended – scroll down below the charts and you'll find a heading "Specific indicators".  I see your point about margins of error affecting conclusions about warming, but I would hope that any research that would be used in the Intergovernmental panel's report would have included proper statistical analysis of data to ensure that p=<0.05.  I'm therefore assuming that observed changes are statistically significant.  I also agree with you that more research is necessary to confirm a causal relationship between CO2 and global warming; however, as I see it our problem is that, if we do not act until the evidence is rock-solid (and I think it eventually will be), it may be too late to avoid the worst effects.  Surely it is prudent to take steps now?  I certainly would defend robustly my view that much more evidence to directly contradict a human causal relationship must arise before complacency can be allowed by society, and for the general public to bury its collective head in the sand could very well be spectacularly dangerous.

Sorry that this reply wasn't in bullet points, by the way! ::)

I'm still interested in why the US seems slow in changing its ways, though.  I suppose it could be that the vast majority of US citizens have read extensively in this area and are sufficiently well trained in the methods of scientific research to draw a controversial but correct conclusion, but please forgive my scepticism (or is it cynicism? ;D) if I suggest that it's unlikely.  Of course, many Brits are wedded to the idea that they have a right to drive even the shortest distances in their cars, and, in addition, we have the phenomenon of the "budget airlines" operating cheap flights to many continental European cities.  I saw a TV programme only the other week featuring a UK businessman who uses one of these flights as his commute to work. 😮

It's nice to have a properly brain-stretching debate with someone of obvious intelligence and learning such as yourself, and thanks for your restraint, given that we seem to have different views on much of the subject. 🙂

[egad]

Hey, no problem of the lack of bullets.  Also, don't believe that the lack or presence of a degree makes someone any more or less qualified than another.  I've seen too many good ideas overlooked because the guy who came up with it doesn't have an advanced enough degree, or completely lacked a college degree.  Don't let the math intimidate you, with enough practice you could do it, the bad part is the debugging and that just requires patience.  Possibly years worth.  Also, I'm sure there are much more qualified people than myself for math topics on this board.  As my friends who were Math majors like to say "Engineers don't do real math", which may be true as we mainly focus on the applied math topics. 

With all honesty we don't have any more idea of the cause of the climate change on Mars than we do Earth and the two may happening at the same time may be coincidence. 

It's not rude to let me know where you were posting from, I had just gotten an incorrect impression of what you were trying to say.

As far as the p <.05 values they are used, the problem is that they cover such a wide range of temperatures over the last 1000 years.  For instance look at the infamous hockey stick graph with the 95% confidence intervals included.  When you look at that graph the recent warming trend appears much less alarming.

Myself, I am not convinced that there is a precipice, let alone that we are dancing merrily along its edge.  Also, the fact that nearly everything that someone doesn't like conveniently causes global warming raises alarms.  Many of these causes are lifestyle changes that busybodies have been trying to force upon the rest of us for years with new advertising, for instance my desire to eat steak causes global warming.  I realize that many sane believers in global warming also consider that to be ludicrous.  This hijacking of the issue which has been occurring since at least 1998 reeks of politics and a great deal of those politics border on areas that are quite unpopular in America. 
I don't believe that the average American is any more or less qualified than the average European on scientific matters.  However, the average American may have an advantage due to the high level bs that he wades through in American politics, but then I may be weighing Tony Blair to heavily.

  As far as the debate, I doubt the intellect and learning is that obvious but thank you anyways.  Finally, the disagreements are what makes the world interesting.

[cpbell0033944]

Egad; thanks for your comments on math(s) (why do us Brits use the 's' at the end, I wonder?), but you never saw me as a 15 year-old struggling with simultaneous equations and failing dismally with quadrilaterals (no guys, not THOSE sort of quads ;D), so I wouldn't be so sure!  Anyway., my father trained in engineering (apprenticed in ye olde British tradition), and his mathematical skillls were good enough for me when my Maths teacher baffled me.  My dad basically taught me algebra!
What ever possessed me to type "p=<0.05" when I know damn well that it makes no sense at all, I don't know!  Brain fade is all I can put it down to.  I have read much about the "hockey stick" graphs in New Scientist but, because this was before this topic appeared on our forum, I didn't perhaps pay as much attention to it as I could – I was most probably scanning the magazine to look for biology articles.  I do know that when you add tolerance bars to graphs, they can look a lot less clear-cut, so perhaps there is still doubt.  I suppose I apply slightly-educated logic, (which I know can be very inaccurate, before anyone says anything) to this, which leads me to feel hat maybe prudence is a good watchword.  My main qualm is:  Will it be too late once (and if) we conclusively prove a link?  Therefore, is it worth taking pre-emptive action now, to lessen the effects if it's true?  I'm always reminded of the concept of the ostrich with its head buried in the sand, not spotting the threat until it's too late.

[Author]

Posts