View Full Version : Military investigating climate change
rickrock305
02-13-10, 16:55
Here's an interesting article on a Pentagon report.
http://digitaljournal.com/article/287468
Pentagon quietly waging war on climate change
Posted Feb 12, 2010 by ■ Bradley Axmith
The United States military must cut its carbon footprint to prevail against rising superpowers and to overcome the threats posed by climate change, the Pentagon's recently released Quadrennial Defense Review declares.
Publicly presented 1 February and published every four years to present priorities the Department of Defense (DoD) will enlist to advance an updated strategy, the report illustrates the greening of the world's foremost military during the last couple of years. The evolution is a combination of political initiation and recognition by a nascent military and civilian cabal within the DoD that extreme weather events have and will continue to lay demands on the U.S. Armed Forces.
"Climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments," the report says.
The ongoing Darfur conflict in Sudan, according to the QDR, demonstrates the effects of a climate change war including the wider consequences for human security and regional instability. Over the last century a 40% reduction in rainfall has contributed to conditions leading to genocide and one of the largest refugee crises with which surrounding states and international organizations must contend.
In the South Pacific, the world's first climate refugees have been steadily evacuating their homes on Papua New Guinea's Carteret Islands, a 30km horseshoe shaped archipelago formation being consumed by rising sea water, likely uninhabitable by 2015.
Planning for threats to national security posed directly by climate change is evident elsewhere in other states. India, worried about a refugee crisis in neighboring Bangladesh, has begun erecting barbwire along the contiguous border, "pulling up the drawbridge" to insulate against the expected chaos.
The geopolitical side-effects from extreme weather patterns is moving the controversy surrounding man-made global warming to the back-burner, as evidenced by changing security strategies by states. "Climate change is a security issue because if we don't deal with it, people will die and states will fail," declared the UK's Special Representative for Climate Change, John Ashton, at a security conference hosted by the Institute for International and Strategic Studies in London.
The Department of Defense has not waded into the global warming debate, recognizing instead the clear and present dangers to its vital and strategic interests. Citing a 2008 National Security Council report on climate change, QDR names 30 U.S. military installations around the world currently threatened by rising sea levels, including the Diego Garcia island facility in the Indian Ocean, critical to operations in Asia and the Middle East. "In this regard, DoD will work to foster efforts to assess, adapt to, and mitigate the impacts of climate change," it says.
In recent years, military departments have invested significantly in solar, wind, geothermal and biomass energy pursuant to an Executive Order requiring a 34% reduction in DoD’s production of greenhouse gasses--excluding ongoing operations--by 2020 versus 2008 levels.
The Air Force has adapted a majority of its planes for synthetic fuel use as part of its strategy to pump them with a 50-50 mixture of conventional and alternative fuels by 2016. It has also converted some of its facilities to cleaner power generation, including Nellis Air Force Base north of Las Vegas, which has cut its carbon dioxide emissions by 24,000 tons annually using 72,000 photovoltaic solar panels. Until last year, this was the largest solar farm in the United States.
The Fort Irwin solar facility in the Mojave Desert, which recently surpassed Nellis’ power production, will double over the next 13 years to produce 1,250 gigawatt hours (GWh) of renewable energy a year, enough to power the Fort Irwin facilities and sell surplus, according to Army officials. By comparison the monstrous Hoover Dam generates 2 gigawatt hours of hydro-electricity.
Fuel from buildings and vehicles account for 25% of all GHGs produced by DoD, making fuel efficiency the logical focus area to seek solutions. $1.7 billion was spent researching and developing new efficiency technologies in 2009, an 80% increase on the previous. Vehicles powered by electricity, hydrogen, compressed natural gas and hybrids have already begun replacing older and dirtier units.
The Army alone will replace or convert more than 70,000 of its vehicles, "exploring ways to exploit the opportunities for renewable power generation to support operational needs." Reducing the army's need for a constant delivery of fuel to the battle space would enhance its mobility and streamline force projection, freeing up resources dedicated to protecting fuel convoys, according to the QDR.
The Defense Department is the largest consumer of energy in the United States, and remains in particular vulnerable to wild swings in the crude market. When oil prices spiked in 2008, DoD’s annual bill shot up to $20 billion compared to $13 billion the two previous years.
"Our military’s heavy reliance on fossil fuels creates significant risks and costs at a tactical as well as strategic level," Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment, Dorothy Robyn testified before Congress.
Opposition to the greening of the military has charged the Pentagon with politicizing national defense, claiming where QDR giveth to green, it taketh away from other programs vital to protecting the nation.
The top republican on the Armed Services Committee, Howard "Buck" Mckeon ripped the QDR for its misplaced "convictions," complaining how weapons purchases will essentially be suspended until the next four-year acquisition cycle because of a redistribution of priorities.
Other prominent defense critics noted the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act requiring DoD to incorporate climate change into the QDR proves political meddling. As President Obama becomes more politically vulnerable to attacks on his management of the economy, conservative commentators have accused the White House of using the defense budget to stimulate jobs in the green economy compromising national security.
$2.3 billion in tax credits have been made available for clean energy projects driven by American companies under a strategy that has coaxed $5 billion in private investment into the economy. This will create 41,000 “jobs that will pay well, jobs that will not be outsourced,” according to President Obama.
Cutting through the cloud of controversy, climate change has become a contingency for which the military takes seriously enough to commit resources toward coping and overcoming its impact.
General Anthony Zinni, former Head of Central Command, recently remarked on the subject: "We will pay for this one way or another. We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, or we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives."
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-13-10, 17:19
Who wants the up-armormed Prius!!
I think we need more focus on turning our enemies into elemental carbon.
If, and that is a big IF, global warming isthis much of a threat to the world and our security, and you gave the problem to a computer, the only rational answer it would come back with is to nuke the crap out of the Indians and Chinesse. IF GW is that much of threat, it is the only logical solution.
Luckily that is a big if.
When all the poor countries run out of water and their crops dry up won't that make it easier to steal their oil? ;)
arizonaranchman
02-14-10, 15:48
This entire Global Warming thing is idiotic. It's a natural cycle the earth goes through, probably related to the SUN and it's cycles. Nothing at all to do with puny mankind. We just need to adapt to the changes - put on a coat or take it off, move away from the coastline if the sea level is rising, etc...
There have been dozens of ice ages over the past several million years. If that gives you an idea of how much the climate fluctuates. These all occured long before the SUV was invented.
Heavy Metal
02-14-10, 16:43
There may be some very minor truth to Anthropogenic Global Warming but by and large it is a fraud.
Nuke them from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Ugh. Here's what we need: 1. Find every person in the DOD who supported this. 2. Fire them.
Unpossible. If we fired all the DoD personnel that turned in contrived or shoddy work under pressure to support a political agenda, there'd be no DoD.
Heavy Metal
02-15-10, 10:51
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-PI2vCA9ck&feature=player_embedded
Hitler has weighed in on Climate Change!
Some of you guys would deny scientific evidence up until the second before it killed you. Reminds me of those people you hear about who smoke with lung cancer till the day they die.
ForTehNguyen
02-15-10, 11:45
The Jurassic period was among one of the hottest eras when life existed. We therefore must conclude that dinosaurs drove SUVs
perversion and simple manipulation of scientific data does not make you a scientist, or make your argument valid beyond conversations with like minded individuals who ride on your same band wagon.
Lung cancer existed prior to the use of cigarettes by Europeans. Therefore cigarettes must not cause cancer.
Heavy Metal
02-15-10, 12:04
perversion and simple manipulation of scientific data does not make you a scientist, or make your argument valid beyond conversations with like minded individuals who ride on your same band wagon.
Lung cancer existed prior to the use of cigarettes by Europeans. Therefore cigarettes must not cause cancer.
Dude, the wheels are coming off of Global Warming. Phil Jones did a mea culpa this weekend where he admitted there has been NO warming since 1995.
BTW, by training I am a Scientist and I called BS on AGW years ago. Science is about skeptcism not blind kool-ade drinking consensus.
ForTehNguyen
02-15-10, 12:09
Some of you guys would deny scientific evidence up until the second before it killed you. Reminds me of those people you hear about who smoke with lung cancer till the day they die.
if the AGW was so evident, then it would be easily verifiable by the scientific method. lol scientific evidence? they have to lie and make data instead as their "evidence" Since they have to make up data, then one can reasonably say that AGW is a joke.
dirksterg30
02-15-10, 12:11
Some of you guys would deny scientific evidence up until the second before it killed you. Reminds me of those people you hear about who smoke with lung cancer till the day they die.
Do you mean the falsified/faked/fraudulent AGW evidence?
I guess they are going to start producing fuel cell M1 Abrams, and the new F-35 will have a rubber band powered propeller stuck on the nose.
Dude, the wheels are coming off of Global Warming. Phil Jones did a mea culpa this weekend where he admitted there has been NO warming since 1995.
BTW, by training I am a Scientist and I called BS on AGW years ago. Science is about skeptcism not blind kool-ade drinking consensus.
Trust me I have plenty of scientific backing behind my arguments. I am curious if you can link to one of the top 1st tier journals that has published a peer reviewed research paper that presents evidence like what you are claiming? Link away.
I'm not saying the evidence isn't changing, that's the beauty of science. But please link me to an article stating that it's all "a myth", and "non existent".
Also since your a "scientist" (I'm assuming this means you at least have a BS in some sort of science from an accredited research University), your aware of what I mean when I say peer reviewed, and 1st Tier Journal.
It's funny you should mention kool-aid drinking. I'm one to never drink the Kool-Aid. Just because I own an AR doesn't mean I walk lock step with the moral conservative movement. I make my decisions on life and philosophy using scientific evidence and data, not hype and paranoia.
But we all own AR's so we must believe the same shaky evidence. Right!?!?!?
Heavy Metal
02-15-10, 12:30
Trust me I have plenty of scientific backing behind my arguments. I am curious if you can link to one of the top 1st tier journals that has published a peer reviewed research paper that presents evidence like what you are claiming? Link away.
Well, considering the same few suspects were preventing the acceptance for peer review of critical articles that is kind of hard to do.
You were aware that information has come to light about the suppression of contradictory evidence?
In the meantime:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece
Heavy Metal
02-15-10, 12:36
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/warming_graph.gif
Yep, unprecedented Global Warming:rolleyes:
BTW, the top graph, the one that denies the Little Ice Age and the Medeval Warming Period, its the one that appeared in the 'top-tier journal':rolleyes:
Trust me
There.
Right there. Remember typing those words.
At that moment, you conceded an inability or unwillingness to provide data to support your argument. You're now posting because you want to say something, instead of having something to say. Which is fine, but you now rate getting dogpiled, and can do nothing but backpedal from there.
Trust you? You could be the Lesbian Queen of Xanadu, who has reigned justly and long over the land lo these many generations. It still won't help the cultural-realignment-disguised-as-climatic-crisis pass the sniff test done by fact-based people who know that climate is merely what you expect, while weather is what you get.
Screw trust. Verify.
People that want others to blindly trust...they can pay cash, and do it while I have a hand over my own wallet.
ForTehNguyen
02-15-10, 15:34
Not a good weekend for the warmists! Where is the MSM at? Showing their bias by omission.
IPCC warnings about African crops also bogus (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/15/ipcc-warnings-about-african-crops-also-bogus/)
World may not be warming, say scientists
(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece)
Belmont31R
02-15-10, 16:07
Im not a scientist but have enough common sense to put 2 and 2 together.
UN (made up of mostly poor nations in comparison) creates IPCC to investigate climate change.
Way to fix climate change is to put a strangle hold on western countries, and send billions of dollars to the poor countries.
An added bonus is the loss of economic and personal freedom while adding a whole new realm the governments of the world have absolute control over.
Create a theory that no matter what happens you are right. One of the snowiest winters in US history this year, and just explain it away as "we told you extreme weather was a symptom of global warming!" If it gets hotter its "we told you so!" Colder? "We told you so!" We could go into another mini-ice age, and the IPCC along with the legions of believers will say its because of global warming.
Then the suppression of evidence, making up of evidence, and refusal to be "transparent" in their conclusions is good, too.
There.
Right there. Remember typing those words.
At that moment, you conceded an inability or unwillingness to provide data to support your argument.
Absolutely fair. My fiance has a BS in Ecology, my mother is a published scientist and a college level professor, my father is a computer scientist with a Bachelors degree in Biology, and a Masters in Computer Science, and one of my sisters is a research scientist at Harvard Medical and one of the top ten researchers globally in her field. Not to mention the uncle I have that is a environmental engineer working with Coal Mines, and the other scientists and doctors in my family. I should have stated that, combined with the fact that I understood the Scientific Method before middle school, and have been working alongside the fields of research science my entire life. My apologies.
To address this thread as a whole, i love the fact that there is work out there trying to provide contradictory evidence about climate change. When I see an apples to apples comparison that is backed up and peer reviewed I will eat crow.
But the reality of science is pretty simple. If you have years of scientific data that supports the theory that an apple is an apple, just because someone with a PHD in biology comes along and says: An Apple is actually an Orange, does not make an apple an orange! Furthermore if the original person that helped gather evidence that apples were apples just randomly said apples are oranges in a public forum this doesn't automatically disprove the data. Nor would a few emails he wrote. Get it?
The sad thing about the counter argument to climate changes is that the meat and potatoes of the arguments against the theory end at about this level of scientific complexity. The reason the arguments aren't being published in research journals HeavyMetal is not because there is a grand tinfoil hat conspiracy against these people and their data, it's because the research and data are FLAWED. I figured someone within the field of science would be able to wrap their head around that.
Back to the original topic I find it amusing that both the Pentagon and Big Oil are both looking into creating survival models for climate change. Seems to suggest something.
edited to add: don't trust me about the "big oil statement" simply because I said it. Rather take the fact that that father I was telling you about, yea he's worked in the industry since before I was born, and is currently in a leadership roll with one of the biggest three oil giants on the planet. I have these conversations with him a lot as well.
To address this thread as a whole, i love the fact that there is work out there trying to provide contradictory evidence about climate change.
As I would think it should be for a true scientist. Why then does Al Gore, the AGW spokesman, say the debate is over? I thought true science encouraged new evidence to further confirm or change porposed theories.
The sad thing about the counter argument to climate changes is that the meat and potatoes of the arguments against the theory end at about this level of scientific complexity. The reason the arguments aren't being published in research journals HeavyMetal is not because there is a grand tinfoil hat conspiracy against these people and their data, it's because the research and data are FLAWED. I figured someone within the field of science would be able to wrap their head around that.
I don't know one way or the other because I don't read such research journals.....do the journals explain the flaws in the skeptic views or simply choose not to ever publish or address them?
As I would think it should be for a true scientist. Why then does Al Gore, the AGW spokesman, say the debate is over? I thought true science encouraged new evidence to further confirm or change porposed theories.
I don't know one way or the other because I don't read such research journals.....do the journals explain the flaws in the skeptic views or simply choose not to ever publish or address them?
First I'm not talking about Al Gore. He's a good example of the problems I have with both sides using the general publics mis-understanding of science, to manipulate opinion.
Second, yea the scientists that attempted to publish would get responses to their papers, you should be asking them where those responses are and what they say.
Heavy Metal
02-15-10, 17:19
"Look, it's snowing! The Snow is cause by global warming!(climate change)"
"Look, it's not snowing! This is caused by global warming!(climate change)"
A hypothesis (climate change) is bogus if there is no condition that would render it false by observation or experimentation.
I hope your parents did teach you about falsifiability.
Heavy Metal
02-15-10, 17:23
First I'm not talking about Al Gore. He's a good example of the problems I have with both sides using the general publics mis-understanding of science, to manipulate opinion.
Second, yea the scientists that attempted to publish would get responses to their papers, you should be asking them where those responses are and what they say.
I found your peer review:
http://orangepunch.freedomblogging.com/2009/11/27/peer-reviewed-global-warming-studies-or-buddy-system/14599/
Peer reviewed global warming studies? Or buddy system?
November 27th, 2009, 2:05 pm · 8 Comments · posted by Mark Landsbaum
One of the most damning of the e-mails to emerge from Climategate has been this one from Phil Jones of the UK’s Climate Research Unit talking about scientific papers he didn’t like (emphasis ours):
“The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
We’ve been told – actually shouted at – that “peer review” is sacroscant and the way the scientific community polices itself. You can’t get the stamp of approval unless “peers” “review” your work and it passes muster.
But how’s that work in practice? Apparently, not so well. “Peer review” appears to be more like buddies who know the secret handshake. Everybody on the same team gets a pass. Others, need not apply.
Here are some fascinating comments posted at Center for Environmental Journalism:
•See Roger Pielke, Jr.’s post about peer review. He provides an illuminating analysis of how peer review seems to have become politicized. He refers to this excellent NPR story quoting a number of scientists, including James Hansen who says peer review has even thwarted his work — because his opinion that the consensus view on global warming understates the risks is not popular.
•The NPR story also quotes John Christy who believes his research about Southern Sierra snowfall has been blocked by peer review; Phillip Mote, who responds that 10 papers showing the same thing have already been published (so Christy’s work is “not news”); and Judith Curry, who recommends that peer review be open and public rather than a semi-secret process subject to undue influence by scientists with an agenda.
•“You do need gates, but when you’ve spiked the gatekeepers to keep other people out and protect certain insiders, then the gate isn’t working,” NPR quotes Curry as saying.
As with all de facto cliques, these things tend to become self-promoting, self-protecting and ultimately self-deceiving. How about a little sunshine, hm? How about CRU open its work up entirely for the entire scientific (and journalistic) community to peruse?
After all, if the stuff is good enough to warrant transforming trillions of dollars of economic reality, it ought to withstand the light of day, no?
Tell me dmcmanus, are you familiar with the first law of holes?
are you familiar with the first law of holes?
I am :D
I hope your parents did teach you about falsifiability.
They did. I will read that article. Looking forward to it.
Why don't we have a "popcorn" emoticon?:confused::D
FWIW the latest issue of Proceedings (USNI) contained a piece about the Navy's move into "hybrid" propulsion technology. Mainly to save gas, though, IIRC.
redeyejedi
02-16-10, 00:16
the debate has been over as whether we're altering the weather. the debate now....what do we do?
the debate has been over as whether we're altering the weather. the debate now....what do we do?
Uh-huh. You don't say..?:eek:
If the military is looking at moving off oil because it would reduce our reliance on oil and safeguard its budget against vast fluctuations due to changing oil prices, that is a good reason. Oil's availability certainly plays a role in our effectiveness as a military.
What we don't need is a military that is concerned with global warming, diverting its attention from the wars we're currently fighting. Refocusing these "climate change" investigation resources towards keeping our guys alive and making more of their guys dead seems prudent from where I sit.
If the military is looking at moving off oil because it would reduce our reliance on oil and safeguard its budget against vast fluctuations due to changing oil prices, that is a good reason. Oil's availability certainly plays a role in our effectiveness as a military.
What we don't need is a military that is concerned with global warming, diverting its attention from the wars we're currently fighting. Refocusing these "climate change" investigation resources towards keeping our guys alive and making more of their guys dead seems prudent from where I sit.
IIRC that was the gist of the bit from USNI. I think they noted that LHD-8 Makin Island ( A Wasp-class large deck 'phib) shaved $2 million in fuel costs for 1 year. Not too shabby, assuming that the technology was not very expensive on the front end.
Heavy Metal
02-16-10, 11:25
the debate has been over as whether we're altering the weather. the debate now....what do we do?
What rock have you been living under these past two months?
http://www.google.com/search?q=climategate&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1
redeyejedi
02-16-10, 12:19
What rock have you been living under these past two months?
http://www.google.com/search?q=climategate&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1
point being?
i'd rather get my info from individuals who know what they are talking about not those who disagree with them who have no clue.
point being?
i'd rather get my info from individuals who know what they are talking about not those who disagree with them who have no clue.
You are a 2-month lurker with 2 posts, and *this* is what you use to launch here..? There have been any number of threads here dealing with this subject. IMO, the _least_ well informed among us tend to be on the pro-AGW side of the issue.
There has been a landslide of news that undermines the credibility of many (if not most) of the "individuals who know what they are talking about" in recent months. ZDL linked to one of many pieces that document this. Certainly you are aware of these developments. Right?:confused:
Heavy Metal
02-16-10, 12:46
point being?
i'd rather get my info from individuals who know what they are talking about not those who disagree with them who have no clue.
The point apparently being is you are far behind the power curve and simply don't know what you don't know.
Perhaps you should listen to those who do have a clue. I gave you a link to many of them. How about listening to one of your own in the above quote, Phil Jones, for starters?
Don't you think that an open mind is better than a cheap, hollow appeal to authority logcal fallacy?
redeyejedi
02-16-10, 12:53
You are a 2-month lurker with 2 posts, and *this* is what you use to launch here..? There have been any number of threads here dealing with this subject. IMO, the _least_ well informed among us tend to be on the pro-AGW side of the issue.
There has been a landslide of news that undermines the credibility of many (if not most) of the "individuals who know what they are talking about" in recent months. ZDL linked to one of many pieces that document this. Certainly you are aware of these developments. Right?:confused:
so my post count and join date mean what exactly?
been browsing sites for quite a while, and just decided to join recently as i embark on a build.
John_Wayne777
02-16-10, 13:01
Let's keep it civil, gents.
so my post count and join date mean what exactly?
been browsing sites for quite a while, and just decided to join recently as i embark on a build.
As I said, there have been numerous discussions here on the topic of global warming and/or climate change. Your join-date is recent, which means that you more than likely were not here to witness them. Surely you did not participate. A search would turn up some of these threads. If you took the time to read them, you would find any number of links to credible sources which suggest that the "science" behind the theory of AGW is anything but settled. Many people here have provided good info that further suggests that the science might in fact be compromised.
A look into those old discussions would also reveal that several of the pro-AGW posters here at M4C have scant knowledge of the issues at the heart of the argument over climate change, despite their best attempts to sound convincingly pedantic.
thopkins22
02-16-10, 13:09
point being?
i'd rather get my info from individuals who know what they are talking about not those who disagree with them who have no clue.
All of these are from before the most recent storm discrediting climate change as it's been presented by Al Gore and the IPCC...and they all know what they're talking about. So watch them, read the data for yourself...and get a clue rather than join the new religion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WWpH0lmcxA
Dr. John R. Christy is Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville where he began studying global climate issues in 1987. In November 2000 Gov. Don Siegelman appointed him to be Alabama's State Climatologist. In 1989 Dr. Roy W. Spencer, a NASA/Marshall scientist, and Christy developed a global temperature data set from microwave data observed from satellites beginning in 1979. For this achievement, the Spencer-Christy team was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement in 1991. In 1996, they were selected to receive a Special Award by the American Meteorological Society "for developing a global, precise record of earth's temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy01J7AyIU0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkEAd-n5jRg&feature=related
Patrick J. Michaels Professor of Environmental Sciences University of Virginia and Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies at the Cato Institute before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the Committee on Science United States House of Representatives
The Effects of Proposals for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6wru8-OFw4
This is part 1 of Intelligence Squared's debate regarding global warming. You can follow the other links.
And why did I call your beliefs a religion? I'll let the recently deceased Michael Crichton answer that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv9OSxTy1aU
Let's keep it civil, gents.
Roger that.
To be clear- it is not my intent to intimidate or silence a new member simply because he/she is new to the site. I hate that tactic. Rather, I meant to point out that the newness of this person's membership makes it less likely that he/she ever saw the relevant discussions on climate change.
redeyejedi
02-16-10, 13:27
As I said, there have been numerous discussions here on the topic of global warming and/or climate change. Your join-date is recent, which means that you more than likely were not here to witness them. Surely you did not participate. A search would turn up some of these threads.
fair enough.
:)
didn't join to search for climate change discussion, but rather opinions and experts knowledge on the ar platform, perhaps my engaging in such a hot topic was premature, although we are all entitled to voice our opinions and concerns despite with whom the agree with.
aaron, signing out,
carry on gentlemen,
be good and be safe out there
http://m.guardian.co.uk/?id=102202&story=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall
I liked this quote the most. It points out exactly what I'm talking about.
"Retraction is a regular part of the publication process," he said. "Science is a complicated game and there are set procedures in place that act as checks and balances."
The article did nothing to dis-prove any evidence at all. All it did was state that there were technical errors in a single study, and that those technical errors were being addressed by the scientists in order to re-address the study.
thopkins22
02-21-10, 21:03
The article did nothing to dis-prove any evidence at all. All it did was state that there were technical errors in a single study, and that those technical errors were being addressed by the scientists in order to re-address the study.
Right. Your numbers either being BS, manipulated, or not there at all, when in fact they are contrary to your conclusion qualifies as a "technical error."
And literally the very sentence in front of the one you quoted reads
Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: "It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science." He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study's conclusion.
This means that other scientists looked at the very same data and proved that the numbers should have led them to the exact opposite conclusion. This isn't some minor calculation problem that left their sea level numbers off by a few percent. If that were the case, then it would have been a correction as Mark Siddall was quoted in the article.
Right. Your numbers either being BS, manipulated, or not there at all, when in fact they are contrary to your conclusion qualifies as a "technical error."
And literally the very sentence in front of the one you quoted reads
This means that other scientists looked at the very same data and proved that the numbers should have led them to the exact opposite conclusion. This isn't some minor calculation problem that left their sea level numbers off by a few percent. If that were the case, then it would have been a correction as Mark Siddall was quoted in the article.
That's my point too. I don't get why you all are having such an amazingly f-ng dense time getting understanding what I'm saying. Absolutely nothing you have stated, that the article has stated, or that any other article has stated posted thus far does anything more then insist that studies continue, point out that occasional errors take place in individual studies, and that science is constantly in a state of expansion and flux. Thus my point.
If you accept this point, and you accept science, you also have to accept that there is MORE scientific data that concludes that climate change is taking place, then not. And there is MORE scientific data that says humans are a contributing factor then there is not.
One study being retracted doesn't disprove anything. Also I read the article and no where in it did it say that this was some tin foil hat conspiracy on the part of the scientists, or that is was malicious, or un-ethical. That is something people like yourself insert into the argument to Believe (a non scientific term) your side of an the argument.
It's like finding Jesus on a slab of friggin' toast. The person that wants a miracle will convince themselves it's there when really it's just a friggen burnt piece of toast.
There is no malicious conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to take away your SUV.
thopkins22
02-21-10, 22:03
There is no malicious conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to take away your SUV.
Didn't say that there was. Nor do I enjoy being told that I make up conspiracies to accommodate my beliefs...though I might say that the same applies to the environmentalists that go head over heels for this stuff. Constantly hearing about research funded by "industry." Either the research is quality or it isn't. Global warming is where the research grants are right now, there is certainly incentive to tie research to global warming and there is certainly a stigma associated with not coming to the same conclusion.
The vast majority of actual peer reviewed science absolutely does not conclude that global warming is mostly man made nor does it conclude that it's catastrophic. That's what is infuriating about the whole situation.
The earth's surface temperature has risen 0.6 degrees in the past one hundred years.
Humans have changed the climate since the first man made brush fire in Africa sent lots of carbon into the atmosphere. How much though is quite debatable. Hell, the global termite population creates an absolutely enormous amount of CO2.
The vast majority of Antarctica is gaining ice, the only place there that's really losing ice is one relatively small peninsula.
Antarctica accounts for 90% of the worlds ice. Greenland holds the next largest body of ice, and everything else on the planet is relatively insignificant by comparison.
Greenland didn't lose all of it's ice the last time the earth was in a warming cycle, and it was quite a few degrees warmer than we're looking at now.
The troposphere is warming at a much slower pace than pretty much all of the computer models expected...yet I'm still supposed to believe the models?
You as an individual may not be conspiratorial, however I have yet to see anything cited in any climate change thread on this forum that is anything more then just that, or a simple news article that is manipulated using clever twists of words, hints at government take overs and semantics to attempt to some how "prove" a point that this is all made up. As I've stated multiple times link me to real credible information.
The majority of "evidence" I see on here, and on other sights regarding this discussion is of the same quality and credibility as that posted on conspiracy websites about the faked moon landing.
Heavy Metal
02-21-10, 23:09
You as an individual may not be conspiratorial, however I have yet to see anything cited in any climate change thread on this forum that is anything more then just that, or a simple news article that is manipulated using clever twists of words, hints at government take overs and semantics to attempt to some how "prove" a point that this is all made up. As I've stated multiple times link me to real credible information.
The majority of "evidence" I see on here, and on other sights regarding this discussion is of the same quality and credibility as that posted on conspiracy websites about the faked moon landing.
What part of the phrase: "Hide the Decline" do you not understand?
There is a now-exposed conspiracy by a core group of Climatologists within the IPCC to do nonsense like try and hide the fact the the Medeval Warming Peroid and the Little Ice Age were global phenomenon because the inconvient existance of those two events makes today's weather fluctions neither extreme or nor unprecidented.
You are in denial of the evidence presented before you. You can either adapt to the new reality or get setamrolled by history. Right now, Global Warming is hovering over Lakehurst NJ circa 1937.
Your Hokey Stick is a fraud and it is the basis of the whole alarm. It has been throughly discredited.
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/warming_graph.gif
Heavy Metal
02-21-10, 23:16
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3332616/that-famous-consensus.thtml
That famous consensus
Saturday, 7th February 2009
Yet another example of the ‘research’ masquerading as science that is used to reinforce the man-made global warming fraud. One of the difficulties the green zealots have had is that Antarctica has been not warming but cooling, with the extent of its ice reaching record levels. A few weeks ago, a study led by Professor Eric Steig caused some excitement by claiming that actually West Antarctica was warming so much that it more than made up for the cooling in East Antarctica. Warning bells should have sounded when Steig said
What we did is interpolate carefully instead of just using the back of an envelope.
To those of us who have been following this scam for the past two decades, ‘interpolate carefully’ makes us suck our teeth. And so it has proved. Various scientists immediately spotted the flaw in Steig’s methodology of combining satellite evidence since 1979 with temperature readings from surface weather stations. The flaw they identified was that, since Antarctica has so few weather stations, the computer Steig used was programmed to guess what data they would have produced had such stations existed. In other words, the findings that caused such excitement were based on data that had been made up.
Even one of the IPCC’s lead authors sniffed a problem:
‘This looks like a pretty good analysis, but I have to say I remain somewhat skeptical,’ Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research said in an e-mail. ‘It is hard to make data where none exist.’
Well, yes. But then the invention of data that does not exist and the obliteration of data that does exist has been precisely how the man-made global warming scam has been perpetrated right from the get-go. The most egregious example of this was the piece of ‘research’ that underpinned the entire IPCC/Kyoto shebang from 2001 when it was published -- the so-called ‘hockey stick’ curve, which purported to show a vertiginous and unprecedented rise in global temperature in the 20th century.
The problem with pegging such a rise to the evils of industrialisation had always been the Medieval Warm Period, during which global temperatures were warmer than in modern times. So the ‘hockey stick’ study dealt with that by simply managing to airbrush out the Medieval Warm Period and its subsequent corrective Little Ice Age altogether. Some seven centuries of global history were simply excised from the data -- because an algorithm had been built into the computer programme which would have created a ‘hockey stick’ curve whatever data were fed into it.
This shoddy research was subsequently torn apart so comprehensively that it has been called the most discredited study in the history of science (and has been quietly dropped by the IPCC, leaving man-made global warming theory with no more substance than the grin on the face of the Cheshire Cat. Go here, here and here for a history of the titanic battle that ensued over its unmasking). The creator of this discredited ‘hockey stick’ curve was Michael Mann. And guess what? Michael Mann was a co-author of the Steig study of Antarctica.
‘Contrarians have sometime grabbed on to this idea that the entire continent of Antarctica is cooling, so how could we be talking about global warming,’ said study co-author Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University. ‘Now we can say: no, it's not true ... It is not bucking the trend.’
And now as Andrew Bolt has noted Steve McIntyre, who with Ross McKitrick uncovered the ‘hockey-stick’ nonsense in the first place, has delivered the coup de grace to the Steig/Mann Antarctica claim. Steig used data from a weather station called Harry. Bolt observes:
Harry in fact is a problematic site that was buried in snow for years and then re-sited in 2005. But, worse, the data that Steig used in his modelling which he claimed came from Harry was actually old data from another station on the Ross Ice Shelf known as Gill with new data from Harry added to it, producing the abrupt warming. The data is worthless. Or as McIntyre puts it:
Considered by itself, Gill has a slightly negative trend from 1987 to 2002. The big trend in ‘New Harry’ arises entirely from the impact of splicing the two data sets together. It’s a mess.
With their reputations thus disappearing faster than the snows of Kilimanjaro, the zealots have become hysterical. Mann attacks a prominent sceptic, Lawrence Solomon, for citing the scientists’ criticisms of the Antarctica study, and is in turn answered by Solomon -- an exchange reproduced in Canada’s Financial Post, for which Solomon writes, here and here. Mann repeatedly accuses Solomon of lying. In doing so, he has left himself dramatically exposed. Claiming that Solomon
repeatedly lies about my work
he cites as evidence of this that his ‘hockey stick’ study was
vindicated in a report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences
and seeks to back up this assertion by citing the way the media reported this study as
‘Science Panel Backs Study on Warming Climate’ (New York Times), ‘Backing for Hockey Stick Graph’ (BBC), and so on.
This is, to put it mildly, disingenuous. While it is certainly true that the media reported it in this sheep-like way -- thanks in part to the manner in which the NAS chose circumspectly to spin its own conclusions -- it is nevertheless the case that in every important particular the NAS actually agreed with the McIntyre/McKitrick criticisms. Far from vindicating the ‘hockey stick’ graph, the NAS said that although it found some of Mann’s work ‘plausible’, there were so many scientific uncertainties attached to it that it did not have great confidence in it. Thus it said that
Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions
and that they had downplayed the
uncertainties of the published reconstructions...Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that ‘the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium.’
What Mann also does not say in his diatribe is that a subsequent House Energy and Commerce Committee report chaired by Edward Wegman totally destroyed the credibility of the ‘hockey stick’ study and devastatingly ripped apart Mann’s methodology as ‘bad mathematics’. Furthermore, when Gerald North, the chairman of the NAS panel -- which Mann claims ‘vindicated him’ – and panel member Peter Bloomfield were asked at the House Committee hearings whether or not they agreed with Wegman’s harsh criticisms, they said they did:
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?
DR. NORTH. No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.
DR. BLOOMFIELD. Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.
WALLACE: ‘the two reports were complementary, and to the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent.’ (Am Stat Assoc.)
As Mark Twain might have put it, there are three kinds of lies -- lies, damned lies and global warming science.
thopkins22
02-21-10, 23:42
The majority of "evidence" I see on here, and on other sights regarding this discussion is of the same quality and credibility as that posted on conspiracy websites about the faked moon landing.
Did you watch the videos I posted?
ETA:I'm pretty sure I already know the answer....
so my post count and join date mean what exactly?
been browsing sites for quite a while, and just decided to join recently as i embark on a build.
It means you have yet to develop any credibility on any subject. It doesn't automatically invalidate whatever you have to say, but you cannot effectively argue your position by simply stating what you believe to be truth.
redeyejedi
02-23-10, 15:33
It means you have yet to develop any credibility on any subject. It doesn't automatically invalidate whatever you have to say, but you cannot effectively argue your position by simply stating what you believe to be truth.
ok, so i stated my opinion of what i believe to be truth. my question then is, who stands to benefit from non-action? who gains from discrediting climate change data?
aside from what i may believe, this is the root of the argument and all other claims stem from motive.
not tryn to start a fight with anyone just have the outlook that we are all in the same boat and we should work together to prevent it from sinking.
my .02
cheers :cool:
Did you watch the videos I posted?
ETA:I'm pretty sure I already know the answer....
No your right, they are a little long for my time right now but I intend too. Especially the first one.
I'm also going to ask someone a little more knowledgeable then myself to see her thoughts, but she may be busy with her research. Not saying that as a threat or anything, just because this thread has got me thinking about how I haven't really had a conversation like this in the last seven months, and as I stated earlier if the evidence is overwhelmingly in support of your argument you will see me being one of the first people to eat crow, because this isn't about an agenda with me, it's about understanding the scientific process and what it means to human knowledge. I can't say that without being willing to accept what that means...;)
ok, so i stated my opinion of what i believe to be truth. my question then is, who stands to benefit from non-action? who gains from discrediting climate change data?
aside from what i may believe, this is the root of the argument and all other claims stem from motive.
not tryn to start a fight with anyone just have the outlook that we are all in the same boat and we should work together to prevent it from sinking.
my .02
cheers :cool:
This biggest problem with this statement is that you use the word "believe". Science isn't about "believing", religion and faith are about believing.
redeyejedi
02-23-10, 15:46
This biggest problem with this statement is that you use the word "believe". Science isn't about "believing", religion and faith are about believing.
i agree, science isn't about beliveing, that's why i think it's ridicuslous to say one "believes" in gloabal warming. but if i had used the word truth, or fact....you might have said that it's just an opinion.
i agree, science isn't about beliveing, that's why i think it's ridicuslous to say one "believes" in gloabal warming. but if i had used the word truth, or fact....you might have said that it's just an opinion.
I really hate to do this, but there is no such thing as an absolute scientific "fact" or "truth". Using any of these words allows for your argument to be picked apart.
redeyejedi
02-23-10, 15:56
I really hate to do this, but there is no such thing as an absolute scientific "fact" or "truth". Using any of these words allows for your argument to be picked apart.
again, i agree. which is why i said belive in the first place.
ok, so i stated my opinion of what i believe to be truth. my question then is, who stands to benefit from non-action? who gains from discrediting climate change data?
aside from what i may believe, this is the root of the argument and all other claims stem from motive.
not tryn to start a fight with anyone just have the outlook that we are all in the same boat and we should work together to prevent it from sinking.
my .02
cheers :cool:
Who gains from discrediting it? Anyone who is negatively impacted by any legislation created to "combat" GCC.
Who gains from validating it? Anyone getting funding from a private or public source in the pursuit of studying it (the funding will dry up if studies show that GCC is not affected by man made pollutants), along with anyone who can make political hay from fear mongering on GCC.
Anyone expounding on it that doesn't fit into the aforementioned categories is simply a choir member singing the tune as directed by their chosen group. :D
redeyejedi
02-23-10, 16:39
Who gains from discrediting it? Anyone who is negatively impacted by any legislation created to "combat" GCC.
Who gains from validating it? Anyone getting funding from a private or public source in the pursuit of studying it (the funding will dry up if studies show that GCC is not affected by man made pollutants), along with anyone who can make political hay from fear mongering on GCC.
Anyone expounding on it that doesn't fit into the aforementioned categories is simply a choir member singing the tune as directed by their chosen group. :D
where do you fit in?
Who gains from discrediting it? Anyone who is negatively impacted by any legislation created to "combat" GCC.
Your forgot to add: "along with anyone who can make political hay from fear mongering [on the potential impacts it may have on individuals day to day lives]", in your statement on who benefits from discrediting it.
That's rich. I believe there are quite a few people who have already been impacted by legislation or large corporations changing practices based on pressure from fear mongering eco-mentalists. I believe the number of those affected by the fear mongering of these eco-mentalists well out weigh the number of those who have been affected by global warming itself...... :rolleyes:
GW=fear mongering for profit.
I really don't understand the mentality it takes for someone to convince themselves that everything everyone ever does is for profit. It's sad really.
So your saying to me right now that every scientist that has ever gathered data on an experiment that supports global warming is playing into a grand conspiracy for profit and they should thus be punished by the state?
thopkins22
02-23-10, 17:43
I'm also going to ask someone a little more knowledgeable then myself to see her thoughts, but she may be busy with her research. Not saying that as a threat or anything...I wasn't threatened either way.;) But I strongly suggest all of the videos if you're going to watch one.
Earlier you asked who benefits from non action. Everyone that isn't directly connected to the enormous profits that will happen from what the IPCC said would be a 55 TRILLION dollar project to stop and/or reverse "climate change." So that's pretty much all of us that will benefit...because we won't spend an absolutely insane amount of money.
And even if climate change is somehow something humans can control, what evidence is there that says the current climate or a colder climate is superior to a warmer one?
thopkins22
02-23-10, 17:49
I really don't understand the mentality it takes for someone to convince themselves that everything everyone ever does is for profit.Right. Al Gore bought "carbon credits" from his own company because he's a nice guy.
So your saying to me right now that every scientist that has ever gathered data on an experiment that supports global warming is playing into a grand conspiracy for profit and they should thus be punished by the state?I don't think that's what he said...but it's not a bad idea....:D Have you been involved in writing requests for research grants lately? If you can tie your research to the remote possibility that it's part of global warming you certainly haven't harmed your chances.
I don't think it's a secret that there are industries that will grant research money if they believe the conclusion will aid their position. What makes you believe that some of these green companies are above the same? That somehow they're honest upstanding hippies who would never lie? It's big business now and there is a lot of money behind it.
thopkins22
02-23-10, 18:31
Why do you have such an emotional attachment to this subject? To this, bad science? To this, fraud?
Because it's a religion now.
ETA:Not attacking religion in general...just looking at it like an anthropologist would. Explained by Crichton in the list of videos I posted earlier.
I really don't understand the mentality it takes for someone to convince themselves that everything everyone ever does is for profit. It's sad really.
So your saying to me right now that every scientist that has ever gathered data on an experiment that supports global warming is playing into a grand conspiracy for profit and they should thus be punished by the state?
Show me a scientist with no financial ties to pro OR con GCC interests, who spent their won money on a large scale study and I might be more willing to believe that. Most scientists are spending other peoples money. People who want them to do certain studies.
I'm not saying all those scientists are corrupt. I'll even bet a lot of them on both sides are 100% legit ethically. But they believe what they believe and it's easy to manipulate data.
For myself, I feel I may be in the negatively impacted segment. As for either side, I trust none of them until they can prove to me that they're correct. So far, neither one has been able to do that. But the GCC supporters are the ones asking everyone to spend money and change things, so they have a greater burden to prove their side IMO.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.