To Bully the scientific community to validate bugus theory

As a scientist its simple choose to use your name and degree to validate a global warming crisis and receive money. On the other hand argue against and your funding will be taken away.

I bring to you Bill Gray google his name and read the articles of ridicule about him. He is arguably one of the most experienced scientist in his field and if Vegas decides to take hurricane prediction into the betting foray. They will no-doubt consult him to decide the odds. Simply put the accuracy of his hurricane predictions are at the top of the charts.

With this kind of resume you would think that he would be swimming in research money. However it’s quite the opposite his funding has been dried up and he has even resorted to using his own funds to keep his studies afloat.

Why is really quite simple he is not telling people what they want to hear dire stories of global catastrophe.

 

He's still getting his research money. No one is funding his global warming experiments, but he's still getting the money for his hurricane research, which is his job after all. Their are plenty of people out there who think global warming doesn't exist. The Bush administration has edited many official reports to remove the spectre of global warming, and he has stated that research needs to be done. You really think that big oil, big automotive, big power, and big coal aren't funding studies that say global warming doesn't exist? That's quite a bit of money they are throwing around with their "environmental impact" reports, and most of those reports are coming back in their favor. Really, which one do you think is more biased Joe, the scientific community, or big business which stands to lose money if global warming turns out to be true?

 

Just pointing out the obvious to you Dio. This guy is ridiculed and ostracized within the community that has caved to political correctives. The only correct thing to say is that global warming exists otherwise your doomed.

It takes courage to stand up for what you know is right.

 

If by political correctness you mean mountains of evidence, then yes you would be correct. It's still possible that global warming isn't real, and that the increases in temperature and CO2 are cyclical, but that's becoming less and less likely with each passing year. If global warming doesn't exist, how do you explain the cracking of the Larsen Ice shelf?

 

You apparently did not read the artical which although was critical of Mr. Gray did at least try to be objective in giving the key arguements against the theory of global warming.

 

I've read articles stating both positions. Can you say the same? Not without chalking up all the articles that disagree with you to "liberal bias". This smacks of when people thought extinction was impossible, since God would never allow one of his creations to be destroyed permanently.

 

There is oh so very much compelling evidence you just do not hear it. I find one of the most compelling to be natural petroleum releases in the sea, natural gas release into the atmosphere, if you simply look at a volcano and the amount if pollutants typically the same pollutants industrialization causes you see that volcano pollution dwarfs all others. Hell why don't we study how to cap off a fucking volcano and then drive whatever the fuck we want to for the next fifty or so generations?

I hate the idea of asswipes who purposefully pollute such as dumping chemicals into rivers. Let’s deal strictly with real pollution. If some jackass throws a car battery out into the woods. Lets suck up about fifty CCs of that battery acid into a syringe and pump it into his jugular vein and do it on national TV. But we do have to scare the population with loads of lies a thousand more un-enforced laws and build another government beurocracy to be bought out by the fortunate members of the inner elite circle.

 

I know about the volcanology studies. Volcanoes and natural emissions account for about 90% of natural greenhouse emissions. Here's the problem though. Every ten years we put the natural amount of CO2 in the atmosphere into the air, all the while removing trees, which naturally scrub CO2 from the atmosphere. Therefore we are putting more greenhouse gasses into the air then would occur naturally, while removing the natural counterbalance to greenhoue emissions. What are you reading that tells you that isn't a problem?

 

See now I do not mind talking real problems. The tree issue is compelling I'm for a solution I would even consider hemp or something like that as a better alternative for paper and such non-lumber items. I think all the hemp studies however may not be all that scientific. Seems there just blowing smoke up peoples asses.

 

Pretty much. They have some interesting points, but nobody ever really deals with the economic viability of hemp.

 

It would be difficult for the media to do a worse job with climate change coverage. Perhaps the most important suggestion would be to remember the basic rules about journalism and set aside biases — a simple suggestion, but far from easy given the overwhelming extent of the problem.

Three of the guidelines from the Society of Professional Journalists are especially appropriate:

“Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.”


“Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.”


“Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.”

That last bullet point could apply to almost any major news outlet in the United States. They could all learn something and take into account the historical context of media coverage of climate change.

Some other important points include:

Don’t Stifle Debate: Most scientists do agree that the earth has warmed a little more than a degree in the last 100 years. That doesn’t mean that scientists concur mankind is to blame. Even if that were the case, the impact of warming is unclear.

People in northern climes might enjoy improved weather and longer growing seasons.

Don’t Ignore the Cost: Global warming solutions pushed by environmental groups are notoriously expensive. Just signing on to the Kyoto treaty would have cost the United States several hundred billion dollars each year, according to estimates from the U.S. government generated during President Bill Clinton’s term.

Every story that talks about new regulations or forced cutbacks on emissions should discuss the cost of those proposals.

Report Accurately on Statistics: Accurate temperature records have been kept only since the end of the 19th Century, shortly after the world left the Little Ice Age. So while recorded temperatures are increasing, they are not the warmest ever. A 2003 study by Harvard and the Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, “20th Century Climate Not So Hot,” “determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1,000 years.

A small excerpt of a much larger article a chronology of media reports on scientific theory regarding climatology study from a historical perspective starting I believe it was the early 1900s to present. [/url]

 

It is highly unlikely that the pollution will kill all life;
( Smurfs worst case scenario ),
but it is quite certain that most forms of life,
( from a few pounds and up ), will be extinct.

This waste of genetic wealth and biological redundancy-systems gets serious in two scenarios;
1.
when the increased preassure of population and consumption cant erradicate more biotopes. People that now become sustainance-farmers, might opt for war against the percieved prime culprit; the industrial world.
(A war that might be a problem when foodsorces and governments falls).
Threat A : Hostile migrations Threat B : Nuclear kamikaze

2.
When(if)the monocultural human-symbiotic biotope takes over from diversity.
The threat here is simply that of diseases that has All life on the planet as its breeding ground. There are reasons to believe that the lack of other bacteriae can strengthen their ability to harm its host. We allready see a lot of new cross-species bacterial threat in the human monotope.

For:
It has just started. We still get benefits from a wide diversity of biotopes that shape human resistance and indirectly shape monocultural bacteriae.
Eventualy it wil be much worse.

For:
This periode of species-death is lead by a species, and goes hand in hand with a general weakening of immune systems through environmental poisons and isolation of genome within species. ( Inbreeding ).

Against:
Cross-species diseases has always existed.


Joe!
You wrote about how refining-capacity was the bottleneck. Greenspan talked about the oil-peak today. I mean. GREENSPAN ! The burgoise capitalist pig !
Most likely the refining cap problem was just a way to make some extra dollars befre the peak. The industry MUST have seen it coming.

Your way of life is under threat, and its not the commies ;-)

 

When oil does peak then there will be a change most certainly. Lets see oil peak and then watch the magic if good ole Yankee ingenuity at work. :wink:

 

It will be interesting to watch. I wouldn't be suprised it the United States found some huge oil reserves on Federal land right about the time oil hits $190 a barrel.

 

Question is just how much oil do we have? I mean are we just using other oil till it really does peak then become our own supplier when the rest of the world is vying for what’s left in the middle east and South America?

 

Or hold our supplies until the money is really good in oil, then cash in.

 

I doubt we would export our oil in that case. We are such a large consumer.

 

I don't actually think that's the case that we're holding back on our reserves, but it could be. Smacks of conspiracy, therefore it seems farfetched.

 

US finds peaked in the 30s, production peaked in the 70s.
British north sea has peaked. We have found he strata of rocks that hold oil all over the world. 90% lies in pockets of a just about gallon. Not worth shit iow.

Yankee ingenuity is now trying to re-invent the way azi-germany used coal for producing fuel during ww2. The airforce ( Half federal fuel consumption ) is especially eager.

USA has those fields in Alaska. They will let you drive BIG suv`s 1o years more. ( Nobody believes it wil be used rationally after all ). But the cars in Mexico are just as wasteful tools of empty machismo, so I dont blame you
Even europeans like to bark from the highest drivers seat. Bitches like it as well, so the most primitive will breed more. But Smurf is right about one thing.
Alternative sources cant fill the gap. Even construction of a few hundred new nuclear plants wouldhave to be timedso that the new ( cheapor extra ) energy would not be eaten upp by bigger neonsigns and airconditioned parkinglots. They would have to be started up in time with the closing down of oilsupply. Else, free market would fuck it all up.

 

Airconditioned parking lots hmmmm you may be onto something there. :wink: