# More global warming signs



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

> If we compare this April with all previous Aprils, there's hundreds of thousands of square kilometres less ice," he said.


linky

Sounds pretty damning to me. Sure is a good thing we are committed to controlling pollution in this nation.


Oh, wait....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Don't you know, those are only flawed facts....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The facts are the facts. It's the theories that flow from them that are flawed.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You mean that the bulk of the warming is not due to of human activities??

Some people still think the world is flat too....and that Ol' seven days and rested thing.


----------



## Eukaryotic (Jan 24, 2005)

I think any sane person would conclude that regardless of the cause for the rise in surface temps, it makes more sense to go ahead and start planning for a warmer future.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I think any sane person would understand that we caused it and

a) prepare
b) address the activities that casued the rising in greenhouses gases as there is NO DOUBT that it's us.

Whethere we are enhancing a longer cycle or not is immaterial and clearly massive changes like a 30% drop int eh North Atlantic Current circulation in 30 years are due to our impact.

MY worry is that most scientists feel it's irreversable now and tha 4 meter rises in sea level and a 3+ degree rise overall are inevitable and arriving quickly.
Its that resignation that frightens me more than anything....and the rate of change may yet not be fully grasped.

There is somewhat of a chance that the Northern Hemisphere could loop back far colder is the current stops entirely - personally in the longer scale that is less of a threat in my mind than upward heat.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think we should start prepaing for a future of less stable weather conditions. MacDoc, I'm afraid the so-called "consensus" of scientists doesn't exist. There's a wide disagreement on the cause of gobal warming--the latest being natural water vapour and solar activity. I would agree with those who say that "human caused-global warming" has filled the gap left for many by religion. It has everything to do with faith, little to do with fact.

I like this consensus better than the previous consensus about global cooling though. Perhaps the next consensus could extend summer by about a month and limit extreme cold to just January.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

The science behind global warming points overwhelmingly to an association with human activity. But, just like smoking and lung cancer, it is just that, an association. By the time our politicians have proof that our casual ignorance of the effects of fossil fuel consumption on this planet, our kids and grandchildren will be living a very different way of life.

Why is it that people accept science when it benefits them (new drugs, new technologies, new gadgets) but dismiss it when it means they have to change their habits against their preference?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I've seen it referred to as,

Treating the atmosphere as a free waste receptacle.

Very appropriate. There is nothing wrong with pollution occuring: our existence, by necessity, means the world won't be pristine and there is a certain degree of recoverability. The enviro-nuts that implicitly advocate the unreasonable don't help the debate. But, if there is no charge for something it is treated as worthless and will be overused. That is where we are now. We need to move to paying the 'right' price for our disposal services. I don't know the 'right' price, but it isn't $0.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

By all means, the atmosphere shouldn't be used as a free dump. But jumping to conclusions about human-initiated global warming won't help that cause either.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> But, if there is no charge for something it is treated as worthless and will be overused. That is where we are now. We need to move to paying the 'right' price for our disposal services. I don't know the 'right' price, but it isn't $0.


Until then, we should maximize what we can do/is being done to reduce the causes.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I wouldn't call over 20 years of research "jumping to conclusions". There again, there are still some people who deny that smoking can cause lung cancer after 50 years of research.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> By all means, the atmosphere shouldn't be used as a free dump. But jumping to conclusions about human-initiated global warming won't help that cause either.


I think you would acknowledge that the possibility is real. I may be in the 99% camp, and you in the 10% camp but, considering the impact, even 10% is worth acting on. The odds of being robbed are low, but we still get insurance. 

If the actual costs of action are low (arguably negative, if done right) they should be pursued, even in the 10% probability case. The insurance aspect also highlights the need for adaptation: if it's coming, we need to adapt to the results (human-induced or not).


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I would love to hear just one thing from the "not human caused" camp.

*Where did the huge increase in CO2 come from over the past 300 years if not from human activities?*

I will assume the proven science of more CO2=more heat in th atmosphere is NOT a theory.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc: You may assume anything you like. It's your religion, not mine.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> MacDoc: You may assume anything you like. It's your religion, not mine.


Funny coming from the only one being a blind zealot here is....


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> I would love to hear just one thing from the "not human caused" camp.
> 
> *Where did the huge increase in CO2 come from over the past 300 years if not from human activities?*
> 
> I will assume the proven science of more CO2=more heat in th atmosphere is NOT a theory.


I think they acknowledge where the CO2 comes from. They just don't make the link between that and global warming.

A group in the US is about to start an advertising campaign to promote their view that global warming isn't necessarily a bad thing in advance of Al Gore's upcoming film. One of the commercials has a scene with a child blowing a dandylion while the commentator says CO2 is good for plant growth.  

I hate seeing people try to spin science for political aims. This is REAL. We only have one planet. There is no greater threat in the world right now than what we pose to the environment.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

>>zealot n : a fervent and even militant proponent of something [syn: partisan] ...

I'm not proposing anything, just refusing to accept the propositions posted here.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> There is no greater threat in the world right now than what we pose to the environment.


:clap: 

We have the environment, productivity and other major issues that will make our future and define what our society can choose versus what we will be forced into doing by 'circumstance'. Historical choices play a huge role in current 'circumstances'. 

The public focus? Something else entirely, although the 'environment' and 'economy', for example, poll high. I think ehmac is a great venue to try to get people discussing more important things to consider when voting and when talking to others about public policy. 

Agreement is irrelevant, but placing importance on non-newscycle issues is important. I'm not optimistic, but even if I get 1 or 2 people to put more weight on 'weightier' issues, I think I've done something valuable. Pay it forward.

It's even better when they agree.










end rant.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Bllind zealot is about right. I ask a simple question about a fact and get a dodge worthy of Ben Stiller.
Flat earther.......
••

Vandave - the reason a greenhouse gets hot is the same reason the atmosphere is getting hot.
Gases change the heat retention just as glass does. It cannot be reflected back out so it is retained.
This is basic stuff, you can't changes the laws of physics to suit a pet idea idea about it's not manmade.

The issue is how much how fast and what other impacts will have on the climate circulation. More ice = more reflection and less retention of heat versus say an ice free ocean.
The climate has a feedback system with water vapour, cloud cover, ice mass and even the positioning of the continents ( in long scale ) affecting how heat is pumped from the poles and cooler water to the equator.
To say we are not having a major impact on the climate is at this stage is just plain denial of reality.

'Course some continue to consider evolution......"just a theory".......intelligent company you're travelling in there MF. Maybe thermal speed is that of all those angels on a pin playing tennis.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

By all means propose some controls on pollution. I just don't need to buy into science-fiction to get to that place.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Vandave - the reason a greenhouse gets hot is the same reason the atmosphere is getting hot.
> Gases change the heat retention just as glass does. It cannot be reflected back out so it is retained.
> This is basic stuff, you can't changes the laws of physics to suit a pet idea idea about it's not manmade.


Your preaching to the choir. I understand the science behind it, I am just telling you what other people think. It's not my pet idea. I think global warming (or a good part of it) is related to our activities.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc: I'm sorry to have made you so angry that you're hurling names around. This is the same reaction I see when people believe their religion is being criticized. 

In future, I will try to be more respectful of your belief system.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

MacFury, you are out to lunch on this one. Whether your initial comments (before the smug assininity of the last few) warranted the insults or not, is fair game. But on the facts of the discussion, you are flat wrong. I realise you don't really care for my opinion, nor are likely to change your mind, but I want to add my voice to the chorus that points out the incredible wrongness of your small thinking on this subject. We are in DEEP sh*t. And the sooner that we pull our collective heads out of our *sses and start making the enormous changes to our consumption patterns that our necessary, the better. I hold little hope for that happening in time, however.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Our household has taken steps to cut back on energy consumption in a big way. Every little nuance is taken into consideration including turnin out the light when leaving a room. I now work mostly from home and have cut gas consumption to one tank a month from four.

I have stopped driving my collector cars entirely. Thermostats are turned down to 66 f at night and only 68 f during the day. Clothes are now washed in cold water, the hot water tank is turned down by 25%.

I could go on and on, but by now you should be getting the picture.

Have YOU begun doing YOUR part yet?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Calling me smug or assinine doesn't strengthen your argument. 

I disagree with the "science" you believe in. I disagree with the scientists you cite. Why this should make you angry is beyond me. I'm certainly not angry with the global warming crowd. 

Conservation is a fine idea. That you conserve doesn't add weight to your ideas or beliefs about global warming.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

MF - just dig your idiocy deeper - that good ol gut reaction at work again.

You can misuse language about religion and scientific theory all you wish - you are just painting yourself as a fool as the reaction shows.
Heed the the guy that knows the difference.

You sound like a 6 year old told the Tooth Fairy isn't real.
...angry?? ..nope.......suffer fools??? not that either.
••

I'm actually pleased to see the effort finally coming about to lower the econ footprint - it's sad it took this level of threat to bring it about and I'd love to see Canada lead in this area but I think Western Europe is well ahead and to some degree Japan as well.

I wonder which northern climate nation has the best model for us.
While we all can do our part as Sinc shows it will be the major centres that need to get programs like Portlands integrated effort that will really pay off.
The big leverage is in the population centres.

Stuff like the Bank of America Platinum LEEDs building is encouraging and exciting...and gorgeous  









This is terrific technology I would hope Toronto puts into the building code.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> This is terrific technology I would hope Toronto puts into the building code.


The reality is that one day it will be a standard everywhere. The only question in my mind is when. Sustainability and energy efficiency isn't going to be a choice, but a necessity. It will be a design guideline like every other engineering principle.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah I just cannot understand given the clear cost benefits let alone environmental benefits it's not already manadatory.
The Bank of America building will only cost some 7% over standard construction costs and recoup that in I think 5 years or less in reduced energy costs.....and the environmental benefits PLUS public goodwill for the project are just of incalcuable value to the company and the planet as an example.

That was the most interesting part of the Portland information - how the whole city gets involved - even down to the Pizza delivery.

Surely an intelligent combo of incentives for Green and disincentives for non-Green can be implemented quickly ...we only have a few large centres.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Gosh, MacDoc you've got a sharp tongue. I don't know what I've done to deserve this hissy fit. 

Anyway, LEED has little to do with environmental threat--much more to do with conservation of energy and life cycle costs. It also isn't technology--the choice of how to achieve LEED standards is up to the individual designer/builder. Some LEED points are achieved simply by chosing a qualified architect. But LEED points are strangely weighted. You can get one LEED point for installing a multi-million dollar efficient heating system--or a bike rack. Interestingly, you can't write LEED into the building code--though you can aim for it--because you don't know if you've made it until you're certified by the Canadian Green Building Council. The Federal Government has committed to attempt to achieve LEED Gold standard with five recent federal building projects, but they won't know if they've made it until each building is assessed by the Council.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Yeah I just cannot understand given the clear cost benefits let alone environmental benefits it's not already manadatory.
> The Bank of America building will only cost some 7% over standard construction costs and recoup that in I think 5 years or less in reduced energy costs.....and the environmental benefits PLUS public goodwill for the project are just of incalcuable value to the company and the planet as an example.
> 
> That was the most interesting part of the Portland information - how the whole city gets involved - even down to the Pizza delivery.
> ...


I have trouble believing its only 7% for LEED platinum. I'd believe 20 or 30%. I do a lot of work with developers and they are suspicious of true LEED building costs. In any case, I still think 20 to 30% is manageable if implemented over a period of time.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I should also mention that some smaller and mid-sized building projects have chosen to by-pass LEED, because the cost of certification is so great, as compared to the building budget, that it would prevent them from being able to afford important environment-friendly features.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

VANDAVE is right. Additional costs are often fudged. For example, material on a LEED Gold project may cost 5% more, but other costs exceed that--and there are many other costs on a LEED project. Even LEED proponents are unhappy with lowballing because they'd be happy to present a case where the costs are 20% higher--and worth it.

There aren't many Platinums out there.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The government (at the bureaucratic level) was in the early stages of considering building labelling standards like those labels on appliances. I don't know if they were envisioning giant stickers on every new building...probably not. 

I don't know if that work is continuing, but there are too many very different and differently credible standards out there. For homes, R-2000 is still the most widely accepted benchmark but something a little more informative (and new) is needed. For commercial buildings, there isn't really a solid standard that I've heard of. Then again, I wasn't involved in that work.

'Efficiency' costs are quite often understated, and 5-7% does sound low. Inertia is a factor in commercial building design, but lifecycle costs are taken into consideration. Manitoba Hydro's new head office (under construction) is another efficient design, but I'm not sure what the true incremental costs are. The promotional and symbolic aspect (especially for an energy company) is quite valuable I'd imagine.

http://www.hydro.mb.ca/issues/downtown_final_design.shtml

It is also targeting LEED but seems to involve much more.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

From what I understand to qualify for Platinum LEED ( yep there are very few at any scale ) the analysis of of source material, construction technique, Green aspects and downstream aspects such as demolition and even the internal contents of the building ( ie types of computers used, office furniture etc right down to the recyclable aspect of the packing materials they come in ) are subject to the the standard to be approved.
Given that level of analysis I would suspect the costing against traditional materials to be fairly accurate.

I spoke to a woman while travelling and they were building a small Platinum level tourist facility on Manitoulin Island and the detail of requirements were quite remarkable even for that size of facility. The computers they were considering ( Macs ) had to be up to the standards for Platinum approval.

One thing I don't understand is how LEED assesses energy efficiency as there are so many approaches.

I think it's gratifiying that people like her see the benefit to their business as a magnet for eco- conscious travellers above beyond the "feel good for the environment" and energy savings over time.

I guess it's akin to "smoke free" being a draw for hotels now. I saw one big chain the other day advertising 100% smoke free.

When consumers start to discriminate this way it's a good thing in my mind. Body Shop built a very respectable branding based on "no animal testing".

If developers see a LEED stamp of approval as a strong positive in attracting buyers rather than an "imposed extra cost" nuisance, that would be ideal.

I think this is one area where activism in the way of writing to mayors and local officials questioning when sustainable development codes are coming may work well in bringing it about more quickly.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

LEED is still envisioned as a voluntary standard because enforcing efforts to achieve it (Washington State, etc.) changes the cost equation. The initial idea was that you COULD build a LEED building for a certain premium--but that's changed to the mantra that ANYONE can build such a building at a certain cost in ALL situations. Clearly not true. Some builders probably already meet LEED criteria but won't pay for certification because of the high costs of certifying.

>>One thing I don't understand is how LEED assesses 
>>energy efficiency as there are so many approaches.

The system is complicated beyond reason, involving extensive computer modeling and odd assumptions. One builder who wanted to use geothemal energy sources for heating was told he couldn't receive the LEED energy points because the system had to be 30% more efficient than other buildings using geothermal energy--not traditionally heated buildings.

In terms of energy savings, LEED doesn't always work. The "energy points" cost far more than the other points to achieve (locating on a public transit line, installing a bike rack) so they're often the last to be attempted. On some projects, projected savings from complex energy efficient systems have been offset by high maintenance costs. In some cases, LEED certified buildings have been found to consume MORE energy than traditional buildings. 

I've spoken to some members of the Canadian Green Building Council who would rather not see LEED tied to global warming theories. One reason, perhaps, is that the standards don't always support "global warming" goals. Example: you'd be rated as more efficient if you derived electricity from a bio-mass facility (lots of 'greenhouse' gases) than if you derived it from a hydroelectric plant (almost no 'greenhouse' gases).


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.enermodal.com/Canadian/leed_explained.html

Handy quick information.


http://www.cagbc.org/uploads/FINAL_LEED CANADA-NC 1.0_Green Building Rating System.pdf

The checklist and descriptions.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Treating the atmosphere as a free waste receptacle.
> 
> Very appropriate. There is nothing wrong with pollution occuring: our existence, by necessity, means the world won't be pristine and there is a certain degree of recoverability.


Wonder what this falls into:


> At the same time, Harper used a visit by Australian Prime Minister John Howard to say his Conservative government is "looking carefully'' at a United States proposal that would compel uranium exporting countries such as Canada to repatriate and dispose of spent nuclear fuel.
> A key component of the GNEP, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, is the concept of `cradle-to-grave' fuel leasing that incorporates `used fuel take-back' for exporting countries.
> 
> "Australia and Canada, as the two major uranium producers in the world, have considerable interest in whatever the United States and the international community have in mind in terms of future uranium development, production and marketing,'' said Harper.
> ...


http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=4470fea8-8f09-4e06-80b7-801f2e9116df&k=77828


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Cue fast breeders. One person's waste is anothers perfectly good fuel with 95% of the extractable energy remaining.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Has anybody nicknamed fast breeders "Bunnies"? If not, I'd like to officially coin it.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Wonder what this falls into:


There aren't many sources of energy that Canada doesn't have a lot of relative to most of the world. Lots of fossil fuels, uranium, wind, biomass, hydro and even fat people.  We're pretty much just disadvantaged in solar, what with being so far north. Of course, we can get solar indirectly from the other energy forms and directly with passive solar designs. Or we could just overpay for solar panels to make us feel good. 42 cents a kilowatt hour in Ontario.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

The point is that depleted rods are a form of pollution. Taking back the spent ones puts the onus of disposal on us and not the people who benefits the most from uranium.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> The point is that depleted rods are a form of pollution. Taking back the spent ones puts the onus of disposal on us and not the people who benefits the most from uranium.


We should charge them more then. Commodity + disposal. Of course, that would make non-AU and non-CA uranium more competitive. Tough issue when other suppliers will not require disposal but, for the short-to-medium term, AU and CA can move the market. In the long-term, other resources may get developed, although CA's will still likely be the cheapest. The richness of Saskatchewan uranium deposits is quite remarkable.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Are we really the cause of global warming?



> Greenhouse effect of man-made CO2 emissions are less than 1%


http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Does global warming even exist?


> Global cooling is a theory positing an overall cooling of the Earth and perhaps the commencement of glaciation.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Can we draw conclusions from inaccurate data?


> Satellites, which measure temperatures all over the world, they show no real trend in any direction, in fact in recent decades, they show a global cooling.


http://www.cs.usask.ca/undergrads/kmb129/490/assignments/assignment_1/against_global_warming.html

Maybe the planet just does this things every one in a while.


> Studies of ice age temperature variations show carbon dioxide levels increasing after warming rather than before.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Your links are notably out of date ranging from 1970 to 2000.

Wiki is commenting on a theory not currently accepted from the 1970s and indeed there is question as to which way long term cycles are adding to or ameliorating current increases. The time scales of these changes versus what is occurring now are very different.

Satellite data from NASA confirmed the temperature increase. 2005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4495463.stm

Pre mid 90s much of the heating was hidden by solar dimming due to particulates in the air. 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4171591.stm
They cleared up and the temperatures jumped enormously and now the rate of change has alarmingly accelerated.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news-print.cfm?release=2005-176


Your first link is playing with numbers it's increase over baseline that counts and that increase in CO HAS translated in measurable over all increase in average temperature and relatively large, easily measurable increases in the poles both of temperature and ice cover and melting as a result.
Next you'll tell me the increase in temperature is tiny from 0 Kelvin so we shouldn't be concerned.

This is 2006 and much much more is known and accepted and in measurable terms. The change in the Gulf Stream NAC flow was determined recently. ( 2004 )
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0415gyre.html

At least use current information in your uphill effort.
A better argument to undertake "well it's happening but it's not a bad thing ".
THAT has some legs.
Denying the reality of visible easily seen global climate change at this point is getting into flat earth territory.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

King Canute.....?

Even GWB accepts that global warming is real - he just prefers to "believe" in other causes. The rate of change is accelerating. There is no doubt that the earth has cycled by several degrees over recent (1 million years - oops - sorry Creationists, bear with me) periods - in other words, cycles are natural. However, flooding is natural too and its impact on people is often due to human behaviours (New Orleans was a disaster waiting to happen).

An average temperature rise of 3 degrees Celsius is cataclysmic in terms of ocean currents, fresh water availability, crop yields, energy consumption, port activity, sea level.... We can dig our heads in the sand, or try to mitigate. We can choose not to believe data or we can cross our fingers. We can ignore the plight of our children or we can stand up for the future. (Sounds like a political speech....).

Like preparedness for a global flu pandemic, it simply makes no sense to decide not to try to conserve, reduce emissions, etc. The economics are clear. Thar's as much money to be made in building a more efficient future as there is in carrying on as though there is no tomorrow. We just have to care.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Some of these arguments remind me of a guy I knew who would always quote from the Bible, then argue that anyone else's quotations didn't count because they were from the Greek translation, Aramaic, or altered by King James.

I find this site interesting: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury: What about my 10% argument and the very real possibility that emissions can be reduced with economic benefit? The risk, even at 10%, is substantial and the costs may not exist (consumption taxes versus income/profit taxes). It may be backhanded, so I can see why you would disagree with using tax reform on false pretenses, but the 10% argument remains. The planet needs insurance.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej: I'm all in favour of reducing emissions with economic benefit. I'm all in favour of using technology to produce cleaner air. I agree that the atmosphere ought not to be a free dumping ground. 

I don't agree that humans have contributed significantly--if at all--to global warming.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Macfury said:


> I find this site interesting: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3


I found that site very interesting too and goes along with the feelings I've had about global climate change. I specially enjoyed the end of the last video. Kyoto IS a waste of resources. We should be spending money instead on helping those affected to adapt.

BTW, people use the word pollution and global warming in the same breath. They are two different things.

I whole heartedly accept we need to clean up our air and water of dangerous toxins which we breathe and drink. No doubt we have a need for cleaner energy. This however has absolutely nothing to do with Kyoto emissions which are CO2.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Your links are notably out of date ranging from 1970 to 2000


And contain information out of context.


> However, the Earth is not considered to be cooling at this time, but rather to be in a period of global warming primarily attributed to human activity


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Do yourself a favour, AS--don't quote the WIKI. If I don't like your WIKI article I'll find one I like better..or write one I approve of.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Do yourself a favour, AS--don't quote the WIKI. If I don't like your WIKI article I'll find one I like better..or write one I approve of.


MacFury - you'll have to follow a little closer - 
guytoronto used wiki to illustrate a point - I just showed that he took what he wanted out of context.
If you want to start a debate on the validity of wiki as source material, please start another thread.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

The "Friends" of Science appears to be just another group of carbon industry funded global warming deniers. The people listed on the site all have connections with the huge global warming denying industry in the US and are on boards and payrolls of fossil fuel funded groups like the American Petroleum Institute, Tech Central Science Foundation, The Heritage Foundation, The Fraser Institute, The Annapolis Center for Science Based Public Policy. The fact that they appear to be on the fringes of the mainstream of scientific opinion and the fact that many are not climate experts, but astrophysicists, geologists, geographers etc, doesn't lend them too much credence in my mind.

We lay people are not in a very good position to judge the technical merits of climate change arguments. One thing that informs my view is to look at who funds the skeptics and who they are connected with. There are billions of dollars being thrown around throughout North America for those who will lend legitimacy to anti-global warming "studies".

Another thing I think about when I assess the issue follows. 

IF the global warming proponents are wrong, what are the positive and negative consequences of following their recommendations anyway? Positive: less pollution and less death caused by it, less environmental destruction from the use of fossil fuels, more valuable fossil resources left in the ground for future use, economic benefits from research and implementation of cleaner energy sources. Negative: more competition to fossil fuel industry and their stockholders from alt energy sources, some, but not insurmountable, economic cost to society to make the transition to cleaner energy sources.

BUT IF the global warming proponents are right, but we choose to do nothing much about it, what are the positive and negative consequences? Negative: massive environmental and economic costs. Positive: hmmm, ... we can all drive our SUVs around and fossil fuel industry profits won't be affected for a few extra years.

Funny how it's supposed conservatives that are willing to make this gamble with our future, for short term benefit. Whatever happened to real conservatives?

And what is it that really motivates these global warming deniers anyway? Could it have something to do with $$$?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The "Friends" of Science appears to be just another group of carbon industry funded global warming deniers. The people listed on the site all have connections with the huge global warming denying industry in the US and are on boards and payrolls of fossil fuel funded groups like the American Petroleum Institute, Tech Central Science Foundation, The Heritage Foundation, The Fraser Institute, The Annapolis Center for Science Based Public Policy. The fact that they appear to be on the fringes of the mainstream of scientific opinion and the fact that many are not climate experts, but astrophysicists, geologists, geographers etc, doesn't lend them too much credence in my mind.


A big difficulty with this line of reasoning is that many proponents get funding based on their opinion. There is good science out there, but mutual discrediting by not liking funding sources doesn't get anywhere.

That said, the Friends does have some questionable members. Does the mainstream bunch have some questionable members?


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

If you have time watch this video of a global climate change course by Professor Tim Patterson, PHD @ Carleton University.
I find his take on the global climate change contraversy very interesting.
http://cdn.canadacast.ca/vod/cutv/ERTH 2402/ERTH_2402-2006-01-12-A.smil

it's a real file (I know ppl hate real)... I watched the whole thing, but some may prefer to startat 1:05:15


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beej said:


> A big difficulty with this line of reasoning is that many proponents get funding based on their opinion. There is good science out there, but mutual discrediting by not liking funding sources doesn't get anywhere.
> 
> That said, the Friends does have some questionable members. Does the mainstream bunch have some questionable members?


Why doesn't it get anywhere? If the board members of Friends of Science all do work with organizations that are funded by Exxon or the coal industry, or are directly funded by these groups, then that puts up a big red flag for me.

As MacDoc said above, it's like the tobacco industry funding research into nicotine addiction and lung cancer, it becomes immediately suspect.

I wasn't evaluating the "mainstream group" here, I don't know if they a central site, but I know they are far larger group. They may indeed have some questionable members, but who would be funding them by the billions, solar panel manufacturers?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Friends does have some questionable members.


 
..given to understatement a bit tonight Beej.

I think you'll find the sources, NASA, NOAA, BBC Science etc rather rigorous in their vetting of results and articles.

There are indeed serious doom and gloomers on the global temperature increase side.
That said the unfortunate aspect is that some of what was considered "hype" like 4 meter rises in ocean level and a melted Greenland are now pretty much accepted by the mainstream community as inevitable 
..and that "inevitable" is the truly scary part.

Is Kyoto the best way.....most likely not.....is it a start.....yep.

Even GWB has been dragging kicking and whining to acknowledge the changes that are now coming much faster than anticipated and that maybe something needs to be done.

Still the flat earthers have their adherents.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> NASA, NOAA, BBC


ah, just a bunch of humpty dumpters
might as well be wiki


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> :Is Kyoto the best way.....most likely not.....is it a start.....yep.


Too bad that it's all but dead for Canada.

The new sheriff in town wants to derail that ASAP...


> C'est qu'un document confidentiel, qui circule à la Conférence des Nations unies sur les changements climatiques à Bonn, en Allemagne, révèle que le gouvernement Harper veut faire dérailler les négociations pour que la deuxième phase du protocole de Kyoto soit remplacée par la Convention de Rio, moins contraignante.


http://www.canoe.com/infos/quebeccanada/archives/2006/05/20060520-144557.html



> According to documents obtained by the Globe and Mail, the Conservative government will oppose a plan to set tougher greenhouse gas emissions targets for developed nations in the second phase of the Kyoto Protocol, *and wants to see the climate change agreement phased out.*
> 
> The revelations were contained in private instructions provided to Canadian negotiators attending United Nations talks on Kyoto in Bonn.


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...yoto_documents_060520/20060520?hub=TopStories


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

with the oil sands projects spewing out green house gases like 60 yr. old men after a date at the all you can eat chili bar and even more oil sands projects to come, harper et al don't want to piss off their big $$$ contributors

"Senator, I do not believe that cigarettes cause cancer"
- paraphrased from the US Senate hearings with the CEOs of big tobacco


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sorry AS--I misread. Beej says I should hug you.

But I do find people's love of certain sources interesting. People love NASA and NOAA when the research supports their belief systesm--ignore them when the evidence points the other way. The type of argument I love is when some left leaning group finds a tiny ray of hope in something published by the Fraser Institute and say: "See! Even the Fraser Institute supports me on this one."

Worst case scenario if we give in to Global Warming theorists? Depends which ones. The worst want there to be only 1,000,000 humans on Earth. The likely scenario--somewhat cleaner air in North America, trillions of dollars squandered, developing nations free to pollute and overtake us economically, Earth warming and cooling on its own schedule, global warming theorists braying that whatever the Earth's climate is doing at any particular moment is beacause they predicted it or because someone didn't move heaven and Earth to do exactly as they commanded.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Speccy: What does the "date" have to do with the 60-year-old mans gases? Wouldn't he pass the same amount of gas if he went to the chili-fest solo?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I was just thinking about how Mars must be experiencing ferocious Global Warming--with 95% of its atmosphere made up of carbon dioxide.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Why doesn't it get anywhere? If the board members of Friends of Science all do work with organizations that are funded by Exxon or the coal industry, or are directly funded by these groups, then that puts up a big red flag for me.
> 
> As MacDoc said above, it's like the tobacco industry funding research into nicotine addiction and lung cancer, it becomes immediately suspect.
> 
> I wasn't evaluating the "mainstream group" here, I don't know if they a central site, but I know they are far larger group. They may indeed have some questionable members, but who would be funding them by the billions, solar panel manufacturers?


All good points. I agree with the 'big red flag' comment, but it does not refute any evidence given. It does suggest that time may be spent better reading something else.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Too bad that it's all but dead for Canada.
> 
> The new sheriff in town wants to derail that ASAP...
> 
> ...


Remember what I said about AP6, er, AP7. :heybaby:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Remember what I said about AP6, er, AP7. :heybaby:


Which part of it?
The non-enforcement? Setting your own goals?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

AP6 is 'When you wish upon a star' policy. It's all well and good to fund technology research (quite a good idea) but to have a climate change plan based on hoping for a techno-solution or based on non-enforcement is not really a plan. But AP7 would be completely different because there's a 7 instead of a 6.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej: I think it's better to turn it up to an 11, 'cause that's LOUDER.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Speccy: What does the "date" have to do with the 60-year-old mans gases? Wouldn't he pass the same amount of gas if he went to the chili-fest solo?


the date was with the chili bar


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> Media Darling on 'Global Warming' Assailed by Colleagues
> By Marc Morano
> April 17, 2006
> 
> ...


http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=/SpecialReports/archive/200604/SPE20060417a.html


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

.....
As Cybercast News Service previously reported, Hansen publicly endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president in 2004 and received a $250,000 grant from the charitable foundation headed by Kerry's wife. 

In addition, he has acted as a consultant to former Democratic Vice President Al Gore's slide-show presentations on "global warming." 

Hansen, who also complained about censorship during the administration of President George H. W. Bush in 1989, previously acknowledged that he supported the "emphasis on extreme scenarios" regarding climate change models in order to drive the public's attention to the issue.
.....


There is a certain amount of intellecutal in-breeding that is raising hackles but it too does not discredit the work. It just raises flags about some of the louder advocates (yea or nay). I guess a rule-of-thumb that could be used is that a scientists' loud*shrill factor is inversely proportional to their accuracy*objectivity factor.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/2006/05/19/suzuki-nude.html

He looks like that at 70!

This is a sign of global warming, and therefore on-topic, in that he, er, doesn't look very cold in the picture.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Suzuki's had more than his share of kids, putting an excessive strain on the environment.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Suzuki's had *more than his share of kids*, putting an excessive strain on the environment.


Aren't you the one saying that parents should be able to afford kids....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Yes, I think parents should be able to afford their kids. 

I'm speaking from a hypocritical environmental standard. Suzuki has gone out of his way with a little song and dance number about how it's all right for HIM to have lots of children because he will do a better job of raising them to be eco-friendly.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

so only non-environmentally friendly rich people are supposed to have children?

eg. oil patch executives?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

No, Speccy--I just expect ecomaniacs to limit their number of progeny to support their message.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Ottawaman said:


> If you have time watch this video of a global climate change course by Professor Tim Patterson, PHD @ Carleton University.
> I find his take on the global climate change contraversy very interesting.
> http://cdn.canadacast.ca/vod/cutv/ERTH 2402/ERTH_2402-2006-01-12-A.smil
> 
> it's a real file (I know ppl hate real)... I watched the whole thing, but some may prefer to startat 1:05:15



Thanks for the link Ottawaman. 
Boy does this guy ever throw into question the man made global warming theories. Well worth a listen. Its amazing how the Global warming lobby use selective data to scare the crap out of us. It was especially telling when he looked at arctic temperatures back to the 1880s showing the 1930s were way warmer in the arctic than now yet the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment purposely excluded data before 1970 so they could show a nice steady climbing graph. Why would this supposed scientific study exclude the data that shows it was warmer in the 30s? 
What an eye opener! 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think there's the very real possibility that some people would like to re-organize society along socio-environmentalist lines and are willing to forego hard science to pursue those ends. For the hard leftists among the global warming theory crew, I believe a hatred of the capitalist economic model informs their desire to reign in its efficiencies and institute a sort of socialism under the guise of environmentalism. I'm sure many of the proponents actually believe their own global warming theories--but studies predicting dire environmental catastrophes beget more funding.

Don't you wish Loius Pasteur had gone with the "scientific consensus" before embarking on his fruitless line of research?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Macfury said:


> I think there's the very real possibility that some people would like to re-organize society along socio-environmentalist lines and are willing to forego hard science to pursue those ends. For the hard leftists among the global warming theory crew, I believe a hatred of the capitalist economic model informs their desire to reign in its efficiencies and institute a sort of socialism under the guise of environmentalism. I'm sure many of the proponents actually believe their own global warming theories--but studies predicting dire environmental catastrophes beget more funding.
> 
> Don't you wish Loius Pasteur had gone with the "scientific consensus" before embarking on his fruitless line of research?


Hi MacFury

I tend to agree. I get the sense there's a larger social agenda at play here.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah right...... On the other hand about said article.
http://www.perc.ca/PEN/2005-10-11/s-notebook.html

•••

This a very recent analysis and goes back much further to the 1860s, it modelled solar changes as a possible explanation.
ONLY greenhouse gas changes matched model to observation.
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/walker.shtml



> Slowdown in Tropical Pacific Flow Pinned on Climate Change
> 
> May 3, 2006
> 
> BOULDER, Colorado—The vast loop of winds that drives climate and ocean behavior across the tropical Pacific has weakened by 3.5% since the mid-1800s, and it may weaken another 10% by 2100, according to a study led by University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) scientist Gabriel Vecchi. The study indicates that the only plausible explanation for the slowdown is human-induced climate change. The findings appear in the *May 4 issue of Nature.*


I'll take a Nature vetted comprehensive study over a single opinon in a university newletter.

It's not only the Atlantic circulation dropping now but also the much more massive Pacific one.



> Several theoretical studies have shown that an increase in greenhouse gases should produce a weakening of the Walker circulation. As temperatures rise and more water evaporates from the ocean, water vapor in the lower atmosphere increases rapidly. But physical processes prevent precipitation from increasing as quickly as water vapor. Since the amount of water vapor brought to the upper atmosphere must remain in balance with precipitation, the rate at which moist air is brought from the lower to the upper atmosphere slows down to compensate. This leads to a slowing of the atmospheric circulation.
> 
> Based on observations since the mid-1800s, the paper reports a 3.5% slowdown in the Walker circulation, which corresponds closely to the number predicted by theory. To establish whether human-induced climate change is at work, Vecchi and colleagues analyzed 11 simulations using the latest version of the GFDL climate model spanning the period 1861 to 2000. Some of the simulations included the observed increase in greenhouse gases; others included just the natural climate-altering factors of volcanic eruptions and solar variations. Only the simulations that included an increase in greenhouse gases showed the Walker circulation slowing, and they did so at a rate consistent with the observations.
> 
> Based on the theoretical considerations, and extrapolating from their 1861–2000 analysis as well as from other simulations for the 21st century, the authors conclude that by 2100 the Walker circulation could slow by an additional 10%. This means the steering of ocean flow by trade winds could decrease by close to 20%.


These are massive changes on a globla scale and will alter weather patterns everywhere in the world in very unpredictable ways.

Get real.......the climate is warming quickly, unevenly and for the most part we caused it and have to deal with it as it's not likely reversible.

Stick your head in the sand if you want - your ass is still gonna get fried regardless.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc: OK, take the NATURE-vetted article. Nobody is trying to change your mind. After all, you have consensus on your side.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The last part of macdoc's latest rant claims "...and we caused it.."

Interesting. Given the fact that this same sort of rapid and uneven climactic change has occurred regularly in this planet's long history, then what makes you think that we are the culprit this time around?

Better yet...what makes you think we can somehow STOP the regular changes in climate that the earth experiences? HAS experienced. WILL AGAIN experience.

I'm with MacGuiver et al on this. It's a last ditch attempt to serve the ends of a now dead political ideology by pointing to the sky and crying "EEEK! Follow us and we'll fix it! Follow them and it will only get worse!"

Yeah, right.:lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

What's sad is that, even if you did EVERYTHING they asked of you, they'd ask for more. ANIMAL FARM on an ecological platform.

If the Earth's natural climate shifts coincided with their antics, they'd bray "See, it's working--we can do so much more!" If experience showed the opposite: "If only you'd listened to us earlier--it wasn't enough. We MUST DO MORE NOW!!!"

Buried in all of this is, I think, a sense of hubris--that we can just push buttons and change the world's climate to suit what we like best.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Agreed, Macfury. I find it terribly arrogant that some people seem to think that we can alter the world's natural cycles of weather by simply trading carbon credits. It's a bit silly.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Thanks for the reminder MacG and great link Ottawaman. Things worth thinking about, although not too convincing in my opinion. Nice high quality video and a good presentation approach.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Welcome back MacNutt.

MF: you've hit the nail on the head regarding SOME of the movement. The 'enviromaniacs' are out there and are using any and every excuse to push a Marxist agenda and various destructive ideological pursuits. Please don't let that discredit real questions and hypotheses though.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I should note here that I am all for cleaning up the environment. But Kyoto won't cut it. It's just a political excersize.

And I've been saying just exactly that, since my first days here.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> Agreed, Macfury. I find it terribly arrogant that some people seem to think that we can alter the world's natural cycles of weather by simply trading carbon credits. It's a bit silly.


Silly, not to mention wasteful. I'd rather throw the money at cleaning up lakes, dealing with landfills (plasma gasification plants) and producing clean energy alternatives. Encouraging low emission cars (city smog is a huge problem). Not because I think we can change the climate of the globe by doing this but that we can address very real problems that affect our health directly.
I'd also rather spend the money getting third world nations access to clean drinking water and proper sanitation, teaching sustainable farming practices and encouraging stronger pollution controls.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Totally agree with you on that.

And I fail to see how chasing the heavy industries out of the Kyoto signatory countries, and IN to the rapidly developing lands who aren't signing on to it will do anything to make our biosphere less pollouted.

It seems to me that this will have the opposite effect.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macguiver: That's why the economists' framework is best.









Economic gains (to fund anything the people want), local environmental clean-up and greenhouse gas reductions. Sadly, it is politically unpopular and dangerous -- tax-shifting only works if you actually shift the tax, and not if you use it for legacy spending.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BEEJ: I wouldn't want to discourage efforts to live more cleanly, but I also agree with the other posters--let's help those countries most likely to be polluters in the near future, while developing better energy alternatives. Only successful capitalist economies tend to create the kind of technology that improves the environment on any grand scale.

I do find it interesting that after I mentioned the "global-warming-as-religion" angle, we've gotten a number of posts that sound like "Old Time Revival Hour"--"I have unimpeachable information, and unless you listen to it and do exactly as it tells you, your ass is going to fry."


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I think that, for it to be totally sucessful, all of the levels of governments that were involved would also have to be free from corruption. That level of funding or wealth transfer would be considered low hanging fruit by many (most?) politicians.

We have seen how some elected officials manage to take a nice "skim" off of large scale spending programs right here in Canada. Quite recently, if memory serves.:yikes:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> We have seen how some elected officials manage to take a nice "skim" off of large scale spending programs right here in Canada. Quite recently, if memory serves.:yikes:


That's the tough part and, strangely enough, how combining it with a basic income would work so well. 

Tax-shift to enviornmental consumption, give back ~80% in income and corporate tax cuts , ~10% in transfers (within or outside of basic income...big redesign of taxes to go with a basic income) to ensure that the most vulnerable people aren't hurt by a less progressive tax system and 5% 'skim' for legacy projects to keep the politcos happy. Maybe a big field of solar panels in every riding to shut them up.  

It would help alleviate poverty and reduce the perverse marginal effective tax rates on the poor (+70% in some cases  ). The economic gains, even after the 5% skim, would still be there. So straight-forward, but so politically risky. Oh well. A Beej can dream, can't he?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Macfury said:


> BEEJ:I do find it interesting that after I mentioned the "global-warming-as-religion" angle, we've gotten a number of posts that sound like "Old Time Revival Hour"--"I have unimpeachable information, and unless you listen to it and do exactly as it tells you, your ass is going to fry."


I've noticed that. Instead of constructively debating the facts, they resort to character assassination or try to link scientists work to financial payoffs. The payoffs angle could be played on both sides. Two scientists are looking for a big chunk of government cash. Who gets it? or a news team is looking for a story, who gets the front page?

Scientist A: Man made carbon dioxide is going to destroy the world and my research proves it.

Scientist B: The earth is going through a natural cycle of climate change and there is nothing we can do to change it.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

This is from the WSJ...one of the US' more "conservative" papers. Climate change has "human fingerprints" all over it.



> Scientists Explain
> How They Attribute
> Climate-Change Data
> May 12, 2006; Page A15
> ...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

It's like observing a zillion poker hands and counting how often players are dealt a flush in five-card stud. Once you know that probability (0.002), you get suspicious if someone is dealt two flushes in a row (probability 0.000004). It might have been a fair deal, but the numbers suggest otherwise.
.....

Excellent analogy, thanks.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> Thanks for the link Ottawaman.
> Boy does this guy ever throw into question the man made global warming theories. Well worth a listen. Its amazing how the Global warming lobby use selective data to scare the crap out of us. It was especially telling when he looked at arctic temperatures back to the 1880s showing the 1930s were way warmer in the arctic than now yet the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment purposely excluded data before 1970 so they could show a nice steady climbing graph. Why would this supposed scientific study exclude the data that shows it was warmer in the 30s?
> What an eye opener!
> 
> ...


Thanks,
I thought the part about the famous "Hockey Stick" graph was interesting.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Don't you wish Loius Pasteur had gone with the "scientific consensus" before embarking on his fruitless line of research?


He actually build upon "scientific consensus" and his theories were well researched. Disingenuous aren't we?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> MF: you've hit the nail on the head regarding SOME of the movement. The 'enviromaniacs' are out there and are using any and every excuse to push a *Marxist agenda* and various destructive ideological pursuits.


Yeah right.... Care to back that up?
Or are you mistaken extremist earth-muffin views with Marxism?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> He actually build upon "scientific consensus" and his theories were well researched. Disingenuous aren't we?


"Scientific consensus" in quotes means fake to me. The scientific consensus you are talking about exists among a certain group only. Not in the general discipline.

Ideologically blinded, aren't we.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> "Scientific consensus" in quotes means fake to me. The scientific consensus you are talking about exists among a certain group only. Not in the general discipline.
> 
> Ideologically blinded, aren't we.


The quotes framed what MacFury pointed out.
Glad to see the charter members of the Flat Earth Society out in force. 
The preponderance of scientific data is against you yet you still want to debate it. 
Carbon dioxide at its highest level in 400,000 years and rising and yet the Flat Earth Society want to continue denying facts.
I recommend another thread whre you can agree amongst yourselfs and maybe you can also talk about fairies and unicorns - it should be at an appropriate scientific level after all....


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> I recommend another thread whre you can agree amongst yourselfs and maybe you can also talk about fairies and unicorns - it should be at an appropriate scientific level after all....


The fairy legislation passed under the last government and won't be up for another debate until the Fall. We can talk abou it then.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

As already noted so aptly by MacGuiver and others on this thread, It seems that some people prefer to hurl insults and heap derision on anyone who doesn't follow their narrow path of thinking. On this subject, or any other.

Flat earth society indeed. No doubt it's run by slightly reformed leftoiods who are now taking a slightly different path in order to force their dead ideas on the rank and file. Mostly by using fear and false data. Or by leaving out important facts in order to make their oh-so-important point on the matter. Whatever works, I guess. The end justifies the means.

Pseudoscience never wins any argument. History tells us this. Reality always wins, in the end.

Take note, AS.:baby:


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> History tells us this.


history tells us something about man made green house gas emmissions?
dinosaur farts caused global warming?
do tell


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacNutt and all Flat Earth Society members:
- the only ones who are narrow minded seem to be you
- this has nothing to do with Left/Right political agendas
- no one is trying to mislead anyone, leave the paranoia for your little club
- the only ones sprouting pseudoscience should read up on Karl Popper and the Quine-Duhem thesis...
- the onus is on the Flat Earth Society to dispel all notions about Global warming.

Until then, fairies and unicorns await you....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The WSJ article is picking up on selected material from selected scientists published between 1 and 3 years ago. 

Santer's "findings" are already several years old and hotly debated. Remember that Santer doctored a graph in the 1995 IPCC-FAR Second Assessment Report to bolster human anthropogenic claims.

Dr. Tim Barnett argues "...climate models based on air temperatures are weak because most of the evidence for global warming is not even there.” Among criticisms of his work: how do the oceans warm up if the air does not? Of course, melting glaciers are cooling the ocean...blah...blah...blah...

A quote attributed to Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, chief scientist of the Environmental Defense Fund (this allegiance apprently not mentioned in the WSJ article) :

"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States: We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the U.S. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are. And it is important to the rest of the world to make sure that they don't suffer economically by virtue of our stopping them."

Etc.....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

One again, though, I'm astounded by the amount of anger this debate engenders in the "I've-caused-Global-Warming" sect.

I see here that most of the people who believe global warming to be at best a fraud, and at worst, a natural phenomenon to which humans may have made an insignificant contribution are being civil in their discussion. Initiating name calling seems to be the hallmark of the "Hot Earth Society."


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Save it for the upcoming discussions on An Inconvenient Truth....



Macfury said:


> *Dr. Tim Barnett *argues "...climate models based on air temperatures are weak because most of the evidence for global warming is not even there.” Among criticisms of his work: how do the oceans warm up if the air does not? Of course, melting glaciers are cooling the ocean...blah...blah...blah...





> THE strongest evidence yet that *global warming has been triggered by human activity* has emerged from a study of rising temperatures in the oceans.
> The rise in marine temperatures — by an average of 0.5C (0.9F) in 40 years — can be explained only if greenhouse gas emissions are responsible, research has shown. The results are so compelling that they should end controversy about the causes of climate change, one of the scientists who led the study said yesterday.
> 
> “*The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people,*” said *Tim Barnett*, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. “*The models got it right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too great to believe these models, that is no longer tenable*.”


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1490248,00.html

Again, it's up to MF and your consorts to prove you "theories" - next, make sure that you are not so selective on the quotes you present. 
I have the feeling that you take everything out of context just to suit your little delusions...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Well, AS, Barnett certainly is a fan of Barnett's theories--after all, he says they're unassailable.

But I didn't say that Barnett hadn't switched to the oceans to back up his failing theories--I said that he had abandoned his atmospheric proofs when they no longer attracted enough attention.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Macfury said:


> The WSJ article is picking up on selected material from selected scientists published between 1 and 3 years ago.
> 
> Santer's "findings" are already several years old and hotly debated. Remember that Santer doctored a graph in the 1995 IPCC-FAR Second Assessment Report to bolster human anthropogenic claims.
> 
> ...


i wonder what sort of predictions he has if there WERE "another United States"??

Another large country that is rapidly mechanised and is suddenly chock FULL of heavy industries. Like, perhaps China. Or India?

Wait...that's two countries. After decades of following a dead end political path they are now experiencing very rapid economic growth. It would be folly to imagine that these two large countries won't see all of their citizens owning cars and shopping in malls in the next decade ot two. Just like we do.

China and India have, collectively, almost half of all the world's population. About two and a half BILLION souls.

Compare that with the approximately 400 million in the industrialised continent of North America.

And neither China nor India are a part of the Kyoto Accord.:yikes:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Well, AS, Barnett certainly is a fan of Barnett's theories--after all, he says they're unassailable.
> 
> But I didn't say that Barnett hadn't switched to the oceans to back up his failing theories--I said that he had abandoned his atmospheric proofs when they no longer attracted enough attention.


:yawn: :yawn: :yawn: 
Time to watch a zombie flick until the level of argument here goes up a notch or two... if only I had a fairies and unicorn movie...


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

More derision and insults. And no real solutions that don't match his narrow views. No brilliance. No acceptance of other views, or of data that is untainted by his handlers.

Nice to know that some things never change, ArtistSeries.:baby:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

When Barnett says: 

"The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people."

He is referring to HIS OWN ideas.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Say, AS...here's a thought....

Next time I am drilling deep into the earth's crust in search of the hydrocarbons that allow you to live your chosen lifestyle, I'll check the layers of fossils for any fairy or unicorn bits.

Personally, I've never seen any. But what with all the violent climactic changes that this planet has gone through over the millenia...well documented by the way...there could have been some sort of critters like this living here sometime in the past. nothing is impossible.

just look at the bizarre stuff in the Burgess Shale.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Burgess Shale link:


://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/evo/cambrian_critters.gif&imgrefurl=http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_52&h=285&w=382&sz=39&tbnid=mvgL6ggL8nloYM:&tbnh=88&tbnw=119&hl=en&start=14&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dburgess%2Bshale%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Maybe this one will work:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_52


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> just look at the bizarre stuff in the Burgess Shale.


The Burgess Shale shows diversity during the Cambrian Period. It is fascinating to think that if we were to rewind the "tape of life", we may not have the same creatures on earth as we do now. 
It has absolutely nothing to do with global warming except to be an obfuscation by the Flat Earth Society members....
:yawn:


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

But it does show in some small way that this old planet has gone through some pretty sudden and sometimes regionally specific changes in it's long history, does it not?

The Burgess shale is noted by geologists and paleontologists as being a definite aberration. Nothing from that smallish zone of fossils seems to have any real relation to anything else we have ever found. it's way out there. And then some.

Perhaps you need to abandon your cherished flat earth society and open up your mind to the rest of the available data, artistseries.

Then, perhaps, you might be able to accept reality.

Just a thought.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> But it does show in some small way that this old planet has gone through some* pretty sudden* and sometimes regionally specific changes in it's long history, does it not?


The Cambrian explosion is know for its "phyla". 
Care to tell us how long was the Cambrian period? How many years?
Compare that to the Global warming timeline....

As for the regionally specific changes and the Burgess Shale - please read up on it before commenting on something where your grasp is tenuous at best...



MacNutt said:


> The Burgess shale is noted by geologists and paleontologists as being a definite aberration. Nothing from that smallish zone of fossils seems to have any real relation to anything else we have ever found. it's way out there. And then some.


Your grasp of science is infantile. If you want, I can outline books on the Burgess Shale and the Cambrian period...
Within the scientific community there is some debate on certain specifics - something that is healthy for advancing knowledge. We can get into the "The Darwin Wars" if you want, but this will be another thread...



MacNutt said:


> Perhaps you need to abandon your cherished flat earth society and open up your mind to the rest of the available data, artistseries.


What I would suggest MacNutt, is you actually find a tenable argument.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: I thought you had left to watch a movie.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> AS: I thought you had left to watch a movie.


I had, it made about as much sense as MacNutt's ranting or Rona Ambrose...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> I had, it made about as much sense as MacNutt's ranting or Rona Ambrose...


yeah, our girl Rona
see her single handedly fight personal rights and freedoms while ass kissing the oil patch to create more pollution

what a gal

she exemplifies what is so very, very wrong with the (neo)con movement

no heart and soul, only dollars and cents, but not for you poor canadians
you pay more income tax, while corporations get even more tax breaks


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Speccy: Must be tough to see your little world crumbling around you.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

AS...

I have spent several decades drilling into the earths crust. All of that time I have spent digging into the past geologic history of this planet was spent doing very close analysis of the rocks and fossils and the gases that they produce.

Layer by infitesimal layer. I made very detailed logs of this. Meter by meter. And studied them very carefully. I can tell you EXACTLY, meter by meter and region by region which areas of this planetary body, that we all currently reside upon, went suddenly from tropical to arctic in the past. And EXACTLY how many times that this has occurred.

That was part of my job. And I was paid very well to do this job.

I was even the very first technician in history to run a mobile mass spectrometer in the field while drilling into the earh's crust. I was the very first to do isotopic analysis of the sedimentary layers of this planet. And it told us a lot about the sudden and rather drastic climactic changes that our world has experienced in the past.

It also gave us some insight as to what suddden and dramatic climactic changes that we might expect in the future....

The fact that a nondescript Qubec office dweller who has absoloutely no background in the earth sciences, and who is burdened by a deeply ingrained political ideology...and who can't see past his handlers nose because of that carefully crafted indocritation...is a point of massive indifference to me.

This world and it's environment is about rapid and sudden change, and it's been going on this way for millions and million of years, AS. 

The fact that you can't seem to deal with that simple reality, and want us all to "change our ways" in line with your particular political preferences in order to "fix it" is several degrees beyond comical. It's a bit arrogant. Even a bit presumptous, if I may say so.

Cleaning up our environment is both admirable and imperative. We should all be concentrating on this. In every real way possible.

The USA been quite a bit better at this than we Canadians have, over the past decade. Despite the former Canadian Liberal government's stance on Kyoto.

The results should tell you something.

Pie in the sky ideals that are based upon pure nonsense need to be discarded. Real results should be noted and expanded upon.

And silly political movements that are long dead should be seen as extinct.

Just like faries and unicorns and flat earth societies.

Just my thoughts on this.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Yeah right.... Care to back that up?
> Or are you mistaken extremist earth-muffin views with Marxism?


You can see this in some of the Green party platform as well as just listening to some of the more enviro-obsessed folks. They get into how the real problem is consumerism and the capitalist ideology and talk about things like banning SUVs etc. There's a lot of good environmental work being done out there but there's this old clique hanging around. Sort of like thoughtful people questioning international trade (they're still wrong







) and the window-bashing yahoos that take advantage of the movement.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Speccy: Must be tough to see your little world crumbling around you.


Go easy on Michael. It can't be a very happy time for him these days. His cherished Liberal party is in ruins and pretty much the whole southern part of Ontario doesn't even have a single representative in the power side of the Canadian government.

And the front runner in the upcoming race for Liberal leader is a nasty geek who hasn't lived in Canada for almost thirty years. And he is also a guy who Macspectrum hates with a passion.

What's more, the Liberals don't have a hope in hell of forming a government for about the next decade or more. And that's according to pretty much EVERY political pundit in the country, BTW.


Can't be easy for Macspectrum these days.:Give the guy a break. yikes:


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Speccy: Must be tough to see your little world crumbling around you.


MotherF*cker; damn straight it's tough seeing my Canada crumble


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> Go easy on Michael. It can't be a very happy time for him these days. His cherished Liberal party is in ruins and pretty much the whole southern part of Ontario doesn't even have a single representative in the power side of the Canadian government.
> 
> And the front runner in the upcoming race for Liberal leader is a nasty geek who hasn't lived in Canada for almost thirty years. And he is also a guy who Macspectrum hates with a passion.
> 
> Can't be easy for Macspectrum these days.:yikes:


hence my research into Ecuador these days
would have to learn spanish rather quickly, but cost of living is cheap, weather is beautiful, golf courses abound
and if i sell my house and cash in i could be enjoying "la viva loca"


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> hence my research into Ecuador these days
> would have to learn spanish rather quickly, but cost of living is cheap, weather is beautiful, golf courses abound
> and if i sell my house and cash in i could be enjoying "la viva loca"


Been there, old buddy. Done that.

You wouldn't like it.

Trust me on this.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

BTW.. It's "VIDA LOCA" the crazy life.

Brasil would be better for that. Honest.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Ahhh, I suffered quietly through the Chretien and Martin years. I thought I'd receive the same courtesy from the currently disenfranchised.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Though I'd wonder: if you were sure that Global Warming was going to fry the world...would you move to a counry bisected by the Equator?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

As did I, MacFury.. And I also suffered the slings and arrows from the smugly liberl/left all during that period. Right here at ehmac.

And I acurrately predicted the ultimate downfall and total disgrace of that criminal operation that was masquerading as a political party. I did this at great length Also here at ehmac. And suffered mightily for it.

These days, they've stopped laughing. Now they're just deeply bitter.

Odd about that, eh?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> You can see this in some of the Green party platform as well as just listening to some of the more enviro-obsessed folks. They get into how the real problem is consumerism and the capitalist ideology and talk about things like banning SUVs etc.


Hardly a Marxist mantra, but I understand your point - I call them earth muffins. 
They have an unrealistic view and want to impose their brand of consumerism....


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Though I'd wonder: if you were sure that Global Warming was going to fry the world...would you move to a counry bisected by the Equator?


Equador is extremely poor and destitute. I know, I've spent time there.

The power doesn't stay on, you can't get pizza delivered to your door, the cops are not your buddies, and you do not EVER want to go to one of their hospitals. You could die from something you caught while in there.

Oh...and Ecuador...like most Latin countries...is deeply corrupt. From top to bottom.

Say! You don;t suppose THAT is why so many disaffectred Canadian Liberals are talking about moving there, do you?

It would seem just like home to them.:lmao:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> AS...


Bottom line MacNutt, you have not even answered how long the Cambrian Period was. Heck, you could of even googled it. 
You show a profound lack of scientific knowledge. Your arguments are illogical and when backed into that corner, you fall onto old mantras.

Understanding the obvious has never been a quality of yours - hyperbole and bluster only goes so far. 

If you want to get back unto the subject at hand fine, until then, adieux odieux personnage inutile...
:yawn:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Methinks MacSpectrum will be the Barbra Streisand of Canada--threatening to leave after every election her party loses, but staying anyway to bitch and moan.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Pssst, AS--you've been led into a trap. Drop the Cambrian Period schtick, OK?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

You gave it away, MacFury!

I just love to tease our poor misbegotten AS into a fight that he is certain to lose.

His arguments have been publicly exposed as nonsense. Politically motivated nonsense, no less. 

But...instead of dealing with the obvious deficiencies in his spoon-fed take on reality... he chooses to ignore all of this and keep on badgering a guy who's spent his whole life working in the earth sciences if he "knows when the Cambrian Period began and ended"

Too silly. Especially coming from a Montreal office drone who wouldn't know granite from dolomite.:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

Misdirection at it's most lame.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Pssst, AS--you've been led into a trap. Drop the Cambrian Period schtick, OK?


Coming from Macnutty - hardly.
Trying to find a parallels between evolution and the sudden rise in temperature is the kind of B.S I would expect from knuckle dragging troglodytes.
The only reason it was brought up, was someone trying to be a smartass. Once taken to task on the absurdity and his argument and his complete misunderstanding of scientific knowledge, someone decide to try and turn this into a political debate...
Sorry MF, the only one trapped here is MacNutt, by his lack of logic. 
You are welcomed to follow him down the same path - the ehMac Flat Earth Society needs a few other members...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Earlier I mentioned that no amount of reasoning will sway the religious fervour of a true Hot Earther. Get this preposterous argument I heard presented today: if increases in the world's temperature are caused by the Sun, then we'd better start drastically reducing carbon-dioxide levels to compensate for it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: I haven't had the pleasure of posting while MacNutt's been active, but already I can see that he's a charming and intelligent EhMacer with much to offer.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Earlier I mentioned that no amount of reasoning will sway the religious fervour of a true Hot Earther.


True. But for the rest of us, how about presenting a coherent argument for your point of view?



Macfury said:


> Get this preposterous argument I heard presented today: if increases in the world's temperature are caused by the Sun, then we'd better start drastically reducing carbon-dioxide levels to compensate for it.


Fallacious reasoning and you know it. Once again, it's up to you to prove your point and dispel the body of work that goes against your epiphany...


ps. Glad you like MacNutt - he's on my ignore list - I don't have time for stupid. Send me a PM if it ever changes.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Coming from Macnutty - hardly.
> Trying to find a parallels between evolution and the sudden rise in temperature is the kind of B.S I would expect from knuckle dragging troglodytes.
> The only reason it was brought up, was someone trying to be a smartass. Once taken to task on the absurdity and his argument and his complete misunderstanding of scientific knowledge, someone decide to try and turn this into a political debate...
> Sorry MF, the only one trapped here is MacNutt, by his lack of logic.
> You are welcomed to follow him down the same path - the ehMac Flat Earth Society needs a few other members...


Quite the mouthful and a little bit much. Care to back it up point by point?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Nice to know some things around here never change. No matter how long I've been away.

AS is still the mellow and thoughtful fair-minded soul he has always been. Open to new ideas and totally unburdened by politically motivated dogama 

Apparently, he is also now a scientist. One that is deeply involved with all of the real data concerning geology and paleontology and climactic change.

he's doing all of this while working quietly as a nondescript paper shiuffler in the Montreal beuaracrcy. He's hiding his true scientific talents while pretending to be a faceless accountant.:We should celebrate this rare display of talent that he has chosen to display for us here at ehmac...lmao: :clap: 

(Somebody STOP me!)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You see AS, grand theories require grand proofs. I don't have to prove that the Earth's climate continues to behave according to its own natural schedule. 

Hot Earthers need to provide compelling proof that any climate changes they believe in are caused by human CO2 emissions. It's not a task I envy them, and their frantic activity, jumping from earth to sky to sea in a desparate effort to toss up SOMETHING that will stick makes me feel a little sorry for them...until they start with the name calling.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Generally, they forgo all of the solid science and historical fact. And all sense of reason or defineable logic....

And they usually go straight to the insults and name calling.

That seems to work better for them than actually engaging in a well-informed and fair debate.

Go figure.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> You see AS, grand theories require grand proofs. I don't have to prove that the Earth's climate continues to behave according to its own natural schedule.


May I suggest you read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton, it seams to be the not-so-guilty pleasure of global warming deniers....


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Michael Crighton is your source of REAL data on climate change, AS??!!??:lmao: 

Too funny. This "author " is as well known for his lack of real facts as Michael Moore. I read "Sphere" at wellsite and some of the fractured logic in that one had me rolling on the floor laughing my ass off.

Crighton as a guru, eh?

Now we understand.:lmao: :lmao: :baby:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

How did Hot Earthers arrive at the term "Global Warming Denier?" Again, we have this presupposition of truth. On one hand, they present their "FACTS" and on the other hand, they identify the "DENIERS." 

The only other place I've heard this type of term is when people refer to "Holocaust Deniers." I am surprised that a term built around such an important and tragic event in world history as the Holocaust is being trivialized this way.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacNutt: I think AS is referring to Crichton's novel in which a group of conspiracists promulgate global warming fraud. Though I don't particularly enjoy Crichton's spare style of prose, the premise is intriguing though implausible--as are most conspiracy theories.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> MotherF*cker; damn straight it's tough seeing my Canada crumble


Don't worry about, we will soon be a banana republic (only _sans_ the bananas) and branch office of Amerika north.
Harper is making damn sure of that. 


> *Black SUV adds presidential air to Harper's motorcade*
> 
> OTTAWA -- Prime Minister Stephen *Harper's motorcade has acquired a presidential look.*
> But one MP says the big black SUV now cruising at the rear of the entourage is a bit *too remindful of President George W. Bush.*
> ...


http://www.canada.com/topics/news/p...=9d545fe4-c050-4a6b-ba16-72fde9a5fdad&k=70961


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> dinosaur farts


The modern-era equivalent would be large-volume eruptions of fetid gases from both ends of the digestive tracts of armchair experts, perhaps?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: The SUV would probably be an issue for Hot Earthers, though it's rather inconsequential to me. But since you're up on these things, what did Chretien and Martin drive, and what was the relative mileage?

If you're right, and we'll soon be a banana republic, at east MacSpectrum needn't move to Ecuador.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> It's like observing a zillion poker hands and counting how often players are dealt a flush in five-card stud. Once you know that probability (0.002), you get suspicious if someone is dealt two flushes in a row (probability 0.000004). It might have been a fair deal, but the numbers suggest otherwise.
> .....
> 
> Excellent analogy, thanks.


acutally your math is incorrect
each hand (assuming a freshly shuffled deck) has the same probabilities

otherwise by your logic flipping a coin would NOT have a 50-50 chance of heads or tails EACH time

you CANNOT multiply 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 to get the probability of a head on toss #3

/end math lesson


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacSpectrum: Beej was quoting from a Wall Street Journal article SUPPORTING Global Warming theories. But I'm pleased to see that you require the same hard accuracy from all sources of information, regardless of context.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> MacSpectrum: Beej was quoting from a Wall Street Journal article SUPPORTING Global Warming theories. But I'm pleased to see that you require the same hard accuracy from all sources of information, regardless of context.


if only you'd do the same
ps - bad math is bad math regardless of who or what quotes it

the people who don't believe in global warming due to man made green house gasses would also believe that the cod stocks would never run out - we can see how that worked out

the Earth has gone through climate changes, but the Earth was far different as well
the atmosphere of the time of dinosaurs is not the same atmosphere of today
the Earth's core is constantly, albeit slowly, cooling, but 1/2 billion years makes a difference

seen any rivers on Mars lately?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> the people who don't believe in global warming due to man made green house gasses would also believe that the cod stocks would never run out


I don't imagine that the same group could be proven to have held both beliefs.I recall a wide degree of acceptance that overfishing was depleting fish populations at too rapid a rate, with real world proofs bearing out theoretical analysis on a demonstrable scale.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> acutally your math is incorrect
> each hand (assuming a freshly shuffled deck) has the same probabilities
> 
> otherwise by your logic flipping a coin would NOT have a 50-50 chance of heads or tails EACH time
> ...


An observer, at the start of the experiment, would see a likelihood for 2 heads in a row at under 50%. It is true that after the first flip, regardless of the outcome of the first flip, the next flip is 50%. The point is that at the start (before the first slip) you see a certain low likelihood (two consecutive flushes dealt) so that if it happens you really wonder.

Another way to look at it: Flipping a coin and getting 99 heads in a row would be extremely strange. After 98, the 99th is 50-50 (your point), but before the first flip you would place a very low probability on 99 in-a-row. So low that you may get suspicious at some point during this exercise regardless of the next flip being 50-50.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej: If I wanted to win at basketball, I would simply throw missed baskets for a half-hour or so prior to the game, thus building up the power of probability that I would score later. 

My wife's 649 numbers, played each week, have a large built-up potential for winning a fortune, as their "winning probability" grows from week to week and has not yet been spent.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> An observer, at the start of the experiment, would see a likelihood for 2 heads in a row at under 50%. It is true that after the first flip, regardless of the outcome of the first flip, the next flip is 50%. The point is that at the start (before the first slip) you see a certain low likelihood (two consecutive flushes dealt) so that if it happens you really wonder.
> 
> Another way to look at it: Flipping a coin and getting 99 heads in a row would be extremely strange. After 98, the 99th is 50-50 (your point), but before the first flip you would place a very low probability on 99 in-a-row. So low that you may get suspicious at some point during this exercise regardless of the next flip being 50-50.


still doesn't make this;



> once you know that probability (0.002), you get suspicious if someone is dealt two flushes in a row (probability 0.000004)


correct


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> still doesn't make this;
> correct


Here's some fun: as an observer before the first flip of a coin, calculate the probability of getting two heads in a row. Then use the same math to calculate getting dealt two flushes in row, as observed before the first deal. Let's see where you end up and we can all learn something, teacher.


----------

