Flying by Air- the carbon footprint

[Guest]

I think we've seen the pattern that Tomcat likes to refer to documents. He only reads them weeks later when he's repeatedly pressed to divulge his understanding of their contents.

[Guest]

On a somewhat side-note, it's interesting that this issue of global warming science and religion popped up, as I was just thinking about this the other day.

Part of the downside of being an independant thinker who expects evidence, is frquently finding yourself outside of any safe ground during any debate which so often forms into two large camps.

When it comes to the two major politico-religious groups (in the US at least) I find myself apart from each an about 50% of their platforms. As this relates to science, the right/christians have their science issue and the left/atheists have theirs.

The predominantly atheistic left is all over global warming, it is their "intelligent design" theory.

The political right, predominantly christian, believes that science is wrong about evolution - "intelligent design" is their global warming.

For the record, I think both global warming and "intelligent design" are silly. Evidence based science shows that all life does indeed evolve, and we are a tiny consequence on the timeline of this planet, much too tiny to be so presumptuous as to imagine we have altered it's climate more than the effects of the sun.

So, I am neither embraced nor defended by the Christian Republicans nor the Democratic atheists (or currently, muslim fawning sycophants)

[Tomcat]

Ref your smarmy comments two posts above.....

I did read it grunyen, did you?. This is how it starts

quote
"My topic today sounds humorous but unfortunately I am serious. I am going to argue that extraterrestrials lie behind global warming"

 I really think that maybe his angle is for another thread and i hope Ivana see my comments a light hearted.

On another level Grunyen please dont insinuate anything about me " understanding" documents  and taking "weeks to read them". keep it sensible, eh!. After all you dont even know me.

Like Sangabriel says " There are no winners on internet debates"

[katoeylover]

That Michael Crichton is a major enviro-skeptic is non refutable, however he does make some very valid points, and to say this subject hasn't become political is fooling no-one but themselves.

I don't have the figures available but i would guarantee there is more money changing hands over this subject than any other topic in the news today.

If all the effort and money that has been put into the marketing of this debate in the press was also used to halt the starving in Africa, then maybe we wouldn't all bo so sceptical.

[Guest]

(Tomcat @ Feb. 20 2007,04:58) I did read it grunyen, did you?. This is how it starts

quote
"My topic today sounds humorous but unfortunately I am serious. I am going to argue that extraterrestrials lie behind global warming"

 I really think that maybe his angle is for another thread...

Here is the full quote ( ) :

"My topic today sounds humorous but unfortunately I am serious. I am going to argue that extraterrestrials lie behind global warming. Or to speak more precisely, I will argue that a belief in extraterrestrials has paved the way, in a progression of steps, to a belief in global warming. Charting this progression of belief will be my task today."

I think what follows the 1st 2 lines which were selectively quoted should make it clear that Chrichton's view belongs exactly in this thread.

The 2nd para continues :

"Let me say at once that I have no desire to discourage anyone from believing in either extraterrestrials or global warming. That would be quite impossible to do. Rather, I want to discuss the history of several widely-publicized beliefs and to point to what I consider an emerging crisis in the whole enterprise of science-namely the increasingly uneasy relationship between hard science and public policy. "

Of course I would encourage those with an interest to read the full article as it is quite interesting.

[Guest]

I agree that Chrichton's voice is a valid one in this debate.

I've enjoyed most if not all of his books. I especially appreciate his method of taking 2 or 3 cutting edge scientific techniques and weaving them into a thriller plotline so that the reader comes out entertained as well as more knowledgable about current science.

Chrichton has become even more dedicated to the science aspects of his books, now detailing footnotes and endnotes to mark specific points that he wants the reader to know are based on real science, not fiction.

"State of Fear" is probably the best example of this.

I had read this essay of his a long time ago actually (about the aliens and global warming). I've heard several other talks that he's given on BookTV and in front of CATO institute or other type groups.

You might be able to find those on YouTube, just guessing. He's a very smart guy and even outside the realm of writing fiction, he's very keen on understanding and articulating the concepts involved in science and particularly the relationship of the publics understanding and science policy.

Re: Tomcat, you're somewhat right. I shouldn't be kicking sand at you. No reason to. My apologies. From reading your thread it sure sounded like you were responding to the headline and not the article.

I'm happy to hear people voice their opinions, I'd just rather they do it personally, and not refer me to argue with some inanimate publication.

[Guest]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9qtgQXtrl4Q

One of Chrichton's speeches.
He is incredibly good at calmly making salient, foundational points.

[Tomcat]

(grunyen @ Feb. 20 2007,11:40) I'm happy to hear people voice their opinions, I'd just rather they do it personally, and not refer me to argue with some inanimate publication.

1)
As soon as i see the word Aliens/ET mentioned i move on.I thought that Ivana was a Xfiler of some kind. My apologies to Ivana. I will indeed read the whole paper later. ... i do have to earn a living as well as post   ...

2) IPCC report summary
I have a summary published in new Scientist and i offerd to fax it to you, remember.  Is this magazine reputable or not?   I respect your evidence, i would hope that you respect mine even if this is an internet debate by interested laymen.

3) You dismiss global warming as "silly". I think crediblity dissolves quickly when you make statements like that.


Scott Saleska; Dept of Evo Biology. Uni Arizona
reporting last weekend.  This gentleman is taken seriously in the USA and does have integrity.

"The Science of how green house emmisons cause climate change is clearer now than the science of how leaded gasoline affected blood leveles in the 70s
The persuasive evidence  is so compelling that it has crystallised a remarkable concensus in the Scientific Community."

btw
http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/crichton/

[Guest]

(Tomcat @ Feb. 20 2007,17:51)

(grunyen @ Feb. 20 2007,11:40) I'm happy to hear people voice their opinions, I'd just rather they do it personally, and not refer me to argue with some inanimate publication.

1)
As soon as i see the word Aliens/ET mentioned i move on.I thought that Ivana was a Xfiler of some kind. My apologies to Ivana. I will indeed read the whole paper later. ... i do have to earn a living as well as post   ...

2) IPCC report summary
I have a summary published in new Scientist and i offerd to fax it to you, remember.  Is this magazine reputable or not?   I respect your evidence, i would hope that you respect mine even if this is an internet debate by interested laymen.

3) You dismiss global warming as "silly". I think crediblity dissolves quickly when you make statements like that.


Scott Saleska; Dept of Evo Biology. Uni Arizona
reporting last weekend.  This gentleman is taken seriously in the USA and does have integrity.

"The Science of how green house emmisons cause climate change is clearer now than the science of how leaded gasoline affected blood leveles in the 70s
The persuasive evidence  is so compelling that it has crystallised a remarkable concensus in the Scientific Community."

btw
http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/crichton/

As Crichton notes in his speech, "consensus" is not science. Read the speech!

Regarding summary statements such as "silly", the global warming crowd routinely dismisses skeptics by using such names.

Regarding "New Scientist", here is how Wikipedia describes criticism of the magazine:

"In September 2006, New Scientist drew criticism from the writer Greg Egan, who distributed a public letter stating that "a sensationalist bent and a lack of basic knowledge by its writers" was making the magazine's coverage sufficiently unreliable "to constitute a real threat to the public understanding of science". In particular, Egan found himself "gobsmacked by the level of scientific illiteracy" in the magazine's coverage of Roger Shawyer's "electromagnetic drive", where New Scientist allowed the publication of "meaningless double-talk" designed to bypass a fatal objection to Shawyer's proposed space drive, namely that it violates the conservation of momentum. Egan urged those reading his letter to write to New Scientist and pressure the magazine to raise its standards, instead of "squandering the opportunity that the magazine's circulation and prestige provides" for genuine science education. The letter was endorsed by mathematical physicist John C. Baez and posted on his blog. [1]

The reply of New Scientist's editor defends the article, saying New Scientist is "an ideas magazine - that means writing about hypotheses as well as theories" [2]."

[Guest]

(Tomcat @ Feb. 20 2007,17:51) 1)
As soon as i see the word Aliens/ET mentioned i move on.I thought that Ivana was a Xfiler of some kind. My apologies to Ivana. I will indeed read the whole paper later. ... i do have to earn a living as well as post   ...

2) IPCC report summary
I have a summary published in new Scientist and i offerd to fax it to you, remember.  Is this magazine reputable or not?   I respect your evidence, i would hope that you respect mine even if this is an internet debate by interested laymen.

3) You dismiss global warming as "silly". I think crediblity dissolves quickly when you make statements like that.


Scott Saleska; Dept of Evo Biology. Uni Arizona
reporting last weekend.  This gentleman is taken seriously in the USA and does have integrity.

"The Science of how green house emmisons cause climate change is clearer now than the science of how leaded gasoline affected blood leveles in the 70s
The persuasive evidence  is so compelling that it has crystallised a remarkable concensus in the Scientific Community."

btw
http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/crichton/

1. So what I guessed was 100% correct.

2. New Scientist is one of the magazines that have been guilty of choosing a side early on and being very reluctant to publish anything by dissenting scientists. Did you hear Barbara Boxer on CSPAN asking DR. Gray if his work had been peer-reviewed? It's hard to have your work peer reviewed when the science magazines are on the same side politically as the bureaucrats who are against you. Many scientists have been complaining about this problem.
Did you see the report about the 17,000+ scientists who have signed a petition AGAINST global warming? Most of whom are meteoroligists, climatologists, and physisicists.

3. If something is silly it deserves to be called silly. My argument neither gains nor loses anything if I use the word "silly". For too long our culture has bought into the belief that every argument is equally valid. This only benefits those who are wrong.

4. Re: Scott Saleska; This is another statement about evidence, not evidence itself. I'm really beginning to be sure that you don't know the difference. Do you understand the difference between a claim and evidence?

Let's review. A claim is saying I've invented the iPod. Evidence is a working iPod.

[Tomcat]

Greg Egan (August 20, 1961, Perth, Western Australia) is an Australian computer programmer and science fiction author.


Please check your resources first Ivana. Anyone can write there.

[Tomcat]

(grunyen @ Feb. 20 2007,21:33) . Do you understand the difference between a claim and evidence?

yes, take these samples

Nepals Khumbu Glacier has receded by three miles since 1953

In the Andes all of Perus glaciers below 18,000 ft will be gone by 2015

In the Alps, Switzerlands glaciers shrank by one per cent in area in the 12 years to 1985 but by 18 per cent from 85-2000

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core....l&site=

[Guest]

(grunyen @ Feb. 20 2007,21:33) For too long our culture has bought into the belief that every argument is equally valid. This only benefits those who are wrong.

Quite so. Nor is Art democratic. The music of Britney Spears or the Back Street Boys is not Art simply because milllions say it is.

An underlying problem of this whole debate is that Scientists are not trained in clear thinking.

Judging by what we see and read in even the so-called 'Quality Press' these days, it would appear to be fast becoming a lost art. But I digress...

[katoeylover]

(Tomcat @ Feb. 20 2007,21:47)

(grunyen @ Feb. 20 2007,21:33) . Do you understand the difference between a claim and evidence?

yes, take these samples

Nepals Khumbu Glacier has receded by three miles since 1953

In the Andes all of Perus glaciers below 18,000 ft will be gone by 2015

In the Alps, Switzerlands glaciers shrank by one per cent in area in the 12 years to 1985 but by 18 per cent from 85-2000

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core....l&site=

Yes, but how many NEW glaciers are being formed in other places,

From what i gather, quite a lot.

[Guest]

Yes, *net* global ice is on the RISE.

The earth is a dynamic constantly changing system. It is not a static fish tank. Every second, lightning strikes ground eleven times. There are hurricanes monthly, tsunamis cross the oceans every six months or more, tornadoes touch down every six seconds.

Glaciers recede and glaciers grow. When they recede, eco-weenies say "Look, no more ice, we were right!"
When glaciers grow, they calve into the sea and the eco-weenies say "Look, it's melting, we were right!"

Those who believe there is such a thing as "sea level", or "normal temperature" need to understand that this is our earth, a roiling mass of molten lava, churning seas, electricity swirling in the air, and uncountable species all trying to eat each other- 99.9% of which fail and die because they are not suited for their environment.

It's a tough world, get a helmet.