217 replies to this topic

[jackinbox]

If you are concluding that all the planets are getting hotter from the articles you provided, then you are outrageously distorting them. They provide an explanation for the warming of Pluto (by the way, which is no longer considered a planet) and it has absolutely no link to the global warming of the earth. In the case of Jupiter, it’s not a global warming but a climate change. That is, some places are getting hotter and others cooler. No link to earth global warming at all. In the case of Mars and according to an site one of your article point out, the warming is caused by the CO2 escaping from the polar caps and it’s happening for thousand years.

I’m waiting for your information about Mercury, Venus, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune (in case you forgot them).

[biknut]

jackinbox, the scientist you reference seems not to be as sure as you are, when he says "could" you seem to take that to mean "is".

You seem to have made up your mind that #1 there is global warming, and #2 it's caused by man. I'm not at that point yet. There are lots of scientists that believe the same as I do. You need to be a little more open minded and realize you don't know everything.

I'm willing to admit you could be right, but right now I'm unconvinced.

[biknut]

This is my unscientific wild ass theory. I think I'm the first one to come up with it.

In December 2012, our solar system will transit the center axis of the galaxy. Each year we get closer to this center line crossing. This COULD be the reason for global warming.

It's either that or cow farts.

[jackinbox]

Conceed for the verb use. English isn't my native language so I tend to use simpler phrase. Concerning the "don't know everything" comment, adapt007 served a very good post about this. I side with the scientific consensus because I'm not an expert. The bulk of literature, models and data support GW and link it to human activity.

[jackinbox]

I recommend you to watch this CBC's documentary :

The Denial machine

[biknut]

I recommend you to watch this CBC's documentary :

The Denial machine

I thought you were into science? This video is 100% political. No scientific facts about global warming, just claims that Republicans and others are liers and are covering up global warming. This might convince people that republicans are bad, but that doesn't in any way prove global warming.

I hear them. There's global warming, there's global warming. Why do they think that? They don't seem to want to tell me that, or they don't know.

They're attacking the people that say there's no global warming, but the people saying there's no global warming aren't attacking the ones saying there is.

This is the typical left attack. Spend all your time attacking the denier's. Don't put forth any facts about global warming at all.

I'm sorry, this doesn't even come close to convincing me there's global warming. It doesn't tell me anything about it at all.

[jackinbox]

It's relevant to this debate because politic polluted the debate. The point is that the sceptic movement is corrupted and is doing a lot of damage by creating doubt in science. You are accusing people of propaganda while the clear propaganda is on the denial side.

Edit: It's useless to provide you with scientific facts since you believe that it's a big conspiracy. Following your argument, you can pretty much deny anything I submit.

Edited by jackinbox, 12 December 2006 - 03:11 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

Politics AND vested interest have long corrupted the debate. There is no going past that through denial about how that impacts the very structure and tone of the debate but there is a LOT of science involved and the data mounts everyday while those who oppose the theory have in fact changed their stance in recent years from asserting "it isn't happening at all" to "it isn't OUR fault."

However the worst aspect of the consensus science argument is to cast the preponderance of evidence as consensus because they are simply not the same, though the result can be similar in appearance. When confronted with independently gathered overwhelming evidence the result is a form of *consensus* in science only because of the ability to readily integrate the hypothesis into a working model, whose theoretical organization not only provides a predictive ability but allows integration into other theoretical frameworks that weren't necessarily systematically related prior to the *adoption* of the hypothesis.

This is confusing *integration* into the panoply of related sciences for *consensus* and is a kind of "bait and switch" argument we more often see in the ID debate when creationists latch onto an anomaly in the fossil record or a factual revision and then attempt to deny the credibility of the entire theory as a form of *consensus* argument. The consensus science argument is also separately often used as a smoke screen to hide vested interest and political expediency, a means of discrediting the source to allow the continuation of the status quo.

Lately, independently gathered evidence from the north pole to the south, from around the world and above, are all indicating that change is happening and the basic argument has switched from whether "it is or isn't happening" to an attempt to objectively quantify what level of impact the UNDENIABLE contributions of humanity play in the larger picture. This is where the rubber now literally meets the road and where politics and economics enters the debate in a manner that has always dominated such social discussions because we are talking about human behavior both socioeconomically and individually as much, if not much more than science.

So here is another piece of evidence from a recent study and it is only one of a number of significant findings that are being published and ignored by an administration that has willfully ignored the subject, attempted to replace scientists on the evaluation board (EPA etc) with political appointees and politicized the problem even more by creating a war as a response to the *legitimate AND illegitimate* security aspects even before committing to sincere diplomatic approaches that are now far less credible because of the strategy employed.

http://www.nytimes.c...artner=homepage

Arctic Ice Melting Faster Than Expected

By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: December 11, 2006

New studies project that the Arctic Ocean could be mostly open water in summer by 2040 — several decades earlier than previously expected — partly as a result of global warming caused by emissions of greenhouse gases.

The projections come from computer simulations of climate and ice and from direct measurements showing that the amount of ice coverage has been declining for 30 years.

The latest modeling study, being published on Tuesday in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, was led by Marika Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

The study involved seven fresh simulations on supercomputers at the atmospheric center, as well as an analysis of simulations developed by independent groups. In simulations where emissions continue to rise, sea ice persists for long periods but then abruptly gives way to open water, Dr. Holland said.

In the simulations, the shift seems to occur when a pulse of warm Atlantic Ocean water combines with the thinning and retreat of ice under the influence of the global warming trend.

Scientists ascribe most of that planet-scale warming, including a warming of the shallow layers of the oceans, to the buildup of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping smokestack and tailpipe gases in the atmosphere.

After 2040 or so, ice persists in summer mainly around Canada’s northern maze of islands and the northern coast of Greenland, a region that always tends to accumulate a clot of thick ice.

Separately, scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder found that the normal expansion of sea ice as the Arctic chilled in fall had been extraordinarily sluggish this year, following a pattern seen in recent years. The November average ice coverage was by far the lowest since satellite measurements began in 1979, said Walt Meier, a scientist at the ice center.

“It’s becoming increasingly unlikely that things will be able to turn around,” he said. “It would take several very cold winters and cool summers, which seems unlikely under global warming conditions.”

Several experts not involved with the studies said they were significant for human affairs, as well as biology.

Polar bears will struggle, these scientists said, and so will Arctic people who still go out on sea ice to hunt seals. By contrast, countries and businesses pursuing new shipping lanes, energy supplies and fishing grounds could profit.

The melting is likely to shift weather patterns, too. More sea ice means colder winters, because frigid winds blowing over ice pick up little heat from the warmer waters below.

The change will have ramifications beyond summertime, experts said. Having open water each year would mean that almost all ice forming in winter would be freshly frozen and just a yard or so thick.

This would greatly ease the task of maintaining shipping lanes with icebreaking vessels, said Lawson W. Brigham, deputy director of the Arctic Research Commission, a body that advises the White House on Arctic matters.

Mr. Brigham and other experts said the new research raised the urgency of establishing common standards for protecting the Arctic environment and patrolling shipping lanes.

The commission plans to deliver letters to the Bush administration and Congress this week urging them to commit at least $1 million to start work on replacing the country’s two aging, ailing polar-class icebreakers.

http://www.nytimes.c...gin&oref=slogin

EDITORIAL OPINION
Muzzling Those Pesky Scientists

Published: December 11, 2006
The Environmental Protection Agency disclosed last week that it had revised — stood on their head is more like it — procedures it has used for 25 years to set standards for air pollutants like soot and lead. The administration said the change will streamline decision making. Perhaps it will. It will also have the further effect of decreasing the role of science in policy making while increasing the influence of the agency’s political appointees.

This is disheartening, but not surprising. Whether the issue is birth control or global warming or clean air, this administration has already acquired a special place in regulatory history for the audacity with which it has manipulated or muzzled science (and in some cases individual scientists) that might discomfit its industrial allies or interfere with its political agenda.

The E.P.A. is required every five years to review scientific research and set new exposure levels for six pollutants identified as hazardous to human health. Normally, recommendations are first solicited from two groups of scientists: professional staff members inside the agency and independent outside scientists. Those recommendations are then sent to the department’s senior officers — nearly all political appointees — who shape departmental policy and then send it to the White House and Office of Management and Budget for clearance.

Under the new process, initial reviews will be done by staff scientists and political appointees, who together will produce a synopsis of “policy-relevant” science — which sounds ominously like science tailored to predetermined policy outcomes. The independent scientists, meanwhile, will be frozen out until the very end, when they will be allowed to comment on proposals that will have already generated considerable momentum.

The betting among environmental groups is that these new procedures will lead to weaker air quality standards more in keeping with industry objectives — indeed, the American Petroleum Institute is already claiming credit for some of the changes. The new procedures will also help spare the agency the sort of public embarrassment it suffered in October, when its final standards for soot turned out to be far weaker than those recommended earlier (and virtually unanimously) by its staff scientists and the outside consultants.

Under the new process, when the E.P.A. considers how it will set air pollution standards, the only debate it will have is with itself.

Now the usual response is to attack the source and claim bias because it is the NY Times.

Well I chose the second item because it is a clear opinion of the paper's editorial staff to demonstrate their bias in no uncertain terms because it should not be confused with attempting to doctor the news they are clearly looking to find in the first article.

The NY Times did not invent the studies they are reporting they are however seeking to provide a platform to present this information to the general public in what can be defined as a socially responsible manner and after all that is why it is called journalism because it is the real responsibility of the profession.

The editorial addresses the political side of this debate but the first article addresses some of the supporting data, the sources and when pursued in a larger context, the contributions that humanity makes to the problem.

The NY Times is not alone in presenting this opinion, it is not unsupported by evidence for making the assertions it makes and it is not even on only one side of the debate in its presentation of the problem. Clearly this is a problem that globally is understood to cross political lines and even international conflicts. I think it is long past due for everyone to move on from this point in the debate to the next phase of tactics in response to the problem or we risk a repeat of the kinds of social behavior that Jared Diamond laments in the book Collapse.

The principle theme of that book, more than even the documentation of climactic change and environmental degradation on the rise and fall of civilization, is the scrutiny of the detrimental impact of social denial on the processes of adaptive change required by technology based civilizations for response in a timely manner that prevents such solutions from being actualized in time to salvage the various technologies.

These civilizations are not destroyed because they couldn't do anything about the "tragedies of their commons"; they are destroyed because they WOULDN'T do anything about them in a timely enough manner in the face of social resistance.

[biknut]

This is how I think the bait and switch is working.

Bait, there is change. Switch, man is causing it.

#1 There's always change. Is this change unusual? That's not clear, we THINK it is, but we say it like we know it is.

There's a lot of volcanic activity at the north pole that they only found out about recently. There's no mention that it could be part of the cause.

What's all the hubub about global warming really about anyway? Is it to SAVE the world, or is it to CHANGE the world?

Right now I'm leaning more toward change the world than save the world, because the main proponents of global warming seem to be more interested in bashing the naysayer than proving their case.

Lets assume there is global warming, and it caused by man. What can realistically be done about it?

[jackinbox]

Fantastic post Lazarus. The clarification on the "consensus" concept is quite interesting.

[Lazarus Long]

(Biknut)
This is how I think the bait and switch is working.

Bait, there is change. Switch, man is causing it.

#1 There's always change. Is this change unusual? That's not clear, we THINK it is, but we say it like we know it is.

Thank you for demonstrating my point. Now can we move on to a more substantive review of the argument you are making with respect to the character of both natural change and the implied aspects of human social and technological change as well?

Because if so we can skip the middle of your post and move along quite rapidly to this part.

Lets assume there is global warming, and it caused by man. What can realistically be done about it?

Because the clear answer is a LOT can be done about it. For example what have you done about this in your personal life?

You talk of changing the world; it begins at home. What kinds of changes are you willing to make?

Please don't respond by telling us what you won't do, I am asking specifically for what you WILL do; especially since it is you that appears to advocate change even if in only your own specific manner.

(Biknut)
What's all the hubub about global warming really about anyway? Is it to SAVE the world, or is it to CHANGE the world?

Right now I'm leaning more toward change the world than save the world, because the main proponents of global warming seem to be more interested in bashing the naysayer than proving their case.

Also for example why do you attempt to discredit the scientific community with false claims like:

There's a lot of volcanic activity at the north pole that they only found out about recently. There's no mention that it could be part of the cause.

when climatologists have always considered volcanism an important issue but the amount of greenhouse gasses produced by humans can be measured to exceed all the greenhouse gasses being produced by volcanism at this time by volume and type which then, if combined with changing rates of vulcanism that are OFTEN (if not always) included in the analysis, demonstrate why we see an acceleration of the process?

[eternaltraveler]

Whether or not this current bout of climate change is being caused by humans is relatively immaterial (it almost certainly is being caused by humans, just look at pictures of earth from space, we carpet the planet). The earth has gone through lots of warming and cooling cycles in the past and everything was just fine (some of these cycles could be argued as being critical for the development of certain early evolutionary stages).

So the earth will be fine. Then the question becomes "what of man?" And incase everyone hasn't noticed we are pretty damn good at adapting to virtually every environment on earth, or adapting that environment to ourselves.

If the sea levels rise a few feet some low lying areas are going to get wet, people will walk a little higher up the hill. If there are more hurricanes we won't make houses out of card board in areas that get hurricanes. On average the earth will be wetter as shown by our geologic record (warmer times = wetter times). More crops can be grown in such conditions. Some areas will get dryer, we will use sophisticated irrigation methods there, or plant crops somewhere else. Some areas will be colder due to change in weather patterns. People will wear sweaters there.

The Antarctic ice cap isn't going to melt. Even if the average temperature over Antarctica was 30 degrees C it would still take thousands of years to melt the Antarctic ice cap. In the summer it's minus 55 degrees C. A long way to go.

The sides in the debate over global warming have lost the forest through the trees. The issue is not “are humans causing global warming?” but “can humans adapt to climate change?”. We’ve proven through our history that we can adapt to any climate on earth long before modern technology.

So is global warming, therefore, going to change the climate so completely and utterly that we won’t be able to adapt to it? Until evidence is provided that this is indeed the case there are other things we should worry about. Like for example some other of nature’s problems that we have proven historically unable to adapt too and overcome. Like aging.

[biknut]

[quote name='Lazarus Long the amount of greenhouse gasses produced by humans can be measured to exceed all the greenhouse gasses being produced by volcanism at this time by volume and type which then' date=' if combined with changing rates of vulcanism that are OFTEN (if not always) included in the analysis, demonstrate why we see an acceleration of the process?[/quote']

I don't have a lot of confidence of this being the case because they greatly underestimated the amount of volcanism in the artic. It's likely they're doing the same in the oceans all around the world.

Never the less, in my personal life I'm probably doing a little more than most Americans, and a lot more than most people outside of America.

For instance, whenever possible I ride a fuel efficient motorcycle instead of a car. I live in a modest size house (1600 sf) instead of a house 5 times bigger than I need. I have a high efficient air conditioner (12 seer) and a 80% efficient gas furnace. My vehicles are kept in good maintenance and inspected for emissions each year. I use high efficient light bulbs. I don't feel I have many other choices that will help much right now. I'm waiting for cold fusion.

In contrast there are a billion people in china. Would their cars pass emission inspection? Do they have emission inspections for their cars? Do they have any restrictions on emissions for their power plants. What about India? What about all the third world countries? I'm not trying to blame these people for global warming, but it serves to point out that I can't do a lot about it, and Bush can't do a lot either.

[jackinbox]

Elrond. sure, we can "adapt" as a specie, but the earth barely sustains his current population. If fishing stocks collapses even more because of GW and desert take on fertile land, what the global impact on humanity is going to be. Fights for the resources can only get worse. What kind of lifestyle do we reserve for the future generation? As an extreme example, our specie could probably survives to a global nuclear war by living in cave or whatever. Does it means that the question that matters about nuclear war is “could we survive to it?”?

[xanadu]

I have to agree with jackinbox. It is not a question of "adapting" to global warming unless you consider a massive die-off of humans to be an adaptation. We are running out of food, energy, arable land, clean water and other resources. The world population is growing rapidly mostly in third world countries. Rainfall patterns are changing due to global warming and droughts are becoming more common. Australia is suffering a once in 1000 year drought right now. Coincidence? There is no point in discussing it with biknut, he is impervious to logic and science. It's like discussing the LM case with jay. Fuhgetaboutit.

Rather than trying to save some children in Africa, we need to prevent more children being born. It may make nice PR when madonna adopts a black child but as far as helping the world goes, it does not help at all. Save 10 million children who would have died by giving them food and medicine and they have 5 offspring each and now we have 50 million starving children that we must feed, house, clothe and so on. Feed them and they beget another 250 million brats and so on. It becomes a question of whether we will survive or they will survive since there are not enough resources in the forseable future for both them and us. This relates to global warming because GW reduces our resources that we are all competing for already.

[Athanasios]

It becomes a question of whether we will survive or they will survive since there are not enough resources in the forseable future for both them and us. This relates to global warming because GW reduces our resources that we are all competing for already.

We definitely have lots of resources. I like what robert anton wilson had to say about it "saying that we will run out of resources is like saying that we will run out of brains", since a resource is something we find use for and utilize.

As far as distribution, that is a political problem.

[jackinbox]

It's more than just a distribution problem. If all humans were consuming as much as we do (industrial country's citizen), we would be well above the renewal rate of many resources. In fact, we are already above it. Fishing stocks are collapsing, forests are disappearing, oil discovery is slowing down, etc, etc…

[Athanasios]

An example out of many: Lab grown meat is scheduled for first half 2008...



"Human ingenuity will do more than we dare dream to meet frivolous wants as well as real needs."

[jackinbox]

An example out of many: Lab grown meat is scheduled for first half 2008...



"Human ingenuity will do more than we dare dream to meet frivolous wants as well as real needs."

If you like science-fiction, I recommend you this book. Artificially grown meat is featured in it:
The space Merchants

[Athanasios]

Cool, I do enjoy a good sci-fi if in between other types of books.

Because I dont have a lot of time on my hands, though, I usually just watch the science fiction unfold at physorg.com

[biknut]

Is it CO2, or cow farts? Is it over population or lack of resources? Just for the sake of argument, I'd love to hear how the problem of global warming, assuming there is one, can be solved.

I'll start.

CO2, We invent factories to take CO2 out of the air and turn it into oxygen. These will come in handy on mars too.

The cow problem? Eat more chicken.

Over population? That's mainly a third world problem isn't it. Turn them into first world countries by letting them build the factories to take the CO2 out of the air.

What else you got? Oh yea, lack of resources. I already solved most of the worlds problems, maybe someone else wants to tackle this one.

[biknut]

“Jay Pasachoff, an astronomy professor at Williams College, said that Pluto's global warming was "likely not connected with that of the Earth. The major way they could be connected is if the warming was caused by a large increase in sunlight. But the solar constant--the amount of sunlight received each second--is carefully monitored by spacecraft, and we know the sun's output is much too steady to be changing the temperature of Pluto."

On 4 November 2003, the largest solar flare ever recorded exploded from the Sun's surface, sending an intense burst of radiation streaming towards the Earth. Before the storm peaked, x-rays overloaded the detectors on the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES), forcing scientists to estimate the flare's size.



September 25, 2001 - (date of web publication)

SOLAR EXPLOSION TO HIT EARTH TODAY/TOMORROW

The resulting high-energy particles from a large solar explosion that occurred yesterday are expected by NOAA to hit Earth late today or tomorrow. Classified as a 'X-2 class flare' ('X' being the most powerful designation), the resulting radiative discharge was pointed directly at Earth. The solar flare occurred on the Sun around 6:36 am ET yesterday and NOAA is predicting major to severe storm levels persisting for 48 hours. Activity includes auroras in northern latitudes and can mean problems for power grids and satellite and communication systems.


Hotter-burning sun warming the planet


By Michael Leidig
LONDON SUNDAY TELEGRAPH


The sun is burning hotter than usual, offering a possible explanation for global warming that needs to be weighed when proceeding with expensive efforts to cut emissions of greenhouse gases, Swiss and German scientists say.
"The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures," said Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research.

"The sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently — in the last 100 to 150 years," Mr. Solanski said.

Average global temperatures have increased by about 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.36 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 20 years and are widely believed to be responsible for new extremes in weather patterns.

Globally, 1997, 1998 and 2002 were the hottest years since worldwide weather records were first collated in 1860. Bill Burrows, a climatologist and a member of the Royal Meteorological Society, welcomed Mr. Solanki's research. "It shows that there is enough happening on the solar front to merit further research. Perhaps we are devoting too many resources to correcting human effects on the climate without being sure that we are the major contributor," he said. Mr. Solanki said that the brighter sun and higher levels of so-called "greenhouse gases" both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature, but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact.

Most scientists agree that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide from fossil fuels have contributed to the warming of the planet in the past few decades, but have questioned whether other factors beyond man's control are also to blame. To determine the sun's role in global warming, Mr. Solanki's research team measured magnetic zones on the sun's surface known as sunspots, which are believed to intensify the sun's energy output. The team studied sunspot data going back several hundred years. They found that a dearth of sunspots signaled a cold period — which could last up to 50 years — but that over the past century their numbers had increased as the Earth's climate grew steadily warmer. Mr. Solanki does not know what is causing the sun to burn brighter now or how long this cycle would last. He says that the increased solar brightness over the past 20 years has not been enough to cause the observed climate changes, but believes that the impact of intense sunshine on the ozone layer and cloud cover could be affecting the climate more than the sunlight itself.

David Viner, the senior research scientist at the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit, said the research showed that the sun did have an effect on global warming. He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years, the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase. This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate "the natural factors involved in climate change," he said.

http://www.washtimes...15714-6334r.htm



This article doesn't rule out CO2 as the cause of global warming but it makes man as the cause a little less certain. Hint, it might be the sun.

Variations in CO2 Growth Rate
Associated with Solar Activity

Dr Theodor Landscheidt

Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity
Klammerfelsweg 5, 93449 Waldmuenchen, Germany

th.landscheidt@t-online.de

1. Introduction

CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased from about 280 ppmv in pre-industrial times to 372.9 ppmv in 2002. This rise runs approximately parallel with the increase in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion. The 10-year mean of CO2 concentrations increased steadily during the last century. Since 1990 there have been some indications that the increment is levelling off. The average annual increment over the last 10 years was 1.66 ppmv/yr. The curve of the global average CO2 concentrations shows only small deviations from the trend line. The annual growth rates, however, vary significantly. In some cases they go beyond 3 ppmv/yr.

According to the World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases (2003) "The high growth rates in 1983, 1987/88, 1994/1995, and 1997/1998 are associated with warm events of El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The anomalously strong El Niño event in 1997/1998 brought about worldwide high increases in 1998. The exceptionally low growth rates in 1992, including negative values for northern high and mid-latitudes, were caused by low global temperatures following the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991." As this connection could be of great import (Kuo et al., 1990; Metzner, 1996), it is subjected to a detailed analysis.


http://www.john-daly...odor/co2new.htm

I think some just WANT CO2 to be the cause of global warming because they WANT man to be responsible for it. What they really want is to control what people can do, like Al Gore. He'd like to get rid of your car, but not his, and your gun, but not his.

[biknut]

Astronauts Forced To Take Shelter From Violent Solar Storm In Space

POSTED: 8:14 am EST December 13, 2006
UPDATED: 9:38 am EST December 13, 2006

A violent solar explosion sent a dangerous wave of radiation through space late Tuesday, prompting NASA to order the crews of Discovery and the International Space Station to take shelter overnight, according to Local 6 News partner Florida Today.

The solar flare erupted around 9:40 p.m., unleashing enough radiation to disrupt radio communications on Earth and in orbit while endangering astronauts circling 220 miles above the planet.

NASA flight surgeons and agency radiation experts determined that the burst of highly energetic particles approached a limit that made preventative action prudent, Florida Today reported.

http://www.local6.co...819/detail.html

[xanadu]

The solution to world wide problems? Just whip out a science fiction fantasy. Lab grown meat will cost 10x as much but then the problem is "solved". Of course the third world will still starve because they can't afford it and the lab grown meat will cause other problems. "eat more chicken"???? are you serious about that, biknut?

Mt pinatubo released aerosols high into the atmosphere which reflected sunlight back into space slightly cooling the earth. This is not a solution to global warming.

[Athanasios]

Lab grown meat is expected to be less than a dollar a pound in 2008. Then get much cheaper as volume and other market forces drive the price lower.


Edit:
What I say is the most aggressive of estimates. Here is a more conservative, and balanced, article: http://www.wired.com...wn_technology_2

As for the starving, it really is a distribution problem. I have a friend that grew up in Kenya, her tribe were victims of Idi Amin, and now victims of a new regime. They come into the village and rape the women, cut ears and lips off of children, etc. This is an example of many. Even if there is surplus in one area of the country, the other half may be starving. The government does not care and even prevents distribution and aid.

Edited by cnorwood19, 16 December 2006 - 08:29 PM.

[xanadu]

Lab grown meat is expected to be less than a dollar a pound in 2008. Then get much cheaper as volume and other market forces drive the price lower.

You really believe that? Pssst, come over here, I've got a great deal for you on the golden gate bridge.

As for the starving, it really is a distribution problem.

Yeah, there is this warehouse with millions of tons of food that nobody knows about. We just need to redistribute it. Oh, and we'll need to redistribute the groceries you are buying to help the starving. You don't mind do you? Keep buying the groceries and send them to africa. Be sure to save enough money for the great deal I have for you on the bridge.

The energy crisis is no problem either. There is this guy with a revolutionary carburator that lets everyone get 200mgp on their car. The carburator shoud cost no more than $10.99 or maybe less after market forces lower the price. The problem is that the oil companies are suppressing his invention. I just heard about it. We need to find the inventor and convince him to release his carburator.

Not only that but there is this guy in Nigeria who wants to send everybody millions of dollars. I got an email from him myself. I'll share it with you if you want. He is really rich and all he needs is for you to send him a few thousand in seed money. We will all be stinking rich in no time. Or just stinking.

[Athanasios]

You may believe it is vapor ware,but they have overcome many of the obstacles. There is definitely the economic incentive as well.

And yes, it is a distribution problem. Do you have examples of those that are starving under a just government? Starving due to lack of food, not because of war and other atrocities?

[biknut]

[quote]T "eat more chicken"???? are you serious about that, biknut?[quote]

Hey give me a break. The UN article said cow farts are causing global warming. If that's true, it makes since to eat more chicken.

[biknut]

British Lord Stings Senators Rockefeller and Snowe: 'Uphold Free Speech or Resign'
Dec 18 4:58 AM US/Eastern

WASHINGTON, Dec. 18 /PRNewswire/ -- Lord Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley, has sent an open letter to Senators Rockefeller (D-WV) and Snowe (R-Maine) in response to their recent open letter telling the CEO of ExxonMobil to cease funding climate-skeptic scientists. (http://ff.org/center...12_monckton.pdf).

Lord Monckton, former policy adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, writes: "You defy every tenet of democracy when you invite ExxonMobil to deny itself the right to provide information to 'senior elected and appointed government officials' who disagree with your opinion."

In what The Charleston (WV) Daily Mail has called "an intemperate attempt to squelch debate with a hint of political consequences," Senators Rockefeller and Snowe released an open letter dated October 30 to ExxonMobil CEO, Rex Tillerson, insisting he end Exxon's funding of a "climate change denial campaign." The Senators labeled scientists with whom they disagree as "deniers," a term usually directed at "Holocaust deniers." Some voices on the political left have called for the arrest and prosecution of skeptical scientists. The British Foreign Secretary has said skeptics should be treated like advocates of Islamic terror and must be denied access to the media.

Responds Lord Monckton, "Sceptics and those who have the courage to support them are actually helpful in getting the science right. They do not, as you improperly suggest, 'obfuscate' the issue: they assist in clarifying it by challenging weaknesses in the 'consensus' argument and they compel necessary corrections ... "

Lord Monckton's Churchillian reproof continues, "You acknowledge the effectiveness of the climate sceptics. In so doing, you pay a compliment to the courage of those free-thinking scientists who continue to research climate change independently despite the likelihood of refusal of publication in journals that have taken preconceived positions; the hate mail and vilification from ignorant environmentalists; and the threat of loss of tenure in institutions of learning which no longer make any pretence to uphold or cherish academic freedom."

Of Britain's Royal Society, a State-funded scientific body which, like the Senators, has publicly leaned on ExxonMobil, Lord Monckton said, "The Society's long-standing funding by taxpayers does not ensure any greater purity of motive or rigour of thought than industrial funding of scientists who dare to question whether 'climate change' will do any harm."

To the Senators' comparison of ExxonMobil's funding of climate sceptics with tobacco-industry funding of research denying the link between smoking and lung cancer, Lord Monckton counters, "Your comparison of Exxon's funding of sceptical scientists and groups with the former antics of the tobacco industry is unjustifiable and unworthy of any credible elected representatives. Either withdraw that monstrous comparison forthwith, or resign so as not to pollute the office you hold."

Concludes Lord Monckton, "I challenge you to withdraw or resign because your letter is the latest in what appears to be an internationally-coordinated series of maladroit and malevolent attempts to silence the voices of scientists and others who have sound grounds, rooted firmly in the peer- reviewed scientific literature, to question what you would have us believe is the unanimous agreement of scientists worldwide that global warming will lead to what you excitedly but unjustifiably call 'disastrous' and 'calamitous' consequences."

SOURCE Center for Science and Public Policy


http://www.breitbart...218.DCM029.html

[xanadu]

Spare me the dose of propaganda, bik. For the right amount of money you can find whores anywhere including the halls of science or of medicine. Yes, we understand that it isn't "unanimous" but the bulk of considered opinion is and has been that global warming is real and is exacerbated by man's activities.

Speaking of holocaust "deniers" which was mentioned, they have very good points but you don't want to hear about it because your mind is made up. A mind that can't change is lost forever.