US News
French physicist calls Al Gore a 'crook' over global warming issues
By M&C US News Dec 28, 2007, 18:36 GMT
On the Web
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. Reports: Man hoping to attack Capitol caught in sting operation
- 2. US fighter jets intercept plane flying close to Obama helicopter
- 3. PREVIEW: Stars, fans and cameras set for Whitney Houston's funeral
- 4. Hollywood's sad story: Stars ruined by prescription drugs
- 5. Actress Susan Sarandon funds table tennis for New York schools
Older Talkback
page: 1
Music to my ears! I can't wait to hear the responses!
Imagine somebody dismissing global warming because it is supposed to be a judeo-*christian guilt complex.Hardly scientific.Reminds me of somebody calling atheism a religion.Always good for a joke .Some people use whatever arguments they find,some are ready to believe anything as long as Al Gore is in the cross hairs.
BY the way ,I googled in vain to find the news in question in the french press,found nothing,presumably just another fart in a bottle brewed by a marginal site,not worth mentionning in the mainstream press.No controversy in France at all.
You can find it here
amazonDOTfr/v%C3%A9rit%C3%A9-sur-plan%C3%A8te-Claude-All%C3%A8gre/dp/22 59206751
The Financial Post reported that American scientists who support the global warming 'hype' receive $1.7 billion in grants every year.
So why are the skeptics skeptical?
According to Israeli astrophysicist Nir Shaviv, who once supported the theory of global warming, he told the Financial Post in February that doubling the amount of carbon dioxide by 2100 “will not dramatically increase the global temperature.”
Even if carbon dioxide increased by only 50 percent, “the expected reduction in the rise in global temperature would be less than .5 degree centigrade,” Shaviv said. “This is not significant.”
Second, any increased global temperature reflects intensified solar activity, which increases not only the overall radiation that warms the earth but also the ultraviolet radiation that forms and destroys ozone, thus releasing heat. Such solar activity ebbs and flows in cycles.
“The Sun contains 99.8% of the mass of solar system,” said meteorologist John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel. “Its constant hydrogen-fueled atomic fusion consumes more mass in a second that all the fossil fuel ever burned on Earth. It is difficult to imagine man's activities overwhelming the heat from the Sun. But, that is exactly what global warming advocates want you to believe.
“If you plot average annual temperatures on Earth, solar cycles and mankind's supposed most significant climate altering activity, the burning of fossil fuels, the solar cycles and temperatures match and the use of fossil fuels seems to be unrelated.”
Such dissenting scientists as Dr. David Evans of Australia are trying to make themselves heard at the Bali conference, which features the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Evans – a mathematician and electrical engineer who served as a carbon accountant for the Australian government – is promoting a peer-reviewed team study published in the December edition of the Royal Meteorological Society’s International Journal of Climatology. The study showed that increased atmospheric temperatures have natural causes, not man-made ones.
“We now have quite a lot of evidence that carbon emissions definitely don't cause global warming,” Evans said. “We have the missing (human) signature (in the atmosphere), we have the IPCC models being wrong and we have the lack of a temperature going up the last 5 years.”
Dr. Vincent Gray, a climatologist who reviewed all of the IPCC’s drafts since the panel was formed in 1990 and who shares a Nobel Prize awarded to the panel, was even more emphatic:
“All the science of the IPCC is unsound. I have come to this conclusion after a very long time. If you examine every single proposition of the IPCC thoroughly, you find that the science somewhere fails. It fails not only from the data, but it fails in the statistics, and the mathematics.”
Perhaps the most prominent skeptic is a scientist who helped lead the original charge against global warming. French geochemist Claude Allegre – an expert in atmospheric chemistry who belongs to the National Academy of Sciences and the French Academy of Science – first proposed the idea in the mid-1980s and joined nearly 1,500 other scientists in signing the 1992 “World Scientists’ Warning To Humanity,” which predicted “spirals of environmental decline, poverty, and unrest, leading to social, economic and environmental collapse.”
But Allegre’s research into the increase of ice in Antarctica and the diminishing snow caps on Tanzania’s Mt. Kilimanjaro caused him to change his mind. “The cause of this climate change is unknown,” Allegre wrote for the French magazine L’Express in September 2006.
Since then, Allegre has been blunt about global warming’s fear mongers, as the Financial Post reported in March:
“Calling the arguments of those who see catastrophe in climate change ‘simplistic and obscuring the true dangers,’ Dr. Allegre especially despairs at ‘the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters.’ His dream, he says, is to see ‘ecology become the engine of economic development and not an artificial obstacle that creates fear.’”
There IS no controversy in France! They look like they've pretty much decided!
Now, science is going to occur. They will start debunking, point by point, each shred of evidence.
This, curiously is not a bad thing, because it just might SUPPORT the science. This is all folks like myself really want is to verify some of the outragous claims made by these scientific interlopers.
'vahce president Gore......well, isn't this a sur prahse! Ah wuz jes tellin ol Dick abouut in vahtin ya to a quail shoot soon....nah, y don't have t evin bring a gun.....ol Dick l' have enuf fer both o you!'
'what?....global climate change.....uh...yeah, sure! Ah...uh...jes got done gitten it offa them uropeeen leadahs backs....well...ree negotiatin they call it....or sumpin. Al...they kept sayin somethin lahke,,'gee Prez ee dent Buush, heeelp us out here!'....or sumpin lahke thit, ya knoow? Kinda made me feel a little uneasy ya knoow?'
'well....congrats t rebuildin yur career sir....a reel stroke o genius! God, Ol Karl couldn't have done it bettah if you'd been a swift boat cap'n or sumpin....jes kiddin aboot thim swift boatahs sir. Well...gotta go o sum meetin aboot nucular power....no green house gases thire huh?...heh heh heh...bah th way...RSVP on thit quail trip with ol Dick, he's foamin at th mouth boyh! Laura an mah best...happy new yeah! Oh yeah, ol Dick found a couple o brief case with sum chinese letterin on it unda his desk when he moved in...ah told him not t open it an only handle thimm with gloves. N' if'n ya need em boyh, send ol Sandy Bergah over with thim pahnts o his an he'll bring em to ya forthwith.'
Folks, carbon dioxide CONDUCTS heat. It is NOT an insulator. Anybody who says that carbon dioxide is not a conductor of heat has a political ax to grind or is a misanthrope or both!
This is just about as goofy as it gets. Why this silly scam has not been seen through by now is a complete mystery to me.
...how fast this one went off the front page!
The vast majority of scientists, receiving funding or not, are in agreement that it's a future crisis. No one is willing to take sufficient actions, and the melt in the polar regions is clear evidence that problems are looming, which will cause noticeable climatic changes in a few decades. Even a few degrees make a difference. There's always one loudmouth to get headlines by disagreeing, but since the entire planet bears some risk (to what degree no one can quantify), it would be straightforward enough to fund alternative energy research as DARPA did in its areas, as well as explaining pebble-bed and other modern nuclear alternatives. There are even plans for orderly disposal of waste materials. What's needed is effort, not publicity-seeking yahoos looking for a platform.
Of particular concern is ocean warming, which adds strength to tropical storms. We are already seeing increased activity and increased hurricane strength.
www.guardian.co.uk/weather/Story/0,,2232599,00.html
The United Nations office that sends expert teams around the world to help governments deal with natural disasters was busier than ever in Latin America this year, a fact it at least partially blames on climate change. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, or OCHA, said in a statement that a record nine missions were dispatched to the region during 2007, among 14 sent around the globe, itself a higher than usual number.
Of the 14 global missions, 70% were in response to hurricanes and floods, the OCHA statement said, calling this 'possibly a glimpse of the shape of things to come given the reality of climate change.'
In Latin America the proportion was even higher.
There were the rains in November that left most of the southern Mexican state of Tabasco under water for weeks, including large parts of the city of Villahermosa.
In October, Tropical Storm Noel triggered flash floods in the Dominican Republic that killed dozens. In September, Honduras faced the category five Hurricane Felix, just as Jamaica and Belize had been battered by the similarly strong Hurricane Dean the month before.
In South America, Uruguay suffered its worst flooding in 50 years and hundreds of thousands of Bolivians were inundated and their crops ruined at the beginning of the year, warranting two UN missions alone.
Claude Allegre has some pretty serious bona fides.
www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14 da388
Notice, if you will, that the good Doctor is from Tonny's end of the political spectrum. No greedy capitalist at work here, Tonny. Strangely enough, he seems to be hinting that this global warming scare is nothing more than a capitalist plot to rip more money out of the helpless masses. He might be right in a way, but I would argue that it is a MERCANTILIST PLOT. Mercantilism should NOT be confused with Capitalism.
Southern Hemisphere Winter Sea Ice area is the highest it's been in 30 years:
Why?
Yes, there was record low Arctic sea ice last summer, but according to NASA's report, the melting was enhanced by an unusually high number of clear days and unusual winds which blew the sea ice out to warmer waters. This melting may not occur again next summer to the same extent. Also, according to a Environmental Defense 411 scientist, a lot of the Arctic melting was also enhanced by black soot coming from Europe.
I have links to support these statements.
Trying to find short-term cause-and-effect is just silly - the trends have been in place, and the additional pollution coming from industrial activity in China, India, and other countries without U.S. levels of pollution controls is a recent addition.
Give it a decade, and many more scientists will be in agreement. It will also be another 10 years wasted listening to a minority of scientists like this one, still blinded by their own agendas, and refusing to understand the science and the impact of globalization.
This is somewhat like waiting for Bush to admit that he screwed up Iraq.
The author of this link is also 'about the politics of it', but he still has a point to make insofar as climate change.
www.alternet.org/environment/71873/
Globalization is to global warming what warm water in the Gulf of Mexico waters was to Hurricane Katrina. And, unless we wisely limit rapidly accelerating global trade, we will see equally disastrous and deadly results -- worsening global warming and a continued chemical poisoning of our world.
For nearly a generation, the mainstream pro-globalization forces have ignored climate change. Instead we've been bombarded with the virtues of liberalized trade: It drives down prices, increases efficiency, lifts nations out of poverty, and contributes to overall global prosperity. Those who questioned NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, and the like are derided as 'protectionists,' who force artificially high prices on the rest of us while making our economy less competitive. Manufacturing unions attempting to stop the destruction of millions of middle-income, U.S.-based factory jobs are vilified as elitists who are more concerned about the privileged few than about the poor who gain new jobs in developing nations.
But the elephant in the room is hyper-development. Expanded trade indeed has contributed to the enormous economic growth rates in China (and India). As a result, China's appetite for fuel and power has grown exponentially: As The New York Times reported (June 11, 2006), every week to 10 days, another coal-fired power plant comes online in China large enough to serve a major U.S. city.
I'll never bash the French again. Come on people, the scientific consensus is not all the doom and gloom feedbacks in computer models that are not up to the task in predicting climate. We are a long way off from knowing how the variables interact (we don't even know if we have identified all the variables.) The consensus is that the mean temperature of the earth has warmed a little and that C02 can act as a greenhouse gas. For all of you who believe that arctic temperatures and summer melting is beyond what has happened in the past, take the time look at historical temperatures from the period of 1900 to 1940 on the NASA web site. You will be very surprised. The major difference between summer Arctic melting then and now is that we began taking satellite photos in 1979.
AGW is the new Socialism!
Alas! Can't argue with the facts. The scientists who have diligently studied the causes may just be a tad bit more reputable than those who pass judgment due to their own prejudices.
Let us summarize here;the very few scientists trying to debunk global warming use these arguments;it is a capitalist plot,it is a judeo-christian guilt thing,;the scientists community gets billion dollar bonuses for predicting global warming (from who,by the way ? ) In a nutshell these are the arguments that are wielded by the lunatic fringe denying climate change .I'd like to add to that a new claim;carbon dioxide is a heath conductor...a new invention of a delusive brain,contrary to the laws of thermodynamics,more specific the first and the second laws.
Ignorance is a poor excuse when you post on the Internet but it never hinders the disabled peanut brains in the USA.
Against that I would like to oppose a few of your own domestic worries,as it seems the world ends at the borders of the USA for some of you:record drought in the South East,enormous forest fires in California,dwindling water supplies allover,the North Californa glaciers melting ,record average temperatures,the levels of the great lakes changing.Now for those of you with the capacity to look over the border,record temperatures allover the world,glaciers melting everywhere ,the artic ice losing 20 percent of it's surface in the last year,greenland rising slowly as a result of losing it's cover of ice,drought and inundations on the rise everywhere.Calculation from the International Red Cross figured out a raise in catastrophes with 20 percent in 2006.Statistics,recorded facts,etc are opposed to spin like judeo-chrisitan guild and capitalist plot.
Guess who I believe in this.At least I have a scientific education.THat disposes quickly of the 'carbon dioxide is a thermal conductor 'idiocy.
Some people need an education,perhaps spending a little bit less on a silly war might provide for it.Some are in dire need of it...
Now is the time todebunk all these deceptive issues of carbon-caused global warming. Human existed old enough not to be deluded by carbon emission hoax. Science is bound to humanity to explain its existence and not to connive with the acts of deceit.
Well-meaning scientists should come out and give their views and strive for truth.
Another fine example of the complete lack of understanding is to be found in the ridicule statement that the sun contains 99;8 percent of the total mass of the solar system and the thermonuclear processes providing heath can not be influenced bu human provoked global warming .What king of idiotic reasoning hides behind this ?Anybody actually believing this kind of fairy tales .It leaves out the most important element;how much of this energy is absorbed by our planet.Probably less than one millionth of it I guess,if not much less.Kind of tells you how stupid the people are that use these arguments...you were saying these were scientists?I guess you mean US scientists,right?
Here it is,the part of solar energy that actually reaches the earth's atmosphere :0.00000005% .At least that is part of a plausible mathematic equation influencing the weather,NOT the 99,8 mass of the sun compared to the total mass of the solar system.That figure means nothing but is spectacular and hence used to influence the feeble intelligence of SP4 and others.
Carbon dioxide is a very good conductor of heat. That is why it is often used as a coolant! It is NOT an insulator of heat. Again, let us look at the numbers here. Carbon dioxide by volume, .038%! Water vapor by volume (for the whole atmosphere) 0.25%. By volume there is about seven times as much water vapor in the atmosphere as there is carbon dioxide. In terms of mass, water vapor makes 26 times more of the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. Every gas in our atmosphere, most of them far more abundant than carbon dioxide, are good conductors of heat. Carbon dioxide itself, is pretty good conductor of heat. You don't have to do much arithmetic to understand that this 'greenhouse gas' thing is a load of hooey!
In the very first paragraph of the IPCC's report, they stated flat out that they gave no consideration to water vapor in the atmosphere. This despite the fact that for every ten grams of hydrocarbons we burn, we produce 3.5 grams of water vapor not previously available to the atmosphere. The computer geeks have not been able to come up with a good model that deals with clouds, so they did not even try! This is science? My happy left cheek!
While we are about it, let's get something else straight. Democracy is not universally applicable and one of the fields were it is most decidedly inapplicable is in the fields of the sciences. Unfortunately, politics is never fully excluded from the realm of working scientists. In this particular case, on this particular subject, the politics to science ratio is something around a 100-to-1.
Have a look at this: 'Richard Lindzen received his PhD in applied mathematics in 1964 from Harvard University. A professor of meteorology in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a member of the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. He is also a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, and AGU's Macelwane Medal. He is author or coauthor of over 200 scholarly papers and books.'
What does Doctor Lindzen have to say about anthropogenic global warming?
'The summaries' distortion of the IPCC chapters compounds another distortion that occurred in the very writing of the scientific chapters themselves. Dr. Lindzen's description of the conditions under which the climate scientists worked conjures up a scene worthy of a totalitarian state: 'throughout the drafting sessions, IPCC 'coordinators' would go around insisting that criticism of models be toned down, and that 'motherhood' statements be inserted to the effect that models might still be correct despite the cited faults. Refusals were occasionally met with ad hominem attacks. I personally witnessed coauthors forced to assert their 'green' credentials in defense of their statements.''
This is POLITICS, not SCIENCE. And, I might add, it is a particularly NASTY form of politics, the kind of which that Tonny has repeatedly shown himself to be a master.
Folks, we DO have global warming. I don't think anyone can argue about that anymore. The ENTIRE SOLAR SYSTEM is warming up! Earth receives more total energy from the sun than all the other planets except Venus. If the outer planets, from Mars to Pluto, are showing signs of heating up, then it isn't hard to understand why Earth is heating up. We receive eight times as much energy from the sun as Mars does. Thanks to the inverse square law, the other planets receive far less energy than Earth.
So yes, we most certainly DO have a problem, but wasting huge capital resources on limiting the emissions of carbon dioxide is not going to fix the problem. All that does is get in the way of the other things that we need to be doing RIGHT NOW!
Here is some more food for thought offered to those capable of such a dastardly act. What if someone built a fission reactor next to your house and they told you up front that it would not have any control mechanisms or safety devices. You would be alarmed by that, wouldn't you?
Guess what. The sun is a FUSION reactor completely lacking in engineering controls or safety devices and it is, right next door to us, being only eight minutes away at light speed.
Here is something else to think about. All the energy we have ever used or will ever use has as its ultimate source--nuclear fusion. That's right, nuclear energy. Without sunlight raining down on Earth in the ancient past, there would never have been any coal, crude oil, or natural gas. Without the sunlight that fell on Earth during the last few hundred years, there would not be any wood or even buffalo chips. Without the death of some very large ancient star, there would be no fissile materials in the Earth's crust. We are here discussing a very large source of power. With great power comes great danger.
Despite all this, we go right on living next door to a completely UNCONTROLLED fusion reactor and have so far done nothing, not even to the extent of thinking, about what to do if old Sol decides its time to get hot. Well, guess what. It has decided to get moderately warmer. Maybe, just maybe, it is time for us to start developing a wiser perspective.
I can now skip my science classes after reading (I tried to read part of it) the comments here! I really think global warming is two fold. Part of it is the natural occuring cycle of the world and part of it is man made - so both sides have good points, but they should try to work together and not keep wasting time bashing each other and wanting to be the 'right' one! Is it you old guys who keep stirring the pot of accusations instead of trying to help?
The data being supressed by the MSM is overwhelming. All one has to do is shed ideology and look around. Here is just one I found in less than 20 seconds - from an individual with credentials to satisfy even the most ardent doom & gloom believer. Since web site addresses are prohibited here - Google Dr. Timothy Ball and click on 'Global Warming, climate change facts.'
During the week of Aug. 6, 2007 - NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies -- whose temperature records are a key component of the global-warming claim (quietly) corrected an error in its data set that had made recent temperatures seem warmer than they really were.
In many cases, the changes are statistically minor, but their impact on the rhetoric surrounding global warming is significant.
The hottest year since 1880 becomes 1934 instead of 1998 - now second. 1921 is third.
Four of the 10 hottest years were in the 1930s and three in the past decade.
The 15 hottest years since 1880 are spread over seven decades. Eight occurred before atmospheric carbon dioxide began its recent rise; seven occurred afterwards.
In other words, there is no discernible trend, no obvious warming of late.
Claiming that man-made carbon dioxide has caused the natural disasters of recent years makes as much sense as claiming fossil-fuel burning caused the Great Depression.
Facts are non-patisen!
...to question results. It is sciences fundimental role to question results.
This being the case, to say that a 'majority' of scientists 'agree' on something has no real scientific value. It is their role to question the results and proceed to further study.
It's not that I necessarily disagree with these 'scientists' it's that they've abandoned the scientific method in order to advance a cause.
'.Kind of tells you how stupid the people are that use these arguments...you were saying these were scientists?I guess you mean US scientists,right?'
LOL! such envy.... from going to the moon to the first nuclear reactor to the integrated circuit, the computer and the internet that you whine on... Poor US scientists...
Science is supposed to be collaborative....yes, we built the first nuclear reactor, but a german scientist theorized it, remember?...and, yes, we landed on the moon but it was a german scientist who designed the rocket.
Excellent response to 'turd' - One's use of gutter language diminishes all involved in a legitimate discussion - and relegates that person's thoughts & comments irrelevant - except as a continuing annoyance. But it is a small price to pay in order to have an exchange of thoughts from all sides of an issue. - And yes - I AM an American Patriot!
Oops!
It has taken at least 60 years to link smoking with lung cancer and heart desease. There is always somebody who will deny it right to the very end even when the truth is there staring them in the face.
Global warming is a very similar issue, unfortunately we do not have 60 years to sort it out because it's problems are already here and due to get much worse.
I have lived long enough to hear many scare stories about the Earth's future but this time all the evedence is there and the predictions of global warming are happening yesterday rather than tomorrow.
We can try to adapt to it,try and stop it, or fill up our SUV's and hope all the scientists are wrong.
I go along with soloution No1 because the amount of scepticism on the world proves that nothing will ever be done to combat it.
We are in a similar warming period as was the 1900 to 1940 period. The major difference is that we have satellites (images began in 1979) and 24 hour news. Greenland and the Arctic experienced similar conditions as they experienced during past summers. The debate over a measured temperature rise of 1/10s of a degree is immaterial in scientific terms and the rise is well within the margin of error. AGW is a social and political error aimed at the US, Canada and Western Europe. Unfortunately, the Socialist in these regions are using this issue to their advantage because they know that people feel good if they think they are doing something good for the earth.
One of my favorite stories about science comes from my Aunt who is a renowned Doctor in her field.
In the 1800's, British scientists were going over the Pyramids like ants on a hill. Each discovery produced a new theory of origin, or some other theory.
One day, a scientist walked up to another scientist, who had a hammer and chisle out. He asked why the young scientist was chipping away at the rock, and the man told him 'if this measurement is such, my theory will be proven'.
Scientists are motivated by the same things other people are. We hope they will be honest, but only scientific peer review can offer a possible guarentee of honesty.
The woes of the scientific community become much more pronounced when the guys with the money are demanding a specific kind of result. Politicians have never been above mudslinging at anyone about anything. The first thing any working scientist will remind you of is the Golden Rule. He who has the gold makes the rules. They've been putting up with that kind of nonsense for centuries. Very often, it is the braver ones, the 'fringe members' who have it right and are the ones who get a given field back on course.
One has to only look at science and see the gargantuan mistakes. Eugenics, offered up a 'consensus' of scientists, most out of any medical field, the Spotted Owl, Global Cooling Predictions and the like.
All of these have something in common:
All were pushed as fact by non-scientists through the media
All had politicians using the science to force a political end of their choice.
All had laws to institutionalize the science into fact.
See, Tonny, why we are skeptical?
'SP4: To the turd above'
'Science is supposed to be collaborative....yes, we built the first nuclear reactor, but a german scientist theorized it, remember?'
An Italian born scientist actually, but like so many others with something to contribute he died an American, Remember? No? That is a sign of dementia.
'...and, yes, we landed on the moon but it was a german[sic] scientist who designed the rocket.'
After reading the work of Robert Goddard. Either way, that German died a citizen of the USA.
Hey SP4, you need to get out more. You are not well read enough to shoot people down here and you probably are at the age where every day counts.
...but Fermi and the others could have never done it without Einstein.
That was the point you obviously missed: they all build on each others work.
Again, science is a collaborative enterprise.
By the way, goddard had very little to do with rocketry in America. He hoarded his research, and never really cooperated with anyone. His research never really conributed to anything monumental.
Werner Von Braun was the real father of american rocketry in the USA. After WWII, captured V-2's were brought here, along with ol Wernwer and HE started the show. The Saturn V was HIS baby, as were many of the other milestones.
Schools' out boy. Your mom's cooking breakfast upstairs.
Interesting sidelight, Einstein wrote all three of his best papers during his spare time. He was pretty much outside the rest of the physics community from the git-go.
'..but Fermi and the others could have never done it without Einstein.'
Albert Einstein of Princeton, New Jersey, a citizen of the United States....
'That was the point you obviously missed: they all build on each others work.'
No, the point was to shut up tonny from goddamn Belgium. ('I guess you mean US scientists,right?') You however decided to insert yourself in the middle of it because you wanted some attention.
'By the way, goddard had very little to do with rocketry in America. '
Naaah, he just invented the first practical liquid fuel motor system and the first practical method of gyroscopic stabilization which are the cornerstone, the absolutely most essential contributions to 'rocket science'. Other then that 'very little'...
'Werner Von Braun was the real father of american[sic] rocketry in the USA.'
'At the time, Germany was highly interested in American physicist Robert H. Goddard's research. Before 1939, German scientists occasionally contacted Goddard directly with technical questions. After that, things got rather tense. Wernher von Braun used Goddard's plans from various journals and incorporated them into the building of the Aggregat 4 (A-4) series of rockets, better known as the V-2.[5] In 1963, von Braun reflected on the history of rocketry, and said of Goddard's work: 'His rockets ... may have been rather crude by present-day standards, but they blazed the trail and incorporated many features used in our most modern rockets and space vehicles.' [3] Goddard confirmed his work was used by von Braun when, after the war ended, Goddard inspected captured German V-2s, and recognized many components which he had invented.'
-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun
'Schools' out boy. Your mom's cooking breakfast upstairs.'
Once again, you are demonstrably incorrect yet you swagger about it.
Science is a truely collaborative enterprise.
Von Braun WAS motivated by Goddards work, and even borrowed some of it, but his own hardcore R&D was responsible for most of his successes. Nothing I wrote detracts from Robert Goddards success, but his actual flight achievements pale to Von Braun's.
And yes, AFTER these folks did their pioneering, they emigrated to the USA. There, they were naturalized. Technically, that made them Americans.
Having said that, much of their poineering work was done in their home nations, so I do not think of them as American educated and trained scientists. I think any reasonable person would have to acknoweledge that.
So, no, I would not necessarily agree. You make some very correct points, especially about Goddard's work, but my point was that science is a collaborative enterprise and one builds on the work of others. On that point, I think I'm correct, and from what I read, you seem to think so too.
Robert Goddard didn't develop the Saturn V, Von Braun did, end of story.
Von Braun is, by his own account and history's, a GERMAN scientist, not an american scientist.
End of Story.
'Science is a truely[sic] collaborative enterprise.'
What I was refuting was the idea that American science is something to be ridiculed. Especially by a society whose contribution to the modern world is expensive chocolate.
' Nothing I wrote detracts from Robert Goddards success, but his actual flight achievements pale to Von Braun's.'
Von Braun was a team manager, Goddard was a scientist. Here, read this:
www.thespacereview.com/article/1013/1
'And yes, AFTER these folks did their pioneering, they emigrated to the USA.'
Yes and no. You see, Fermi and Einstein came here to escape a truly European invention called the 'death camp'. Their countries were overtaken by another European invention called 'fascism' whereby their best minds 'collaborated' to come up with inventions like 'the master race' and the 'holocaust'. Even still, Fermi's best work was in the USA, Einstein's work came to fruition in the USA and Von Braun actually hit the moon instead of London as an American, not a Nazi.
It speaks to the society that we have that people can come here and live to the extent of their individual potential. That is why there is an American flag on the moon, not an Italian or German one.
'but my point was that science is a collaborative enterprise and one builds on the work of others. '
Well you see, MY point was that tonny is an ass. You hopped on in and muddied the waters with the 'science is a collaborative effort and you are a turd' proclamation. If you want to follow your point to it's logical ends then no one can take credit for anything because it all started with the ancient Chinese and Sumerians. I am sure tonny would LOVE to endorse that point of view. It is the collective theory of innovation; No one is responsible (especially those Yankee SOB's) because everyone is responsible. I do not buy it.
'Von Braun WAS motivated by Goddards work,'
Goddard and Von Braun were probably motivated by the legend of 'Wan Hu' the Ming dynasty era Chinese 'astronaut' who strapped bottle rockets to his chair and launched himself toward the moon... Unless you can find a scorched Chinaman up there the credit still goes to NASA/The USA. The Anasazi made glow in the dark decorations but the first atomic pile was under the tennis courts at University of Chicago. The abacus may have inspired the integrated circuit but Robert Noyce gets the point...
Yes, human achievement as well as scientific achievement is inherently built on the previous achievements, evolutionary more then collaborative. HOWEVER: In dealing with whiny, indoctrinated, parasitic idiots from Belgium who are furious at being surpassed by these upstart Americans it helps to run down a few contributions to scientific endeavor that have a 'made in America' pedigree.
It also helps to then not have to then go into a long protracted, ad nauseum debate about what precise degree of collaboration these innovations owe to evolution or revolution or collaboration versus inspiration because the original, irrefutable point was that tonny is an a*shole.
'Science is a truely[sic] collaborative enterprise.'
What I was refuting was the idea that American science is something to be ridiculed. Especially by a society whose contribution to the modern world is expensive chocolate.
' Nothing I wrote detracts from Robert Goddards success, but his actual flight achievements pale to Von Braun's.'
Von Braun was a team manager, Goddard was a scientist. Here, read this:
www.thespacereview.com/article/1013/1
'And yes, AFTER these folks did their pioneering, they emigrated to the USA.'
Yes and no. You see, Fermi and Einstein came here to escape a truly European invention called the 'death camp'. Their countries were overtaken by another European invention called 'fascism' whereby their best minds 'collaborated' to come up with inventions like 'the master race' and the 'holocaust'. Even still, Fermi's best work was in the USA, Einstein's work came to fruition in the USA and Von Braun actually hit the moon instead of London as an American, not a Nazi.
It speaks to the society that we have that people can come here and live to the extent of their individual potential. That is why there is an American flag on the moon, not an Italian or German one.
'but my point was that science is a collaborative enterprise and one builds on the work of others. '
Well you see, MY point was that tonny is an ass. You hopped on in and muddied the waters with the 'science is a collaborative effort and you are a turd' proclamation. If you want to follow your point to it's logical ends then no one can take credit for anything because it all started with the ancient Chinese and Sumerians. I am sure tonny would LOVE to endorse that point of view. It is the collective theory of innovation; No one is responsible (especially those Yankee SOB's) because everyone is responsible. I do not buy it.
'Von Braun WAS motivated by Goddards work,'
Goddard and Von Braun were probably motivated by the legend of 'Wan Hu' the Ming dynasty era Chinese 'astronaut' who strapped bottle rockets to his chair and launched himself toward the moon... Unless you can find a scorched Chinaman up there the credit still goes to NASA/The USA. The Anasazi made glow in the dark decorations but the first atomic pile was under the tennis courts at University of Chicago. The abacus may have inspired the integrated circuit but Robert Noyce gets the point...
Yes, human achievement as well as scientific achievement is inherently built on the previous achievements, evolutionary more then collaborative. HOWEVER: In dealing with whiny, indoctrinated, parasitic idiots from Belgium who are furious at being surpassed by these upstart Americans it helps to run down a few contributions to scientific endeavor that have a 'made in America' pedigree.
It also helps to then not have to then go into a long protracted, ad nauseum debate about what precise degree of collaboration these innovations owe to evolution or revolution or collaboration versus inspiration because the original, irrefutable point was that tonny is an a*shole.
'Robert Goddard didn't develop the Saturn V, Von Braun did, end of story.'
Wrong, Von Braun presided over the team that developed it at NASA that used the research of American inventor Robert Goddard.
'Von Braun is, by his own account and history's, a GERMAN scientist, not an american[sic] scientist.'
Wrong, On April 15, 1955, von Braun became a naturalized citizen of the United States. Here is his grave:
www.v2rocket.com/start/chapters/grave_002.jpg
Ivy Hill Cemetery in Alexandria, Virginia. That is in the USA.
So “the other way” doesn’t work for you either.
Here is a photo of the Saturn V rocket:
www.spacecamp.com/media/images/saturn%20v-1.jpg
See any German flags on that? Nope.
Here is a photo of someone by the name of Armstrong:
www.vw.vccs.edu/vwhansd/HIS122/Images/ManOnMoon.jpg
Armstrong… That’s a Scottish name isn’t it? Why no cross of St. Andrew? Gee, that’s an American flag he is planting on the frigging moon… I wonder why he didn’t celebrate the collaboration of all that came before him and plant a big rainbow flag like the one that you carry at your gay pride marches? Because it was an American enterprise. Got it?
So, now for you and tonny who are both evidentially on the same page here, the United States has made great contributions to scientific endeavor. End of Story.
Man made global warming (what this story was originally about) is a theory that has yet to be definitively proved by scientists of ANY nationality...
Humans may very well be contributing to global warming and the facts are important, just ask any of the fire fighters who had to go up against the tremendous forest fires that decimated the U.S. woodlands in the 2007 fire season which lasted a bit longer than was the norm. Moreover, it is becoming more of a trend, pattern, if you will.
Politics and name-calling don't seem to help where actions are needed to save this planet from further devastation. You see, warfare isn't the only harmful means to an end.
Wasting energy on comparing science from Europe or the USA is pointless in this debate,completely irrelevant?Recorded temperatures indicate the same pattern in Europe and the USA alike ;temperatures are on the rise ...and fast.No need to be a rocket engineer to compare average temperatures for the last centuries .They all indicate the same trend.No need to blame China or India for the 6 percent of the world population living in the USA for spouting 25 percent of the total carbon dioxide .And no need to deny it is responsible for raising temperatures and shiftng weather patterns .Statistics contain the condensed facts ?Too bad people are willing to deny these facts solely basing themselves on absence of education and understanding facts .Fact is that in France nobody gives a fart about what an estranged scientist says.Public opinion is behind the facts,there is absolutely no rouse in the media like the above article claims.THere is simply no trace of it in the French press at all,it is spin from Monsters and Critics,shall I call it 'hot air ' ?
And if Gore was a Republican, SP4 would be posting constant glowing tributes!
'No need to blame China or India for the 6 percent of the world population living in the USA for spouting 25 percent of the total carbon dioxide'
Fine, blame it on the sun cycle.
'And no need to deny it is responsible for raising temperatures and shiftng weather patterns'
Prove it. Water vapor is by FAR the largest greenhouse gas. Put a cap on that.
'Statistics contain the condensed facts'
Whatever that means...
'Too[sic] bad people are willing to deny these facts solely basing themselves on absence of education and understanding facts'
A 'absence of education'???
'Claude Allegre, a former education minister and a physicist by profession'
Gee Claude sounds educated, you sound like a moron.
'.Public opinion is behind the facts,there is absolutely no rouse in the media like the above article claims'
Public opinion was once behind witch burning. Does that make it correct?
(1) Please, people, use the 'name' line for some sort of I.D. - and (possibly)then a Subject- better yet, put subject as first line of text - so we know who we are replying to and can follow a person's train of thought.
(2) PLEASE, stick with the subject. Discuss who built the first rocket and at what longitude in some sort of forum
(3)Speaking of forums - will this be moved to one?
tonny from belgium wrote: Recorded temperatures indicate the same pattern in Europe and the USA alike ;temperatures are on the rise ...and fast.No need to be a rocket engineer to compare average temperatures for the last centuries .They all indicate the same trend.
Tonny - go back to page 3 and read the data on temperatures.
After that - we need to figure out something else:
The oceans and land outgas 210 billion tons of CO2 per year compared to 3 billion tons per year from human activity.
On August 15, 2007, meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, said, “If the atmosphere was a 100-story building, our annual anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor.”
Just how significant is our contribution to the CO2 'crisis?' (3/213 = 1.4%). So if we cut out ALL human contribution of CO2 - kill everybody (stop them from breathing) and shutdown everything (including the electric for your computer) - what has been accomplished?.. NOTHING!
Average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn't been uniform — warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy.
Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter - testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works - on his June 18, 2007 essay that global warming has stopped. Yet atmospheric CO2 has increased by 17 percent since 1979. Thus, the connection between CO2 and “global warming,” the key to the claims that it is occurring and will increase has been proven wrong.
To reiterate from my last post: The 15 hottest years since 1880 are spread over seven decades. Eight occurred before atmospheric carbon dioxide began its recent rise; seven occurred afterwards.
In other words, there is no discernible trend, no obvious warming of late.
It is hard ti fight to combat complete ignorance of facts.After having learned that carbon dioxide is in fact a conductor of heath from Noharness ( against the laws of physics more precisely the first and second laws of thermodynamics but never mind science,noharness knows better) last poster seems to think that in fact the oceans spout into the atmosphere vast amounts of carbon dioxide,in fact in such enormous amounts that compared to that,human contribution is just a puff of perfume .Not entirely untrue I ' d say ,but the poster is giving a biased picture.In fact the oceans have been absorbing these enormous amounts of carbon dioxide and have helped reducing thev impact of it on global warming....until recently .Latest survey made in 2006 on 60 different spots revealed the oceans are saturated with carbon dioxide and are now releasing the stuff,accelerating global warming .What is even worse is that methane ,which impacts global warming in an exponential way unparalleled even by carbon dioxide,might be released from the ocean floor (that is however not proved )What is actually been observed is relaese from methane from the melting permafrost ,billions of tons of it ,that is if the balance shifts to more warming still.
The situation right now seems to indicate that already the point of no return has been reached and humans will have to make efforts not to add further to the problems .
Never mind the neocon idiot SP4 who claims atheism is a religion,states that Bush is the greatest president in US history,still claims the existence of WMD in Iraq,claims 16 US intelligence sources all claiming Iran stopped it's military nuclear plans in 2003 have it all wrong if Bush and Bolton say so,who thinks a war is justified if it is won whatever the costs and reasons given to go to war ...in fact would you buy a second hand car from such a fraud ?
It takes learning and understanding or trust in the scientific community operating on a worldwide level to choose sides in this debate .Outside the USA it is already over,we have no oil lobby capable of spreading lies lik in the USA.A good precedent for that was indeed as another poster indicated the struggle to convince smokers that cigarettes cause cancer .Ten thousands of americans have died for nothing more than the profit of Marlboro and Philip Morris .Even there some nutty scientists were payed by the tobacco lobby toperformo a similar task ?THey hired the same canadian public relation that worked for the tobacco industry to spread their lies ,not exactly a coincidence. So,no thanks guys I'll stick to mainstream facts.Citing the fact that it was once fashion to hunt witches is completely irrelevant to the debate,it puts to shame the very person that uses this kind of argument in a serious debate .
What do we do with the temperature data that is an 'inconvenient truth?' - toss it, because it doesn't fit - or are they from the 'oil conspiracy too?'
tonney, you said: Outside the USA it is already over,we have no oil lobby capable of spreading lies lik in the USA.
Fine - Since money creates lies (your words) Then where are the global warming 'scientists' getting their money? Hmmm?
Scientists, primarily those in academia, but also those in other public and private industries, are promoted and advance mainly through their research efforts and publication record. In order to conduct research and ultimately publish the results in refereed scientific journals, scientists need money, ---> government money mostly.
This is a continuation of previous note - which got cut off inadvertantly:
Unfortunately, journals are unlikely to publish, what scientists call, negative results.
That is, if you spend five years researching a question and determine honestly through your research that there are no significant conclusions to be drawn from the work, this knowledge is valuable, but it will never be published and you will not be promoted or receive tenure. Additionally, the agency that funded your research will be highly unlikely to fund any more or your work. For instance, if you conducted a scientific experiment to test the effectiveness of a new drug on the treatment of cancer and found that patients administered the drug had the same rate of survival as those who received a placebo, these would be negative results. The information is valuable, because it has identified a fruitless path of inquiry, but it is also considered not worthy of publication, in most cases. As a result, there is an enormous amount of pressure placed upon scientists to produce significant results.
Now, apply this paradigm to the current ''human activity caused, global warming'' debate. Most scientists researching the issue do so through the receipt of government grants. What do you suppose would happen to a scientist's career if he or she took several million dollars from the federal government to study global warming and, after several years, produced results honestly that stated that, either global warming was not occurring or that there isn't any evidence supporting the idea that it is caused by human activity? The individual would almost certainly not get published and would definitely not receive any more research funding. In essence, it would be the end of a career. When you consider that most who hold doctoral degrees spend between six and 12 years striving to get the degree, it isn't surprising that so few are willing to risk what they have worked so hard for over something as trivial as objective inquiry.
RE:'It is hard ti fight to combat complete ignorance of facts. After having learned that carbon dioxide is in fact a conductor of heat from Noharness ( against the laws of physics more precisely the first and second laws of thermodynamics but never mind science,noharness knows better) last poster seems to think that in fact the oceans spout into the atmosphere vast amounts of carbon dioxide,in fact in such enormous amounts that compared to that,human contribution is just a puff of perfume.'
Tonny, if you tried to insulate your house with CO2 you'd have a monstrous great energy bill or bills. Why do you suppose we install insulation in buildings, none of which are gases? You are spouting off about the first and second laws of thermodynamic, but I have serious doubts about your understanding of them. Heat is a damnably difficult thing hang onto. It's natural tendency is to dissipate as quickly as it can. Any gas or liquid that can circulate speeds up that process. Further, even stagnant gases and liquids will eventually conduct enough heat out of a container that they simply do NOT serve as insulators.
RE:'Not entirely untrue I ' d say ,but the poster is giving a biased picture.In fact the oceans have been absorbing these enormous amounts of carbon dioxide and have helped reducing thev impact of it on global warming....until recently .Latest survey made in 2006 on 60 different spots revealed the oceans are saturated with carbon dioxide and are now releasing the stuff,accelerating global warming.'
This one really is scary because the people saying these things should definitely no better, but they are afraid that they might make all the tree-huggers mad by telling the truth. Seventy-one percent of the Earth is covered by sea water. Guess where the bulk of the carbon is permanently, sequestered--the ocean. Guess how it's done! It is, or has been taken care of by the pelagic microorganisms in the oceans. Every year, the oceans produce some five trillion (5,000,000,000,000) tons of algae and diatoms during the summer of every year. They either die or are consumed by larger organisms and guess where all that CO2 that was converted starches, lipids and carbohydrates ends up! On the ocean floor. IT STAYS THERE! Most of it gets buried and turned in to carbonate rock.
At the same time that we began burning fossil fuels, we started dumping who knows how many millions of tons of toxins into the oceans. If you were really and truly worried about CO2 your first order of business would be to put complete and total stop to water pollution. With the oceans and its indigenous life, the atmosphere will stay in balance. Without that indigenous life in the oceans we will die of CO2 poisoning. Right about then is when we might, maybe, perhaps could see, some greenhouse warming from the gorramned CO2.
RE:'It takes learning and understanding or trust in the scientific community operating on a worldwide level to choose sides in this debate.'
Scientists, perhaps, provided they make a good case for their theories. Bureaucrats, never! The scientists 'working with' the IPPC have not made a good case and most of the doubts expressed by the scientists in their reports were edited out by the bureaucrats at the UN. You still have not made a case, Tonny.
RE:'Outside the USA it is already over,we have no oil lobby capable of spreading lies like in the USA. A good precedent for that was indeed as another poster indicated the struggle to convince smokers that cigarettes cause cancer.'
Yeah, let's talk about this one for a minute, because there is a lot of lying done about it on both sides. Polonium free tobacco does not cause, lung cancer, Tonny. People started smoking tobacco way back in the 1600's and lung cancer remained so rare up until just before WWII that it was almost unheard of. What made the difference? Fertilizers taken from mines. Nearly all of them have trace amounts of polonium in them. A great many plants have an affinity for certain metals and concentrate them in their tissues. Rice for instance, concentrates tungsten in the hulls surrounding rice grains. Tobacco, as it happens, will concentrate polonium in its tissues whenever and wherever the plants find it in the soil.
This has been known for a long, long time and it was known by both government researchers and the tobacco companies. So why didn't US Government which heavily subsidized tobacco farming until the Clinton Administration, ban the use of certain fertilizers on tobacco crops? Why is it that was not made generally known until recently? Could have been because certain elements in American Society favored their political and legislative agendas more than they did the lives of US citizens? You want me to trust government? You want me to trust the frikkin' UN? Have you lost your pea-pickin' little mind?
'So,no thanks guys I'll stick to mainstream facts.'
There is no such thing as 'mainstream facts'. There never has been any such and there never will be.
RE:'Citing the fact that it was once fashion to hunt witches is completely irrelevant to the debate,it puts to shame the very person that uses this kind of argument in a serious debate.'
No, not really, but it you do not like witch hunting as an example, how about eugenics? Or, better yet, socialist genetics? How about German physics versus Jewish physics? How much of that kind of bilge water thinking will you sucker for, Tonny?
'...who doe this upstart imagine himself to be...fluanting his views in the face of 1500 years of accepted doctrine from the majority of scholers...?'
Paraphrase of comments made By Martin Luther in reference to Nicoli Copernicus's writings on celestial mechanics.
I would like to read more of your comments. Is it possible for you to be even less brief in your comments? Try embelishing more i.e anything pertaining to my posts, the kitchen sink, your favorite color, etc.
By all means, get back to us!
Just some final thoughts for tonny:
I have refrained from character demeaning - and will continue attempting to keep my thoughts on the discussion - trying to ignore your feeble attempts to posture yourself as a Supreme being and us as riff raff. eg: (1)lunatic fringe (2) Ignorance is a poor excuse (3)the disabled peanut brains in the USA (4) Some people need an education. (5) Its hard to fight complete ignorance (6) the neocon idiot - etc. etc. etc.
But, you DO make it difficult.
Now, you have preened and are quite proud of your 'scientific education' - and demean all those who dare come at you with data (facts) that don't fit with your 'ideology' (and that is what has become apparant). Have you even considered what the education of those of us who are trying to discuss this issue with your highness (Oops, sorry - I forgot).
Since we disagree with you - we 'obviously' are all bought out by the 'oil lobby.' - And since you disagree with us - I HAVE to presume you are part of the government subsidized (re my last post) - So where does that leave the debate - since we are both 'lying'?
Why are the global warming proponents so determined to end the debate over global warming? If the evidence in support of the idea is so overwhelming, it should only be a matter of thoughtful debate and time before everyone comes to agreement on it. Yet, skeptics and dissenters are discredited, threatened professionally and encouraged to keep silent on the issue.
The bottom line in my investigation of this subject is - it is very obvious that the data is there and is mounting - that man is not responsible for whatever (sporadic) slight temperature rise (0.6 F) there has been over the last 100+ years. I have shown data backing up that statement. Where is your data backing up your statement that 'Recorded temperatures are on the rise ...and FAST'?
You stated: 'No need to be a rocket engineer to compare average temperatures for the last centuries?' - and I agree. so go back & check - and while your at it - what does the temperatures of 'centuries' ago have to do with the discussion?
Lastly, I have seen a DRAMATIC shift in the scientific community on their hypotheses over the last 6 months. Funny how deeper investigation sometimes sheds light where some least expect it...
Here is the truth. When you look at the essentials, Earth is little different from a kettle of water sitting on a fire. Granted, we are here talking about a very large kettle sitting on a positively huge fire, but all that really means is that it takes longer for the fire to change and it takes longer for the kettle to heat up or cool off. As I am writing this, old Sol is falling into what the data suggests will be a prolonged period of relative quiescence. We are now going to cool off and the IPCC is going to look silly. This will NOT end the argument over carbon dioxide, so let's take a hard look at what the greenhouse panic-mongers are saying.
They are saying that carbon dioxide, a minor component of the Earth's atmosphere at about .038%, is such an effective insulator that the relative minor increases caused by human activity will cause a global catastrophe. They make this claim even though the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is much greater, something like 26 times as high. Water vapor is hundreds of times more effective as an absorber of infra-red light as CO2. In fact, water absorbs, retains and re-emits nearly all of the EM spectrum. The IPCC went well out of its way, even stating in the first paragraph of its report that it was not addressing the impact water vapor has on the global climate. I suspect the primary reason they have not done is is that their computer models cannot deal with clouds so they simply pretended that water vapor has nothing to do with our current warming trend. Presumably, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere has changed but very little so it is of no account, but this is false in the eyes of the IPCC.
This is a false assumption. We have been dumping water vapor into the atmosphere in large quantities. A quick look at the chemistry of burning hydrocarbon fuels reveals that for every ten grams of fuel burned, we dump about 3.5 grams of water vapor into the atmosphere. This is important, if you accept the greenhouse theory, because water vapor is vastly more effective as than carbon dioxide as a 'greenhouse' gas. CFC's, HCFC's, methane and a variety of other gases are also vastly more effective as greenhouse gases, but they are given little consideration. Presumably, these other gases are too low in concentration for the IPCC to worry about them, even though a concentration of 0.038% of carbon dioxide is claimed to be grounds for panic. The use and eventual release of HCFC's by China and India alone should have the IPCC in a wild-eyed panic if their theory is correct, yet we hear almost no mention of HCFC's from the IPCC. Their focus has been on carbon dioxide.
A geologist once told me that the Earth has three basic constituents. 'Earth,' he said, 'is basically water, whale shit (calcium carbonate) and sand (any and all silicates). There isn't enough of anything else to really matter.' When it comes to climate control, it is the water and whale shit that matter the most. Here's why.
Seventy-one percent of Earth's surface is covered by water. Yes, that's right, we mis-named our planet. We should have named it 'Sea' or 'Oceanus' or something. Water soaks up heat like a sponge soaks up water and water releases that heat relatively slowly compared to the land or the atmosphere. If Earth had no oceans it would be only barely habitable. The temperature would plummet at night and soar during the day. The oceans MODERATE temperature fluctuations. The atmosphere is incapable of such.
Remember the first Persian Gulf War? Remember when Saddam Hussein had his army dynamite all those oil wells in Kuwait? Did you notice the reports that the air temperature beneath those clouds dropped down around to 50 degrees F? Folks, the atmosphere CANNOT and does NOT retain heat!
Does this mean that we are out of the woods insofar as carbon dioxide is concerned? NO! Here's why.
Carbon dioxide begins to have deleterious effects on your health at concentrations at 1% and above. At five percent, one-half of a percent greater than the concentration you exhale, it becomes lethal. We do NOT have unlimited license to dump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Now, most of the carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere by the oceans and the microorganisms living in them. Yes, I know, you've heard that the Amazon Basin and its trees are the 'lungs of the Earth'. That's nonsense propaganda invented by treehuggers. Remember, the oceans cover seventy-one percent of the Earth's surface. The Amazon Basin isn't a patch on that. We have two long-term problems that MUST be addressed. We MUST stop burning coal and we MUST stop polluting the water. During the spring and summer of each year the oceans produce five trillion tons of algae and diatoms. Those microscopic plants convert the carbon dioxide into sugars, starches and lipids, nearly all of which settles on the bottom of the oceans and eventually becomes 'whale shit'--calcium carbonate.
Tonny eagerly pointed out in last post that carbon dioxide concentrations in sea water are now approaching the saturation limit. This, to me, is a sure sign that we are already in trouble. Not because of climate change, but because we poisoning the water which eventually lead to us dying of carbon dioxide poisoning.
Here is the great irony of this situation. We have the technologies we need to stop this. All we really need to do is to stop burning coal, but the coal interests, a very large and rich political constituency, and the environmentalists both hate nuclear power plants. Can you say, 'short-sighted fools'? I thought so.
Their whole game centers around their religion i.e. the Church-of-the-Divine-Liberal. If you defame the prophets they will declare you:
(1) stupid - Bush in 2000
(2) Crazy - Bush in 2004 after beating the self proclaimed 'smart' guy (they got the same grades at Yale!)
(3) A Radical - Bush, after the 1st two did not work.
Now, with a score like that...0 out of 3...we are now all supposed to bow to Harvard 5 times a day, an praise their golden calf i.e. their point of view.
The only thing missing is the burning Bush (not THAT Bush) and the tablets, but I suspect they are in the works...
Yes, Bush is the antichrist, coming to earth in Texas, of all places, and leading us to Armageddon. The libnazi press, advancing every negative story, and burying the positive news at every turn, like the Catholic church in the middle ages, pillorying the infidels, their believers marching lockstep to the hymns of their holy men.
So woe be to those who defame these prophets of doom. They will smite you with charges of bigotry, a subject they know so well, lies and propaganda.
Like all clerics with no resraints, they will indulge themselves in all of those things they purport to despise, Big-assed SUV's, zillions of gallons of jet fuel, drugs, alchohol, racial slurs behind your backs, while preaching carbon foot prints and the straight (or gay) and narrow for the masses.
You see, Libnazis are NEVER happy:
They hate you, your car, your house, the number of kids you have, their color (if white) the income you make, where you live, the size of your home, what you read (unless they approve it) guns, unless it's theirs,and the list is, well, endless.
So relax and get back to us.
Gore is not a crook about Global Warming.
Gore is just a crook about everything.
As science does it's job, there will be more scientists coming out with questions about this science that was offered up.
Let me go get my tinfoil hat and prepare my bunker. Need to protect myself from those crazy liberals and all those stupid scientists...
And guess what? All the duffers commenting here aren't really going to have to worry about global warming one way or the other.......!
Gee, this article has been supplanted in the 'most popular list', by two stories that are months old. Gee! I wonder why that happened? Life is just full of mysteries, isn't it?
Here is an interesting tidbit:
sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/the_honest_broker/000932 david_whitehouse_on_.html
Oh, and here is another!
www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/01/happy_end_of_global_warming.html
And another!
www.americanthinker.com/2007/07/global_warming_and_solar_radia_1.html
Who can tell me how a greenhouse REALLY works? If you can tell me how a greenhouse REALLY works, not what they told you in the eighth grade, then you will know why this stupid 'Greenhouse gas' model is complete rubbish!
I don't worry about Global warming NOW, let alone in 100 years!
China's not worried
India's not wooried
Russia's not worried
Africa is DEFINITEY not worried
S. America's not worried
So, it seems to me, a lot of the folks with the worst air standards, or far more preesing issues, are not worried either.
Apparently this article does NOT reflect the words of Allegré at all,yet another spin from probably another neocon idiot
Here are Alegré's own words,at least part of the article,in original french,links and translation provided,it does not corresponsd to the interpretation monsters and critics seem to give of it:Mais ce qui me distingue des fanatiques de l'effet de serre, c'est que leurs proclamations consistent à dénoncer le rôle de l'homme sur le climat sans rien faire pour combattre ce danger, si ce n'est organiser des colloques et préparer des protocoles qui restent lettre morte. C'est l'attitude de l'écologie dénonciatrice. Je me situe clairement dans l'écologie réparatrice. Celle qui propose des solutions concrètes pour préserver notre planète. Dans le cas présent, en aménageant le territoire pour la préservation de l'eau et la prévention contre les cyclones, en défendant l'idée des voitures hybrides ou électriques dans les villes et les recherches sur la séquestration du CO2.
Translatedc in English it reads:
But what differentiates me from the fanatics of the greenhouse effect is that their proclamations consist solely in denouncind the influence of man on climate without doing anything to fight this danger ,except organizing conferences and preparing protocols which remain confined to paper only .THis is an attitude of finger pointing ecologism ,I subscribe to healing ecologism,the one proposing concrete solutions to preserve our planet .In the present situation this means the managment of territories for the preservation of water and the prevention against hurricanes,while defending the idea of hybrid cars or electrical cars in cities and the sequestration of CO2
This is part of the article by Alegré which is misinterpreted on this site .In fact he disagrees with parts of the solution to global warming,not denying it's existence or origins .
SO neocons,nice try but no deal
The whole article can be found hgere:www.lexpress.fr/info/quotidien/actu.asp?id=6159
So now what SP4 ?
...except that your hybrid cars emit more greenouse gases than some regular cars. On top of that, what makes them of any value when internal combustion is what enables them? If we do charge them at home, someday, what is the benefit if it is coal fired plants they charge off of?
80% of greenhoue gases, if you believe this new religion, comes from industrial plants, not cars. This being the case a 20% reduction in auto greenhouse gases equates to only 4% reduction in c02 overall, not a very good payoff, and it would require 100% saturation.
This is the core weakness of Tonny's plan: all the ficticous remedies don't really solve the ficticous problem. Like most of the green myth, the goal is not to improve the environment but to dictate a lifesytle of the new church they are creating.
Like the churches of old, instead of sex being a sin, buying gas is now the sin. Al Gore, who can count c02 but cannot seem to count votes in Florida, is the new Pope. Like most clerics, he preaches sustainability while burning zillions of gallons of carbon flying around preaching and being delieverd via SUV.
Now, if we are asked to do real cost analysis, the question comes up as this: Would Nuclear power be more effective than all the alternatives? It is continouosly available, so only one source is needed. It has zero greenhouse emissions and is current technology i.e. no development needed.
Invest to replace every coal fired plant. Cost? A trillion dollars? Fine, what would be the payoff? Huge reductions in emissions. Continuous power. The French have benefitted from this for decades.
But no, the luddite eco-nazi's would rather take another 30 years polluting in the blind hope their alternatives will pan out. What does THAT say about the urgency of all of this?
So, Tonny, like health care and just about everything else, people like us think people like you are, once again, full of crap.
I'm glad people like you are on the way out,goodbye neocon,the world is changing for the better,wellcome america again.
To the ignorants who still gobble the fairy tales spoonfed to you by the automobile lobby and the oil lobby a few scientific observations about how hybrid cars help save fuel.Apart from the consumption figures ,which nobody but SP4 denies,there are a few principoles behind this reduction of consumption,again unknown to SP4 only.When drviving a hybrid car and braking,the brake energy is transformed into electricity,whilst with a conventional internal comnustion engine it is tranformed into heath by the brakes,in other words wsted .THe heavier the car,the more energy transformed into electricity .Unfortunately always a part of that is lost,so don't jump to the conclusion that a heavy hybrid car is as good as a light one .THe second law of thermodynamics simply does not allow it .It isn't called the law of entropy for nothing .
The remaining fact is that fuel figures are better for hybrid cars .As the price of petrol reaches 100 dollars per barrel today and is bound to rize to at least 120 dollars within a few months, and much higher than that in a near future ,it is already clear the balance of economical interest is shifting towards fuel efficient cars .In Europe we already have better figures than the one implemented by the EPA for your cars for the year 2020.As the price of fuel is much more expensive here in Europe it is only normal that the pressure to build all cars less fuel consuming has pushed the car industry over the line .Unfortunately in the USA the lobby of car manufacterers weighs more heavy in the balance than the interest of the american people .So unless Arnie wins his fight against the EPA you all will pay a hefty price at the pump for nothing more than the inability of your automobile industry to address a problem and the benefit of the oil lobby for which a higher consumption means more profit.
It is as simple as that,all the rest is spin from FOX and neocon idiots.
Two things, Tonny. If the 'greens' were serious about carbon dioxide, they would be vociferous advocates of nuclear power and they would be screaming their heads off about water pollution. They are doing neither.
THat is only your own interpretation of it Noharness,there are enough arguments again nuclear power,the raising price of fissile material is one,the facts it will be exhausted in a few decades being another one .Meanwhile renewable energy sources only get cheaper and cheaper,on the contrary.It is only a matter of years before you will come around,at least I know you to look for better arguments than most of your allies,I'll grant you that.
Take a look at the eco-nazi scorecard. They've been slobbering over coal plant emissions for thirty years. They have credits, lawsuits, etc. but none of this has really cleaned up coal.
What it has done is provide government and lawyers a living.
Now, we get the renewable myth. All we have to do is subsidize it, and have a fossil source so it will actually work.
Good, how lucky can we be?
I agree with the French. Gore is a charlatan and a butthole. Like the Germans rightly bans Scientology from their country, Gore should be banned from all 'right' thinking nations and be condemned to staying in the U.S. to smoke his pipe and work on prefecting the Internet, which he invented. I'm suprised that those frauds at the Nobel Company in Sweden didn't give him a false award for that invention of his.
I think there are a lot of things people can do to help the environment, and should. Whether global warming is caused partly by the natural occurance and partly by man - credit should be given to those who actually are trying to better the world - unlike all those who sit on their a**es and criticize and spend countless hours on long, drawn-out rantings!
Sure! Look who they gave the credit to!
Viva la France!
RE:'THat is only your own interpretation of it Noharness,there are enough arguments again nuclear power,the raising price of fissile material is one,the facts it will be exhausted in a few decades being another one.'
I take it you have ruled out the use of breeder reactors, Tonny. That is just as silly as the other arguments against nuclear power.
RE:'Meanwhile renewable energy sources only get cheaper and cheaper,on the contrary.It is only a matter of years before you will come around,at least I know you to look for better arguments than most of your allies,I'll grant you that.'
Don't I just wish. I started looking at the energy issues back in the seventies. If I thought 'renewables' had a ghost's chance in Hades of actually meeting energy demands, with or without stringent conservation measures, I would be preaching sermons about them. Unfortunately, it does not take much of an examination of them to realize that renewables alone will fill the bill. The number are not there, Tonny. All of the renewables are basically forms of solar energy and the recoverable amount of 'renewable' energy does not come in at a rate that will meet the demand.
I should modify my last post a bit. There IS a way to make solar energy work, but the 'greens' are against it even more than they are against nuclear power. We COULD build solar power satellites and transmit the energy that they would generate to rectenna stationed in equatorial waters. From there the energy could be transmitted in the form of hydrogen to the places where it is needed by pipeline. It would be arduous and it would have the advantage of getting a sizeable portion of our population off this little mudball so that THEY could have room to grow and prosper. Alas, the left really and truly hates this idea and come out against it as vociferously as they do nuclear power.
Can somebody explain the logic in SP4 s post ?I find none?He claims it is wrong to fight coal provoked pollution because nobody succeeded to win against the coal lobby,do I get it right ?Is there any sense in his ranting,I find none,I guess nobody does either.As for his vive la France,he seems to know little about public opinion in France,does he even remember why SArkozy came to the USA?
But to Noharness this:I respect your opinion,thought about the breeder reactor as well but still prefer renewable energy .Wind energy is becoming already the cheapest form in the very near future,turbines are quite cheap and can be profitable for a lot of people.In Denmark people are even financing them privately and exploit them on local levels,using and selling the energy.The only real problem is that they appear quite ugly to meas I stated nuclear power is getting too expensive quickly .Consider,as you did the total cost of the life cycle of a reactor ,which is very expensive to recycle,especially the breeder reactor type,the remains are very radioactive ,no solution is safe enough ,this is my personal opinion for the moment ,based on whatever information I found available .Nobody speaks of solar energy as an option to replace fossile fuel,too expensive and not enough turnover .But there too progress is made and on a small scale it can make for a viable solution.Us companies manufacturing solar panels are experiencing record sales at a production cost of 1 dollar per watt with present scientific it is a honorable technique with potential towards the future .Give it a few more years and efficiency will be boosted,let us not forget that 1300 watt reach the earth per square meter from the sun,I don't know how much of it reaches the earth's surface,should be enough to justify further research anyway .
RE:'Give it a few more years and efficiency will be boosted,let us not forget that 1300 watt reach the earth per square meter from the sun,I don't know how much of it reaches the earth's surface,should be enough to justify further research anyway.'
This is nothing but an excuse to allow the politicians and corporations to keep right on sitting on their lazy asses. I've been hearing this since the seventies. Something needs to be done right now, not ten or fifteen years from now. The US is faced with enemies who have a demonstrated will to kill us in our own homes and offices. Every day that we burn coal, is another day that we dump mercury into the air and water--mercury that will NOT go away in the lifetime of anyone living today.
People need to get their acts together and try to cooperate in bettering the environment, instead of wasting time pointing fingers at each other and declaring they have the right answers. There isn't just one cause or one answer to the problem. This debate is really getting old!
I am sure that everyone wishes it were that simple, Shane, but it isn't. Before you can do anything about solving a problem, you have to define the problem and that is where we are stuck.
Re: Noharness - Jan 4th, 2008 - 13:45:45
Before you can do anything about solving a problem, you have to define the problem and that is where we are stuck.
========================================
I agree. Tonney clings to past data the way an old man clings to his memories. The 'problem' with that is - the old data has faded as fast as the memories. In order to maintain his 'side' of this discussion, he has (basically) lowered himself to serial name calling, demeaning others' intelligence and trashing the names and findings of scientists who don't fall into his line of thinking by calling them oil company shills.
Mr. tonney has named himself as a scientist in a previous post. But I have become a little suspicious of his proclimed title. Why would any scientist have to lower his/her self to resort to such behavior - if the 'facts' were so obvious and undeniable? One might say it might be frustration - and I would buy into that sentiment. A scientist has to be open minded to possible flaws in a 'theory' and investigate the seriousness of the challenge and make corrections based on the veracity of any new data - Not proclaim 'OUTSIDE THE USA IT IS ALREADY OVER!' - NOT close his/her mind - say the theory is 'fact' and anything that denies this 'fact' is fabricated or is idiologically or monetarily driven.
So, having said all that - I would have to point to the first 2 posts on page 6 (actually 1 that was split) - and reiterate that by by impugning the reputations of Scientists not in the GW fold - tonney has (inadvertantly) brought up the possible influence that money may have had on those who are proclimed GW backers. - And take notice - I say 'possible' and 'may' - because, unlike him, I do not claim to be priviledged with those hard facts.
BTW, here is another article - by a Russian Scientist (I guess Russian oil intersts bought him out) who has some things to add to this discussion.
It won't let me put the link in as is - so I am splitting off the http;// from the address. Be sure to Preface the address below with it.
en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html
Thanks, Oops. I was amazed to find that a working scientist and I agree on just about everything concerning this 'greenhouse gas' business. I've been going by what REASON tells me, despite the apparent claims made by the scientific community. It's nice to know that a real pro agrees with my assessment, especially when I have never met him or ever discussed these issues with him.
Noharness - Jan 5th, 2008 - 03:46:17
Thanks, Oops. I was amazed to find that a working scientist and I agree on just about everything concerning this 'greenhouse gas' business.
=================================================================
Are you referring to Tonney or Dr. Sorokhtin? .... LOL!
I had no 'beliefs' one way or the other - when this subject first made headlines. The data being published seemed to favor the 'theory' of GW. But I became interested in researching it when Gore published his 'findings' - that contained so much tripe. I had delved into Gore's academic records when he criticized the intelligence of President Bush (who I am not a fan of - but Gore never impressed me with his inteelect) - and found his record to be, let's just say, mediocre - at best. That is when I strated seeing a lot of data that the main stream media was squashing. I began to wonder why. Then the news hit last August about the calculations for temperature recordings being 'off' - and the horrendous placement of many of thetemperature guages used for 'today's' data. This changed the dynamics of the whole discussion - from science - to politics in my humble opinion.
There are (literally) hundreds of scientists - who have come forward with overwhelming data - debunking the 'human factor' as having any significance at all. So, it looks like the GW theory hit its zenith this past fall and has been successfully challenged as an 'inconvenient untruth.'
BTW - I wonder if any of you all caught the faux pas (a little French term) by Mr. Tonney. He proclaimed that 'OUTSIDE THE USA IT IS ALREADY OVER!' - below an article by a French Physicist - that has a first line of 'Al Gore is taking a beating in France.' - Amazing!!!!!!!!!!
I started off thinking that global warming caused by the 'greenhouse effect' might be possible, but back during the time when it first became a topic of discussion, I had my doubts about whether or not there was any global warming at all. To me there did not seem to be enough time to gather the data necessary to determine if there really was a warming trend.
For sure, the summers in my part of the world had become longer and the winters shorter and milder, but such personal observations in one area are not adequate evidence. Additionally, I remembered that my Grandfather had planted orange trees in this area when he was back in his twenties. There were no orange trees around when I was growing up, but my dad planted some around his house after he retired and they are still flourishing as I write this. We DO have prolonged warm spells and prolonged cool spells. There is a lot of noise in the signal when you are talking about weather trends.
Then came the news that Mars and the other outer planets were warming up. That, of course, means that the sun is putting out more heat. There is no other way for such a thing to happen. Seeing that I began to dig in to this 'greenhouse effect' theory and it was then that I realized how badly it was flawed.
Earth is basically a well-designed greenhouse with a passive heating system. Such systems, irrespective of their size, do not work the way the way the greenhouse theorists were claiming that they worked. I've posted what I believe to be the worst of its flaws under the USA Drought article in the USA section. The response I have received thus far is--well--mute. I think what I will eventually get is inarticulate name-calling that is the norm for these fora.
Does this help?
www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf
Thanks, Oops. Looks like I have some major reading and cogitating to do.
I read the link provided. I noticed they attached no overall conclusion to this, it was only a method, or an attempt at a method. A real attempt at science to be sure, but it looks like they are still studying it.
There is no such thing as man made global warming.
page: 1
Your Talkback on this Story