Awareness raised from 99.7% to 99.8%

Last updated on August 9th, 2017 at 02:31 pm

An important announcement:

Public service ads aim to raise awareness about global warming

Because, like, none of us have ever heard about “global warming” before. What does that alien phrase even mean?

Posted by Tim B. on 03/23/2006 at 12:32 PM
    1. What they mean by “awareness” is “awareness of your individual guilt by partaking in the sin of living in a civilized and technological society”.

      Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 03 23 at 12:41 PM • permalink

 

    1. Maybe they could do a bit with Lara Bingle (“Where the bloody hell’s your Prius?”).

      Posted by paco on 2006 03 23 at 12:42 PM • permalink

 

    1. Journalism means writing up the press release you just got.

      Hard-hitting journalism means calling the guy for a sound bite.

      It goes on all the time.  Half the AP wire stories are press releases, rewritten to make them alarm women, their audience.

      Local radio stations run PSAs when they have unsold commercial time before the next syndicated show segment.

      All that matters is that women won’t tune out.  Anything runs, once that is true.

      Posted by rhhardin on 2006 03 23 at 12:47 PM • permalink

 

    1. I know!  It’s scary!  And to think the Thames might rise a WHOLE 3 INCHES within the next fifty years! Better pack up and head for Sterling, PRONTO!

      Posted by Texas Bob on 2006 03 23 at 01:11 PM • permalink

 

    1. “Raise awareness” ranks right up there with “empower” in “words that make me tune out everything that comes after.”

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 03 23 at 01:30 PM • permalink

 

    1. It means you’re part of the problem not the solution.

      Posted by Miranda Divide on 2006 03 23 at 01:45 PM • permalink

 

    1. What does that alien phrase even mean?

      It means…hold on to your wallet.

      Posted by Thomas on 2006 03 23 at 02:37 PM • permalink

 

    1. What? Who? What is this? Who are you people? Where are my slippers? Nurse! Nurse!

      Posted by Monroe Doctrine on 2006 03 23 at 02:48 PM • permalink

 

    1. … the group is hoping to spawn a massive shift in social awareness that will send millions rushing to hand over their hard-earned dough to Environment Defense.  Hey, if Rockin’ To The Eighties can do it for CDs…

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 03 23 at 03:12 PM • permalink

 

    1. It means you’re part of the problem not the solution.

      You would know about that, Mirander.

      Posted by PW on 2006 03 23 at 03:20 PM • permalink

 

    1. Global warming?  Does that have something to do with how cooking pots heat up on the stove?

      Posted by youngy on 2006 03 23 at 06:00 PM • permalink

 

    1. Didn’t The Simpsons have a gag about an awards TV special called “The Awareness Awards”?

      Posted by JDB on 2006 03 23 at 06:30 PM • permalink

 

    1. I love when Miranda calls. You just want to say something and then realize why.

      Wait – I know – lets ratify Kyoto – blessed be its name – and then woefully proclaim a few years later we just can’t do it and ask forgiveness for our sine. It works for Europe, right?

      Posted by JEM on 2006 03 23 at 06:41 PM • permalink

 

    1. “sins”——Preview is our friend if we pay attention when we use it!

      Posted by JEM on 2006 03 23 at 06:41 PM • permalink

 

    1. Y’know, on the philosophical level, if the greenies want to convince people that they ought to reduce carbon emissions, that’s fine by me.  And if John Q. Public decides to ride a bike to work instead of driving the SUV, that works.

      Because, you see, that would be voluntary.  And the person wanting to make a change can make the change…..on his/her own dime.

      Use an energy-effecient applicance?  You buy it.  BTW, I already did.

      Save gas by walking or riding to work?  Go ahead.  BTW, I already do that.

      And so on.

      Not that I expect a lot of people to pick up on this, because they will be inconvenienced.  Recycling picked up only because it was a reasonable alternative to reducing landfill use.  And there’s a profit to be made, to boot.  So recyclying became convienent…..and picked up.

      Think about it…..how many people are willing to save trees (hey, thems carbon credits tere!) by lugging around a coffee travel mug?  Such a simple thing……but check out where all the Starbucks are, and who frequents them.  Talk about being part of the problem, eh, Mirdana?

      Refusing to accept a reduction in your standard of living….until it is not a reduction in your standard of living.  What a concept.

      In the meantime, Congress will remain skeptical…..and they are generally unwilling to spike the economy (as Kyoto would have done).

      My major problem with this ad campaign is that they’ll be foisting bad science on people……again.

      Oh, and I don’t expect to see any credit given to the United States for the reductions in carbon emissions we’ve already made.

      Maybe they should play these PSAs in Europe?

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 03 23 at 06:43 PM • permalink

 

    1. This winter in Canada was allegedly the warmest ever ………….  but it was still fucking cold.

      We have a long way to go, people.  Start up your SUV’s

      Posted by jlc on 2006 03 23 at 07:00 PM • permalink

 

    1. I want the Government that put out these PSA’s to make a meaningful contribution to fighting global warming.  In the Norther hemisphere, turn off all government building furnaces.  In the Southern hemisphere, all air conditioning units.

      Right now.

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 03 23 at 09:32 PM • permalink

 

    1. I want all the people who keep bleating about how we’re causing global warming to give up machine-made clothing, shoes, CDs, iPods, computers, rubber tires (bicycle or auto, doesn’t matter), coffee, processed foods of any kind, fruit or vegetables trucked in from farther than three miles, paper, pasteurized milk, glass in any form, plastic in any form (including eyeglasses and contact lenses), FDA-approved medications, metal or plastic food utensils, illumination and heat in any form (including fire, which consumes wood and produces smoke), books, DVDs, brass, woodwind, and stringed musical instruments, cell phones, hair care products, shampoos and soaps, other miscellaneous petroleum products…

      When they’re sitting naked in their caves over a dinner of grubs and roots, they can preach to me about reducing my environmental footprint.  Until then, they can shut the hell up and let me make my own decisions.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 03 23 at 10:13 PM • permalink

 

    1. RebeccaH # 18 – Surely it was language that got us all started down this track, wasn’t it? Shaping of conscious thoughts. Sharing of ideas and all that. No no, no preaching for the cave dwellers. Grunts and gesturing only would be permitted. Drawing on cave walls, perhaps. But only after they’ve eaten all their grubs.

      Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2006 03 23 at 11:16 PM • permalink

 

    1. RebeccaH, please, I’m begging you……I’ll eat grubs, but don’t take away my toilet paper…..

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 03 23 at 11:31 PM • permalink

 

    1. I’m not sure, but I think global warming could mean warmer, or it could mean colder.

      Posted by JSchuler on 2006 03 24 at 12:43 AM • permalink

 

    1. One of the great problems in the world today is undoubtedly this problem of not being able to talke to scientists, because we don’t understand science. They can’t talk to us because they don’t understand anything else, poor dears. This problem, I think it was C.P. Snow first raised it – Sir Charles Snow in private life – in his books Science and Government and so on. Mind you, I haven’t read it. I’m waiting for the play to come.
      He says, quite rightly, he says it’s no good going up to a scientist and saying to him as you would to anybody else, you know, “good morning, how are you, lend me a quid” and so on, I mean he’ll just glare at you or make a rude retort or something. No, you have to speak to him in language that he’ll understand. I mean you go up to him and say something like, “Ah, H2SO4 Professor! Don’t synthesize anything I wouldn’t synthesize. Oh, and the reciprocal of pi to your good wife.” Now, this he will understand.

      Snow says that nobody can consider themselves educated who doesn’t know at least the basic language of science. I mean things like Sir Edward Boyle’s Law, for example – the greater the external pressure, the greater the volume of hot air. The simple . . . or . . . the Second Law of Thermodynamics, this is very important. I wasn’t so much shocked the other day to discover that my partner not only doesn’t know the Second Law, he doesn’t even know the First Law of Thermodynamics!

      Going back to first principles, very briefly: thermodynamics, of course, is derived from two Greek words, thermos, meaning hot – if you don’t drop it – and dynamics, meaning dynamic, work; and thermodynamics is simply the science of heat and work, and the relationships between the two as laid down in the Laws of Thermodynamics, which may be expressed in the following simple terms – after me, every.

      [Me]The First Law of Thermodymamics:

      Heat is work and work is heat

      [You (spoken)]Heat is work and work is heat

      [Me] Very good!

      The Second Law of Thermodymamics:

      Heat cannot of itself pass from one body to a hotter body

      (scat music starts)

      [You]Heat cannot of itself pass from one body to a hotter body

      [Me and You sing alternate lines from here]

      Heat won’t pass from a cooler to a hotter

      Heat won’t pass from a cooler to a hotter

      You can try it if you like but you far better notter

      You can try it if you like but you far better notter

      ‘Cos the cold in the cooler will get hotter as a ruler

      ‘Cos the cold in the cooler will get hotter as a ruler

      ‘Cos the hotter body’s heat will pass to the cooler

      ‘Cos the hotter body’s heat will pass to the cooler

      [Together] Heat is work and work is heat and work is heat and heat is work

      [Me] Heat will pass by conduction

      [You]Heat will pass by conduction

      [Alternating]Heat will pass by convection

      Heat will pass by convection

      Heat will pass by radiation

      Heat will pass by radiation

      [Together] And that’s a physical law

      [Me] Heat is work and work’s a curse

      And all the heat in the Universe

      Is gonna cooool down ‘cos it can’t increase

      Then there’ll be no more work and there’ll be perfect peace

      [You (spoken)] Really?

      [Me (spoken)]Yeah – that’s entropy, man!

      And all because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which lays down:

      [Me (sung)]That you can’t pass heat from the cooler to the hotter

      Try it if you like but you far better notter

      [Together]‘Cos the cold in the cooler will get hotter as a ruler

      ‘Cos the hotter body’s heat will pass to the cooler

      Oh, you can’t pass heat from the cooler to the hotter

      You can try it if you like but you’ll only look a fooler

      ‘Cos the cold in the cooler will get hotter as a ruler

      That’s a physical Law!

      [Me]Oh, I’m hot!

      [You (spoken)]Hot? That’s because you’ve been working!

      [Me] Oh, Beatles – nothing!

      [Together (sung)]That’s the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics!

      (Courtesy Swan & Flanders)

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 03 24 at 01:32 AM • permalink

 

    1. MentalFloss you’ve got to be careful invoking thermodynamics as a reason why global warming theories can’t be correct (i think that’s what you were doing anyway; my apologies if wrong).

      On a theoretical level, earth is an open system (it gets heat from the sun) so arguments that entropy can only increase on earth are invalid. Creationsist try this one on a bit arguing against evolution,

      On a practical level, the earth has cooled and warmed by large amounts in the past and so there is no particular reason why it couldn’t be doing so now.

      Having said that, the campaign to raise “awareness” seems to me to suggest that awareness isn’t what they want to raise but adherence to the doctrine.

      Posted by Francis H on 2006 03 24 at 03:44 AM • permalink

 

    1. Grunts and gesturing only would be permitted.

      Have you been to Daily Kos or Atrios?

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 03 24 at 10:01 AM • permalink

 

    1. Wait a minute, we can’t use trees as “sinks” anymore can we – don’t they actually cause problems now!

      Now the only language you need to know about scientists and how to communicate to them is this – my funding cycle is coming to an end, I have nothing to warrant its continuance, my computer simulations essentially show that all possibilities exist for every theory I advance, hearings are coming up for my issue in congress, quick make up a crisis and get publicity in the stupidity that is the modern press, allow that pressure to build with the eco whacko groups, reap the funding this paranoia creates, go back to my lab, forecast when the cycle starts again, bury any discoveries I make which might eliminate my funding in the future.

      I do love the scientist and his pronouncement that he is driven by the higher ideals of science and knowledge. Bullshit – they are whores like everyone else.

      Posted by JEM on 2006 03 24 at 11:25 AM • permalink

 

    1. Wow, look. Another Miranda outbreak.

      If this blog was a groin, she’d be herpes.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 03 24 at 02:02 PM • permalink

 

    1. It means you’re part of the problem not the solution.

      You’re a middle-class Westerner, dear. You’re the biggest part of the fucking “problem” there is, at least according to your ilk.

      I suggest you kill yourself. Be part of the solution.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 03 24 at 02:04 PM • permalink

 

    1. ‘twas a bit of fun, and nothing more, Francis.

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 03 24 at 04:07 PM • permalink

 

    1. My renewed apologies then Mental. I have heard some climate change sceptics refer to that argument so wasn’t sure.

      Posted by Francis H on 2006 03 24 at 07:10 PM • permalink

 

    1. Jesus suffering Christ.

      From wikipedia:

      The natural greenhouse effect keeps the Earth 30 °C warmer than it otherwise would be; adding carbon dioxide to an atmosphere, with no other changes, will make a planet’s surface warmer…..Over the past century or so the global (land and sea) temperature has increased by 0.6 ± 0.2 °C [5]. The effects of global warming are increasingly visible. At the same time, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased from around 280 parts per million (by volume) in 1800 to around 315 in 1958 and 367 in 2000, a 31% increase over 200 years.

      Also the sea absorbs a lot (400 billion tonnes man-made at last estimate), which makes it more acid and affects plankton growth, the bottom of the food chain.

      This is not a thing that can be demonstrated by experiment. Like thalidomide and birth defects. You couldn’t do an experiment. Maybe in your lifetimes you will end up convinced. By then a great many changes will have become irreversible. Even Bush and Howard are not denying that it is probably occurring. They are arguing that the cost of mitigating it is too large. But this is not the time to be burying the head in the sand and hoping it will go away.

      Whenever I come across sections on (the lack of) global warming, and their attendent pig ignorant comments, I despair. That’s right guys; thousands of scientists in many different countries are engaged in a sort of doomsayers’ conspiracy. And what’s the motive? Herd instinct? In general, the thing scientists most like is to get the answer right. Not to be fashionable.

      Posted by thnnnn on 2006 03 24 at 08:28 PM • permalink

 

    1. G’day thnnn

      OK, lets say the globe has warmed over the past century. Lets say its at the upper end of the estimate.  For all our education, could your learned self please compare and contrast that temperature rise with that which caused the end of the last glacial period, c20,000 years ago?  Temperature rose, what 12 deg Celsius (from memory)?  Oceans rose, what 20 metres-odd (again from memory).  Was that temp rise smooth & gradual, or did it occur in spurts?

      What caused that warming period?

      Was it a global catastophe (or even a tad unfortunate)?  How did the planet survive?

      The point is, if the world is warming, is it a natural or an un-natural thing?

      If man-influenced, is it a greater, or worse influence than global volcanic activity?  Can we really tell the difference?

      Is not the greatest greenhouse gas water vapour?

      Go for it.

      Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 03 24 at 09:54 PM • permalink

 

    1. Well, if wikipedia says so, then it simply must be true.

      Good thing sarcasm isn’t as expensive as boldering.

      Posted by Achillea on 2006 03 24 at 10:27 PM • permalink

 

    1. I’m simply citing my source, brainache. Sorry, Achillea. If you want to dispute the figures, dispute the figures but give me something to go on. Sorry I don’t know what boldering is, or how much it costs.

      And, yeah SCD!, the thing is, in history, temperature and CO2 changes didn’t occur over short timescales. Last glaciation took about 10,000 years to recede. That’s 10 thousand. Not hundred. Thousand.

      The cause of the cyclical nature of ice ages is under debate still. But it’s known that atmospheric CO2 is as high or higher as it’s ever been in the last half million years, and increasing, and the rate of rise is unprecedented. if it affects the oceans, new plankton species are not going to appear overnight to fill the gaps. Ecology doesn’t work that way. Populations decline then crash, then if new ones appear they build up slowly.

      I don’t know what the “greatest” greenhouse gas is, but the amounts in the atmosphere are probably the most important quantity. Do you have any data on that?

      So is it natural or un-natural? Well Bush and Howard seem to think it’s unnatural, as do most of the scientific community who are in a position to have an opinion. And the timing of the industrial revolution is a pretty big coincidence. If you’d prefer to bet that it’s natural, and that it won’t impose irrevocable negative impacts, be my guest. That is, irrevocable on timescales relevant to human lives.

      I just cannot for the life of me fathom why you people are so bent on thinking this way. I’d love an explanation. Do you simply think that everyone’s out to wreck your party? Is it as depressingly simple as that? Personally, I like to make decisions involving risk based on the best possible evidence, especially when they are very important decisions and the risks are very large.

      And if anyone would like to actually address the points I made in the previous post, please do. Debate is good.

      Posted by thnnnn on 2006 03 24 at 11:48 PM • permalink

 

    1. G’day thnnnn

      No, I’m not going to debate – sorry for the cop out and I please guilty to dodging the issue, but its Saturday and I’m just about to get the chainsaw out and clear-fell the west paddock.  I just suggest you put your data in context and try looking beyond the last 100 to 200 years (blink of an eye) to the c4.5 billion year history of the earth or even just to the c200 million year history of the break-up of Pangea or even just to the c50,000 year history of human occupation of the earth.  So are we warming, cooling, or part of a cycle?  That’s right – no-one can ‘prove’ it – we can only accurately measure the last blink of an eye.

      ‘Global warming’ (or ‘cooling’) is a NATURAL phenomenon of the earth – 4.5 billion years and counting. Whether right now we are in a natural cycle or a human-enhanced cycle I’m dammed if anyone could prove.  But if we are warming up (or cooling…), I reckon earth will keep motoring along and many species will adapt and many won’t.  Does that sound familiar?  Yep, its called the history of life on earth and its been coming & going since it began.

      p.s. I’m afraid we have both fallen into the trap of calling the phenomenon ‘global warming’.  Its “climate change” now.  This is to allow the Believers to accommodate the circumstances when parts of the world hit record low temperatures – such as at “global warming” rallies – Montreal comes to mind. To wit: warming shows the evil had of man.  Cooling shows the evil hand of man.  Big storms show the evil hand of man.  Many storms show the evil hand of man.  No storms show the evil hand of man.  Early strawberries show the evil hand of man.  Tsunamis show the evil hand of man!!! (Yes, we both read those claims.)  Have you listened to Leading Author on Climate Change Tim Flannery lately?

      Just one last shot at my fellow scientists, who you like to quote.  Have you ever put in an application for a research grant?  Let me tell you,  if I put in a grant for “Project to demonstrate climate change on…”  they throw money at me.  An application for a project to show “Climate change not necessarily human induced because….”  would not reach the peer review stage.  Fortunately much work on “Climate Change” over time has been done before this censorship of research.  Its called geology and earch sciences.

      Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 03 25 at 01:32 AM • permalink

 

    1. That’s “earth sciences”.  Mustn’t use the chainsaw after 4 G&Ts;.

      Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 03 25 at 01:36 AM • permalink

 

    1. thnnnnnnnn……it’s not that we deny global warming climate change.  It’s that we doubt that the doomsayers consensus of scientists can really tell us what’s happening…..or understand global climate themselves.

      I don’t know what the “greatest” greenhouse gas is, but the amounts in the atmosphere are probably the most important quantity. Do you have any data on that?

      From the same source as your original post,  Wikipedia on greenhouse gases:

      Greenhouse gases (GHG) are gaseous components of the atmosphere that contribute to the greenhouse effect. The major natural greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth (not including clouds); carbon dioxide, which causes between 9-26%; and ozone, which causes between 3-7% (note that it is not really possible to assert that such-and-such a gas causes a certain percentage of the greenhouse effect, because the influences of the various gases are not additive. The higher ends of the ranges quoted are for the gas alone; the lower end, for the gas counting overlaps).

      I used the search function for “greehouse gas” to find this.  Took me less than a minute.  And you couldn’t be bothered to fact check something that might contradict your rant point.  Imagine that.

      What would I find if I searched for “obtuse”?  Probably “thnnnnnnnn”.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 03 25 at 02:35 AM • permalink

 

    1. BTW, those Wikipedia articles on greenhouse gases and global warming potential are interesting reads.  I’m still digesting them, sorting facts from opinion.  Anyone have an opinion about these articles (aside from the fact that we are discussing Wikipedia).

      And as a PS……I saw a PSA on TV today, urging people to reduce their carbon emissions.  Guess who sponsored it?

      British Petroleum.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 03 25 at 02:58 AM • permalink

 

    1. I just cannot for the life of me fathom why you people are so bent on thinking this way. I’d love an explanation. Do you simply think that everyone’s out to wreck your party? Is it as depressingly simple as that?

      No, I think there’s a very large percentage of the population that simply needs to be religious, and after they’ve rejected the traditional ones, they glom onto new ones, which share the same characteristics as the old ones, namely:

      1) They have internal contradictions that are ignored by the faithful;

      2) They are unprovable;

      3) They see man as fallen;

      4) They are ascetic.

      You want your religion, knock yourself out. But don’t force your asceticism on me, and don’t expect me to pay for it.

      I’ve argued with you enviroreligionists ad nauseum on this blog, and it’s as productive as arguing with a fundamentalist. You ignore evidence, you ignore history, you ignore logic, and your last retarded recourse, without fail, is, “Hey, better safe than sorry!” No, numbnuts, that it not true, because what you social planners never get through your skulls is UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. You can never admit, for instance, that man-made warming, if true, might be staving off a catastrophic Ice Age. You think, in your arrogance, that you can understand the workings of a freakin’ planetary climate system, and lack the humility to say, “We don’t know everything, and doing something in ignorance is usually more dangerous than doing nothing.”

      Screw this, I’ve wasted too much time on you envirotards and I’m not wasting any more. You want to see my arguments, search the blog for a dumbass named Ender. He’s one of the faithful that we wasted electrons arguing with.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 03 25 at 03:05 AM • permalink

 

    1. Hey the real jeffs, when I asked about data for greenhouse gases, I was just really asking for data. I didn’t have a point to make about water vapour. But while I’m at it, do you think that water vapour in the atmosphere of a planet whose ice caps are melting would increase or decrease? That was the reason I didn’t go into it.

      I am thnnnn. thnnnnnnnn will be my great great grand-offspring and may well be obtuse.

      Posted by thnnnn on 2006 03 25 at 03:26 AM • permalink

 

    1. OK then Dave S.

      I am a scientist. Very few lack the humility to say we don’t know everything. If we did, we wouldn’t do science. But we do have a number of very good examples of what happens to living systems when the environment is rapidly perturbed. There is no arrogance here at all. And no blame. Who is blaming anyone? Not me. We knew nothing before. Now we know a lot more than nothing. Ignorance is a question of degree.

      And this statement “No, numbnuts, that it not true, because what you social planners never get through your skulls is UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. You can never admit, for instance, that man-made warming, if true, might be staving off a catastrophic Ice Age.”
      is a real howler. Ice ages develop over millennia, giving us time to prepare. The reason everyone’s worried is that climate change may occur over such a short time that we can’t adapt.

      While I agree with the existence of a very few examples of your straw man, I won’t waste time with you. You lack either the capacity or the inclination to undertake any sort of rational debate on this, as your statements indicate, so it’s good that you’re happy to stay out of it.

      Posted by thnnnn on 2006 03 25 at 03:40 AM • permalink

 

    1. thnnnn:  I am a scientist

      Ah!  So you HAVE put in for research grants?  Or are you independently funded?  It really is a good ol’ slap up feast at the “Project Global Warming Climate Change” table isn’t it?  And keep those bloody geologists hidden!

      Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 03 25 at 04:02 AM • permalink

 

    1. The reason everyone’s worried is that climate change may occur over such a short time that we can’t adapt.

      Yeah, because if there’s one thing mankind has exhibited time and time again over its history, it’s an inability to adapt. I sure wish somebody would invent something that can keep hot places cool in the summer so that people could live and work in the hostile areas of southern North America, for instance. I bet that has real growth potential.

      Posted by PW on 2006 03 25 at 05:40 AM • permalink

 

    1. BTW Dave, I think I’m going to take to calling environmentalism a cult, rather than a religion. People who follow a religion generally know they’re doing so, and do so voluntarily – the eco-crazies generally seem more brainwashed than anything.

      Incidentally, parts of thnnnn’s posts remind me of the email exchanges with Scientology nutcases that the xenu.net curator has posted on his site. Same “I simply can’t understand why you fail to see the glory of my [insert cult here]” tone to it.

      Posted by PW on 2006 03 25 at 05:47 AM • permalink

 

    1. Hey the real jeffs, when I asked about data for greenhouse gases, I was just really asking for data. I didn’t have a point to make about water vapour. But while I’m at it, do you think that water vapour in the atmosphere of a planet whose ice caps are melting would increase or decrease? That was the reason I didn’t go into it.

      You didn’t have a point to make about water vapor?  While you were just asking for data about the “greatest greenhouse gas”?

      An interesting response…..as I directly answered your data call concerning the greatest greenhouse gas (even if a bit snarky).  Nice moving of the goalposts.

      Are we just a tad touchy here, thnnnnnnnnn?  Could it be that I possibly tweaked the faith in your cult*?

      Still, you did ask what I think about water vapor, so I’ll from the same article I linked earlier.  Keep in mind that this is Wikipedia….

      Water vapor is a definite part of the greenhouse gas equation even though not under direct human control: IPCC TAR chapter lead author Michael Mann considers citing “the role of water vapor as a greenhouse gas” to be “extremely misleading” as water vapor can not be controlled by humans….

      The IPCC discuss the water vapor feedback. It is not really possible to assert that such-and-such a gas causes a certain percentage of the greenhouse effect (GHE), because the influences of the various gases are not additive. The 1990 IPCC report says “If H2O were the only GHG [greenhouse gas] present, then the GHE of a clear-sky midlatitude atmosphere… would be about 60-70% of the value with all gases included; by contrast, if CO2 alone was present, the corresponding value would be about 25%”.

      All emphasis is mine.

      I find it interesting that a lead scientist in the Kyoto Protocols prefers to, well, dismiss water vapor as a greenhouse gas because it is not “human controlled”, even though it “…is a definite part of the greenhouse gas equation…”.  Yet the same article notes that no one gas asserts a certain amount of influence on the greenhouse effect.

      Hmmmmmmm……ignoring water vapor because it is not human controlled, yet is a definite part of the equation, while there is no way to say if CO2 is a better (or worse) greenhouse gas than water vapor.

      Looks like a classic example of cherry picking data to me.  Rather like you are doing, thnnnnnnnnn.

      Of course, I am not bowing to your cult* here, so you will likely ignore this as well.

      ————————————————————

      *: Kudos to PW for properly labeling environmentalism as a cult.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 03 25 at 11:00 AM • permalink

 

    1. I think I’m going to take to calling environmentalism a cult, rather than a religion.

      Well, that’s always been a “six of one, half a dozen of the other” thing from my POV, but hey, it fits either way.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 03 25 at 02:03 PM • permalink

 

    1. Thnnn, if you’re a scientist, why didn’t you know about that darn water vapor?  Just because you’re a scientist in one field doesn’t make you an expert in the others.  See:  That clown who raved about Vitamin C…prolly you could find out who in Wikipedia.

      Posted by ushie on 2006 03 25 at 02:58 PM • permalink

 

    1. See, now, a reeeeel troublemaker, if one were present, would just capriciously and irresponsibly challenge all concerned to define the exact distinction between a “cult” and a “religion.”  Which would of course be naughty and frivolous and nihilistic and bad.  So I would never do that, not me, nope.  I’d briefly consider it, of course, but in the end, I’d … hey, where’d everybody go?

      Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 03 25 at 03:03 PM • permalink

 

    1. Thnnn, if you’re a scientist, why didn’t you know about that darn water vapor?

      Probably because thnnn is not a scientist, ushie.  At best, he/she is a button sorter on a research team with some sort of science degree.  At worst, a wannabe posing a scientist.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 03 25 at 03:59 PM • permalink

 

    1. Alright the real jeffs, if you want me to address water vapour I will. If it pleases you to think I’m touchy, go ahead, but you won’t find any touchiness from me. You’re mild, actually, and I thank you for it. If I can put up with the likes of “numbnuts” and “envirotard’ (snigger), I can put up with “obtuse”.

      But I’ll start by saying that just because water vapour is the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect does not in any way weaken a global warming argument. That’s simple logic. It has no bearing on the topic, so there’s not much point discussing it. Unless you want to claim, without any supporting evidence, that somehow an increase in CO2 will cause a decrease in water vapour. That would be very wrong, as the IPCC points out in it’s first assessment report:
      “We are certain of the following: there is a natural greenhouse effect…; emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases: CO2, methane, CFCs and nitrous oxide. These increases will enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s surface. The main greenhouse gas, water vapour, will increase in response to global warming and further enhance it.”

      I am a scientist who runs my own research program in an area of the biological sciences. I have had grants from the ARC and none of them are in any way politically sensitive topics. I am not a climatologist but am generally scientifically literate. I hate hippes because they are lazy, selfish and smelly, and am not an environmentalist in particular. I drive a V8 on gas because it’s cheap horsepower and i like the simple things in life, like acceleration. And beers. And ciggies. Again, if it pleases you to paint me as a zealot or cultist, go right ahead, but in doing that you’re in danger of doing the same things you ascribe to the environmental zealots you loathe i.e. wilfully ignoring facts because of some sort of animus toward a group you’ve defined.

      I thank Dave S. for clearing up for me the motivations of many posters to these pages, on many topics.

      Finally, here are links to 2 instructive graphs:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.png

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png

      Posted by thnnnn on 2006 03 25 at 08:50 PM • permalink

 

    1. thnnn…..no one is really disputing that there is global warming climate change.

      Correct, water vapor change is indeed a positive feedback mechanism of global warming.  But yet it is ignored in the overall equation, because it is not “human controlled”.  That assumes that climate change is in fact human caused.

      The real unanswered question is, is this change natural or artificial?  Some scientists think so, some don’t.  There’s a lot of cherry picking of data and conclusions here….as that Wikipedia article I linked to demonstrated.

      I am also puzzled on how science can have a consensus.  Either the tests and experiments are reproducible, or they aren’t.  That’s the scientific method.  “Consensus” is for politicians.

      Add in the fact that many of these same scientists were hollering about an impending ice age a mere 30 years ago, and there’s a certain lack of credibility in the discussion.

      Beyond that, when people start chanting “Change your lifestyles!”, and expect everyone to do so, just not themselves, I see a certain degree of hypocrisy there.

      There’s also this tendency of some environmentalists to treat this issue as something sacred.  No dissent is allowed, and counterarguments simply don’t matter.  That’s why some people refer to environmentalism as a cult.  The behavior is similar.

      Now, I don’t speak for everyone here, you understand, but I am reluctant to spend a lot of money on a mechanism that no one can accurately describe, and that may or may not be a problem, and is championed by some people who don’t have a clue.

      I am willing to take reasonable measures to reduce my impact on the environment.  I am not willing to cut back drastically on my standard of living simply to placate a bunch of people who shout “Global warming!” because they see a simple cause and effect (“humans create CO2, CO2 greenhouse gas, humans bad”), when there are other factors as yet unmeasured.  What if the sun is warming up?  How about natural methane production?  And so on.

      No, many people seek a simple solution to a complex problem, because they can grasp the answer.  They aren’t comfortable with the complex, or the unknown.  It’s a human thing.

      But that doesn’t mean others have to pay for their insecurity….especially when there is evidence that “global warming” is something of a scam with some people.  That’s my opinion, BTW, but there’s anecdotal evidence that people make a nice living off this subject.

      Really, thnnnnnnn, you ask these questions of us as a scientist, and yet you can’t look at this objectively.  Remember?  You said “This is not a thing that can be demonstrated by experiment. Like thalidomide and birth defects. You couldn’t do an experiment.”  It’s not reproducible.  It’s not science.  For you, it’s faith.  Congratulations, you are a cultist, not a scientist.

      You’re already convinced of the answers.  Me, I’m not.  If that makes me “pig ignorant”, so be it.  Being called pig ignorant by someone willfully blind and stupid is irony unto itself.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 03 25 at 10:47 PM • permalink

 

    1. I haven’t raised a single issue regarding what to do about global warming. I haven’t asked anyone to do anything. That’s a bridge too far at the moment; what’s the point in this forum when people refuse to believe it might even be a problem?

      If you could point out what I am wilfully blind to, I’d be obliged. There are many things in science not amenable to experimentation. Much of physics for a start. The existence of Pluto was predicted mathematically before it was actually visualized. None of that is science then, is that what you’re saying? Call me stupid if it pleases you, but THAT is one stupid statement. And it’s importantly stupid, because it’s a mistake made by many.

      Posted by thnnnn on 2006 03 25 at 11:40 PM • permalink

 

    1. I haven’t raised a single issue regarding what to do about global warming. I haven’t asked anyone to do anything.

      Granted.  OTOH, that’s typically the point of people being concerned about climate change—they want to do something about it.  From the first line of your first post (“Jesus suffering Christ”), I’d say you’re concerned.

      That’s a bridge too far at the moment; what’s the point in this forum when people refuse to believe it might even be a problem?

      There are problems that can be addressed, and problems that have to be lived with.  One has to accept a certain element of risk in life, or else hide in a hole, and hope nothing happens to you.

      Risk is accepted either because the risk is low enough to disregard the threat, or the threat can be mitigated into lower risk, or because there is simply no other choice.  These choices are generally driven by technical capabilities and economic necessity.

      I (and other people) see that climate change may be a threat.  It isn’t well defined by any stretch of the imagination.  The mitigation measures suggested thus far have been of proven ineffectiveness and economically insane.

      That assumes, of course, that the problem is in fact human caused, and that we can do something about it.  The evidence suggests that humanity has influenced climate change.  There’s other evidence that this may be part of a natural cycle, and we began the industrial revolution at about the same time a warming trend began.  There’s no evidence that humanity is exclusively at fault for climate change.

      It’s also very difficult to persuade people to pay for a problem that you can’t define, and for solutions that send them to the poorhouse.  I speak from professional experience.

      If you could point out what I am wilfully blind to, I’d be obliged.

      Read on.

      There are many things in science not amenable to experimentation.

      I presume that you either mean “metaphysics”, or to conditions that humans can’t duplicate.

      Metaphysics is a philosophy.  Not a science.

      As to conditions we can’t duplicate….that’s what experimentation is all about.  I also point out that less than a couple decades ago, the creation of synthetic diamonds was thought impossible because we couldn’t duplicate the time and pressure thought necessary.  Now we can.  Science marches on…..if we let it.

      Much of physics for a start.

      Note my last paragraph.

      The existence of Pluto was predicted mathematically before it was actually visualized.

      The existence of Pluto was theorized based on calculations based on Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion.  The theory was proven when—by experimentation—Pluto was found using data derived from the theory.

      This is called the Scientific Method.  Something that a scientist should be familiar with.

      None of that is science then, is that what you’re saying?

      Nope.  Because it’s really clear that you are not a scientist.  The discovery of Pluto is a classic example of the scientific method at work.  I’m not a scientist, and even I know that.

      At best, you’re someone with a college degree in some science.  You just whipped up a strawman to divert me.

      Call me stupid if it pleases you, but THAT is one stupid statement. And it’s importantly stupid, because it’s a mistake made by many.

      It doesn’t please me.  This is my conclusion based on your wild and errant mislogic, and your incredibly lame (for a self-proclaimed scientist) observations and examples.

      thnnn, it’s obvious that you aren’t a scientist (except maybe in your job title), that you have no clue as to how science works (except perhaps in requesting research grants), and that you are just another environmental cultist preaching the Religion of Mother Gaia™.

      So preach away, thnnnn.  Ain’t no one listening but your fellow cultists.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 03 26 at 01:36 AM • permalink

 

    1. One clarification on my post (and not for thnnn, but for genuine scientists, and other interested parties):

      thnnnn has repeatedly stated that “There are many things in science not amenable to experimentation.”

      The Problem of Demarcation in the scientific method states, in part:

      …method is used as the criterion for demarcation between science and non-science. If it is not possible to articulate a definitive method, then it may also not be possible to articulate a definition of science, and distinguish between science and pseudoscience, between scientists and non-scientists.

      Thus, thnnnn’s repeated insistence that “…many things in science not amenable to experimentation…” exposes him/her as a non-scientist.  Or as an incompetent scientist looking for a steady flow of grants.

      Take your pick.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 03 26 at 01:48 AM • permalink

 

    1. Hmmm

      Last one (4.48pm) may be a bit harsh on the ol’ thnnn-ster, TRJ.  I give him/her marks for coming back and putting up a modest argument, in the face of a hostile audience.  Much more useful than the envirotards we get dropping by in between visits to Centrelink.

      I’ll allow that thnnnn is a ‘scientist’ of some ilk, but he/she unfortunately can’t distinguish between where environmental concern stops and scientific demonstration of a problem begins.  You’ve made the case much more eloquently than I, TRJ.

      Thnnnn, the task for you is
      1) to show us that ‘climate change’ as we may be experiencing now is an abnormality ie outside the scientifically demonstrated (earth science, remember) change in the planet’s climate through time; and

      2) to show that mankind can materially alter the nature planetary climate cycle – either by adding CO2 to ‘warm’ the joint, or now, to reduce CO2 to cool it again.

      If you & your fellow ‘global warming’ worriers / warriors can’t show that there’s an abnormality relative to natural change AND show that mankind’s caused it, or has played a significant part, then you are just forming a quasi-scientific back-drop to the environmental cultists who are more in the ‘anti-globalisation’ camp than the ‘environmental’ one.

      Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 03 26 at 02:20 AM • permalink

 

    1. Perhaps, SCD.  Since I lack a science degree (I’m an engineer, BTW), I tend to look at science idealistically.  No doubt there are aspects of science that I lack experience in, which might mitigate thnnn’s situation.

      I like your challenge to thnnnn.  I would add only one thing:  I want to see an objective analysis, not an emotional one, like thnnnn has been giving us here.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 03 26 at 10:26 AM • permalink

 

    1. sorry TRJ. here I was thinking I was being all dispassionate and evidence-based when really the emotion was just pouring out of my posts. Guess I am just an incompetent scientist looking for a steady flow of grants. Bugger!

      But anyway, SCD, have a look at the graphs, for the moment, that I referenced in #49, and meanwhile I’ll see if I can put my argument together to answer you.

      Posted by thnnnn on 2006 03 26 at 05:39 PM • permalink

 

Page 1 of 1 pages