Bright Sun, Warm Earth: Coincidence?

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
As far as deciding whether global warming is real or not, look at what's happening if you want to decide for yourself. look at the evidence. The planet's glaciers are shrinking, Inuit are grumbling about permafrost not being "permanent" anymore, oce caps shrinking, mean ocean temperatures rising, etc.
The hype is a completely different subject.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
The body is much more resilient and adaptive then people admit. No matter how healthy we eat we won’t live for ever.

I assume you must not suffer from any autoimmune diseases which defy explanation. No chronic pain that is occurring in higher and higher concentrations throughout the world, crippling people at younger and younger ages. If you think the human body is resilient and adaptive in today's environment, I offer you a swap. You can wear my arthritic, broken down outfit of pain for a few days. lol.
 

s243a

Council Member
Mar 9, 2007
1,352
15
38
Calgary
As far as deciding whether global warming is real or not, look at what's happening if you want to decide for yourself. look at the evidence. The planet's glaciers are shrinking, Inuit are grumbling about permafrost not being "permanent" anymore, oce caps shrinking, mean ocean temperatures rising, etc.
The hype is a completely different subject.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20073
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2007/01/16/polar-bear.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0520-08.htm
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060217/20060217_09.html
 

s243a

Council Member
Mar 9, 2007
1,352
15
38
Calgary
I assume you must not suffer from any autoimmune diseases which defy explanation. No chronic pain that is occurring in higher and higher concentrations throughout the world, crippling people at younger and younger ages. If you think the human body is resilient and adaptive in today's environment, I offer you a swap. You can wear my arthritic, broken down outfit of pain for a few days. lol.

How long have we been diagnosing arthritis for anyway?
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
How long have we been diagnosing arthritis for anyway?

which one? there's been arthritis around for a long time. But there is a relatively new rise in the occurences of both autoimmune diseases and arthritis of many different kinds, especially juvenile arthritis and rheumatoid.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
So? That means that other glaciers aren't shrinking? http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/mbb/mbb9/sum05.html
Good for the polar bear.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Published on Friday, May 20, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]As Climate Shifts, Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Growing
Increased snowfall on the central icecap partly offsets effects of melting glaciers, researchers say.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]by Robert Lee Hotzp.
[/FONT]​

That study period ended in 2003, this study mentioned in Nat Geo is from 2006 : http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-greenland.html

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
 

s243a

Council Member
Mar 9, 2007
1,352
15
38
Calgary
Fascinating, but I still have no sound. Besides, I don't give a crap what Gore says. Anyway, if you wanna believe the planet isn't warming, you go right ahead.
If I new if the planet was warming I could predict the future. A derivative filter is a non causal filter. The planet has warmed and cooled many times in the past. The recent rates of change do not alarm me and are not worth the hysteria.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
If I new if the planet was warming I could predict the future.
The balance of evidence seems to show the planet is warming.
A derivative filter is a non causal filter.
Wunnerful.
The planet has warmed and cooled many times in the past.
Uh, yeeeeeaaaaah ......... otherwise we'd either still be in an ice age or pretty hot and humid.
The recent rates of change do not alarm me and are not worth the hysteria.
They show a trend. But I agree with you, it ain't worth being hysterical about nor even alarmed.
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
Sorry to go off topic, but, I see you have shaved, and had a sex change, you look great.

Sorry to interrupt the flirting, but I wanted to put in my two cents on science and science funding... that's probably what its worth.

In Canada, there are a few main avenues of research:

First there is the NSERC, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, which is chaired by scientists and receives money from the national government's science fund. IE, they are given money by royal decree. Scientists of all walks of life are given money, from Undergrads to senior research scientists, working in industry and otherwise so long as the applications are novel. The grantees are selected by groups generally made up of your friendly university professors, ask around some of them are probably recently returned. The more publicity you can generate, the happier NSERC is. Take a look at my research website, I link to it in my public profile. The NSERC logo at the bottom of my page must be there, because I receive funds from them.

Next, there is CIAR. Or the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research. The aim of these awards are to take pressure off the teaching loads of university professors and to provide infrastructure to their laboratories to make research easier for excellent researchers. I am too young to have one, too young and undereducated (no PhD). These are extremely difficult to get, there are only 338 of them right now. The grantees are chosen by program area committee, all of whom are experts in their field. Like NSERC they receive government money under no stipulations.

We also have CFI. The Canadian Foundation for innovation. These are rather large grants, given primarily for the construction of large state of the art laboratories in various fields. It often takes a large group of scientists to successfully acquire a grant, which tends to focus the large laboratories into the large universities. Their assessment process is also accomplished by established researchers.

Often, the provincial governments and individual universities have similar programs.

There are also private research scholarship organizations. Often dealing with exchange programs with other nations. The Killam scholarship comes to mind. These scholarships are generally temporary and generally only meant to spark collaborations accross borders.

Finally, there are industries that will fund research into their area of specialisation. For instance, Dalhousie University in Halifax has one of the premier research centers for lithium ion battery science in the world. The recipient is Jeff Dahn, the grantor is 3M. They claim all intellectual property rights from the research and can thus suppress research in these overspecialized areas.

However, the vast majority of scientists do not receive money from industry... excepting industrial engineers. The government and the above research organizations generally have guaranteed funding agreements so that the government cannot pull funding if the scientists publish uncomfortable results. In the end, it generally means academic freedom in Canada. Recently, a professor from St Francis Xavier even went to the Iranian Holocaust denying conference.
That upset some people, but he still has his job, didn't break the hate crime laws, and still receives his funding.

All that to say that the government of Canada cannot really suppress Canadian science. However, industries or powerful organizations have the money to stir up debate which causes the public to view science poorly. The person doesn't even have to be a scientist. They just go out, hack together a documentary with enough money, advertise it in a scandalous way and muddy the waters. Then millions of actual research money is spent by scientists trying to refute bogus claims.

Common areas of false debate:
1) Nuclear science or radiation of any form.
2) Climate science including ocean science.
3) Ecology and animal population control.
4) Nanotechnology and artificial intelligence.
5) Genetics, and biochemistry.

Sorry for the long-winded-ness. Just felt like getting that out there.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
All that to say that the government of Canada cannot really suppress Canadian science. However, industries or powerful organizations have the money to stir up debate which causes the public to view science poorly. The person doesn't even have to be a scientist. They just go out, hack together a documentary with enough money, advertise it in a scandalous way and muddy the waters. Then millions of actual research money is spent by scientists trying to refute bogus claims.

Common areas of false debate:
1) Nuclear science or radiation of any form.
2) Climate science including ocean science.
3) Ecology and animal population control.
4) Nanotechnology and artificial intelligence.
5) Genetics, and biochemistry.

An excellent overview of how research is conducted Niflmir.

The last paragraph which I highlighted really is the rub when it comes to how the public comes to know the issues. I especially like the wording "hack together". Therein also describing the purveyors of these horrible propoganda pieces.
 

talloola

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 14, 2006
19,576
113
63
Vancouver Island
Sorry to interrupt the flirting, but I wanted to put in my two cents on science and science funding... that's probably what its worth.

In Canada, there are a few main avenues of research:

First there is the NSERC, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, which is chaired by scientists and receives money from the national government's science fund. IE, they are given money by royal decree. Scientists of all walks of life are given money, from Undergrads to senior research scientists, working in industry and otherwise so long as the applications are novel. The grantees are selected by groups generally made up of your friendly university professors, ask around some of them are probably recently returned. The more publicity you can generate, the happier NSERC is. Take a look at my research website, I link to it in my public profile. The NSERC logo at the bottom of my page must be there, because I receive funds from them.

Next, there is CIAR. Or the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research. The aim of these awards are to take pressure off the teaching loads of university professors and to provide infrastructure to their laboratories to make research easier for excellent researchers. I am too young to have one, too young and undereducated (no PhD). These are extremely difficult to get, there are only 338 of them right now. The grantees are chosen by program area committee, all of whom are experts in their field. Like NSERC they receive government money under no stipulations.

We also have CFI. The Canadian Foundation for innovation. These are rather large grants, given primarily for the construction of large state of the art laboratories in various fields. It often takes a large group of scientists to successfully acquire a grant, which tends to focus the large laboratories into the large universities. Their assessment process is also accomplished by established researchers.

Often, the provincial governments and individual universities have similar programs.

There are also private research scholarship organizations. Often dealing with exchange programs with other nations. The Killam scholarship comes to mind. These scholarships are generally temporary and generally only meant to spark collaborations accross borders.

Finally, there are industries that will fund research into their area of specialisation. For instance, Dalhousie University in Halifax has one of the premier research centers for lithium ion battery science in the world. The recipient is Jeff Dahn, the grantor is 3M. They claim all intellectual property rights from the research and can thus suppress research in these overspecialized areas.

However, the vast majority of scientists do not receive money from industry... excepting industrial engineers. The government and the above research organizations generally have guaranteed funding agreements so that the government cannot pull funding if the scientists publish uncomfortable results. In the end, it generally means academic freedom in Canada. Recently, a professor from St Francis Xavier even went to the Iranian Holocaust denying conference.
That upset some people, but he still has his job, didn't break the hate crime laws, and still receives his funding.

All that to say that the government of Canada cannot really suppress Canadian science. However, industries or powerful organizations have the money to stir up debate which causes the public to view science poorly. The person doesn't even have to be a scientist. They just go out, hack together a documentary with enough money, advertise it in a scandalous way and muddy the waters. Then millions of actual research money is spent by scientists trying to refute bogus claims.

Common areas of false debate:
1) Nuclear science or radiation of any form.
2) Climate science including ocean science.
3) Ecology and animal population control.
4) Nanotechnology and artificial intelligence.
5) Genetics, and biochemistry.

Sorry for the long-winded-ness. Just felt like getting that out there.

I am one of those persons who can only know about scientific findings, by what I read, or hear, so
why is it, that big business, has so much control over it, and that includes politics, medicine, and
other things. So, it comes down to - someone like me, just ignoring most things, as we realize
we are being "manipulated", and closing our ears and eyes. How can any of this be changed, as it
seems that it is just a vicious circle, as it's "again" all about money and power.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Sorry to interrupt the flirting, but I wanted to put in my two cents on science and science funding... that's probably what its worth.

In Canada, there are a few main avenues of research:

First there is the NSERC, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, which is chaired by ............
Next, there is CIAR. Or the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research. The aim of these awards are to ...............

We also have CFI. The Canadian Foundation for innovation. These are rather large grants, given ..............
Often, the provincial governments and individual universities have similar programs.

There are also private research scholarship organizations. Often dealing with exchange programs with ..........
Finally, there are industries that will fund research into their area of specialisation. For instance, ...............
However, the vast majority of scientists do not receive money from industry... excepting industrial .............That upset some people, but he still has his job, didn't break the hate crime laws, and still receives his funding.

All that to say that the government of Canada cannot really suppress Canadian science. However, industries or powerful organizations have the money to stir up debate which causes the public to view science poorly. The person doesn't even have to be a scientist. They just go out, hack together a documentary with enough money, advertise it in a scandalous way and muddy the waters. Then millions of actual research money is spent by scientists trying to refute bogus claims.

Common areas of false debate:
1) Nuclear science or radiation of any form.
2) Climate science including ocean science.
3) Ecology and animal population control.
4) Nanotechnology and artificial intelligence.
5) Genetics, and biochemistry.

Sorry for the long-winded-ness. Just felt like getting that out there.
Ah, you just lke to hear yerself talk. ;) (Kidding).
But, you're right on about muddy waters. On top of what you say, the press are fed a pile of crap sometimes, too and don't bother verifying anything anymore. So misinformation from the media doesn't help clear any water.
Unless people that are interested snoop around like I do, avoid mainstream media and political comments, and read research papers, journals, science based mags, etc. they will be misinformed and sometimes even blatantly lied to.

Um, yeah. What Ton said. :)
 
Last edited:

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
I am one of those persons who can only know about scientific findings, by what I read, or hear, so
why is it, that big business, has so much control over it, and that includes politics, medicine, and
other things. So, it comes down to - someone like me, just ignoring most things, as we realize
we are being "manipulated", and closing our ears and eyes. How can any of this be changed, as it
seems that it is just a vicious circle, as it's "again" all about money and power.
Why is it is because we have such a thing as freedom of speech. Unfortunately people are not very discerning about which sources they use for their info, so the crap they read isn't weeded out by better competition anymore. Analogy needed here: mechanics fix vehicles. It used to be that crappy mechanics had a hard time doing business because most people wanted good mechanics. Now there are so many that the good ones and the bad ones are almost indistinguishable from each other. And what makes that worse is the fact that vehicles are so complicated these days, even good mechanics screw up once in a while.
So, anyway, politicians, the news, etc. all serve to screw up the info we get from science. The only thing I use them for is headlines to get my attention focused on something. After that I go look for my own info.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tonington

talloola

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 14, 2006
19,576
113
63
Vancouver Island
Why is it is because we have such a thing as freedom of speech. Unfortunately people are not very discerning about which sources they use for their info, so the crap they read isn't weeded out by better competition anymore. Analogy needed here: mechanics fix vehicles. It used to be that crappy mechanics had a hard time doing business because most people wanted good mechanics. Now there are so many that the good ones and the bad ones are almost indistinguishable from each other. And what makes that worse is the fact that vehicles are so complicated these days, even good mechanics screw up once in a while.
So, anyway, politicians, the news, etc. all serve to screw up the info we get from science. The only thing I use them for is headlines to get my attention focused on something. After that I go look for my own info.

Sounds like good advice, I am very tired of political competition, they just try to "outinsult" each other, don't seem to hear anything constructive for "us" at all. I have "just" tuned them out now, I
will leave all the "hollering and shouting" to the younger crowd, who have so much at stake, with
their lives, and their families lives ahead of them. (Not that I'm going anywhere, just want to have
more fun now, and not fret about much of anything.)

We now take our Ford to ford, and we take our Nissan to Nissan, seems to work best that way, no
more independent mechanics for us.
 
Last edited:

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
At first glance
For one thing, Jupiter has always given off more heat that it receives from the sun. If Jupiter's moons are warming, that warming is more than likely coming from Jupiter.
Now you are an astronomer? Got any data to back that claim up?
People will not listen because there are many "proofs" out there. Ever notice how most of the advocates and proponents you see doing the talk shows are the same people over and over again? They make their money talking it up. In fact that recent show on BBC, the Great Global warming swindle, most of the scientists on there aren't even in the business anymore except as voices on the TV, talk shows, radios, etc. If you want to separate the fact from fiction, theres only one way to do that, and it's not by swallowing whatever news program, radio broadcast, or web blog happens to showcase something which agrees with your "belief". It's by reading peer reviewed literature. By questioning the methods, checking references and general investigation.

Although you don't need a climate degree to understand what they are telling us, you do need a basic grasp of science and statistics to objectively look at their proofs and determine what belongs in the sh!t pile and what is solid.
But it is so easy to sell the hyper fantastic to the generally oblivious public.
It's unfortunate though that most don't want to know, and all that will come of this is a political smokescreen.
I agree, but some of the motives are askued in my opinion, lol.

Seriously though, I have trouble buying the pro side, as they only seem to be focused on one aspect of what is killing the planet, yet there is a sour soup of bio, toxin, and poisonous brews, stewing about the world. They pose a more accute threat then GW.

So I fail to find genuine concern in their singular thinking. In fact it leads me to think their actions, have alterior motives.
Also, to get published in a peer-reviewed journal, they have to convince other scientists that their research is correct.
Really???

How do you explain the lie that is algores graph, inconveniently displayed for the world as a lie. C02 follows the heat up, not precedes it. Yet some in the sientific community are selling this lie, the exact opposite, as fact.
Um, as I said earlier, the hype has little to do with science.
Neither do the proponents of the AGW theory.
Sorry to interrupt the flirting, but I wanted to put in my two cents on science and science funding... that's probably what its worth.

In Canada, there are a few main avenues of research:

First there is the NSERC, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, which is chaired by scientists and receives money from the national government's science fund. IE, they are given money by royal decree. Scientists of all walks of life are given money, from Undergrads to senior research scientists, working in industry and otherwise so long as the applications are novel. The grantees are selected by groups generally made up of your friendly university professors, ask around some of them are probably recently returned. The more publicity you can generate, the happier NSERC is. Take a look at my research website, I link to it in my public profile. The NSERC logo at the bottom of my page must be there, because I receive funds from them.

Next, there is CIAR. Or the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research. The aim of these awards are to take pressure off the teaching loads of university professors and to provide infrastructure to their laboratories to make research easier for excellent researchers. I am too young to have one, too young and undereducated (no PhD). These are extremely difficult to get, there are only 338 of them right now. The grantees are chosen by program area committee, all of whom are experts in their field. Like NSERC they receive government money under no stipulations.

We also have CFI. The Canadian Foundation for innovation. These are rather large grants, given primarily for the construction of large state of the art laboratories in various fields. It often takes a large group of scientists to successfully acquire a grant, which tends to focus the large laboratories into the large universities. Their assessment process is also accomplished by established researchers.

Often, the provincial governments and individual universities have similar programs.

There are also private research scholarship organizations. Often dealing with exchange programs with other nations. The Killam scholarship comes to mind. These scholarships are generally temporary and generally only meant to spark collaborations accross borders.

Finally, there are industries that will fund research into their area of specialisation. For instance, Dalhousie University in Halifax has one of the premier research centers for lithium ion battery science in the world. The recipient is Jeff Dahn, the grantor is 3M. They claim all intellectual property rights from the research and can thus suppress research in these overspecialized areas.

However, the vast majority of scientists do not receive money from industry... excepting industrial engineers. The government and the above research organizations generally have guaranteed funding agreements so that the government cannot pull funding if the scientists publish uncomfortable results. In the end, it generally means academic freedom in Canada. Recently, a professor from St Francis Xavier even went to the Iranian Holocaust denying conference.
That upset some people, but he still has his job, didn't break the hate crime laws, and still receives his funding.

All that to say that the government of Canada cannot really suppress Canadian science. However, industries or powerful organizations have the money to stir up debate which causes the public to view science poorly. The person doesn't even have to be a scientist. They just go out, hack together a documentary with enough money, advertise it in a scandalous way and muddy the waters. Then millions of actual research money is spent by scientists trying to refute bogus claims.

Common areas of false debate:
1) Nuclear science or radiation of any form.
2) Climate science including ocean science.
3) Ecology and animal population control.
4) Nanotechnology and artificial intelligence.
5) Genetics, and biochemistry.

Sorry for the long-winded-ness. Just felt like getting that out there.
No need to apologise, that was awesome!!! Thanx.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
The crux of it is that we know so many things are bad, we've stopped or reduced our usage of so many pollutants. It seems like the greenhouse gases are the last ones to be embraced as a pollutant. In some places they burn the methane by-products simply becuase the carbon dioxide by-product isn't as strong a greenhouse gas as the methane.