Well I have also attempted to call them twice and it goes straight to the fax line, which is the same number btw. I'll wait till next week, if I get no answer, I'm faxing them. See if that gets their attention.
Climate change-Implications
- Thread starter Ocean Breeze
- Start date
Yes - they should be dismissed out of hand.
My wife is a university professor - she has a Ph.D and lives on research. The gold standard in research is publicly funded, peer reviewed and published in a major journal. Anything short of this lacks either independence, validity or credibility.
Virtually all the mainstream science on global warming is publicly funded, peer reviewed and published in major scientific journals. Attempting to use non-peer reviewed industry funded research to refute publicly funded, peer reviewed, published research at best lacks credibility and at worst is self serving propaganda.
Just step away from the academic world of research for just a second. If you are about to purchase stock, primarily based on the recommedation of a stock analyst, would it colour your preceptions if you found out that the analyst worked for the investment bank that was underwriting the stock offering? Would you be more suspect if you found out that most of his analysis was a cut and past job from company press releases and annual reports?
That is essentially what is happening in the anti-global warming community. It is a closed community or professionally discredited former scientists who are in the employ of oil companies and right wing think tanks.
If you approached the subject with any objectivity or critical thinking you would realize that most of what you are posting is nothing more than self serving propaganda.
It's not self serving at all, since it has no benefit to me.
The problem with the research system you described (and it is a good one) is that the results that it produces today are often the sacred cows that are disproven by the research of tomorrow. And although I have no doubt that your wife is totally honest and objective, it's also been shown that researchers will on occasion produce the results that get them the grants. Not to mention, there are researchers in the field of weather and climate who are not involved in any way with global warming research. They are merely working for the increase of understanding and knowledge, and sometimes their results do not square with global warming theory.
By the way, love your signature quotes. You should post them on the Quotes and Wisdoms thread.
Something is certainly happening to the world weather patterns,I think we can all agree on that point. Whether we are at fault or if it's just part of the natural cycle,I have no idea.
RE: Climate change-Implic
The science points to us playing a large role, missile. Greenhouse gas traps heat and we are the largest source of greenhouse gas.
The science points to us playing a large role, missile. Greenhouse gas traps heat and we are the largest source of greenhouse gas.
Henrik Svensmark, "Cosmic Rays and Earths Climate," Space Science Reviews 93 (2000): 175
Nigel D. Marsh and Henrik Svensmark, "Low Cloud Properties Influenced by Cosmic Rays," Physical Review Letters 85 (2000): 5004-7
Gerhard Wagner et al, "Some Results Relevant to the Discussion of a Possible Link between Cosmic Rays and the Earths Climate," Journal of Geophysical research 106 (2001): 3381-87
E. Palle Bago and C. J. Butler, "The Influence of Cosmic Rays on Terrestrial Clouds and Global Warming," Astronomy and Geophysics 41 (2000): 4.18-4.22
Jasper Kirkby and Ari Laaksonen, "Solar Variability and Clouds," Space Science Reviews 94 (2000): 401
Here’s the synopsis:
Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs) originate from supernova explosions They are mostly hydrogen nuclei (protons) but some are nuclei of heavier elements. GCRs are positively charged particles traveling at very high speed (near speed of light) within our galaxy. Some of them intersect our solar system. Our Sun generates a magnetic field extending far beyond earth’s orbit. When GCRs collide with this magnetic field they may be deflected. Moving charged particles encounter a force when they enter a magnetic field unless they are exactly aligned with the magnetic field. The stronger the magnetic field, the greater the influence of that force. The sun exhibits an 11 year cycle of sunspot activity, as well as variations over greater time periods. As sunspot activity increases, the interplanetary magnetic field becomes stronger, and thus, fewer GCRs reach the earth during solar maximums. GCRs that reach the earth must also contend with earth’s magnetic field, which also varies with location and time. Those that penetrate the earths magnetic field collide with molecules in the upper atmosphere. Secondary particles from these collisions cascade lower into the atmosphere, producing ions. These ions may influence aerosol production upon which cloud droplets condense. The physics of high altitude ice clouds differs from that of low altitude water clouds. Researchers believe that low cloud cover cools the planet by reflecting sunlight that would have warmed the earth. Conversely, they think that high cloud cover causes warming by reflecting infra red radiation back toward earths surface.
The new data support the scenario that during high solar activity (sunspots) the stronger solar interplanetary magnetic field permits fewer cosmic rays to collide with earth, causing less low cloud formation and leading to higher temperatures. The trend reversed with fewer sunspots during low solar activity. According to historical records, few, if any sunspots occurred at the time of the little ice age (1645 – 1715)
There wasn’t much more detail in the article, it was just a comment on an interesting subject. The references were provided for those who wished to research further.
See above, again.
RE: Climate change-Implic
Oh yeah, cosmic rays. Nothing we do here can possibly make a difference, so just blame the cosmic rays. So what if they don't produce nearly enough energy to cause the effects we are seeing. So what if the theory has been rejected by pretty much every scientist who managed to read the whole without breaking down in fits of laughter.
Cosmic rays are making the earth warm. Irreducible complexity is a valid theory, but anthropogenic global warming is not. God built the whole universe 6,000 years ago, dinosaur bones were put here to test our faith. Noah put two of every animal except for the unicorn on his little boat. Zeus turned hiself into a swan to get laid. Eric von Danniken is a real scientist. Exxon is looking out for our better interests. George Bush is intelligent. Throwing virgins into volcanoes will keep them from erupting.
I've heard them all before Extrafire. Next time you're up at the North Pole, tell Santa I'd like a pony for Christmas.
Oh yeah, cosmic rays. Nothing we do here can possibly make a difference, so just blame the cosmic rays. So what if they don't produce nearly enough energy to cause the effects we are seeing. So what if the theory has been rejected by pretty much every scientist who managed to read the whole without breaking down in fits of laughter.
Cosmic rays are making the earth warm. Irreducible complexity is a valid theory, but anthropogenic global warming is not. God built the whole universe 6,000 years ago, dinosaur bones were put here to test our faith. Noah put two of every animal except for the unicorn on his little boat. Zeus turned hiself into a swan to get laid. Eric von Danniken is a real scientist. Exxon is looking out for our better interests. George Bush is intelligent. Throwing virgins into volcanoes will keep them from erupting.
I've heard them all before Extrafire. Next time you're up at the North Pole, tell Santa I'd like a pony for Christmas.
Re: RE: Climate change-Implic
There you go again. When faced with real science by scientists without an agenda you go off into extremes of denial, make up a whole lot of BS, try extreme ridicule, anything to avoid abandoning your dogma. It's practially impossible to have a rational discussion with you when you get into this mode, so once more I'm ending this conversation, and I won't renew it again. I'm flying to Winipeg tomorrow, but I don't think I'll bother to look you up.
If anyone else wants to converse with me I'll be happy to oblige when I get back next week, but not the Rev.
Reverend Blair said:
There you go again. When faced with real science by scientists without an agenda you go off into extremes of denial, make up a whole lot of BS, try extreme ridicule, anything to avoid abandoning your dogma. It's practially impossible to have a rational discussion with you when you get into this mode, so once more I'm ending this conversation, and I won't renew it again. I'm flying to Winipeg tomorrow, but I don't think I'll bother to look you up.
If anyone else wants to converse with me I'll be happy to oblige when I get back next week, but not the Rev.
RE: Climate change-Implic
Ah gee, now my feelings are hurt. ;-)
I've been presenting you with the work of real scientists for months, Extrafire. You've shown no signs of even clicking the links.
Ah gee, now my feelings are hurt. ;-)
I've been presenting you with the work of real scientists for months, Extrafire. You've shown no signs of even clicking the links.
Re: RE: Climate change-Implic
Do you have some spyware in my computer watching what I click on? 8O
You only consider the scientific work that supports your ideology. When confronted with blatant errors or human weakness, or maybe even fraud, you put on the blinders and completely ignore it. When shown factual science backed by historical observations, you deny it. You cling to your dogma with all the fervour of a religious fundementalist. :roll: If it makes you happy, well go for it, but I won't waste any more time on this topic with you.
Reverend Blair said:
Do you have some spyware in my computer watching what I click on? 8O
You only consider the scientific work that supports your ideology. When confronted with blatant errors or human weakness, or maybe even fraud, you put on the blinders and completely ignore it. When shown factual science backed by historical observations, you deny it. You cling to your dogma with all the fervour of a religious fundementalist. :roll: If it makes you happy, well go for it, but I won't waste any more time on this topic with you.
Extrafire said:
Either way, more and more independent studies are showing that there is more of an impact starting around the industrial revolution. That in itself is including history. Things are happening, natural cycle it may be, BUT mankind is magnifying the natural cycle with it's activities.
We will adapt. But at this junction in time we can make it easier to adapt or make it more difficult to adapt. This is where we must make the choices that will choose the course. This shouldn't be one of those situations where we look back at the decisions that were made and realize our folly & ignorance.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0801-06.htm
global warming and the changes that are taking place...
global warming and the changes that are taking place...