Author: Eli (4032 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 7:44 pm on Feb 14, 2014

if you have 56 minutes of spare time. Every minute in this Lindzen's talk is worth listening.



To summarize his main point:
1.Lindzen discussed how problematic it is to identify science with institutions. We have few gentleman scientists like Darwin of more than 100 years ago. Science has become a professional career. Pay attention to iron triangle shown by him.

2.He gave similar "moral" movements, the counterpart of global warming is the eugenics of 100 years ago. All the people then expressed their high moral standards by supporting eugenics just like people today supported global warming today. Some really meaningless, AGW-motivated research projects that got $400k are mentioned.

3.Lindzen recalled the era when "climatology" was only used for record keepers, an underappreciated group of lowly workers (Like I said in the post below, those climatologists only have high school diploma). Suddenly the climatologists become leading scientists today worshiped by ATL.

4.This part is very important to TN. Listen carefully. Itís about Global mean temperature from 1880 to now, your favorite graph/data . Lindzen challenge you by asking to what extent is globally and annually averaged temperature anomaly meaningful metric of climate? From earlier model, it clearly shows the Global mean temperature isn't an important driver of the temperature but just the residue in a calculation of things that actually matter for the climate change , equator-pole difference is more important. But they made attempt to raise equator temperature desperately to interpretation (CO2) going their way. But, the IPCC models incorrectly predicted the behavior of the equator-pole difference.

5.The annual temperature oscillation graph from 1960 to 1990 originally was pretty flat, a little bit above zero. It's not exciting, but if you change the scale, you can make it look exciting and significant in warming. Lindzen shows how you can't feel global warming Ė and how certain things about the weather may be accurately predicted through certain way.

6.Almost all empirically based methods suggest that the sensitivity (the magnitude of warming by CO2 green effect) is below 1 įC; IPCC gave us very likely 3 įC (with range 1-5 įC).

7.Global warming differs from eugenics and Lysenkoism. Unlike the two older examples, it has become a religion.

8.Even Ralph Cicerone, currently president of the National Academy of science climate denounced the catastrophicism

9.The rest of points that I missed above.


P.S. Just found and added the text version of Lindzen talk


Link: Science in the Public Square: Global Climate Alarmism and Historical Precedents

This message has been edited 1 time(s).

Replies to:


Thread Level: 2

I don't have 56 spare minutes

Author: ND_in_ATL (14650 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 12:09 am on Feb 15, 2014

But...regarding Point No. 3. Every climatologist that posts in scientific journals has at least a masters degree, and most have PhD's. Just b/c at one point climatologists were record keepers doesn't mean that is still the case in 2014.

I also find the religion part laughable if that's what he says. What is reported in the peer-reviewed science is simply data, evidence and interpretation. All are using the scientific method to draw their conclusions. Religion doesn't require evidence...that's how it differs with science.

Let me ask you this...do you disagree that humans are contributing to a rise in CO2? (See graph). CO2 has started rising ever since we started burning fossil fuels. There is no way the 2 are not related.

And if so, do you think that rises in CO2 would have no effect? Did you ever study physics or chemistry? The laws of equilibrium? Every action will have an equal and opposite reaction? This is basic stuff...dumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere will have an effect. The exact effect is not known 100% b/c there are so many variables, but that doesn't mean that nothing will happen.

Ocean pHs are dropping as a result of absorbing all the CO2 (which becomes carbonic acid in solution), and ice cores show that throughout the earth's history global increases in CO2 have corresponded with global increases in temperature.

Understanding global warming doesn't require adopting it as "religion". It simply requires a basic understanding of science.


http://scienceblogs.com/significantfigures/files/2013/03/MaunaLoaMarch2013-400x305.png

Thread Level: 3

Author: Eli (4032 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 2:53 pm on Feb 17, 2014

Let me repeat it again partly because alarmists dominant mainstream media and mislead people like you about true controversial issue and partly because you donít want to spend time to listen to skepticsí explanation:

Human are responsible for most of CO2 increase since industrial revolution. There is no question/controversial about it. CO2 as a greenhouse, its warming effect is 19th century physics. It's well known and can be verified in lab.. Nothing new and controversial here either, everybody agree. But, both sides notice (and also agree) that CO2 in atmosphere is more complicated than it is alone in lab due to a lot of interplays and the relationship between CO2 and temperature in climate is intriguing due to ice core record that seems to show temperature leads CO2. So, now we have both CO2 on temperature and temperature on CO2 in climate reality.

What makes the global warming issue controversial, i.e. what skeptics disagree with mainstream in this field is not the CO2 greenhouse warming itself, but it is the feedback, feedback and feedback. This is a different argument from CO2 standalone warming effect that we verified in the lab. Alarmists heavily rely on positive feedbacks to make gobal warming big enough to alarm. But skeptics say, wait a minute, there are also negative feedbacks (cooling effects) that need to consider. The analogy below probably make this controversial issue more clearly to you.

Suppose we have a task to determine average speed of vehicles on a freeway that has speed limit of 60 m/h. In ideal situation (analogical to ideal situation of CO2 in lab), we both agree average speed is 60m/h because that is what most drivers are supposed to drive. But you think actually most drivers always drive at up to 70 m/h in reality because in reality police wont stop anybody for exceeding 5-10 m/h. So you think the average speed in reality is close to 70 m/h (analogical to positive feedback argument in CO2 warming). But I think due to rush hour traffic, accidents, constructions and weather situation, Itís quite often that drivers drive at below 60 m/h (analogical to negative feedback argument in CO2 warming).

So, we both agree in principle/ on theory that average speed on this freeway is 60 m/h, but we disagree in reality how fast the drivers really drive.

Without feedback, doubling CO2 release from pre-industrial revolution to the end of 21st century is 1-1.2 C increase. Official data given IPCC report (3rd one) is 1 C. At this point, no controversial at all. Of course the increase is not enough to be taken seriously, not enough to be alarm. Alarmists primarily rely on positive feedbacks to make warming an alarm issue which skeptics disagree with. Of course there are some other issues that both side disagree. But this feedback-based issue, so called Climate sensitivity is heart and soul of this whole global warming debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

Regarding the climatologists . Yes, todayís climatologists have PhD degrees. This is because computer modeling technology, advanced statistical techniques and mathematics knowledge are used. These climatologists are equipped with these tools which require advanced training and higher education. The point by Lindzen is they are not strong at science that is behind the climate phenomenon. They are only good at playing/manipulating numbers. Climatology is different than climate science which is multi-discipline field.

As for the religion part, Itís because AGW doesnít allow skeptics. They think this science has been settled and they label skeptics as anti science. This attitude is similar to religion that doesnít allow skeptics/ agnosticism. As you know skeptics always think we donít know enough about climate.


Thread Level: 4

I agree that the current science-based arguments are based on feedback

Author: ND_in_ATL (14650 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 11:24 pm on Feb 18, 2014

That is some degree of anthropogenic global warming is real, and that the current scientific debate is which feedback loops have the capability of accelerating or slowing the process.

Keep in mind this is not what most people on the right think the debate is. This link has typical right-wing talking points on global warming. Typically it doesn't cede the basic fact that humans are increasing CO2, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that the earth is warming at all.

One quibble I have is that 1 degree Celsius is no big deal. If it took thousands of years to warm 1 degree then it wouldn't be an issue. But a hundred years is a geologic blink of the eye, and we are seeing the effects, particularly on Greenland's glaciers (even if they are up from last year, on the whole they are way down). Also, even the most conservative model projects an increase of 2 degrees over the next one hundred years. The real scientific argument is will it be 2 degrees or 5? That's a pretty big difference. If everyone prescribed to the same "religion" wouldn't all climatologists predict 5 degrees?

But as long as misinformation like that I posted is disseminated, the debate won't be on scientific terms.


Link: http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/02/18/5-scientific-reasons-that-global-warming-isnt-happening-n1796423/page/full

http://www.motherearthnews.com/~/media/Images/MEN/Editorial/Blogs/Nature%20and%20Environment/Hey%20Global%20Warming%20%201%20Degree%20Thats%20All%20You%20got/GlobalTempPredictions250.jpg

Thread Level: 5

Rising 1C by the end of century has no imapct at all. See the list of 4th IPCC report Summery part

Author: Eli (4032 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 6:46 pm on Feb 20, 2014

All the listed impacts by rising temperature is at least higher than 1 C. I can talk about it from other perspective next time.

Thread Level: 3

How do you know that the concentration of CO2 precedes the warming and not vice versa?

Author: iairishcheeks (9721 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 12:27 am on Feb 15, 2014

If caused by increased CO2, what happened to reverse the warming in the past?


And if so, do you think that rises in CO2 would have no effect? Did you ever study physics or chemistry? The laws of equilibrium? Every action will have an equal and opposite reaction? This is basic stuff...dumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere will have an effect. The exact effect is not known 100% b/c there are so many variables, but that doesn't mean that nothing will happen.


All true, but we also don't know if what will happen will be good or bad. Extremes suck, but in general global warming is a lot better than global cooling.

Also, have you seen the laser nuclear fusion stories? The problem will likely resolve itself as technology emerges or we run out of fossil fuels.


Link: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-lasers-fuelling-hopes-of-unlimited-clean-nuclear-energy-9124237.html

Thread Level: 4

What reversed it in the past is the reason we have fossil fuels in the first place

Author: ND_in_ATL (14650 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 12:52 am on Feb 15, 2014

Carbon was taken up by tons of plant material that got buried and trapped below the earth's surface.

Gradual global warming wouldn't be bad, b/c we'd have time to adjust.

The real problem with global warming is that it will cause sea levels to rise, and if it happens fast enough, it will end up displacing about a billion people or so.

It may result in more arable land in the alpine and boreal country, but the short-term affect of the rising sea levels is a threat to be taken seriously. Even if you take warming out of it (good or bad), the acidification to the oceans as a result of it absorbing more and more CO2 has the potential to cause huge seafood collapses.

Also, I'm not opposed to a technological solution to global warming, but I don't think we should bank on them.

As I've said before on this board, even if you don't disaster is likely, that doesn't mean you shouldn't provide some insurance against it. I'm unlikely to die in the next 5 years, but I still have life insurance for my family if I do.

The argument we should be having is what level of sacrifice (like my life insurance premiums) is appropriate given the risk level.

As long as there are people that think the whole thing is a hoax, we'll never have the debate we should. Because of the polarization and politicization of the topic, both sides have gone to extremes. For example, just because I believe global warming is real doesn't mean I'm opposed to the Keystone Pipeline. I'd gladly trade the Keystone Pipeline for cap-and-trade legislation (originally a Republican idea) any day.


This message has been edited 5 time(s).

Thread Level: 5

I don't have a problem with studying it further...

Author: iairishcheeks (9721 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 1:12 am on Feb 15, 2014

My problem is with taking draconian measures nationally, when if it's a problem, it's a global problem.

Any changes we make, and we have made significant "progress" thanks to more efficient automobiles, is offset by increases in China and India.



But, my biggest gripe is that we have much bigger concerns that are getting almost zero funding comparatively. I.e., if we get hit by a meteor or comet that throws us into an ice age, we might wish we had pumped more CO2 into the atmosphere. We could also spend more money trying to figure out when the Yellowstone volcano is going to erupt, how to predict solar storms, etc.


Thread Level: 6

Tell us what the draconian measures are.

Author: jimbasil (33333 Posts - Joined: Nov 15, 2007)

Posted at 1:47 am on Feb 15, 2014

(no message)

Thread Level: 7

Cap & Trade, Carbon Taxes, Kyoto

Author: iairishcheeks (9721 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 2:06 am on Feb 15, 2014

They'll further kill certain industries domestically that will ultimately do more harm globally when they relocate in China or Mexico. If they are here, we can limit the impacts.

Thread Level: 8

India, China, and Mexico were all Kyoto signatories

Author: ND_in_ATL (14650 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 12:20 pm on Feb 15, 2014

I agree its a global problem and will take a global solution. A global cap and trade market is the only real solution since all countries would be affected equally.

But when the leading CO2 producer per capita (us) refuses to participate, you can't make it very far in negotiations.


Thread Level: 9

Of course they signed, they're not under the same restrictions.

Author: iairishcheeks (9721 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 12:34 pm on Feb 15, 2014

(no message)

Thread Level: 8

We're never gonna agree on policy.

Author: jimbasil (33333 Posts - Joined: Nov 15, 2007)

Posted at 8:49 am on Feb 15, 2014

I say there's a safer, cleaner, smarter and better way to suck the earth dry of all its minerals and wealth - Coal, Oil, Gas, Gold, cutting down forests keeping water supplies strong and clean not to forget the air we breathe.

You say there isn't and it doesn't matter how we use-up the earth's wealth so keep doing what we do.

That to me tells me you haven't a clue about science, politics, pollution, population growth or economics.

Man has overwhelmed his environment and you and others say man has little to no influence over what happens on the planet.

In your desire to spread the word of free trade Capitalism without regulation you forget we're all in this together.

You were likely for Cap and Trade in the 90's (if you're old enough) a Republican thought. and are against it now because - either a Democrat brought it up or it was Obama who brought it up.

Never has a group of people (Teabaggers - Republicans) sounded so stupid and done more harm and divided a public than those of the last 4 decades succeeding more and more in recent memory putting away the idea of real thought for greed. And since Reagan and Thatcher came to power it has been more obvious what greed does to a country/planet.

You watching a few video's about Yellowstone's underground volcanic issues or reading the odd blog on Climate change or even having a microscope set in your basement doesn't make you a man of science or one who understands it. In fact, your posts along with the nutties clearly displays your the kind that absolutely disregards science for good feelings of bunny rabbits, kittens and pretty colors to make it through the day.

As C94 has posted, I hope you're right about GW/CC because it sure looks like you're not only wrong but it is happening faster than otherwise identified.

Sure there were predictions of world calamity over the years - the Mayan Calendar, Nostradamus, Pythia giving reason for having doubt but now we have real scientists. - we have scientists from everywhere looking at data and working on recognizing and analyzing what is taking place in such places as the poles where a majority of them have concluded C02 is dangerous and causes ills to our climates. They may be off on their calculations of how much man affects the planet, but they are very clear on one thing - Man has put Co2 into the atmosphere in one place where once aloft it travels everywhere impacting everywhere.

Man may not be in control of the earth's big changes (volcanic eruptions - meteors crashing into the planet - tectonic shifts) but we are in control of what we do and what we do does conflict with how we live on a day to day basis. An example would be "acid rain" the forests in the Carolina's and Mid New York/Vermont and New Hampshire suffer from lead in the soil which is from coal burning energy plants. Once regulations and controls were put in, the forests rebounded somewhat (still not all that strong) and now these companies are crying too much control is not necessary and far too expensive. Man needs to look at how he treats his environment - it is no longer this open land that stretches on forever where it needs taming - the human population of the planet has grown by billions since the 60's and to say we don't have any influences on the planet whether it be GW or CC or just plain ole clean air & water is just idiotic.


This message has been edited 1 time(s).

Thread Level: 9

I don't know how I am suppose to defend statements I never made, or

Author: iairishcheeks (9721 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 12:49 pm on Feb 15, 2014

Policies I never supported.

So I agree with you, if you're not interested in understanding my position and are just going to attribute a bunch of Republican crap (which is odd given that I'm not a Republican and didn't vote for one in the last election cycle), we won't agree.

I am not saying that CO2 isn't a problem, it may be, I'm saying it is a lower priority environmentally until it's better understood by science. The climate models have been wrong, let's figure out why instead of acting on junk science. Meanwhile we can focus our legislative efforts on water quality.


Thread Level: 10

A reasonable response - I'm affraid you just lost Jim.

Author: BaronVonZemo (23739 Posts - Joined: Nov 19, 2010)

Posted at 12:47 am on Feb 18, 2014

(no message)

Thread Level: 11

Just to be clear, I am against both mainstream positions.

Author: iairishcheeks (9721 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 11:59 pm on Feb 18, 2014

Both are driven by politics and infinitely worse, crony-capitalism. If you want respect, don't be a pawn.

Thread Level: 2

When listening to any speaker on a subject you must come from somewhere.

Author: jimbasil (33333 Posts - Joined: Nov 15, 2007)

Posted at 11:19 pm on Feb 14, 2014

Somewhere meaning you must know something about the talk whether as an enthusiast or someone who has a scant interest but knowledgeable enough to know what the topic is.

I come from the "observation of my surroundings and history of living" place as a start for listening to a speaker on this topic. I also come to this with the thought - man did not create dramatic climate change or Global Warming - but through observations of my own, over a long period of time I do believe this is more than an occurrence in daily weather and that man does have a strong influence in the movement of climate, ie: extended hot weather/cold weather.

One of the better ways to begin your argument as a speaker is to be self effacing/humble while tearing away at the side you disagree with, demean the other, belittle their work, call it incompetent work, disparage a scholar's level of education and so on, just like Lindzkin's beginning here - 20 plus minutes however, it's a big turn off. (from the sound of his audiences responses to his quips, I'm under the understanding this audience pretty much knew where he's coming from and has a strong idea of where his talk will lead. Hence my opening statement)

A few tenths of a degree is a big difference, even if he says it isn't (basic science). As an example - at 31 degrees f, snow is still snow - at 32 degrees f snow is still snow - at 32.1 degrees snow is now liquid water. Taken his mark on the graph of dots, he blatantly says the mean temp goes from -2 to +2 from beginning to end of graph taking away the scattered high and low marks. Clearly the graph shows the mass stretches from approx. -1.8 to +1.7 and increases steadily to -1.7 to +2.2 with fluctuations all along the way over the years. I'm assuming this is the rise in global temps from the 1860's to 1988.

It has always been known the equator hasn't changed in temps by all that much. It's the pole temps down to the equators temps where the big changes are taking place with the least change the closer you come to the equator. This means that, though the temps globally don't seem to move all that much it's the - closer you get to the poles where the greatest changes (largest most noticeable changes) happen, hence the melting of the ice sheets and polar caps. The greatest amount of the population on the globe is in the northern hemisphere which probably gives the reason why the Arctic Circle or North Pole is melting at a much greater rate than the Southern Pole.

What is damaging to science is guys like this speaking to people who already agree with his conclusions and aren't interested in learning something new (or learning something at all). He's speaking to his choir. He offers nothing in science rather he goes after other scientists and calls them the charlatans.

I was so looking forward to hearing this guy speak. I thought he would offer science and reason and logic. He offered nothing but disappointment.

This is not the other side of an argument (the argument of Global Warming/Climate change), it is a Sarah Palin like rebuttal vs qualified thought and academics.

If this is all you have to offer on this science, you have nothing. I'm so very disappointed.


Thread Level: 3

A few tenths of a degree AGW signal can not be detected, It will be buried by natural variability

Author: Eli (4032 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 3:05 pm on Feb 17, 2014

What you think is also usually thinking of AGW side, which is very mathematical and abstract. In reality you can not separate AGW signal from natural variability unless the AGW signal, i.e. that part of warming caused by human is very strong, at least 2 times larger than natural noises.

Thread Level: 3

I come from the "observation of my surroundings and history of living" place as a start for listenin

Author: iairishcheeks (9721 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 12:14 am on Feb 15, 2014

I don't know how old you are, but what possible relevance does 30-40 years of observation have on a discussion of global climate?

And your rebuttal is as if you are rebutting some random dude on the internet, are you aware of Mr. Lindzen's credentials? He has no ulterior incentive to speak out on this, quite the contrary.


Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

Thread Level: 4

It's not a rebuttal. It's an observation. The vid has no information on it other than to

Author: jimbasil (33333 Posts - Joined: Nov 15, 2007)

Posted at 12:40 am on Feb 15, 2014

put down other scientists as charlatans.

Um, are you being obstinate or just difficult? - "Somewhere meaning you must know something about the talk whether as an enthusiast or someone who has a scant interest but knowledgeable enough to know what the topic is."

Are you aware he says nothing in the video other than to put down other scientists and put down politicians? It doesn't matter what his cred is, he doesn't talk science here. At least none more than can be read on a Yahoo page.

This isn't a talk about the science of GW/Climate Change - hence my phrasing this vid was nothing more than a disappointment.

But in your defense, you didn't bother listening to the clip or reading what I wrote.


Thread Level: 5

I've watched Lindzen before.

Author: iairishcheeks (9721 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 1:01 am on Feb 15, 2014

And the first 20 min or so of this video did disappoint. Try the below.




Thread Level: 6

You can't get further than his saying the temp's have change by tenths.

Author: jimbasil (33333 Posts - Joined: Nov 15, 2007)

Posted at 1:30 am on Feb 15, 2014

Just not true. We know the temps have changed by full degrees in year round mean average. That's the globe.

Sorry, but you can't say what he said and be serious about the discussion.

Look, as I've said before, global warming/Climate change is something that happens on it's own. Man couldn't have started it - that said, man now has and has had to worsen or quicken the effects of Warming the Planet.

I've said for a long, long time, we're asking the wrong questions and looking at this all wrong. It's what can we do to slow the process and make not be as exaggerated as it appears its going to be?

We keep ignoring that this is an event and we have a say in how it's going to play out. It may not be an enormous say, but a say in it nonetheless. It's the quality of life I'm talking about. You nay sayers have difficulty in seeing that the fight is about what we are doing to ourselves and what we can do to make our lives better. If the globe is going to overheat, how about letting it do it on it's own and not help it to be worse and worse for us? It's as though you all say, lets pollute the planet because it doesn't matter. Well it does matter. It also appears you hide behind a false argument to do so. This guy Lindzen is a pompous ass. The other guy, well, he doesn't think further than his lab. Someone pays for both of these guys opinions and their opinions are based on where they teach and not for what they're saying. If Lindzen was my Prof. I'd have been asking for my money back.

There's nothing here with this vid either.


Thread Level: 7

The thing is, CO2 pollution is the least of our global pollution problems.

Author: iairishcheeks (9721 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 2:01 am on Feb 15, 2014

I am staunchly against real pollution, almost to the point of being considered the "environmentalist" dirty word among conservatives. CO2 is emitted by every animal on the planet and without it plant life could not exist. Comparing that with other forms of pollution I think is laughable.

From the heavy metals dumped into rivers in China, to the 240,000 barrels of crude oil spilled annually in the Niger River delta in Nigeria, to the farm and residential chemical and fertilizer runoff in the US rivers, we have much bigger problems from a pollution standpoint globally. But everyone is focused on CO2, I'd say it's stupidity, but the reality is that there are ulterior motives to the focus on CO2 because it is something they want to tax.


Thread Level: 8

I agree here, but there are a couple key differences...

Author: ND_in_ATL (14650 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 12:30 pm on Feb 15, 2014

Sulfuric acid emitted from coal plants still produces acid rain in the southeast. Despite the fact I haven't changed my handle I now live in Colorado, and the legacy of metals mining is a never ending environmental problem here. (and affects our day-to-day lives much more than CO2). Fracking is another concern (although I'm not opposed totally, but more oversight is needed...starting with knowing what chemical are in hydraulic fracking fluid so we know how to deal with a problem when one arises).

There are 2 major differences between other environmental issues and CO2:

1) For the most part, only atmospheric pollution affects those in other countries. For example the horrible water quality in India and China doesn't affect us.

2) Other forms of pollution are regulated...Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, CERCLA, NEPA, Endangered Species Act....There are regulatory mechanisms in place for dealing with these other issues, and for the most part our environment in the US has gotten much cleaner since the 70s when most of those laws were past. We are still dealing with them, and it will take a while to solve them, but there at least is a process. There is currently no mechanism for dealing with CO2, and nothing being done to slow the CO2 output.


Thread Level: 9

Oh really, the rivers on the other side of the world don't flow into the oceans?

Author: iairishcheeks (9721 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 1:41 pm on Feb 15, 2014

So your premise is that the atmosphere is fragile, but the hydrosphere is not. Interesting.

If we take that premise, have you not read about the air quality issues they have in China? Per your premise, that would affect us but as "developing nations", India and China are not obligated to reduce greenhouse emissions under Kyoto.

Here's an article that disputes your premise that the pollution in India and China only affects them: Hydrosphere

Here's an article citing that trees in urban areas do better due to higher concentrations of CO2 and nighttime heat, if there is a study citing the benefits of mercury on fish, I can't find it. NYC Trees

And then there's the case of the shellfish neurotoxins: Neurotoxins

Domestically, we also have this problem called the dead zone in the gulf around the Mississippi delta, this is primarily caused by nitrogen runoff from farms and residential areas. The thing is this is a really easy problem to solve with riparian buffers that are also beneficial to wildlife as crucial habitat. Besides the nitrogen, we don't know what the long term effects of other farm chemicals will be. A much bigger potential problem than CO2 which can resolve itself if the earth warms and we have more plant life to absorb it.


Thread Level: 10

That's not my premise at all

Author: ND_in_ATL (14650 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 10:51 pm on Feb 18, 2014

Protecting water quality is what I do for a living.

My point was water pollution in India and China don't flow uphill and contaminate our water supply. The hydrosphere is very fragile, but impacts tend to be more localized to specific watersheds simply b/c unlike air, water can't travel uphill. The dead zone in the Gulf is a result of fertilizer runoff from us, not from impacts across the world.

But I'm glad you brought up the dead zone in the Gulf...the main problem is agriculture is exempt from the Clean Water Act. Therefore (much like global warming) there is currently no regulatory mechanism to stop it.

I agree that it should be addressed, and I wish it got more media attention.

But protecting the gulf doesn't preclude CO2 regulations.


Thread Level: 11

Glad you came back, I honestly thought you were dodging the debate...

Author: iairishcheeks (9721 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 1:09 am on Feb 19, 2014

Glad I was wrong about that, I enjoy your company on this forum.

I don't protect water quality for a living, instead it is a hobby. I do some volunteer work with a wildlife conservation organization, our primary solutions are mutually beneficial to water quality and wildlife habitat.

Your point about water quality being localized is certainly true but only if you ignore the factor of time.

Being from Iowa, I am well aware of the issues regarding agriculture and pollution. The Farm Bureau runs this state, the DNR (one of their roles is as the state equivalent of the EPA), is run by Farm Bureau connected bureaucrats. Between the FB, corporate interests such as Monsanto and greedy farmers(many of whom are corporate now) and with high corn prices (thanks ethanol subsidies), it has been an all out a rape-age of the natural resources in this state in the last several years not seen since we killed off all of the bison(there is a sign not far from where I grew up that commemorates the last bison killed in the state, makes me sick to my stomach) and drained the swamps(farming would not exist in Iowa without tiling).

My Grandmother owns a farm, the same farm I grew up on. She (compelled by the drainage district) and the other farmers in the area spent a lot of money to have the drainage ditch(water eventually ends up in the gulf) that runs through the farm dredged(pull out all the silt [read soil erosion] and make it more efficient at removing tiled water and runoff). The fall after the dredging, I was back home. I noticed that one of the farmers in the district just a mile upstream of the farm had V-Ripped his field so close to the drainage ditch that his last row was falling over into the ditch, as if the practice of tilling the field in the fall wasn't enough (wind erosion) to ensure that the soil ends up in the water canal.

The farmer in the above example is trying to squeeze one more row of corn into his field, but he's either an idiot or only thinking short term. It'll take a long time for that one more row to pay for the next dredge operation, more likely he thinks he is out-competing his neighbors who will also have to pay for his reckless behavior. Every time I go home there is another farmstead and/or grove of trees that has been bulldozed for more tillable acres.

In the short-term the tall grass prairies[envision Dances with wolves] that deposited the topsoil that created the agricultural "heartland", "breadbasket" of America, have been replaced by a sea of GMO crop fields that thanks to the chemicals sprayed on them are less bio-diverse than a desert. Long term, thanks to soil erosion caused by modern farm practices, they'll just be a desert.

It is indisputable that the Midwest of the US feeds the world, but for how long? It could easily be sustainable long term, with minor changes. The "Dead Zone" is only an omen far removed from the source.


Thread Level: 8

Says you the scientist.

Author: jimbasil (33333 Posts - Joined: Nov 15, 2007)

Posted at 2:13 am on Feb 15, 2014

What we can be sure of is, Human populations are the big reason why man has influence in weather/climate.

It doesn't matter what you're willing to say is the cause for mans influence as long as you know Population and population growth is and will be the main issue with man living on this planet with regard to all things negative. We do nothing positive for the planet.

I'll comment on your "cap and trade" post tomorrow.


Thread Level: 9

I follow science more closely than most.

Author: iairishcheeks (9721 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 2:40 am on Feb 15, 2014

And science says we have much bigger concerns, it's mostly the politicians and the media that say otherwise.






Thread Level: 2

Ahh, Lysenkoism. I forgot all about that.

Author: NedoftheHill (22582 Posts - Joined: Jun 29, 2011)

Posted at 10:52 pm on Feb 14, 2014

Wikipedia: "Lysenkoism is used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives."

The wikipedia entry reads like a metaphor for the modern global warming debate, describing how Lysenko pushed his "scientific" views with propagandizing, slander of the opposition, use of politics to silence opposition, pronouncements by political authorities of "the only correct theory" that could be taught, commandeering science for political purposes, and on and on and on.


Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

Thread Level: 3

...and Einstien didn't accept quantum mechanics

Author: ND_in_ATL (14650 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 12:17 am on Feb 15, 2014

A review of history will find numerous occasions where science was wrong, and where specific (even brilliant) scientists were wrong. But on the whole...science is right more than it is wrong. That's why technology has improved over time. This is how we got antibiotics, the internet, made it to the moon, and know that anthropogenic climate change is real.

Thread Level: 4

Irrelevant. Einstein never used Lysenko's tactics on Bohr.

Author: NedoftheHill (22582 Posts - Joined: Jun 29, 2011)

Posted at 7:49 pm on Feb 15, 2014

I agree with everything in the body of your post, though.

This message has been edited 1 time(s).

Thread Level: 3

Blind Eye to Scientific Fraud is Dangerous- and it isn't a "Left vs, Right" issue

Author: CC72 (13903 Posts - Joined: Sep 5, 2010)

Posted at 11:51 pm on Feb 14, 2014

People turn a blind eye to the scientific fraud inherent in "man-made climate change for profit" research just like they did with the anti-vaccine crowd.

CNN) -- Recently, the United States has seen a resurgence of Bordetella pertussis, a highly contagious bacterial disease more commonly known as "whooping cough." The disease mostly afflicts children, though adults can catch it, too. Whooping cough is easily prevented with vaccination.

According to the Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention, vaccination, introduced in the 1940s, brought the number of cases per year down from 107,473 in 1922 to just 1,248 in 1981. Since 1982, however, the number of cases has steadily increased.

In recent years, there has been a general decline in vaccination to prevent many childhood diseases in the United States. In 2012, the number of whooping cough cases in the United States hit a long-time high of 48,277.

The decline in vaccination is in part due to the rise of the anti-vaccine movement, which has found spokespeople in celebrities like Jenny McCarthy and politicians like Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum. It is a movement that relies on scientific fraud and pseudoscience.

In the not too distant past, one of the scientific community's primary concerns was preventing scientific fraud. Episodes like the 1998 fabrication of data indicating a connection between childhood vaccines and autism risk have clear public health and policy repercussions. Claiming a link between vaccines and autism opens the door for false claims about the dangers of other vaccines, allowing, for example, politicians like Bachmann to inflame the public's doubts about the benefits of vaccination against the human papillomavirus, or HPV.


Link: http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/06/opinion/wong-scientific-fraud/

Thread Level: 4

What does this mean upon reflection of Eli's link/post?

Author: jimbasil (33333 Posts - Joined: Nov 15, 2007)

Posted at 12:42 am on Feb 15, 2014

(no message)

Thread Level: 4

Mainstream science is definitely pro-vaccine

Author: ND_in_ATL (14650 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 12:40 am on Feb 15, 2014

And by mainstream, I mean peer-reviewed, University paid for research (the kind you mock as it relates to climate change)

I'm glad you bring up the vaccine issue though..

B/c people that claim vaccines cause autisim are like people that claim that anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. Both are going against the vast majority of scientific data.

This link is from Popular Science, and guess what? Popular Science provides scientific reporting that is pro-vaccine and that anthropogenic climate change is real (just like Science, Nature, Scientific American, etc.) .

The fact you would equate legit climatologists with Jenny McCarthy shows just how out of touch with the scientific mainstream you are. The reality is the Jenny McCarthys are basically the same as the global warming deniers (that is opposed to the huge scientific majority on the topic).


Link: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-07/popsci-guide-anti-vaccine-claims

This message has been edited 1 time(s).