For all you rabid environmentalists

[john9001]

i think what is important to me, nelson and lasersailor is will the increased acidity affect the hulls of our boats?

and on a broader scale will the increased acidity kill off the infamous zebra mussel that has infected the great lakes and the mississippi river and is causing disruptions of power plants and water supplies?

[AKH]

Originally posted by lazs2
The majority of the scientist did indeed believe an ice age was coming and they blamed it on man according to everything I can find on the subject.. they even called a conference and 200 of the most prestigious met to talk about the problem and it's solutions.. sound familiar?

Not one citation. No links, no names, no dates, no locations. No surprise.

[AKH]

Originally posted by john9001
i did not read a 68 page report on pseudoscience.

i did do a search on carbonic acid.

Excellent, and you managed to get as far as Wikipedia.  Unfortunately, your rigour did not extend to noticing the link at the bottom of that very page: Ocean acidification

Ocean acidification is the name given to the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by their uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104 (a change of -0.075)

[john9001]

Originally posted by AKH


Excellent, and you managed to get as far as Wikipedia.  Unfortunately, your rigour did not extend to noticing the link at the bottom of that very page: Ocean acidification

it was not wikipickya.

and no one has answered my question, should i build a swimming pool or buy a snow plow?  What do the scientists say?

[AKH]

Post the linky and I'll answer your question

[bustr]

I read the report. It was long, nicely written, and to the average uninitiated lesser mortal who is not part of the titled or inner understanding circle of "SCIENCE" a snore.

1. They said with great authority that we is boned but they leave lotsa ways out because they also said with great authority their data could possibly be flawed to some degree.

2. They said with great authority that the PH process in the ocean is boned and organisims that rely on the process for creating calcium based parts of themselves are boned. But then they gave themselves lots of wiggly room just incase the organisms are listening and adapt and overcome.

3. They said with great authority that this paper is to the best of their knowlege BUT it possibly could be wrong, BUT not to go with that MORE research is definatly in order. But we is boned and the worst part will show up by 2100. But it might not but we is boned.

4. They said with greater AUTHORITY that much more research is necessary to determine if in fact we is boned and just how bad we is boned.

In conclusion it was a good paper to which no one was going to bet their life and name on but were willing to give their best analysis to date of the available information. We is boned and we is not boned but if you want the definitive boning answer give us more money and toys and we will give you another update some day to how much we might be boned. But we already did the worst boning part but wont definitivly know squat untill maybe 2100.........

[lazs2]

I have linked to the ice age of the 90's before but..

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/iceage.htm

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=bdc24964-7f82-4f7a-863c-f0ff43010278

and of course... the infamous time magazine article that I recall reading..

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=bdc24964-7f82-4f7a-863c-f0ff43010278

note the similarities in the hysteria and dire predictions of doom.. the "majority of scientists"  the "this has never happened before and it is all because of man" the "only one degree cooler will spell the end of life as we know it" hysteria and the "if this trend continues for 100 years or so.. it is the end"

same old same old.. the sun and other acts of nature were ignored and focus was on man made, in this case particulants... whole scenarios for disaster were laid out 100 or more years... nothing taking into account natural changes in the suns activity...

They refused to admit back then that....

ITS THE SUN STUPID.

what is going on today?  same thing really... no one says that half a degree warming is a bad thing if it happens in 30 years and then goes down a degree in the next thirty... what they are saying is that the sun and other things are not a part of it... that the sun will stay constant and that something...anything.. that man is doing will make the temp continue to rise no matter what.     If the suns activity goes down as it allways has and always will...  we will be facing another ice age if you use their computer models that don't take into account the sun.

the sun is heating the oceans.. the ph will drop.. 0.075 of a point.. do you know what the range of ph is between all the oceans?   I bet moray does.

do you know what the range was for the last 10,000 years of even one body?

If the sun goes into a cooling cycle we may see PH go up 0.1   does that mean the ocean will go into a cooling crises?

Has not the ocean changed over the eons?  the ph certainly has... much more than a fraction of a point.

lazs

[Angus]

It's not just the sun stupid.

Oh, but why ask, it ain't warming at all.
Or?

Spring in the Arctic is arriving "weeks earlier" than a decade ago, a team of Danish researchers have reported. Linkie:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6763511.stm

[AKH]

Originally posted by lazs2
I have linked to the ice age of the 90's before but..

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/iceage.htm

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=bdc24964-7f82-4f7a-863c-f0ff43010278

and of course... the infamous time magazine article that I recall reading..

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=bdc24964-7f82-4f7a-863c-f0ff43010278

So the Sunday Mail, the Business and Media Institute, the Financial Post and Time are peer-reviewed scientific journals? Surely you could find references more substantive than these if your claim was true?

[bustr]

Lambchop

Has planet earth ever stopped supporting life since it's surface became hospitable to life? Will life on earth come to its absolute end because of the current state of CO2 as you have decided is a canary to impending doom?

I am not in awe and reverence of scientists as you present yourself. I do not lack for the cognitive ability to understand scientific arcania. I refuse to live my life in fear because a scientist or group of scientists theorise the possibility of the end to life as we know it. Computer models of future climate and environmental possibilities become exponetially flawed the farthur out in time they try to model. Just the same as the farther back in time they attempt to extrapolate. The planet itself won't cooperate from day to day.

I'm not hearing anything unexpected if you remember 12th grade biology from the generation I went to school with. But I'm also not hearing anything but business as usual to roll over and play dead because we are scientists and know better than you so give us your hard earned money because your life style is killing the planet and we need your money more than you do to save it from you.

All of these scenarios in my lifetime have been the same. Scientists propose a theory of a world wide catastrophic potential. Scientists point their fingers directly at we the human beings as the reason the world will end. Scientists try to convince us that we ARE TOO STOOPID to understand or qualified to question them. Scientists demand us to give them money to prove their theory of world doom because it's our fault the planet is in this mess. They show up again in 10-20 years with a new catastrophy and won't talk about what happened with the old catastrophy.

And the reason we gave them all the money for the last catastrophy is because of legions of our fellow humans like your self who shouted I cannot take the chance the world will end. If a scientist says it's true, thats good enough for me. Sounds like the catholic church in medevil europe. Pope says the world is going to end on day, month, year and hour unless you give more in the sunday plate........

[phookat]

Originally posted by bustr
If a scientist says it's true, thats good enough for me. Sounds like the catholic church in medevil europe. Pope says the world is going to end on day, month, year and hour unless you give more in the sunday plate........

Here's the difference between a scientist and a priest.

1) The scientist works with evidence, the priest does not.

2) A scientist's theories are subject to scrutiny.  A priest's "certainties" are not.

3) The criticism and review of a scientific theory is itself also subject to scrutiny.  Yet scrutiny is welcomed, and good counter-evidence is welcomed especially because in the scientific view even a disproof of a cherished theory  means our knowledge has been advanced.  Obviously none of this joy in and desire for intellectual honesty applies to religion.

4) After something has been peer-reviewed enough, we can have some degree of confidence that we can make decisions based on the theory.  We can't be 100% sure, but we do our best.  This admission of imperfection is something that is quite alien to religion.

You might not be qualified to properly comment on a proposed theory.  That doesn't mean you are dumb or that you don't have cognitive ability.  While intellectual honesty and rational thought and skepticism and logic are big parts of science, to actually be a scientist you also have to have knowledge and experience.  For example, do you think you could comment on any new theories in quantum electrodynamics?  Even though you have plenty of cognition and intelligence, I would wager that you would not feel qualified to pronounce judgements in that field.

[bustr]

When it comes to this point in human and geopolitical history, for the first time in my long life,  concerning the theory of man made global warming I do not trust scientists to not be acting like christian monk sects in the middle ages and basing their continued existance along personal ideological and fiduciary lines.

A scientist is a human being. Geopoliticaly, socitaly and culturaly the stakes over global warming are too high for them not to be influenced. Global Warming is being turned into a "GO" move to make one more move towards global governance. If we can be made to believe we are too selfish, unenlightened and simply too many of us now, and look the proof is global warming. Maybe we can be stampeded by the old working formula of fear and guilt to demand we be saved from ourselves by those who have convinced us they are superior and enlightened by having identified the problem. And who may those titans of humanity be? Those scientists who told us we created global warming. But again the scientist will be managed by buracrats sorta like the EU..........But they will be the scientists who were true believers in the theory of man made global warming. All other scientists will be defrocked for herasy. Kinda like midevil christian sects when power changed hands.

If it works scientists will be used for the last word in everything to the unwashed unenlightened masses who they will say caused the global warming catastrophy in the first place by OUR own greedy STOOPIDITY. Sorry I'm no sooner going to kiss the Popes tushy than I will yours because you sound so intellegent on this BBS or some person whos accident of birth was an IQ higher than my own.

When global warming graduated to a political ideology all scientists working with it became suspect. The Greeks also sounded very reasonable when the came baring gifts.

[john9001]

i don't want another ice age, the thought of hundreds of thousands of Canadians fleeing the massive ice caps and coming to Florida gives me the chills (pun), i don't want to hear "so have some more beers you hoser, eh".

or if they are from Quebec "ayez ainsi encore plus de bières vous hoser, hein"

[phookat]

Originally posted by bustr
A scientist is a human being.

Indeed, that is why science was created--to try to make up for the fact that, as individuals, we are imperfect semi-rational biased mammals.  It has done a pretty good job so far.

Originally posted by bustr
If we can be made to believe we are too selfish, unenlightened and simply too many of us now, and look the proof is global warming. Maybe we can be stampeded by the old working formula of fear and guilt to demand we be saved from ourselves by those who have convinced us they are superior and enlightened by having identified the problem.

Step off the horse.  Your "argument" applies equally to both sides.  If there was a scientist who said "global warming is bollocks", you and a bunch of others would be kissing his bellybutton and feeding him money and power and respect.  In fact, didn't somebody in this thread quote the new NASA chief saying something of the sort?

Peer-reviewed science is the best tool we have to understand our world.  It is specifically designed to be self-correcting in dealing with the problems you mention.  Aside from your own individual bias on this particular issue, I don't see any reason to think that we are at some catastrophic breakdown of the scientific process.

[bustr]

You forget, all scientists with ties to it either way now have become suspect when global warming became a world wide political ideology. When that line was passed scientists stopped being "innocent titans of virtue".

All of us unenlightened monkeys should be running a borascope up any scientists kester now who presents anything one way or another over global warming to make sure the world isnt about to get cosmicly boned by the unintened consiqunces of a theory.  

Scientists have the unintended consiquence of enabling mass manipulations of cultural and societal direction with only theories. They have the unintended consiquence of enabling governments to pass agenda based laws whos only benifits are to the government by growing its personel numbers, increaseing taxes and granting itself more control over the unwashed masses lives based on the "theory" so as to protect the masses from some nebulous doom that might happen based on a "theory".

I'm not on a high enough horse. People in general allow themselves to be cowed by persons with titles, degrees, positions of authority and well articulated communication skills. Con Men know this aspect of the human mind and cow the unwashed unintelligent masses out of their hard earned money.

Don't sell me scientists as a protected class of humanity because they toil for the higher good. Scientists are trying to sell this planet on a world class theory that can have unforseen consiquences to human rights and personal freedom in the name of saving the world from us the unwashed masses who scientists have once again determined we have screwed the planet. I love how scientists are blaming us. Man Made Global Warming. It grants them such elevated unchallanged legitamicy over the masses. Funny exactly how the legitimacy of any ideologies priesthood is established and maintained.