Go Back   the Magicball Network > Forums > MBN Main Forums > Off topic

Welcome to the Magicball Network.

You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Off topic General off-topic chat goes in here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 2010-10-11, 01:54
Axx's Avatar
Axx Axx is offline
The return of
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Jerusalem, Palestine
Posts: 4,449
Global warming farce

Another fairly interisting heavyweight scientist oppossing the multi-billlion (or trillion) dollar global warming farce/industry. Prof Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety
Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making).

His resignation letter says it all (posted in full). Discuss...
Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:
1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.
3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.<
5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.
6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.
APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?
I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.
I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Hal

Last edited by Axx; 2010-10-11 at 18:58.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 2010-10-11, 02:26
Darkflame's Avatar
Darkflame Darkflame is offline
Classic
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sol, Earth, NL
Posts: 22,496
Send a message via ICQ to Darkflame Send a message via AIM to Darkflame Send a message via MSN to Darkflame
Quote:
Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety
Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making).
So...umm..not actualy anyone really to do with weather then, let alone climate.

Science isn't one big bowl.

You could better put it as these guys;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._Science_Basis

vs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming

Rather then picking one guy that, while very angry, isn't very qualified to speak on the matter.

Quote:
fairly interisting heavyweight scientist opposing the multi-billlion (or trillion) dollar global warming farce/industry.
Nice you clearly show your bias anyway.

Obviously, its not like oil industry is a trillion dollar (in actual real turnover, not theoretical) industry or anything.
(source; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ies_by_revenue -> Look how many are oil/gas/automotive related, those are the ones with the power)

---

Also, I just like to say my overall view is the same as David Mitchells;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKUPUznJZoE
__________________
http://fanficmaker.com <-- Tells some truly terrible tales.
-
Phones & Tricorders & Blobs & Bombs & 3D Printers & TVIntros also;stuff

Last edited by Darkflame; 2010-10-11 at 02:54.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 2010-10-11, 02:58
Axx's Avatar
Axx Axx is offline
The return of
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Jerusalem, Palestine
Posts: 4,449
You umm... do know big oil companies actually benefit from the man made global warming conspiracy, and that climategate scandal effectively highlighted the fact that all the so called statistical facts about warming were effectively made up to support the theory and conveniently leave out data that contradicted it? I find it quite frustrating/ignorant when people assume that oil companies oppose GW, when in fact many have made it clear that they are firmly behind the GW alarmists.

Cap and Trade scheme mate... look it up.

The only people getting fooked by GW are us, tax payers, the smallest link in the supposed chain that drives GW, and ofcourse smaller businesses.

And no disrespect, but the man is highly reputable. Pushing him aside so easily is playing with fire. And a counter point to his not being a climate scientist, surely a "climate" scientist would be stupid to go against the GW conspiracy as its more than likely what feeds his family. That and any scientist that goes against big corp supported GW is targeted/dis reputed/mocked etc... Basically their career goes down the drain, Prof. Lewis doesn't really have much to worry about, and nothing to gain from this. Logic would dictate him to be trustworthy.


edit: Arrghh you changed your post as i was posting mine. Can't respond now, maybe 2morrow. Need to brushen up on all of this anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 2010-10-11, 03:02
Jasiek's Avatar
Jasiek Jasiek is offline
Do the evolution.
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: You forgot Poland.
Posts: 7,723
Skimmed through the text. "TLDR", need to get up early.

If I get to live in a cleaner world that does not depend on fossil fuels ( but rather on uranium/plutonium, caesium, helium/helium 3, hydrogen etc.) has clean oceans without continents of petroleum based plastics floating about killing anything that eats them, or countries and governments controlling other governments through access to oil, and it's done via a multimillion dollar scam, I won't mind (that much) (if there really is a scam, which I'm sceptical to, cause when money and lobbying is involved it can just be a "way things work in the world").

Compared to the alternative it's a lesser evil (if there is a scam, which I doubt).
__________________
Little Script Adventure
Join the Little Script Adventure team
Download Little Script Adventure
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 2010-10-11, 04:07
Darkflame's Avatar
Darkflame Darkflame is offline
Classic
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sol, Earth, NL
Posts: 22,496
Send a message via ICQ to Darkflame Send a message via AIM to Darkflame Send a message via MSN to Darkflame
Indeed.
I'm all for moving away from fossil fuels even ignoring climate.
For one thing, we only have a finite amount of them. (And biofuel use's takes up far too much land to be used on mass).
Its best to keep our options open for future generations.
(for example; its easy to make an electric car...far harder to make an electric airplane)

Quote:
And no disrespect, but the man is highly reputable. Pushing him aside so easily is playing with fire. And a counter point to his not being a climate scientist, surely a "climate" scientist would be stupid to go against the GW conspiracy as its more than likely what feeds his family.
Your entering real flat-earth/fake-moon-landing terrority here.

To start with your talking about tens of thousands of people worldwide, paid to do completely different things by complete different groups.
They arn't paid out of a "climate change" fund. Look at the list, look at the organisations.

Even if the ones that were commissioned specifically to study climate change, they have no more to gain from saying its true then saying its false. The only thing that would keep the money flowing is saying tis "inconclusive" or "we need more time to get more data".

Making definitive conclusions ends research being necessary.

--

And even aside from that, even if all these people were paid for out of this fund, that still wouldn't qualify any old scientist to speak on things outside their field.

Its like saying "That doctor is clearly bias, so I'll ask my butcher for medical advice"

Theres no logic in it. Even if he is respectable butcher.

Quote:
You umm... do know big oil companies actually benefit from the man made global warming conspiracy,
No they dont.
BP might put on a silly little "Beyond Petroleum" advertising campagn, and invest 0.1% or something into renewables, but thats just PR.

The very foundation of their buisness is about burning oil.

Theres no way around that.
People using alternative power is not in their interests.

Quote:
Cap and Trade scheme mate... look it up.
I know a lot about cap and trade theres plenty of economic arguments for/against its effectiveness and its really a whole different issue - nothing to do with the science of climate change.

That said, I'm curious how everyone reducing their oil use would make oil company's more money by "cap and trade". The very base's of their buisness is the item being reduced.

Other company's can use (/abuse) the system and make net-profits, but not those who's product is being devalued by encouraging people to use other things.

Even looking at the UK; Because of climate change, they are trying to get 10% of the country's energy from renewables within the decade. Thats 10% less spent on oil/gas then their would otherwise have been, and therefor 10% less profits for the oil company's.
Its pretty basic stuff.
(of course, whether the UK actually manages that figure is a whole different mater)

The EU, meanwhile, wants a 20% cut by 2020. Unless the oil company's start supplying the alternative power, they will lose money by these climate-change based policy's.

Cap-and-trade is merely a smokescreen/side-game. Money can be made, but its trivial to insignificant compared to oil-profits to be lost.

Quote:
That and any scientist that goes against big corp supported GW is targeted/dis reputed/mocked etc
What "big corps" are paying for this research? list them please.

Its pretty easy to find links to them paying for anti-climate change stuff (Some here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busines...nge#ExxonMobil)

Quote:
Basically their career goes down the drain, Prof. Lewis doesn't really have much to worry about, and nothing to gain from this
Stephan Hawking supports climate change what does he have to lose?
(not that I think Hawkings views count for much in this issue...but seeing as your valuing the views of a random physicists, he should count equally).

Hawkings isn't going to "lose his reputation", he's probably the most famous scientist in the world. You'd need pretty big balls to stand up and say he's wrong.

---

To be honest though, I'm not sure theres much point arguing the issue.

If your not going to believe anything said by people that have actually studied the climate, what evidence could anyone give on this issue that would convenience you? Even theoretically?

One tenant of science is falsifiability. Is there any person/group that could show you anything that would convience you about climate change?
__________________
http://fanficmaker.com <-- Tells some truly terrible tales.
-
Phones & Tricorders & Blobs & Bombs & 3D Printers & TVIntros also;stuff

Last edited by Darkflame; 2010-10-11 at 04:16.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 2010-10-11, 10:29
Reek's Avatar
Reek Reek is offline
Party animal
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: israel
Posts: 8,801
Send a message via ICQ to Reek Send a message via MSN to Reek
I was wondering when your next conspiracy thread will come axx, it's been a long time since the "israel did 9/11" one!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpaceGuitarist
This is work of higher intelligences, who take other, esoteric and psychological sciences into account than we are normally used to even consider, numerology being one of them, because everything for them is ritualistic and everything is meant for a deep programming of our psychological state. One day witchcraft and science will collide.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 2010-10-11, 13:26
Jasiek's Avatar
Jasiek Jasiek is offline
Do the evolution.
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: You forgot Poland.
Posts: 7,723
Darkflame actually astro-physicists may have a lot to say on the topic of global warming, as it was them who discovered the green-house effect, namely Carl Sagan and other scientists studying Venus. Venus' history and the rampant green-house effect going on on that planet where the corner stones of climate science and the idea of global warming.

I'm saying sciences converge in many fields. However as I can't really find a quick bio on that dude I can't say if he published anything astronomy/climate related or not. If he didn't he shouldn't be treated as an expert, yeah.
__________________
Little Script Adventure
Join the Little Script Adventure team
Download Little Script Adventure
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 2010-10-11, 16:07
Axx's Avatar
Axx Axx is offline
The return of
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Jerusalem, Palestine
Posts: 4,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkflame View Post
So...umm..not actualy anyone really to do with weather then, let alone climate.
I think he is arguing on the science behind climate change in relation to the climate gate scandal to be specific, and it is what I am referring to. The scandal basically highlighted the fact that data was skewed to support the UN IPCC, while withholding data that contradicted the official line or views of the IPCC. Its also worth noting that many of the 3000 members of the IPCC are not scientists and simply represent a variety of climate change organisations.
Quote:
Science isn't one big bowl.

You could better put it as these guys;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._Science_Basis

vs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming

Rather then picking one guy that, while very angry, isn't very qualified to speak on the matter.
No doubt that it isn't and while none of my views are set in stone, It is healthy to critique the official line in light of the fact that the supposed solutions involve the delegation of fictional costs to the general public while for the moment shielding those whom contribute most to pollution in general from penalties that would be both fairer and far more affordable for the general public at large.




Quote:
Obviously, its not like oil industry is a trillion dollar (in actual real turnover, not theoretical) industry or anything.
(source; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ies_by_revenue -> Look how many are oil/gas/automotive related, those are the ones with the power)
Were on the same page here, and im not quite sure why you seem to instantly link my scepticism that man contributes significantly to climate change to somehow having some high opinion of oil companies.

Quote:
If I get to live in a cleaner world that does not depend on fossil fuels ( but rather on uranium/plutonium, caesium, helium/helium 3, hydrogen etc.) has clean oceans without continents of petroleum based plastics floating about killing anything that eats them, or countries and governments controlling other governments through access to oil, and it's done via a multimillion dollar scam, I won't mind (that much) (if there really is a scam, which I'm sceptical to, cause when money and lobbying is involved it can just be a "way things work in the world").
Again the debate isn't really about making no effort to become energy efficient/cleaner environment. I was debating what I believe to be the severely exaggerated effects of man made global warming. I am a staunch supporter of alternative sources of energy (zietgiest actually had a very good presentation on alternatives), as well as the decentralisation of power in relation to monopolies over energy that many corporations currently hold. The average person is repeatedly taxed with more and more unbearable costs for energy, and theirs always an excuse. Whether its global warming, or that oil is about to run out, or Russia's about to cut gas etc... Energy is something we depend on, without it our economies could not function. An alternative is in order but talk of climate change is, in my opinion and from what I can gather, having little impact in real world terms of finding and implementing viable alternatives.

Quote:
Your entering real flat-earth/fake-moon-landing terrority here.
Thats the sort of bullshit used to stifle free critical thinking. Neither you nor I are afforded all the information or knowledge to arrogantly dismiss anything the other has to share. And for the love of god, climate change scepticism is science, its based on science, its just science from an opposing camp. You posted the damn link of opposing scientists yourself.

Quote:
Even if the ones that were commissioned specifically to study climate change, they have no more to gain from saying its true then saying its false. The only thing that would keep the money flowing is saying tis "inconclusive" or "we need more time to get more data".
I'm certain that the conclusions and studies will on all sides have their backers/funders. From my understanding, scientists cannot proceed in research without funding, funding usually tends to serve a purpose in a capitalist system, some way to generate a return or a profit, hence unfortunately a lot of science will be geared to some extent, maybe mildly or severely. .

Quote:
And even aside from that, even if all these people were paid for out of this fund, that still wouldn't qualify any old scientist to speak on things outside their field.
You didn't read his resignation letter, did you now?

Quote:
No they dont.
BP might put on a silly little "Beyond Petroleum" advertising campagn, and invest 0.1% or something into renewables, but thats just PR.

The very foundation of their buisness is about burning oil.

Theres no way around that.
People using alternative power is not in their interests.
There was a BBC dispatches documentary, can't remember the name, that actually covered some of the meathods oil companies use to offsset their emissions, not by actually cutting their oil output (which, lets be honest, just cant happen at the moment), but by silly little things such as covering a field of cow dung, trapping the methane gas and pumping it under the earth. This offsets their points under the cap and trade scheme to bellow their quota, they then sell their remaining points to a far smaller bussiness, say a small farm, which gets fucked. So lets review that again

  • They don't cut their emission
  • They offset emission by unverifiable means, exaggerate its success, and regain some points under the cap and trade scheme
  • They sell the extra points to smaller more vulnerable and far less damaging businesses
  • We pay the price, they profit
You say your familiar with cap and trade, and yet your clearly unaware of the enormous injustice it presents. Its a faulty system, and people so passionately believe in man made climate change then perhaps that should be the first thing to go.

Quote:
I know a lot about cap and trade theres plenty of economic arguments for/against its effectiveness and its really a whole different issue - nothing to do with the science of climate change.
It has quite a lot to do with it, you can't de-link the two, one drives the other. In the absence of either one the other will change aswell. If there is no man made climate change, there is no cap and trade, the profits from it and the hundreds or thousands of business that exist would disappear. If the cap and trade scheme is scratched in favor of a fixed and fair penalty system, the desire to tamper with the science will shift its balance to the opposing arguments etc...

Quote:
Even looking at the UK; Because of climate change, they are trying to get 10% of the country's energy from renewables within the decade. Thats 10% less spent on oil/gas then their would otherwise have been, and therefor 10% less profits for the oil company's.
Its pretty basic stuff.
(of course, whether the UK actually manages that figure is a whole different mater)
Right, except that in every report on world energy consumption the projections/forecasts is a sharp upward line. Your also completely ignoring the fact that in 10 years we'll be consuming on the whole a significantly larger amount of energy than now, and we'll be just as if not more dependant on oil than we are now. I am however curious, you say they are trying to get 10% off of renewables. Where exactly are they trying to do this? Electric plants/public transport/aero industry is all pretty much the same old oil dependant technology it has been for decades. The only schemes ive seen have been the installation of highly inefficient glass panels that you put on your home, costs a fortune to install, and generally is only very good at heating water and nothing else. Thats on the side of changing things, on the cost of the matter Ive seen my energy bills skyrocket. Oil is a £1.28 !! it was £0.60 just a few years back, and that's mostly down to tax! My car tax disk was £140 pounds for 6 months. Cmon you must see they're raping us with nothing in return. scarring us into accepting any new hike in taxes left right and centre, and you don't think its big business.

Quote:
What "big corps" are paying for this research? list them please.

Its pretty easy to find links to them paying for anti-climate change stuff (Some here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busines...nge#ExxonMobil)
Lol, scroll down after exxonMobil, you see the bit about BP being firmly in support of GW/CC?

Also, the irony of that wiki page is exxonMobil is actually one of the one's to list. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...bil-carbon-tax

just google "supporters of carbon tax" their a whole list of some fairly high profile unlikely supporters.

Quote:
Stephan Hawking supports climate change what does he have to lose?
(not that I think Hawkings views count for much in this issue...but seeing as your valuing the views of a random physicists, he should count equally).

Hawkings isn't going to "lose his reputation", he's probably the most famous scientist in the world. You'd need pretty big balls to stand up and say he's wrong.
Stephan Hawking is a legend, arguing with him isn't a step I am willing to take. I'll have a read later...

Ill respond to your other points later. Have a google for the 17200 scientists against GW, ill comment on that one later...

Quote:
I was wondering when your next conspiracy thread will come axx, it's been a long time since the "israel did 9/11" one!
Oh is THAT what I believe now, why didn't you tell me earlier

Israel can't even take out one guy without a team of 30 people and a trail of dirt that a country as primitive as the UAE In the field of counter intelligence managed to track. Its also funny coming from someone who happens to be from a nation in a clinical state of paranoia and delusion bare in the open for all to see.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 2010-10-11, 16:13
Jasiek's Avatar
Jasiek Jasiek is offline
Do the evolution.
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: You forgot Poland.
Posts: 7,723
It's Stephen. STEPHEN Hawking.

One makes the typo and the other one uses it because he doesn't know any better....
__________________
Little Script Adventure
Join the Little Script Adventure team
Download Little Script Adventure
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 2010-10-11, 16:22
Axx's Avatar
Axx Axx is offline
The return of
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Jerusalem, Palestine
Posts: 4,449
Lol, I thought it was wrong but presumed he'd know the spelling better than me
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 2010-10-11, 17:03
Jasiek's Avatar
Jasiek Jasiek is offline
Do the evolution.
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: You forgot Poland.
Posts: 7,723
I heard Richard Branson say "Stephen Hawkins" too - why is everyone getting that name wrong...

It's like speakers saying "evidences" instead of "evidence" in Q&A parts of lectures because some nitwit from the audience said it like that when asking a question...
__________________
Little Script Adventure
Join the Little Script Adventure team
Download Little Script Adventure
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 2010-10-11, 18:26
Reek's Avatar
Reek Reek is offline
Party animal
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: israel
Posts: 8,801
Send a message via ICQ to Reek Send a message via MSN to Reek
axx, you once made post saying israel had ties to 9/11.
don't tell me you forgot?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpaceGuitarist
This is work of higher intelligences, who take other, esoteric and psychological sciences into account than we are normally used to even consider, numerology being one of them, because everything for them is ritualistic and everything is meant for a deep programming of our psychological state. One day witchcraft and science will collide.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 2010-10-11, 18:40
Axx's Avatar
Axx Axx is offline
The return of
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Jerusalem, Palestine
Posts: 4,449
I don't believe nor do i recall ever believing such. I do recall making reference to some possible prior knowledge of a plot and would have probably been quoting the FBI related investigation which suggested such (im sure you remember the filming/laughing mossad agents that the fbi detained and later release, who were then on Israeli television admitting they were documenting it, their words not mine, that or the translations were falsified).http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle17260.htm

Your pathetically trying to detract from the current conversation without actually contributing anything even remotely intelligent
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 2010-10-11, 19:54
Darkflame's Avatar
Darkflame Darkflame is offline
Classic
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sol, Earth, NL
Posts: 22,496
Send a message via ICQ to Darkflame Send a message via AIM to Darkflame Send a message via MSN to Darkflame
Quote:
I think he is arguing on the science behind climate change in relation to the climate gate scandal to be specific, and it is what I am referring to. The scandal basically highlighted the fact that data was skewed to support the UN IPCC
It showed a few dodgy actions by some scientists. Despite the scale of the leak though, I don't remember any evidence of oil-paid for conspiracy. Frankly, 95% of it was just boring.
Think how passionate you are against climate change being real; a lot on that list feel the same the other way. It isn't surprising that a few don't hold themselves quite as strictly as they should, but that doesn't mean the whole thing is bias, merely some of the members.

Quote:
Thats the sort of bullshit used to stifle free critical thinking. Neither you nor I are afforded all the information or knowledge to arrogantly dismiss anything the other has to share.
Not at all. But I'm only dismissing your dismissal of the climate scientists.

Your dismissing the work of thousands of people worldwide that have spent their lives studying a subject.
You are accusing them, or the vaste majority, of being in a vaste conspiracy.

You are dismissing their work, their effort, their value.
You are blankly saying they are all too bias to be trusted. (except those that agree with you, no dought).

To thats very close to what most conspiracy theory's relay on. (ie, "everyone in nasa is bias to say the moon landing happened" or "every biologist is biasest to support evolution" or "every astronomer is bias to say the world is over 6000 years old" etc etc). You need to dismiss a awful lot of people, and its always the people that would otherwise be the most authoritative on the subject.

I certainly dont have all the facts or skills on this issue, but I'll listen to people that have qualifications in the subject.

Quote:
Were on the same page here, and im not quite sure why you seem to instantly link my scepticism that man contributes significantly to climate change to somehow having some high opinion of oil companies.
Well, my thinking has shifted. I didn't think you were originally claiming that the oil company's were paying for it. Obviously with that view in mind, my statements didn't add anything.

Quote:
Right, except that in every report on world energy consumption the projections/forecasts is a sharp upward line. Your also completely ignoring the fact that in 10 years we'll be consuming on the whole a significantly larger amount of energy than now, and we'll be just as if not more dependant on oil than we are now
I'm not ignoring it, I just think its irrelevant.
Its 10% less money relative to what they would have got. A net lose. Why "big oil" would support a net-lose, with such an elaborate method, I have no idea.

Its also likely that its nuclear power thats going to be needed to deal with increase energy demands. Unpopular though it is, its one of the few realistic options.

Quote:
There was a BBC dispatches documentary, can't remember the name, that actually covered some of the meathods oil companies use to offsset their emissions, not by actually cutting their oil output (which, lets be honest, just cant happen at the moment), but by silly little things such as covering a field of cow dung, trapping the methane gas and pumping it under the earth. This offsets their points under the cap and trade scheme to bellow their quota, they then sell their remaining points to a far smaller bussiness, say a small farm, which gets fucked. So lets review that again

They don't cut their emission
They offset emission by unverifiable means, exaggerate its success, and regain some points under the cap and trade scheme
They sell the extra points to smaller more vulnerable and far less damaging businesses
We pay the price, they profit
You say your familiar with cap and trade, and yet your clearly unaware of the enormous injustice it presents. Its a faulty system, and people so passionately believe in man made climate change then perhaps that should be the first thing to go.
Thats funny, because the first thing I said was cap and trade has little to do with climate change and theres plenty of economic arguments for/against it. My argument was not in favor cap and trade, merely to say its irrelevant as to the "realism" of climate change. Plenty of environmentalists are strongly opposed to it, others believe the caps are far too lenient, or the regulation too lax.

Still, your argument here is wrong. Your talking about how oil company's can benefit under the cap-and-trade system, thats NOT the same as how oil company's can benefit from climate change. The more people acknowledge climate change as real, the tighter/better regulated the cap and trade system will get.....or it will be scraped completely as not working.

Oil companys didnt invent climate change, in order to invent cap-and-trade as a way to profit, this isn't some by long-term plan. They are simply exploiting the system as best they can as it developed. As company's always do.

That said, cap and trade (in principle) would only be effecting the demand for oil anyway.
Oil companys don't cause most of the "emissions" themselves, they sale the majority of oil which is then burn't by other company's.
(who will, themselves, try to offset...sometimes legitimately, sometimes dodgly).

Oil company's could sale dodgy offsets with their oil (in fact, I think BP has started), but thats really no different to simply making their oil more expensive to start with. Its a PR-spin, but it still only encourages people to look for alternatives more.

For example, you see big buisness's like Google investing in their own massive solar-farms. Google promise's to be carbon neutral, so the less power they get from oil, the less they have to spend on offsets. Ergo, they have an incentive to invest in alternatives because it will save them money in the longterm.

Quote:
I am however curious, you say they are trying to get 10% off of renewables. Where exactly are they trying to do this?
The realism of the goal is certainly questionable.
That said, the UK has just built the worlds biggest offshore windfarm (http://www.edmontonjournal.com/techn...802/story.html), with plans to make it bigger.

I think they could scale this up somewhat...the UK certainly has a lot of very windy cost. However its clearly only ever going to deal with a few percent of the goal at best.

The fact that, for whatever reason, goals might not be met, doesn't somehow even remotely make this a "good thing" for the oil company's. Any reduction in the use of their product is less money.

Supply and demand. Less demand = less they can sale it for.

Quote:
Thats on the side of changing things, on the cost of the matter Ive seen my energy bills skyrocket. Oil is a £1.28 !! it was £0.60 just a few years back, and that's mostly down to tax! My car tax disk was £140 pounds for 6 months. Cmon you must see they're raping us with nothing in return. scarring us into accepting any new hike in taxes left right and centre, and you don't think its big business.
Of course its big buisness, but its not a conspiracy paid for by the oil company's. Governments will always look for new tax revenues.

They tax the hell our of cigarette too, that doesn't mean lung-cancer isn't caused by them.

Quote:
I'm certain that the conclusions and studies will on all sides have their backers/funders. From my understanding, scientists cannot proceed in research without funding, funding usually tends to serve a purpose in a capitalist system, some way to generate a return or a profit, hence unfortunately a lot of science will be geared to some extent, maybe mildly or severely. .
ish. If you click over the list, theres quite a diversity of sources. Many government/university's.
Plenty of them probably have bias in some ways, but that doesn't mean that all, or even most, of the bias points in the direction of having to confirm climate change. I'm just not seeing any extra revenue from confirming it.

I did only look on a few, and I would be interested if you found oil-company connections to some of them, but from what I see the funds seem pretty independent.

Quote:
Lol, scroll down after exxonMobil, you see the bit about BP being firmly in support of GW/CC?

Also, the irony of that wiki page is exxonMobil is actually one of the one's to list. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...bil-carbon-tax

just google "supporters of carbon tax" their a whole list of some fairly high profile unlikely supporters.
Supporters of carbon-credits != people paying for the majority climate research.

Your statement is that big oil company's are paying for this conspiracy, I'm questioning how they are paying for it, and for you to provide evidence of this money link which you claim is in the "trillions".

Big oil, simply put, is not paying for this research. At least, not from anything I can see here.
If you are to argue otherwise, you need to do better then supporting credits, or them just admitting climate change exists.

Quote:
Darkflame actually astro-physicists may have a lot to say on the topic of global warming, as it was them who discovered the green-house effect, namely Carl Sagan and other scientists studying Venus. Venus' history and the rampant green-house effect going on on that planet where the corner stones of climate science and the idea of global warming.
Absolutely
But too my knowledge ...STEPHEN Hawking... is more on the sub-atomic/radioactive/super-stringy/black-hole-er-rific side of things then the large scale astro-geology stuff. So, he's more about very very small and the very very big.

I could be wrong though, I have only read a bit of his stuff.
__________________
http://fanficmaker.com <-- Tells some truly terrible tales.
-
Phones & Tricorders & Blobs & Bombs & 3D Printers & TVIntros also;stuff
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 2010-10-11, 20:33
LBAWinOwns's Avatar
LBAWinOwns LBAWinOwns is offline
Magic Ball Master
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 5,420
Send a message via MSN to LBAWinOwns
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anakin View Post
axx, you once made post saying israel had ties to 9/11.
don't tell me you forgot?
link-quotes or it didn't happen!
__________________

LBA Image Creator project
(image by leoboe! )

Get the Jump-Save-Bug graphically explained here
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 2010-10-11, 20:43
Axx's Avatar
Axx Axx is offline
The return of
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Jerusalem, Palestine
Posts: 4,449
Almost the entirety of your post was debating a point i didn't make Where did I say Oil giants are funding GW alarmists? Big bussiness probably, oil per se... ehh im sure everyone of them has a finger in the pie and I didn't say its one vast conspiracy by oil companies, but that its very much a one sided set in stone debate when a)No science is set in stone, that's the very nature of science b)Scientific evidence for their being alternative suggestions for global warming (or cooling, I seem to get quite contradictory news from the-guardian, especially when we had one of the coldest winters in decades last year). I am however deeply skeptical of the human nature of this suppossed crisis, as well as the absolute nonsence armageddon tales that is consistently rammed down our throuts.

Consider that a single volcano can emit more shit into the atmosphere in a few days than what we humans are capable in years or even decades. There is enough evidence to suggest that an entire multi-billion dollar industry exists based soley on this science, and its only logical to conclude that some, if not most, of the science will be manipulated. Please don't insult my intellegince by attributing to me the ability to mass generalise every climate change (by man) scientist out there. I think Ive had enough debates here for you to know my views are always subject to change in light of new information, and that I despise generalisations.

Seeing as you didn't bother looking up the petition i mentioned, here it is:-
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs, 15x more scientists than IPCC's board.


Now were both dismissing the work of thousands of scientists Also, I'm hardly passionate about this. It was simply something I thought others would find interisting, sprinkled with my personal opinion. Palestine/Israel/USA/War/Politics are my interests, incase I havn't made that clear already
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 2010-10-12, 00:47
Jasiek's Avatar
Jasiek Jasiek is offline
Do the evolution.
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: You forgot Poland.
Posts: 7,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axx View Post
Your pathetically trying to detract from the current conversation without actually contributing anything even remotely intelligent
__________________
Little Script Adventure
Join the Little Script Adventure team
Download Little Script Adventure
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 2010-10-12, 11:50
Jast's Avatar
Jast Jast is offline
Lemonhead
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Wandering hermit
Posts: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkflame View Post
So...umm..not actualy anyone really to do with weather then, let alone climate.
Nuclear Winter has everything to do with climate.

I haven't taken the time to review the supposed evidence of global warming, so I'm hardly an expert; none of us are. However, I have always been skeptical. Do we really have so much control over nature that we can disrupt a climate system that took millions/billions of years to develop? Merely reading weather reports shows contradictory evidence - in some parts of the world, at least. And if there are this many scientists disputing man-made climate change claims, perhaps we need to take a closer look at the facts.

Regardless of whether or not it's real, we should of course start cutting down on fossil fuel usage, deforestation, pollution, etc... I hope one day we can end it all together. But problem + money (tax) doesn't = no problem, it's just squeezing more cash out of the (already struggling) public.

This previously didn't interest me but now it does, so I guess I'll do some research on the web and come up with my own conclusion. 'till then I'm not taking sides.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 2010-10-12, 13:42
Jasiek's Avatar
Jasiek Jasiek is offline
Do the evolution.
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: You forgot Poland.
Posts: 7,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jast View Post
Do we really have so much control over nature that we can disrupt a climate system that took millions/billions of years to develop?
Check weather reports over the US on 9/11 2001. NASA said that (because of the grounding of airplanes) they saw the clearest skies in decades.

A NASA photo of jet contrails in 2009 over the US:


And a 2010 over the UK showing how contrails propel cloud formation:


The clouds trap the heat and bounce it back at the surface, raising the temperature. Means that yeah, we can change something. Also the acidity and oxygenation of the oceans is endangered meaning that if we don't stop enriching the soils with nitrogen based fertilizers that wash into the ground water and then seep into the oceans we might kill everything that's not bacteria and the occasional jelly fish in there...
__________________
Little Script Adventure
Join the Little Script Adventure team
Download Little Script Adventure
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 2010-10-14, 01:36
Odysseus's Avatar
Odysseus Odysseus is offline
the hobbits to Otringal
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 1,402
Carbon credits are comparably silly and wrong as paying the church to buy of your sins.

Whether you think climate change has a big human industry factor or not: it's stupid.

In the long run it will outsource some forms of polution to poor places. While some others are making a good buck from it. (Since when is making a buck from something a reason to reduce something?)

And also the money that is in it is already used to "rent" land from poor countrys. Even places where people been living, they just get banned from their own land and can't use it.

I dunno, there sure would be more silly things about it but I am too tired to go look them up.
__________________

http://forum.magicball.net/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=2558&dateline=1285864225
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 2011-01-10, 02:21
Reek's Avatar
Reek Reek is offline
Party animal
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: israel
Posts: 8,801
Send a message via ICQ to Reek Send a message via MSN to Reek
hey guys, i've been wondering about something

i don't know much about global warming, but i was curious

if global warming really is a conspiracy as some people think, who stands to gain from it, and how?

if anyone knows, i'd appreciate a simple answer.
i don't know what "cap and trade" is, but i imagine an explanation on how anybody stands to gain from the GW theory in layman terms shouldn't be too hard to come up with.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpaceGuitarist
This is work of higher intelligences, who take other, esoteric and psychological sciences into account than we are normally used to even consider, numerology being one of them, because everything for them is ritualistic and everything is meant for a deep programming of our psychological state. One day witchcraft and science will collide.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 2011-01-10, 02:56
Jast's Avatar
Jast Jast is offline
Lemonhead
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Wandering hermit
Posts: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anakin View Post
hey guys, i've been wondering about something

i don't know much about global warming, but i was curious

if global warming really is a conspiracy as some people think, who stands to gain from it, and how?

if anyone knows, i'd appreciate a simple answer.
i don't know what "cap and trade" is, but i imagine an explanation on how anybody stands to gain from the GW theory in layman terms shouldn't be too hard to come up with.
The government, and money, of course!

Whether or not the man-made climate change theory is true, we need power infrastructure that doesn't rely on fossil fuels for obvious reasons... we are rushing headlong towards peak oil, if we've not already hit that mark. I have a TV series set to record, 'James May's Big Ideas', and one of the episodes I watched was about the 'power crisis' and interesting concepts people have came up with. Solar towers and space based solar power (a platform in geostationary orbit which beams it down wirelessly), new wind turbine and wave power concepts, actual petrol from thin air, water and sunlight (sounds crazy but apparantly possible to get 2-3 gallons a day from one in your garden!), and lots of other stuff.

I personally am going to party like it's 1958 and place my bet on nuclear as the future 'power superpower', especially if the white-coats can get that fusion thing to work, plus solar and unexplored solutions like hydrogen also largely powering the grid... But only time will tell. I don't know much about the technology but I also think wireless power recharging will become as common as WiFi hotspots... would eliminate the battery problem of electric cars, imagine the road beaming you fuel as you drive... for a whopping fee though, i'd imagine. And I'm not sure if it can be easily encrypted so people don't start stealing your power

Last edited by Jast; 2011-01-10 at 03:11.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 2011-01-10, 05:11
Darkflame's Avatar
Darkflame Darkflame is offline
Classic
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sol, Earth, NL
Posts: 22,496
Send a message via ICQ to Darkflame Send a message via AIM to Darkflame Send a message via MSN to Darkflame
I dont have the time of energy to debate GW anymore, but I agree more or less with the above.
Theres some very neat wireless charging tech shown recently at CES too, but I'll post in the high-tech read.
__________________
http://fanficmaker.com <-- Tells some truly terrible tales.
-
Phones & Tricorders & Blobs & Bombs & 3D Printers & TVIntros also;stuff
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 2011-01-10, 11:22
Reek's Avatar
Reek Reek is offline
Party animal
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: israel
Posts: 8,801
Send a message via ICQ to Reek Send a message via MSN to Reek
Yeah, but like you said we need to find an alternative for oil for the simple reason that it's going to run out.

From what I understood, it's been over 20 years now that we've been using more oil than we've been finding.
So while I can understand how it's in the interest of western countries to stop their dependance on middle-eastern oil, they have a pretty convincing reason to get people do it, anyway. The simple reason that we don't have much of a choice.

So what I'm asking is, if GW really is a myth,
why bother propagating it when we have a much better, more verifiable, more immediate reason to get people to find an alternative for fossil fuel? (namely that it's running out)
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpaceGuitarist
This is work of higher intelligences, who take other, esoteric and psychological sciences into account than we are normally used to even consider, numerology being one of them, because everything for them is ritualistic and everything is meant for a deep programming of our psychological state. One day witchcraft and science will collide.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 2011-01-10, 12:23
Neko's Avatar
Neko Neko is offline
Neko
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 8,626
It's just a commodity to have global warming in your home is it not?

I cannot do without! pout
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Flying Forest - The end of Global Warming Echomote Off topic 37 2007-02-18 23:49
Global troll alert... Battler Dear moderators 22 2005-12-01 00:54
NL, Holland, and Global Warming (split from slow forum thread) Battler Off topic 73 2004-09-20 19:23
Lewis VS. Tyson Dark Eyedol Off topic 16 2002-06-10 18:19
What a farce Kieron Off topic 35 2001-11-28 00:33


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 17:45.


News Feed
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, the Magicball Network