Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Something for pro-pilot to chew on

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by Bravus, Feb 27, 2008.

  1. Ohh Bravus Now you hae done it...
    Now we will get a torrent of links with no comment.
  2. The article is written by a pHD with oceanographic cred. He doubts the sun is the main issue GW cause. He thinks the IPCC are understating the case. He thinks antropogenics CO2 plays a part...

    PP has a pHD and alludes to global cooling and non onthropegenic causes and that the IPCC is plain wrong...

    I'm so confused. :?
  3. Ha, it's not like he replies anyway!!
  4. The author of that article definitely has some credibility:
    Though his list of publications is suspiciously lean when it comes to proper, peer-reviewed articles. Although ironically PP frequently likes to source the very same publications he has been published in.
    Definitely confusing.
  5. I'm still waiting for PP to reply to a thread in which I actually marshalled some studies and numbers, rather than newspaper articles.
  6. I wouldn't hold your breath momo - I get the feeling PP only posts stuff here because he doesn't expect any serious opposition and wants to feel important.
    Probably also explain why he bags any bike under 1000cc.
  7. oh ok
  8. oh boy, the sarcasm was dripping off that one!
  9. Yeh it was, but what's the sarcasm directed at?

    Does sarcasm indicate that the sun IS the cause of GW?? :-k
  10. Someone makes the statement that the sun is not considered to be the main cause of GW.

    The response of "oh, ok" indicated that this was a totally non-sensical statement on it's own.

    Yeah........? :roll:

    Because...the heat...ain't...coming from the......moon.....?
  11. and if the sun wasn't there, there'd be no-one here to WORRY about global warming :LOL:.
  12. I'll satisfy you guys.

    This guy is another of the subterfuge group who defends the GW camp to promote their technologies and patents. He comes from a long line of spin masters and is not an independent player from the IPCC WG3.

    He has vested interests.


    Check out his professional affiliations and the company he keeps.

    I have provided over many posts the opposition side to theory interpretation. There are many more papers that go the distance to more than challenge and qualify the statements made by these so called ‘experts’. His credibility comes from the above stated affiliates, not the quality of science in the field of climatology. As a matter of fact, he has virtually no exposure to this field.

    As for the same papers, sure, most of the theory draws from the same source. It’s the data and qualifiers behind the theory that defines the argument.

    At the end of the day, the IPCC is a political organization. Which you can easily go (IPCC website) and check how they are structured. There is the WG1, WG2 and WG3 (Working group).
    1 is the board itself appointed to oversee the entire process and base the representative members on the UN council.
    The second is the scientific core of experts that are asked to give their input and review to specific pieces of the science included within the scope of the review. What is important to stress is the fact that none of these are asked or given the opportunity to give feedback or review of the findings end to end. Also, the reviews are only conducted on a section by section basis, not on basis of methodology or finding.
    The last group is actually the people who developed the policy guide for decision makers.
    None of these people have any science background at all. But are mostly economists, social scientists and philosophers.
    To make matters worst, there is no overlap of representation between the three groups.

    Don’t believe me, go do the homework.

    So the IPCC findings is essentially a handpicked pieces of scientific material, cobbled together by people who’s agenda has nothing to do with scientific endeavour.

    We arguing the opposite are calling out this absolute bollocks of propaganda which has its real directive in developing global taxes to drive new revenues for multi-nationals.

    Also do some research about how carbon credits actually work.

    Also research who’s interests are being served. Basically the guy you are quoting gets his bread and butter from patenting and selling technologies only viable when the so called conventional energies are no longer economically viable. Its called creating a job for yourself.

    Some of the material I have linked is what is easily available from the net.
    With anything, I always say do some digging and find out the core benefits of the key players.

    My position is based on methodological practices and data representation. It underpins everything one does to make decisions. I just happen to be in earth sciences, which gives me the deep insight into what is truthful and BS.
  13. Gegvasco, talk about being literal :roll:

    And the sarcasm is stupendously demeaning of both you and Ktulu and belies lesser than cursory appreciation of the article.

    So let me simplify it for you. There's a thought that GW is a direct result of sun activity. Ktulu and PP have said as much and point to the other planets warming up as proof.* The author of the article doesn't necessarily agree with this idea.

    Is that a little clearer now :roll:

    :roll: The fact that GW is the trapping of the sun's heat is a given... :roll:

    * PP has been banging on lately about global cooling... I'm not sure which way he wants to go on this one since we can't be having BOTH GW and GC with the same sun as the reason.

    Indeed Hornet, no sun, no problems at all. :grin:
  14. The reason for discussing both, is that there has been some changes in the sun's behaviours over the prior 30 years, except the last 10.

    Lag effect of oceans (which is really the climates engine if you like) has been showing a slow increase in temp since the 90's. But regionally. on a global scale the temperature has actually been statistically static of the past 10 years.

    Now the sun has changed its profile (or cycle, this is still theory) which has shown its actually decreased energy output.
    If this cycle does not switch back, we run the potential of a mini-ice age, like the one that occured in the 40's and 50's.

    The northen hemisphere has just encountered its coldest winter in over 30 years. We are going to cop it next.
  15. Fair enough. SOOOO, overactive sun induced GW is now on the outer...

    Back on topic then.

    How does the author of the article address the criticisms that his views are utterly invalid because of his associations and biases?
  16. I've been guilty of using that criticism in the past for people like Richard Lindzen on the other side, but I'm moving away from it - I'd rather see good science than 'guilt by association'. Not sure whether Romm has responded elsewhere or not.

    How do you, pro-pilot, respond to the issue that the IPCC may well be as politics-ridden and flawed as you say... but that most of that politics is driven by the US and China, both of which have vested interests and vocal policies that would tend to *minimise* the predictions of the IPCC rather than inflate them?
  17. Once again you open with assertions that this is propaganda in an emotive manner that is propagandarist in and of its self. Nice work...

    This would indicate someone is wrong... Why should we assume it is him and not you?

    As I recall the article you posted on the South American curent explains this so your own content invalidates this as an argument.
  18. And yet the publications that publish his works are exactly the same ones that you're happy to cite - this is exactly the reason why I criticised your choice of references in another thread. If you're going to continuously post stuff from the likes of the Washington Post, Scientific American, etc. then how about also including the stuff that disagrees with you. Being selective in which data/articles you want to accept makes you just as bad as the creationists.
  19. Now, I'm not going to get into the arguments about scientific credibility, however I do find the huge scientific efforts to clarify and put numbers to global warming seems to be a bit...well...misdirected?

    In a recent conference in Tasmania (hey! I've gotta get some perks!) a palaeobotanist pointed out that current levels of CO2 aren't all that spectacular in a geological sense. During the Cretaceous, they were 2-5 times higher than today's. What really rang bells for me was his comparison of the global warming issue with the fears of nuclear armageddon fear late last century (ok, 30 or 40 years ago, but saying last century sounds so much more distinguished!). He felt that the big red button had already been pushed, and all we have to do is work out how to limit the mushroom cloud. Noice!

    So, this lead me to think 2 thoughts, both of which still count if global waring ends up being proved beyond all doubt or thoroughly debunked. First, the possible effects of Global warming is a human construct and shows a fairly tyopical human want - to keep things the way they perceive they are (so starts a complicated philosophical/psychological argument!) Secondly, that even though there are some non-legally enforceable and seemingly rather ineffective internationally based directions and protocols, very little seems to be happening on the smaller, even micro economic scale to address economic, social and physical barriers to land use change and natural resource management to enable and enact change to enhance environmental outcomes, global warming or not. The broader environmental issues that clearing, deforestation, unsustainable agricultural practices, soil degradation, food production etc etc directly affect, including global warming, will rapidly outstrip the longer term outcomes that are being predicted by global warming. Removing barriers to address these issues may also alter or mitigate the effects of global warming.

    That being said, we should still be researching and investigating climate change, but concentrating entirely on global warming and ignoring other natural resource management issues will be to our detriment.

    Sorry for the length. I always seem to prattle on when it comes to these sorts of things. And yes...I do work in NRM...no, I don't get paid for comment...actually, I work for government, therefore hardly get paid at all (but I do get to go to conferences in Tasmania on the bike!)