Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

I'd like to say thanks to all for some well thought out and carefully stated positions. To John (johnallg) in particular, I agree very much with you...

If humanity is facing a global crisis to which we must adapt (and it seems to me we are), then I think it fair to say that burdens of different sorts fall on all the various human populations worldwide. For those of us living in technologically advanced cultures with the best access to information at this point, I believe our special challenge is to begin to find better ways of solving all of the ancient problems of survival, and passing these solutions on to the rest of our brothers and sisters. Clean water, decent healthy food, efficient means of shelter and transportation...all of these are vital for people everywhere, but the means of assuring these things for us all will necessarily vary from region to region. John is correct in stating that our situation is a complex one, and the solutions to our dilemma will have to be equally complex. When we strive to grasp the fact that we are all living together on this tiny, miraculous lifeboat in space, we may all begin to share in the task of working towards a better future for each other, and the myriad of species with whom we share this world.

It's true that elephants knock down trees, and locusts eat vegetation, but at 6 billion and counting, and with our rather large individual 'footprints', it is humans who now have a key role to play in helping to decide the fate of the only biosphere we know, and the one that gave us life and continues to sustain us.

Peace and love to all, and keep playing and enjoying music every day...it's the thing that makes us most human, after all.

That was a thoughtful and considerate post on this particular subject...........I enjoyed reading it. Thanks Dane.

Over population is the biggest problem the world has today and those that continue to follow their flawed ideology in it's pursuit.

Population control is the way of the future, if we are to maintain and promote sustainable growth.
The Chinese are there already...

bails wrote:There is not a single prominent member in these industries who have stuck their noses up at the idea of climate change, though there appears myriad armchair experts who are willing to do so. I get my advice from people who I know know. I know forum members here know about Ricks. I know my partner and her collegues know about climate change.

This is a joke, right? Perhaps "stuck their noses up" is not an accurate description, but the number of leading scientists around the world who are challenging the notion anthropomorphic "climate change" is growing every day despite Al Gore's pathetic attempt to silence critics by falsely saying the "science is settled".
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... 4616db87e6And no, I reject the argument that the name change from "global warming" to "climate change" is due to complexity. Just as the "global cooling" scare of the 70's failed to materialize, a similar failure of "global warming" is revealing itself. The switch to the more generic term is PR genius, but bullsh*t by any other name still stinks as much.

I too do not have a degree in the natural sciences. But I can read, and I'm a natural skeptic. I dont run around like Chicken Little every time someone says the sky is falling. This stubborn trait has kept egg off my face numerous times before and is doing so once again.

Follow the money.

On the "follow the money" note, here's an interesting article to consider, whether one agrees with it or not:

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscor ... 74742.html

The article that lead me to this: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01 ... -campaign/

John Coleman's only qualification is in journalism, so that obviously makes him an expert on everything.

He appears to base is assessment on two cold winters in his own backyard. Maybe if he had lived here for the last ten years or so, he would have a different opinion.

Didn't get past page one. Too many people saying "It's cold here, therefore there's no global warming." Do some more research, that's not how it works. Just a friendly FYI.

brammy wrote: Follow the money.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... ming_x.htm

ExxonMobil lists on its website nearly $133 million in 2005 contributions globally, including $6.8 million for "public information and policy research" distributed to more than 140 think-tanks, universities, foundations, associations and other groups. Some of those have publicly disputed the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

Tut, tut, gentlemen...as a drunk in the back of the room shouted continually throughout our set at the old "Seven South" nightclub years ago:

"Keep it smooth!"

The only thing sillier than sounding uninformed is doing so stridently, so if we're going to discuss something we aren't experts on, let's at least do it respectfully. (I can't believe this is me talking, but I have to admit it's refreshing...)

The best way to make sure you don't have egg on your face is to glance in the mirror now and again...

ugh... oooo..... good one Dane.... you got me that time, buddy.



Alabama meteorologist James Spann put it well...... “Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon … Nothing wrong with making money at all. But when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.”

Algore says the debate is over?..... I think not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DF6HsBnU20

cassius987 wrote: Too many people saying "It's cold here, therefore there's no global warming." Do some more research, that's not how it works. Just a friendly FYI.

I totally agree with Josh - there's a huge difference between anecdotal evidence - such as "it's real cold this year" or "gosh, it's been a hot, dry summer" and detailed analysis of the data. If we take a year as being a single data point, then the experience of a decade can be a statistical "blip". Unfortunately, given our life expectancies, we are hardly around for long enough for our first-hand observations to be meaningful in a climate-science context, even if we recorded them daily.

I may be skeptical about the predictive power of computer models for complex system, but I believe that there is a lot of interesting and valuable research being done, and if there are questions and differences of opinion, they should be discussed (cordially, I hope, as Dane has suggested) on their merits, rather than shot down with conspiracy theories. It's easy to taint the well on both sides, its harder to sit down, read the reports, and come to an informed conclusion, rather than an emotional one, especially when the arguments are either presented too emotively (and simplistically), or too technically, so that they are beyond the grasp of the non-specialist.

Maybe there's an opportunity here for someone to write a summary of the reasoned arguments on both sides? Maybe it's been done and I just haven't seen it?

We are being told by the media today that this winter will be the coldest in the UK for 13 years. Where did global warming suddenly go? Oh, I just remembered I paid extra tax on my heating and that fixed it!

leftyguitars wrote:...this winter will be the coldest in the UK for 13 years. Where did global warming suddenly go?

The 'global warming' theory states, among other things, that the melting Arctic ice cap will push the Gulf Stream further south in the Atlantic, meaning a reduction in the warming effect it once had on northern Europe. The 'globe' gets warmer, and you get colder. Seems unfair, I know...but a milder fate than, say, the Maldives are bracing for...

brammy wrote:...For many, global warming is a big cash grab."...

That's undoubtedly true, Kent...no matter what happens in this world, there will be people who try to grab all the cash they can over it. I'm already getting sick of the businesses claiming they've 'gone green' in order to capitalize on all of this...(British Petroleum???)...

But let's face it, some of the biggest cash-grabbers in history are putting their weight behind the arguments attempting to counter global warming theory. Unfortunately, 'following the money' these days leads in every direction but my pocket...

But back again, my friends, to the debate that never ends: the Antarctic ice shelves are not breaking loose simply because they 'wanna be free'...

I've seen reports that the arctic ice is increasing at unprecedented rates right now, too. One thing I don't understand about this whole debate is that Al Gore is at the center of it. He's a politician, not a scientist.

Another handful of my observations: Most of the global warming evidence is presented as anecdotal (such as interviewing people who remember it being colder when they were kids than it is now...etc.). Most trends are drawn from the 60s, which is the coldest decade on record, and not the 30s. Journalists, not scientists, tend to write the executive summaries of scientific papers. A number of scientists had their name pulled off the last IPCC report because the summary didn't match their conclusions on their work. Some trends I've seen show CO2 following temperature, not the other way around. There does appear to be a much stronger correlation with sun spot activity and global temperature than CO2.

One of the underlying assumptions that goes along with attempting to stop global warming is that the current "climate" is the most productive for life on the planet. I don't know if I'd believe that assumption without a whole lot of supporting evidence. The way I read history, life tends to flourish during warm periods.

Just my thoughts.