Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: ALIENS CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING - SERIOUSLY!
RockyMTNClimber    6/21/2007 12:30:31 PM
This is to put a final nail in the coffin of global warming. Man can not change the earth's tempurature. No evidence has ever or will ever compell science to say that. This is a silly notion played for political and religious resons. Below is a well thought out essay that everyone who believes in global warming, leprichans, and the stork that delivers babies should read. Check Six Rocky "Aliens Cause Global Warming" A lecture by Michael Crichton California Institute of Technology Pasadena, CA January 17, 2003 My topic today sounds humorous but unfortunately I am serious. I am going to argue that extraterrestrials lie behind global warming. Or to speak more precisely, I will argue that a belief in extraterrestrials has paved the way, in a progression of steps, to a belief in global warming. Charting this progression of belief will be my task today. Let me say at once that I have no desire to discourage anyone from believing in either extraterrestrials or global warming. That would be quite impossible to do. Rather, I want to discuss the history of several widely-publicized beliefs and to point to what I consider an emerging crisis in the whole enterprise of science-namely the increasingly uneasy relationship between hard science and public policy. I have a special interest in this because of my own upbringing. I was born in the midst of World War II, and passed my formative years at the height of the Cold War. In school drills, I dutifully crawled under my desk in preparation for a nuclear attack. It was a time of widespread fear and uncertainty, but even as a child I believed that science represented the best and greatest hope for mankind. Even to a child, the contrast was clear between the world of politics-a world of hate and danger, of irrational beliefs and fears, of mass manipulation and disgraceful blots on human history. In contrast, science held different values-international in scope, forging friendships and working relationships across national boundaries and political systems, encouraging a dispassionate habit of thought, and ultimately leading to fresh knowledge and technology that would benefit all mankind. The world might not be a very good place, but science would make it better. And it did. In my lifetime, science has largely fulfilled its promise. Science has been the great intellectual adventure of our age, and a great hope for our troubled and restless world. But I did not expect science merely to extend lifespan, feed the hungry, cure disease, and shrink the world with jets and cell phones. I also expected science to banish the evils of human thought---prejudice and superstition, irrational beliefs and false fears. I expected science to be, in Carl Sagan's memorable phrase, "a candle in a demon haunted world." And here, I am not so pleased with the impact of science. Rather than serving as a cleansing force, science has in some instances been seduced by the more ancient lures of politics and publicity. Some of the demons that haunt our world in recent years are invented by scientists. The world has not benefited from permitting these demons to escape free. But let's look at how it came to pass. Cast your minds back to 1960. John F. Kennedy is president, commercial jet airplanes are just appearing, the biggest university mainframes have 12K of memory. And in Green Bank, West Virginia at the new National Radio Astronomy Observatory, a young astrophysicist named Frank Drake runs a two week project called Ozma, to search for extraterrestrial signals. A signal is received, to great excitement. It turns out to be false, but the excitement remains. In 1960, Drake organizes the first SETI conference, and came up with the now-famous Drake equation: N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL Where N is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live. This serious-looking equation gave SETI an serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we're clear-are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be "informed guesses." If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It's simply prejudice. As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involv
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22   NEXT
RockyMTNClimber    Paul   7/12/2007 10:44:00 AM
I just think that the majority of the latest science shows that global warming is happening
 
Why do you think that?
 
I prefer to gamble on the side of safety than risk it all.
 
Based upon what risk assessment criteria? At what cost / benefit analysis?
 
I see no credible reason anybody would not want to cut emmisions?
 
To what level? Zero emmisions means zero people. This is a platitude not a policy statement.
 
as for taxing high poluters... extra money to be spent by governments
 
PING! We now have what many people want. This has nothing to do with global warming it is about the transfer of wealth and government control. That policy will destroy world economies and send us back to the dark ages!
 
I would prefer wind.....
 
Please try and understand that your wind technology is several orders of magnitude worse a poluter than what we use now! Ever see a wind-mill farm?
 
getting off middle eastern oil/ Russian gas
 
I agree with you here! Western Oil sources are LARGER than the Middle East and Russian combined. We need to drill and build larger refining capacity IN THE WEST while researching cost effective replacements. The answer is not to take food out of people's mouths! Colorado's new policy of ethynol based fuel is cutting our exports of corn, wheat, barley and stock feed. These are resources that were going to make food for people. These policies are bad for the economy, the  environment, and will end up starving people at the bottom end of the economic ladder.
 
Paul. Re read the thread again from beginning to end. Check out the liar Assymetric again. HE LIED to make your point and it did not work because the data does not support his conclusion. We sewed him up in a neat bag and tossed him over the gunwhale! There is no science that man is effecting the Earth's tempurature. Zip.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Lockwood & the Solar Cycle   7/12/2007 10:59:26 AM

http://www.space.com/images/suncycle_temps_0108_02.gif" width=510>


Check Six
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       7/12/2007 11:27:37 AM










































RockyMTNClimber    THERE IS NO SCIENCE THAT MAN IS CREATING GLOBAL WARMING   7/11/2007 11:28:22 AM









 




Check Six




 




Rocky











that reminds me of the old days when they used to claim that "there is no science that smoking causes cancer".




 




there is plenty of science around arguing both sides of the debate. its a matter of which side has most credibility.




 




 




arguing about what causes global warming and whether man has a big influence on it or not  is a distraction from the real issue... which is that it is happening and it might be prudent to put measures in place that prevent it or limit it from becoming a catastrophe. rather than just hoping it stops on its own and doesn't cause chaos.




 




 




Paul




Better yet, how about we make sure we actually know what is happening before we toss mountains of money at an alleged problem which we nor neither the cause of, nor the solution to? 


Not to mention the means by which the money looks to be pissed away currently is in a mostly non productive manner. The idea that we'll just tax and/or cut emissions rather than other more potentially profitable means of investing that money. Consider the amount of capital will would evaporate in the face of a Kyoto type solution (which according to admissions of the proponents will solve about nothing), and then imagine that it were instead invested in, say, fusion research. We might well end up with a clean renewable power source, without all the doom saying in the nightly news. 



buzzard






I sort of agree....

but you only find out the degree of the problem by looking into it more.....  smallpox would not have been wiped out if people didn't look into it... nobody would know that smoking causes cancer if people hadn't looked into it.... we might not see that big meteor coming if we don't look for it....   :-)

 

 

I just think that the majority of the latest science shows that global warming is happening and could cause devastation if we don't take measures to counter it. so I favour doing something "just in case" rather than waiting for more and more research to confirm it and it be too late to do anything about it...

and if it turns out that the money was not needed to be spent then we go oh well.....money will be spent elsewhere if not here and could be just as wasted there.

I prefer to gamble on the side of safety than risk it all.

 

 

 

I see no credible reason anybody would not want to cut emmisions?

 

as for taxing high poluters... extra money to be spent by governments (whether on climate or health, education, even defense) is not that bad as long as it is not wasted (lefty sort of view from right wing Brit.... )

alternative
 
Quote    Reply

buzzard       7/12/2007 12:50:19 PM


I just think that the majority of the latest science shows that global warming is happening and could cause devastation if we don't take measures to counter it. so I favour doing something "just in case" rather than waiting for more and more research to confirm it and it be too late to do anything about it...

The problem is that the science isn't as you say. As Crichton points out, it's a matter of scientists with a vested interest in global warming being true to guarantee their funding being vigorous proponents of the theory. Anyone who disputes them are labeled dupes of the petroleum industry, whether or not that is even vaguely true.  Much of the current policy direction is taken from computer models which are essentially pure guesswork. They cannot back simulate historical data, so their predictions are worthless. 

Heck, if you look at the latest UN report on climate change, the actual scientific conclusions are very cautious. This is, of course, in spite of the political summary which screams doom and glood well past what the data containted in the report actually merits. 


and if it turns out that the money was not needed to be spent then we go oh well.....money will be spent elsewhere if not here and could be just as wasted there.

I prefer to gamble on the side of safety than risk it all.

Of course the problem with that is resources are finite. What are we giving up to solve a problem which may, or may not exist? as Rocky mentioned, there's always cost benefit to be considered. Reducing carbon emissions to a degree which people SUSPECT will do something notable will have a cataclysmic effect on economies. Very likely well beyond any warming damage claimed. Kyoto would have cost a fortune, and yet yielded almost no effect. The truth in the Kyoto reducitons were but a minescule fraction of what is allegedly necessary to solve this "problem". Do you have any idea of the magnitude of the cost? How many people in the Third World will get to starve to make you feel better about averting a marginally possible future? Do you want to head on over there and pick who lives and dies? 

I see no credible reason anybody would not want to cut emmisions?

This statement has all the value of "have you stopped beating your wife". It ascribes a level of villainy to the person you are arguing with, and allows no wiggle room. I could just as well ask how many Third World people you are willing to write off in the interest of the climate status quo. Well shucks, I guess I did.    

as for taxing high poluters... extra money to be spent by governments (whether on climate or health, education, even defense) is not that bad as long as it is not wasted (lefty sort of view from right wing Brit.... )

alternatively...  have tax breaks for those going with the less poluting options... make it worth their while to change.

So allowing the governments to piss away more money inefficiently will help us somehow? Friedman did a pretty compelling job of demonstrating that government spending is about never a positive effect on an economy. There is an issue where the money could almost certainly be better spent through private allocation of the capital. 

there is an awful lot of money going into alternative power sources. I would prefer wind, wave and solar than nuclear but all alternatives should be looked at purely on the basis that oil and gas will run out anyway and getting off middle eastern oil/ Russian gas is good for all of us in the west.

Wave and Solar are generally pie in the sky solutions which are not even close to being really practical. However people have latched on to them because they sound good. Nuclear is pretty much the only practical solution given how humanity consumes energy. Unless we wish to discard the mondern age (and I don't) we have to find means of generating more power in the future. Honestly fossil fuels are abundant enough that running out of them (in any sort of near term) is not really a concern if we wished to keep using them. The reserves are larger than people seem willing to understand. Fusion power, if achieved(and I believe it will be someday), can solve a whole lot of problems. I
 
Quote    Reply

Asymmetric    I think Paul can make his own mind up Rocky   7/12/2007 3:11:53 PM
 

Paul. Re read the thread again from beginning to end. Check out the liar Assymetric again. HE LIED to make your point and it did not work because the data does not support his conclusion. We sewed him up in a neat bag and tossed him over the gunwhale! There is no science that man is effecting the Earth's tempurature. Zip.
 

Check Six


 

Rocky




 

Pardon?

 

If Paul does re read the thread, he will find that at no point did you ever refute me. All you did was spew more data, with little to no explanations attached. Even when I bare faced lied, for my own agenda, you still didn’t challenge my statement. It was only the more capable buzzard who pointed it out. And now when Paul posts you still ignore his points and continue bringing up irrelevant information.

What you seem to be experiencing Rocky is a strong case of solipsism

 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    You were proved a Liar   7/12/2007 3:25:15 PM



 



Paul. Re read the thread again from beginning to end. Check out the liar Assymetric again. HE LIED to make your point and it did not work because the data does not support his conclusion. We sewed him up in a neat bag and tossed him over the gunwhale! There is no science that man is effecting the Earth's tempurature. Zip.

 



Check Six





 



Rocky







 

Pardon?


 


If Paul does re read the thread, he will find that at no point did you ever refute me. All you did was spew more data, with little to no explanations attached. Even when I bare faced lied, for my own agenda, you still didn’t challenge my statement. It was only the more capable buzzard who pointed it out. And now when Paul posts you still ignore his points and continue bringing up irrelevant information.


What you seem to be experiencing Rocky is a strong case of solipsism




And you admitted it. Anything else you say from there is judged on that basis.
 
Cute cover story though.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    And you Continue to Lie   7/12/2007 3:27:55 PM








 





Paul. Re read the thread again from beginning to end. Check out the liar Assymetric again. HE LIED to make your point and it did not work because the data does not support his conclusion. We sewed him up in a neat bag and tossed him over the gunwhale! There is no science that man is effecting the Earth's tempurature. Zip.


 





Check Six








 





Rocky










 

Pardon?




 




If Paul does re read the thread, he will find that at no point did you ever refute me. All you did was spew more data, with little to no explanations attached. Even when I bare faced lied, for my own agenda, you still didn’t challenge my statement. It was only the more capable buzzard who pointed it out. And now when Paul posts you still ignore his points and continue bringing up irrelevant information.





What you seem to be experiencing Rocky is a strong case of solipsism







And you admitted it. Anything else you say from there is judged on that basis.

 

Cute cover story though.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky


Is complete rubbish. Rocky did go to his bother of actual finding a peer reviewed study and has significantly raised the level of his argument. I will argue with Crichton and the Daily Mail but there’s no way I’m going to even try to contradict the petition project. In fact I’m pretty satisfied with the petitions reasoning. Touché Rocky<Asymmetric aka Liar


 
Quote    Reply

Asymmetric    To The Solipsist   7/12/2007 3:39:09 PM

 

 

Nice job editing Rocky.

 

You never at any point critiqued a single one of my arguments.

 

All we hear from you is the same mantra “There is no evidence. Zip”.  Repetition, is not an argument.

 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    You Are A Liar   7/12/2007 3:52:23 PM
Asymmetric    Looks like i've been caught Red Handed   7/6/2007 12:41:54 PM

 


I is the intensity of the radiation initially before striking the gas i.e. 30km (18.5 miles for the Americans) up in the atmosphere.
 
Io is the intensity of the radiation after is passed through the gas i.e. when it hits the ground





The fact that you cite an equation that you don't even understand makes me wonder if you have even the barest shred of credibility. Dear lord, read the paper you posted and you'd see what a fool you've made of yourself with these two lines. In every equation I've ever seen (in too many years of graduate study), I0 is ALWAYS the incident value. That is clearly the case as stated in the paper you posted. because you lack understand of this equation you end up stating some utterly nonsensical conclusions (like greenhouse gasses will increase harmful radiation, which is completely ridiculous). 


I'm sorry, but I've yet to see anything compelling out of you. You rely on assertion of authority as if you have it to start with. You claim some solid body of science, when the data is very inconclusive. You defend computer models which are incapable of simulating the measured data, that are used as predictive tools in spite of this. You, sir, are simply b
 
Quote    Reply

Asymmetric    To the Solophist   7/12/2007 4:08:39 PM
 

So?

 

I admitted it 4 times. You seem to have a habit of repeating statements Rocky over and over again. You have not participated in any form of discourse about the subject matter, of any of my arguments. Not only this but now you doing it to Paul. You have had plenty of time to argue about any of my points in my 2nd post.

 


 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics