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
Jimme       6/23/2007 1:18:18 AM
I love this essay and will print it and give one to everyone, EVERYONE!

Since i was i kid i have always had a problem believing things that were forced down my throat. I always figured if it were true shouldn't the evidence speak for itself. And if you know your argument to be true wouldn't some body countering eventually just prove himself wrong?

This whole global warming nonsense smelled fishy to me from the start, my throat started to get a familiar feeling.  For starters there are entirely too many variables to even begin to  try and predict the future climate changes. despite how simple many tree huggers might try to paint it, fact is real science is almost never so simple.

Global warming is a theory, not a fact, PERIOD. Sure currently temperatures are slowly rising but there is NO proof that its a permanent trend. Anyone who claims such is full of CRAP and not a real scientist..Hell if Yellowstone decided to erupt in 10 years global warming afterward would be a GOOD thing..

Now Global Warming could be true, or it could be a lot of nonsense, there jury in the REAL scientific community is still out. I have no problem in striving for a cleaner environment, its a healthy trend, but not at the edge of a sword  while were being cowered  into submission.



 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F    Kyoto   6/23/2007 12:49:24 PM
What is Kyoto?
 
Kyoto is a massive program to transfer wealth from all of the industrialized nations except China to third world kleptocrats in exchange for them making sure that their nations don't develop their economies. Sweet deal, they are doing that already without us paying them to do it.
 
Don't we have enough problems with impoverished people in third world nations deciding that if they can't control their own poor lives they can at least make the lives of people in rich nations miserable through terrorism?
 
Quote    Reply

andyf       6/24/2007 6:07:16 PM
well , I think that its great that the continuing ability to drive dirty great trucks is more important to you americans than say , holland.
well, at least you wont have to drive your truck so far to reach the beach
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Whether we drive big trucks or not...   6/24/2007 6:46:38 PM

well , I think that its great that the continuing ability to drive dirty great trucks is more important to you americans than say , holland.

well, at least you wont have to drive your truck so far to reach the beach



...Has nothing to do to what might happen in the low lands around Europe or other places. There is no cause and effect.
I am compelled to point out the fact that the earth's surface has been constantly changing since it formed. Some day it may be a frozen rock in space but for now it continues to evolve raising the Himalayas a couple of inches per year and other places inevitably will sink into the sea.
 
It is illogical to blame my pickup. That and Weather Happens.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

Panther       6/24/2007 7:18:34 PM

well , I think that its great that the continuing ability to drive dirty great trucks is more important to you americans than say , holland.

well, at least you wont have to drive your truck so far to reach the beach



WOW - you got me there... I had no idea that my contour was a gas guzzling SUV! Whose responsible for deceiving me into such a charade? Someone better own up to it before mass hysteria overtakes this country!
 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim       6/24/2007 8:53:38 PM

well , I think that its great that the continuing ability to drive dirty great trucks is more important to you americans than say , holland.

well, at least you wont have to drive your truck so far to reach the beach



Actually, the continuing ability for my fellow Americans to drive dirty great trucks (I don't, but my car only gets 8km/l, is that dirty enough?) is more important to me than say, Europe.  Oh, and you can throw in Asia, Africa, and South America, too.  But at least I don't care if you drive your own dirty great trucks, so knock yourself out.
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Danish don't Blame big SUV's Blame the Sun?   6/24/2007 10:27:42 PM
 
 
 
 
 
Cosmic rays blamed for global warming

By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 1:08am GMT 11/02/2007

 
Man-made climate change may be happening at a far slower rate than has been claimed, according to controversial new research.
Scientists say that cosmic rays from outer space play a far greater role in changing the Earth's climate than global warming experts previously thought.
In a book, to be published this week, they claim that fluctuations in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere directly alter the amount of cloud covering the planet.
 
How cosmic rays could seed clouds diagramhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/02/11/warm11.gif" width=260 border=0>
High levels of cloud cover blankets the Earth and reflects radiated heat from the Sun back out into space, causing the planet to cool.

Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist at the Danish National Space Centre who led the team behind the research, believes that the planet is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere.

This, he says, is responsible for much of the global warming we are experiencing.

He claims carbon dioxide emissions due to human activity are having a smaller impact on climate change than scientists think. If he is correct, it could mean that mankind has more time to reduce our effect on the climate.

The controversial theory comes one week after 2,500 scientists who make up the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change published their fourth report stating that human carbon dioxide emissions would cause temperature rises of up to 4.5 C by the end of the century.
Mr Svensmark claims that the calculations used to make this prediction largely overlooked the effect of cosmic rays on cloud cover and the temperature rise due to human activity may be much smaller.
He said: "It was long thought that clouds were caused by climate change, but now we see that climate change is driven by clouds.
"This has not been taken into account in the models used to work out the effect carbon dioxide has had.We may see CO2 is responsible for much less warming than we thought and if this is the case the predictions of warming due to human activity will need to be adjusted."
Mr Svensmark last week published the first experimental evidence from five years' research on the influence that cosmic rays have on cloud production in the Proceedings of the Royal Society Journal A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. This week he will also publish a fuller account of his work in a book entitled The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change.
A team of more than 60 scientists from around the world are preparing to conduct a
 
Quote    Reply

buzzard    Why Global Warming is Bunk   6/26/2007 4:43:04 PM
Do you really want to know why global warming is bunk? I'll explain it fairly simply. 

A major portion of my PhD Thesis was in computer modeling, and my first job out there at Sandia National Laboratories was based on Computer modeling. Does this make me an expert? Well maybe not as much as some, but I certainly have a good idea of what I speak in this regard. 

Let me give you some basic facts about computer modeling. You almost NEVER know all the variables. There is always something you have to estimate based on what you can measure and observe. 

I used to do research in casting. If you have an understanding of the physics of the process, you will have an idea of what variables will produce certain results. For my thesis, I was trying to explain the existance of certain phenomenon in steel casting. There were competing theories out there as to why it occured. I came up with a hypothesis of what was occuring, and designed a series of experiments to prove my theory. The computer modeling was just a small aspect of this, and used physical modeling as well as samples from industrial steel production to back up the results. I had to use what I call fudge factors to make the computer models fit in with the real results, but by eventually getting the fudge factors right, I was able to reproduce the profiles from other samples. Thus I ended up with a computer model which was actually capable of fitting reality, and thus being a predictive tool. 

After this at Sandia Labs I did other modeling work. In that case they were simulating a different casting process, but the only people down there who actually were working on it were pure programmers, not metallurgists with knowledge of casting and heat transfer in an applied sense. They could never figure out why their model was incapable of producing solidification profiles which looked anything like the real thing. They were able to get shapes roughly like the real thing, but not at all right. It didn't take me long at all after looking at their parameters to adjust values in the model to start producing things which actually looked like real castings. Why was this? It's because I know how the variables really worked together. They weren't just abstract numbers. I had to more or less reverse their assumptions to get things to follow reality. They had been following a path to get results they wanted which flew in the face of how casting actually worked. 

Now what does any of that have to do with global warming? Well you have a host of scientists (honestly this batch deserves to have quotes around the term), who develop models, and don't seem to have the least bit of feeling for how the factors in their model actually interact. The continued utter inability of climate scientists to back simulate the real climate using their  models indicates that they have no idea what variables are important, nor how they interact. All they appear to know is how to make their model spit out results they like rather than results which might actually be predictive. 

The fact is, the science is far too nascent to be making trillion dollar predictions. You might as well cast chicken bones on the floor and read those for all the value we get from the climate change models we run right now. Crichton is completely correct that it appears more likely that models are being developed to suit end conclusions already decided upon, rather than to actually predict anything realistic. 

The scope of how much money people threaten to squander on rubbish science should scare the piss out of people. Instead, people are lining up like sheep to get fleeced because some "scientist" who cannot predict a thing, and who changes his claims at every turn in the weather tells stories about a bogeyman. PT Barnum was wrong only in his claims of scale. Far more than just one sucker is born every minute. 
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot       6/26/2007 5:29:51 PM

I never thought that I would agree with a dinosaur like Rocky but I have to say that I am 100% with him on this scam called global warming.

 

There are actually two issues here that the “Scientists” prefer to lump together: global warming and the human causes of the same. There is NO evidence that the two are linked that stand up to the scrutiny of any reasonably educated person.

 

Yes, there is evidence of global warming on Earth (and Mars and Jupiter) and no, there is no evidence that humans are causing it.

 

In March this year, Channel 4 in the UK gathered a bunch of “sceptics” (that is, scientists that don’t accept a human cause for Global Warming) and mad a program called “THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE”. The trailer is no longer available but the web page that advertised it is still there at h*ttp://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/programme.html.

 

Predictably, the program was vilified in the liberal press here in the UK. One newspaper even tried to deny that the medieval warming period existed. That fact is one that the doomsayers don’t like and try to ignore because it was several degrees warmer then than it is now and the global disasters currently being predicted didn’t happen.

 

Someone recently found Leif Ericsons sailing instructions on how to get to his settlements in Greenland. These instructions can’t be followed today because one of the fjords that was open water then is now choked with ice all the year round.
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    I will gratefully accept my victories where I find them...   6/27/2007 11:08:57 AM

I never thought that I would agree with a dinosaur like Rocky but I have to say that I am 100% with him on this scam called global warming. <Heorot

 
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