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
Asymmetric       7/4/2007 7:01:20 PM


Thank you again for making my point! I did review your report and in fact Michael Crichton’s work fits this quite nicely. The entire report is based upon hand picked data sets to conclude that man is significantly effecting global warming. If you know anything about the scientific process (something you should if you are a physicist) then you would not have bothered to present that report as a rebuttal. Look at where the data comes from in the report and when it was collected. They scarcely went back 3-4 decades. For a world system that is 3 billion + years old that is not a representative sample. It is simply hogwash. I have already posted data showing the earths temperature variations over a broader timeline and those clearly can not be man made. Your argument does not stand up, even to Crichton’s editorial. For your convenience attached is a critique of the UN report you posted which was widely panned at the time it was released!


 


There is no evidence that Man is contributing to global warming. Zip.


 


Check Six


 


Rocky


      


From your source:


 Thermal expansion 0.42 ± 0.12 1.6 ± 0.5


Glaciers and ice caps 0.50 ± 0.18 0.77 ± 0.22


Greenland Ice Sheet 0.05 ± 0.12 0.21 ± 0.07


Antarctic Ice Sheet 0.14 ± 0.41 0.21 ± 0.35


Sum of individual climate 1.1 ± 0.5 2.8 ± 0.7contributions to sea level rise


Observed total sea level rise 1.8 ± 0.5a 3.1 ± 0.7a


 
Quote    Reply

Asymmetric    Further thoughts   7/4/2007 7:06:53 PM
 

Alright I have had a good long think about some of the sceptical arguments brought forward and consulted various sources

 

-Despite the fact CO2 emissions have gone up the global temperature has not gone up in relation to this and it hasn’t changed a great deal since the 1970’s

 

A flippant response would be:

 

The hottest 7 summers in the last centaury have all been in the last decade. But I don’t think lowering the argument down to that level should be necessary.  

 

So here is my response:

 

Quite Right, global temperature have not increased as much as CO2 levels have. Neither has CO2 levels increased as much as CO2 EMISSIONS. This is attributed to the oceans ability to absorb CO2; however at any moment it is possible, as anyone with a secondary knowledge of chemistry can tell you, that they could become saturated and reach there limit and when that happens, vast amounts of stored CO2 will be “spewed” out perhaps even the vast methanic clathrates under the arctic seas. This kind of climate inertia makes it very difficult to form corrective measures after the problem has gathered pace.

 

The Suns CHZ (continuously habitable zone) carries out beyond Mars. If Mars had been a bit bigger it would have had oceans. On such a water world you don’t even require life to maintain Gaia-stability. Simple water chemistry keeps CO2 emissions in equilibrium (So all the planetary scientists say anyway and no one, to my knowledge, has ever attempted to refute this ascertain) Around a G type star you have a pretty big CHZ. Speaking astronomically Earth is a bit of an odd ball. We are in fact very close to the inner edge of what the viable CHZ. Our only defence against solar radiation is a transparent atmosphere almost completely clean of greenhouse gases. The Earth will in fact cross the CHZ in about half a billion years time, then we really will be screwed.

 

You can argue about atmospheric science and climatology, but you can’t fight astrophysics.

 

And this leads to science itself coming under attack.

 

There are 2 great hypocrisies with Crichton’s rationalization. “There’s no such thing as scientific consensus” is used as excuse for politician’s which at best have a mandate of 50% of there populace to dismiss the expert opinions and concerns of the overwhelming majority of scientists in the fields of atmospheric science and climatology.

 

The 2nd is the “we need more research” argument that pops up time and time again. What makes this almost treasonous is the very same people who preach it are the very same ones who cut funding to research like NASA’s Earthward studies programs.

 
Quote    Reply

Asymmetric    Adamb   7/4/2007 7:26:27 PM

If global warming exists, then why has it been raining in Britain nearly every day for a month?  Why was June the third-wettest June in Britain with only the Junes of 1912 and 1982 wetter?



 

It’s the same principle as why the fairly hot Brazilian rainforest get’s a little damp from time to time.

 

The short version:

 

1) Oceans get hotter

2) More water evaporates

3) More clouds are formed

4) More rain is deposited over temperate Northern/Central Europe.

 

There is a tipping point however, when an area becomes hot enough that it won’t rain and the nation becomes increasingly more arid. This is increasingly becoming a problem for Southern Spain, Italy, Greece, etc….during the summer months.

 

So the short-term message for Northern Europe is expect it to get hotter and wetter.

 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    Long term goal.....   7/5/2007 10:54:43 AM
1. More CO2 scrubbers [Plant trees, encourage grasses in the marginal arid areas, make the earth friendly for earthworms and annelids, encourage algae and plankton, build coral reefs, etc.]
 
2. Short term goal, shift from conventional fossil fuels to a more environmentally friendly thermo-electric chemical technology.
 
3. As dangerouus as it is, fission electric power generation, is a viable short term solution for distributed electric power networks..
 
4. Put a parasol shade into orbit to manage the amount of sunlight the Earth receives.
 
5. Put in heat difference engines wherever we can to recover work from the heat we otherwise overpump into the environment.
 
6. Encourage wetlands and swamps.
 
7. Encourage scientific ranching and farming.
 
8. Manage the hydrological ground table better.
 
9. Find some way to increase biodiversity [hint; increase the bird population, find out what threatens the domestic honey bee, and save the frogs.]
 
10. Also figure out a solution for the Earth's orbital drift out of the habitability zone, and terraform Mars.in case we screw up 1-9.
 
Herald 
 
 
     
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Asymmetric's Reply   7/5/2007 12:21:47 PM

The Daily Mail….oh for Christ’s sake.

 Since I believe you are a US citizen and not a UK citizen (like me) I will presume you made the honest mistake that the Daily Mail is a Newspaper of high literary value. When in reality it more closely resembles a steaming pile of horse shit. They were simply pandering to the minds of middle England. They do it every dam week.

 It has ran dozens of other pseudoscience articles in the past, one such claiming that biologist’s had found the “Gay Gene” and that abortions could provide an answer for future generations (hypocritically the paper is fundamentally against the rights of mother to choose)<Asymmetric

 A fairly accurate (all the quotes are in fact true) tongue in cheek depiction of the Daily Mail
 
Lacking a cogent response to the information, you find the only reply available to you is to say you dont like the paper or broadcast it was published in. Pretty weak stuff Mr Asymmetric. That does dove tail nicely with the earlier knee jerk need to criticize religion, big bang, conservatism, the Bush Administration, and Big Bird I suppose!
 
Would it be possible to stay on topic sir?
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F    Blah Blah Blah   7/5/2007 12:24:13 PM
I feel as a physicist, I should really stand up for my fellow scientists on this one.

Global Warning is being fought over as a political issue in many debates by the left and the right. In the scientific community, there has been little doubt since the early 90’s that man is at least partly responsible for the changing climate of Earth. Now how much humanity is contributing to climate change and what the effects will be on the environment is where most scientists’s in this field of research dedicate there time to. The matter of what action to take is ultimately left in the hands of the Politian’s. Personally I believe most scientists are coming to terms with the fact that humanity is unlikely to implement the necessary measures to stop global warming and thus are general resigned to simply hoping to slow it down as much as possible and adapting to the changes.

However this is not what pisses me off. Frequently arguments erupt on this forum and one side will display there case and back it up with a Liberal/Socialist Source. This Source will then be instantly discredited just for its origin, normally being branded “pacifist-propaganda” or in some cases simply “communist”. Sometimes there’s justification sometimes there isn’t. I understand that this is fundamentally a Conservative US run website but that doesn’t excuse this behaviour. Here’s the flip side of the coin. On a number of matters of science most notably global warming and evolution (intelligent design isn’t even a bloody argument) Right wing Conservatives have a vested interest in proving them wrong either for economic grounds, as with global warming, or for moralities sake, as with creationism. The concept that globalisation may be responsible for humanities future woes must be denied at all costs, this leads to any and all counter theories being presented in an effort to make mans impact upon the planet seem like just one possibility of many alternatives, despite it being the only one that has held up to thousands of academic studies. The article presented in the original post reeks of the typical monthly anti-global warming story that some Conservative Medias run as there headlines, which in another month will be completely forgotten about.

I should point out that the abuse of science for politics is hardly new and it doesn’t have party lines. A number of environmentalists make claims verging on hysteria when they talk about it, making one wonder whether they are in fact talking about the apocalypse happening next Tuesday. Despite this the worst offenders of the last decade have been the Bush administration, who has pushed for creationism to be taught in a biology class which is simply deeming to science. Hell you don’t get to see scientists preaching in churches about the big bang (although that gives me an idea….)

And here’s a scientist much more capable of arguing my point than me (and no he’s not a socialist.)

link 
link

If you want respect don't lump all who disagree with you into the same tiny minority whose veiws are repugnant to nearly all thinking people of both scientific and religious persuasion. For petes sakes the VATICAN repudiates them. And you try to imply that they are emblematic of all conservatives.
 
YOU are exactly the reason that the left is so disrespected, not simply because you present science that is less than conclusive as beyond question but your narrow minded and uninformed disregard for all who disagree with you as beneath your own esteemed and unquestionably superior wisdom.
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Asymmetric's further thoughts....   7/5/2007 12:29:03 PM

 

Alright I have had a good long think about some of the sceptical arguments brought forward and consulted various sources


 


-Despite the fact CO2 emissions have gone up the global temperature has not gone up in relation to this and it hasn’t changed a great deal since the 1970’s


 


A flippant response would be:


 


The hottest 7 summers in the last centaury have all been in the last decade. But I don’t think lowering the argument down to that level should be necessary.  


 


So here is my response:


 


Quite Right, global temperature have not increased as much as CO2 levels have. Neither has CO2 levels increased as much as CO2 EMISSIONS. This is attributed to the oceans ability to absorb CO2; however at any moment it is possible, as anyone with a secondary knowledge of chemistry can tell you, that they could become saturated and reach there limit and when that happens, vast amounts of stored CO2 will be “spewed” out perhaps even the vast methanic clathrates under the arctic seas. This kind of climate inertia makes it very difficult to form corrective measures after the problem has gathered pace.


 


The Suns CHZ (continuously habitable zone) carries out beyond Mars. If Mars had been a bit bigger it would have had oceans. On such a water world you don’t even require life to maintain Gaia-stability. Simple water chemistry keeps CO2 emissions in equilibrium (So all the planetary scientists say anyway and no one, to my knowledge, has ever attempted to refute this ascertain) Around a G type star you have a pretty big CHZ. Speaking astronomically Earth is a bit of an odd ball. We are in fact very close to the inner edge of what the viable CHZ. Our only defence against solar radiation is a transparent atmosphere almost completely clean of greenhouse gases. The Earth will in fact cross the CHZ in about half a billion years time, then we really will be screwed.


 


You can argue about atmospheric science and climatology, but you can’t fight astrophysics.


 


And this leads to science itself coming under attack.


 


There are 2 great hypocrisies with Crichton’s rationalization. “There’s no such thing as scientific consensus” is used as excuse for politician’s which at best have a mandate of 50% of there populace to dismiss the expert opinions and concerns of the overwhelming majority of scientists in the fields of atmospheric science and climatology.


 


The 2nd is the “we need more research” argument that pops up time and time again. What makes this almost treasonous is the very same people who preach it are the very same ones who cut funding to research like NASA’s Earthward studies programs.





Do you have a complete understanding of how the atmosphere works? and where man's activities fit into the puzzle?Clearly you do not sir! In fact we do need to have real science work on these issues you and I agree on that.
Where we seem to disagree is you in your arrogance feel like you are ready to dictate to mankind what it should and should not do. You are basing this upon "models" that can not possibly be accurate and have demonstrated to be conclusions seeking proof, not the other way around.
 
Stow the arrogance and open your eyes to science.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Conservation   7/5/2007 12:49:08 PM
 
I agree in general with Herald's posts on man's ranging in the environment. We should study our impact carefully and work to maintain environmental health as much as we can (but even that is an arrogant thing for me to say!). We desperately need to understand that the planet is a living organism that will continue to evolve around us. For us to survive on it we need to understand its evolution and work to remain at peace with it. There will be more Ice Ages, There will be more droughts, There will even be more asteroid strikes, continental drift, and hurricanes. Waters will rise and fall just as they have for thousands of eons before we stood up, and the thousands of eons when we are long gone. Anyone who says we run this place is nuts. Sadly in most cases when our "brilliant" minds come together and come up with a plan to "manage" nature we in fact screw mother nature and our own place in it.
 
A case in point would be our "management" of forests here in North America. Our nearly century old no burn policy coupled with a two decade old no cut policy has increased the number of trees but not necessarily the health of the forrests. We now have a plague of several malities that are endangering these national treasures because of those policies. Burning and harvesting of trees is in fact healthy for the forests as part of a management tool. It also provides man with natural renewable resources that we need. Over zealousness in our management styles one way or the other seems to create near equal calamities!
 
Man is an imperfect creature but we are trying. With true science and a little trial and error we can live here and enjoy our home, passing it to future generations in better and better shape. Silly tax policies and sweeping edicts from arrogant social engineers will do more to harm the environment and man's place in it.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

Asymmetric       7/6/2007 4:24:36 AM

I seem to be having a bit of a problem converting Microsoft equation editor into posts.

 
 
Quote    Reply

Asymmetric    Open my eyes to science? now who is being arrogant   7/6/2007 6:11:25 AM




 

Alright I have had a good long think about some of the sceptical arguments brought forward and consulted various sources




 




-Despite the fact CO2 emissions have gone up the global temperature has not gone up in relation to this and it hasn’t changed a great deal since the 1970’s




 




A flippant response would be:




 




The hottest 7 summers in the last centaury have all been in the last decade. But I don’t think lowering the argument down to that level should be necessary.  




 




So here is my response:




 




Quite Right, global temperature have not increased as much as CO2 levels have. Neither has CO2 levels increased as much as CO2 EMISSIONS. This is attributed to the oceans ability to absorb CO2; however at any moment it is possible, as anyone with a secondary knowledge of chemistry can tell you, that they could become saturated and reach there limit and when that happens, vast amounts of stored CO2 will be “spewed” out perhaps even the vast methanic clathrates under the arctic seas. This kind of climate inertia makes it very difficult to form corrective measures after the problem has gathered pace.




 




The Suns CHZ (continuously habitable zone) carries out beyond Mars. If Mars had been a bit bigger it would have had oceans. On such a water world you don’t even require life to maintain Gaia-stability. Simple water chemistry keeps CO2 emissions in equilibrium (So all the planetary scientists say anyway and no one, to my knowledge, has ever attempted to refute this ascertain) Around a G type star you have a pretty big CHZ. Speaking astronomically Earth is a bit of an odd ball. We are in fact very close to the inner edge of what the viable CHZ. Our only defence against solar radiation is a transparent atmosphere almost completely clean of greenhouse gases. The Earth will in fact cross the CHZ in about half a billion years time, then we really will be screwed.




 




You can argue about atmospheric science and climatology, but you can’t fight astrophysics.




 




And this leads to science itself coming under attack.




 




There are 2 great hypocrisies with Crichton’s rationalization. “There’s no such thing as scientific consensus” is used as excuse for politician’s which at best have a mandate of 50% of there populace to dismiss the expert opinions and concerns of the overwhelming majority of scientists in the fields of atmospheric science and climatology.




 




The 2nd is the “we need more research” argument that pops up time and time again. What makes this almost treasonous is the very same people who preach it are the very same ones who cut funding to research like NASA’s Earthward studies programs.








Do you have a complete understanding of how the atmosphere works? and where man's activities fit into the puzzle?Clearly you do not sir! In fact we do need to have real science work on these issues you and I agree on that.

Where we seem to disagree is you in your arrogance feel like you are ready to dictate to mankind what it should and should not do. You are basing this upon "models" that can not possibly be accurate and have demonstrated to be conclusions seeking proof, not the other way around.

 

Stow the arrogance and open your eyes to science.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky



 

 

 

I thought I made my point clear Rocky I don’t want to spend time arguing with journalist’s headlines about this. If you want to display your case then find a single peer-reviewed piece of literature in a scientific journal in either 2006/2007 out of the tens of thousands that are available that claim that human activity pla

 
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