Welcome to Van Klompenberg Web Sign in | Join | Help

Dino's Blog

Not worth your time, but now that you're here...

News

Recent Comments

Global Warming - A Rational Look

I caught this article from a fellow blogger.

Basically a well written informational article from one of the few scientists that is willing to tell the truth.  Why???

This guy is a retired scientist.  He has nothing to lose career-wise.  He also seems part of the old-school science that was willing to tell a different story, and follow the data, rather than mold the data.

For me, the most clear part of the article was the description of what scientists stand to lose if they speak out against the hype.  Or more importantly the tactics used by one Al Gore to supress the truth so that his 'Inconvenient Truth' could create profit, both politically, and financially.

One explanation of this may be described by John Ray (M.A., Ph.D.), writing from Brisbane, Australia: “The Holy Grail for most scientists is not truth but research grants. And the global warming scare has produced a huge downpour of money for research. Any mystery why so many scientists claim some belief in global warming?”

This article is so full of worthy quotes, and not too scientific for most of my readers (yeah, shout-out to Mom and Sisters, you too Nina).  This quote is key to understanding the way scientists think, and how little of this you hear on the news.

The measure of good science is neither the politics of the scientist nor the people with whom the scientist associates. It is the immersion of hypotheses into the acid of truth. That’s the hard way to do it, but it’s the only way that works.

Yeah, most great scientists were not necessarily great people, in fact a few chemists were into more chemistry than your standard reactants.  The great scientists are known for their discoveries proven through rigorous science... REAL SCIENCE with data that does not require some elite group to define or interpret.  A group of these scientists, that depend on grants for a paycheck, and any chance of putting there name on an equation/textbook, cannot get together and discuss the correlation between CO2 and Global Temperature without being pressured into making the Gore choice.

 Anyways, I got a lot to say about this, but little time.  Oddly enough, my last post on 'Inconvenient Truth' is still the most read post on this site.  Most searches are for something like: 'Inconvenient Lie'.  People want to know the truth, and the internet is the only place you will find it.  Big media is hiding this, scientists are supressing it.  I am doing my part to keep the debate open, even when the opposition seems to think the debate has already been complete, and they won.

Posted: Thursday, August 30, 2007 11:27 PM by Dino
Filed under:

Comments

Amanda said:

Yeah - another LO from Dino!  Not one that i can really get into, but good nonetheless! :)

# August 31, 2007 5:55 AM

Eric Schuh said:

I for one say who cares if global warming is real or not.  If it gets people to pollute a little less than I am all for it.  What is the harm in people doing good (less pollution) because of a possible lie (global warming).  If climate change is caused by humans it will be too late to act by the time the data is there to prove it.  I am glad you are willing to gamble with your kids futures because you are so sure you are right.  I personally am not.  I can admit I may be wrong, and I hope I am.

# September 7, 2007 1:59 PM

Dino said:

Alright, this is a common response to anyone wishing to shed light on the issue.  Several things I need to address, and a couple worth their own post if I had the time...

The cost of not polluting that will be placed on this country will be dramatic.  If you think for a second that the sheer cost alone will not dramatically impact your children's life, you are mistaken. China does not have to follow our lead. A  good share of pollution comes from China. They still put lead paint into childrens' toys.  American jobs are going to China at an increasing rate, and making it more expensive to do business here will simply make that decision easier. The impact to our children will be as extreme as any potential outcome from the global temperature rising.

FYI, the pollution most people are now worried about (CO2) is required by all plants to survive.  Only recently has it become a toxin that will flood our cities, and ruin our childrens' lives.

From a personal standpoint, I completely agree. What is the harm of limiting your environmental impact. On a governmental level, this is very scary.

# September 10, 2007 7:42 PM

Eric Schuh said:

If we can spend 2 trillion on a worthless war, why can't the government invest a little in alternative energy.  If we came up with something innovative it could create a whole new industry and we could be a world leader in innovative energy solutions.  Instead our leadership is so far up the oil industries behinds that they would not dare cross them.  There are plenty of promising things out there and countries like Germany, Iceland and Brazil are passing us by.  Energy and pollution will be the top problems that we have to deal with in the next few decades (California is seeing them now).  Since this is true the government should be trying to solve this problem.  I would rather see my tax money used for this than to have my tax money blown trying to fight the boogey man over in Iraq when in fact we are creating more problems by being there.

# September 23, 2007 11:18 AM

Eric Schuh said:

Oh and one other thing on the subject.  Water has been around since the beginning of time.  You would think that all has been discovered about it, but a few months ago they just learned they could burn saltwater if they exposed it to radio waves.  If there are still things to learn about water, imagine what 2 trillion dollars could do to teach us how to get get cleaner energy.  The automakers are have a very promising technology in fuel cells with a budgen in the millions.  Saying that reducing our CO2 output is too expensive and leaving it at that is very close minded.  There are a lot of discoveries to be made.  If I would have asked you a year ago about burning salt water you would have said it wasn't possible.  

# September 23, 2007 11:32 AM

Eric Schuh said:

Oh and one more thing.  You mentioned the cost of converting the country to produce less CO2 being too high.  It is estimated that it will cost billions to protect the coastlines of our country from rising seas.  And that figure doesn't protect everthing, just landmarks.  How about the draughts areas will see.  It will cost a fortune for farmers to irragate in draught years.  Plus all that water will eventually take a toll on what we drink.  Water will go through the roof.  Africa is seeing lakes that have sustained life there for centuries dissappearing.  How do you put a price on that?  The death toll will be high.  Living near Lake Michigan you have seen the lakes going down for decades.  How do you put a price on the tourism that has been affected?  What about the frieghters that can no longer get through certain areas.  That all has a price tag.  How do you put a price on the fighting of the future wildfires.  How about the skin cancer cases we will see, what will that cost?  How about the strain on the power grid from all the extra air conditioning as temperatures rise.  What do you think that will do for electricity prices?  You can say it is all cyclical, but it is quite a coindinace that glaciers and lakes that have been around for centuries are dissappearing at a faster rate than at anytime in recorded history.  We need to fight it now.  Anyway I am rambling as the Lions are getting there butts kicked.

# September 23, 2007 12:22 PM

Jim Halpert said:

There is a certain level of irony in your article, which accuses the "Global Warming Conspirators" of discrediting and defaming those that question the existence of global climate change, and in the very next paragraph, uses the same tactics against those that support it:

"This proved to be too great a threat to the environmental myths, and Happer was fired. The guy behind the firing was the powerful and unscientific vice-president Al Gore."

There is not a single shred of science in the entire article, only accusations and a call for "a debate", as if the issue has never been discussed.  The data gathered supporting climate change to this point has pushed us past debates; I would consider a debate on whether the earth is changing due to human influence on the same level as a debate on whether or not man landed on the moon.  There is overwhelming scientific evidence, and denying it is ignorant and dangerous.

In response to "the pollution most people are now worried about (CO2) is required by all plants to survive.  Only recently has it become a toxin that will flood our cities, and ruin our childrens' lives."  That is a very shallow and simplistic way of breaking down pollution.  Amazingly, plants have been around for millions of years, while cars and buses and fossil fuel power plants have only been around for a hundred.  How did plants survive all those millions of years without the enriching benefits of the CO2 emitting industry?  The better question is how the ozone layer is going to survive with the ever increasing levels, and how your children's children are going to survive without an ozone layer.

But hey, changing the way we live might give China a leg up in the global market, so who cares about the future of humanity right?

# September 29, 2007 6:32 AM
Leave a Comment

(required) 

(required) 

(optional)

(required) 

Comment Notification

If you would like to receive an email when updates are made to this post, please register here

Subscribe to this post's comments using RSS