Science Fiction Fantasy  
Go Back   Science Fiction Fantasy Chronicles: forums > Discussion > World affairs

World affairs News and political events for discussion

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 6th April 2007, 12:17 PM   #61 (permalink)
mercenary
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 47
Re: Global Warming....

Yo check it! If you guys want some old ass gangsta knowledge of the planet and it's cycles and the future of man check out the Mayan prophecy's and any book Jared Diamond writes, -mad respect-
MemmoN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th April 2007, 12:27 PM   #62 (permalink)
'what to eat' fan
 
HardScienceFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1,912
Blog Entries: 1
Re: Global Warming....

Quote:
Originally Posted by MemmoN View Post
Yo check it! If you guys want some old ass gangsta knowledge of the planet and it's cycles and the future of man check out the Mayan prophecy's and any book Jared Diamond writes, -mad respect-
Whoa there,the thread is about anthropogenic global warming,the slow rise of the global MAT*that's mean annual temperature*,as caused by Man.
Most measurements start with the start of the Industrial age,and thus the first large scale use of fossil fuels.
HardScienceFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th April 2007, 12:38 PM   #63 (permalink)
Moderator
 
j. d. worthington's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 13,572
Re: Global Warming....

Quote:
Originally Posted by MemmoN View Post
Yo check it! If you guys want some old ass gangsta knowledge of the planet and it's cycles and the future of man check out the Mayan prophecy's and any book Jared Diamond writes, -mad respect-
Errr..... how can you have the Mayan prophecies and Jared Diamond in the same sentence?

Jared Diamond - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One is strictly nonsensical pseudoscience (last I heard, we still hadn't deciphered the meaning of many of the Maya glyphs), and one is a genuine scientist.....
j. d. worthington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th April 2007, 02:45 PM   #64 (permalink)
I am only an egg
 
TTBRAHWTMG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 420
Re: Global Warming....

For a slightly different take on it...here is a copy of an article forwarded to me a while ago by a local politician. McKitrick, the councilman, and I had met briefly at an event that was supposed to help find ways for local business owners and the university to work together on some local issues. We got to discussing global warming and he forwarded this article on to me. I thought with the recent posts on the UN panel that is was on theme.
P.S. The "accents" or bold face are not mine, nor McKitrick's, but rather the councilman's and I'm not sure about why most of the time...but I'm too lazy to remove them.


The data's limits Dr. Ross McKitrick February 06, 2007
Ross McKitrick is Associate Professor of Economics, University of Guelph
The writing team for the Fraser Institute's Independent Summary for Policymakers included Prof. McKitrick and:
Joseph D'Aleo Chief meteorologist (retired), WSI Corp. Past chairman, American Meteorological Society committee on weather analysis and forecasting. Member, American Meteorological Society council. Fellow, American Meteorological Society. Madhav Khandekar Research scientist (retired), Environment Canada. Editor, Climate Research, 2003-05. Member, editorial board, Natural Hazards, since 1999. William Kininmonth Head (retired) National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology. Previously consultant to the World Meteorological Organization commission for climatology; scientific and technical review co-ordinator, United Nations Task Force on El Nino. Christopher Essex Professor of Applied Mathematics, University of Western Ontario, and associate director, program in theoretical physics. Formerly, NSERC postdoctoral fellow, Canadian Climate Centre. Wibjorn Karlen Professor emeritus, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden . Olavi Karner Senior research associate, Atmospheric Sensing Group, Tartu Astrophysical Observatory, Toravere, Estonia. Ian Clark Professor of Arctic Paleohydrology and Geology, University of Ottawa. Tad Murty Adjunct Professor, Departments of Earth Sciences and Civil Engineering, University of Ottawa. James J. O'BrienRobert O. Lawton Distinguished Professor, Meteorology & Oceanography and director emeritus of the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies, Florida State University. The names of the reviewers can be found in the full ISPM report at www.fraserinstitute.ca.

In Paris last week, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC's latest findings on the physical science of climate change. The 21-page summary is based on a 1,600 page Fourth Assessment Report, a document that remains under official embargo.
The report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released last week is the latest assessment of climate science. A lot of conscientious effort goes into these reports. As someone who has published research critical of past IPCC reports, and as an expert reviewer of the present one, I disagreed with some sections. But I also find that in many places the report is informative and balanced.
Unfortunately, little attention has been paid to past IPCC reports. Most readers instead focus on the short Summary for Policymakers, which starts from a draft prepared by scientists, but then is heavily rewritten by government appointees in a multilateral negotiating process. Past summaries have been criticized for not reflecting the complexity, ambiguity and uncertainty in the underlying reports. They may also distort the underlying report by placing major emphasis on topics that are relatively minor, or by highlighting new and untested research.
This has led to concerns that, whatever the merits of the IPCC report, its summary is not an accurate representation of its contents, and that it reflects a bias towards alarmism and understatement of uncertainty.
For this reason, in 2006 I agreed to coordinate a project on behalf of the Fraser Institute, to produce an Independent Summary for Policymakers (ISPM), which was released yesterday. (And no, despite rumours on the Internet, it was not funded by Exxon.)
The ISPM has been written by qualified scientists, not bureaucrats. Our writing team included a member of the American Meteorological Society governing council, the leader of a climate modelling laboratory, a world-renowned expert on extreme weather and storms, as well as experts in statistics, arctic climatology, atmospheric physics and meteorology.
At no point did the sponsors (the Fraser Institute) exert any editorial control of any kind. Even the question of whether "policymakers" is one word or two was left up to us. By contrast, the IPCC's sponsors -- namely governments -- exert full editorial control, and have in the past forced revisions on text supplied by the scientific team.
While many IPCC contributors and reviewers are listed, no indication is given as to whether they disagreed with the resulting report; nor does the IPCC point out that the scientific community does not review the summary after government negotiators have rewritten it. The ISPM, by contrast, was reviewed by more than 50 scientists around the world, and their review responses are tabulated so that readers can see the extent to which it received their support.
The IPCC summary downplays uncertainty in subtle ways. For instance, the full IPCC report discusses at length the limitations of climate modelling prior to presenting tentative projections, and the IPCC discusses the uncertainty of many key climate data sets as part of its discussion of trends and changes. But the IPCC summary highlights the model projections and data trends as if those underlying uncertainties did not exist. The ISPM, by contrast, provides a full treatment of the uncertainties, along with a discussion of model forecasts and data trends. Consequently it is much longer than the IPCC summary. The extra detail is essential for accuracy.
Every point in the ISPM text is cross-referenced to the exact section of the underlying IPCC report, and wherever possible we have used our best estimate of the IPCC's own wording. For this purpose we worked from the revised draft as released to the expert community in summer 2006, at the close of scientific review. We will check the ISPM against the final text once it is released (possibly in May), and we will issue an appendix to note any changes as needed.
What, then, is the bottom line? Quite simply, it is a mistake to look to the IPCC for a simplistic conclusion, as if one little phrase could sum up a mountain of complex research and ambiguous data. Different readers are interested in different issues, including Arctic sea-ice coverage, the Kilimanjaro glacier, global precipitation trends, tropical tropospheric temperatures, sea levels, Atlantic hurricanes, climate-model accuracy, atmospheric-methane levels, paleoclimatic reconstructions, and dozens more. The ISPM provides a summary of what the IPCC says about these and other issues. People who are used to simplistic Al Gore-style rhetoric will probably find it surprising that the IPCC admits to so much uncertainty.
Still, brief conclusions can be helpful. The writing team agreed on a one-page statement of conclusions that is not in the IPCC text, but which reflects their views. These conclusions were also strongly endorsed by most reviewers. They state, in part:
The available data over the past century can be interpreted within the framework of a variety of hypotheses as to cause and mechanisms for the measured changes. The hypothesis that greenhouse- gas emissions have produced or are capable of producing a significant warming of the Earth's climate since the start of the industrial era is credible, and merits continued attention. However, the hypothesis cannot be proven by formal theoretical arguments, and the available data allow the hypothesis to be credibly disputed.
There is no evidence provided by the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report that the uncertainty can be formally resolved from first principles, statistical hypothesis testing or modelling exercises. Consequently, there will remain an unavoidable element of uncertainty as to the extent that humans are contributing to future climate change, and indeed whether or not such change is a good or bad thing.
For those facing the task of decision-making, an understanding of the real limits of current scientific knowledge is a necessary starting point. The Independent Summary for Policymakers helps to clarify those limits.

Last edited by TTBRAHWTMG; 7th April 2007 at 03:01 PM. Reason: Oops...removed two other articles that were attached to the email
TTBRAHWTMG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th April 2007, 02:51 PM   #65 (permalink)
I am only an egg
 
TTBRAHWTMG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 420
Re: Global Warming....

And here is a copy of a private email sent to me from a municipal level politician in the city I grew up in. We've kept in touch and I had forwarded him the previous article along with some other issues we were discussing. This was his response.



I congratulate you on your energy!

I studied the glacial period, the Wurm maxima etc in Universityat the undergraduate and graduate level. I studied climatology somewhat with the geomorphology changes for the Ontario landscape. I have been watching changes in temperature in Mississauga for 25 years. I heard my first lecture on potential changes for Ontario in the early 1980's. One of my reasons for taking up again in 1982, my earlier tree planting of 1975 to 1980 was personal action within my specific environment because of fear of climate change. Naturalization and tree planting ensued for 20 years more. You will recall me inviting you to the tree planting for the first in Streetsville in 1992 when I took over that part of the city, when the former city manager, a forester, led that day's plant. Road slopes with heavy grass (remove grass cutting) and planted trees was to slow down water movement, increase absorption in a future during increased summer droughts. I planted through volunteers an average of 4500 potted trees per year throughout the 1980 and 1990s. My reason for pushing the fisherman to get involved The Credit River Anglers, was to reduce the rotting fish but to learn through their stewardship what was coming in a warmer future ( toxic temperature for trout 73'F and plus and minus for different cold water species. Vicky Barron initiated a lecture at the CVCA, which painted a troubled future for the watershed. I push through soil conservation measures, participated in the GTA Blue Ribbon Air Quality Task Force, created the air quality committee at Mississauga etc etc.

I have "wanted to believe" that climate change could be controlled through control of the CO2 for no better reason that it would then be within our power to change the future. Sadly, like DTT it is the policy wanks much like myself that drive the public agenda. Morris Strong was very instrumental in Kyoto with no science background what ever. While for the average university graduate I am well informed, I do not have the science background sufficient to challenge any of the major propositions. I just read and consider.

My personal conclusion is that Kyoto is more politics and ideology than science. It is about redistribution of wealth in North America through buying and more selling of emission credits. It is driven by people with a fear of industrialization, of free enterprise market driven economies, by people like Strong with great sympathies and personal contacts in socialist and communist countries like China. Morris Strong has financial interests in China dealing monies from such credits. Behind it is a fear and jealousy at best and hatred at worse of United States free economies. They know little of the economic history since 1900, little of the Stalin and Mao tyrannies, the major economic failures hidden for so long until the signs of implosion became to obvious to ignore. If technologies of computers are challenged by our bank and credit card systems, how does a world wide system manage fairly and honestly such a system of credits? It can not. Even the small in comparison “medicine for oil Iraqi system” in short order became riddled by corruption feeding Saddam's greed and hubris. Surprising that those youth who can not believe in a God of the universe can believe with such passionate faith in a collectivist alternative scheme hatched by non-scientist to control such a complex world climate system. It is beyond rational thought!

Let us assume for a moment that those that hatched it such as Ms May, in the early 1990' believed so strongly, why was so little thought given to how specifically a small player like Canada would implement and manage sector by sector? Could it be that those with skills other than science, technologies and economics, with experience from affluent family household with an abundance of technical appliances, just "knew with the faith of Al Gore" that such technologies would just appear as they desired? The hard factual reality is that they did nothing for a decade with any practical implementation systems. Our previous governments with such catchy talk of what they might do repeated ad nosium, with no real understanding of any of it, could and did nothing from 1990 until 2005.

I fear our politicians in the main know nothing of the science and little of the practical politics behind Kyoto. They sniff the air for signs and scent of fear and they go for it like sharks to blood. Scientist short on communications fear to tell the political beast the truth. Yet the ground swell of energy has been created world wide with as much understanding of either the science or the systems of implementation as cheer leaders at the side of a game.

What I do know from my research is the science is thin. It is not conclusive. The modelers, who can not predict the simple Sunday’s weather with any great clarity, feel they can predict the much more complex climate systems over geologic time. I have my common sense doubt. The sound of the discuss has a great ring of a medieval theology sermon on the damnation of sin, the tests of witch craft, and the self righteous searching for the signs of the true believer or whether there is an underlining heresy of the unbeliever.

Then there are just too many truly bright top science specialists who agree from what other scientist are saying that there is surely climate change, which is not the debate, but that controlling CO2 will have as much impact on climate as the fart in a stiff wind. I have concluded there is too much flatulent in the discussion of CO2 controls. I have articles on them if you wish to read them but my suspicion Peter is that your membership may be a true “holy roller” in an evangelical belief.

I do know that China, without considering India, is creating new CO2 emissions each year in just electric power generation (520 million tonnes) as great as 70% (69.3) of the total 750 million tonnes of the Canadian economy ( not electric power generation but the total of the economy). So a complete destruction of the Canadian economy will have such a small impact as to be hardly measurable! Using the Canadian vernacular again a snow flake in a Blizzard) That is a fact that can not be contested.

I do know that the signs of existing European emissions trading (total within Europe) have had little positive effect. I know that the world wide trading has added to China and to corruption.

Without really knowing (if great scientists disagree, who is little me!), but a terrible feeling in my gut, I think that Dr. Nir Shaviv of Israel's Racah Institute of Physics, who found that the sun dominates climate change, is right. He is supported by Russia's Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the space research laboratory of the country's renowned Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory, a member of Russia's Academy of Science, who thinks we are heading into another cold period starting in 2012. At best, climate change will have minor gains in the Northern Hemesphere and some negatives in the South. At best sea level rising will continue to be scaled downward. At worst is that we are heading into a minor ice age like the 1840 in which agricultural product fell dramatically. Without more research on all fronts, I fear that a successful CO2 programme, instead of pollution control, will result in no appreciable improvement in temperatures. As one scientist claims it may help moderate the coming cold.
However, if you are really interested, I have much of the contrary position in articles. I have followed it because of my fear that my hope for a CO2 solution, despite economic negatives, is folly so I need to be informed rather than at 64 take up a new spirited religious experience.
TTBRAHWTMG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th April 2007, 03:09 PM   #66 (permalink)
'what to eat' fan
 
HardScienceFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1,912
Blog Entries: 1
Re: Global Warming....

TT,
take it from me,the issue should be far from resolved yet,but isn't.
Read my earlier posts,when you have the time.
I find it the focus on GW worldwide tiresome at times,as there is a general depredation and devastation of the planet going on,biodiversity is threatened,pollution is rampant,there's whaling,coral reef bleaching,
human refugee streams.
THE FOLLOWING IS NOT A PLUG
read e.g.Climate Dynamics,Global and Planetary Change,Global Biogeochemical cycles etc,if you want the facts.Most large-scale reports are full of biases.
BTW,according to a BBC documentary US conclusions on climate change were censored,some unpopular conclusions were edited*edited away,in some cases* to such an extent that the scientist in question resigned in disgust.......Said report was called 'impartial' by the Bush administration.
Yeah,and I am the Easter Bunny.
HardScienceFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th April 2007, 03:27 PM   #67 (permalink)
I am only an egg
 
TTBRAHWTMG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 420
Re: Global Warming....

HSF: I'll do that (read them I mean)

Oops: When I edited my earlier post, I cut some of what I meant to be on there...the email is garbled and changes font, etc...but you can get it. Again the bold face portions are not mine.

Climate Change Report-Inside the science , February 06, 2007

In Paris last week, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC's latest findings on the physical science of climate change. The 21-page summary is based on a 1,600 page Fourth Assessment Report, a document that remains under official embargo.
ROLE OF THE SUN
IPCC summary The summary reduced the role of the sun as a possible contributor to 20th-century climate change. "Changes in solar irradiance since 1750 are estimated to cause a radiative forcing [causing an increase in surface temperatures] of +0.12 W m2 [Watts per square metre], which is less than half the estimate given in the [last report in 2001]." The summary listed solar activity as the only natural possible cause of global warming in 2005, making up only 3.9% of the total, compared with the 95% that it attributed to greenhouse-gas emissions.
IPCC science The full report found strong evidence that the sun contributes to global warming, but could obtain no consensus on the importance of solar activity. In its measure of scientific consensus, it assigned a grade of "3", reserved for areas that have the lowest level of agreement on a scale of 1 to 3. In its Level of Scientific Understanding measure, it assigned a level of "Low."
"An unequivocal determination of specific mechanisms, whether direct or indirect, that involve solar variability and climate has yet to be accomplished." Also, "Only two out of 23 climate models account for the effects of time-varying solar changes."
MODEL UNCERTAINTY
IPCC summary "A major advance of this assessment of climate projections ... is the large number of simulations available from a broader range of models. Taken together with additional information from observations, these provide a quantitative basis for estimating likelihoods for many aspects of future climate change. Model simulations cover a range of possible futures, including idealized emission or concentration assumptions. The new assessment of the likely ranges [of temperature change over the 21st century] now relies on a larger number of climate models of increasing complexity and realism, as well as new information regarding the nature of feedbacks from the carbon cycle and constraints on climate response from observations."
IPCC science "Uncertainty of climate change projections has always been a subject of previous IPCC assessments, and there has been considerable new work done on this topic. In particular, it is important to keep in mind the sources and propagation of uncertainty in climate model projections. First, there are multiple emission scenarios for the 21st century, and even at this first stage there is uncertainty with regard to what will be the future time-evolution of emissions of various forcing agents, such as greenhouse gases (GHGs). Then these emissions must be converted to concentrations of constituents in the atmosphere. Gas cycle models must be employed, and these models include their own set of parameterizations, assumptions and caveats. Then the concentrations in the atmospheric models produce radiative forcing that acts on the climate system within the atmospheric model components, each with their own radiation schemes and other formulations that affect radiative forcing. Finally, the modelled coupled climate system takes those radiative forcings and produces a future simulated climate. The components of the atmosphere, ocean, sea ice and land surface in each model interact with their sets of strengths and weaknesses to produce a spread of outcomes for future climate.
"Thus at every step in this process, there are uncertainties and assumptions that must be made to proceed from emissions to concentrations to radiative forcing, and eventually to simulated climate changes and impacts.'
All of the quotations in the IPCC science segments are taken directly from the 1,600-page assessment report prepared by the IPCC.
SNOW COVER

IPCC summary A major graphic, above, shows declining Northern Hemisphere snow cover as part of evidence for recent climate change impact. The graphic measures Northern Hemisphere for March-April. The graphic shows snow cover to be stable since 1920, falling in the 1980s, and then rising slightly in the 1990s.
IPCC science "Over the entire span of significant data (1922 to 2004) the mean Northern Hemisphere snow cover in October shows a statistically significant increase." "In North America the trend in November- January snow-covered area over the 20th century is upward overall." "Lowland areas of central Europe have exhibited decreased snow-covered area, while increased maximum snow depth has been recorded in the former Soviet Union, Tibet and China." "In South America, a long term increasing trend in snow days has been observed in the eastern central Andes."
"Snow-cover trends in mountain regions of Europe are characterized by large regional and altitudinal variations. Recent declines in snow cover have been documented in the mountains of Switzerland, but no change was observed in Bulgaria over the 1931-2000 period."
As for Antarctic snow, "Current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall."
TTBRAHWTMG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th April 2007, 03:40 PM   #68 (permalink)
'what to eat' fan
 
HardScienceFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1,912
Blog Entries: 1
Re: Global Warming....

Quote:
Originally Posted by TTBRAHWTMG View Post
HSF: I'll do that (read them I mean)
I sure hope you live near a University library then.These journals R
EXPENSIVE,and I mean EXPENSIVE
HardScienceFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th April 2007, 03:52 PM   #69 (permalink)
I am only an egg
 
TTBRAHWTMG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 420
Re: Global Warming....

Quote:
Originally Posted by HardScienceFan View Post
I sure hope you live near a University library then.These journals R
EXPENSIVE,and I mean EXPENSIVE
LOL...I guess my response WAS ambiguous...I was referring to your posts.

I am one of those guys that is always looking for a hard answer to help solidify my personal position on an issue (and rarely if ever finding one). This particular issue has proven particularly slippery when I pursue it...and even though I was referring to your posts, I will probably try to read the journals you referenced as well (eventually...geeze the reading list is huge...and even though I believe I have a responsibility to inform myself, I admit my fiction and especially my Heinlein always take priority...it is just so much more fun!). I don't know if it is the same elsewhere, but here many of our universities are specialized. I live close to a university that has two specialties; environmental science and veterinarian science. So I imagine I should be able to gain access to those journals.
TTBRAHWTMG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th April 2007, 03:57 PM   #70 (permalink)
'what to eat' fan
 
HardScienceFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1,912
Blog Entries: 1
Re: Global Warming....

Quote:
Originally Posted by TTBRAHWTMG View Post
LOL...I guess my response WAS ambiguous...I was referring to your posts.
I am one of those guys that is always looking for a hard answer to help solidify my personal position on an issue (and rarely if ever finding one). I don't know if it is the same elsewhere, but here many of our universities are specialized. I live close to a university that has two specialties; environmental science and veterinarian science. So I imagine I should be able to gain access to those journals.
Probably;What do U mean by:'looking for the hard answer?'
Are U looking the hard way for the correct answer?
HardScienceFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th April 2007, 04:04 PM   #71 (permalink)
I am only an egg
 
TTBRAHWTMG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 420
Re: Global Warming....

Quote:
Originally Posted by HardScienceFan View Post
Probably;What do U mean by:'looking for the hard answer?'
Are U looking the hard way for the correct answer?
Sorry...again with the ambiguity...by "hard" I meant a finite, empirical, measurable, verifiable bottom line. Something that allows me to form an informed opinion based on hard data. I admit, I can almost never come to one on any issue, but that doesn't stop my pursuit of one.
TTBRAHWTMG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th April 2007, 04:07 PM   #72 (permalink)
'what to eat' fan
 
HardScienceFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1,912
Blog Entries: 1
Re: Global Warming....

Quote:
Originally Posted by TTBRAHWTMG View Post
Sorry...again with the ambiguity...I meant a finite, empirical, measurable, verifiable bottom line. Something that allows me to form an informed opinion based on hard data. I admit, I can almost never come to one on any issue, but that doesn't stop my pursuit of one.
David Byrne:
Facts,facts,they don't do
what I want them to
They all come
with points of view
In this world,to get to the bottom line,U need SCUBA,and some new search engines,perhaps?
HardScienceFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th April 2007, 04:15 PM   #73 (permalink)
I am only an egg
 
TTBRAHWTMG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 420
Re: Global Warming....

Quote:
Originally Posted by HardScienceFan View Post
David Byrne:
Facts,facts,they don't do
what I want them to
They all come
with points of view
In this world,to get to the bottom line,U need SCUBA,and some new search engines,perhaps?
While I agree with the above, I attempt to strip others' opinion out of the facts, review them for myself, and form my own "point of view". I will then return to others' POV for discussion, debate, different interpretations, and ofcourse reforming my own POV. Global warming has been a big thorn for me due to my lack of education, and the complexity of the data.

As far as the internet goes, a great tool to be sure, but I'm afraid it spreads misinformation far wider and faster than "hard" information.
TTBRAHWTMG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th April 2007, 04:20 PM   #74 (permalink)
'what to eat' fan
 
HardScienceFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1,912
Blog Entries: 1
Re: Global Warming....

Quote:
Originally Posted by TTBRAHWTMG View Post
As far as the internet goes, a great tool to be sure, but I'm afraid it spreads misinformation far wider and faster than "hard" information.
'and so it came to be that TT and HSF started INFONET,the independent non-profit database,literature cross-referencing service,etc.'
Internet is SNAFU
HardScienceFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th April 2007, 04:26 PM   #75 (permalink)
I am only an egg
 
TTBRAHWTMG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 420
Re: Global Warming....

Quote:
Originally Posted by HardScienceFan View Post
'and so it came to be that TT and HSF started INFONET,the independent non-profit database,literature cross-referencing service,etc.'
Internet is SNAFU
LOL! Don't get me wrong...I LOOOOOOVE the internet...an amazing tool, especially when I'm looking up a quote, or verifying the meaning of a word, or looking at...well lets leave that alone. Just seems to me that the more important the issue to me, the more crap and nonsense I have to wade through to find anything tangible on it.
TTBRAHWTMG is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.