Mass Plankton Die-Off

[dacust]

Originally Posted by mintyspilot

That is the importance of McIntyre. Whether he is right or wrong, regardless of his past. As an agent provocateur if he gets the scientists to vigorously examine and validate their data then science and mankind will benefit. Science works best when its theories and data are challenged. For scientific progress, consensus can be a roadblock.

This is a good point. However, that's one of the fundamental precepts of science. Peer review is just that. Except the people tearing the data and methods apart are other trained scientists. I'm not sure we really need untrained people added to the mix.

If you subscribe to the theory that science is controlled by government funding, then maybe an outsider IS needed. I don't buy that, but I can easily see why someone would. The reason I don't buy it is because I have scientists in my family. I hear how they do their work and how it is decided what they do. I hear how they react to peer review, and the efforts they go through when they do peer review on others work.

Reputation is a fragile thing in the scientific community. If you propose something that everyone thinks is wrong, but your scientific methods stand up, you can survive it. If, as in the case of the team that erroneously thought they had discovered a high-temperature super conductor, it turns out you made a procedural error, your reputation is permanently damaged, even though it was a somewhat understandable error. Those people will have peer reviews from hell for years to come, and even then find it more difficult to publish.

So you can go against the grain when it comes to ideas and theories, but you don't dare do bad scientific procedure.

-dan

[Chief Engineer]

Whether it's cold or whether its hot
we'll have weather
weather or not

IMHO Man made climate change, is just like the Global Cooling Fiasco, the Oil Embargo (which was made up), The DDT lie, government orhestrated islamaphobia etc etc etc any number of things to keep people in fear and not paying attention to the crooks in our governments (worldwide)

It is just like the "man behind the curtain in the Wizard of OZ.

We should be more concerned about starving kids, poor people who live in dirt with out clean water. Rampant disease in underdeveloped countries that can be prevented by simple things like mosquito nets and insecticides.

[hummingway]

Originally Posted by Chief Engineer

Whether it's cold or whether its hot
we'll have weather
weather or not

IMHO Man made climate change, is just like the Global Cooling Fiasco, the Oil Embargo (which was made up), The DDT lie, government orhestrated islamaphobia etc etc etc any number of things to keep people in fear and not paying attention to the crooks in our governments (worldwide)

It is just like the "man behind the curtain in the Wizard of OZ.

We should be more concerned about starving kids, poor people who live in dirt with out clean water. Rampant disease in underdeveloped countries that can be prevented by simple things like mosquito nets and insecticides.

I certainly agree that we should be more concerned by those things but to suggest that man doesn't change climate is to ignore some fairly obvious evidence. I'm not talking global here since that is definately harder for most of us to quantify but anyone who has lived in a city with tall buildings and a lot of concrete has experienced a microcosm of man made climate and I'm not talking about inside the buildings. Increased temperatures in the summer and increased winds year around are halmarks of large cities. The U.S. has created a significant surface of tarmac criss-crossing the country. This has a climatic effect. Acid rain rang a bell?

Man made climate change is a fact of life. Is global climate change resulting from our impact? I read the data as suggesting yes.

Like the DDT lie? Tell that to the raptor population of the U.S. You should be able to find some since they are making a come back. They may have got some of the details wrong but it was real. Maybe some of the details aren't clear with global climate change but I suspect the overarching reality is there.

[hpeer]

Here's for a totally grim view on things.

The underlying problem is that we have far more population than Earth can carry. While there is much argument realistic carrying capacity will likely between 1 and 2 billion some time in the future once we have fossil energy depletion, say around 2200.

This leads to a paradox where caring about people in general means doing things that will increase their health, life and numbers......making the matter worse.

Al Bartlett set out the case pretty well, if a bit long winded. The video, in total, is a bit over an hour.

YouTube - The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See (part 1 of 8)

It becomes increasing difficult to be an awake and aware humanist these days.

[Chief Engineer]

Junkscience.com -- 100 things you should know about DDT

Debunking the DDT MYTH

[dacust]

Originally Posted by Chief Engineer

Junkscience.com -- 100 things you should know about DDT

Debunking the DDT MYTH

From --> Steven Milloy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Steven J. Milloy is a commentator for Fox News and runs the Web site junkscience.com, which is dedicated to debunking what Milloy labels "faulty scientific data and analysis." On Fox News Channel he is billed as a "Junk Science commentator." He is a self-described libertarian, in the American sense of the term.[1]

Among the topics Milloy has addressed are what he believes to be false claims regarding DDT, global warming, Alar, breast implants, secondhand smoke, ozone depletion, and mad cow disease.[2] Milloy also runs CSRWatch.com, which monitors and criticizes the corporate social responsibility movement. From the 1990s until the end of 2005, he was an adjunct scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute, which hosted the JunkScience.com site. He is currently an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Milloy is head of the Free Enterprise Action Fund, a mutual fund he runs with former tobacco executive Tom Borelli. He also operates the Advancement of Sound Science Center, a non-profit organization which is critical of environmental science, from his home in Potomac, Maryland. Milloy has authored four books.

Milloy's close financial and organizational ties to tobacco and oil companies have been the subject of criticism from a number of sources, as Milloy has consistently criticized the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks and human activity to global warming.[3][4]

Hmmm, doesn't sound like a reliable source to me.

-dan

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by dacust

From --> Steven Milloy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hmmm, doesn't sound like a reliable source to me.
-dan

He's not.
Steve Milloy and his JunkScience website can hardly be accepted as objective observers.
The United States Senate Lobby Filing Disclosure Program lists Steve Milloy (founder & publisher of JunkScience.com) as a registered lobbyist for the EOP Group for the years 1998–2000. The guidebook Washington Representatives also listed him as a lobbyist for the EOP Group in 1996. The EOP Group's clients include the American Crop Protection Association (pesticides), the Chlorine Chemistry Council, Edison Electric Institute (fossil and nuclear energy), Fort Howard Corp. (a paper manufacturer) and the National Mining Association. Milloy himself was personally registered as a lobbyist for Monsanto Company and the International Food Additives Council.

Goto ➥ Steven J. Milloy - SourceWatch

[bobsadler]

Nature Conservancy faces potential backlash from ties with BP

how much did steve mcintyre pocket ?

[barnakiel]

It is 97 to 100% clear to me that a scientist may 'make up' science only to receive another grant. As long as climate change generates grants, there will be plenty of (inconclusive) climate change research.

Inconclusive = the change is here (and we do not need the scientists to state so, do we?) but we do not know why it is and how long it will be and if can or cannot (and should or should not) do anything about it.

Why conclude the global warming will be BAD for us? Who knows maybe we will take advantage of it after all?

b.

[dacust]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

It is 97 to 100% clear to me that a scientist may 'make up' science only to receive another grant. As long as climate change generates grants, there will be plenty of (inconclusive) climate change research.

If a scientist makes up science to get a grant, that scientists doesn't last long, or they end up working for a think tank funded by Exxon Mobile.

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Inconclusive = the change is here (and we do not need the scientists to state so, do we?) but we do not know why it is and how long it will be and if can or cannot (and should or should not) do anything about it.

I'm not quite sure I totally follow you, but if you are saying we don't know what the change is and how bad it is (if it does indeed exist) - then I agree. But, since the changes proposed by scientists mostly deal with no polluting and not using up our natural resources at an alarming rate, and only making changes that don't put an unreasonable strain on the world economy - I'm not sure why the resistance to doing something?

As I've said before, we have to separate what the scientists propose from what the politicians (often under the influence of big business) are trying to do.

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Why conclude the global warming will be BAD for us? Who knows maybe we will take advantage of it after all?

b.

This is true. Maybe we will. But, then again, maybe we won't. So, do we make decisions based on the "Maybe we will" only to find we have just made things worse? Or make them based on the "Maybe we won't" and make a hash of that as well? As I siad, the changes proposed by reputable scientists are moderate and just the logical things we should really be doing anyway.

-dan

[S&S]

Originally Posted by dacust

If a scientist makes up science to get a grant, that scientists doesn't last long, or they end up working for a think tank funded by Exxon Mobile.
-dan

Not so sure about that. What's been going on here is: Given imputs A,B, and C my model predicts X.

You can do that for a lot of years without anyone calling you out.

Cosmologists have.

Where the problem arises is when people (usually not scientists) claim that the model is an accurate representation of reality. (Which is what we're seeing)

[osirissail]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

It is 97 to 100% clear to me that a scientist may 'make up' science only to receive another grant. As long as climate change generates grants, there will be plenty of (inconclusive) climate change research.
. . .
Why conclude the global warming will be BAD for us? Who knows maybe we will take advantage of it after all?
b.

I would only suggest the change in the words "make up" to "fixate on one minute aspect of" as a better description. Few, if any, "scientists" have a "comprehensive and inclusive" interest in the whole biosphere and its interactions. There is no money in being a generalist rather than a specialist. Sort of reminds me of the USA medical professions. GP's are as scarce as hen's teeth while plastic surgeons and brain surgeons are a dime a dozen.
- - If you look at the biosphere as a whole over the last few billion years you will find that the epoch's of maximum biological activity existed in the "hot" ones and not in the "ice age" ones. Since we are just coming out of an ice age period, we can only expect more and diverse increases in the biosphere if history is any indication. So "why conclude the global warming will be BAD for us?"
- - As to DDT and population growth from the the "Junkscience" link - there are more than a few "silent conspiracies" about things that would reduce human mortality. These things are absolutely not talked about or admitted by governments and their politicians are very careful not to overdo the safety aspects of this or that.
- - And it all goes back to "world view" versus a microscopic view of the biosphere. The single most important scientific ecological contribution was the simple concept about the "circle of life." If you break one link in the chain, all the organisms suffer or have to alter their life cycle to adapt.
- - As cruisers traveling the oceans of the world we tend to be aware of simple truths. Such as if you eat all the tasty big fish, the non-tasty big fish are all that is left. When they are also eaten then the populations of humans go after the juvenile fish who will never grow up to become reproductive big fish.
- - When we dump billions of tons of "fill dirt" to make more land for condos and industry we kill off the reefs (Jack Cousteau) that harbor baby fish that make big fish, et.al. The example of human fixation on "micro-vision" versus "global vision" are endless.
- - Fixating on CO2 or Methane as the sole cause of GW/CC/AGW/ACC is "micro-vision" whereas concentrating on building efficient industry that reduces environmental pollution while maintaining or increasing jobs is "world-vision" - but there is no instant money in taking the "long term view."

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by osirissail

.............
- - As cruisers traveling the oceans of the world we tend to be aware of simple truths. Such as if you eat all the tasty big fish, the non-tasty big fish are all that is left. When they are also eaten then the populations of humans go after the juvenile fish who will never grow up to become reproductive big fish.
- - When we dump billions of tons of "fill dirt" to make more land for condos and industry we kill off the reefs (Jack Cousteau) that harbor baby fish that make big fish, et.al. The example of human fixation on "micro-vision" versus "global vision" are endless.
- - Fixating on CO2 or Methane as the sole cause of GW/CC/AGW/ACC is "micro-vision" whereas concentrating on building efficient industry that reduces environmental pollution while maintaining or increasing jobs is "world-vision" - but there is no instant money in taking the "long term view."

I don't know that anyone here is advocating "micro-vision", other than perhaps the deniers.

As you draw further and further back to do the root cause analysis then you see that it is a simple problem of human over-population and over-consumption that is polluting our enviornment. Take environment to mean garbage in the Hudson Canyon, filling in wetlands or reefs, mountain top removal, tar sands extraction, fossil water usage, or dumping GW producing compunds into the atmosphere. Remember that the Deep Water oil spill dumped about one day's worth of US oil ussage into the Gulf. We are dumping the same amount of pollution into the atmoshpere every day, only we burn it and turn it into something which does not produce a sheen. Why would you NOT have noticable effects of such massive pollution?

Clearly you "get it" on one level by your example of the big/little fish. Where is the break down in your logic?

Any one who will allow themselves to think clearly will see that we can not sustain growth. In fact negative growth will occur. There is no way to "develop" our way out of this mess.

Read Moby Dick, Melvile argues that the oceans are such a huge resource that we will never be able to deplete the masses of whales. Others made similar arguments. A fellow in Canada, at the advent of steam predicted that motorized vessles would deplete the oceans of fish. He was not wrong, but he was 120 years ahead of his time.

Where are the fish? We ate them!

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by dacust

If a scientist makes up science to get a grant, that scientists doesn't last long, or they end up working for a think tank funded by Exxon Mobile.

Well, in the EU most science is funded by the govt = politics = business. Or else privately = by privately owned companies = business. What results can we expect? Universities are not independent bodies - they are funded by the states and the states are governed by politicians who are funded by business. Sounds like a Matrix and probably is one.

Originally Posted by dacust

As I've said before, we have to separate what the scientists propose from what the politicians (often under the influence of big business) are trying to do.

Except that we know that in some corners of the Earth the scientists and politicians eat from the hand of the businessmen. These corners seem to cover 3/4 of the area of the Earth.

Originally Posted by dacust

This is true. Maybe we will. But, then again, maybe we won't. So, do we make decisions based on the "Maybe we will" only to find we have just made things worse? Or make them based on the "Maybe we won't" and make a hash of that as well? As I siad, the changes proposed by reputable scientists are moderate and just the logical things we should really be doing anyway.

-dan

Agreed. The disappointing fact is that even the little that could be done DOES NOT GET DONE.

I really do not think it matters if what we want to do is a small thing or a big one. What counts is if we are actually doing it.

Example: I live in Canary Islands now. Spain received billions of EUR money in about 10 years after joining the EU. The islands now have hotels and marinas and airports, and yet, two biggest towns here dump their sewage right into the sea and so do vast majority of minor settlements (yes - there are seafood farms and beaches down-current too). And the local community does NOTHING towards saving energy, towards polluting less and protecting more. There is ZERO awareness of why and what can be done. And this thinking is not an isolated local phenomena. I have seen it in Brasil, Panama, Portugal, to name a few worst spots.

You will say it is a special case. Sure. It is. I know Sweden a bit and it is clean and getting cleaner. I know NZ, it used to be bad, but there has been much change and there is high social awareness and will to change. Things are getting better THERE.

The point is that Sweden and NZ can be like 15 million people altogether, how do they count against the 50 million in Spain, 200 million in Brasil, then there are India, China ...

Truly. I do what I can in my own yard, but based on what I have seen around the world there is no future for the planet whatsoever - it is being reaped and polluted at the rate beyond any belief.

Too bad that scientists will not dictate what the future will be.

Regards,
barnie

[dacust]

barnie,

You have given me something to think about in the case of scientists in other nations. My impression has always been that while the funding may come from big government and big business, there is still heavy pressure from the scientific community that they at least produce good science, even if the subject had been chosen by the funding. But, I had not really consciously thought about how many cases where I might be wrong about that.

As to the rest of your post, I agree. Well said.

So, it boils down to: Do we just give up and write it off? Or do what we can, futile though it may seem? For me, I kinda do the middle.

I don't consider myself to be tilting at windmills, but I do what seems reasonable, as long as it doesn't cost me too much (effort/money). I recycle, try not to drive unnecessarily, etc. I try to repair instead of replace. Try to buy used. But I don't have a hybrid car, and I have a boat that only gets about 1.5mph. Put that way, it seems pretty hypocritical of me to be in here preaching, don't it... But, there ya are.

-dan