Forums

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages 
Global Warming and Climate Change
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 107, 108, 109 ... 130, 131, 132  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> New Science
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
AngelAliceOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Total posts: 723
Location: marshy middle ground
Gender: Female
PostPosted: 28-04-2012 16:52    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pietro_Mercurios wrote:


Nice animated graphic, from the skeptical science website, explaining Global warming from both the, 'realist and the 'skeptic', viewpoints.

http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/oo252/Pursuivant/SkepticsvRealists_500.gif
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

AngelAlice wrote:
...
Quote:
So, simply repeating the nonsense emanating from Koch Bros & Big Oil backed think tanks and bloggers, including the likes of Alex Jones, won't change that.


That 'Big Oil' argument just won't wash any more will it? You don't need to work for Exxon to notice the AGW theory has got into trouble or be aware there are other theories that seem to fit the facts better.

...

Even more nonsense. There's be no bigger attempt to obfuscate and obscure the true state of the game, since Big Tobacco set out to hide the truth about smoking and cancer.
Quote:
http://www.desmogblog.com/slamming-the-climate-skeptic-scam

...

Few PR offences have been so obvious, so successful and so despicable as this attack on the science of climate change. It has been a triumph of disinformation – one of the boldest and most extensive PR campaigns in history, primarily financed by the energy industry and executed by some of the best PR talent in the world. As a public relations practitioner, it is a marvel – and a deep humiliation – and I want to see it stop.

Here’s how it works: Public relations is not a process of telling people what to think; people are too smart for that, and North Americans are way too stubborn. Tell a bunch of North Americans what they are supposed to think and you’re likely to wind up the only person at the party enjoying your can of New Coke.

No, the trick to executing a good PR campaign is twofold: you figure out what people are thinking already; and then you nudge them gently from that position to one that is closer to where you want them to be. The first step is research: you find out what they know and understand; you identify the specific gaps in their knowledge. Then you fill those gaps with a purpose-built campaign. You educate. If people are afraid to take Tylenol (as they were after someone poisoned some pills), you explain the extensive safety precautions now typical in the pharmaceutical industry. If people think Martha Stewart is arrogant and uncaring, you create opportunities for her to show a more human side.

In the best cases – the cases that are most personally rewarding – your advice actually guides corporate behavior. That is, if a client wants to protect or revive their reputation, if they want to convince the public that they’re running a responsible company and doing the right thing, the most obvious public relations advice is that they should do the right thing.

It’s the kind of advice that, historically, has been a hard sell in the tobacco industry, in the asbestos industry - and too often in the automotive industry. Those sectors have provided some of the most famous examples of PR disinformation: “smoking isn’t necessarily bad for you;” “it’s not certain that asbestos will give you cancer;” “your seatbelt might actually kill you if you’re the one person in five trillion whose buckle jams just as your car flips into a watery ditch.”

But few PR offences have been so obvious, so successful and so despicable as the attack on the scientific certainty of climate change. Few have been so coldly calculating and few have been so well documented. For example, Ross Gelbspan, in his books, The Heat is On and Boiling Point sets out the whole case, pointing fingers and naming names. PR Watch founder John Stauber has done similarly exemplary work, tracking the bogus campaigns and linking various pseudo scientists to their energy industry funders.

... In the meantime, one of the best proofs of climate disinformation came in a November 2002 memo from political consultant Frank Luntz to the U.S. Republican Party. Luntz followed the rules: he did the research; he identified the soft spots in public opinion; and he made a clever critical judgment about which way the public could be induced to move.

In a section entitled “Winning the Global Warming Debate,” Luntz says this:

The Scientific Debate Remains Open. Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.

...

The anti-AGW disinformation campaign continues.



P - There IS a lack of scientific certainty, that's just a fact. And it doesn't become less of a fact because this or that person wants to use it for political reasons.

The real problem here is that a scientific issue has become turned into a political game. One side wants to claim AGW is a fact and use that to further their own interests, and one side wants to claim AGW is impossible and use that to further *their* interests. And the first casualty in this is - as ever - truth.

The real, non-political truth is AGW is neither a fact nor an impossibility. It's somewhere in that muddled middle ground. It might be true, or partly true, or wholly false, and only time and research will tell. But as long as people continue to take up polarised, non-scientific positions like yours then the politics will continue to win out over science and we'll all be the worse off for it.
Back to top
View user's profile 
ramonmercadoOffline
Psycho Punk
Joined: 19 Aug 2003
Total posts: 20669
Location: Dublin
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 29-04-2012 13:52    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Did climate change shape human evolution?
http://phys.org/news/2012-04-climate-human-evolution.html
April 24th, 2012 in Other Sciences / Archaeology & Fossils

Homo erectus, Museum of Natural History, Ann Arbor, Mich. Credit: Thomas Roche/San Francisco

(Phys.org) -- As human ancestors rose on two feet in Africa and began their migrations across the world, the climate around them got warmer, and colder, wetter and drier. The plants and animals they competed with and relied upon for food changed. Did the shifting climate play a direct role in human evolution?

The evidence so far is thin, said Richard Leakey, the renowned paleoanthropologist and conservationist who joined a score of scientists delivering their findings at a conference on climate change and human evolution this week, held at Columbia’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.
“Is there evidence for a direct connection between changing climate and human evolution?” Leakey asked during a keynote address Thursday. “The answer so far is no. I don’t see it yet.”

Still, a number of scientists are on the hunt. Speakers talked about changes in plants and animals, and how fluctuations in temperature and rainfall would have altered the landscapes. They’re studying what carbon isotopes in soil can tell us about changing plant life and temperature; what hominid teeth suggest about changes in diet; and what sediment cores from the bottom of the ocean have to say about variations in monsoon rainfall.
What did all this mean for our ancestors? If the climate affected human evolution, “there should be a substantial adaptive response,” Leakey said. But with a limited fossil record, “We are stuck with this very, very narrow vision” of human evolution, Leakey said.

Leakey has been in the middle of the search for human ancestors for decades, following in the footsteps of his famous parents, the archeologists Louis and Mary Leakey, whose work at Olduvai Gorge in northern Tanzania was key to the understanding of human evolution. He lives in Kenya, where he has been active in politics and conservation; he also is a professor of anthropology at Stony Brook University.

Leakey suggested the focus of research should be on trying to answer four key questions:

First, what would have prompted hominids to go bipedal – standing upright with the big toe pointing straight ahead?

“Standing upright on two legs is not only an odd way to be,” he said, “but a huge adaptation to what was going on.”

Second, what prompted our ancestors to begin using one tool to make another, and when: “The use of stone to make stone that can cut flesh is important. We’re not empirical things, we’re thinkers. … What was it that triggered that response?”

The third point has to do with the first migration of hominids out of Africa, when homo erectus spread into Asia and Europe. “At some point about 1.8 million years ago, a hominid shoes up in Europe. That implies experience with different environments, and that implies technology,” Leakey said. But, he asked, why didn’t that hominid continue to thrive?
Lastly, what drove the second migration of hominids — this time homo sapiens — out of Africa?

For more on the conference, visit the web site. Stay tuned for a video of the talks, which will be available at the site in the future. Professor Peter deMenocal, a paleoclimatologist at Lamont-Doherty and vice chairman of the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, organized the conference, which brought in scientists from around the world to talk about their latest research.

Provided by Columbia University
Back to top
View user's profile 
Pietro_Mercurios
Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 30-04-2012 17:38    Post subject: Reply with quote

AngelAlice wrote:
Pietro_Mercurios wrote:


Quote:
...

In a section entitled “Winning the Global Warming Debate,” Luntz says this:

The Scientific Debate Remains Open. Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.

...

The anti-AGW disinformation campaign continues.



P - There IS a lack of scientific certainty, that's just a fact. And it doesn't become less of a fact because this or that person wants to use it for political reasons.

...


Round and round the garden, like a teddy bear! Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile 
TinFinger_Offline
Yeti
Joined: 21 Aug 2005
Total posts: 95
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 30-04-2012 19:41    Post subject: Reply with quote

Science has already shown that the climate has always changed
the current "human"period has been unusually calm compared to the past
this fact is always ignored
they say the impact of humans etc
but id say flatulence from herbivorses was a factor in the past that would have been comparable

this simply isnt the kind of thing people who like the global warming theroy likes to hear

Science is more of a religion than Christianity currently is,to deny gobal warming is heresy
Back to top
View user's profile 
Pietro_Mercurios
Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 01-05-2012 07:25    Post subject: Reply with quote

TinFinger_ wrote:
Science has already shown that the climate has always changed
the current "human"period has been unusually calm compared to the past
this fact is always ignored
they say the impact of humans etc
but id say flatulence from herbivorses was a factor in the past that would have been comparable

this simply isnt the kind of thing people who like the global warming theroy likes to hear

Science is more of a religion than Christianity currently is,to deny gobal warming is heresy

Mostly because it's either conflating vast geological time spans, or totally unsupported by the available evidence.

Elsewhere on this board posters have been bemoaning all the extreme green types for their views, but at least the green types aren't busily trying to herd their fellows off catastrophe's cliff, propelled by their own gaseous effusions.

Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile 
TinFinger_Offline
Yeti
Joined: 21 Aug 2005
Total posts: 95
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 01-05-2012 22:02    Post subject: Reply with quote

wouldnt you agree that since we have measured how the environment it is expected to stay the same for ever?
if it dose not it is for a reason that is currently called "global warming"
i propose that the environment will do what it pleases,as it has been proven to do
regardless of the weather patterns for the last few hundred years

is its obvious that regardless of the time scale that things will change as they always have

id say the whole debate is about how to make money,stay in a job and raise taxes.while pointing at the usual changes in the weather

will you deny that science has become a religion ?as it will crush any thought that isnt within doctorine.
yes the crazy people need policing but history has shown this isnt what has happend within science has it.
Back to top
View user's profile 
rynner2Offline
What a Cad!
Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Total posts: 25272
Location: Under the moon
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 01-05-2012 22:20    Post subject: Reply with quote

TinFinger_ wrote:
yes the crazy people need policing..

So true! Wink
Back to top
View user's profile 
Pietro_Mercurios
Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 01-05-2012 22:27    Post subject: Reply with quote

TinFinger wrote:
wouldnt you agree that since we have measured how the environment it is expected to stay the same for ever?
...

What does that even mean? confused
Back to top
View user's profile 
Ronson8Offline
Things can only get better.
Joined: 31 Jul 2001
Total posts: 6300
Location: MK
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 01-05-2012 22:54    Post subject: Reply with quote

rynner2 wrote:
TinFinger_ wrote:
yes the crazy people need policing..

So true! Wink
Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile 
AngelAliceOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Total posts: 723
Location: marshy middle ground
Gender: Female
PostPosted: 02-05-2012 17:23    Post subject: Reply with quote

AngelAlice wrote:
The real, non-political truth is AGW is neither a fact nor an impossibility. It's somewhere in that muddled middle ground. It might be true, or partly true, or wholly false, and only time and research will tell. But as long as people continue to take up polarised, non-scientific positions like yours then the politics will continue to win out over science and we'll all be the worse off for it.

Pietro_Mercurios wrote:

Round and round the garden, like a teddy bear! Laughing


Sigh....With that insight and rare grasp of the complexities involved you should start a climate blog. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile 
ramonmercadoOffline
Psycho Punk
Joined: 19 Aug 2003
Total posts: 20669
Location: Dublin
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 02-05-2012 17:50    Post subject: Reply with quote

AngelAlice wrote:
AngelAlice wrote:
The real, non-political truth is AGW is neither a fact nor an impossibility. It's somewhere in that muddled middle ground. It might be true, or partly true, or wholly false, and only time and research will tell. But as long as people continue to take up polarised, non-scientific positions like yours then the politics will continue to win out over science and we'll all be the worse off for it.

Pietro_Mercurios wrote:

Round and round the garden, like a teddy bear! Laughing


Sigh....With that insight and rare grasp of the complexities involved you should start a climate blog. Wink


Hes just pointing that these things are cyclical.
Back to top
View user's profile 
AngelAliceOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Total posts: 723
Location: marshy middle ground
Gender: Female
PostPosted: 02-05-2012 18:50    Post subject: Reply with quote

ramonmercado wrote:
AngelAlice wrote:
AngelAlice wrote:
The real, non-political truth is AGW is neither a fact nor an impossibility. It's somewhere in that muddled middle ground. It might be true, or partly true, or wholly false, and only time and research will tell. But as long as people continue to take up polarised, non-scientific positions like yours then the politics will continue to win out over science and we'll all be the worse off for it.

Pietro_Mercurios wrote:

Round and round the garden, like a teddy bear! Laughing


Sigh....With that insight and rare grasp of the complexities involved you should start a climate blog. Wink


Hes just pointing that these things are cyclical.


Ohh...I thought he was just being rude Wink

Sorry, P. Smile


Last edited by AngelAlice on 02-05-2012 19:12; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile 
AngelAliceOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Total posts: 723
Location: marshy middle ground
Gender: Female
PostPosted: 02-05-2012 19:11    Post subject: Reply with quote

Apparently "a working paper published by the UK's Department for International Development in 2010 cited the need to fight climate change as one of the key reasons for pressing ahead with such programmes..."

UK aid helps to fund forced sterilisation of India's poor

Quote:
Tens of millions of pounds of UK aid money have been spent on a programme that has forcibly sterilised Indian women and men, the Observer has learned. Many have died as a result of botched operations, while others have been left bleeding and in agony. A number of pregnant women selected for sterilisation suffered miscarriages and lost their babies.

The UK agreed to give India £166m to fund the programme, despite allegations that the money would be used to sterilise the poor in an attempt to curb the country's burgeoning population of 1.2 billion people.

Sterilisation has been mired in controversy for years. With officials and doctors paid a bonus for every operation, poor and little-educated men and women in rural areas are routinely rounded up and sterilised without having a chance to object. Activists say some are told they are going to health camps for operations that will improve their general wellbeing and only discover the truth after going under the knife.

Court documents filed in India earlier this month claim that many victims have been left in pain, with little or no aftercare. Across the country, there have been numerous reports of deaths and of pregnant women suffering miscarriages after being selected for sterilisation without being warned that they would lose their unborn babies.

Yet a working paper published by the UK's Department for International Development in 2010 cited the need to fight climate change as one of the key reasons for pressing ahead with such programmes. The document argued that reducing population numbers would cut greenhouse gases, although it warned that there were "complex human rights and ethical issues" involved in forced population control.



So, government agencies are using a currently unproven and partially discredited theory about why the planet has recently warmed a few part of a degree as a reason for backing forcible sterilisation?

Where do we see this going? Anywhere good?
Back to top
View user's profile 
MythopoeikaOffline
I am a meat popsicle
Joined: 18 Sep 2001
Total posts: 10460
Location: Not far from Bedford
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 02-05-2012 19:32    Post subject: Reply with quote

AngelAlice wrote:
Where do we see this going? Anywhere good?


Nope. I saw this coming. It'll happen elsewhere.

Edit: India does seem to have a worse problem even than China, and this is the ham-fisted way they attack it. Family planning hasn't worked, so this is 'plan B' (I'd say).
Back to top
View user's profile 
rynner2Offline
What a Cad!
Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Total posts: 25272
Location: Under the moon
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 02-05-2012 21:46    Post subject: Reply with quote

Plants flower faster than climate change models predict
By Matt McGrath, Science reporter, BBC World Service

Scientific models are failing to accurately predict the impact of global warming on plants, says a new report.
Researchers found in long-term studies that some are flowering up to eight times faster than models anticipate.
The authors say that poor study design and a lack of investment in experiments partly account for the difference.

They suggest that spring flowering and leafing will continue to advance at the rate of 5 to 6 days per year for every degree celsius of warming.
The results were published in the journal Nature.

For more than 20 years, scientists have been carrying out experiments to mimic the impacts of rising temperatures on the first leafing and flowering of plant species around the world.
Researchers had assumed that plants would respond in essentially the same way to experimental warming with lamps and open top chambers as they would to changes in temperatures in the real world.

Very little has been done to test the assumption until this study lead by Dr Elizabeth Wolkovich, who is now at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver.
With her colleagues she studied the timing of the flowering and leafing of plants in observational studies and warming experiments spanning four continents and 1,634 plant species.

According to Dr Wolkovich, the results were a surprise.
"What we found is that the experiments don't line up with the long term data, and in fact they greatly underestimate how much plants change their leafing and flowering with warming," she said.
"So for models based on experimental data, then we would expect that plants are leafing four times faster and flowering eight times faster in the long term historical record than what we're using in some of the models."


Observational data have been gathered by scientific bodies for many years. In the UK, the systematic recording of flowering times dates back to 1875, when the Royal Meteorological Society established a national network of observers.
Since then, data has also been recorded by full-time biologists and part-time enthusiasts, and in recent years there have been mass-participation projects such as BBC Springwatch.

This new research suggests that these observations of flowering and leafing carried out in many different parts of the world over the past thirty years are remarkably similar according to Dr Wolkovich.
"In terms of long term observations, the records are very coherent and very consistent and they suggest for every degree celsius of warming we get we are going to get a five- to six-day change in how plants leaf and flower."

She argues that the difficulties in mimicking the impacts of nature in an artificial setting are much greater than many scientists estimate. The team found that in some cases the use of warming chambers to artificially raise temperatures can sometimes have the opposite effect.

"In the real world, we don't just see changes in temperature - we see changes in precipitation and cloud patterns and other factors - so certainly when you think about replicating changes in clouds, we are very, very far away from being able to do that.
"I guess we will never get to perfectly match nature, but I am hopeful as scientists we can do much, much better, given funding resources."

The team found that the greater investment in the design and monitoring of experiments, the more accurate the result.
"We have a very consistent message from the long-term historical records about how plants are changing, but we need to think more critically about how we fund and invest in and really design experiments," said Dr Wolkovich.
"We do need them in the future, they are the best way going forward to project how species are changing but right now what we're doing isn't working as well as I think it could."

Other researchers were equally surprised by the results.
Dr This Rutishauser is at the Oeschager centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Bern in Switzerland. He says that in light of this work scientists will have to rethink the impacts of global warming.
"The bottom line is that the impacts might be bigger than we have believed until now. That's going to provoke a lot of work to probably revise modelling results for estimations of what's going to happen in the future for food production especially."

Dr Wolkovich agrees that if the models are so significantly underestimating the real world observations, there could be also be impacts on water the world over.
"If a whole plant community starts growing a week earlier than we expect according to these experiments, it's going to take up a lot more water over the growing season and if you add to that many years of the model projections, you are going to see big changes in the water supply."

She appeals to people to get involved in citizen science projects and help gather data on flowering and leafing, especially in remote areas. Such projects are underway in the US and the UK, Sweden, Switzerland, and the Netherlands, and a pan-European database is under development.
"We have very few monitoring networks. We need many, many people out there observing this because it is changing faster and across more habitats than we are currently measuring - we need more help!"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17924653
Back to top
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> New Science All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 107, 108, 109 ... 130, 131, 132  Next
Page 108 of 132

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group