Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   Calling Al Gore: Where are you? (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=303015)

  • Feb 27, 2009, 10:41 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    But fluffiness comes at a price

    Hello again, Steve:

    Yup, there's a price to pay. And, since it's our collective a$$, we make light of it. But it really IS our collective a$$, and the price is much bigger than that.

    I don't know. I'm not Al Gore. I'm not a scientist. I'm not smart.

    But, our atmosphere has more CO2 in it than it has for the last 20 thousand years. At the same time, we're chopping down our rain forest as fast as we can. It's the rain forest that cleans the air.

    That doesn't bode well for us - even you righty's.

    excon
  • Feb 27, 2009, 11:00 AM
    speechlesstx
    I don't know, ex. Trying to find reliable data on forest coverage (like anything else regarding climate change) is like finding that needle in the haystack. And what gets me is scientists seem to be surprised when they discover things like all that "extra" CO2 seems to help trees grow and in turn absorb more CO2.

    Fifth of World Carbon Emissions Soaked up by Extra Forest Growth, Scientists Find
    20/02/2009 by THE GUARDIAN

    Trees across the tropics are getting bigger and offering unexpected help in the fight against climate change, scientists have discovered.

    A laborious study of the girth of 70,000 trees across Africa has shown that tropical forests are soaking up more carbon dioxide pollution that anybody realised. Almost one-fifth of our fossil fuel emissions are absorbed by forests across Africa, Amazonia and Asia, the research suggests.

    Simon Lewis, a climate expert at the University of Leeds, who led the study, said: "We are receiving a free subsidy from nature. Tropical forest trees are absorbing about 18% of the carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere each year from burning fossil fuels, substantially buffering the rate of change."

    The study measured trees in 79 areas of intact forest across 10 African countries from Liberia to Tanzania, and compared records going back 40 years. "On average the trees are getting bigger," Lewis said.

    Compared to the 1960s, each hectare of intact African forest has trapped an extra 0.6 tonnes of carbon a year. Over the world's tropical forests, this extra "carbon sink" effect adds up to 4.8bn tonnes of CO2 removed each year - close to the total carbon dioxide emissions from the US.

    Although individual trees are known to soak up carbon as they photosynthesise and grow, large patches of mature forest were once thought to be carbon neutral, with the carbon absorbed by new trees balanced by that released as old trees die.

    A similar project in South America challenged that assumption when it recorded surprise levels of tree growth a decade ago, Lewis said. His study, published tomorrow in Nature, was to check whether the effect was global.

    The discovery suggests that increased CO2 in the atmosphere could fertilise extra growth in the mature forests.


    Well duh! I learned that in elementary school.
  • Feb 27, 2009, 11:46 AM
    tomder55
    Back before the asteroid struck , the world was lush and green and had a great deal of C02 floating around.Elevated carbon dioxide levels result in higher productivity, and faster animal and plant growth rates.Both animals and plants were bigger... much bigger.
    Dinosaurs' World Heated By Greenhouse Effect: Study
  • Feb 27, 2009, 01:22 PM
    inthebox

    Gore Pulls Slide of Disaster Trends - Dot Earth Blog - NYTimes.com


    Quote:

    Two days after the talk, Mr. Gore was sharply criticized for using the data to make a point about global warming by Roger A. Pielke, Jr. a political scientist focused on disaster trends and climate policy at the University of Colorado. Mr. Pielke noted that the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters stressed in reports that a host of factors unrelated to climate caused the enormous rise in reported disasters (details below).














    G&P
  • Feb 27, 2009, 01:36 PM
    George_1950

    “Natural living” advocates unveil their latest planet-saving invention - the reusable toilet wipe.
    Bottom reached | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
  • Mar 2, 2009, 08:49 AM
    speechlesstx
    Just in time for “a mass non-violent civil disobedience” in D.C. called Make Climate Justice History scheduled for today as announced by It's Getting Hot in Here, “between three and 12 inches of snow” blanketed the capitol.

    LOL, I do believe God has a sense of humor. Now That's climate change justice.
  • Mar 2, 2009, 08:59 AM
    speechlesstx
    In part 2 of today's climate news, Obama's EPA intends to regulate farm dust. OK all you farmers out there, please confine your dust to your property.
  • Mar 3, 2009, 08:52 AM
    speechlesstx
    In today's episode of "It's getting hot in here," recent study shows global warming is on hold... even though many have been saying this for some time.

    Quote:

    Global Warming: On Hold?
    Michael Reilly, Discovery News

    March 2, 2009 -- For those who have endured this winter's frigid temperatures and today's heavy snowstorm in the Northeast, the concept of global warming may seem, well, almost wishful.

    But climate is known to be variable -- a cold winter, or a few strung together doesn't mean the planet is cooling. Still, according to a new study, global warming may have hit a speed bump and could go into hiding for decades.

    "This is nothing like anything we've seen since 1950,"
    Kyle Swanson of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said. "Cooling events since then had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Ninas. This current cooling doesn't have one."

    Instead, Swanson and colleague Anastasios Tsonis think a series of climate processes have aligned, conspiring to chill the climate. In 1997 and 1998, the tropical Pacific Ocean warmed rapidly in what Swanson called a "super El Nino event." It sent a shock wave through the oceans and atmosphere, jarring their circulation patterns into unison.

    How does this square with temperature records from 2005-2007, by some measurements among the warmest years on record? When added up with the other four years since 2001, Swanson said the overall trend is flat, even though temperatures should have gone up by 0.2 degrees Centigrade (0.36 degrees Fahrenheit) during that time.
    Yes, nature is "conspiring" to ruin the climate change agenda.
  • Mar 3, 2009, 09:06 AM
    excon

    Hello again, Steve:

    I still can't figure out what you have against the idea of global warming... Do you own energy stocks? Do you work for an energy company? Are you looking for an excuse to keep doing business as usual? Do you LIKE spending $4 for gas? Do you deny that oil is running out? Do you deny that we're going to need an alternate energy source?

    Really. I can't figure out, other than it's a Republican talking point, WHY you say what you do?

    And, even if global warming is wrong, should we continue throwing our trash into the air? That's really the question I have for you.

    If you think so, why don't you just say so, and argue with me that it's OK to do that?

    If you don't, then who cares what some crackpot says? If his solution is right, even though his premise is wrong, the result will still be good, no?

    excon
  • Mar 3, 2009, 10:02 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, Steve:

    I still can't figure out what you have against the idea of global warming...

    I don’t like being scammed by religious zealots. Do you?

    Quote:

    Do you own energy stocks?
    Probably somewhere in my IRA.

    Quote:

    Do you work for an energy company?
    Um, no. We do fire and security systems.

    Quote:

    Are you looking for an excuse to keep doing business as usual?
    Look it up ex, I’ve always stated conservation and a clean environment are good things.

    Quote:

    Do you LIKE spending $4 for gas?
    No.

    Quote:

    Do you deny that oil is running out?
    Actually I’m not sure we’re getting the truth.

    Quote:

    Do you deny that we're going to need an alternate energy source?
    Of course not. I’d love to install a solar system but it’s cost prohibitive.

    Quote:

    Really. I can't figure out, other than it's a Republican talking point, WHY you say what you do?
    You really can’t figure that out? Do you like being lied to? Do you think science should be honest? Is allowing a different opinion a good thing? Should conflicting evidence be considered or should the consensus disregard it out of hand? How do you measure a global ocean rise of a few centimeters? Do you trust computer models, because our weather guys can’t seem to guess what’s going to happen more than a few minutes before it does.

    Quote:

    And, even if global warming is wrong, should we continue throwing our trash into the air? That's really the question I have for you.
    For the thousandth time, clean air is a good thing. Do you think like some extremists do that "global warming deniers" (ie: scientists with different data) should be prosecuted for environmental crimes?

    Quote:

    If you think so, why don't you just say so, and argue with me that it's OK to do that?
    Perhaps you will finally remember all the times I’ve said clean air is a good thing instead?

    Quote:

    If you don't, then who cares what some crackpot says? If his solution is right, even though his premise is wrong, the result will still be good, no?
    Wow, after everything I’ve read from you on our rights I’m really surprised you don’t get it. It’s not just some crackpot, it’s a religion, it’s rampant, it’s misleading, dishonest and it seeks to impose some really bad things on the world, like “voluntary human extinction.”

    No? Even the beloved Jacques Cousteau said "This is a terrible thing to say in order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350000 people per day."

    Do you believe ants are more valuable than people?
  • Mar 3, 2009, 10:52 AM
    tomder55

    I just wonder when the global warming extremists will learn not to hold rallies in the middle of winter ?
    Quote:


    Speaking before Bill Clinton's Global Initiative in New York City last Nov. 2, Gore advocated the concept of civil disobedience to fight climate change. "I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration," Gore said to loud applause.
    Following Gore's lead, a group called Capitol Climate Action organized a protest that took place Monday at the 99-year-old Capitol Power Plant in southeast Washington, D.C. Its Web site invited fellow warm-mongers to "mass civil disobedience at the coal-fired" plant that heats and cools the hallowed halls of Congress.
    The site features Gore's quote as well as a video by Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a leading global-warming activist, urging attendance at the event. The storm that hit the Northeast and dropped upwards of three inches of snow on the nation's capitol should not discourage those attending the global- warming protest, he says on the video.
    Hansen has called such coal-fired facilities "factories of death" and considers climate-change skeptics guilty of "high crimes against humanity and nature." In the video he says what "has become clear from the science is that we cannot burn all of the fossil fuels without creating a very different planet" and that the "only practical way to solve the problem is to phase out the biggest source of carbon — and that's coal."
    What is clear is that Dr. Hansen has had problems with the facts. Last Nov. 10 he announced from his scientific perch that October had been the hottest on record, and we were doomed. Except that it wasn't true.
    Scores of temperature records used in the computations from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running, something your high-school science teacher wouldn't allow.
    Despite Dr. Hansen's hysterical animus toward carbon, the fact is that CO2 is still a mere 0.038% of the gaseous layer that surrounds the Earth, and only 3% of that thin slice is released by man. According to Dr. William Happer, a professor of physics at Princeton University, current atmospheric CO2 levels are inadequate in historical terms and even higher levels "will be good for mankind."
    Happer, who was fired by Gore at the Department of Energy in 1993 for disagreeing with the vice president on the effects of ozone to humans and plant life, disagrees with both Gore and Hansen on the issue of the impact of man-made carbon emissions. He testified before the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) on Feb. 25 that CO2 levels are in fact at a historical low.
    "Many people don't realize that over geological time, we're really in a CO2 famine now. Almost never has CO2 . . . been as low as it has been in the Holocene (geologic epoch) — 280 (parts per million) — that's unheard of," said Happer. He notes the earth and humanity did just fine when CO2 levels were much higher.
    "You know, we evolved as a species in those times, when CO2 levels were three to four times what they are now," Happer said. "And, the oceans were fine, plants grew, animals grew fine. So it's baffling to me that . . . we're so frightened of getting nowhere close to where we started."
    "Jim Hansen has gone off the deep end here," one of Hansen's former supervisors, Dr. John Theon, said. Theon, a former senior NASA atmospheric scientist, rebuked Hansen last month in a letter to EPW. "Why he has not been fired, I do not understand," Theon said. Neither do we.
    Critics contend that Hansen's involvement in the protests is a violation of the Hatch Act, which prohibits government employees from engaging in partisan political activity. If he wants to agitate for policy changes, let him do it on his own time and on his own dime. The science can speak for itself.
    IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- James Hansen's Political Science
  • Mar 3, 2009, 11:27 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    I just wonder when the global warming extremists will learn not to hold rallies in the middle of winter ?

    You'd think they would learn... but the irony is delicious.
  • Mar 3, 2009, 05:49 PM
    N0help4u

    Talk about irony NOW this is worse than irony and hypocrisy.
    I heard that Sorros and some others that back Gores global warming have stock in the EVIL coal industry, Now WHY would that be??
  • Mar 16, 2009, 05:10 AM
    speechlesstx
    An failed Obama prophecy... "this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow." -Obama June 3, 2008

    Northeast US to suffer most from future sea rise


    Quote:

    The northeastern U.S. coast is likely to see the world's biggest sea level rise from man-made global warming, a new study predicts.

    However much the oceans rise by the end of the century, add an extra 8 inches or so for New York, Boston and other spots along the coast from the mid-Atlantic to New England. That's because of predicted changes in ocean currents, according to a study based on computer models published online Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience.

    An extra 8 inches — on top of a possible 2 or 3 feet of sea rise globally by 2100 — is a big deal, especially when nor'easters and hurricanes hit, experts said.

    "It's not just waterfront homes and wetlands that are at stake here," said Donald Boesch, president of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, who wasn't part of the study. "Those kind of rises in sea level when placed on top of the storm surges we see today, put in jeopardy lots of infrastructure, including the New York subway system."

    For years, scientists have talked about rising sea levels due to global warming — both from warm water expanding and the melt of ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica. Predictions for the average worldwide sea rise keep changing along with the rate of ice melt. Recently, more scientists are saying the situation has worsened so that a 3-foot rise in sea level by 2100 is becoming a common theme.

    But the oceans won't rise at the same rate everywhere, said study author Jianjun Yin of the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies at Florida State University. It will be "greater and faster" for the Northeast, with Boston one of the worst hit among major cities, he said. So, if it's 3 feet, add another 8 inches for that region.
    Sorry, tom... better move inland.
  • Mar 16, 2009, 06:12 AM
    tomder55

    Cool!! That should make my home ocean front then!

    You see the real deal is that global recession has sort of put the concern and priority of "global climate change " on the back burner ;which in turn is alarming the alarmists .

    So they needed more scare mongering lest their coffers diminish.They see the way that public $$$ has shifted to the bankers and they long for a slice of the pie.

    Tweek the computer models slightly an voilà..! NYC gets swamped like in the Day After Tomorrow.
  • Mar 16, 2009, 06:29 AM
    tomder55
    For an alt explanation see
    Basic Geology Part 3 - Sea Level Rises During Interglacial Periods « Watts Up With That?
  • Mar 16, 2009, 06:36 AM
    excon

    Hello Dudes:

    Wow, it snowed yesterday. That Gore don't know crap.

    Bwa, ha ha ha.

    excon
  • Mar 16, 2009, 06:38 AM
    speechlesstx
    Good point tom, nothing like an ocean sunrise from your deck.

    Yes, they seem to be ramping up the fear mongering lately.
  • Mar 16, 2009, 06:42 AM
    speechlesstx
    Yeah it snowed here in Texas twice last week. I looked for The Goracle but he was busy ducking debates again.
  • Mar 16, 2009, 07:43 AM
    speechlesstx
    EU bans use of 'Miss' and 'Mrs'

    What does this have to do with climate change? Referring to "man-made" climate change is not gender neutral. It shall therefore be called by its more appropriate name, "artificial climate change."

    Bwa ha ha!
  • Mar 16, 2009, 06:11 PM
    Skell

    I don't know Steve. You confuse me. Generally you post articles debunking climate change, now you post articles about the dangers of climate change simply simply so you can throw in a crack at Obama.
    Im with Excon, you guys look so foolish when you post an article about a bit of snow fall in the US at an unusual time of year as proof that climate change doesn't exist.
    Im not convinced either, but I know it's a little more complex than cool fronts and weather patterns in the US. I know a lot of you forget there is a whole other world out there but you guys are usually a little smarter than that.
    Down under here we have had the worst bush fires in our history flamed by years of drought and extreme heat. 100's lost their lives and 1000's homeless. But me posting articles on that doesn't prove climate change exists anymore than you posting articles on a blizzards in Texas proves it's a load of BS.
  • Mar 17, 2009, 04:59 AM
    speechlesstx
    Ah Skell, I don't generally post articles on a single event as "proof" of global warming, I post them for the irony - like when a major snowstorm hits on the day of a climate change rally or every time Gore shows up. Hence my comment on Gore not being around even though it snowed here last week. It was JOKE, as in It snowed in Texas last week so Al Gore must have been in town.

    Sadly though, Obama wasn't joking when he claimed his selection "was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow." Any politician that makes a statement with such unbelievable hubris is going to receive a good amount of contempt in return.

    Look, I know climate change happens, I've acknowledged it many times. You have my sympathies for the drought and fires you've experienced, I don't live in just my own little world with no regard for others. I'm also not going to roll over for a political agenda while there is so much evidence to the contrary being ignored.
  • Mar 19, 2009, 09:43 AM
    speechlesstx
    Scientists say the West Antarctic ice sheet is likely to melt... in one to two thousand years. Maybe. They don't know for sure because "there are still so many unknowns about how Antarctic ice behaves." Nevertheless, we need to set a "sea level limit" at about three feet of sea level rise" just to be cautious.
  • Mar 19, 2009, 10:41 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Nevertheless, we need to set a "sea level limit" at about three feet of sea level rise" just to be cautious.

    Hello again, Steve:

    I agree. And if the ocean breaks the law, it should be waterboarded.

    excon
  • Mar 19, 2009, 10:56 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, Steve:

    I agree. And if the ocean breaks the law, it should be waterboarded.

    LOL, very good, ex.
  • Mar 19, 2009, 01:59 PM
    inthebox

    Has "global warming" given way to "climate change."

    I notice how they use them interchangeably.

    Now the envirotyrants can claim that when when it is TOO HOT or TOO COLD it is mankind's fault, and they have solutions that entails either income redistribution through taxes or limiting liberty and choice.

    Question is has climate NEVER CHANGED?
    I bet you it was changing long before mankind was ever around - the dinosaurs would know :);)



    G&P
  • Mar 19, 2009, 03:33 PM
    excon

    Hello again,

    At the risk of being a bore, I must point out that even if the Goricle is wrong, it's still not good to throw our trash into our atmosphere.

    So, as long as the solution is correct, I couldn't care less if the reason for doing the correct thing might have been wrong.

    That is, of course, unless you don't think we're running out of oil.

    excon
  • Mar 23, 2009, 12:53 PM
    speechlesstx
    Ex, at the risk of sounding repetitive, I think we all agree that trashing the air is a bad thing. But your reasoning? Sounds like something some conservative would say about the Iraq war... but, I digress.

    Todays' global warming update comes courtesy of the State of California, home of Hollywood, TV, movies, all the reasons we're enticed to by that 40" plasma TV.

    State considers ban on big screen TVs

    Quote:

    In their continuing quest to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, state regulators have uncovered a new villain in the war on global warming : your big screen TV

    Couch potatoes, beware.

    The California Energy Commission is considering a proposal that would ban California retailers from selling all but the most energy-efficient televisions. Critics say the news standards could take 25 percent of televisions off the market — most of them 40 inches or larger.

    “The larger the television, the more at risk it is of being banned unnecessarily in California,” said Douglas Johnson, senior director of technology police for the Consumer Electronics Association.

    Association officials say the standards are not only unnecessary – because the federal government already regulates energy efficiency through the voluntary Energy Star program — but also ill-timed. The last thing our economy needs now is products taken off the market, they say.

    Furthermore, they say that with a weak economy, consumers are going out less and watching TV more.

    “This is really about regulating entertainment, not energy use,” Johnson said.

    Poppycock, says the commission.

    Affordable big screen TVs will still be available under the new standards, spokesman Adam Gottlieb said. In fact, he said the regulations will save you money.

    The commission calculates that if you buy televisions meeting the proposed standards it’ll cut your annual energy use by — drum roll, please — $18 to $30.
    Is it about global warming? Ha! One of the supporters of the legislation is the LCD Manufacturers Association along with Wal*Mart, Sears, Costco, Sam's Club, and Frys, who I'm sure sell a lot of LCD TVs.
  • Mar 26, 2009, 05:34 AM
    speechlesstx
    Once again California is leading the way to a cooler planet. Up next for consideration, banning certain colors of cars.

    California to reduce carbon emissions by... banning black cars?!

    Quote:

    In a move that will likely get California's consumers in a huff, impending legislation may soon restrict the paint color options for Golden State residents looking for their next new vehicle. The specific colors that are currently on the chopping block are all dark hues, with the worst offender seemingly the most innocuous color you could think of: Black. What could California possibly have against these colors, you ask? Apparently, the California Air Resources Board figures that the climate control systems of dark colored cars need to work harder than their lighter siblings – especially after sitting in the sun for a few hours. Anyone living in a hot, sunny climate will tell you that this assumption is accurate, of course. In fact, legislation already exists for buildings that has proven successful at reducing the energy consumption of skyscrapers.

    So, what's the crux of the problem... can't paint suppliers just come up with new, less heat-absorbent dark paints? According to Ward's, suppliers have reportedly been testing their pigments and processes to see if it's possible to meet CARB's proposed mandate of 20% solar reflectivity by 2016 with a phase-in period starting in 2012, and things aren't looking good. Apparently, when the proper pigments and chemicals are added to black paint, the resulting color is currently being referred to as "mud-puddle brown." That doesn't sound very attractive, now does it? Windshields, backlights and sunroofs are also slated to get reflective coatings starting in 2012.

    When we first heard of this issue, an internal debate immediately began as to whether this might be an elaborate early April Fool's joke, but it isn't.
    Who'll be first for their "mud-puddle brown" Prius?
  • Mar 26, 2009, 06:12 AM
    tomder55

    It's a given that emissions of pollutants are bad. It is NOT a given that C02 is a pollutant (despite the nonsensical ruling by SCOTUS)
  • Mar 26, 2009, 07:34 AM
    speechlesstx
    And Obama's EPA sent issued a report to the White House claiming CO2 is a pollutant that endangers public health under the Clean Air Act. That's absurd and dishonest.

    Speaking of the EPA, Obama's pick for no. 2 there stepped aside the day before his Senate hearing, over "scrutiny of his former affiliation with a now-defunct nonprofit that in 2007 was found by the EPA inspector general's office to have mismanaged more than $25 million in grants from the agency. "
  • Mar 26, 2009, 01:35 PM
    speechlesstx
    Vote Earth! This Saturday you can join people all over the world in saving the planet by turning off your lights for an hour at 8:30 PM wherever you are...

    Quote:

    2,848 cities, towns and municipalities in 84 countries have already committed to VOTE EARTH for Earth Hour 2009, as part of the worlds first global election between Earth and global warming.
    Quote:

    On March 28 you can VOTE EARTH by switching off your lights for one hour.
    Or you can vote global warming by leaving your lights on.

    The results of the election are being presented at the Global Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen 2009. We want one billion votes for Earth, to tell world leaders that we have to take action against global warming.
    I vote for all the greens that “vote earth” to go live in a hut in Bangladesh…or maybe near Obama’s brother. That should leave plenty of light for the rest of us.
  • Mar 26, 2009, 01:50 PM
    speechlesstx
    Disclaimer: This is not proof that global warming is a hoax... I'm just saying:

    The Texas Panhandle is expecting a low of 24 tonight and 6-17 inches of snow between now and Saturday. Guess I'll have to crank the heat back up for Earth Hour (and while Obama will still let me).
  • Mar 26, 2009, 02:13 PM
    galveston

    Yeah, just when the "greens" think they have all the answers, nature moons them!

    PS: I'm going to pass on that thing about turning my lights off at 8:30. They go off enough for me already. Night before last they were off from about 9:30 to about 1:00 AM.

    If government doesn't get out of the way and allow more generating plants to be built, rolling black outs will get those lights off and help save the planet.
  • Mar 27, 2009, 11:26 AM
    speechlesstx
    The Civil Heretic

    Quote:

    FOR MORE THAN HALF A CENTURY the eminent physicist Freeman Dyson has quietly resided in Prince­ton, N.J. on the wooded former farmland that is home to his employer, the Institute for Advanced Study, this country’s most rarefied community of scholars. Lately, however, since coming “out of the closet as far as global warming is concerned,” as Dyson sometimes puts it, there has been noise all around him. Chat rooms, Web threads, editors’ letter boxes and Dyson’s own e-mail queue resonate with a thermal current of invective in which Dyson has discovered himself variously described as “a pompous twit,” “a blowhard,” “a cesspool of misinformation,” “an old coot riding into the sunset” and, perhaps inevitably, “a mad scientist.” Dyson had proposed that whatever inflammations the climate was experiencing might be a good thing because carbon dioxide helps plants of all kinds grow. Then he added the caveat that if CO2 levels soared too high, they could be soothed by the mass cultivation of specially bred “carbon-eating trees,” whereupon the University of Chicago law professor Eric Posner looked through the thick grove of honorary degrees Dyson has been awarded — there are 21 from universities like Georgetown, Princeton and Oxford — and suggested that “perhaps trees can also be designed so that they can give directions to lost hikers.” Dyson’s son, George, a technology historian, says his father’s views have cooled friendships, while many others have concluded that time has cost Dyson something else. There is the suspicion that, at age 85, a great scientist of the 20th century is no longer just far out, he is far gone — out of his beautiful mind.

    But in the considered opinion of the neurologist Oliver Sacks, Dyson’s friend and fellow English expatriate, this is far from the case. “His mind is still so open and flexible,” Sacks says. Which makes Dyson something far more formidable than just the latest peevish right-wing climate-change denier. Dyson is a scientist whose intelligence is revered by other scientists — William Press, former deputy director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory and now a professor of computer science at the University of Texas, calls him “infinitely smart.” Dyson — a mathematics prodigy who came to this country at 23 and right away contributed seminal work to physics by unifying quantum and electrodynamic theory — not only did path-breaking science of his own; he also witnessed the development of modern physics, thinking alongside most of the luminous figures of the age, including Einstein, Richard Feynman, Niels Bohr, Enrico Fermi, Hans Bethe, Edward Teller, J. Robert Oppenheimer and Edward Witten, the “high priest of string theory” whose office at the institute is just across the hall from Dyson’s. Yet instead of hewing to that fundamental field, Dyson chose to pursue broader and more unusual pursuits than most physicists — and has lived a more original life.

    Among Dyson’s gifts is interpretive clarity, a penetrating ability to grasp the method and significance of what many kinds of scientists do. His thoughts about how science works appear in a series of lucid, elegant books for nonspecialists that have made him a trusted arbiter of ideas ranging far beyond physics. Dyson has written more than a dozen books, including “Origins of Life” (1999), which synthesizes recent discoveries by biologists and geologists into an evaluation of the double-origin hypothesis, the possibility that life began twice; “Disturbing the Universe” (1979) tries among other things to reconcile science and humanity. “Weapons and Hope” (1984) is his meditation on the meaning and danger of nuclear weapons that won a National Book Critics Circle Award. Dyson’s books display such masterly control of complex matters that smart young people read him and want to be scientists; older citizens finish his books and feel smart.
    Except the dedicated global warming consensus, they can't even take the ideas of such a reputable scholar seriously - they'll attack anyone that doesn't walk in lockstep. But in this case, they can't ignore this guy either. :D
  • Apr 11, 2009, 05:50 AM
    speechlesstx
    More evidence that global warming is "human-caused."

    NASA: Clean-air regs, not CO2, are melting the ice cap

    Quote:

    New research from NASA suggests that the Arctic warming trend seen in recent decades has indeed resulted from human activities: but not, as is widely assumed at present, those leading to carbon dioxide emissions. Rather, Arctic warming has been caused in large part by laws introduced to improve air quality and fight acid rain.

    Dr Drew Shindell of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies has led a new study which indicates that much of the general upward trend in temperatures since the 1970s - particularly in the Arctic - may have resulted from changes in levels of solid "aerosol" particles in the atmosphere, rather than elevated CO2. Arctic temperatures are of particular concern to those worried about the effects of global warming, as a melting of the ice cap could lead to disastrous rises in sea level - of a sort which might burst the Thames Barrier and flood London, for instance.

    Shindell's research indicates that, ironically, much of the rise in polar temperature seen over the last few decades may have resulted from US and European restrictions on sulphur emissions. According to NASA:

    Sulfates, which come primarily from the burning of coal and oil, scatter incoming solar radiation and have a net cooling effect on climate. Over the past three decades, the United States and European countries have passed a series of laws that have reduced sulfate emissions by 50 percent. While improving air quality and aiding public health, the result has been less atmospheric cooling from sulfates.

    Meanwhile, levels of black-carbon aerosols (soot, in other words) have been rising, largely driven by greater industrialisation in Asia. Soot, rather than reflecting heat as sulphates do, traps solar energy in the atmosphere and warms things up.

    The Arctic is especially subject to aerosol effects, says Shindell, because the planet's main industrialised areas are all in the northern hemisphere and because there's not much precipitation to wash the air clean.

    "Right now, in the mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere and in the Arctic, the impact of aerosols is just as strong as that of the greenhouse gases," says Shindell.
    Or did it? They can't seem to make up their minds.

    Quote:

    Other scientists have recently suggested that it's not just the Arctic which is subject to aerosol effects. Boffins from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have said that aerosol levels from dust storms and volcanoes alone would account for as much as 70 per cent of the temperature rise seen in the Atlantic ocean during the past 26 years, leaving carbon simply nowhere...

    There might not even be any need for action on the part of the West, with China building sulphur-belching coal power stations and diesel vehicles at a furious rate in recent times. Dr Shindell doesn't say so, but it's at least possible that this has something to do with the fact that global temperatures have actually dipped slightly over the last couple of years.
    This is all too confusing, we caused global warming by driving our SUV's, belching out CO2 that trees and plants thrive on and by cleaning the air. Or was it dust and such from dust storms and volcanoes? And the temperature is dropping?

    Nevertheless, "shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays" is a possible solution to it all says Obama's new science adviser.

    Quote:

    "It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury of taking any approach off the table."
    What could possibly go wrong there?
  • Apr 11, 2009, 06:11 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    What could possibly go wrong there?

    Hello again, Steve:

    You're right. Those Obama scientists don't know squat... So, until they get their act together, we can keep throwing our trash into the air. That can't hurt anything, right??

    excon
  • Apr 11, 2009, 07:26 AM
    tomder55

    Quote:

    we can keep throwing our trash into the air
    Sounds like Obama's solution is that very thing .

    BTW ;that is a false choice because it is unrelated . You can take steps to reduce harmful emissions without the chicken-little lies about the effects of human produced carbon dioxide.
  • Apr 11, 2009, 08:17 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    sounds like Obama's solution is that very thing .

    Right, "shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere."

    Quote:

    BTW ;that is a false choice because it is unrelated . You can take steps to reduce harmful emissions without the chicken-little lies about the effects of human produced carbon dioxide.
    Right again.
  • Apr 11, 2009, 08:35 AM
    tomder55
    Wonder what the carbon foot print is for the President to fly a pizza chef 850 miles to serve deep dish pizza to 140 guests at the White House yesterday?

    Wonder how much that cost the US taxpayers ?

    The Associated Press: Obama orders pizza from St. Louis, Chicago miffed


    What does Obama have in common with Kim Jong mentally Il ?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...th-korea-pizza

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:27 PM.