published Monday, October 3rd, 2011

Melting ice, global warming

Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, there are still some who insist that global warming is either a scientific anomaly or an elaborate scam perpetrated on the public by individuals and groups promoting a nefarious political-environmental agenda. The nay-sayers argue that data that supports global warning is fragmentary, anecdotal and insufficient, and thus demand more tangible proof that global warming is a fact. Two Canadian scientists recently provided it, though there is little likelihood that it will be accepted by anti-global warming ideologues.

The researchers documented the shrinking and, in one instance, the near disappearance of two ice shelves in the Canadian Arctic. The findings are especially significant since ice shelves are much thicker than sea ice and thus less susceptible to melt. Indeed, some of the ice shelves in the region studied by the scientists probably began to form more than 4,000 years ago.

The shrinkage of the Serson Ice Shelf and the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf cited by the scientists in newly published research is dramatic. The former shrank from more than 79 square miles to two small sections that measured less than 10 square miles and 2 square miles respectively. The latter, once measured at more than 130 square miles, fragmented into a two smaller ice shelves separated by open water.

For some, reports of shrinking and disappearing ice shelves in the Arctic might seem to be of little importance. That's short-sighted thinking. Confirmation of melting at an alarming rate in an area where ice shelves have long been thought to be most stable in the face of rising worldwide temperatures is evidence not only that global warming is taking place, but that it is accelerating. The consequences are both immediate and long-term.

In the short-term, the breaking up of the shelves creates icebergs that eventually could endanger offshore oil installations or obstruct shipping lanes. And any reduction in ice detrimentally affects global climate -- higher average temperatures, more and more vicious storms, extended droughts, etc. -- and endangers a broad range of plant and animal life. In the long run, the melt, propelled by steady increases in mean winter temperatures in the Canadian Arctic in each of the last five or six decades, will facilitate dangerous increases in global sea levels. The scenario is hardly new.

Indeed, it reaffirms what scientists have been reporting for years: The release of billions of tons of heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere -- gases formed predominately by burning fossil fuels -- and massive deforestation around the globe are propelling climate change that threatens a widening range of natural systems and human activity.

The scientific and environmental communities agree that increased use of alternative energy coupled with major reductions in the use of fossil fuels to cut carbon emissions could slow and, over time, reverse the global warming effects. What's needed is the political courage to promote such action. Reports like the one from the Canadian Arctic should stiffen legislative spines and help quiet the global warming debate. If they do not, disaster looms.

40
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
EaTn said...

You can't begin to address and solve a problem unless you get your head out of the sand and admit there is a problem. We need to take this off the partisan front since our grandkids future is at stake.

October 3, 2011 at 6:47 a.m.
timbo said...

EaTn and Harry Austin.... I doubt you two guys have any technical experience or are scientists yourselves but I am. I have been one for 30 years. There is no overwhelming evidence. Harry disproved his own comments when he said, "The researchers documented the shrinking and, in one instance, the near disappearance of two ice shelves in the Canadian Arctic. The findings are especially significant since ice shelves are much thicker than sea ice and thus less susceptible to melt. Indeed, some of the ice shelves in the region studied by the scientists probably began to form more than 4,000 years ago."

Harry, how did that ice form 4000 years ago? Simple, because there was a natural climate change. People didn't cause the ice to form. Obviously there was no ice before that and we didn't cause it to melt. 4000 years is a drop in the bucket from a ecological history point of view.

If the ice is melting and no other ice is being formed, why hasn't there been massive flooding on the coasts? Oh, that's right, you forgot that little detail.

What about volcanoes? Did you know that hundreds of volcanoes erupt every year. Did you know that the Mt. St. Helens put more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in 1 hour than humans have in 1 million years. Volcanoes have compressed CO2, SO2, and water vapor which is expressed when there is an eruption. It's volume increases are logarithmic and the amounts are mind boggling.

Did you know that ice at the South pole has increased compensating for any decrease in the north.

So I am going to educate you liberal chicken littles. First, the changes in climate we are experiencing are natural and the effects are minimal. This hoax is being perpetrated by the carbon tax crowd who is trying to make money and create an industry without a real need. The hoax is 100% economic and 0% scientific.

Even if it was caused by man, the ecological system is so huge it cannot be stopped by reducing emissions by a few percent. That snow ball is already going down the hill and cannot be stopped by human intervention. I would advise you guys to either build an arc or buy some ocean front property in say, Raleigh, NC.

Oh, and by the way, I can show you surveys from scientists that show that most have their doubts about your theories.

You two need to grow up and not be frightened by fairy tales.

October 3, 2011 at 7:41 a.m.
conservative said...

Socialism needs the wealth of its subjects. Under the hoax of global warming a carbon tax would be imposed, which would "skyrocket" ( the word used by Obamination) the cost of electricity both for home and business. Now if one is fooled by the hoax, that one is more likely to accept that high light bill. In the case of business the cost will be passed on to the consumer. The consumer will blame "greedy corporations" and call for higher taxes on corporations totally unaware they would pay that tax as well. Nice scheme.

October 3, 2011 at 8:31 a.m.
EaTn said...

The problem I'm referring to is the partisan division rather than facts. I will feel more comfortable with my grandkids future when the debate and actions err more on the worst-case irreversible climate scenarios rather than the worst-case economic scenarios.

October 3, 2011 at 8:35 a.m.
nucanuck said...

Oh, the irony of a society determined to over-consume fossil fuels and being derailed by impoverishing itself through refusing to pay for that which it spends. Consumption reversed by poverty may achieve that which deniers wouldn't.

There must be a clever god somewhere.

October 3, 2011 at 10:54 a.m.

It has to kill you that that whole map debacle happened with the greenland ice shelves. They were so arrogant they just KNEW they would lose 15% of their ice. In fact they lost .1% of their ice. What happened to global warming there?

The overconsumption of fossil fuels is as false a premise as global warming. Get over it. Your propoganda is failing. Go hug your trees and enjoy your mud. Most of the poverty in the U.S. today is the fault of the progressive assault on freedom. The good people of the U.S. will solve these problems in 2012.

October 3, 2011 at 11:07 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

Thank you, timbo! You have truly put my mind to rest about this. It's so comforting to know that we have our own home-grown scientist who can allay all our fears about global warming. To think that all this while I have been giving serious attention to what 97% of climate scientists and 82% of earth scientists say about global warming, that it is attributable to human causes. What was I thinking? I mean, how stupid could I be, to believe in such "fairy tales?" What do those idiots know anyway, right?

Where have you been hiding, timbo? Why haven't you published the findings of your in-depth research before now? The world is in dire need of your unique knowledge and understanding of this subject. Now I can burn, baby, burn with a clear conscience and to hell with this global warmig crap. Again, thank you, scientist timbo! Should we call you Sir Timbo? I feel that you should be knighted for the magnanimity of your scientific contribution. I was living my life with such caution and trepidation before, worrying about my "carbon footprint." Ha! What a fool I was! But you have truly enlightened me. Now I can't get enough oil. Gimme more! I want to take a bath in the stuff and drink it, too. Thank god almighty, now we can drill, baby, drill and burn it up, baby, burn it up. And it's all because of you and your vast superior knowledge and understanding... Sir Timbo.

October 3, 2011 at 12:44 p.m.
conservative said...

Well now, does this mean " selling ice to an Eskimo" won't be just a funny line any more?

October 3, 2011 at 12:53 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

What about volcanoes? Did you know that hundreds of volcanoes erupt every year. Did you know that the Mt. St. Helens put more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in 1 hour than humans have in 1 million years. Volcanoes have compressed CO2, SO2, and water vapor which is expressed when there is an eruption. It's volume increases are logarithmic and the amounts are mind boggling.

From USGS:

Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO2 budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO2 is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.

This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.

Make your point, Sir Timbo, but try to support it with fact, not fiction.

October 3, 2011 at 1:19 p.m.
una61 said...

IK: Good post, as usual. You have more patience than I do. Talking rational, secular science in this crowd of anti-science bigots is a lost cause and for goodness sakes don't mention that sinful word: EVOLUTION.

October 3, 2011 at 2:12 p.m.
holdout said...

If you want to live where there is no climate change you will have to go to the moon. The climate is changing on earth and always has been. The debate should be over whether the change will make life better or worse. Warmer northern areas with more CO2 in the air will mean that we are able, barely, to produce enough food to keep 8 billion people fed. A return to the mini ice age of two hundred years ago will sentence a lot of people to death by starvation. It is not a black and white issue no matter what you think is causing it.

October 3, 2011 at 2:49 p.m.
conservative said...

Hot stock tip!!! Buy GE, the Eskimos are going to need ice boxes ( I often missmell refrigerator) and freezers.

October 3, 2011 at 2:52 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

timbo says: I doubt you two guys have any technical experience or are scientists yourselves but I am. I have been one for 30 years.

Somehow, from the content and structure of your posts, I have my doubts. What area of science are you in exactly?

This, for example: Volcanoes have compressed CO2, SO2, and water vapor which is expressed when there is an eruption.

Compressed gases simply take up more volume when they expand. That does not change how much there is. And the word "expressed" doesn't exactly fit here. Perhaps English is not your first language?

October 3, 2011 at 3:06 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

If you want to live where there is no climate change you will have to go to the moon. The climate is changing on earth and always has been. The debate should be over whether the change will make life better or worse. Warmer northern areas with more CO2 in the air will mean that we are able, barely, to produce enough food to keep 8 billion people fed. A return to the mini ice age of two hundred years ago will sentence a lot of people to death by starvation. It is not a black and white issue no matter what you think is causing it.

This actually made me think. Perhaps we have grown in number that anything, such as rapid climate change, will cause huge problems for the millions already living on the edge (Sub Saharan Africa, Coastal Bangladesh, South Pacific Islands) to move or starve. If the sources of already scarce fresh water begin to diminish, the pressure on an already stressed population will escalate.

We in developed nations might be inconvenienced, but those already at subsistence level will see mass refugee movement, famine and disease. This may happen whether the change happens quickly, as science is predicting, or slowly. But the climate will change, as it always does, and we as a population of organisms will respond by adapting, moving, or dying.

October 3, 2011 at 3:14 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"This actually made me think. Perhaps we have grown in number that anything, such as rapid climate change, will cause huge problems for the millions already living on the edge (Sub Saharan Africa, Coastal Bangladesh, South Pacific Islands) to move or starve. If the sources of already scarce fresh water begin to diminish, the pressure on an already stressed population will escalate." - ikeithlu

Good point. But this is a non-issue with the global warming deniers, or at least the anthropogenic global warming deniers, and the deniers of science in general. For those people, what does not affect them personally does not matter one iota to them. Out of sight, out of mind. They think that as long as they are comfortable and content, then the rest of the world can go to hell and in fact should go to hell because, no doubt it is the stupidity and laziness of those people living on the edge that put them in that predicament in the first place. Or if not that, then obviously their "loving" christian god had them born on the edge for a reason and they must not be worthy of the good life, like we Americans are, or like the wealthy Americans are at least.

October 3, 2011 at 4:04 p.m.
rolando said...

There is perhaps a simple remedy to the "global warming" hullabaloo; let the forests and the algae [or whatever] grow back. Since it was an early form of some lifeform that changed our atmosphere from a reducing one to an oxidizing one using something called photosynthesis [or whatever], they already know how to take care of the relatively simple CO2 conversion issue.

Let several billion humans die off naturally due to rising water [if there is any] and voila! In another 10 millennia or so, the air will again be pristine, barring any volcanic eruptions, solar variance, nearby star passings, or BF'N meteor strikes or moon break-ups.

October 3, 2011 at 4:21 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Let several billion humans die off naturally due to rising water

Sounds heartless, but in fact one proposed cause of the "little ice age" in Europe was the plague. Population crash, trees regrow.

That several billion people may die is a real possibility. We don't have enough clean fresh water now to sustain human populations; loss of ice mass in glaciers will only make it worse. People try to move, borders are violated, refugee camps cannot provide adequate sources of food without help from developed nations, disease breaks out, well, I think you get the picture. Let religious groups contend with the ethics of global sustainability; rich nations will survive, poor ones will descend into chaos and violence.

Your idea about forest regrowth is important. Forests are dying because overall increased temps are shifting optimum environments towards the poles. Trees can't migrate, and the change is happening too fast. Areas don't get the cold temperatures that they did, so pests survive year to year, overwhelm the trees and kill them.

October 3, 2011 at 4:44 p.m.
328Kwebsite said...

A few years ago I read an article in Foreign Affairs written by the CIA's Paul Pillar; he clearly made the point that the melting of ice in the arctic is one of the most significant contemporary events in global politics. It's not because of some ninny "debate" on the part of Republicans. It's significant because there are very few laws governing this new territory. Internationally, the responsibility for those waters is up for grabs. Unlike the antarctic, the melted out areas of the Arctic Circle are not covered by treaties. The US only has a small section of territory in Alaska that borders those waters.

They are real. They are commercially and politically significant. They will become a major factor in shaping global politics and commerce within the next 20 years.

Republicans can bicker about how they don't like Al Gore all they want. We're sorry that we just had 8 years of a Republican presidency whose reputation scraped the bottom of the IQ barrel. We apologize for letting the world realize that the Florida election decision stole the office of the Presidency from an intelligent man.

The ice caps are melting and global warming is real.

I'm confident Republicans will wake up to this fact when it's time for defense contractors to make more money off of the US Navy as a result of some Arctic conflict. Fortunately, people who actually think about what the fact of global warming means as a contributor to significant events are already working on the problem.

For the rest of you, there's a Sarah Palin bus out there somewhere. Maybe ask Representative Fleischman a softball question from his latest Karl Rove pamphlet. Those of us smart enough to read understand what's what.

October 3, 2011 at 7:39 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"The ice caps are melting and global warming is real."

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

We're all gonna DIE!!!!

October 3, 2011 at 9:31 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"But the climate will change, as it always does, and we as a population of organisms will respond by adapting, moving, or dying. As we always have."

Hiya IK. I added a bit.

October 3, 2011 at 9:36 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Hi Scotty! I like your addition.

October 4, 2011 at 7:35 a.m.
timbo said...

lkeihlu... I see you became an instant expert by goggling About.com. This is an environmental propaganda cite to dumb down the data where a dolt like you can understand it. I hope you don't get nailed for plagiarism. Just another internet baby. Why don't you find 100 more sites that agree with you and I will find 1000 that agree with me.

I guess I am not as qualified as Al Gore, who barely got out of journalism school. There is a lot of study on the scientific method by journalists isn't there? People like you are as qualified as he is to comment on this subject.

You must have stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night and became an instant expert.

You are the normal arrogant ass who gets a little info and thinks he knows it all. As far as my credibility as a scientist, it is at least the same as you, Al Gore and the rest of you internet instant experts.

One last thing, I don't trust anything the government tells me on any subject. These scientists are making sure their funding is secure by telling their bosses what they want to hear. The same way with anyone who takes a government grant. The data can't be trusted. We found that out in the recent e-mail scandal where the prominent "experts" on global warming lied and falsified data.

I wonder how these scientists you speak of measured ALL of the CO2, SO2, and water vapor in every volcano or crevice spewing gas in the World. This was their tainted view of a limited sampling of data. It is only their estimation that fit their other erroneous theories.

I won't even ask people to look at the conflicting data, just use your common sense. Think about this, burning fossil fuels has more effect than all other sources of CO2. Not only that, it dwarfs it. Do you really believe that?

No, I wasn't an English or Grammar major. I am a chemistry major. I just don't use spell check as much as you do.

October 4, 2011 at 8:20 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

lkeihlu... I see you became an instant expert by goggling About.com. This is an environmental propaganda cite to dumb down the data where a dolt like you can understand it. I hope you don't get nailed for plagiarism. Just another internet baby. Why don't you find 100 more sites that agree with you and I will find 1000 that agree with me.

USGS is an environmental propaganda site? I assure you that geologists would challenge anything the USGS puts out that is incorrect.

I guess I am not as qualified as Al Gore, who barely got out of journalism school. There is a lot of study on the scientific method by journalists isn't there? People like you are as qualified as he is to comment on this subject.

So what are your qualifications to pass judgment on scientific matters?

No, I wasn't an English or Grammar major. I am a chemistry major. I just don't use spell check as much as you do.

I wasn't questioning your spelling, but your use of a word in explaining a phenomenon. You "are" a chemistry major? That must mean that you are young and still in school, right? I have a degree in the same area and have been teaching and doing science for 30 years. That doesn't make me an expert, but I do have friends in the relevant fields. The people I know in Geology would be amused that you don't trust the USGS for these simple measurements. I suspect they'd want to know why.

October 4, 2011 at 8:27 a.m.

Before you get your wig all twisted up, I was just kidding IK.

October 4, 2011 at 10:07 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Noted!

October 4, 2011 at 10:29 a.m.
rolando said...

The solution goes way beyond the forests, lkeithlu, although as I said, they play an important part. The trees weren't around when our atmosphere transformed. It was those teeny critters that exuded [or whatever] O2 that did it.

Same way today...if those CO2 breathers are killed off by the heat, we are done no matter what we do. If they aren't, they will fix it up just dandy. Stopping the use of fossil fuel won't change that a whit. It is a case of:

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,

Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit

Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,

Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

-- From The Rubáiyát

October 4, 2011 at 10:50 a.m.
rolando said...

Off-hand, I would say this organization equals, perhaps trumps, the USGS:

CERN's researchers have found that nearly half of the global warming observed of late isn't traceable to man's activities after all but to sunspots, specifically the fluctuations in solar cosmic rays that promote cloud formation

Embarrassing for all the pro-warmers out there. Here's more:

Scientists, the real ones, are incorrigible when challenging scientific dogma. No matter what they are told or threatened with, they just will not shut up, or stop peering through through or at their new-fangled apparatus.

The latest Nobel laureate (physics, 1973) to join these subversives is Ivar Giaever at Rensselaer Polytech, who's just resigned from the American Physical Society after it formally declared that the theory of global man-made warning is "incontrovertible." As if any scientific theory can be. Mr. Giaever was a fellow at the society, a rare distinction.

Not that Ivar Giaever is the first to notice that the emperor's clothes may not be quite there. He's following the examples set by another Nobelist, Robert B. Laughlin at Stanford; the late Norman Borlaug of Green Revolution fame; and the late Harold Lewis, emeritus professor of physics at UC-Santa Barbara and another APS fellow.

Professor Lewis resigned from this outfit last year, having had more than enough of its herdthink. He described the theory of Man-Made Climate Change, née Global Warming, as "the greatest and most successful pseudo-scientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist."

"Men, it has been said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one." -- Charles Mackay

October 4, 2011 at 1:07 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

CERN deals with particle physics, rolando, USGS with geology. Be really careful when reading about scientists in other disciplines "rejecting" the work in an area. There are computer scientists that "reject" evolution. but there is little value in their claims. They do not know enough evolutionary biology to pass judgment on it. Same thing with geology.

Scientists, the real ones, are incorrigible when challenging scientific dogma. No matter what they are told or threatened with, they just will not shut up, or stop peering through through or at their new-fangled apparatus.

When scientists present evidence to back their claims, they are heard. If not, then they are dismissed. Plain and simple.

October 4, 2011 at 1:43 p.m.
timbo said...

lkeithlu.... I have a M.S. in chemistry and graduated in 1978. I worked as a research chemist for half my career, and then started a business that, you guessed it...making chemicals. I still do the technical stuff too. Is that more qualified than you and Al Gore? The fact is that people like you are the "flat earthers" because your believe is akin to religion because the data is just not there. I think rolando has you pegged.

Your so-called evidence is flawed. I guess you forgot the tactics of formost gaggle of climate scientists at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in eastern England. The EPA relies on these people "most heavily" for evironmental conclusions.

I am quoting from a bastion of conservatism,(ha!) CBS news, "Congress May Probe Leaked Global Warming E-Mails"

Here is an excerpt from one of your "sources", "In addition to e-mail messages, the roughly 3,600 leaked documents posted on sites including Wikileaks.org and EastAngliaEmails.com include computer code and a description of how an unfortunate programmer named "Harry" -- possibly the CRU's Ian "Harry" Harris -- was tasked with resuscitating and updating a key temperature database that proved to be problematic. Some excerpts from what appear to be his notes, emphasis added: I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced by Delaunay triangulation - apparently linear as well. As far as I can see, this renders the station counts totally meaningless. It also means that we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived at from a statistical perspective - since we're using an off-the-shelf product that isn't documented sufficiently to say that. Why this wasn't coded up in Fortran I don't know - time pressures perhaps? Was too much effort expended on homogenisation, that there wasn't enough time to write a gridding procedure? Of course, it's too late for me to fix it too. Meh." Man, what a great example of ethics.

More to follow.....

October 4, 2011 at 2:54 p.m.
timbo said...

lkeithlu.... Here is some more of these thousands of e-mails. It talks about "dummy" data sites.

"I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that's the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight... So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!

One thing that's unsettling is that many of the assigned WMo codes for Canadian stations do not return any hits with a web search. Usually the country's met office, or at least the Weather Underground, show up – but for these stations, nothing at all. Makes me wonder if these are long-discontinued, or were even invented somewhere other than Canada!

Knowing how long it takes to debug this suite - the experiment endeth here. The option (like all the anomdtb options) is totally undocumented so we'll never know what we lost. 22. Right, time to stop pussyfooting around the niceties of Tim's labyrinthine software suites - let's have a go at producing CRU TS 3.0! since failing to do that will be the definitive failure of the entire project.

Ulp! I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can't get far enough into it before by head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog. I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections - to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more. So what the hell can I do about all these duplicate stations?... "

Just some of your experts and their stupidity. I could go on but the only faulty science here is the man-made global warming "theory." (And I use the term "theory" lossely..) Don't believe me, believe CBS news.

This has as much science and relevance of the guy who invented the pet rock.

October 4, 2011 at 3:01 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

timbo, that's a lot of blather for nothing. My post took you to task for your erroneous claim comparing volcanic CO2 to fossil fuel CO2. How about answering to that specifically instead? I still want to know why you, a chemist, feels qualified to dismiss the USGS on a simple measurement.

October 4, 2011 at 3:15 p.m.
328Kwebsite said...

Chattanooga State, UTC's Lupton Library and The Public Library (Of Chattanooga and Hamilton County after Mayor Ron Littlefield's damaging administration) all carry a copy of this book:

Oresekes, Naomi and Erik M. Conway. Merchants of Doubt: how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming.

The book details the conservative political payoffs provided to scientists who fabricate doubt over settled scientific questions. Many of those doubt fabricators were on the payrolls of the tobacco industry and defense contractors.

UTC Call: Q147 .074 2010 Chatta' State Lib: Q 147 .074 2011 Chattanooga Hamilton County Public Library: 174.95 ORE (Eastgate and Northgate).

Check out a copy. Its summary sounds mysteriously like some of the anti-global warming comments above.

October 4, 2011 at 3:17 p.m.
rolando said...

lkeithlu -- I am fully aware of who and what CERN is, dear, as well as their speciality. Some of us out here actually think and read outside the narrow little "speciality"box you dwell in. Your elitist, better-than-thou attitude gets tiresome.

As usual, you didn't check anything I cited, did you? How did you make it through college? Good ole Cliff's Notes, I presume. So I'll make it easier for you...this was in The Telegraph, in part:

New, convincing evidence indicates global warming is caused by cosmic rays and the sun — not humans

The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.

The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere.

In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.

[Here is the destruction wrought by "peer review"...notice the use of "hypothesis" outside a mathematics context, something you deny happens.}

The hypothesis that cosmic rays and the sun hold the key to the global warming debate has been Enemy No. 1 to the global warming establishment ever since it was first proposed by two scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a 1996 scientific conference in the U.K. Within one day, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Bert Bolin, denounced the theory, saying, “I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible.” He then set about discrediting the theory, any journalist that gave the theory cre dence, and most of all the Danes presenting the theory — they soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials.

October 4, 2011 at 5:47 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I never claimed that hypothesis was not used in science. I objected (long ago)to your improper use of it in regards to evolution.

I still stand by my statement: scientists from other disciplines are not the ones doing the work and looking at all the evidence. Their "opinion" does not carry the same value. I do listen if groups of climate researchers say that AGW is not happening, as long as oil and coal industries are not paying them to say it.

Understand that I am not claiming AGW is correct. I have not learned enough about it myself. My comment to timbo was about a specific claim that was made. My point was that false information is not a good way to support one's argument.

Stop trying to pick fights by insulting me. It's beneath you.

October 4, 2011 at 6:41 p.m.
rolando said...

It was not improperly used at that long ago time, lkeithlu, because Evolution didn't meet the requirements for a hypothesis to become a theory. The latest discovery of the woman/boy might change it... And you most certainly did object to using "hypothesis" for anything but a mathematic.

The opinion of other scientists most assuredly counts if their line of work and the project upon which they are working provide evidence that another discipline/projects conclusions are incorrect...as is the case with CERN/CLOUD work.

So would you turn away the Danes because of their proposal and ruin their lives because they discovered something you were against? Especially when they turned out to be correct?

CERN has also discovered a particle that travels faster than light, if you picked up on that. [It's a bit more in their LHC line of work.]

THAT impacts another's unique, 90-odd year old contributions to a number of related but different Physics disciplines...just about all of them, apparently.

[laughter]. For someone "not claiming AGW is correct", you sure do defend it.

I wasn't intending to start a fight. Far from it. Sorry if it appeared that way. But at times your manner of speaking down to others IS grating. You do occasionally fail to read cites and shoot the messenger You are better than that. Please read that as constructive criticism.

October 4, 2011 at 9:47 p.m.
McRand said...

It's a natural phenomenon due to the Milankovitch cycles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankov...

Things have been melting for eons, and due to the earths wobble, we even cold through colder and warmer periods even between the larger cycles of ice ages and meltings.

Check out Cosquers cave over on the coast of France:

http://www.google.com/search?q=Cosquer+cave&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=xMc&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvnso&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=97iLTtvcLMfy0gGS_6HlBA&ved=0CEcQsAQ&biw=1016&bih=570

October 4, 2011 at 10:06 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

And I stand by my statements, rolando. Your use of the term hypothesis in reference to evolution is incorrect. Timbo is incorrect in his statement about volcanic vs fossil fuel CO2 And the opinion of scientists in their discipline means more than the one observation from scientists in another field. Only they can put that observation in the perspective of all the evidence.

I never said that AGW was conclusive (because I am not in a position to), I never said that scientists are always right, or that mistakes or fraud never happen.

Although I do think the neutrino speed measurement is interesting. I wonder if the work can be replicated. If it is, it represents a major shift in relativity theory. Very exciting.

October 4, 2011 at 10:28 p.m.
rolando said...

We disagree, lkeithlu. I was correct in my usage. But we can always agree to disagree on the "hypothesis" issue. Opinions do differ, after all.

Thank you for your clarification on your position regarding AGW.

Now if we can just agree on "peer review" as the stifling, hidebound, "flat-earther" process that it is...but we probably never will. Not sure what would replace it, anyway...the idea is valid but the application is wrong. Smacks of "Gallileo Syndrome".

October 5, 2011 at 5:19 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

You are incorrect rolando. The use of hypothesis in science is very specific: a prediction of outcome for a study or experiment. "We predict that insertion of gene A in this embryo's DNA will result in production of protein B" for example. Evolution is so well established and the mechanism, natural selection and genetic diversity caused by mutations, sexual reproduction and genetic transfer, is the only explanation currently for the diversity of life. Until someone produces evidence that falsifies this, it will remain the reigning paradigm. Critics are free to disagree, but no one has produced this evidence to date. As for peer review, it is not perfect but it is the process that makes science very resistant to new ideas (conservative, so to speak). That has its benefits too, as there are a lot of goofy ideas thrown around. New ideas are slow to gain acceptance, but they do providing evidence is forthcoming. Otherwise they gain no ground, and they shouldn't. Research anyone who is in the "anti-evolution" camp. They do no research, collect no evidence. Even scientists like Behe and Johnson do nothing but write popular books. The Discovery Institute is a think tank, not a research center. The rest are mathematicians, computer scientists, etc. The religious motivations for their work are clear if you dig hard enough. At least some "creation scientists" try to do a little science, but in order to promote their "theories" they must ignore a large amount of evidence.

October 5, 2011 at 7:41 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.