HAARP?

Ishtar · Post by **Ishtar** » Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:54 am

Right you two!

Next time I say that about science, and you're arguing with me about it, I shall just refer you to your last posts here. You're virtually quoting me word for word!

Of course I know all that. But I can see the effects of global warming in my own lifetime, in the last ten years. I know its happening and I don't want my grand daughter to have to cope with a terrible legacy, if I can help it.

So whatever can be done to mitigate/slow down or even prevent these effects, I'm in favour of. It's a simple as that.

And there's another factor which is more practical - rising oil prices. It's not healthy for our country to be dependent on others for their energy, particularly with oil prices being as they are and no hope of improving. It could even turn out to be a matter of national security. So we need to develop newer and hopefully cleaner ways of producing energy in our own backyard and what do we have loads of? Wind!!!!

Gordon Brown announced 7,000 new wind turbines for Britain yesterday, and most of them will be in the North Sea, replacing the old oil and gas fields. The government is also pushing through legislation so that planning permissions will be obtained more quickly, bypassing the NIMBYs. This is necessary because this has seriously hampered wind farm development in the UK as investors favour companies building them in Europe where the planning works much quicker.

Also, at the moment, the British government is talking to the Spanish government (who are good at producing solar power, naturally!) about adapting and joining up our grids so that we can all switch between solar and wind power as we need to, and possibly supply more than just our two countries. This is serious, grown up and on the table stuff and its really happening - I know this through the work I'm currently doing.

So there are good reasons to clean up our acts - apart from global warming.

Ishtar · Post by **Ishtar** » Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:59 am

Sorry WA, we must have posted at the same time. I wasn't including you in my rant at Dig and Rich.

But I'm glad to see we're in agreement for once about something! Let's make the most of it because it's unlikely to happen again!

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:00 am

Min has answered that argument many times WA, and I agree with him, that arguments in favour of cleaning up the planet, of not wasting resources etc etc are argument enough without even mentioning GW!
Also if you check I stated, and can prove, that the northern hemisphere has warmed, the question is whether or not it is man made.
GRIP, the Greenland Ice Core Programme has established that temps once rose by 22 degree in 50 yrs without a 4 X 4 in sight and they have no theory to explain it.
Without that explanation why should anyone accept that the present VERY much smaller rise is anything other than natural?

Ishtar · Post by **Ishtar** » Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:02 am

Digit wrote: GRIP, the Greenland Ice Core Programme has established that temps once rose by 22 degree in 50 yrs without a 4 X 4 in sight and they have no theory to explain it.
Without that explanation why should anyone accept that the present VERY much smaller rise is anything other than natural?

Wasn't there a documentary about that? And didn't it get roundly slated? Something about the dating not being right because ice pushed downwards?

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:07 am

Woah Ish! What terrible legacy might that be?
The G & D merchants keep on about that but are you assuming that there is no upside?
Concensus is an error when applied to science. There never has been any concensus in science about anything, there has always been dissenters, flat Earthers included.

Ishtar · Post by **Ishtar** » Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:15 am

Yeah ... that's probably what they said to Noah - and Manu!

I'm going with most of the scientists on this one.

rich · Post by **rich** » Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:17 am

Here ya' go Ish - a step in your direction with clean air:

http://www.theaircar.com/acf/

But still - the universe is not all about mankind. Never was and never will be. What's good for us may be bad for it!!! Or it might not - - -!

Ishtar · Post by **Ishtar** » Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:22 am

Well, last time I looked, all mammals and reptiles breathed in oxygen and expelled carbon dioxide, and most plants breathed in the carbon dioxide. And fish liked to swim in clean waters.

I don't think that's changed ....

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:27 am

I'm 68 this year Ish and in that time I have seen every scientific theory challenged.
In the 70s the 'consensus' was that we were heading for an Ice Age, (probably correct). Till late in the 20C the 'consensus' was in support of a static universe.
For hundreds of years the 'consensus' was in support of Newton and his version of gravity. An earlier 'consensus' supported the Aether. The list is endless.
The test that all theories must pass is to explain known conditions and make a successful prediction of a certain outcome.
MMGW fails on all counts.
And you accept it? That is bad science!
Scientists actually have a near 100 percent record of being wrong! If it were otherwise we would not be still asking questions, they would have answered.

Here is a sensible assessment of pro and con Ish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

rich · Post by **rich** » Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:27 am

Well, all I know is that every time man tries to do what he thinks is ecologically good - we end up messin' things up even more. Maybe I just don't have any faith in mankind's knowledge as much as I do his un-knowledge

War Arrow · Post by **War Arrow** » Fri Jun 27, 2008 10:07 am

Ishtar wrote:Sorry WA, we must have posted at the same time. I wasn't including you in my rant at Dig and Rich.

But I'm glad to see we're in agreement for once about something! Let's make the most of it because it's unlikely to happen again!

It's a nice feeling isn't it!

(I mean about agreeing on something, not the likelihood of it not happening again - which doesn't have to be so necessarily).

I just want things to be nice.

Ishtar · Post by **Ishtar** » Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:10 am

War Arrow wrote:
I just want things to be nice.

OK, War Arrow. I'll be nice to you.

But I'm not usually that horrible to you. I just disagree with you.

But look, I'm getting doubts in my own argument now and am wondering if Dig and Rich may be right, but not because of anything they said - and if Rich is right, it's only because in his madcap dance, he may have accidentally fallen on the right button. lol!

But no I've started to have doubts now, because of your response. You are the usually a staunch defender of science, being a fully paid up member of Richard Dawkins' board and all that, and yet you are not here defending the GW being man-made argument from the scientific point of view.

Could that be because you also agree with Dig and Rich that the science supporting the case for man-made GW is bad science?

rich · Post by **rich** » Fri Jun 27, 2008 12:07 pm

I'm goin' back on AoC - have to beat somebody to death so I might as well do it in a game.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Fri Jun 27, 2008 12:24 pm

Cloud formation is well understood in general by climatologists Ish, but if the trigger is in fact cosmic radiation this comes under cosmology and unfortunately is ignored by climatologists when they programme their models. The same with solar radiation.
You will be familiar with GIGO in computing, and untill the climatologists can get a model that shows what the climate would be like now starting at, for example, 1950 we have to assum theirs is a case of GIGO. You have to understand that they are still short of info that they need to include.
If Monk is around I suspect he will be able to confirm that cosmologists reported some months ago that all the inner planets for which we have data are also undergoing a period of warming.
Coincidence!

Ishtar · Post by **Ishtar** » Fri Jun 27, 2008 12:47 pm

I take your point, Dig - but what I can see, from the area I'm currently working in, is that very very big money going into products and services for what they're calling the low carbon economy. I'm talking big big banks here .. and I was at a conference with some of them yesterday. One of the thing about these guys is that they have very stringent risk assessment processes before they sink their monies into anything.

Globally, last year, they invested more than US$144 billion in this area, worldwide.

So as you know, I often don't trust scientists ... but I do trust the judgement of the bankers only in as much as I know that they are really canny about their money, and they are worried that global warming could seriously affect businesses worldwide and thus their bottom line.

To make the point if I haven't already, these guys are big grown up suits and they can afford and get the best advice about this sort of thing. So if the science behind the theory of man-made global warming is bad, I think they'd know before we did.