Need Bees Removed?
International
Beekeeping Forums
August 21, 2014, 08:37:08 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: 24/7 Ventrilo Voice chat -click for instructions and free software here
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar bee removal Login Register Chat  

Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Does it matter who says MMGW is happening?  (Read 5756 times)
FRAMEshift
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1681


Location: North Carolina


« on: July 29, 2012, 11:15:50 AM »

Here is a scientist who was a global warming skeptic.  Funded by $60 million from the Koch brothers.  But he too has concluded that global warming is caused by human generated carbon dioxide.  I've known since the 1980s that warming was likely.  It would take some unknown mechanism to prevent warming given the rate at which we are releasing CO2.  While the exact results are complex and difficult to model, the general relationship between CO2 and warming is about as obvious as a scientific conclusion could be.

In this article, Muller rules out solar activity as a cause of the observed warming.  His group has published 5 papers detailing their work.  These papers are linked to this article:  
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=4&pagewanted=all

I am a biochemist and a liberal.  But the occurrence of MMGW is NOT a political question.  I would be very happy to find that there is no CO2 induced warming.  But that is just not the truth.   What we do about global warming IS a political question.  Maybe you want to argue that warming is a good thing.  Maybe you want to argue that God will intervene and that the world will end before we are able to destroy ourselves.  That's what Reagan's Sec. of the Interior, James Watt, claimed.  But denying scientific evidence because of your political views is dishonest.... and very dangerous.


Logged

"You never can tell with bees."  --  Winnie-the-Pooh
Sundog
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 313


Location: Florida Suncoast


« Reply #1 on: July 29, 2012, 12:10:43 PM »

  applause th_thumbsupup

Have fun!
Logged
hardwood
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3482


Location: Osteen, Fl (just south of Daytona)

Alysian Apiaries youtube.com/MrBeedude


« Reply #2 on: July 29, 2012, 03:42:07 PM »

Those dang cow farts are gonna be the end of us all!

Scott
Logged

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

Theodore Roosevelt 1907
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15076


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #3 on: July 29, 2012, 04:00:51 PM »

here's the thing...and i feel the same way about things like CCD.  these things become political arguments because of the reactions to them.  the reaction to any event, from the left, is to regulate and legislate.  it's never done in a sensible way.  it's always an OMG-knee jerk reaction that attempts to manipulate behavior to the detriment of industry and  freedom.

just as CCD happened before man was using cell phones or pesticides, global warming happened.  good thing it did.

 if we warm some we will deal with it, just as we would have if they'd been right in the '70s when they said we were going to freeze.  i would think that the prospect of some of mankind dieing off in a warm up would be attractive to the left.  after all, man is bad. 
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
iddee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5979

Location: Randleman, NC


« Reply #4 on: July 29, 2012, 04:25:42 PM »

Chicken Little had "proof" many times, too.
Logged

"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

*Shel Silverstein*
AllenF
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 8115

Location: Hiram, Georgia


« Reply #5 on: July 29, 2012, 04:28:29 PM »

 grin
Logged
Grandpa Jim
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 172


Location: Southeast PA


« Reply #6 on: July 29, 2012, 06:35:41 PM »

Who are we saving the planet for?  Our kids?  We have already spent their money and are now working on their kids money..how will they live in the perfect "Garden of Eden" we have left for them.  Or course that 1%, if taxed properly, should be able to bail us all out.  And maybe if we just line Al Gore's pockets a little thicker the GW might stop.  Just a thought ....One substantial Volcanic eruption like in the 1800's could put us into an ice age again...we might be glade for the extra warming we created.

Regulations in the name of saving the planet have done more harm to our economy, than good.  Our country has been build on individuals with ideas, growing them into businesses, which employ people, who spend money, which makes the economy grow.  Regulations have put a stop to that!  To start even a small business today you need tens of thousands of dollars to meet all the regulations before you can stick a shovel into the ground.  Land studies, water studies, ADA regulations etc.  Non of which add anything to the value of the business, but all in the name of saving the planet.  This is where we have created jobs ....people doing useless studies that add nothing to the finished business, but do give them a job....no tangable product produced...Oh, just like politicians. 

Our planet has had many ups and downs, before we were here.  The Appalachian mountains were once like the Rockies.  They eroded away....without our help or lack of help with erosion control.  Had we been here and done a better job we could have more and bigger ski resorts on the East Coast.
Logged
ApalacheeRiverFarms
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53

Location: Hopelessly Lost


« Reply #7 on: July 29, 2012, 07:39:32 PM »

I agree grandpa Jim
Logged
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15076


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #8 on: July 29, 2012, 08:12:23 PM »

now you know you can only do erosion control where the tree huggers tell you you can.  you can't do it to save your home, or to even save your land.  you can only do it if some fish or bird might be impacted by some dirt in the water....
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
FRAMEshift
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1681


Location: North Carolina


« Reply #9 on: July 29, 2012, 09:08:48 PM »


Our planet has had many ups and downs, before we were here.  The Appalachian mountains were once like the Rockies.  They eroded away....without our help or lack of help with erosion control.  Had we been here and done a better job we could have more and bigger ski resorts on the East Coast.
Oh you are correct about that.  In a few thousand years the Earth will be just fine.  I suppose some humans might survive and certainly most of the insects.   Bees might become the dominant life form on Earth.

But if you think civilization will survive unlimited burning of carbon fuels, I think that is not possible.  We are a fragile veneer on a big ball of rock.  The rock will be just fine.
Logged

"You never can tell with bees."  --  Winnie-the-Pooh
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15076


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #10 on: July 29, 2012, 09:34:34 PM »

then not to worry, right?
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
Grandpa Jim
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 172


Location: Southeast PA


« Reply #11 on: July 29, 2012, 10:40:00 PM »

I am not for unlimited burning of carbon fuels...but I am also not for using our food (corn) to make fuel rather than taking the oil and gas out of the ground...Who ever thought of that!!  But, if we all buy electric cars next year, how will we generate the electricity to power them...Atomic..don't want one of them near me...Oh, wait I am within 5 miles of Three Mile Island (might explain that growth on my back)....Coal... too dirty have to shut them down....Hydro....nope ..Shad cannot get up the river to spawn....Wind...those turbines make too much noise don't want them in my neighborhood and they kill birds too  (Kennedy was all for them until they were going to put some in the ocean near him).

It would be great to go back to the time when we had one small TV for the whole house, one 50 watt light bulb (not a squirrely one, but a real one) in each room, one car per family and a family owned grocery store on each corner that you could walk to and get everything you needed.   That is not going to happen soon.....Well second thought the way we are being led (or dragged depending on your affiliation) we could be back to that very soon.
Logged
Sundog
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 313


Location: Florida Suncoast


« Reply #12 on: July 30, 2012, 12:03:29 AM »

Don't confuse me with the truth, my mind's made up!

Still having fun!
Logged
kingbee
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1083


Location: Big bend of the Tennessee River


« Reply #13 on: August 06, 2012, 01:35:33 PM »

To ansewr your question, No, it does't matter who says MMGW is happning.  

It only matters if MMGW is really happning.
http://soldierforliberty.wordpress.com/2009/10/17/december-2009-will-be-the-end-of-us-sovereignty/
« Last Edit: August 06, 2012, 01:46:37 PM by kingbee » Logged
Boom Buzz
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 165


Location: Longmont, CO


« Reply #14 on: August 06, 2012, 04:39:15 PM »

Thanks for the link Kingbee...great info in the videos.

Frameshift, some points that strike me on this subject
1.  I think we can all agree that climate change has happened over the ages - ice ages, warm periods,  Hot wet periods, etc.  But the current MMGW proponents do not include natural climate change in the current equation.  It gets dismissed as not the current cause.  As if the climate stabilized naturally for a period and now the climate change we are seeing is only man made.  The whole "story" would hold more validity, at least to me anyhow, if the scientists acknowledged that there is a natural change as a component, and man made component.  For instance, temperatures are increasing naturally at x rate, and CO2 contributed by humans has had an accelerating effect of y.  But this is not how the data is presented.
2.  The MMGW proponents would have more credibility if they did not immediately tie this phenomenon to wealth distribution, carbon credits and taxes, geopolitical agreements, etc.  It seems the political goals are the desired outcome, and MMGW is the convenient means to achieve that end.  Ultimately, one world government seems to be the end game.  At least it wouldn't feel like such a massive manipulation if they scientific community focused on hard evidence that it is man made, conclusive evidence.  And there was a process to determine how to address it.  But the evidence of MMGW is not clear, nor conclusive.  Only the end game espoused by the environmentalists and one world government proponents is clear.
3.  Also, why do the MMGW proponents feel they need to shut down debate and discussion.  As scientists I would think they would want to get to the truth!?  That they would be open to looking at different models, data and research.  This raises doubts to their integrity as scientists and their true motives.

Personally, I believe the climate does change naturally just like it has in the past, and temperatures appear to be rising.  But I am not convinced it is man made.  I also believe we are to be good stewards of the earth and our environment.  And I would like to see cleaner energy technologies developed and implemented.  But I am very suspicious when politicians start driving an agenda that aligns with their doctrine and world view, and use suspect data and evidence to validate it.  Just my 2 cents...

John
Logged
FRAMEshift
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1681


Location: North Carolina


« Reply #15 on: August 06, 2012, 06:22:55 PM »

An intelligent reply, Boom Buzz.


Frameshift, some points that strike me on this subject
1.  I think we can all agree that climate change has happened over the ages - ice ages, warm periods,  Hot wet periods, etc.  But the current MMGW proponents do not include natural climate change in the current equation.  It gets dismissed as not the current cause.  As if the climate stabilized naturally for a period and now the climate change we are seeing is only man made.  The whole "story" would hold more validity, at least to me anyhow, if the scientists acknowledged that there is a natural change as a component, and man made component.  For instance, temperatures are increasing naturally at x rate, and CO2 contributed by humans has had an accelerating effect of y.  But this is not how the data is presented.

Of course people who see MMGW happening understand that there is also natural variation in climate.  And that natural variation often has CO2 variation as a cause.  That does not weaken the case for MMGW, it strengthens it.  We know that we are increasing CO2 (and methane) and we know that historically that has led to natural climate change.  But this time it is us who are causing it.

Do you think that climatologists just forgot to consider natural change as a component?  Of course not.  But they have concluded that the human released CO2 is the major driver.  I'm not sure that there even are other positive natural driving factors for temperature increase.  We are overdue for an ice age (as was predicted in the 1970s) so the natural factors may be in the other direction and are just being overwhelmed by the man-made increase.  I'm no expert on that.
Quote
2.  The MMGW proponents would have more credibility if they did not immediately tie this phenomenon to wealth distribution, carbon credits and taxes, geopolitical agreements, etc.  It seems the political goals are the desired outcome, and MMGW is the convenient means to achieve that end. 

Immediately?  I first read about MMGW in the early 80s in Scientific American magazine.  There was no political agenda attached to the idea for many years.  It was really only when the phenomenon became clearly measurable that concrete solutions were advanced.  I clearly remember that in the early 1990s I thought that MMGW was likely but I thought we had time to make sure before we took radical action.  By 2002 or so I was convinced that it was time to act.  First, I would suggest that you separate the two issues in your own mind.  If you don't think MMGW is happening, you don't need to worry further.  But once you are convinced, you have a duty to face the problem and support some solution.  If you have a solution other than those of which you complain, fine.  But please don't rely on "science" to bail us out.  You have already rejected climate science so you will have to think of something else. Smiley  You could hope and pray.  Think that will work? 
 
Quote
Ultimately, one world government seems to be the end game.  At least it wouldn't feel like such a massive manipulation if they scientific community focused on hard evidence that it is man made, conclusive evidence.  And there was a process to determine how to address it.  But the evidence of MMGW is not clear, nor conclusive.  Only the end game espoused by the environmentalists and one world government proponents is clear.

You are just plain wrong about this.  Do you think the overwhelming majority of climate scientists are dumb or just pretending to accept the data?  I'm not a climate scientist.... I'm a biochemist and I can tell you that most people in science can see the obvious case for MMGW.  People who don't have a scientific background tend to be easily misled by corporate sponsored arguments that are fashioned purposefully to stop regulation of fossil fuel burning.  Why do you think they would want to do that?   Scientists don't have a vested interest one way or the other except that they have to live on the planet like the rest of us.  The oil and coal industry do have a monetary interest and... I suppose... a very short time horizon.  Sad
Quote
3.  Also, why do the MMGW proponents feel they need to shut down debate and discussion.  As scientists I would think they would want to get to the truth!?  That they would be open to looking at different models, data and research.  This raises doubts to their integrity as scientists and their true motives.

Why do you think they haven't looked at all sorts of other models?  They have just concluded that they are invalid.   The true motives of scientists are in general related to a search for truth.  Most scientists are not adept at politics or finance, but when it comes to survival of the human race, I'd bet on them.
Quote

Personally, I believe the climate does change naturally just like it has in the past, and temperatures appear to be rising.  But I am not convinced it is man made.  I also believe we are to be good stewards of the earth and our environment.  And I would like to see cleaner energy technologies developed and implemented.  But I am very suspicious when politicians start driving an agenda that aligns with their doctrine and world view, and use suspect data and evidence to validate it.  Just my 2 cents...
You may be right about politicians.  I'm not going to defend them.  Politicians on both sides tend to hand-pick the "facts" they will believe.  But I don't attach the same skepticism to science and scientists.

Logged

"You never can tell with bees."  --  Winnie-the-Pooh
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15076


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #16 on: August 06, 2012, 08:25:31 PM »

Quote
The true motives of scientists are in general related to a search for truth.

or grant money.

here's the thing i have seen over and over in my kind of long life....

consensus "science" and liberal ideology are linked.  you don't have to look at just global warming.  there have been any number of scientific panic bombs set off and the immediate response is to regulate human behavior.  CCD has happened before, but you don't hear about it.  you hear about all the bad things man is doing to kill off the bees.  the globe has warmed and cooled before.  two identified drivers have been solar activity and volcanic activity, but both are ignored by the leftists in favor of the activities of man. 

there is an assumption that warming is bad.  based on what?  warming has historically been good for the majority.  we have evidence of warm periods being times of great growth and productivity. 

the other thing i don't understand is that the left is convinced that 1. man is bad and 2. there are to many of us.  if your predictions about global warming come true, seems like a huge part of your problem with man will be solved.

embrace it.
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
BlueBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4167

Location: Mid Michigan


« Reply #17 on: August 06, 2012, 11:27:43 PM »

Im going to agree with Frameshift that scientists are generally pretty thorough and honest and that the addition of a greenhouse gas to an otherwise unchanging system will result in heating up the planet since long wave radiative cooling is inhibited.  And YES, the scientists will have thought of everything a bunch of beeks can dream up, and then some  That much Im sure about  grin

I dont deny warming is happening, but my beef is with drastic action at this point in time.  Yes we know the CO2 variable has increased.  Yes we know that will trap more heat.  Yes we know that will increase the temps if all other variables are constant.  What we dont know is the output of the Sun.  Surely it has some variability over time (there is a cycle of sun spots); most everything is cyclical.  The Sun is the main driver in the whole system, the source on the input energy.  The temperature inside a greenhouse gets pretty darn cold without the Suns energy coming in.  The Sun is a first order variable, CO2 is maybe a 10th order variable.  

I would rather hold off on drastic action until we have better data on the energy output and cyclic nature of the Sun; the prime driver of the whole system.  Despite the dreams of our conservative beeks, we will eventually run out of fossil fuels and the CO2 problem will resolve itself. As for immediate action, Im more concerned about the Methane that the natural gas drillers are venting to the atmosphere (because the price of the stuff is too cheap to sell in many cases)

In the grand scheme of things, the USA will be bankrupt long before we are cooked by CO2.  Not sure what will be left to save  Sad
Logged
Boom Buzz
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 165


Location: Longmont, CO


« Reply #18 on: August 07, 2012, 12:04:25 AM »

Frameshift, thanks for the reply.

Just to reply to some of your comments...(sorry, I have't figured out how to excerpt quotes correctly, so highlighted your comments in blue)

Do you think that climatologists just forgot to consider natural change as a component?  Of course not.

The problem is the MM aspect never seems to be presented as just a component of climate change.  It is presented by proponents as THE reason for current climate change.  Definitively.  No more discussion needed. 

And your right, the MMGW theory has been around for a few decades.  So you're correct to call out my comment about "immediately" tying this phenomenon to wealth distribution, carbon credits, geopolitical agreements is suspect.  The rest of the comment still stands.  Why does MMGW translate into these other aspects?  In order to drive a political agenda.  There are multiple agendas in play here - environmentalists, Politicians, Scientists, Academics, industry, all have their potential gains and agendas.  The issue has become highly politicized.  Why?  Because there is so much to be gained.

You are just plain wrong about this.  Do you think the overwhelming majority of climate scientists are dumb or just pretending to accept the data?  I'm not a climate scientist.... I'm a biochemist and I can tell you that most people in science can see the obvious case for MMGW.  People who don't have a scientific background tend to be easily misled by corporate sponsored arguments that are fashioned purposefully to stop regulation of fossil fuel burning.  Why do you think they would want to do that?   Scientists don't have a vested interest one way or the other except that they have to live on the planet like the rest of us.  The oil and coal industry do have a monetary interest and... I suppose... a very short time horizon.

I may be wrong.  But I don't for a minute believe the scientists purporting this theory are just seeking the truth.  There is too much at stake, like research grant money, the threat of being blacklisted and loss of livelihood.  This is a big industry which is not immune to greed and pride and power. 

I think the story would be much more compelling if there were stronger data and evidence that climate change is man made, and thus the scientific community had more consensus, and the solutions were technological developments to reduce CO2, not political solutions that transfer wealth, and if proponents were less focused on shutting down the opponents. 

There is plenty of evidence temperatures on average are increasing.  The question is, is man causing it?  I am not convinced we are.  Given the history of climate change on earth over eons, and the science that points to other probable causes, natural causes, and combined with the various agendas of the constituent parties, there is plenty to doubt. 

John
Logged
BlueBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4167

Location: Mid Michigan


« Reply #19 on: August 07, 2012, 12:05:41 AM »

Im not for inaction on the CO2 issue; I think it is very wise to go after the easy fixes which (amazingly) our Congress has made some progress on.  Banning VERY inefficient incandescence light bulbs was a no brainer.  Increasing the fuel efficiency standard for cars and truck for the 1st time in decades was a no brainer.  Modern building codes require a descent amount of insulation to cut down on heating costs (and CO2).  Switching over from old coal fire plants to cheaper NG should help too.  

Dare I say the Republicans were right in saying the real problem will be China and the developing world given a pass by Kyota?  Yes, it does pain me to say that Sad  Seems to be what Frameshifts link worries about too.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Beemaster's Beekeeping Ring
Previous | Home | Join | Random | Next
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.985 seconds with 21 queries.

Google visited last this page July 26, 2014, 04:35:43 AM