H
HelenRose
Guest
Rice hulls. How would that work?
- Status
L
lynnvinc
Guest
I can’t remember, but I may have the paper somewhere. All I know is these guys knew what they were talking about, and the issue was the high GHG emissions from cement making, and that replacing one of the components with (I think) rice hulls (which was a renewable waste product anyway, and cheaper) they could make cement involving less GHG emissions (and other concomitant pollution), chepaer, and it would actually be stronger, or the same. I can’t remember. If I run across the paper, I let you know. It was a social science conference, but these presenters were more sci-tech types.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
- No, not really. The temperature of the world fluctuates, normally.
- No, humans are not responsible because climate changes constantly. North America was once covered by glaciers 5000 feet thick, not that long ago; and geological indications are that the Earth has had many ice ages.
- It says that the person reads widely. AGW is based on computer models that are increasingly coming under criticism … and at worst, one degree in the next hundred years. Not enough to notice or to get concerned about. Slightly warmer temperatures … if it happens … are good for crops … they grow better in slightly warmer climates than in colder climates. Optimum carbon dioxide is 1200 ppm; we’re only at 360 ppm.
- If that position is contrary to yours, then the romance is probably doomed from the start … because it becomes an irreconcilable difference.
It is an important read; BUT … tempered by British sense of humor.
thegwpf.org/rupert-darwall-age-global-warming/
Bring coffee; it is longish. But the length and seriousness are tempered by the British sense of humor.
Try it first … then get comfortable and then get the coffee … enjoy … dig in.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
Thanks for that link, Monte, going to read it today!
I do wish people could understand how much of what is done in the name of improving our lives is merely to grab more money and power.
p.s. Here’s the first quote he gives, from Georges Pompidou.
‘There are 3 roads to ruin. Women, gambling and Technicians. The most pleasant is with women. The quickest is with gambling. But the surest is with Technicians.’
And don’t the French know about this subject…
I capitalized the Technicians because it is not our word, it means the bureaucrats who run France, who graduate from Polytechnique, they are France’s elites, the governing class.
I do wish people could understand how much of what is done in the name of improving our lives is merely to grab more money and power.
p.s. Here’s the first quote he gives, from Georges Pompidou.
‘There are 3 roads to ruin. Women, gambling and Technicians. The most pleasant is with women. The quickest is with gambling. But the surest is with Technicians.’
And don’t the French know about this subject…
I capitalized the Technicians because it is not our word, it means the bureaucrats who run France, who graduate from Polytechnique, they are France’s elites, the governing class.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
It’s an amazing read.
thegwpf.org/rupert-darwall-age-global-warming/
Actually, not that long … because of the British humor found throughout.
However, here is the excerpted conclusion:
***During the age of global warming, this had a number of undesirable consequences. Despite their abysmal predictive record and their predisposition to unwarranted pessimism about the future of humanity, it gave scientists an enormously enhanced political role. Because climate science became the leading branch of global therapeutics, it made climate science too big to fail. And in becoming a tool of political advocacy, the nature of climate science became antithetical to science itself.
‘What is called objectivity consists solely in the critical approach,’ Popper wrote.
Because criticism risked undermining the consensus needed to save the planet, evidence was withheld and criticism delegitimized as serving the interests of malign fossil fuel corporations. It also blinded scientists and governments alike to the inescapable logic of global warming. A tonne of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere has the same physical impact irrespective of who put it there. Absent a global agreement covering the world’s largest economies, even if the scientists are right, decarbonising the British economy is entirely pointless. Given all the history, the biggest surprise about the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference is that anyone was remotely surprised at the outcome.
When global warming first entered international politics in 1988, it was into a pre-existing set of Third World demands and conditions, the most important being that their economic development should not be constrained by environmental obligations. Belief that the Third World would agree to limit their use of fossil fuels ignores the history of the developing world’s strictly conditional involvement with First World environmentalism going back to the 1972 Stockholm conference. There was never a chance.
The leaders of the developing world understood better than Western politicians what the French economist Frederic Bastiat found in the 19th century. Bastiat asked: Why is it famine in Europe had become a thing of the past?
The answer: The means of existence rise far above the means of subsistence. When years of scarcity come, we can give up some enjoyments before encroaching up the necessities of life.
So to my final thought:
The best defence against capricious nature and the best global warming policy is: Economic growth – and do not do anything that stops us and the developing world from growing.
thegwpf.org/rupert-darwall-age-global-warming/
Actually, not that long … because of the British humor found throughout.
However, here is the excerpted conclusion:
***During the age of global warming, this had a number of undesirable consequences. Despite their abysmal predictive record and their predisposition to unwarranted pessimism about the future of humanity, it gave scientists an enormously enhanced political role. Because climate science became the leading branch of global therapeutics, it made climate science too big to fail. And in becoming a tool of political advocacy, the nature of climate science became antithetical to science itself.
‘What is called objectivity consists solely in the critical approach,’ Popper wrote.
Because criticism risked undermining the consensus needed to save the planet, evidence was withheld and criticism delegitimized as serving the interests of malign fossil fuel corporations. It also blinded scientists and governments alike to the inescapable logic of global warming. A tonne of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere has the same physical impact irrespective of who put it there. Absent a global agreement covering the world’s largest economies, even if the scientists are right, decarbonising the British economy is entirely pointless. Given all the history, the biggest surprise about the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference is that anyone was remotely surprised at the outcome.
When global warming first entered international politics in 1988, it was into a pre-existing set of Third World demands and conditions, the most important being that their economic development should not be constrained by environmental obligations. Belief that the Third World would agree to limit their use of fossil fuels ignores the history of the developing world’s strictly conditional involvement with First World environmentalism going back to the 1972 Stockholm conference. There was never a chance.
The leaders of the developing world understood better than Western politicians what the French economist Frederic Bastiat found in the 19th century. Bastiat asked: Why is it famine in Europe had become a thing of the past?
The answer: The means of existence rise far above the means of subsistence. When years of scarcity come, we can give up some enjoyments before encroaching up the necessities of life.
So to my final thought:
The best defence against capricious nature and the best global warming policy is: Economic growth – and do not do anything that stops us and the developing world from growing.
F
Frank_Drebin
Guest
- No idea. There is evidence on both sides, but since the evidence on the “global warming is real” side tends to be from people who are wrong on every other moral teaching (abortion, contraception, political candidates), I question God’s choice of them to be the messenger for such an important issue. Lynnvic is one of the few I have seen that is knowledgeable, adament about the impacts of GW, and pro-life. The rest tend to be “save the planet” hippie types left over from the '60s.
- No idea, but God gave the planet to man, not man to the planet. As long as are striving to be good stewards, the details will always sort themselves out.
- Who knows. Generally, they are a liberal, pro-choice, and not very religious. STatistically speaking anyway. Ergo my distrust of them. Hearing about respecting life on the planet while fighting for the right to kill babies is like getting advice on healthy eating from Dom Deluise. Forgive me if I can’t take them seriously.
- I suppose people can fall in love with their polar opposites, but I am doubtful. I question the convictions of people like Carville and Matalin who are married to their polar opposite. If my spouse believed the exact opposite of me on the most important, life and death, Heaven or Hell issues (which faith and by definition politics becomes), I simply would not have any respect for them, because I believe it to be a serious character flaw. And since I view these things as either helping save the world or destroying it, being attracted to someone I view as hurting the world just doesn’t happen. As a general rule of thumb, if I assume a person cannot change his worldview (a falsehood I know), I look at it from the perspective of “would society better off without this person and their warped views?” If the answer is yes, then I doubt I’ll find them very attractive as a spouse. Of course, people can change.
Of course I am married to a conservative, so it isn’t a problem. But I still question the principles of people like those two, much like we now see the lack of principle for a guy like Rob Portman. Clearly, those core priniples were never there.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
Remember, Frank, and all, we are not even arguing about “global warming,” but HUMAN CAUSED global warming. The planet’s overall temperature may be increasing, but we don’t have the means to measure it of course. The theory is based upon computer modeling from the pitiful few measurements we have (and even those are untrustworthy). Science is not done by starting with a belief system and then manipulating the data to confirm it. The whole AGW theory is rooted in secular humanism. Its proponents are unable to discuss this since they are fish in water - they can’t tell you that they are wet.
One of the hallmarks of people who are losing an argument is that they try to change the terms of the argument. AGW has now become “climate change.” Just that shift in terms weakens their position, since climate change is the nature of this earth that God created! And “climate change” can be applied to just about any weather condition, if the AGW proponents would just be honest. But there is too much at stake, too much profit, too much control, and the water they swim in is very wet. Even when evidence emerges that data was deliberately falsified, the denial cannot be broken. When one holds an ideological position with such a firm grasp, it signals a very brittle and fragile mind, one that cannot consider life from all angles, cannot change one’s mind when the data is shown to be different. The AGW crowd is usually pro-abortion because they believe wholeheartedly that human beings are overpopulating the planet and less of us would be a blessing. Again, to them, there is no God in charge.
One of the hallmarks of people who are losing an argument is that they try to change the terms of the argument. AGW has now become “climate change.” Just that shift in terms weakens their position, since climate change is the nature of this earth that God created! And “climate change” can be applied to just about any weather condition, if the AGW proponents would just be honest. But there is too much at stake, too much profit, too much control, and the water they swim in is very wet. Even when evidence emerges that data was deliberately falsified, the denial cannot be broken. When one holds an ideological position with such a firm grasp, it signals a very brittle and fragile mind, one that cannot consider life from all angles, cannot change one’s mind when the data is shown to be different. The AGW crowd is usually pro-abortion because they believe wholeheartedly that human beings are overpopulating the planet and less of us would be a blessing. Again, to them, there is no God in charge.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
AGW went to “Climate Change”.
And then when an insufficient number of people became hysterical at that morfing … then they changed AGW to CAGW … CATASTROPHIC Anthropogenic Global Warming.
CATASTROPHIC !!! … and guess what? … folks are still not “responding”.
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
nationalreview.com/planet-gore/340929/anthropogenic-global-warming-skepticism-real-corey-dean-hall
Well, the consensus amongst climatologists is that if it is occurring, it isn’t due to human causes. Since the actual data isn’t matching the predictions of the models attributing it to human causes.
Well, the consensus amongst climatologists is that if it is occurring, it isn’t due to human causes. Since the actual data isn’t matching the predictions of the models attributing it to human causes.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
americanthinker.com/2013/04/the_coming_global_warming_voter_backlash.html
the_coming_global_warming_voter_backlash
the_coming_global_warming_voter_backlash
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Thanks for the link, but I already had the real article on which the twisted story is based, and it is about how engineers and scientists working in the oil industry (mainly tar sands, as the sample comes from Alberta, Canada) wrongly construct ACC, compared to other experts:
Lianne M. Lefsrud and Renate E. Meyer, 2012. Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change. Organization Studies 33(11): 1477-1503. From the discussion and conclusion:
Climate change could irreversibly affect future generations and, as such, is one of the most urgent issues facing organizations … For obvious reasons, fossil fuel industries’ stakes in this struggle are high and, not surprisingly, they are at the forefront of the opposition to carbon regulation …*n order to understand this defense and resistance and to move forward with international policies, organizational researchers must gain more indepth understanding of the subtleties of the contestation and unravel the whole spectrum of frames including those of climate change deniers and sceptics. However, given the polarized debate, gaining access to the reasoning of deniers and sceptics, let alone unraveling their framings, is far more difficult than analyzing supporters of regulatory measures. This has motivated our research question: How do professional experts use frames to construct the reality of climate change, and themselves as experts, their credibility in making recommendations and decisions, while engaging in defensive institutional work against others?
We examine the discursive contestation of climate change and associated expertise by professional engineers and geoscientists. We use an instrumental case to examine the debate among these professionals who dominate the oil industry in Alberta, with the oil sands as a source of particularly ‘dirty’ oil.
…Defense can result from different worldviews and from identity threats… we find that professional experts employed in the petroleum industry are more likely to be sceptical of the IPCC and of anthropogenic climate change.
Dah!*
S
Soren_Itenu
Guest
It’s not really a matter of belief. It’s either scientifically correct, or people are lying about it to further their own agendas (leaked e-mail scandal etc). Since I’m not privy to all the information, I don’t know who is telling the truth. But it seems like recycling and cutting down on fossil fuel consumption are good things anyway, which is why I recycle and don’t own a car. I take public transportation only.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Good for you. That’s the Christian response to this issue…when in doubt, follow Christian virtues of prudence and such.
A
aspirant
Guest
Do you believe that the world is becoming warmer?
The global average temperatures are increasing. (The practical results of that are not the same in every place on the globe, which is why some people would say “global climate disruption/change” rather than “global warming.” It’s both.)
If so, do you believe that humans are responsible for global warming?
We’re contributing to it. I’ve never encountered anyone who thinks humans are the sole cause. Maybe, if there are any people who say that, they’re counting us as only moral agents who are contributing?
What does it say about a person if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?
I don’t really have enough information to answer that question.
What does it say about a romantic partner if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?
See above.
The global average temperatures are increasing. (The practical results of that are not the same in every place on the globe, which is why some people would say “global climate disruption/change” rather than “global warming.” It’s both.)
If so, do you believe that humans are responsible for global warming?
We’re contributing to it. I’ve never encountered anyone who thinks humans are the sole cause. Maybe, if there are any people who say that, they’re counting us as only moral agents who are contributing?
What does it say about a person if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?
I don’t really have enough information to answer that question.
What does it say about a romantic partner if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?
See above.
It’s either scientifically correct or not, with that much I agree.
I agree. Reducing use of fossil fuels, carbon emissions, waste, etc., are still good things to do. Investing in renewable energy sources is still a good thing to do.
S
Soren_Itenu
Guest
Yeah, my instincts tell me that a tree is better than a car, that a park is better than a factory.
K
khuldar
Guest
Yes
No
They mistrust science or are informed via other means.
Nothing, They are entitled to their own opinions.
This is an interesting website for another view of mainstream science on global warming:
climaterealists.com/
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
For an interesting source of information, visit www.sepp.org and click on the TWTW newsletter.Do you believe that the world is becoming warmer?
The global average temperatures are increasing. (The practical results of that are not the same in every place on the globe, which is why some people would say “global climate disruption/change” rather than “global warming.” It’s both.)
If so, do you believe that humans are responsible for global warming?
We’re contributing to it. I’ve never encountered anyone who thinks humans are the sole cause. Maybe, if there are any people who say that, they’re counting us as only moral agents who are contributing?
What does it say about a person if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?
I don’t really have enough information to answer that question.
What does it say about a romantic partner if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?
See above.
It’s either scientifically correct or not, with that much I agree.
I agree. Reducing use of fossil fuels, carbon emissions, waste, etc., are still good things to do. Investing in renewable energy sources is still a good thing to do.
The TWTW newsletter comes out weekly. It’s free and you can subscribe on line.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
For a more truthful look, check out:
- epa.gov/climatechange/ (for basic info)
- realclimate.org (you can also ask Qs there and get good scientific answers)
- ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml (for reports based on the top science)
- realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=RC_Wiki
- skepticalscience.com/argument.php
- desmogblog.com/
- An extensive database of individuals involved in the global warming denial industry - desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database
- For a personal and scientific account of how they attacked a climate scientist and lobbed death threats at his 6 year old daughter: Mann’s The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars.
- Koch Industries funding CC denial: greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/
- Exxon funded orgs: exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php
- Koch, Exxon, Scaife funded denial - desmogblog.com/denial-a-palooza-4th-international-conference-climate-change-heartland
- Acton Institute (headed by Fr. Sirico, who appears on WorldOver) - fossil fuel funded - exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=5 ,
- Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation (formerly the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance) - fossil fuel funded: exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=142
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
It is worthwhile to look into the whole “hockey stick” and Mann’s “issues”. Completely debunked.
IPCC is in the process of disintegrating … because of all of the manipulations they have been engaged in. And which are now, finally, being exposed.
What interested folks need to do is to do google searches … using the word “critique” with each of the items listed.
And whenever someone raises or makes accusations regarding funding issues, then get the exact specifics … specific dates and amounts … for example.
Reason: we no longer allow any double standards.
IPCC is in the process of disintegrating … because of all of the manipulations they have been engaged in. And which are now, finally, being exposed.
What interested folks need to do is to do google searches … using the word “critique” with each of the items listed.
And whenever someone raises or makes accusations regarding funding issues, then get the exact specifics … specific dates and amounts … for example.
Reason: we no longer allow any double standards.
- Status