Population Bubble?

Or a bit realistic?

No, I meant paranoid. You know, like how the Nazi's were terrified of a world wide conspiracy of the Jews and Communists. And used that fear that they built in the populace to make them give up their rights.

"Seizing on the burning of the Reichstag Building as the opening salvo in a communist uprising, the Nazis were able to throw millions of Germans into a convulsion of fear at the threat of Communist terror." (Reichstag Fire Decree)

When you are motivated by fear, you are usually on the wrong side morally.

You know, that Reichstag Fire Decree sounds like the principles embraced by Obama, Rudd, et al, re this scare about AGW, only they are introducing a global fear about climate change. Are the Greenies on he wrong side morally or just sucked in because they know no better?

RRVAU

Really? Because it sounded more like the patriot act to me. (Terrorists are dangerous, we must suspend some of your rights to protect you).

You know, in the history of mankind, I can't think of one instance where scientists staged a coup (overthrew a government). I can however think of a bunch of times where uniformed religious or ideologue zealots overthrew a government.

I'm a scientist, so I know that every scientific organization out there has a statement saying global warming is real and caused by man. I know the evidence is overwhelming. I know the only reason people doubt is because politically motivated blowhards perpetuate lies and misinformation to an ignorant base that laps it up like the fools that they are.

"I know that every scientific organization out there has a statement saying global warming is real and caused by man. " You know for a fact that every single scientific organization in the world has such a statement? Wow, impressive.

Is it not possible that most scientific organizations generally get a significant amount of funding from governments and that if they did not go along for now their funding would dry up? I read an article recently (in the past year) where a scientist was working on a global warming project. He admitted he doesn't believe it's man made, but if he were to put forth requests for funding of such a project he would get no funding as it's not what's "in" now.

While I would like to believe that all scientists are pure in their quest for the truth, the fact is that they are all human and all fallible. I believe most organizations (scientific or not) become political entities. Not in the sense of government type politics, but they are internally political. Thus policies they put forth are not necessarily the view of all their members...and may not even represent the majority of their members.

Oh no, now you've gone and done it. Roger will now wear you down to a pulp with climate change info...

Yeah, I thought of that before I submitted.

What's the point of presenting any data? People believe what they want. It's to frustrating to try and I get so much bile and hate built up it's counter productive. Too much hate now between US citizens, it's a shame.

Roger,

I can't speak for others, but I am happy to look at data.

What I imagine most people cringe at is that some of the hate seems to come from you. I'm not saying that is your intention. You sometimes make remarks and comments that could be interpreted as personal attacks on the individual's character. I'm also not saying others don't do the same thing. It just seems to me that your responses to some posts on heated topics (pardon the pun) such as global warming may not welcome healthy debate, but inflame the discussion.

I am pretty sure we hold very different political views....I don't hate you for that. I may think you are wrong on some issues, but you have a reason (valid or not) for what you believe. And I assume that to you, your reasons are based on sound logic after considering what you have observed. That doesn't always make you right.

When I was talking about hate, I was indeed talking about myself, not you. Many, many people feel the way I do, with just as much anger as I feel. You guys just don't and I suspect won't understand how strong the feelings are on our side. You may go to town halls and scream at our congressman, but we watch the videos on youtube and feel disgusted with the spectical. It's disgusting, and then you lecture us on open debate? Please understand that any lecture from your side is a joke. I can respect the opinions of Republicans like McCain or Powell, but aside from that, forget it.

So let me get this straight, if someone is a Republican other than McCain or Powell, you don't respect their opinions regardless of whether you have even heard them or not?

No, my dad is republican and I respect his opinion. I meant national Republican politicians. I actually like old school republicans like Bush senior or Regan. It's everything that came after Newt that I despise.

I also don't hate conservative views, just conservatives. The truth is Conservatives are conservative at all.

"You may go to town halls and scream at our congressman." I think this is an example of one of our problems. I infer from reading this that "our" means a congressman that represents the democratic voters but really that congressman serves any republicans in his region as well.

I don't know why this happens (and maybe it's because I'm just now old enough to notice it) but it seems that politicians on both sides drawing a dividing line and make the people choose sides.

I'm a moderate conserative (registered independent) and I really get tired of hearing some of the far left propaganda. As a result, I listen to the Hannity show on the way home from work. Now, I don't know which is worse to listen to; the far left or the far right (Hannity). Hannity may be worse than any liberal about scewing stories to provide a conservative point of view.

Well I'm really tire of "independents" who are actually conservatives but want to come off as open-minded. So lets agree to not like each other.

I'm not trying to be insulting here. To be honest I don't like far right any more than I like far left.

I can see your taking a lot of flak in this thread but I really don't have any thing against you (still sorry about my misreading of your comments on my post earlier). I just find that both sides tend to be close-minded.

I have no wish to make enemies here.

I'm sorry, it's tough because I usually get attacked in CR4 by 4 at a time and it starts to feel like I'm getting it from everyone. I didn't read your whole post. Your sentiments are reasonable. Truth be told, I actually don't like the far left either (I just hate the far right so much that I don't bother to admit I'm not as leftist as I pretend).

I'll give you an example. I like George Pataki a lot. He was governor of New York in the nineties. I would probably vote for him if he ran for senate or congress or even president, unless it was against Obama (who I really like).

I also deeply respect my father, who has been a republican all his life (and to this day has no idea how I ended up a liberal (the answer: Rush, Newt, Bush).

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is I apologize for lashing out at you like that, you seem reasonable, I just am responding to 6 posts at a time and lost track.

Roger

"Is it not possible that most scientific organizations generally get a significant amount of funding from governments and that if they did not go along for now their funding would dry up?"

No, it's not possible, but thanks for demonstrating precisely what I meant by paranoia.

I do not see how my question was evidence of paranoia. I consider myself not not so much as being paranoid, but more of being skeptical.

skeptic - a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.

paranoia - Extreme, irrational distrust of others.

I have always been under the impression being skeptical is a good trait for a scientist.

Scientists are not perfect, over time a theory may be proven to be valid. But during the theories, postulations, experiments and proofs, many ideas and beliefs are actually incorrect (even though they may fit the data at the time). And many times the data indicate a clear conclusion, but you read the researcher's conclusion and it's contradicts the data.

A good example....back in the early days of cholesterol discovery, it was assumed that if you ate a lot of foods containing cholesterol it would increase your blood cholesterol and contribute to coronary heart disease (CHD). So eggs and other animal products were off limits if your had high cholesterol. That view is still held by many, including physicians. Since then, it has been discovered that what you eat does in fact affect your blood cholesterol levels. However, since then it's been discovered that total blood cholesterol is not so significant. There is HDL (high density lipoproteins), LDL (low density lipoproteins), IDL (intermediate density lipoproteins) and VLDL (very low density lipoproteins). HDL is good, LDL is bad. So high levels of LDL were considered to indicate an increased risk for CHD. It turns out that LDL itself is not necessarily a good predictor of CHD. There are different types of LDL (apo A and apo B) and I think even a few others. One (apo A I think) is more like a large fluffy light substance, whereas apo B is a smaller heavier (or denser?) substance. There is a very strong relationship between high levels of apo B and CHD. And researchers also found that one of the best ways to increase apo B is to have a high carbohydrate diet, especially one high in refined carbohydrates (sugar and flour). That's quite a bit different than initially thought. The previous information was take from Gary Taubes' book "Good Calories, Bad Calories". A very interesting look at the history of nutritional studies of the past century and how distorted the interpretation of data gets to fit individual's beliefs, biases, and agendas.

I work in the simulation field, and know first hand how computer models can be wrong. An incorrect gain, initial condition or coefficient can make a huge difference whether done intentionally, accidental, or even an honest mistake.

Not all information is so clear on the subject. Here's a link to an article http://www.examiner.com/x-3420-Cleveland-Weather-Examiner%7Ey2009m3d17-More-than-700-scientists-distrust-manmade-global-warming-fears referring to quite a number of skeptics on the subject.

And a few quotes from the article,

"Japanese Geologist Dr. Shigenori Maruyama, professor at the Tokyo Institute of Technology's Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, said this month that "there was widespread skepticism among his colleagues about the IPCC's fourth and latest assessment report that most of the observed global temperature increase since the mid-20th century 'is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.'"

" Retired Award Winning NASA Atmospheric Scientist Dr. William W. Vaughan, recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Medal, a former Division Chief of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center and author of more than 100 refereed journal articles, monographs, and papers, also now points to natural causes of recent climate changes. "The cause of these global changes is fundamentally due to the Sun and its effect on the Earth as it moves about in its orbit. Not from man-made activities," Vaughan told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on February 6, 2009. "

Sounds like reasonable cause to doubt the man-made global warming theory to me. Notice I said doubt. That does not mean I have made up my mind on the subject. Do I think it's possible? Yes, absolutely. Do I think it's been proven? No. Do all scientist agree? According to you, they do or at least they should and if they don't, it's not because they are skeptical, but because they are idiots oh wait, paranoid.

A sceptic would doubt a particular scientist, or even a particular group of scientists... but someone who doubts the integrity of 80% or more of scientists is paranoid.

Roger how do you know what % of scientist support man-made global warming theory?

I am not saying I doubt the integrity of all of them. While some may intentionally misrepresent the data to support their agenda, I do not believe the majority do. I think there are those who misinterpret the data unintentionally, possibly due to unknown bias and there are those who have good intentions but are just mistaken.

I don't think I'm being clear here. I have no interest is entertaining your misconceptions and paranoia. I've done it too many times already. We can talk about anything else, but I really don't care what you have to say about global warming or healthcare (let me throw that last one in before we even start it).

Hence one of my reasons for being skeptical of scientists....open-mindedness.

Keeping an open-mind with dealing with paranoid delusions is overrated.

I can't even support Roger and get any kind word or support from him, but I do know enough to agree with his positions.

Whomever your unnamed "scientist" is can frankly kiss my ass.

If he doesn't believe in his science, or what the evidence is, go into a career worthy of his Quisling sensibilities.

I don't give a rats ass what you would like to believe.

We just went through 8 years of anti intellectual, anti science, anti ethics and now we are out of work and broke and up to beg for forgiveness.

If you are the silent majority, seeking reinstatement and more power, you can at least know, I on my own am encouraged by your sort of crap to look to Aristocratic Rule, and Republican government in its purest sense to obviate your sophistic idiocy.

P.S. I'd like to believe in a lot of stupid things, but am restrained by facts.

"Whomever your unnamed "scientist" is can frankly" Sorry I can not produce a name, I don't recall nor write down every person's name in every article I read throughout the year. I wasn't referring to him as a source to prove one thing or another, but to support the notion that not all research is for finding the truth...scientist are people with families to feed..they have to earn a paycheck. I do recall what he said as it is similar to a story a college professor (whose name I do recall but shall not name) related to me when I was in school many moons ago regarding funding for research.

He didn't say he did not believe in his science and I do not know what evidence he was looking at (neither do you for that matter). Quisling (according to Random House Dictionary - a person who betrays his or her own country by aiding an invading enemy, often serving later in a puppet government) sensitivities? Isn't that a bit strong for a person you don't know or even know anything about other than he doesn't believe in man-made global warming?

"We just went through 8 years of anti intellectual, anti science, anti ethics." So you want to follow up those 8 years with 8 years of bad science? Do you think what's going on in DC is ethical now?

I am not silent, nor seeking reinstatement and more power...actually, I would prefer there to be less power at the centralized level.

If your point is that some scientists work at manipulating facts for a paycheck, and that is okay because they are compromised to do something to get a paycheck to feed their families, well, what is that?

I did know a guy who liked the lifestyle of being the Director of Photography on many television commercials, but really didn't believe in advertising, as if it, advertising was blatant prostitution of his talents.

He told me he gave 10 percent of his earnings to charities to ease his conscience.

If this scientist actually believes human activity has not had great influence on the climate, I frankly don't understand why not.

Certainly belief in something does not necessarily make it true, and it is unwise to believe in anything too much, but there is an awful lot of evidence for human influence over the climate, regardless of natural factors out of human hands.

Maybe I ought not to have described the scientist of which you describe a Quisling, and just described them as dumb, or deprived of a good education, and ignorant.

Poor guy.

There are always ethical lapses going on in Washington DC over one thing or another. Whatever benefits my class the working class, like healthcare provided by citizenship and tax levies put to that I'm for. I do think it is unethical of powerful and rich citizens to benefit from businesses that feed off the working classes in every conceivable manner, from handouts and thieft, while screaming that the workers get paid too much.

We are talking here about the Population Bomb and people need food clothing shelter and medical care. Where people don't get what they need war happens.

You did push me more towards regard for centralized power. Jared Diamond in his book Collapse mentions his distress that after looking at what has happened on the island where Haiti and Dominican Republic share the Island how it turned out that if it were not for a Strong Man, both nations would be equally wrecks.

Anarchy is not working out since so many are undereducated, ignorant or the empowered greedy.

I may be forced to become a Republican politically, in a sense of the word, much different than the US Party that goes by that name.

You might consider going see a counselor. Sounds like you are suffering from depression.

Goin' sailing......catch y'all Mon.............have a great weekend.....

Isn't it El Pinko?

What are you going to do when the world continues to cool and find that you've been conned, as conned you have been.

Marxism, Socialism or Communism do not work. They are self-extinguishing unless enforced by an iron fist. Even then they will eventually die out. It is human nature that "some are more equal thaan others", ref Animal Farm by G Orwell.

Ideally, the world populace needs a "benevolent dictator" if that aint an oxymoron.

What are you going to do when the world continues to cool

Must be the reason why the artic ocean finally allowed a passage of a ship this summer!!!

The Earth's average temperature fluctuates continuously, it has for decades, centuries, millennia and it will continue. The fact that the Arctic has continued to thaw while the Earth's temperature cools is not so odd and it's not contradictory either. When the temperature gets above a certain point, the Arctic ice begins to melt. That beginning did not happen this summer....it happened in the past. The temperature continues to rise, more melting. At some point, the temperature stops rising and begins to fall. That doesn't mean that the temperature is yet below the point at which the quantity of ice will stop decreasing and begin to increase. What the phenomenon may suggest is that perhaps CO2 levels may not be the major cause of global warming that some believe it is (i.e. higher CO2 levels = higher temperatures). According to US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration from 1970 to 2000, the concentration rose by about 1.5ppm each year, but since 2000 the annual rise has leapt to an average 2.1ppm. Should this not correlate with higher mean temperatures? They don't, the Earth have not risen 1998 according to World Meteorological Organisation's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud in a BBC interview in April 2008.

As I thought, never done a proper day's work or held a real job in your life. A left wing radical academic who has no idea of the real world.Try talking to ordinary folk, not your lefty mates. Try politics, you're as qualifies as Mohammad Obama to be president.

Do his qualifications matter?

Although I have often disagreed with Roger, I value him for his research ability. It makes me think and gives me further lines to research.

Despite an often abrasive style (frequently as a result of being stirred up -I think deliberately-by others, I enjoy the knowledge he can give.

Like all info I receive, I still examine it critically, but it makes life interesting.

Stop stirring him fellows. I like his contribution.

Why not, these left wing academics who have no idea of the real world works, or how rest of us who actually have to work for a living feel, or how the people in developing countries feel, are all theory. In practice, they are usually wrong.

And somehow your experience and "actually having to work for a living" allows you to know how the "real world" works.

What in blazes does that even mean? What does a person have to do to have "actually worked for a living?" And what pray tell is the "real world." And who put you in charge of deciding who's work is valuable and who's work is not. All that is complete balderdash and a you should be ashamed to have resorted to it.

I think you are proving yourself to be an idiot, especially now that you have resorted to this old nonsense. If you can't put forth an intelligent argument you ought to stop posting before you make a complete fool of yourself.

BTW I disagree with Roger. I don't think the global climate change debate is a closed topic, but I appreciate and respect his intelligence, knowledge, passion on the subject. I can't say the same for you.

I've worked since I've been 14, two jobs at a time often. I'm actually working full time while getting my Ph.D.

I worked as a busboy then a waiter for close to a decade. I worked cleaning up trash at SPAC. My first job was McDonalds for 3 years. I worked at the gap and a suit store, I've worked at a gym. Worked at the Naval Research Laboratory. I've been working for 18 years, never have been fired, always get good recommendations when I leave.

I can't wait for the day when I become a left wing academic. Great healtcare, great hours, great pay, tenure! I will be so happy if your supposed insult becomes reality, it's what I've been killing myself for the last 20 years.

Its people like you, lazy and opinionated and so easily told what to believe that could use a little hard work to open your eyes to what the world is really like.

They may be wrong, but you learn a lot by proving it.

You Wrote"Despite an often abrasive style (frequently as a result of being stirred up -I think deliberately-by others, I enjoy the knowledge he can give."

Sceptic, I think you were in a rush and didn't quite say what you meant. I rewrote your comment below. No need to respond, I think we both know below is exactly what you meant.

What You Meant to Write:"Despite the fact that Roger doesn't always agree with me (since I am wrong in many things) I enjoy those rare occasions where his awesome knowledge and insight correspond with one of my opinions".

Actually Roger, I enjoy it when we disagree, especially when I can prove you wrong.

The stimulus of researching the topic and considering a differing viewpoint is valuable and I learn lots from it.

BTW thank you for your passionate defense of AGW. In researching this, I have become more and more convinced that the weight of evidence is against it.

How responsible scientists can continue to support such obvious drivel and such poor science is beyond me.

"Prove" being a relative term.

Sorry Roger. I don't think I'm misinformed and am certainly not politically motivated.

I object to the AGW scenario on the basis of the science.

It has a weak scientific base with large gaps filled by assumptions which are then used to prove the theory. In addition, there is a significant amount of dodgy work which has been accepted (eg Mann's "hockey stick") and used to make political decisions, while claimed to be sound science.

AGW has been politically proven, but the science is very shaky.

And yet every major scientific orgainization has a statement not only saying that global warming is real, but that its caused by man.

So yes you are politically motivated.

But the science doesn't stack up.

Do you want me to elaborate?

No.

Oh so now it's only major scientific organizations. In an earlier post you said all scientific organizations.

So how does being skeptical (or even paranoid) equal political motivation?

Oh brother.

You are not as smart as you think you are, actually you are quite ignorant. Not EVERY science organisation, not EVERY scientist believes in AGW. Open your eyes you narrow minded, ignorant sheep. Look and you will see the evidence that AGW is bullshit. Do some research yourself instead of selectively believing unsubstantiated stories.

Wake up, start thinking (for once), the AGW hype is just a way of introducing another tax, which Obama, Rudd, Brown etc al need to get themselves out of the debt they have imposed on all of us.

In actual fact, the Earth has cooled by 0.5 degrees F over the last 10 years. Your next winter will be long and harsh. People like you (scientists) cannot tell the weather tomorrow, let alone the next 50 to 100 years. he old farmers new more that you people, they still do in fact. Check the Old Farmers Almanac and be prepared to be enlightened.

Sea level rise? Nils-Axel Morner is better qualified to speak about sea level than most and certainly Al Gore. In an interview, he said "If you go around the globe, you find no rise anywhere.

I'll tell you more, with references when I have time to waste on the likes of narrow minded zealots.

While I find direct insults counterproductive, I did see a chart yesterday that showed the mean temperatures per year for the last 120ish years. It showed that in the 1930s we had our hottest years and the last significant hot year was 1998. I think this chart stopped at 2005.

Wow, you saw a chart. I'm sorry, I had no idea.

Again, I'm not trying to start an arguement like the other day but direct insults aren't doing justice for either side of the global warming debate.

No offense, but there is not Global Warming debate. That's the point.

I never said that global warming is a myth, but you can't expect people on the other side of a debate to be open-minded if you won't be.

I don't know if you can see it clearly but the chart someone sent showes the mean termperatures over the last 100 years and it demonstrates how the data can be manipulated to provide the results you need.

I haven't done the research of some of these scientists so this isn't my stand on the issue. In my opinion, humans are hurting the environment but I feel that politicians are taking advantage of this to further their own wealth and power which makes it difficult to see which results are true and which are distorted.

There are only so many ways I can say this (again, I'm not saying this in anger, but matter of factly).

There is no scientific debate on global warming. You can post all the graphs you want, it doesn't change the fact there is no scientific debate on global warming.

No, actually I'm quite smart.

Mmmm... I picking up hints of xenophobia, John Birch, and Heritage Foundation, with an overall bouquet of fascism.

Nyet camrade, it is happening now!

Well, as I have not seen or read "THE MATRIX", I guess I can claim it as original. No need to get bitchy, no offense was intended. I suppose you also belong to The Church of Climate Change too, that's okay but they seem to get upset when people question them too.

Yes, as a scientist, I believe that there is global warming and it is for the most part caused by man.

I had no idea there were people like you outside of the U.S. I feel a little better about the U.S. today.