I didn`t watch your thread but searching CNN.com about planet x and 2012 I found this link. Read carefully :)

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/05/25/2012-no-planet-x/

he he he.

_________________
nykk | deetronic.rs | youtube.com/djnykk | gfx.river | mamavolibebu.com

@djnick
The same story seems to repeat every damn decade. I believe the planet x were supposed to come for a visit back in 2003-2004 or so as well. There was even some idiots who committed suicide or moved to some more "protected area". I am sure they will forget about it after 2012 and just move it to 202x or something.

@HenryCase

This conventional overpopulation scare by the Ehrlichs and other pro-environementalist (J. 'de-development' Holdren for example) has long been refuted by current reality in general and the great Dr Julian Simon's works and writings in particular, whose simple and intuitive ideas were supported by many Nobel Price's economist winners (F. Hayek, M. Friedman to name a few). I suggest reading his 1996 book entitled 'The Ultimate Resource II: People, Materials, and Environment' which resolves the population scare better than a non-problem. His humanist view still waits for a proper critique (that is other than the usual eco-scares). His central point is that 'supplies of natural resources are not finite in any serious way; they are created by the intellect of man, an always renewable resource. Coal, oil and uranium were not resources at all until mixed well with human intellect' (Wall St. Journal, Ben Wattenberg).

Quote:

"There is no reason to believe that at any given moment in the future the available quantity of any natural resource or service at present prices will be much smaller than it is now, or non-existent."

Julian Simon in The Ultimate Resource

Quote:

"This is my long-run forecast in brief. The material conditions of life will continue to get better for most people, in most countries, most of the time, indefinitely. Within a century or two, all nations and most of humanity will be at or above today's Western living standards. I also speculate, however, that many people will continue to think and say that the conditions of life are getting worse."

Julian Simon

Of course, it is easier to (continue to) watch video. But fast communicating is like fast food: you also lose fast the real value of things.

Possibilities are prodigious.

And enjoy the interglacial.

Edit: added a quote

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 01-May-2009 at 03:51 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Dandy

Quote:

Didn't you write just a few postings ago that you were going to pump as much CO2 into the atmosphere as you can?

Exactly. Sorry for late reply I was away for big business (releasing CO² at larger scale...).

I will not reply to your previous and next non-s(ci)ens(c)e.

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 01-May-2009 at 04:04 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

You charged political manipulation of climate science? According to this lawsuit. There was political manipulation of GW science reports.

Do you expect I support bad Science/politic? No. If only pro-environmentalists did/do the same.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Interesting

Quote:

and wouldn't you agree that one possible consequence of more co2 would be a higher growth rate of plants to soak up the Co2?

We are studying an innovative but technical possibility to replace some (expensive) nitrogen unit at seedling (to help development/start) with direct smoke exhaust injection (from tractor) into field, right under the grain. Of course it is CO² which boosts plant germination and start...

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Do you expect I support bad Science/politic? No.

I wouldn't exactly call throwing out units of measure good science. Nor would be holding up opinions not reviewed by others in the field and requested to be written directly by politicans...

According to the lawsuit, for many years oil companies funded an anti-GW stance while their own scientists were finding pro-GW conclusions. We saw this before -- tobacco companies claimed their products don't promote cancer yet their own science said it did.

@djnick

Great article. The comments are providing for good amusement.

I liked the guy who claimed to calculate that 'Probability to have all planetoids close to perihelia, .. is less than 1:100000'. Assuming all his math is correct he didn't get that this means once every 100,000 years perihelia occurs.

I need to start a new business. Having Planet Xers and those worried of Galatic alignment in 2012 sign over all their belongings for me to own in 2013. Afterall we'll be dead they have nothing to lose.

@BrianK

Do you actually read the documents provided in the article by Revkin? Although the authors provided more physical explanations in fewer pages than supposed exhaustive IPCC's SAR itself, the depicted physics of GHG was/is incorrect (well explained with numbers in the two previous threads). Even without considering the physics, they underlined well the weak understanding of the role of clouds, water and also emphasized on limitation of modelling, all sensible and recurrent questions (see especially the 2 summaries for example).

The quoted sentence on which the whole article is based is: Quote:

The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied.

What does it means?
1/ the atmospheric effect of GHG is scientifically correct ; they did not cast public doubt about that.
2/ they recognize the potential impact of GHG on climate. Nowhere in the documents it is written that the IPCC enhanced GHG effect is more than an hypothesis. Note the important bold by me conveniently forgotten by Revkin ; his article is thus misleading by writing "the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted": unitam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant. Moreover 14 years later, "the role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood” and “scientists differ" are still current concerns and hot topics, as well as discussion of the usefulness of modelling. If you read the whole documentation, the authors questioned the uncertainties of the current Science of that time and even quoted IPCC to support their questioning and doubt:





Note especially the past sentence: says it all about IPCC method.

To conclude, the article by Revkin is a typical arm-waving one: well formed to mislead but not backed up with any substance. Relying on such misplaced demonization to support your view just renders it nihil. OTOH raising public doubts about such unproven hypothesis (AGW) is not just fair, it is the right thing to do: ubi dubium ibi libertas.

Edit: there is now an editors' note that implicitly corrects the conveniently forgotten words by Revkin but without saying it formally. Typical.

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 02-May-2009 at 04:24 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

Another interesting article:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25416631-5013404,00.html
Quote:

THE Bureau of Metereology has backed down from a claim that temperatures at Australia's three bases in Antarctica have been warming over the past three decades. While calvings from ice shelves in parts of West Antarctica have generated headlines, evidence has emerged that temperatures are cooling in the east of the continent, which is four times the size of West Antarctica. Contrary to widespread public perceptions, the area of sea ice around the continent is expanding. Professor Turner said the monthly mean temperatures for Casey station from 1980 to 2005 showed a cooling of 0.45C per decade. In autumn, the temperature trend has been a cooling of 0.93C per decade.

@Tomas

Quote:

I was just disagreeing with this. My point was that temps does not cool over 3-4 years of low sun activity. But if it continues for another 10-20 years then i believe it might have a significant impact on our climate and temperatures

I think we're in agreement here as I said that in another decade we'll be able to observe what the effect is.

Quote:

I certainly think these are interesting times as it looks like the co2/agw theory might finally be tested

I agree here that 'might' is a good term. It all depends, of course, on the factors in the system and their relationship to the rate of change.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Do you actually read the documents provided in the article by Revkin? Although the authors provided more physical explanations in fewer pages than supposed exhaustive IPCC's SAR itself, the depicted physics of GHG was/is incorrect (well explained with numbers in the two previous threads). Even without considering the physics, they underlined well the weak understanding of the role of clouds, water and also emphasized on limitation of modelling, all sensible and recurrent questions

If you want to argue valdity of the scientists that's fine.

However, it is missing the point. The point is that the oil companies paid their own scientists to study GW. They too came away with CO2 causes. The companies instead decided to ignore the scientists and front their own agenda. It's not that the oil company disproved CO2. Instead their agenda was to ignore their own scientists and fund politicans and lobbiests against GW because in the end that focus would be better for profits.

If you are truly worried about political manipulation in this debate. IMO this evidence strengths the view that industries are manipulating the science for their own gain, not to find true validity. It'll be interesting to see what the courts say.

@BrianK
I guess i hit the reply button a bit too fast

@Tomas

Ah, you have not followed the UnRealClimate buffons pseudo-research in imaginative statistics who, according to their own definition of consistency, found recently that a warming Antarctica is consistent with a cooling Antarctica. You will be loving the Lysenkoïsm science of AGW.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

If you want to argue valdity of the scientists that's fine.

Was it not the whole issue of the AGW hypothesis?

Quote:

They too came away with CO2 causes.

Not at all, as I pointed out. Read the documents provided by Revkin to see how misleading is his article.

Quote:

The companies instead decided to ignore the scientists and front their own agenda.

Again not really. They publicly cast doubts as their scientists underlined the scientific uncertainties.

Quote:

this evidence strengths the view that industries are manipulating the science for their own gain, not to find true validity.

Not the case here according to the documents which quoted IPCC own uncertainties many times as seen above. Revkin's article is just a poor attempt to build a straw-man out of perfectly valid questionings about AGW hypothesis and climate uncertainties.

Edit: made a sentence lighter

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 02-May-2009 at 05:32 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Instead of reading hot air article by sub-journalist without any ethic, why not reading more interesting science-based article full of cold facts demystifying most of alarmists eco-scares, humm? Have a good read. Especially the funny Myth N°8.

Ready to question your believes now? Then try this article: Quote:

What I am about to write questions much of what I have written in this space, in numerous columns, over the past five years. Perhaps what I have written can withstand this questioning. Perhaps not. The greater question is, am I - and you - capable of questioning our own orthodoxies and intellectual habits? Let's see. .../... Is dangerous warming occurring? No. Is the temperature range observed in the 20th century outside the range of normal variability? No. The Earth's climate is driven by the receipt and redistribution of solar energy. Despite this crucial relationship, the sun tends to be brushed aside as the most important driver of climate. Calculations on supercomputers are primitive compared with the complex dynamism of the Earth's climate and ignore the crucial relationship between climate and solar energy. "To reduce modern climate change to one variable, CO2, or a small proportion of one variable - human-induced CO2 - is not science. To try to predict the future based on just one variable (CO2) in extraordinarily complex natural systems is folly. Yet when astronomers have the temerity to show that climate is driven by solar activities rather than CO2 emissions, they are dismissed as dinosaurs undertaking the methods of old-fashioned science." .../... The hypothesis that human activity can create global warming is extraordinary because it is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archaeology and geology. "But evidence no longer matters. And any contrary work published in peer-reviewed journals is just ignored. We are told that the science on human-induced global warming is settled. Yet the claim by some scientists that the threat of human-induced global warming is 90 per cent certain (or even 99 per cent) is a figure of speech. It has no mathematical or evidential basis. .../... [Ian Plimer's book] Heaven And Earth is an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence.

Paul Sheehan, journalist

Some journalists deserve respect, at least.

And remember: enjoy the interglacial.

Edit: added another article

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 02-May-2009 at 07:28 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

why not reading more interesting science-based article full of cold facts demystifying most of alarmists eco-scares, humm? Have a good read.

Thanks. A good representation of the hot-air opinion masquerading as some sort of journalism from the denier camp. I read this and it's the standard dreck spoused from the anti-gw'ers.

For example "Professor David Karoly, one of our leading alarmists, admitted this week "temperatures have dropped" since - "both in surface temperatures and in atmospheric temperatures measured from satellites". -- Sounds great. But a simple google search for Karoly and the phrase results in a showing what is happening here. Nothing less then cherry picking part of a quote to fram the opinion in the author's favor. The very next phrase by Karoly provides the insight the author attempted to hide. "But that doesn't mean that global warming has stopped. The temperatures, if we average from 1998 to 2008, they're warmer than the previous 10 years, or the 10 years before that, or any 10-year period over at least the last 150 years.""

Bolt goes up to to the plate tosses in the first statement... Batter's out. Dishonesty. A simple check of other claims in item #1 show them failing to support Bolt.

But certainly Britain's Hadley Centre backs his statements he asked us to look so I did. Here's a great quote from the link at Hadley Center - "Over the last ten years, global temperatures have warmed more slowly than the long-term trend. But this does not mean that global warming has slowed down or even stopped. It is entirely consistent with our understanding of natural fluctuations of the climate within a trend of continued long-term warming.

Bolt's facts not only fail to support Bolt they outright contradict him. I'm uninspired to watch a game of a team with a batter so bad they can't get a runner to base, let alone a run to homeplate.

Failures in 2-end will be left for an exercise for others.

@BrianK

Quote:

But certainly Britain's Hadley Centre backs his statements he asked us to look so I did. Here's a great quote from the link at Hadley Center - "Over the last ten years, global temperatures have warmed more slowly than the long-term trend. But this does not mean that global warming has slowed down or even stopped. It is entirely consistent with our understanding of natural fluctuations of the climate within a trend of continued long-term warming.

We've been in a long term warming since the end of the LIA which we have not recovered to pre-LIA temperatures. We've been chugging along at roughly 1C @ 100 years since the LIA and that trend hopefully will continue unless we enter into a new solar minimum.

_________________
Dammy

@BrianK

Quote:

"But that doesn't mean that global warming has stopped

Sure, according to the AGW's believers' definition of consistency: a cooling trend is consistent with global warming. That AGW believers now calculate a mean rather a trend is pointless because past temperatures have been shown to variate more than the spatially and temporally tiny warming in the end of the last century. They just try to save the face by pushing the calculation as they have done for the physics of the non-existing enhanced GHG effect.

Although I was not hoping evidences change your believes an iota anytimes soon, gutta cavat lapidem, non vi sed saepe cadendo!

Edit: miss a letter

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 03-May-2009 at 01:41 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@damocles

What? Cherry picking dates to support your point is unscientific, denier

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".