[LINK] Propaganda, manipulation and the abuse of media [Was: IPA, astroturfing and fantsy themes/Science under attack]

[TKoltai]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au 
> [mailto:link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of jim birch
> Sent: Wednesday, 22 February 2012 11:05 AM
> Cc: link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> Subject: Re: [LINK] Propaganda, manipulation and the abuse of 
> media [Was: IPA, astroturfing and fantsy themes/Science under attack]
> 
> 
> Tom
> 
> I've got a couple of degrees in meteorology and oceanography 
> but I don't consider myself authoritative on climate - I 
> maintain an active interest but I don't work in the field.  I 
> would want at least a couple of years full time to get up to speed.
> 
> I can't see how you quoting this or that factoid could 
> possibly be considered any kind of refutation of mainstream 
> climate science.
> 

I didn't attempt refute Climate change. I just suggested strongly that
there were "other factors" and that as far as I was concerned, mans
presence on Earth had not been proven to warm the planet (empirically).

> No one has done an complete authoritative count, but it is 
> know that the AGW hypothesis is held to be substantially 
> correct by all but a couple of percent of people who can 
> reasonably call themselves climatologists.  Who am I or you 
> to disagree?
> 

I am not qualified to disagree except to express my opinion which sorta
goes like this... I don't see the UFO yet, please show me the empirical
evidence.

> If you exclude the "climatologists" who are either paid to 
> think otherwise, or have demonstrated a fatal attraction to 
> maverickhood in other areas, or have overriding ideological 
> positions, or repeatedly demonstrated reuse of disproven 
> facts or arguments, or are just plain crazy, there's about no 
> one left on the other side.  (This criteria would knock out a 
> few people on the mainstream climate science side too. ;)
> 
> The "They haven't considered X" argument that you are using 
> seems to imply either a conspiracy of absolutely stupendous 
> proportions, or near universal incompetence of climatologists.
> 
> Jim

I personally like the conspiracy theory of massive proportions, err
sorry, stupendous...
Let us for a moment visit lala land.

Substructio in notus res: 

A hundred years ago, very few people would have believed the concept
that an IOU was  capable of replacing the Silver dollar. 

Yet here we are with a banking system built on IOU's that few can redeem
for what they were led to believe was the true value. (Try and swap a
dollar for an .85% of an ounce of Silver...)

If we consider that our economic well being is driven by waves of
technological evolution and development; and that development is
championed by an individual or group, then it is also reasonable to
assume that the replacement for the Federal reserve bank "evolution" is
under way.

The spreading of any meme is fine art. One person standing in the street
and looking up whilst another one is going through the crowds and saying
in an incredulously voice, "I think I just saw a UFO up there..." can
create an entire wave of people looking up with the resulting UFO
sighting report on Channel seven obviously occurring a few hours later.

Was there a UFO ? It doesn't matter, Channel Seven sold a pile of
advertising in it's news slot as people tuned to see the UFO report.

Does pollution affect the world ? Obviously.

Are NOX, CH4, CO2, (etc) gases making the temperature rise ? Probably -
they can shown to do so in a closed test bed environment.
Are CFC's bad for the Ozone layer, Probably.

Are any of those elements causing temperature change across the world ?

Doubtful when we consider that the mass of water that the Earth is host
too is our planet's  dominant thermostat. Whilst plankton levels are
rising, they are doing so mainly in estuaries and not the open ocean.
(This suggests agricultural fertiliser runoff growth enhancement and not
temperature).

Are pollutant particles causing a global cooling. Apparently (100 years
of Data)
Are industrial emissions causing global warming? Apparently (74 years of
data)

My first summer in Sydney in 1994 was spent looking out the window of
Level 22 at Norwich house at the lead petrol pall that floated over
parts of Sydney.

Since that time thousands of trees have been planted, Leaded petrol has
stopped being served at the pumps and we can almost see the horizon.

On the other hand an additional 1200 Megawatts of coal fired power
plants have been fired up.

Anyone who lives in Sydney will doubtless anecdotally attest that for
the last decade, summer appears to be getting cooler.

This year, we have had at least four sunny days with no rain. Maybe
five.

I would be a lot more inclined to believe the UFO watchers if it wasn't
for the following facts:

Fact 1. Our solar system is in an elliptical orbit lasting around 25,000
years.
Fact 2. The Ice Cores in Antarctica show temperature and methane
temperature rises every 25,00 years with a major temperature extinction
level event every 125,000 years.

I'm not going to go there folks, any more than I already have, but
please view: (and make up your own minds)
http://kovtr/data/Link/25Kyearsantarticicecoregraph.png which is a
composite of Methane in the atmosphere correlated to the corresponding
periods temperatures in the Antarctic ice cores over the last 400K+
years.

Anyone viewing that will doubtless consider it the best empirical
evidence that there could and should be some doubt about Global Warming
being caused exclusively by man.

In fact mankind has assisted in the reduction of methane (and naturally
occurring global warming) by chopping down millions of acres of forests.
Which we then replaced with Cattle for beef patties in McDonalds
burgers...
(So we probably need a new movie... Super Size Me, an Uncomfortable
Truth.)

Notwithstanding all of the above; Professor Ropers [Ref 1] conclusion in
his paper says:

Quote/
Conclusion
This study has shown that drastic changes need to be made in the amount
of carbon dioxide and methane gases that reside in the atmosphere.
Already the 380 ppmv of carbon dioxide and 1775 ppbv of methane in the
atmosphere will lead, after some time delay, to disastrously high Earth
temperatures. See Figure 25.
/Quote

I'm not worried, the ice core tells us that there is a fair way to go
before we reach an extinction level event. Just 12.5K years ago the CO2
was at 380 PPMV with methane at 700 and 25,000 years ago it was .....
(ahh, the last time we were at the same orbital point and in an ice
age.)  Ahh, I'm seeing a pattern.

But let's take the religion out of it...

Self powered energy, via methane [Ref 2], solar panels or variations of
are an excellent mechanism for redistributing wealth.
Being paid a few REC's whilst doing so is like winning a scratchy, so
let's not argue about it.
The jobs that will be lost when the Carbon tax is introduced will merely
ensure a change of Government.

In the interim, Electric or Hydrogen powered cars (as we had before
gasoline cars) is another  excellent wealth redistribution element.

So whether or not climate change is being created by humankind or
ecliptic perbutational  positioning is immaterial. 

The question one must ask is this, Can we breathe better if the burning
of all fossil fuels are banned.

I believe the answer is a unanimous yes.

Apart from eliminating all particulate matter emissions into the
atmosphere, one should "Follow the Money" to see where it leads.

A common theme in movies is to collate all different discipline
experts... If we're serious about exploring climate change we need
Oceanographers, Geologists, Marine Biologists, Astronomers,
Climatologists, Vulcanologists, Seismologists and maybe even a couple of
Physicists.

Relying on one element of science to predict a likely outcome in the
absence of consensual agreement across all the disciplines is a bit
lame.
It's akin to a Lawyer claiming 20 under Par... With a straight face.

P.S. Just in case there is anything to this Global Warming thingy, we
could stock up on some seeds under the ice somewhere...

TomK

References:

[1] http://www.roperld.com/science/CO2_Temp.pdf
An excellent paper by Professor Emeritus of Physics, College of Arts and
Sciences
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; proving climate
change is being accelerated by man (almost).

[2]
http://www.ecofriend.com/entry/futuristic-toilets-source-power-generatio
n/