Gulf Of Thailand Won't Rise With Global Warming, Expert Claims

[JR Texas]

You really should pull your head out of.......well, you know.

Here is more to think about:

Like the tobacco industry in previous decades, ExxonMobil has:

- Raised doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence;

- Funded an array of front organizations to create the appearance of a broad platform for a tight-knit group of vocal climate change contrarians who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings;

- Attempted to portray its opposition to action as a positive quest for "sound science" rather than business self-interest; and,

- Used its access to the Bush administration to block federal policies and shape government communications on global warming.

Testimony of Dr. James McCarthy to the House of Representantives Science and Technology Committee - March 28, 2007

http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/F...y_testimony.pdf

Both groups promote the work of several climate change contrarians, including Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist who is affiliated with at least nine ExxonMobil-funded groups.

Baliunas is best known for a 2003 paper alleging the climate had not changed significantly in the past millennia that was rebutted by 13 scientists who stated she had misrepresented their work in her paper. This renunciation did not stop ExxonMobil-funded groups from continuing to promote the paper. Through methods such as these, ExxonMobil has been able to amplify and prop up work that has been discredited by reputable climate scientists.

Summary of the Union of Concerned Scientists report on the ExxonMobil disinformation campaign

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/E...ng-tobacco.html

Between 1998 and 2005 (the most recent year for which company figures are publicly available), ExxonMobil has funneled approximately $16 million to carefully chosen organizations that promote disinformation on global warming.38 As the New York Times has reported, ExxonMobil is often the single largest corporate donor to many of these nonprofit organizations, frequently accounting for more than 10 percent of their annual budgets. (For more detailed information, see Appendix B, Table 1.)

A close look at the work of these organizations exposes ExxonMobil’s strategy. Virtually all of them publish and publicize the work of a nearly identical group of spokespeople, including scientists who misrepresent peer-reviewed climate findings and confuse the public’s understanding of global warming. Most of these organizations also include these same individuals as board members or scientific advisers.

The report itself - "Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air"

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/glo...xxon_report.pdf

In an effort to deceive the public about the reality

of global warming, ExxonMobil has underwritten

the most sophisticated and most successful

disinformation campaign since the tobacco industry

misled the public about the scientific evidence

linking smoking to lung cancer and heart disease.

As this report documents, the two disinformation

campaigns are strikingly similar. ExxonMobil has

drawn upon the tactics and even some of the

organizations and actors involved in the callous

disinformation campaign the tobacco industry

waged for 40 years. Like the tobacco industry,

ExxonMobil has:

• Manufactured uncertainty by raising doubts

about even the most indisputable scientific

evidence.

• Adopted a strategy of information laundering

by using seemingly independent front organizations

to publicly further its desired message

and thereby confuse the public.

• Promoted scientific spokespeople who misrepresent

peer-reviewed scientific findings or

cherry-pick facts in their attempts to persuade

the media and the public that there is still

serious debate among scientists that burning

fossil fuels has contributed to global warming

and that human-caused warming will have

serious consequences.

• Attempted to shift the focus away from meaningful

action on global warming with misleading

charges about the need for “sound science.”

• Used its extraordinary access to the Bush

administration to block federal policies and

shape government communications on global

warming.

The report documents that, despite the scientific

consensus about the fundamental understanding

that global warming is caused by carbon

dioxide and other heat-trapping emissions, Exxon-

Mobil has funneled about $16 million between

1998 and 2005 to a network of ideological and

advocacy organizations that manufacture uncertainty

on the issue. Many of these organizations

have an overlapping—sometimes identical—

collection of spokespeople serving as staff, board

members, and scientific advisors. By publishing

and republishing the non-peer-reviewed works of

a small group of scientific spokespeople, Exxon-

Mobil-funded organizations have propped up

and amplified work that has been discredited

by reputable climate scientists.

ExxonMobil’s funding of established research

institutions that seek to better understand science,

policies, and technologies to address global warming

has given the corporation “cover,” while its funding

of ideological and advocacy organizations to

conduct a disinformation campaign works to confuse

that understanding. This seemingly inconsistent

activity makes sense when looked at through

a broader lens. Like the tobacco companies in

previous decades, this strategy provides a positive

“pro-science” public stance for ExxonMobil that

masks their activity to delay meaningful action on

global warming………

[catmac]

Excellent post re. Tuvalu, tig28.

Reminds me of a recent BBC report on Holland. Dutch engineers have made careful and accurate measurements of sea levels there for over 100 years (understandable in view of Holland's endless battle against flooding). In that whole period, sea levels had indeed risen by a quite small amount, yet somehow the Warmist scientists are saying that that proves that there will be a huge rise in levels in the near future. Common sense would say that there is no reason at all to believe their dire scare-mongering. If anything, it would tend to show that a hundred years of burning fossil fuels and releasing CO2 has had very little impact on sea levels, and, again, common sense would suggest the same to be true for the next hundred years.

[JR Texas]

Excellent post re. Tuvalu, tig28.

Reminds me of a recent BBC report on Holland. Dutch engineers have made careful and accurate measurements of sea levels there for over 100 years (understandable in view of Holland's endless battle against flooding). In that whole period, sea levels had indeed risen by a quite small amount, yet somehow the Warmist scientists are saying that that proves that there will be a huge rise in levels in the near future. Common sense would say that there is no reason at all to believe their dire scare-mongering. If anything, it would tend to show that a hundred years of burning fossil fuels and releasing CO2 has had very little impact on sea levels, and, again, common sense would suggest the same to be true for the next hundred years.

Common sense tells me the earth is flat.

If you want to know about why sea levels have risen in the past and why they are set to rise in the future, try reading up on the subject. But you should read things published by actual scitntists who know something about the subject.

[JR Texas]

Just a reminder........in science an exception never makes a rule.

Could all of the scientists studying this really be wrong? Is it a conspiracy to scare islanders off of their islands so that the rich and powerful can then buy the islands and live there? Is it a conspiracy to raise the price of fish? Is it a conspiracy to create BIG GOVERNMENT?

Just in case you are interested in information on the subject:

Greenhouse gasses cause rise in sea level

http://www.isogklima.nbi.ku.dk/nyhedsfolde..._gasses_291009/

Anthropogenic forcing dominates sea level rise since 1850

Jevrejeva, S., A. Grinsted, and J. C. Moore (2009), Anthropogenic forcing dominates sea level rise since 1850, Geophys. Res. Lett., doi:10.1029/2009GL040216.

Warming to Cause Catastrophic Rise in Sea Level

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...0_earthday.html

Taiwan's sea levels on the rise due to global warming - Taiwan News Online

http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_conten...p;lang=eng_news

Sea levels rising at nearly double previous estimates due to global warming

http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicag....aspx?id=113477

Sea Level Rise Due To Global Warming Poses Threat To New York City

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...90315155112.htm

Sea level rise due to global warming UNEP-GRID-Arendal - Publications - Vital Climate Graphics

http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate/page/3072.aspx

Study: Sea level rises much faster

New estimates of sea level change including the dynamics of the big ice sheets are way higher than the IPCC 2007 estimate.

http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=2964

And looks like the oceans and marine life are in trouble….think this is going to impact the price of fish? Oh…must be a conspiracy to raise the price of fish 

New study: Substantial irreversible damage to ocean ecosystems

By 2050, ocean acidity could increase by 150 percent. This increase is 100 times faster than any change in acidity experienced in the marine environment over the last 20 million years.

http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=2961

[canuckamuck]

JR you are arguing like a two year old now. We have seen what the POL has said about sea level rise. They appear to be in the best position to determine whether or not the sea levels are rising. Yet you continue to believe they are rising in a dangerous way.

It makes me wonder what kind of evidence you would require to change your position. I think that even if Al gore took you by the hand and confessed the whole scam with tears and signed papers from the IPCC, that you would simply call him a big oil lover and hand him literature from realclimate.org

You would do yourself a favor to consider why you feel so strongly that: you can't imagine this massive political issue is not entirely wholesome and pure, and the scientists with multi-million dollar grants are not interested in truth alone. Since when did politics and ethics form such a symbiotic relationship.

You need to wake up and realize that humans always pad their own interests first, even if they have never worked for Exxon.

Even if you continue to bleed green blood, a healthy dose of skepticism would help your credibility substantially.

[RickBradford]

I'm sorry for the continued animal allusions, but trying to have a rational debate with the extreme Warmist followers "is like playing the lute to a buffalo", in Ho Chi Minh's poetic phrase.

Edited December 14, 2009 by RickBradford

[xminator]

At a time the majority of scientists would go to great lenght to defend the earths flatnes. The current climate activists like to think about themselfs as the "round" thinkers. Problem is they use the same methods employed by the "flat" thinkers back in the dark ages.

One thing is certain tough. The sea level is not constant even without human activities. Another thing is that climate changes are fluid too. A third fact is that even the leading scientists dont fully understand the mechanisms that trigger dramatic climate change. If I was living close to the occean (or anywhere else) I would be more worried about a sudden megacatasrophy. All major climate changes so far have been triggered by such events. And they happen frequent enough it could well happen in our generation. They release contamination and energy far beyond anything the human race can come up with.

That said, I can see no reason to make an effort to reduce our footprint at earth. But it have to be in a way to dont kill countless of humans and reduce our freedom of movement and level of life quality. Recycling. Move polution from the roads trough the use of air/electricity/hydrogen to centralized power plants that are way easier and more cost effective to clean. Right now the chinese try to blame the western world for the looming catastrophy (of there is one...) and fail to acknowledge that it is their own country that will tip the scales. Even if the western world trough technology reduce their own pollution. They are very good at producing, but recycling is not on the agenda. Thats where it have to start. The emerging economies have to acknowledge that they have to skip the poluting part of their development and go straight for a non-emission economy. Unless they do so I see no reason for the western economies to change apart from 100% self interest (of which local polution is one such interest...)

[JR Texas]

Interesting diversion..........at least you did not say "conspiracy."

Divert, confuse, generate doubt..........but it is not working!

Speaking of doubt..........

No doubt: The earth is warming

The British Met Office has released world-wide temperature data into the public domain to give evidence that the globe is warming.

http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=2881

That thin blue line is the atmosphere. The breathable part is only a few miles thick. That is what stands between life and death.

Only a lunatic would gamble that all of the responsible scientists on the planet working on the problems of global warming and climate change are involved in some grand conspiracy to create BIG GOVERNMENT.

That is a position held by certified lunatics. But you can't be that stupid. So, I am assuming you do not believe one word that you are posting.

You know that what you are posting is a LIE. So, you are complicit in a real conspiracy.......a conspiracy to commit FRAUD. And for that one day you will pay.

Links to lawsuits against BIG OIL/ENERGY MAFIA:

Groundbreaking Lawsuit Accuses Big Oil of Conspiracy to Deceive Public About Climate Change

Source: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/3/groun...uses_big_oil_of

Civil Conspiracy Lawsuits Filed Against Climate Change Deniers

http://solveclimate.com/blog/20091206/civi...-change-deniers

The Coming Global Warming “Scopes” Trial

Recent Climate Lawsuits Are Just the Tip of the Iceberg

http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/07/glo...rming-in-court/

For Peru's Indians, Lawsuit Against Big Oil Reflects a New Era - Outsiders, NGOs and High-Tech Tools Help Document Firms' Impact

http://patagonia-under-siege.blogspot.com/...gainst-big.html

Sue Big Oil Over Global Warming? Court Tells Katrina Victims, Yes You Can!

Source: http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10002353/s...ms-yes-you-can/

Big Oil Going The Way Of Big Tobacco?

Source: http://bexhuff.com/2008/06/big-oil-going-t...-of-big-tobacco

Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html

First Global Warming Lawsuit Against US Polluters a Success

Source: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/09/fi...mate-change.php

Courts Are Open for Climate Change Lawsuits against Power Companies

Source: http://www.internationallawoffice.com/News...25-d725987b458d

US rules greenhouse gases 'hazards'

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas...3433211121.html

[RickBradford]

Divert, confuse, generate doubt..........but it is not working!

Oh, really....?

Copenhagen stalls decision on catastrophic climate change for six years (The Times)

The key decision on preventing catastrophic climate change will be delayed for up to six years if the Copenhagen summit delivers a compromise deal which ignores advice from the UN’s science body.

World leaders will not agree on the emissions cuts recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and are likely instead to commit to reviewing them in 2015 or 2016.

The delay will anger developing countries who, scientists say, will face the worst effects of climate change despite having contributed relatively little of the man-made greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

A draft text published by the UN says that there should be a review in 2016, which could result in an “update of the long-term global goal for emissions reductions as well as of the adequacy of commitments and actions”.

The Times has learnt that negotiators from developed countries are planning to use the idea of a review to justify failing to agree the 25-40 per cent cut in the 1990 level of emissions by 2020, recommended by the IPCC

In six years' time, the science will have been blown out of the water by multiple CRU-style and Hockey Stick-type revelations, and we may have some sanity returning to the whole climate change debate.

This is a rout for the extremist Warmists and a huge victory for the forces of reason against the forces of ignorance.

Edited December 14, 2009 by RickBradford

[tig28]

Excellent post re. Tuvalu, tig28.

Reminds me of a recent BBC report on Holland. Dutch engineers have made careful and accurate measurements of sea levels there for over 100 years (understandable in view of Holland's endless battle against flooding). In that whole period, sea levels had indeed risen by a quite small amount, yet somehow the Warmist scientists are saying that that proves that there will be a huge rise in levels in the near future. Common sense would say that there is no reason at all to believe their dire scare-mongering. If anything, it would tend to show that a hundred years of burning fossil fuels and releasing CO2 has had very little impact on sea levels, and, again, common sense would suggest the same to be true for the next hundred years.

Hi catmac

In reality I know little about "rising (or not) sea levels" --- it was simply that I had acquired an interest in the Maldives... which led me somehow to Tuvalu. At that point my belief was probably like most .... formed through being repeatedly informed by the media that G.W. was fact and rising sea levels were an automatic consequence.

I really expected to hear of/see the submersion of the Maldives and Tuvalu -- of course -- plus others.

Well ... not only has that not happened --- I came upon a report from a renowned source --The Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory-- which stated there was no rising sea level threatening Tuvalu. Shock-horror !!

The government of that nation has been clammering for all sorts of international aid --- and crying "we are all going to drown ... and you did it" to all who might pay. The most recent performance with tears in Copenhagen on the 12th. was just too much for me. Hence my original post.

Then to add insult to injury I got mugged by some crazy who insists the entire globe shall suffer rising sea levels and its all the fault of Exxon and the Mafia and then goes on to list a really large number of sites he is obviously promoting. It's like time-share marketing !!

Back to your observation about Holland -- you are probably correct. Reclaimed sea floor -- dikes -- it always has been precarious. Obviously with any Global sea level rise they must be at severe risk. Is not a significant portion of Hollands farm land and population actually below mean sea level??

[JR Texas]

Yes, Holland is in trouble.........and so is India and Bangladesh and many other places:

Hungry tides in India's Sundarbans

By Sujoy Dhar in Sundarbans Archipelago, India

Oceanographers say the waters are rising at a rate of 3.4mm a year [india Blooms]

As global leaders from both rich and developing nations wind down the debate over climate change in Copenhagen, Sheikh Aftauddin, a 65-year-old climate migrant from a submerged island on India's Sundarbans archipelago, continues to live in uncertainty.

One of the nearly 8,000 climate change refugees in the Indian Sundarbans, Aftauddin says they are unaware what is being debated in Copenhagen.

All he knows is how the fury of nature devoured his hut and farmlands on the Goramara island, one of the many submerged by the rising sea, forcing him to live as a refugee in another area.

"The sea took away everything. My house, my land. It is painful to live uprooted but I have no choice," says Aftauddin who now lives on Sagar Island, part of the Sundarban archipelago and 150km south of Kolkata.

Aftauddin's neighbour Sibani Seth is equally morose.

LINKS TO REASON AND SCIENCE

Links to research on on global warming and climate change:

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://ossfoundation.us/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publi...ic_evidence.htm

http://co2now.org/index.php?option=com_content

Link to investigate the backgrounds of spokespersons on both sides:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch

Links to lawsuits against BIG OIL/ENERGY MAFIA:

Groundbreaking Lawsuit Accuses Big Oil of Conspiracy to Deceive Public About Climate Change

Source: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/3/groun...uses_big_oil_of

Civil Conspiracy Lawsuits Filed Against Climate Change Deniers

http://solveclimate.com/blog/20091206/civi...-change-deniers

The Coming Global Warming “Scopes” Trial

Recent Climate Lawsuits Are Just the Tip of the Iceberg

http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/07/glo...rming-in-court/

For Peru's Indians, Lawsuit Against Big Oil Reflects a New Era - Outsiders, NGOs and High-Tech Tools Help Document Firms' Impact

http://patagonia-under-siege.blogspot.com/...gainst-big.html

Sue Big Oil Over Global Warming? Court Tells Katrina Victims, Yes You Can!

Source: http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10002353/s...ms-yes-you-can/

Big Oil Going The Way Of Big Tobacco?

Source: http://bexhuff.com/2008/06/big-oil-going-t...-of-big-tobacco

Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html

First Global Warming Lawsuit Against US Polluters a Success

Source: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/09/fi...mate-change.php

Courts Are Open for Climate Change Lawsuits against Power Companies

Source: http://www.internationallawoffice.com/News...25-d725987b458d

US rules greenhouse gases 'hazards'

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas...3433211121.html

More links:

Group promoting climate skepticism has extensive ties to Exxon-Mobil

http://rawstory.com/2009/12/climate-skepti...ies-exxonmobil/

Transition from oil to renewable energy 100 years away, says Exxon Mobil

Oil giant claims ‘no viable alternatives’ will emerge in the next century.

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/energy/st...ys-exxon-mobilt

Climate change sceptics and lobbyists put world at risk, says top adviser

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009...cientist-watson

A Climate Deception Revisited: What's Behind the Signatures of 31,478 Skeptical "Scientists"

http://solveclimate.com/blog/20090806/clim...ical-scientists

Understanding why climate change means global famine

Source: http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/01/19/...-global-famine/

No doubt: The earth is warming

The British Met Office has released world-wide temperature data into the public domain to give evidence that the globe is warming.

http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=2881

Climate Change Accelerating Beyond Expectations, Say Leading Scientists

New research emphasizes the urgency of large and rapid reductions in global emissions of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide

http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/Releases/?releaseID=1033

News Release : CO2 Emissions Continue Significant Climb

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&t...3506&ct=162

Specific links describing the ENERGY MAFIAS smear campaign:

http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/F...y_testimony.pdf

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/E...ng-tobacco.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/glo...xxon_report.pdf

BIG GOVERNMENT ALREADY EXISTS. There is no conspiracy to create it. Here are just a few examples of global entities that influence us: International Monetary Fund, Bretton Woods, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, World Bank Group, European Union, G-20, G-77, OPEC, United Nations

*The BOLs want you to focus on BIG GOVERNMENT/BIGGER GOVERNMENT/ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT to distract your attention from the real problem: BIG OIL/ENERGY MAFIA and its monopolistic/centralized control over the energy you purchase and use.

BIG OIL (FOSSIL FUEL ENERGY MAFIA) wants us dependent on their centralized energy platform for the next 100 years. The last thing they want is for us to think about and demand a decentralized energy platform that they can’t control.

CENTRALIZED ENERGY = ECONOMIC SLAVERY, DEPENDENCY on the ENERGY MAFIA, more BIG GOVERNMENT (because problems will escalate), ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION, AND SOCIAL CHAOS

DECENTRALIZED ENERGY = ECONOMIC FREEDOM, LESS GOVERNMENT (because problems will be reduced), CLEAN ENVIRONMENT, AND EMPOWERMENT OF INDIVIDUALS and LOCAL COMMUNITIES

[canuckamuck]

I wonder if JR is aware of the carbon footprint created by his excessive spam polluting.

scroll scroll scroll

[A_Traveller]

^ Maybe we should all chip in for some meds?

Regards

[A_Traveller]

To be a little more serious though, how anyone can expect the bio-sphere not to be impacted by the rapid growth in human population is beyond me. Do we need a plan to reduce and manage our impact, in my view yes. Can we find a balance between our growing demands [water, tillable land, etc.] and retaining a supportive [and supportable] environment? To be honest I don't know, but I do think that a pragmatic approach looking at impact throughout the product [and resource] chain would be a good start.

Unfortunately it's all too easy to become polarised and fall into megaphone diplomacy.

Regards

Edited December 14, 2009 by A_Traveller

[tig28]

Common sense tells me the earth is flat.

Well .... that certainly answers many questions for me !!

[tig28]

To be a little more serious though, how anyone can expect the bio-sphere not to be impacted by the rapid growth in human population is beyond me. Do we need a plan to reduce and manage our impact, in my view yes. Can we find a balance between our growing demands [water, tillable land, etc.] and retaining a supportive [and supportable] environment? To be honest I don't know, but I do think that a pragmatic approach looking at impact throughout the product [and resource] chain would be a good start.

Unfortunately it's all too easy to become polarised and fall into megaphone diplomacy.

Regards

[A_Traveller]

Common sense tells me the earth is flat.

Well .... that certainly answers many questions for me !!

Curious isn't it, since any fisherman from the earliest age would have noticed that a seaborne vessel 'disappears over the horizon'.

Regards

/Edit typo//

Edited December 14, 2009 by A_Traveller

[RickBradford]

^

Interesting you mention this, because one of the greatest unsung heroes of Western civilization is a man called John Harrison.

A master clock-maker, he solved the greatest practical navigational problem of the 18th Century -- longitude - i.e how far west or east you had traveled. His discoveries opened up the world to accurate navigation, but his science-based approach made him many powerful enemies...

His every success, however, was parried by members of the scientific elite, who distrusted Harrison's magic box. The commissioners charged with awarding the longitude prize- Nevil Maskelyne* among them- changed the contest rules whenever they saw fit, so as to favor the chances of astronomers over the likes of Harrison and his fellow "mechanics." But the utility and accuracy of Harrison's approach triumphed in the end. His followers shepherded Harrison's intricate, exquisite invention through the design modifications that enabled it to be mass produced and enjoy wide use.

*Maskelyne was the Astronomer Royal -- ie a well-funded scientist with a vested interest in pushing the idea that only astronomy could solve the problem.

Elites with vested interests stifling observation-based scientific data? It's nothing new, because human nature doesn't change that much.

It's a very good read: Longitude: The True Story of a Lone Genius Who Solved the Greatest Scientific Problem of His Time (Paperback)

Edited December 14, 2009 by RickBradford

[A_Traveller]

^ Whilst a good read and not wishing to detract from your point, unfortunately Ms. Sobels' work for understandable reasons emphasised the differences between Maskelyn and Harrison, but it should be noted that it was Maskelyn himself who advised the board to provide an interim payment of 10,000 pounds [about 2 million usd today] to Harrison. Maskelyn's point was that the lunar approach [which was supported by many] offered an effective solution as well, especially since he was the first Astronomer Royal to make his observations and results available to all, petitioning Parliament to pay for the printing of what was to become the Nautical Almanac. Originally marine chronometers could account for a third of the cost of a vessel, and until, as happened relatively quickly, they were more affordable [say one years skilled pay] Maskelyn's method was of marine importance.

However, Harrison's extraordinary skill has, in part because of the 'tension' described in the book, become more widely known and recognised.

Regards

Edited December 14, 2009 by A_Traveller

[RickBradford]

^

Thanks for clarifying the situation.

The story underlines that open minds and skepticism work better than closed minds and blind faith.

Edited December 14, 2009 by RickBradford

[BangkokJazz]

I'll pose this question - For those who think that climate change is a hoax, scam, overblown, etc.What if your wrong? If the "climate change is real so we need to act now is wrong", we end up with some segments of the ecomony being reshaped, which may cost money or jobs, and at the very least, burning less fossil fuel will improve pollution in many parts of the globe. But if the climate change is bogus crowd are wrong, we lose valuable time to try to effect any change at all. And it won't be those people who suffer the effects of their decision, it will be your and my children. Thanks, but I'm not willing to risk my child's future on your best guess. I would rather try to improve our energy efficiency, and make our planet healthier in the process. Its about risk management. The "we are already screwed so lets do nothing" crowd, are just too pathetic to comment on.

[RickBradford]

^BangkokJazz

Do a search for what is called "The Precautionary Principle"

This states that doing nothing now will cause untold disasters in the future. That pre-supposes that we are facing climate catastrophe, which even the IPCC doesn't agree with.

The exteme Warmist position is deeply insulting to the intelligence and adaptability of the human race, which has survived for 500,000 years through ice ages and all manner of conditions much more difficult than today.

The idea that we modern humans can't get through even the extreme projections of the Warmists, what, a couple of degrees Celsius in 100 years, is utterly absurd and insulting.

On the other hand, there are many powerful supporters of the Precautionary Principle, such as former UK PM Tony Blair

Therefore, even purely as a matter of precaution, given the seriousness of the consequences if such a view is correct, and the time it will take for action to take effect, we should act. Not to do so would be grossly irresponsible.

I'm not sure if the quote was about man-made global warming or the Iraq War, but you can see his general approach is one that agrees with your position.

Edited December 14, 2009 by RickBradford

[animatic]

To be a little more serious though, how anyone can expect the bio-sphere not to be impacted by the rapid growth in human population is beyond me. Do we need a plan to reduce and manage our impact, in my view yes. Can we find a balance between our growing demands [water, tillable land, etc.] and retaining a supportive [and supportable] environment? To be honest I don't know, but I do think that a pragmatic approach looking at impact throughout the product [and resource] chain would be a good start.

Unfortunately it's all too easy to become polarised and fall into megaphone diplomacy.

Regards

:D

[RickBradford]

When even The Guardian gives up, you know it's time to break out the champagne

Copenhagen talks stall as African bloc accuses UN of trying to kill Kyoto

UN and Danish hosts rush to repair rift as G77 delegate claims scrapping Kyoto would mean 'killing of Africa'

One of the two negotiating tracks at the UN climate talks in Copenhagen broke up in drama and confusion today when the Africa group of countries followed by other developing countries accused the chair of the conference of trying to "kill" the Kyoto protocol. They were also objecting to what they characterised as efforts to sideline the poorest countries.

The crisis was then exacerbated after Australia said that rich countries should suspend talks about emission cuts.

The UN and the chair of the conference, Denmark, tried hurriedly to repair the rifts as ministers began to arrive in Copenhagen for the high level political section of the talks. But after the talks were suspended for two hours, observers said that it looked increasingly unlikely that an ambitious deal would now be negotiated by Friday.

[animatic]

^BangkokJazz

Do a search for what is called "The Precautionary Principle"

This states that doing nothing now will cause untold disasters in the future. That pre-supposes that we are facing climate catastrophe, which even the IPCC doesn't agree with.

The exteme Warmist position is deeply insulting to the intelligence and adaptability of the human race, which has survived for 500,000 years through ice ages and all manner of conditions much more difficult than today.

The idea that we modern humans can't get through even the extreme projections of the Warmists, what, a couple of degrees Celsius in 100 years, is utterly absurd and insulting.

On the other hand, there are many powerful supporters of the Precautionary Principle, such as former UK PM Tony Blair

Therefore, even purely as a matter of precaution, given the seriousness of the consequences if such a view is correct, and the time it will take for action to take effect, we should act. Not to do so would be grossly irresponsible.

I'm not sure if the quote was about man-made global warming or the Iraq War, but you can see his general approach is one that agrees with your position.

The idea that we modern humans can't get through even the extreme projections of the Warmists, what, a couple of degrees Celsius in 100 years, is utterly absurd and insulting.

Since we see so few Stegasauri about these days,

it gives some credence to the theory that catastrophic events DO happen,

and for many reasons, man is clearly re=jiggering our world,

into his commercial imaginings and so to presume for a moment it will

be purely for the greater good and general safety is ludicrous.

Man has a well documented history of ignoring big problems till it runs him off his patch.

On the 'what if their right, better to be cautious principle',

I built my place 100m up and 1km back... No worries in my lifetime

My by the seaside thought, lasted minutes at most.

[A_Traveller]

Rick and Precautionary principal: Post 1222

I would take issue with the reassuring blandness of this. It's rather like those who bought into property on mortgages that they could not afford expecting to go back to the market and sell thereby recouping [and profiting] without taking into consideration that all like minded people would be doing the self same thing simultaneously with concomitant feedback issues [market saturation value loss etc.].

The real concern is that we really don't know enough about the emergent system we loosely describe as 'The Climate'. We do however know that sufficiently complex systems are subject to unexpected collapses [in other words a small change in a value within the system leads to dramatic changes in the whole]. For decades the expectation was that 'The Climate' would become an understood, almost mechanistic system, the reality is that it has proven to be a interaction of individually complex systems within a framework that, even today, many climatologists would accept we have little true understanding of.

As noted a characteristic of such a set of systems is feedback and unless one can confidently understand what such a processes proximate and ultimate effects are and how these results cascade into the climate as a whole, we are all lacking in knowledge.

As I commented before we need to take a step back and try to appreciate the true costs of our activities, not just the politically expedient ones, aka 'something must be done'. Is it the best practice to take CRT monitors, replace the with lower running cost less toxic LCDs... yes, but how do we factor in the cost of scrapping the CRTs? What if they are scrapped in a way which releases toxic materials to the environment where they are scrapped?

The climate change argument is similar, we don't know exactly what we are doing to the thin vale of the atmosphere, but unless and until we look, dare one say holistically, at the issues we will be failing generations to follow. Ultimately, being cautious would seem to me to be reasonable, after all we haven't got anywhere else to go right now [until someone proves Einstein wrong in terms of hyperluminal travel, or we build multi-generational arks].

A few days ago was the 25th anniversary of the chemical leak at Bhopal, I suspect that many chemical plants [irrespective of ultimate owners] still would fail to provide effective support for the residents who for a multitude of reasons find themselves the neighbours to such a construct. Tragically we are not learning.

Regards

/edit the mad typist strikes again..//

Edited December 14, 2009 by A_Traveller

[JR Texas]

Search "stupid."

Search "irresponsible."

Search "fraud."

[RickBradford]

Search "stupid."

Search "irresponsible."

Search "fraud."

I did.

The answers I got were Al Gore, Michael "Hide the Decline" Mann and Phil "The Trick" Jones.

[JR Texas]

Please allow me to add to this..........introducing the Precautionary Principle is simply another irresponsible attempt to confuse, distort, deceive, and distract.

There are unknowns and there are facts. When confronted with scientific facts that tell you procrastination is not an option unless you are suicidal, you better act. Obviously from what you said, you agree with this.

Global warming and climate change are real..........THERE IS NO DOUBT. The scientific consensus on this point is as solid as it gets. Responsible scientists and political leaders have moved beyond the so-called "debate" and are focusing on what to do about the problem.

That aside, let me take readers down memory lane:

Since lead was first introduced in gasoline, BIG OIL/ENERGY MAFIA have known for over 60 years that lead in gasoline is a major health hazzard. But they decided to ignore that fact. Finally, the govt. of the United States took legal action around 1973 and forced the oil companies to start removing lead from its product.

As a result, lead has decreased in the atmosphere, at least in the USA (only recently have most African nations passed laws to remove lead):

Unbelievably, even though BIG OIL/ENERGY MAFIA knows that lead is very dangerous for health, they continue to produce it in some parts of the planet........TOTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE. For that, they should be tried for crimes against humanity.

Still, taking legal action to ban lead from gasoline has been a success story in some countries (lead has all but been removed from the atmosphere in the USA).

IMPORTANT POINT: It took legal action by the govt. to stop this irresponsible behavior on the part of BIG OIL/ENERGY MAFIA. They should have done it on their own when they found out it was dangerous to health.........they didn't do it. They had to be forced to do it by the legal machinery.

Another success story involves CFCs and the Ozone Hole.

The Ozone Hole came as a total surprise........scientists had not predicted it. (On a personal level, it scared the shit out of me.) It was clear something was terribly wrong and needed a solution. Scientists soon figured out the culprit was something we were putting into the atmosphere: CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and halons.

And there was no major procrastination (but many developing countries dragged their feet).........action was taken to ban CFCs. As a result, the damage to the ozone layer has likely been arrested.

And now we are faced with yet another problem caused by humans foolishly putting something in the atmosphere........in this case too much of something: CO2. The science is crystal clear on this.......no doubt.........no major debate going on as to whether it is happening or not..........it is a scientific fact.

Venus is a perfect scientific example of what can happen to a planet if CO2 continues to build up in the lower atmosphere: runaway greenhouse effect. Humans are unique in that we see into the future..........we can also use science to predict the future...........and we can take positive action based on that information.

The time to correct the twin problems of global warming and climate change is now. This is not the time to play pseudo-intellectual games.

[canuckamuck]

The main difference between AGW, and the lead/ozone layer issues is that there was testable science and very little political power and money to be gained from the changes. I think you could go all day and find things that were banned for the good of mankind and the environment and also things that are not banned yet but should be, like tobacco.

This doesn't mean that CO2 is hazardous. It doesn't have any bearing on this debate at all.

For all we know the level of CO2 currently in the atmosphere is closer to the minimum necessary to support the ecosystem than it is near the maximum where it may do damage. We simply don't know.

But taxing every human activity is definitely a cash cow which makes every politician salivate. That is something we do know.

Since we are obviously not experiencing significant warming, actually cooling, and the oceans haven't risen; we have time to some demand some transparency from the climate club. Their integrity is seriously compromised at the moment. They might be a larger threat to humanity than the gas we all breathe out and the plants love so much.