|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
darius
Joined: 28 Sep 2005
Posts: 8
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 4:42 am Post subject: |
    |
|
Sorry Kevin, but just because information is a little older does not mean its outdated. There is considerable debate over the cause of global warming, I am keeping an open mind in the realization that science can be very much like the three blind men and the elephant. Whenever I hear that Global Warming is the result of man I start looking for who benefits, whos taxes increase, and is there a redistribution of wealth involved.
There are as many good scientific articles that disagree with man being the cause of global warming, pointing to other possible causes, as there are those who would blame man. I query the group, are you convinced the science community knows all the answers, aren't you just a little suspicious? How many times have we just acepted new technology or science in the contruction industry only to find out later that the change created litigous opportunities based on actual performance?
As to hurricanes they have been more intense and more frequent long before the scientific community began studying them. We have become much better at forcasting activity and where they will go, I think they are approaching 50% accuracy.
http://www.globalwarming.org/
Leading scientific journals 'are censoring debate on global warming'
By Robert Matthews
(Filed: 01/05/2005)
Two of the world's leading scientific journals have come under fire from researchers for refusing to publish papers which challenge fashionable wisdom over global warming.
A British authority on natural catastrophes who disputed whether climatologists really agree that the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, says his work was rejected by the American publication, Science, on the flimsiest of grounds.
Radcliffe on Sour power station with Dr Benny Peiser (inset). He disagrees with the pro-global warming line
A separate team of climate scientists, which was regularly used by Science and the journal Nature to review papers on the progress of global warming, said it was dropped after attempting to publish its own research which raised doubts over the issue.
The controversy follows the publication by Science in December of a paper which claimed to have demonstrated complete agreement among climate experts, not only that global warming is a genuine phenomenon, but also that mankind is to blame.
The author of the research, Dr Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, analysed almost 1,000 papers on the subject published since the early 1990s, and concluded that 75 per cent of them either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it.
Dr Oreskes's study is now routinely cited by those demanding action on climate change, including the Royal Society and Prof Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser.
However, her unequivocal conclusions immediately raised suspicions among other academics, who knew of many papers that dissented from the pro-global warming line.
They included Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly.
Dr Peiser submitted his findings to Science in January, and was asked to edit his paper for publication - but has now been told that his results have been rejected on the grounds that the points he make had been "widely dispersed on the internet".
Dr Peiser insists that he has kept his findings strictly confidential. "It is simply not true that they have appeared elsewhere already," he said.
A spokesman for Science said Dr Peiser's research had been rejected "for a variety of reasons", adding: "The information in the letter was not perceived to be novel."
Dr Peiser rejected this: "As the results from my analysis refuted the original claims, I believe Science has a duty to publish them."
Dr Peiser is not the only academic to have had work turned down which criticises the findings of Dr Oreskes's study. Prof Dennis Bray, of the GKSS National Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany, submitted results from an international study showing that fewer than one in 10 climate scientists believed that climate change is principally caused by human activity.
As with Dr Peiser's study, Science refused to publish his rebuttal. Prof Bray told The Telegraph: "They said it didn't fit with what they were intending to publish."
Prof Roy Spencer, at the University of Alabama, a leading authority on satellite measurements of global temperatures, told The Telegraph: "It's pretty clear that the editorial board of Science is more interested in promoting papers that are pro-global warming. It's the news value that is most important."
He said that after his own team produced research casting doubt on man-made global warming, they were no longer sent papers by Nature and Science for review - despite being acknowledged as world leaders in the field.
As a result, says Prof Spencer, flawed research is finding its way into the leading journals, while attempts to get rebuttals published fail. "Other scientists have had the same experience", he said. "The journals have a small set of reviewers who are pro-global warming."
Concern about bias within climate research has spread to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose findings are widely cited by those calling for drastic action on global warming.
In January, Dr Chris Landsea, an expert on hurricanes with the United States National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, resigned from the IPCC, claiming that it was "motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and was "scientifically unsound".
A spokesman for Science denied any bias against sceptics of man-made global warming. "You will find in our letters that there is a wide range of opinion," she said. "We certainly seek to cover dissenting views."
Dr Philip Campbell, the editor-in-chief of Nature, said that the journal was always happy to publish papers that go against perceived wisdom, as long as they are of acceptable scientific quality.
"The idea that we would conspire to suppress science that undermines the idea of anthropogenic climate change is both false and utterly naive about what makes journals thrive," he said.
Dr Peiser said the stifling of dissent and preoccupation with doomsday scenarios is bringing climate research into disrepute. "There is a fear that any doubt will be used by politicians to avoid action," he said. "But if political considerations dictate what gets published, it's all over for science."
_________________
Darius H Grimes CRC, CSI, CDT
1801 Winding Creek Circle
Cantonment, FL 32533 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1187
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dr. Peiser's views (especially about articles being turned down) have received very wide publicity, certainly in the national media in the UK. He is, I believe, a social anthropologist, and he has been given many opportunities to state his views (on the BBC, Daily Telegraph, etcetcetc). In other words, he has actually had more opportunity for making his ideas public than many who do publish in the scientific journals that he complains about.
While one can understand that the extrapolation of a current scenario may not turn out as the scenario indicates, or indeed that some scenarios of this type are alarmist (such as Dr. Peiser's main area of concern: the destruction of earth from outer space), I am not aware that anything in what you say justifies the describing the notion of global warming as a "myth".
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
darius
Joined: 28 Sep 2005
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 7:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Richard,
I do not believe that global warming is myth but I do understand if indeed it is happening the scientific community that beleives it is "human induced" is clearly in the minority.
If anything the recent reports by NASA and NOAA only support the wisdom in not loosing perspective in understanding global warming since there is so much conflicting data and and such a short duration of actual study, about 30 years or less.
I prefer to stay focused on quantifiable problems and construction practices, this quote from a recent insurance summit on Global Warming sums it up.
When asked in the paper’s Q&A section whether global warming is causing more hurricanes, Emanuel responded, “No.” The global annual frequency of hurricanes is about 90, plus or minus 10 and “there is no indication whatsoever of a long-term trend in this number,” Emanuel said.
Asked whether it would be “absurd to attribute the Katrina disaster to global warming,” Emanuel responded, “Yes, it would be absurd” – a response that stands in stark contrast to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s recent attempt to use Emanuel’s research to link global warming with Katrina.
When asked whether “we are seeing more hurricane-caused damage in the U.S. and elsewhere,” Emanuel responded, “There is a huge upward trend in hurricane damage in the U.S., but all or almost all of this is due to increasing coastal population and building in hurricane-prone areas. When this increase in population and wealth is accounted for, there is no discernible trend left in the hurricane damage data.”
The absence of a “discernible trend” in hurricane damage is a “simple matter of statistics” according to Emanuel. “There are far too few hurricane landfalls to be able to discern any trend. Consider that up until Katrina, Hurricane Andrew was the costliest hurricane in U.S. history. But it occurred in an inactive year; there were only 7 hurricanes and tropical storms… it would take at least another 50 years to detect any long-term trend in U.S. landfalling hurricane statistics…,” he wrote.
The final question in the Q&A section is, “OK, maybe we won’t see global warming effects in landfalling hurricanes for another 50 years or so, but shouldn’t we still be worried about it?”
Emanuel’s response captures the essence of the insurance industry’s problem with natural disasters:
“The answer to this question is largely a matter of one’s geographical and time horizons. For U.S.-centric concerns over the next 30-50 years, by far the most important hurricane problem we face is demographic and political. Consider that Katrina, as horrible as it was, was by no means unprecedented, meteorologically speaking. More intense storms have struck the U.S. coastline long ago. The big problem is the headlong rush to tropical coastlines, coupled with federal and state policies that subsidize the risk incurred by coastal development. Private property insurance is heavily regulated by each state, and political pressure keeps rates low in high-risk regions like tropical coastlines, thus encouraging people to build flimsy structures there. (Those living in low-risk regions pay for this in artificially high premiums.) Federal flood insurance pays for storm surge damage, and like private insurance, its rates do not reflect the true risk. We are subsidizing risky behavior and should not be surprised at the result.”
In other words, the insurance industry ought to charge folks who live in risky places premiums that are commensurate with the local risks.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Kerry Emanuel [/i]
_________________
Darius H Grimes CRC, CSI, CDT
1801 Winding Creek Circle
Cantonment, FL 32533 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1187
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 8:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
I very much doubt that the number of scientists who believe that global warming is induced by the actions of man is in the minority.
is anybody saying that Katrina was "caused" by global warming ?
however, as you say, America has more immediate problems. The idea that American citizens would not want to pay any more on their premiums for the sake of their fellow citizens is certainly the way that you are seen internationally.
perhaps you should learn from a civilized country like Cuba which managed to evacuate its citizens ahead of a Force 5 hurricane last year without any loss of life.
as for global warming, I believe that it would be accurate to say that it is perceived by many as a side-effect of dirty industry.
I still have to hear any arguments which give the benefit side of deliberately polluting industries and technologies.
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
darius
Joined: 28 Sep 2005
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
The suggestion that the strength of Katrina, not neccesarily the cause, was directly the result of man induced global warming has been all over the news/press. It was even suggested in the referenced article that started this thread. Many others have lept on the band wagon to push political agendas by suggesting that the frequency of hurricanes is also the result of man induced global warming.
If you ask the scientific community if global warming is the direct result of man only a minority would say yes (less than 10%), based on recent discoveries by NASA correcting previously flawed data recording the actual measurement of atmosheric temperatures vs. deep sea and surface temperatures. The truth is the more we investigate, the more we begin to understand that we don't know enough to say what is causing global warming if that is even what is happening. The majority of the credible scientific community will only agree that we don't know enough and the data we have gathered in the last 10-30 years is based on too short a time period to point to any specific conclusions other than since we started recording the data we seem to be getting warmer.
My reaction to the article was because the study, with clearly questionable value, was used as a reference. I work in R&D where assumptions are always questioned and not allowed unless there is overwhelming evidence to support the theory. Even working with small mechanical technology often we mistakenly assume it worked or failed for a particular reason only to find out later it was something we missed at first glance. In this vein I am skeptical of anyone who claims to understand global ecological events that change over thousands even millions of years. Hurricanes actually cool ocean waters and deliver rainfall to areas that would be locked in drought conditions were it not for these naturarly occuring events. The eruption of Mount Pinitubo dispersed so much ash into the atmosphere it created unusually low temperatures for several years and helped to reduce hurricane activity.
No one is advocating increasing polution or poisoning the atmoshere, in contrast the air is cleaner now than in the last 50 years since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Another theory actually suggests the cleaner air is causing the problem because more heat is getting through from the solar flairs, reports on NOAA actually warned Katrina could be more severe due to a corresponding solar flair.
You cannot ignore that it is technological advances that have made observation of the environment possible and a solution to global warming, if any, will come from free developed nations using cheap energy to expand science and technology. Knee jerk reactions or worse, politically influenced power grabs like the Kioto treaty would make those solutions much more expensive by seeking to cripple the very nations that are most likely to develop the cleaner technologies and make them affordable to all.
By the way the evacuation ahead of Katrina was an anomoly that became man-made disaster when the local government failed to implement its evacuation plan. Florida evacuated over 2.8 million in 2004 from coastal areas, ahead of time, with no resulting deaths. The same is true of dozens of preceding hurricanes and following Katrina with Rita in Texas. it is not FEMA's responsability to evacuate citizens, the responsability lies with local and state governments, FEMA's role is to assist with the recovery and rebuilding efforts post-disaster mainly through assistance in the way of resources, funding and grants.
As to insurance premiums local governments artificially force premiums lower to keep homeownership affordable, as you state | Quote: | | The idea that American citizens would not want to pay any more on their premiums for the sake of their fellow citizens is certainly the way that you are seen internationally. . |
This is a pretty simplistic opinion of a complex issue where we actually reinforced building in high risk areas for low and moderate income families by creating a nationalized flood insurance program, and placing caps on insurance rates. Not because we are trying to balance rates on the back of other citizens but because we value econonimic opportunity and homeownership first and foremost. Unfortunately, like most nationalized insurance programs the Flood Insurance Program is minimal coverage but better than nothing. Had we allowed market forces to control many low and moderate income families would have been forced to leave, have no insurance at all, or been forced to upgrade their homes to reduce damage and offset premium increases (the current trend). We are a very giving people who work hard to keep our communities thriving, many times govenment in thier rush to save us from disaster only postpones the inevitable by reinforcing bad consumer choices. But, no country is perfect....
_________________
Darius H Grimes CRC, CSI, CDT
1801 Winding Creek Circle
Cantonment, FL 32533 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1346
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Darius, if this is going to be a real conversation, you've got to slow down and stick to the facts.
You said, "The suggestion that the strength of Katrina, not neccesarily the cause, was directly the result of man induced global warming has been all over the news/press. It was even suggested in the referenced article that started this thread."
Can you produce even two examples from mainstream legitimate media that show statements that the "strength of Katrina... was directly the result of man induced global warming"?
And can you show where a statement to that effect appears in the ArchitectureWeek article, as you assert?
No, you can't, because it isn't there. The article "Disaster Engineering" actually says, "It is terrible to contemplate, but this storm, individually independent of, but statistically consistent with, warming-enhanced storm intensities, is just a drop in the bucket of effects scientifically predicted from global warming."
We continue to stand by that precise statement, backed as it is by the best available scientific findings, referenced in postings above.
I appreciate your passion over these issues. But building legitimate science-based professional understanding of these issues requires facts and logic, not outdated generalizations and undocumented opinions.
There are plenty of uncertainties and lots to discuss about anthropogenic global warming. But the essential trend is not legitimately part of that. The essential trend of human-induced global warming has been firmly established by the great preponderance of scientific findings, and as such, human-induced global warming qualifies as a scientific fact. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1187
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not so simplistic - the insurance industry around the world will be paying for the failure of your nation to look after its own and to react to a well-known and proveably foreseen risk.
Your applying of blame to the local authorities is a misrepresentation. Bush lied to the american people when he said that Federal resources could not be mobilized because no state of emergency had been declared; the letter from the Governor of Louisiana declaring such an emergency is in the public domain. The failure was total - at all levels.
I disupute that you are a "giving people". Rumour has it that there are some very baffled engineers down in Louisiana, puzzling over why the levees were not breached, only the newer concrete and steel sheeting sections. I wonder what the insurance companies will make of that. (Something wrong with American steel all of a sudden ? - doors, isn't it ? they look rather smart. steel not giving you any trouble, is it ?)
Your statement that the developing of new technologies would bankrupt developed nations is financial twaddle.
Many of those technologies already exist, and are in everyday use. Electric vehicles or hybrid fuel vehicles are a reality and have been in use in public vehicles in Europe for years. They are now becoming available as replacements for everyday cars.
To call Kyoto a "knee-jerk" reaction is meaningless. It is an international treaty, covering a lengthy - indeed rather slow - period.
And the response is a simple one. A couple of years ago there was an article in the Guardian in Britain on the death of the American brand. As happened with the deceptively introduced and promoted GM foods, ordinary people reacted very strongly and they will do so again.
You should take note of the fact that your own media companies are having a problem - advertising near the deceptive statements of your government do not sell (who wants an advert next to a lie ?).
The way to get dirty corporations to clean up is to buy products from clean corporations - then you will see them running faster than Kyoto would require.
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1346
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Darius, can you document this amazing assertion?
"If you ask the scientific community if global warming is the direct result of man only a minority would say yes (less than 10%), based on recent discoveries by NASA correcting previously flawed data recording the actual measurement of atmosheric temperatures vs. deep sea and surface temperatures. The truth is the more we investigate, the more we begin to understand that we don't know enough to say what is causing global warming if that is even what is happening. The majority of the credible scientific community will only agree that we don't know enough and the data we have gathered in the last 10-30 years is based on too short a time period to point to any specific conclusions other than since we started recording the data we seem to be getting warmer."
That is certainly the opposite of what I have read in the science journals.
You also have yet to document one solid basis for questioning the Nature report on increasing hurricane intensity, yet you are still saying it has "clearly questionable value".
By the way, GlobalWarming.org is nothing more or less than an oil industry and market fundamentalist propaganda site. 100% conflict of interest on these issues. Don't be suckered by paid liars and their intentionally misleading reports.
And please don't waste our time trying to put that stuff over here.
GlobalWarming.org is much worse than useless in the search for actual facts about these issues. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1187
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
seems that the pay rates for the environmental-shills have dropped in the last twenty plus years.
"The most dramatic illustration of the rise of corporate propaganda was in the late 1970s in the newly contested area of environmentalism. In reponse to gains achieved by 'green' campaigns, such as clean air and clean water legislation and the establishment of environmental regulatory agencies, corporate America struck back with its own 'activism'. By 1980, there were more lobbyists, 'public affairs consultants' and company-employed journalists in Wahsington than there were federal employees, including 8,000 public relations 'environmental specialists'.
quoted from "Hidden Agendas" by John Pilger, published 1998.
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
darius
Joined: 28 Sep 2005
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kevin I could produce literally hundreds, but as to you request here are 2.
1) your own referrenced article
The best scientific findings show that hurricanes are increasing in intensity due to human-induced global warming ("Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years," Nature.com, 31 July 2005)..." (bolding added)
2)http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/milloy092605.htm
| Quote: | | Agence France Presse (AFP) was slightly fairer than Gelbspan and Kennedy in its article entitled, “Brace for more Katrina, say experts” (Aug. 30), which opened, “For all its numbing ferocity, Hurricane Katrina will not be a unique event, say scientists, who say that global warming appears to be pumping up the power of big Atlantic storms.” |
| Quote: | | A Baltimore Sun editorial (Aug. 30), however, was in no mood for questions about Katrina’s cause: “Such warmer waters fuel the formation and ferocity of hurricanes. Warmer oceans are an inseparable by-product of global warming, and it’s foolish to ignore the link to the burning of fossil fuels.” |
| Quote: | There’s a clear signature of global warming in [Katrina]. While it’s not the dominant factor, in some things it becomes the straw that breaks the camel’s back,” said Kevin Trenberth of the non-profit National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) to the Post.
The Post didn’t say what the alleged “clear signature” was – or that fact that NCAR is institutionally committed to global warming alarmism. |
Membership of CoolerHeads.com, Global Warming
Alexis de Tocqueville Institution
Americans for Tax Reform
American Legislative Exchange Council
American Policy Center
Association of Concerned Taxpayers
Center for Security Policy
Citizens for a Sound Economy
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Consumer Alert
Defenders of Property Rights
Fraser Institute, Canada
Frontiers of Freedom
George C. Marshall Institute
Heartland Institute
Independent Institute
Istituto Bruno Leoni, Italy
JunkScience.com
National Center for Policy Analysis
National Center for Public Policy Research
Pacific Research Institute
Seniors Coalition
60 Plus Association
Small Business Survival Committee
Gee, I don't see any Oil Companies listed...
Richard,
You need to monitor the investigation into the Katrina response, I am a long standing member of the disaster preparedness community and your assertion is absolutely false. It was the Bush administration that finally convinced the Governor to declare, she waited and additional 24 hours. I live in an area frequented by hurricanes, 9 at last count since 1995, I am very aware of the relationships betweeen local, state, and federal governments responsabilities in evacuation. You can read the evacauation plan on line it's public record. I attended a conference in NO just last spring where they applauded the plan they didn't even try to implement. What conference? The National Hurricane Conference 2005.
I did not say that developing new technologies would bankrupt developed nations, I said that bankrupting developed nations by participation in schemes like the Kyoto Treaty would be crippling the very nations that are likely to be able to advance technologies that will reduce emissions. Reference?
http://www.techcentralstation.com/050305C.html
I clearly sense a note of Bush prejudice and anti-Americanism in your tone, its possible I just lost something in translation.
Anyway I find it interesting that the EU is in serious trouble with Kyoto since emmission reductions are not only not going to be relized but some EU countries emissions have gone up 70-80% while offsetting reductions by other countries have failed to appear. I am not blaming anyone but the penalties are going to be costly (possibly the billions) and the wisdom of the US in staying out of such a bad deal is clearly a good idea in protecting our economic interests. I have not been able to find information on US output, maybe Kevin can help with that, its probably up as well. Any way before you ask here is the article I reference in my previous statement.
Also 80% of the people in the US work for corporations with less than 50 employees, most "drty corporations" are being cleaned up since our environmental standards are constantly being policed, many corporation are choosing voluntary action to increase standards years before deadlines on emission standards here.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/051005C.html
Americans may be a large and convenient target but anyone who visits this country and spends some time knows the average citizens are good and decent people who work hard everyday and yes, give billions of dollars and resources to other countries when they experience similar or worse disasters.
As far as fuel efficiency I myself drive a turbo VW for the fuel savings, looked into a hybrid but the cost of replacing the batteries more than spent any fuel savings you could reap. Have a friend that has a Prius when the batteries started to fail fuel mileage went below 20 cost to replace the batteries was startling to say the least, several thousand. Afraid that hybrid alternative needs more development in battery technology. A continuing problem with much of the new technological advances is that they are not yet as efficient as fossil fuel consumption. have many resources for that as well if you are curious.
_________________
Darius H Grimes CRC, CSI, CDT
1801 Winding Creek Circle
Cantonment, FL 32533 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1346
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Darius, that was overdone, but still, none of those quotations make your point that the media said the "strength of Katrina... was directly the result of man induced global warming."
All those quotations say there is some kind of link between global warming and the strength of Katrina. That is true.
None say, as you asserted, that the strength of Katrina was directly the result of global warming.
Your assertion is false.
This is another very dubious statement (among many you have made, too numerous and tedious to individually debunk): "Have a friend that has a Prius when the batteries started to fail fuel mileage went below 20 cost to replace the batteries was startling to say the least, several thousand."
First, having had a Prius myself for a few years, I'm confident it would get over 20mpg even without the electric system ever kicking in.
Second, every Prius sold in the US has had an 8 year, 100,000 mile warranty on all the hybrid system components:
http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/warranty/warranty.html#prius
"Hybrid-Related Component Coverage: Prius' hybrid-related components, including the HV battery, battery control module, hybrid control module and inverter with converter, are covered for 8 years/100,000 miles. The HV battery may have longer coverage under emissions warranty."
No U.S. Prius is 8 years old yet. If your alleged friend's alleged Prius had already been driven more than 100,000 miles, which is possible though unlikely, such heavy use would be crucial information to include to put the battery claim in appropriate context.
BTW, I loved my Prius, which was a real pleasure to drive on short trips or long. When I bought it (second one in Eugene, I think, maybe the third) my own thinking was that even if it turned out to be worthless at 8 years or 100,000 miles when the warranty ran out - however unlikely - it would still have been one of the best purchases I ever made, in terms of the pleasure of use plus the satisfaction of helping to prove out the initial U.S. market for the biggest single package of advances in automotive technology since, well, probably the Model T.
Here's some background on the corporate public relations site designed to confuse the facts on global warming, which Darius quoted from as if it was authoritative:
http://fireside.designcommunity.com/topic-6677.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
darius
Joined: 28 Sep 2005
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 4:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Somewhere we are misunderstanding each other, there are definitely points we have consensus on and definitely point we disagree on.
| Quote: | | Darius, that was overdone, but still, none of those quotations make your point that the media said the "strength of Katrina... was directly the result of man induced global warming." |
I don't know how it can be any clearer than in the following quote from your own article:(while it does not specifically say Katrina, the implication is the same in regards to hurricanes)
| Quote: | | hurricanes are increasing in intensity due to human-induced global warming |
One point we agree on appears to be: We seem to agree on the wisdom of driving fuel efficient vehicles, and have voted like many consumers as the SUV begins to overpopulate car lots (hey, I traded mine on this car).
As far as the number of scientists who disagree that global warming is the direct result of man the number stands around 19,000 so far. See the following site:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm
NASA also has a statement of prominent sientists disagreeing with global warming forecast models so im sure the debate will rage for years. But all they ask for is to have time to conduct a truly scientific study based on recognized scientific conventions, proper data collection/analysis and without the bias we are currently getting in these reports that distort the numbers to support preconcieved notions. We should be requiring independent review from many scientific organizations that come to the same conclusion and data sets through different routes. We should not be trying to suppress discent from legitamate stakeholders and researchers. d I appears there is a silent majority of the scientific community supporting this view.
Another theme in your article and your stated opinions, just because large corporations give funding to different groups I do not neccesarily think it means they are corrupted, the oil industry is a legitimate stakeholder in this discussion and has every right to have their opinion heard. The main-stream and foreign press for years have been ramming global warming down our throats by quoting environmentalist groups who are far less credible and clearly more biased in thier agenda than even the oil companies.
In addition oil companies donate millions in research grants to universities that produce energy saving technology and improvements in everything from more efficient fuel blends to beneficial products that are a bi-product of the waste (previous referred too) of the refining industry. Can we say plastics...
I dont hear anyone accusing the Red Cross of collusion just becasue they accept funding from those "mean" corporations, quite the contrary they would not be able to do what they do as well without them.
Let us just agree that you think humans are causing global warming, and I think that while its probable we are part of the equation only because we happen to exist, that I find little corroborating evidence that humans are soley to blame or even causing it.
Until then I will continue to read your articles and keep an open mind with respect to all sides of future arguments, thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1346
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thank you, Darius, for the exchange of ideas and for this perspective. We will all learn more with time! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
