On Sat, 2013-01-26 at 23:43 +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
On 26/01/2013 9:55 PM, Mark Trickett wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-billionair...
That's quite propaganderous, (okay I made a word up, so sue me), to say the least.
The issue is freedom of speech, and attribution. The Koch brothers are free to publicise their beliefs, provided they stand behind them, but hiding their influence is in no ones interest. It will hurt them as well, eventually.
There is no reason why both sides of the argument can't have reasonable funding; both sides have their own agendas. There's plenty of money support the pro agenda, why not have a fair amount for the opposite side of the debate?
There. Is. No. Debate. The opposition is nonsense. Denial is only from a lack of knowledge and understanding. You have been provided with the basics, and you keep refusing to consider. Again, you do not have an open mind. The other matter is that taking action on reducing the carbon intensity of human activities is actually the way to do better. Not doing so is suicidal, including economically. It does benefit a few extremely wealthy in the short term, but by closing off opportunities to everyone else.
Nothing in the above link gives me reason to believe that the sources I choose to trust are compromised.
I have just been reading the latest Scientific American. I have been a subscriber since the early '70's, they do not publish such material without solid evidence. There is a fascinating article about the Gulf Stream, the effects of reduced arctic ice by more fresh water being less dense, and the wind patterns. They discuss a growing understanding of why western Europe tends to be less chill than the eastern seaboard of America in winter. At one point, there is a comment about the measure of incoming solar radiation, and the balance against what is radiated back out to space. If there is an imbalance, the temperature will change to restore the balance. The basis is very simple, with the detail backing matters up solidly. Quibbling with the laws of physics, the laws of thermodynamics, chemistry and the like is a measure of being a waste of the air you breathe. Your behaviour reminds me of what happens to a frog in a pan of cold water put on the stove, it will die without hopping out, it fails to register the slow change. Drop it in warm water, and it can recognise the danger and will try to escape. The changes are relatively slow, and less apparent with seasonal changes, but they are real. I have provided evidence, despite your denial. It is just that you appear to not recognise the material. Consider the planet as a whole, and the energy fluxes. If they are unequal, there will be a temperature change to restore the balance. If the outgoings increase, it gets colder, if the outgoings decrease, it gets warmer. Various molecules in the atmosphere have effects. CO2 and methane have a nett insulating effect. Water also has an effect, and it differs with the form it takes, and what altitude. Vapour is not visible, but the small droplets in clouds become visible. Fine ice crystals in clouds have other effects. The various effects are understood and modelled. Then they take the measurements of what happened in the past and try to predict what happened. The models that most closely predict the way things happened are then used to try to forecast what might happen. The models appear to have been too conservative. With something the size of the earth, a small imbalance over several decades can have a profound effect. What any one of us does is minuscule, but what we all do as a species is very significant. Homo sapiens are now using more per year than the planet can produce in several regards. That is measured, and beyond argument. That is with the vast majority still undeveloped, and aspiring to your lifestyle.
CHeers
You might be cheerful with the way we are heading, but I do not wish to leave such an impoverished world to the subsequent generations. We have what we have from the past. We hold it in trust for the future. There are no pockets in a shroud. Regards, Mark Trickett