The Electric Universe

[Saint in Paradise]

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8pjd9xpp

 

Science, Politics and Global Warming.

 

“In the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost. We will enter

the Internet version of the dark ages, an era of shifting fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don't know any better.

That's not a good future for the human race. That's our past.”

 

—Michael Crichton, “Environmentalism as Religion,” (A lecture at the Commonwealth Club, San Francisco, CA, September 15, 2003).

 

More from that article in the link I quoted:-

 

— and climate scientists have been misled by astronomers and astrophysicists so they have no real concept of recent Earth history in

the solar system and they don’t understand the real source of lightning and the electrical input to weather systems. For example, the

major city in northern Australia, Darwin, was utterly destroyed in tropical cyclone ‘Tracy’ in 1974. The catastrophe was described in

part, “At 3am, the eye of the cyclone passed over Darwin, bringing an eerie stillness. There was a strange light, a diffuse lightning, like

St. Elmo’s fire.” There was no solar energy being supplied to the 150km per hour winds at 3 in the morning. “A diffuse lightning” is an apt

description of the slow electrical discharge (distinct from impulsive lightning) that drives all rotary storms and influences weather patterns.

That is why the electrically hyperactive gas giant planets have overwhelmingly violent storms while receiving very little solar energy.

 

Yet with these unacknowledged shortcomings we have bookshelves filled with textbooks, science journals and PhD theses, mostly unread,

that would stretch to the Moon, fostering the impression that we understand most things. And the public is assailed with documentaries

that breathlessly deliver and repeat fashionable science fiction as fact. How can this be?

 

.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

The universe is a complex place and our scientific understanding of it is, & always will be, evolving over time. To argue that this obvious truth implies that we can thus safely disregard the current scientific consensus re global warming seems at least as dangerous as acting prematurely on what might still be a false premise.

For instance, back in the 1950's a similar level of skepticism greeted the emerging statistical evidence that smoking Tobacco measurably increased the risk of developing lung cancer in humans - now I don't see many casting much doubt on that theory anymore & those enlightened individuals who did respond to this new evidence would probably have lived a longer, healthier life as a consequence. We ignore science at our peril.

 

At this time no one can know with complete certainty whether the increasing levels of man-made CO2 in the Earths atmosphere is driving climate change significantly. As I understand it Human generated CO2 represents only a tiny component of the air around us, and it must be problematic separating out the planets natural temperature variation with any effect we are having on this enormously complicated ecosystem.

Nevertheless, I'm not at all comfortable with those who argue we can ignore this theory because it's contraversial and addressing the issue would prove difficult and expensive anyway. The worst case scenario, if global warming theory is ever proven to be wrong, is that we end up with a poorer and cleaner planet. If the overwhelming weight of scientific opinion is correct however and we do nothing ..... well the consequences hardly bare thinking about.

 

None of the above is about to stop me driving my car or going without all the wonderful benefits that electricity brings - what needful things we are.

Edited 26 April, 2012 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[buctootim]

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8pjd9xpp

 

Science, Politics and Global Warming.

 

“In the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost. We will enter

the Internet version of the dark ages, an era of shifting fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don't know any better.

That's not a good future for the human race. That's our past.”

 

—Michael Crichton, “Environmentalism as Religion,” (A lecture at the Commonwealth Club, San Francisco, CA, September 15, 2003).

 

.

 

Lulz. Thats fantastic! In the red corner we have a five times married, Deism adherent dead novelist (someone who writes made up stories) and in the blue corner the usual assortment of NASA, the Royal Society, nobel prize winners, department of defence etc. I guess you're in the cadre of Saintweb posters who are so desperate to believe what they want to believe they will just stick their fingers in their ears. Symptom of aging Im afraid. .

Edited 26 April, 2012 by buctootim

[buctootim]

The universe is a complex place and our scientific understanding of it is, & always will be, evolving over time. To argue that this obvious truth implies that we can thus safely disregard the current scientific consensus re global warming seems at least as dangerous as acting prematurely on what might still be a false premise.

For instance, back in the 1950's a similar level of skepticism greeted the emerging statistical evidence that smoking Tobacco measurably increased the risk of developing lung cancer in humans - now I don't see many casting much doubt on that theory anymore & those enlightened individuals who did respond to this new evidence would probably have lived a longer, healthier life as a consequence. We ignore science at our peril.

 

At this time no one can know with complete certainty whether the increasing levels of man-made CO2 in the Earths atmosphere is driving climate change significantly. As I understand it Human generated CO2 represents only a tiny component of the air around us, and it must be problematic separating out the planets natural temperature variation with any effect we are having on this enormously complicated ecosystem.

Nevertheless, I'm not at all comfortable with those who argue we can ignore this theory because it's contraversial and addressing the issue would prove difficult and expensive anyway. The worst case scenario, if global warming theory is ever proven to be wrong, is that we end up with a poorer and cleaner planet. If the overwhelming weight of scientific opinion is correct however and we do nothing ..... well the consequences hardly bare thinking about.

 

None of the above is about to stop me driving my car or going without all the wonderful benefits that electricity brings - what needful things we are.

 

 

Good post. Lord Adair Turner (Former head of the CBI, FSA and Head of economics at the World Bank) gives a compelling speech on this. He basically says that climate change is real and happening - even a cursory review of the evidence tells you that. However even if you arent certain that man made change is occurring, sentient human beings must believe it is possible. If you think something is possible then you insure against it. People insure houses, cars and ships not because they think they are going to burn, crash or sink but because the consequences on what would happen if they did would be catastrophic. The same applies to climate change. Reducing carbon emissions by 80% is easily achievable even with current technologies. It isnt even expensive - costing around 0.9% of GDP over a fifty year period - ie we will be as rich in May 2060 as we would have been in January 2060 without preparing for climate change. Pay the small premium and avoid potential catastrophe, it isnt rocket science

 

Would any of the posters here go through 50 years qwithout any kind of life, household, car or health insurance? I dont think so.

[Minty]

It's called (amongst other things) the Precautionary Principle and it's just common sense to me.

 

However, far from simply being a way of possibly avoiding potential catastrophe, it should also be looked at as a golden opportunity to lead the world in new technology. With fossil fuels dwindling and demand for power increasing, the potential rewards for anyone with the foresight to significantly research and invest renewables and low-carbon technologies are great.

[Whitey Grandad]

The universe is a complex place and our scientific understanding of it is, & always will be, evolving over time. To argue that this obvious truth implies that we can thus safely disregard the current scientific consensus re global warming seems at least as dangerous as acting prematurely on what might still be a false premise.

For instance, back in the 1950's a similar level of skepticism greeted the emerging statistical evidence that smoking Tobacco measurably increased the risk of developing lung cancer in humans - now I don't see many casting much doubt on that theory anymore & those enlightened individuals who did respond to this new evidence would probably have lived a longer, healthier life as a consequence. We ignore science at our peril.

 

At this time no one can know with complete certainty whether the increasing levels of man-made CO2 in the Earths atmosphere is driving climate change significantly. As I understand it Human generated CO2 represents only a tiny component of the air around us, and it must be problematic separating out the planets natural temperature variation with any effect we are having on this enormously complicated ecosystem.

Nevertheless, I'm not at all comfortable with those who argue we can ignore this theory because it's contraversial and addressing the issue would prove difficult and expensive anyway. The worst case scenario, if global warming theory is ever proven to be wrong, is that we end up with a poorer and cleaner planet. If the overwhelming weight of scientific opinion is correct however and we do nothing ..... well the consequences hardly bare thinking about.

 

None of the above is about to stop me driving my car or going without all the wonderful benefits that electricity brings - what needful things we are.

 

We could end up with a frozen planet.

[Whitey Grandad]

It's called (amongst other things) the Precautionary Principle and it's just common sense to me.

 

However, far from simply being a way of possibly avoiding potential catastrophe, it should also be looked at as a golden opportunity to lead the world in new technology. With fossil fuels dwindling and demand for power increasing, the potential rewards for anyone with the foresight to significantly research and invest renewables and low-carbon technologies are great.

 

If there's money to be made then it will happen. The problem with just cutting down unilaterally on emissions is that the Chinese will bugger it all up. It's no good being holier and poorer if it was all for nothing.

[Minty]

The problem with just cutting down unilaterally on emissions is that the Chinese will bugger it all up. It's no good being holier and poorer if it was all for nothing.

Well whilst I have some sympathy for this point of view, in light of the potential enormity of the situation, we wouldn't be where we are in the world today if people gave up just because they thought something was difficult. And actually, whilst China may be somewhat reckless in their pursuit of Western-style growth, they aren't completely stupid. If we put the time and effort into improving low-carbon technologies, and it is shown to be of benefit to the world, they'll soon want a piece of that pie.

 

In everything in life, I believe we should all focus on what we do first, and try to influence others second. You can only do the latter if you lead by example, otherwise you're a hypocrite. Or a politician. (Oops, sorry)

[buctootim]

whilst China may be somewhat reckless in their pursuit of Western-style growth, they aren't completely stupid. If we put the time and effort into improving low-carbon technologies, and it is shown to be of benefit to the world, they'll soon want a piece of that pie.

 

They already are. While China gets a lot of bad press for its new coal fuelled power stations (which are still way less per head than the UK or US) they are putting enormous amounts of money and research into both energy efficiency and developing sustainable energy - putting the west to shame.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/business/energy-environment/31renew.html?pagewanted=all

[scotty]

They already are. While China gets a lot of bad press for its new coal fuelled power stations (which are still way less per head than the UK or US) they are putting enormous amounts of money and research into both energy efficiency and developing sustainable energy - putting the west to shame.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/business/energy-environment/31renew.html?pagewanted=all

 

It could also be argued that their state policy limiting the birthrate contributes as well. Fewer people = less consumption = lower carbon emissions.