Climate Change Tales

April 30, 2008 — xanthippa

The whole ‘Global Warming’ – under whatever name one chooses – issue is a mess.  Unmitigated, tangled up and muddled mess.

So, how can a person make sense of it all?

Frankly, I don’t know.  What I do know, however, is that we are actively being presented with only a very small part of the story through the main stream media (MSM).  And I also know that reasonable points raised by bonafide scientists from the field of climate change are being shouted down or smeared before their ideas are even listened to.

That is not how scientific debate occurs.  It is anathema to science itself!  In true scientific community, people are willing to listen to dissenting points of view – provided these are scientific and  testable hypothesies (using the term in the narrow, scientific sense).  Why?  The reason for this is very simple:  sometimes, even what appear to be ‘crackpot’ ideas may indeed turn out to be better models of reality than the original theories.

Scientists are only human.  Yes, as much as this is contrary to some opinions, they are only human.  Many times in the past, the ‘current scientific consensus’ was just silly in rejecting even the consideration of ‘things’ that we now regard as integral tools of science: 

“… my dear Kepler, what do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope.”

                                                                                        –     Galileo Galilei

Today, most scientists are careful to not have the ‘obstinacy of a glutted adder’, and tend to seriously examine ideas which run contrary to mainstream opinions.  How far are they prepared to go?  Well, consider the case of Dr. Peter Duesberg:  he came out with not just one, but two controversial theories. 

In the first one, he proposed that while there is a co-occurrence of the HIV virus and AIDS, he thought the causality had not been established with sufficient scientific rigour.  (I am not particularly versed in his theory – if I am misrepresenting it, I apologize.  The point is not his theory as such, but the scientific community’s reaction to it.) 

The reaction? 

Scientists actually went and checked his data, looked over his studies, and found where he had made mistakes.  Even so, his views are often referred to in scientific publications on HIV/AIDS, in order to ensure that the scientific basis for refuting them is easily available.

Long after this, he proposed another very controversial scientific hypothesis:  this time on the nature of cancer.  Even though he was one of the researchers to have identified one of the ‘cancer genes’, he now proposed that cancer may be more due to chromosomal abnormalities than to problems within individual genes.  Again, the details of his hypothesis are less important than the reaction it received.

Even though his first hypothesis has been flatly rejected, scientists listened when he proposed this one.  In May 2007, Scientific American published his controversial theory in an article called ‘Chromosomal Chaos and Cancer’.  Earlier in the same issue, the editor’s page was titled ‘When Pariahs Have Good Ideas’, where the editors explain that even though Dr. Duesberg’s ideas on HIV/AIDS have been discredited, he might have a good point here and that scientific ideas ought to be judged on thier merit. 

So, what was my point in bringing up Dr. Duesberg? 

To show how scientists tend to evaluate ideas, even from scientists who have been proven wrong in the past:  they tests them, then – right or wrong – they reference them.  One thing they certainly do not do is try to shut each other up.  That would be unscientific! 

“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”

                                                                                       –     Galileo Galilei

Sadly, this is not happening in the field of Climate….

Scientists who do not subscribe to the ‘bad humans making Earth too hot and this will be a disaster’ point of view have systematically been insulted, bullied, their reputations smeared and jobs threatened, and more than one has received threats of bodily harm.  As Dickens might say:  “What the Sheakespeare is going on here?!?!?!?’ 

Oh, but I have made some general accusations here:  I had better support them! 

Here is one article from the Wall Street Journal by Richard Lindzen, a scientist who had been threatened, and who has seen others under similar pressure.  In this April 2006 article, he also charges scientific publications ‘Science’ and ‘Nature’ with bias and underhanded tactics.  He also names several other scientists who have faced threats.

If the Wall Street Journal is not your cup of tea, here is an article from ‘Telegraph’ from the UK about the death threats received by scientists who publicly question the ‘global warming catastrophy’ dogma.  But this is only a small sample of a large body of scientists who are speaking up.

Sadly, most people don’t realy get to hear what these scientists have to say.  Their views are not often published.  Why?  I don’t know.  However, here is an article from ‘The Australian’ about how journalists at ‘The Age’ (an Australian publication) had been ordered to not write anything negative about the ‘Earth Hour’ earlier this month:

“Reporters were pressured not to write negative stories and story topics followed a schedule drafted by Earth Hour organisers.”

All right, ‘Earth Hour’ is just fluff – what about real climate stories?

It seems that we may not be getting the true story there, either.  Earlier this month, BBC (yes, THE BBC) had done a big ‘no-no’:  they totally changed the story, without noting it!!!

When a story is edited or changed, this is supposed to be noted.  However, BBC ran a story on the topic of climate, was bullied by a ‘climate activist’, and changed the whole meaning of the story WITHOUT NOTING THE CHANGE!!!  That is not very nice at all.

Thankfully, wee have access to the full email exchange of the activist’s bullying and the BBC reporter giving in.  It is a little long, but here is a telling phrase the activist used:

“I would ask : please reserve the main BBC Online channel for emerging truth.

Otherwise, I would have to conclude that you are insufficiently
educated to be able to know when you have been psychologically
manipulated. And that would make you an unreliable reporter.”

EMERGING TRUTH???

What about ‘documented truth’?

And ‘PSYCHOLOGICALLY MANIPULATED’? 

I cannot help but feel that we, the ‘unwashed masses’, are being manipulated here…  It seems certain that we are not getting an accurate picture of what scientists are truly finding out about these processes which might significantly impact us all.

 

Posted in debate, human nature, politics, religion, science, society. Tags: , , , , , . 1 Comment »

“say, doesn’t co2 kill plants??????”

April 26, 2008 — xanthippa

While I have been taking a look at Aspergers, and describing some of my experiences and coping methods that worked for me, I have neglected a number of other very important topics. 

For example, I have promised to post on the topic of the climate.  And I promised that I would provide some solid information about why I hold the views I do.  Thus, I was preparing something on this. 

Alas, it is difficult to assess the information one is provided if one is not familiar with the underlying science behind the words.  More and more of what I have been reading from non-scientific (that is, MSM (main stream media) and many blogs, debating sites etc. – you know, all them places that have replaced the ‘watercooler chat’) has convinced me that before I can hope to provide useful information, it will be necessary to log in some explanations first.

As if to convince me that I ought to do this, in a coment on this post on a dime a dozen blog , somebody asked the following question: 

“say, doesn’t co2 kill plants??????”

I thought this question needed to be addressed, the sooner the better.  Here is my (somewhat expanded) answer:

No.  CO2 does NOT kill plants.  Nor is it pollution!  It is plant food, and what plants use to make food for us.

There are 2 basic ‘gas exchange’ processes that occur in plants:  breathing (respiration) and photosynthesis.

RESPIRATION

Why breathe?  What is the purpose? ENERGY!!! 

To carry out the process of living, all cells need energy.  That is why we – and plants – need to breathe 24 hours a day.  So how do we get energy by breathing in oxygen?

An oxygen molecule is made up of two oxygen atoms  (hence O2 – the 2 means the molecule is made up of 2 oxygen atoms).  These two atoms are held together by a ‘bond’ – breaking this bond releases energy.  But an oxygen atom by itself has a strong ‘need’ to bond to something (we rate it a level 2 need).  If left in this state, it would harm the surrounding cells (it is called a ‘free radical’). 

Organisms ‘solve’ the problem by taking a carbon atom (C) which has an even higher ‘need’ to bond (level 4).  Two oxygen atoms (with a ‘2’ each) are bonded to the one carbon atom (to add up to the carbon’s ‘4’).  (Yes, this is a major simplification – but the underlying principles are accurately described).  The resulting molecule is CO2 – or one carbon and two oxygen atoms.  All of its ‘needs’ for ‘bonds’ are met, so it is not harmful to the surrounding tissues.

Yes, it does require energy to bind the oxygen atoms to the carbon one.  However, because carbon has such a high ‘need’ for bonds, it takes less enegry to bind the oxygen atoms to it than was released by breaking the bonds between the two oxygen atoms.  In other words, when one breaks the molecular bonds between the two oxygen atoms in O2, then take a part of that energy and uses it to bind the two oxygen atoms to a carbon atom, one has some energy left over.  I stress again, this is a major simplification – there are many steps and other ‘bits’ (like glucose, which is where the carbon molecules for the reaction come from) are essential!!!  However, the underlying principle is correct.  If you would like to read more about this, here and here and here are good starting spots.

This energy difference is what cells use to carry out ‘living’.  We call this process aerobic respiration, both in plants and animals.  And though other molecules may be used in its place, oxygen is by far the most efficient one.  (Respiration in the absence of oxygen is called anaerobic respiration.)

PHOTOSYNTHESIS

During respiration, living cells get energy by breaking ‘bond’ betwen two oxygen atoms in an oxygen molecule (O2), and then use carbon atoms from glucose (simple sugar, made up of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms) molecules to stop the resulting oxygen atoms (free radicals) from harming the cell itself.  So, where does the glucose come from?

Glucose is produced by photosynthesis.

Plants have special organelles called chloroplasts.  These are specialized organelles (sub-section of a cell with a specialized function) in the plant cells which contain the green pigment chlorophyl.  Their function is to take IN carbon dioxide (CO2) form the air, and combine it with hydrous oxyde (H2O – water). 

The C (carbon) from the CO2 is combined with the OH group from H2O.  OK, I am simplifying again:  you need several molecules of CO2 and H2O to make it work, because the result of combining the carbons and oxygens and hydrogens together is the simple sugar, glucose:  and it has 6 carbon atoms in it. 

It is, in fact, pretty much the reverse of the chemical reaction during respiration.  But the reason for respiration is to release energy.  So, this process of photosynthesis needs energy from the outside to happen – and this is the reason why it occurs in the chloroplasts, which contain the green pigment chlorophyll, which is very good at absorbing light energy from the sun.  It then uses this energy to drive the chemical reaction of binding carbon atoms (from CO2 in the air) to water molecules to produce the simple carbohydrate, glucose.

This process is called photosynthesis because it uses the enegy from light (photo) to build (synthesise) glucose, a simple sugar.  Glucos molecules can, in turn, be joined up into long chains so they can be stored efficiently.  The end product, the carbohydrate chain, is called starch.

Plants can then use the stored up starch in order to breathe.  And animals, unable to make starch themselves, eat plants in order to get it.  Thus, energy from sun gets stored by plants (using carbon dioxide and water) as carbohydrates. The byproduct of this process in the oxygen molecule. Plants and animals use these carbohydrates and oxygen from the air to use this stored solar energy to ‘drive’ their cells.  The byproduct of this is carbon dioxide.  This is the basic energy cycle of our current lifeforms.

The more complex the plant, the more CO2 it requires to grow and thrive.  For example, the ‘Great Plains’ in the US used to be mostly covered by trees – until the carbon dioxide levels became too low to support them.  Then, they reverted to grassplains, because grass is a less complex plant and requires (and uses)less CO2 in the air.

If you love trees, as I do, you cannot but object to anything that will reduce the CO2 levels available for them to grow.  I am a self-admitted tree hugger – and a scientist.  I thought the ‘global warming’ thing sounded good when it was first proposed, so I have ‘looked into’ it (extensively – though this is NOT my field of expertise!!!  I do not wish to mislead!).  The evidence has convinced me that this is not dangerous.  To the contrary.  Incerases in CO2 levels are higly advantageous to lifeforms on Earth because historically, they raise food availability and are accompanied by greater species differentiation and increase in overall lifeforms supported.  And despite some claims, hard datea shows that we are nowhere near historically high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

So, why the hype?

I don’t know.  In situations where things get as murky as this is, I like to use a very simple ‘rule of thumb’:  “cui bono?” 

Or, in other words, ‘Follow the money, honey!’ 

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in debate, education, human nature, language, politics, science, society. Tags: , , , , , , , . 3 Comments »

Astronomical Arrogance in Journalism

April 17, 2008 — xanthippa

Over the last few days, there have been gleeful reports of the ‘big brains’ at NASA having really goofed up – again – only to have a 13-year-old kid fix the mistake in their math.  The arrogant reports also touted a tantilizing tidbit of ‘secret’ information:  ‘someone from NASA confirmed to someone from the European Space Agency that the kid is right!’

Ooooh!  That must have sent shivers of schadenfreude up some journalistic spines!  After all, everyone keeps using the term ‘rocket scientist’ as the ‘smartest possible thing ever’ – and here, we have proof the silly eggheads are not so smart, after all!  Even a kid can wipe the floor with them! 

Except, of course, that the news reports were WRONG!

So, was this a simple case of journalists attempting to inflate their own egoes by taking the scientists down a peg?  Or is there something more at play here…like ‘credibility’.

As Bill Nye the Science Guy used to repeat over and over and over:  extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof!  But these reports went out all over the world – many papers which like to consider themselves ‘respectable’ have reported this as FACT!  The only pretense at ‘proof’ was the ‘uncofirmable gossip’ bit:  done deal, no doubt, NASA is wrong and a 13-year-old is right!   Our source is so very high up in NASA, we cannot even reveal their name!  So, we know and you should trust us.  It’s a fact.

Lubos Motl, one of the world’s leading physicists, has a bit to say about this on his blog, The Reference Frame.  He gives an excellent analysis (both in the main post, and in the comment section where he responds to specific questions) from a scientists’ point of view.  I could not have done it better, and so I will not go into the reasons why Nico Marquadt is not likely to have found an error the NASA dudes missed.  If you’d like, you can read his post here.

My question is a little different:  HOW did this story ever make it into ‘the News’?  And, perhaps more interestingly, WHY?  And why did we hear so much about the original story, but hardly a whisper about the fact that we were fed unverified, unchecked, unreliable and downright wrong information as ‘established facts’?

I can only guess:  it was fun and juicy, looked like it would take down a peg someone who is seen as smarter than most journalists, and – let’s face it – most members of the MSM (main stream media) just do not posses the math skills to check the calculations for themselves.  And they could not be bothered to email the nearest scientist/mathematician for comment.  And they wanted to get that juicy story out right away.  Ok, that might cover the ‘HOW’. 

But WHY?

Again, this is just a guess from an outside observer:  nothing more.  But, could there be some deep resentment between the MSM/journalists and (almost) ALL scientists?  Is there any benefit the MSM could derive from attacking the credibility of scientists in general?  If so, that might signal a sinister bias could be creeping into our news coverage…

No, don’t worry – I’m not turning into a ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ – pointing out who owns what percentage of which paper or magazine…  I cannot really be, because I have not done my homework on this.  However, I do understand a little bit about human nature… Hopefully, I am wrong on this one.

It brings me to the tired old topic of ‘Anthropogenic Climat Change’ (ACC) in its many incarnations.  In the very beginning, I, too, bought into it.  It sounded plausible.  So, I went and learned about the underlying science of it.  Being somewhat obsessive, I read quite a bit about it.  And I learned it was not plausible, after all – and that what was used to tout it was ‘junk science’ and bits of legitimately good science, just taken out of context and twisted.  Oh, and it was all anchored in a study which has been shown to be not just wrong, but actually fraudulent.  So, egg on my face, I had to stand up and say I was wrong to have thought ACC was right.  Yes, I felt a fool…but I deserved it for buying into something before I really checked it out!

The MSM also bought into it.  It sounded good, and they did not bother to look too deeply into the ‘scientific mumb0-jumbo’.  Byt the time the MSM had figured out that the ACC movement was – from its inception – driven by policymakers and not scientists, that the very first studies were commissioned to be one sided only (and by Margaret Thatcher, no less), they had invested themselves WAY too deeply into propagating it.  They bought into it, and sef-righteously attacked any lone scientists who dared to stand up and speak about scientific rigour, actual data, the underlying science….you know, the basis for it!

But now, more and more scientists are speaking out.  More and more data is showing there has not been any ‘Global Warming’ in the last decade.  More and more scandals are coming out about the IPCC report.  Yet the media does very little to cover these new developments.  Unless you go out of your way to look for this information (or regularly check the science websites/scientists’ blogs), it is unlikely that you will have heard about this.  Coincidence?  I think not.

Perhaps because of the explosion of information available on the internet, perhaps because fewer and fewer people trust that the MSM is a trustworthy source of information – the fact is that the MSM is slowly dying.  And they know it.  But instead of examining their lack on impartial and or informed reporting, they blame the loss of their credibility on ‘scientists’….for uncovering the magnitude of the fraud they allowed themselves to be suckered into.

So, whether it is an attempt to regain some relative credibility for themselves by taking some away from ‘the scientists’, or whether it is a punch of an industry that’s going down kicking and screeching – should we be surprised that the MSM reported this falsehood the way they did?

Posted in education, freedoms, human nature, politics, science, society. Tags: , , . 1 Comment »

Stop global warming now, or…

April 15, 2008 — xanthippa

‘Global Warming’ is a problem.  As is ‘Anthropogenic Climate Change’.  And the ‘Greenhouse Effect’.  Yet, new hope is dawning on the horizon – and it may soon help all of us responsible people to solve these serious, man-made problems.  I just glimpsed it, and thought it so important I am breaking into the ‘Aspergers’ chain of posts in order to let you about it!

No, there has not been a new breakthrough in science, nor have we actually done much of the stuff the so-called ‘watermelons’ have been shrieking at us to do.  Not even a bit.  Yet, today, I glimpsed a new weapon!  A powerful weapon which has the power to make all these problems managable – if only we will have the perseverence to consistently apply it!

What is this wonderous weapon?  How can we wield it?  It is nothing less than humour!

The words “Stop global warming now“a ppeared on the TV screen, then faded.  Now the word “or” came and went, with a circle materializing about it.  “Or all the …(name of a chocolate confection)… will melt!” as the circle resolved itself into a magnificent, mouthwatering peanut-butter cup!  And just to drive the point home, it shimmered, as if ready to melt. Yuuuuum!

How shall this solve the problem of ‘Global Warming’, ‘ACC’ and ‘the Greenhouse Effect’?  The best way possible.

As I identified them earlier, these are all man-made problems.  Not natural ones, not environmental ones, even though they are global in their impact.  These things are a successful cross between a marketing campaign, a socialist income re-distribution scheme and a full blown cult.  And the only science contained within them has been taken out of context, twisted and perverted!

This manipulative watermelon chiamera has bullied scientists, hijacked political debates and intimidated journalists for years now.  But they have a real problem:  it is becoming more and more difficult to dismiss the 10 years of temperatures that show no increase, to hush up the indictments of fraud inside the very studies their holy scripture, the IPCC report, is anchored in, and to silence the ever growing number of reputable (non-oil connected) scientists, analysts and thinkers who are pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes. 

Since the watermelons’ credibility has been slipping more and more, their  hysteria has risen to a new high.  If the pun were not so horrible, I might even have said the pitch will soon be high enough to shatter the glass from the greenhouse! 

Just as ‘Harry Potter’s’ ‘boggart in the cupboard’ could only be exorcised by the incantation ‘Riddiculus!’, so these militant activists can best be stopped by frequent and consciencious application of humour.  Because all the busybodies and ‘bannies‘ who are righteously bullying ‘the human herd’ – whatever stripe or denomination they take – cannot abide being laughed at. 

So, let’s let laughter be our medicine!

Posted in debate, human nature, philosophy, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

What Convinces Us: the corollary to ‘How We Argue’

March 14, 2008 — xanthippa

Often, I feel like an outsider looking in on how the rest of the world lives, bewildered by all these ‘unseen rules’ that guide human interactions.  The fact that I am heavily ‘Aspergers’ probably has a lot to do with it:  I compensate for my lack of intuitive understanding by obsessively observing and cataloging behaviour.

Noticing how people argue seemed relatively easy:  the evidence was ‘out there’.  But understanding what convinces people to change their minds….that I have found much tougher.  I can see the arguments ‘out there’, in the open, but the ‘convincing’ process itself is inside a person’s head – hidden from direct observation.  It was easy to see that some arguments were more effective than others, but it always puzzled me how come an argument could convince some people, but not others.  Do not all people undergo similar thought processes?

I’m still not sure I get it.  But, it seems to me that both how much of an ‘investment’, and of what type it is, is of importance. 

A few years ago, something unusual happened: I was wrong.  Yes, it does happen, occasionally….  :0) 

During a get-together, I got into a heated-yet-amicable discussion with someone on an inconsequential topic – and, not having proof for either side on hand, we came to an impasse.  Another person came in, who just could have had the answer, so we asked her.  As she began to speak, it became apparent that the information was not favourable to my position, but the general revelry of the get-together was beginning to drown out her voice.  So, I started to ‘shush’ everyone, so we could hear the rest of what she had to say.

My opponent, sparks of laughter in his eyes, commented that perhaps it was not in my interest to be getting her to speak, as she’ll only prove me wrong!  This puzzled me, and I said so:  I’d rather be proven wrong, than persist in an incorrect position.  It was my opponent’s turn to be puzzled – it seemed this approach, which I took to be the only plausible one, had never occurred to him.

This gave me a big clue:  some people cannot be convinced, because they value winning an argument (and not ‘loosing face’) higher than they value being right.  And if this could be true of an inconsequential thing, among friends – where laughter was the measure of the volume of the argument – how much more true this would be for ‘big things’!

One of the ‘big debates’ that is going on now centers on the veracity of the ‘Anthropogenic Climate Change’ model.  I was one of the earliest proponents of ‘global warming’ – it sounded reasonable to me.  However, over more than a decade of  reading up on the underlying science, the IPCC reports, and after speaking with some of the scientists (and an economist)who were part of the whole UN shindig about it, I have concluded that it is much more of a political tool for behaviour modification than it is a scientific theory…

Not that long ago, I got into a discussion about ACC with an intelligent, educated young man – and an excellent debater – whose positions fall far left of the centre.  I made an observation that most of the ACC’s proponents were left of centre, and he accused me of politicizing the debate.  Yet, he was logical, and challenged me to convince him that ACC is a load of dingo’s kidneys, without ‘politicizing’ it. 

So, I explained a lot of the ideas that the ACC’s proponents are using, and explained the underlying science behind them…and why this model does not fit the scientific evidence.  I also explained the IPCC’s process in writing the report, and how the methodology was used to exclude science to play significant role in the report.  I even pointed out a few bits where frustrated scientists used wording that acted as ‘red flags’ to other scientists, indicating the unsoundness of the statement.

Nothing seemed to work.  I simply did not know how to convince this man.  Frustrated, I made an offhanded comment about how the whole pseudoscience of ACC was started when Margaret Thatcher commissioned a report that would show ‘fossil fuels should be abandoned in favour of nuclear power’, in order to use it as a weapon with which to end a pesky coal-miners strike….

I was quite floored when he retorted:  “You might have mentioned Thatchers involvment at the start and I would have instantaneously lost all of my credible thought procceses and immediately jumped on your wagon.”

Perhaps it is beyond me to figure out what convinces people…

Posted in Aspergers, debate, human nature, language, philosophy, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . 1 Comment »
Newer posts »