	Agent009 "If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."
	View My AgentSpace

Nation's Third Largest Oil Company Admits "We Are Causing Global Warming"

Agent009 submitted on 04/19/2007 Official AutoSpies Timestamp: 2:20 PM
from: www.businessweek.com

[69] user comments | category: Spy Shots

Print this Page |

Digg It |

del.icio.us

Nation's Third Largest Oil Company Admits "We Are Causing Global Warming"

James Mulva says he's recognizing an inconvenient truth. The chairman and chief executive of ConocoPhillips (COP), the nation's third-largest oil company, acknowledged this month that fossil fuels—his company's core product—are permanently warming the Earth. "The science has become quite compelling," Mulva said in an interview with BusinessWeek.com. "We've been studying this for quite a number of years. That is happening."

s to melt and temperatures to rise Energy executives, of course, have taken mixed positions on the climate change debate. Exxon Mobil (XOM) has long been one of the most outspoken skeptics on global warming. Although the position has softened somewhat recently, Chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson told an industry gathering in February that he still doubted burning fossil fuels were causing polar ice cap.

Read Article

Comments:

Images hosted in your AgentSpace can now be posted in the comments section using the following syntax (case matters):
[img]IMAGE URL[/img]
Example: [img]http://agent004.myautospies.com/users/150/Sample-Gallery/sample1.JPG[/img]

silverarrow2 - 4/19/2007 4:15:06 PM

+3 Boost

Well a lot of idiots on this site didn't believe it.
I mean it's logical, nothing last for ever and to every action there is a reaction. So for some one to think we are building all those gas hungry automobiles without any effect is plainly stupid.

reply to this comment

cdoke - 4/19/2007 4:56:07 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

..."to every action there is a reaction."

Nothing personal, but you are obviously not educated in the basic sciences. That is a [incorrectly stated] law of Newtonian Physics (Newton's third law to be specific). It is meant to define the reationship between two objects: it is not an indicator of systemic performace.

cdoke - 4/19/2007 5:12:37 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

I addition, there is another thing. At frist it is going to sound completely odd, but it happens to be true.

Nature does no obey formal [linear] logic in particular on a systemic scale. Excellent examples of this are the ENSO events. If you attempt to describe their nature you arrive at a argumentaum ad circulam logical fallacy. No system which has feedback is continuously logical for all variables.

nvme - 4/19/2007 8:47:06 PM

+5 Boost

Hey cdoke, I am guessing that silverarrow quoted Newton as a METAPHORE...
besides newton's 3rd law is not what you describe it! I mean to be honest your descrption of it means nothing at all... "meant to define the reationship between two objects" bla bla bla... newton's 3rd law describes one entity's potential or cinetic energy variation in a 3D referential consequent to that of another entity in contact with the former.
Example: rowing in a boat: you row, moving a certain amount of water in the direction opposite to that which you want to take, so your boat moves where you want it to go... (that is if you know how to row)
the metaphorical use is justified here because one action (huge fuel consumption) can lead or induce another (sometimes dramatic... because in case you don't know, ths bush administration went to irak for the oil, and may be planning to go to Soudan or Iran for the same reason....)
silverarrow you are so right i absolutely agree with you, and the worst is that they (the gouv...) knew that all along and didn't give a damn as long as there was money to be made... the thing is that know almost everyone knows, and it is our responsability to do something about it...

jasongoudie - 4/19/2007 5:18:27 PM

+1 Boost

This article is crap!! It comes from a hack writer out of LA. He himself has an agenda!!! The only reason he is talking about this is because he thinks they can actually make money at it. Global Warming doesn't exist and if it did it is not caused by humans. If you tell a lie enough people start to believe it!!!

reply to this comment

Sedulous - 4/22/2007 9:52:29 PM

+1 Boost

nope to both of you

jasongoudie - 4/19/2007 5:21:07 PM

+1 Boost

P.S. This is a car website!!!!! Keep you liberal crap to yourself. We want to talk about cars!!!!!!!

reply to this comment

lexusis350 - 4/19/2007 6:42:32 PM

-2 Boost

Well said, on both of your comments.

lexusis350 - 4/19/2007 6:40:45 PM

-1 Boost

Global warming is a made-up, fradulent story to scare us all into recycling. It's a liberal's lie.

reply to this comment

PropellerHead - 4/19/2007 7:51:32 PM

+2 Boost

I see you have an agenda of your own. Hope your Toyota floats.

nvme - 4/19/2007 8:51:28 PM

+2 Boost

I hope you're joking, because out of all the conspiracy theories, if you chose to take this one, you'd be one hell of an idiot!

Rupert - 4/19/2007 9:21:55 PMView My AgentSpace

+5 Boost

Please say you're being sarcastic. even the bloody Daily Mail in England, the most right wing of all papers, knows global warming exists.

lexusis350 - 4/19/2007 11:45:12 PM

-2 Boost

Do you honestly think that God would let us die from global warming? I mean, God doesn't make mistakes, he put enough resources and enough clean air on this planet to surpass any pollution humans can come up with. Besides, even if you're an athiest, you can't deny that the world goes through stages of hot and cold. Get a real perspective.

Rupert - 4/20/2007 8:07:12 AMView My AgentSpace

+2 Boost

"Do you honestly think that God would let us die from global warming?"

God seems perfectly happy to let 32 innocent students die. God seems perfectly happy to let people die in train crashes, car crashes, of diseases, in nuclear accidents. And he seemed perfectly happy (if you believe the Bible) to send a flood to kill the sinners. I don't see why Global Warming is any different, and why God should save us.
"I mean, God doesn't make mistakes, he put enough resources and enough clean air on this planet to surpass any pollution humans can come up with."
That's the problem. I don't believe God exists, so the making mistakes ideology holds no water for me.

Rupert - 4/20/2007 8:11:41 AMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

The simple fact is that CO2 causes increased warming, and since we are producing more CO2, there is more warming. Believing in God won't save you. And what if Christianity is the "wrong" religion? What if Islam is the right religion, and Allah will save them and kill all the other religions? Nobody can prove God exists, and if I stand here and shout at the top of my lungs "God doesn't exist may I be struck down for blasphemy", nothing will happen.

1995e34 - 4/20/2007 1:01:04 PM

0 Boost

"Do you honestly think that God would let us die from global warming?"

no, he never let's us learn from our mistakes. he always intervenes to save us from our vices.

lexusis350 - 4/21/2007 1:52:19 PM

+1 Boost

Hey Rupert,
Of course God is going to let 32 people get shot. God doesn't work in obvious ways. He isn't going to come down and shield them from the bullets. He doesn't show himself to the world because of people like you, those who can't handle the truth that He really does exists. Besides, how do you know that they weren't meant to die? Maybe that was God's plan. And God will save the planet from global warming because he's working behind the scenes. If Global Warming doesn't happen, scientists will find out why and no one will say that God was responsible for it all not happening. That's how He works. He works in ways that can be explained two different ways to test His believers' faith. And just so you know, Allah isn't real. Plus, you didn't answer my question...how do you know the earth isn't going through a phase like it has since the beginning of time? I'll tell you what, if Global Warming causes the world to flood, I'll become an Athiest just like you. That's how sure I am that you're full of it.

Rupert - 4/22/2007 7:27:00 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

lexusis350 - 4/22/2007 11:20:12 PM

+1 Boost

Why is "God" real and going to save us while "Allah" isn't real? How do you know? How do you know you are right and I'm wrong? What makes you so certain in your belief?
What is "God's plan"? Why does it involve an awful lot of people dying? Did those students "deserve" to die? Are you a perfect Christian, as in, do you not commit the sin of Onan (sex without intention of baby), do you believe gay people are sinners destined for hell, do you always try to help your fellow man, not just your family or fellow Americans? Do you believe you will go to heaven? I know that's a lot of questions but those are the exact kind of questions that made me change my beliefs.
"I'll tell you what, if Global Warming causes the world to flood, I'll become an Atheist just like you."
I'll take you up on that. When the Maldives disappear, we'll talk.

Why is God real? I'll tell you. I've had experiences where that is the only explination. No one else could come up with reasons to certain events that are scientifical. Those students may not have deserved to die, but how do you know that God didn't need them in Heaven with them? Here's a little phrase a philosopher said "It is better to live your life believing in God and die to find out he doesn't, than to not believe in Him and die to find out he does." You should take head to those words, my friend. I am not the perfect Christian, I'll be the first to admit that, but I try to be the best Christian I can. And for your information, I do not commit the sin of Onan. I do believe that gay people are sinners, but have the chance to redeem themselves before going to Hell, I do try to help my fellow man, and I believe that I can go to Heaven. Does that answer your questions? I'm not so high on Christianity that I annoy everybody, but I do try to be a good person.

cdoke - 4/19/2007 9:52:37 PMView My AgentSpace

0 Boost

"newton's 3rd law describes one entity's potential or cinetic energy variation in a 3D referential consequent to that of another entity in contact with the former. "

Wha ha ha ha ah aha ha

It is spelled KINETIC!. Go buy a physics book.

So there is no ambiguity, as stated by Paul A. Tipler "Physics for Scientists and Engineers." pg. 102 [summary section]. Newton's third law:

"Forces always occur in equal and opposite pairs. If object A exerts a force on object B, and equal but opposite force is exerted by object B on object A."

University Physics 11th ed. by Young and Freedman states the same basically.

reply to this comment

cdoke - 4/20/2007 1:21:23 AMView My AgentSpace

0 Boost

..."3D referential"...how funny. I assume you mean what every scientist and engineer on earth refers to as <i,j,k> notation or vector notation. Anyone who has taken enough physics or Calculus II is intimately familiar with that nomenclature. Such a distinction goes without saying, and itself is not part of the principle nor is it unique to it.

chewy - 4/19/2007 10:15:47 PMView My AgentSpace

+2 Boost

Autospies causes global warming. All of the servers running, all the computers at home running. Everything causes cancer, everything else cures cancer. And everything thing remaining causes global warming. Othewise we would still be living only about 40 years.

reply to this comment

XYZZ - 4/20/2007 6:45:46 AM

+1 Boost

...

reply to this comment

XYZZ - 4/20/2007 6:48:54 AM

+1 Boost

there will ALWAYS be people BEHIND THE CURVE in their grasp of modern realities.

from the august journal of Conservatism, Business Week:

Climate Wars: Episode Two

With the skeptics almost silenced, businesses are fighting over how to cut carbon emissions

Remember the arguments for not taking action against global warming? Just a few years ago the claim was: "There's no evidence that the climate is changing." Then it became: "Well, maybe it is, but humans aren't to blame." That morphed into: "Warmer could be better, and we can easily adapt." And all along, we heard that cutting emissions would cripple the economy--and wouldn't make much difference because China and India weren't on board.

Forget all that. For most companies, the science debate is ancient history. The current argument, which could turn ugly, is about how the government should act to curb carbon emissions. "We've reached a tipping point on this issue," says Jeff Sterba, CEO of Southwestern utility PNM Resources (PNM ). Where automakers once fought the Kyoto Protocol, they're now backing mandatory greenhouse gas limits that could go beyond Kyoto. The Edison Electric Institute, a utility industry group, has come around despite its members' coal-fired plants. "Looking back, I wouldn't have believed it was possible EEI would evolve to where we are today on this issue," says James E. Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy Corp. (DUK ) On Apr. 11, ConocoPhillips (COP ) became the first major U.S. oil company to call for carbon caps. Even Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM ), which has spent millions to raise doubts about climate change, now claims to have been misunderstood. "Our approach to this has evolved," says Kenneth P. Cohen, vice-president for public affairs.

There are still holdouts, not the least George W. Bush. His mantra is that China and India must sign on if the U.S. is to impose curbs. Peabody Energy (BTU ) has hired ex-House Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt to lobby against carbon curbs. And while many companies are waving green flags, environmentalists worry that some are more interested in protecting themselves than in saving the planet, since those not willing to negotiate could face higher costs. As Charles Territo of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers says: "If you're not at the table, you're on the menu."

Whatever the motivations, a profound shift has occurred on global warming. With Congress beginning work on a slew of bills, "the entire discussion has progressed from 'nothing is going to happen' to wrestling over the details," says Philip E. Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust. "The jockeying has begun."

ExxonMobil's Cohen, for instance, is talking up large reductions in carbon dioxide that could come from better auto-fuel economy. Wait a minute, the Big Three carmakers retort: Since cars generate just 20% of the nation's emissions, it's not fair for us to bear the brunt. Meanwhile, utilities are wrangling over how to dole out t

reply to this comment

XYZZ - 4/20/2007 6:57:13 AM

0 Boost

and...

"Why the dramatic shift from resisting the science to wrestling over policy? One reason: The long contrarian campaign has lost credibility. The main goal, stated in company and trade-association documents, was to sow as much doubt as possible. As a 1998 American Petroleum Institute memo says: "Victory will be achieved when...recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the 'conventional wisdom.'"

The contrarians got years of mileage out of the early finding that satellite and balloon data didn't show atmospheric warming. Mainstream scientists discounted the data since such measurements are indirect, tricky, and prone to errors. Skeptics, however, had no such reservations. The data are "screaming that the...climate models are wrong," wrote Cato Institute senior fellow Patrick J. Michaels and two others in a 2004 Washington Times op-ed piece. "The science is settled. The 'skeptics,' the strange name applied to those whose work shows the planet isn't coming to an end, have won."

Not quite. With better analysis of the satellite measurements, the data changed. Even Michaels says: "Clearly, there has been warming." As for his earlier claim, he says, "who was going to anticipate that the satellite data were going to be revised?" Growing evidence knocked out a half-dozen other objections to the science.

In addition, contrarians have taken a hit from a savvier media. Instead of just quoting a scientist on both sides of the debate, journalists increasingly have assessed the weight of the evidence and explained who was behind the opposing views. "Once a story says 'funded by ExxonMobil,' it loses credibility," says Greenpeace Research Director Kert Davies. The oil giant has now closed its cash spigot to some groups challenging global warming. "The funding was unfortunately becoming a distraction," says ExxonMobil's Cohen.

The doubters haven't disappeared completely. Michaels now says: "It's hardly news that human beings have had a hand in planetary warming," but he still argues that warming could be beneficial. "Who's to say we have the best climate now?"

A STATE PATCHWORK
Companies find it's no longer worth arguing this point. They're coming to the bargaining table for many reasons beyond the science. On Apr. 2 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency can regulate CO2 as a pollutant. That could bring legal challenges and EPA-imposed mandatory curbs. "The fear that the next Administration's EPA would have its hand on the lever is a great motivator," says Natural Resources Defense Council attorney David D. Doniger. Plus, a growing patchwork of state carbon-emissions limits has prompted industries to push for a preemptive national law. And as energy executives face decisions, such as what kind of power plants to build for the next 40 years, they want regulatory certainty.

Despite the tough road ahead, proponents of action inside companies are thrilled that the policy fight has finally begun. "We are lo

reply to this comment

XYZZ - 4/20/2007 7:04:41 AM

0 Boost

Despite the tough road ahead, proponents of action inside companies are thrilled that the policy fight has finally begun. "We are long past debating the science," said Entergy CEO J. Wayne Leonard in a recent speech. Waiting for stronger evidence is "the equivalent of bleeding out of every orifice of your body and hearing your doctor say: 'Before we rush to judgment, let's wait until all the facts are in'--meaning your autopsy."

i 'spose our loudmouth, vitriolic, God-FEARING/overly trusting friend will believe in global warming when doing the autopsy on his DROWNED CAR?

reply to this comment

1970toyotamarc - 4/20/2007 3:24:23 PM

0 Boost

Nice analysis. I am impressed. This is very similar to what happened to the tobacco industry. The parallels are eerie. Tobacco began putting out disinformation decades ago, trying to show that scientists were skeptical of the ill effects of smoking. Of course those were scientists that were on Tobacco's payroll. It took decades for the approach to change into an aceptance of the facts and a shift in marketing resources. With global (warming) climate change, it took just a few years before the general population and MSM saw through the faux science, and the oil industry was forced to take a different approach.

I hold up the day that GWB admitted that polar bears are dying and becoming endangered due to shrinking polar ice, as the day that the shift occurred. That day, he tacitly admitted that global (warming) climate change exists. And it has only snowballed since.

Now that we admit there is a problem, we only must have the will to make changes, and those changes will involve sacrifice. The call to sacrifice is why you will find so much resistance on Autospies. Jason and others cannot allow themselves to believe that their next vehicle, or perhaps one after that, may need to be slower, smaller, or have some other compromise. Now I, for one, do not consider it Sophie's Choice to choose a Prius over another car, but when I traded my Matrix XRS for it, I did have to SACRIFICE the power I once had.

cdoke - 4/20/2007 12:41:13 PMView My AgentSpace

+2 Boost

"The simple fact is that CO2 causes increased warming..."

Rupert,

I challenge you to do one thing: actually look at the data. By which I mean, graph for yourself the Vostok Ice-core information [CO2 and temperature] as well as the corresponding information for the Law Dome ice core and the Mauna Loa observatory, on the SAME set of axes.

Anyone, scientist or not, who tells you that there is a historical precedent for increases in CO2 which yield temperature increases, I can guarantee will NOT graph these two tracks on the same set of axes if they are unscrupulous. That is overt deception.

The temperature curve precedes the CO2 curve in time. In a significant manner in fact. I remember reading 400,000 years of a graph, but I apparently wasn't reading it right the lag is about 800 years usually.

At first, many people argued about point measurements as opposed to systemic measurements, but now that argument has been proven moot. The curves come about as close as 400 years and that is it. At this point, it is realized that the primary motivator of temperature on planet earth is the sun {direct solar radiation]and earth's proximity to it: this is how we end up with ice ages. In addition that as temperature increases carbon dioxide is evolved from the oceans.

This isn't to say anything about the present situaiton. Although I will say that because one thing induces an increase in an other, it really doesn't work in the opposite direction because of logic. It may, but it isn't because of logical homogenity.

reply to this comment

cdoke - 4/20/2007 12:49:01 PMView My AgentSpace

+2 Boost

Now, there is talk of feedback inducing increased temperature after a trigger. That is an explainantion, but not directly supportable by the evidence. If you chalk it up to eccentricityin th earh's orbit, you would expect a form of sinusoidal curve experienced in the data. I.e. the earth doesn't suddenly move extremely close to the sun for week or to and then jump back into orbit.

cdoke - 4/20/2007 1:09:47 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

...but the period of that sinusoid is subject to debate...

cdoke - 4/22/2007 12:58:46 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

Jagexpert,

Usually it runs on CC: Coca-Cola.

...And unfortunatly it really has no "off" button which makes getting to sleep interesting. Granted, before I get to sleep it is somewhat like sensory deprivation, making thoughts particularly brilliant. Last time it helped was in doing a full mathematical proof in my head proving that the flow rate in a horizontal openhole is the Integral of the flux profile to that point beginning at the end of the openhole. Namely,

q_heel=lim-(????0)??_(i=1)^n¦?q_(h,i) ?x_i=?_0^(L_h)¦?q_h (x)·dx??

cdoke - 4/22/2007 1:00:07 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

...That didn't come out right, oh well, point being that it really needs a "OFF" button.

Will_ - 4/20/2007 3:53:15 PM

+1 Boost

"Global climate change" never ceases to bring out the worst in all that is politics. Go figure.

reply to this comment

RS4inPA - 4/20/2007 6:30:14 PM

0 Boost

global warming is a complete farce.

reply to this comment

1995e34 - 4/20/2007 11:33:18 PM

+1 Boost

what studies have you performed to determine this?

XYZZ - 4/21/2007 6:25:06 AM

0 Boost

probably, exploring the anal cavities of Jackass and the other troglodyte skeptics who STILL believe the BigOily shills.

reply to this comment

XYZZ - 4/21/2007 9:02:17 AM

+2 Boost

Rupert:

"The simple fact is that CO2 causes increased warming, and since we are producing more CO2, there is more warming. Believing in God won't save you. And what if Christianity is the "wrong" religion? What if Islam is the right religion, and Allah will save them and kill all the other religions? Nobody can prove God exists, and if I stand here and shout at the top of my lungs "God doesn't exist may I be struck down for blasphemy", nothing will happen."

God called the Pope one day and said, "I have good news for you, and bad news. I've decided all these multiple, conflicting, warring religions was a big mistake. So I shall correct this and declare to the world there is ONLY ONE TRUE RELIGION."

Pope: "Well, it's ABOUT TIME! we have been preaching that for centuries!"

God: "OK. Now here's the bad news. I'm calling from Salt Lake City."

reply to this comment

cdoke - 4/21/2007 4:33:38 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

That reminds me of a SouthPark Episode.

All these people are in hell and complaining about being devout...and the moderator there says ..."Nope, you picked the wrong religion too. The correct answer was 'The Mormons, Mormons yes.'" Everyone in the crowd says "Ahhhh."

...and later when Satan goes to heaven to speak to God about his homosexual lovers [Chris and Sadaam Hussein] god says something like "...But whatever I am a Buddhist." Such a lovely show...if only because it makes fun of everyone.

t_bone - 4/22/2007 12:57:39 AM

+2 Boost

I sure hope I am DEAD WRONG on the issue of global warming. But it seems to me a billion air-breathing cars (or whatever if is), are probably not part of the solution while we sort the facts.

And how this became a partisan issue is strange to me.

reply to this comment

Lyall - 4/23/2007 2:17:11 AM

+3 Boost

Rupert,
You forget that here in the US, even in San Francisco where live, we may well qualify as the most illiterate people in the world. Then ask youself (not htat you need asking) which people are the easiest to manipulate, condition and turn towards nefarious ends?
I shudder to think about our nation's future. This site itself should give the average reader cause to shudder. The right wingers of this country will be the demise of all of us.

reply to this comment

XYZZ - 4/25/2007 7:23:26 AM

+1 Boost

as an example of the mental and moral malfunctioning of the right wingers--

why is it that the MOST VOCIFEROUS antagonists to the very sensible concept of CONSERVATION, are the CONSERVATIves?

they are conservatives on pocketbook and political issues. but when it comes to anything LARGER than their little lives, and especially something as large as the very health of our environment and planet Earth, all their conservative inclinations get shoved into the closet.

reply to this comment

XYZZ - 4/25/2007 7:38:06 AM

0 Boost

cdoke: "Now, there is talk of feedback inducing increased temperature after a trigger. That is an explainantion, but not directly supportable by the evidence."

cdoke, you are hung up on your formulae and orbital effects/solar distance factoids. but you've lost sight of the very IDEA of the greenhouse effect.

yes, solar radiation varies over time. but the significance of greenhouse gases, is that IT DETERMINES what proportion of the solar energy that DOES REACH US is retained, rather than reflected back into space.

to make a mechanical analogy: the rpms of your car's engine vary continuously, and generally with no ill effects. but if the RADIATOR gets blocked off, heat previously dissipated BUILDS UP. that's what co2 does, REGARDLESS of the amount of solar radiation.

do some research on the ALBEDO EFFECT. that is ALSO a large factor on the amount of heat retained/reflected.

you are also wrong about feedback loops. they DO have a significant effect. it is happening NOW in northern lands and especially in siberia. warmer temps are thawing tundra and permafrost. releasing huge amounts of methane, a POWERFUL greenhouse gas. causing more warming. causing more thawing. etc. etc.

this is a feedback loop that HAS been activated. the rate of thaw has taken russian scientists by surprise.

reply to this comment

cdoke - 4/25/2007 11:08:22 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

I NEVER said that Feedback isn't important. ENSO events are CAUSED my feedback. However, that supposition is not DIRECTlY supported by the historical tmperature CO2 curves. The reason is simple, th emeasurements are not systemic.

I'm not even arguing about what is going on now. To say that there is a long term historical precendent for CO2 induced temperature increases, is really an assertion without reguard to history.

"yes, solar radiation varies over time. but the significance of greenhouse gases, is that IT DETERMINES what proportion of the solar energy that DOES REACH US is retained, rather than reflected back into space."

I am willing to be conviced. Prove it to me. Do not use the word "Model" it really is a four letter word to most scientists and engineers and is used in lieu only of better methods.

cdoke - 4/25/2007 11:30:25 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

What I mean is prove to me, that Direct radiation including refraction is secondary to internal atmospheric reflection as far as earth system temperature is concerned. OR at least prove the scalr degree of the influence of internal reflection- that would be best.

Or in lieu of that, the actual scalar proportions of availabe: direct measurements. Models are convoluted here- Not only involing the effect the magnetosphere, but also of gravitation of the earth itself.

XYZZ - 4/26/2007 9:46:17 PM

+1 Boost

cd-

you ought to be aware, that science is largely a process of connecting the dots and filling in the picture with greater accuracy and detail in SPECIFIC areas as time goes by and more data accumulated and models REFINED.

you seem to get overly hung up on small specific areas of a VAST picture. sure, you can easily criticize some views which connect dots across largely uncharted space. but you shouldn't be so dismissive of the way others connect dots as THEY SEE THEM. yours will likely connect in DIFFERENT patterns. both COULD be right. both could be wrong. only time will reveal which INITIAL sketches are closer to reality.

a LARGE group of scientists HAVE drawn lines showing the connection between heightened co2 levels over the past 150 years, and global warming.
there may be additional lines between additional dots to be drawn, but the lines so far are convincing enuff to most thinking folk.

cdoke - 4/26/2007 11:55:56 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

Do not lecture me on "What science is". You know better than that. I have had the opportunity to personally meet an inordinately large number of Nobel Prize winners.

Nothing which I have said pertains to the past 150 years or so. I don't believe that I ever gave that impression either. I realize you think I am stuck in minutia. In systemics and particularly simulation iterated through time, there is no such thing as minutia: that is one of the biggest leasons of Choas Theory. The most minute difference in the actual physical situation at t=0, actually becomes the driving force of the results. I'm sure you have heard it: systemic predictablity decreases as a function of time. Probably in a modified exponential integral fashion, maybe hyperbolically or harmonically, but that isn't important.

There are people on this issue that are being prudent and those who are reactionaries. Both sides have some of each of these categories, of course the "prudent" is defined with repect to different things.

TONYRICH - 4/26/2007 6:15:06 PM

+1 Boost

I HAVE READ A 1986 EPA REPORT THAT SAID THAT EVEN IF WE BANNED THE USE OF FOSSIL FUELS COMPLETELY IT WOULD ONLY SLOW IT DOWN 10 OR 15 YEARS THEY RECOMEND THAT WE PREPAIR FOR IT RATHER THAN TRYING TO STOP IT THE REASON WHY WE NEVER SIGNED ON TO KYOTO IS BECAUSE IT WAS NOT FAIR IT REQUIRED THAT WE MAKE ALL THE CUTBACKS WHILE CERTAIN OTHER CONTRIES WERE EXEMPT.ALSO THERE ARE A EQUAL NUMBER OF SCIENTISTS THAT SAY THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT HAPPENING THE SCIENTISTS THAT SAY THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING SAY THAT THE 20TH CENTENARY IS WARMER THAN THE PREVIOUS CENTENARYS THE SCIENTISTS THAT SAY THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT HAPPENING SAY THAT THE 20TH CENTENARY ONLY SEEMED WARMER BECAUSE IT WAS PRECEDED BY A MINNIE ICE AGE AND THAT GLOBAL TEMPERATURES ARE ALREADY STARTING TO REVERSE THEMSELFS MY ONLY CONCERN IS THAT OUR GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO USE THIS ISSUE AS AN EXCUSE TO TAKE MORE OF OUR FREEDOM AWAY JUST LIKE THEY USED 9/11 AND DRUGES.

reply to this comment

XYZZ - 4/26/2007 9:52:20 PM

+1 Boost

how is encouraging, even requiring, people to make smaller carbon footprints "taking away more of our freedom?"
you mean freedom to POLLUTE?

i have as much and possibly MORE DISTRUST of the gov't than you do. but you seem to have bought the rightwing radio talksters' misdirections about the REAL threats of gov't.

how about investigating how the neo-cons have had to INVENT enemies since the end of the cold war, so that they can steal our Peace Dividends?

TONYRICH - 4/27/2007 10:53:17 AM

+1 Boost

I THINK TECHNOLOGY IS THE ANSWER NOT THE GOVERNMENT SAYING THAT IT IS OUR FAULT AND PASS A TON OF LAWS RESTRICTING HOW FAST WE CAN DRIVE WHAT KIND OF VEHICLE WE CAN DRIVE AND WHERE WE CAN DRIVE ESPECIALLY SINCE WE ARE ALREADY AT THE POINT OF NO RETURN MOST CREDITABLE SCIENTISTS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD SAY THAT THE EARTH HAS ALREADY GONE THROUGH 90% OF ITS HABITABLE LIFESPAN.

reply to this comment

XYZZ - 4/28/2007 4:10:40 AM

+1 Boost

...

reply to this comment

XYZZ - 4/28/2007 4:26:21 AM

+1 Boost

technology CAN come up with many solutions.

however, they do not trickle down to the consumer until corporations make a business case for their profit making potential, and actually incorporate them in new products. OR, UNTIL REQUIRED by gov't regulations.

anyone who's observed the foot dragging by detroit (especially) KNOWS this is true.

the increasing dangers of global warming has been on the radar screen of scientists for years. some FEW scientists, paid off by the BigOilys, along with other Oily interest/paid off lackeys, have been insisting the radar images are not real.

people who believe the latter, are sorta like the captain and passengers on the Titanic. in the fog, they SEE no danger. and instead of prudently REDUCING SPEED (reducing use of carbon fuels), they prefer to just blithely cruise on.

well, the early "visuals" picked up long ago on the radar, are just now being VISUALLY SEEN. these are DROUGHTS, increased WILDFIRES, more weather anomolies, and so on. they will only increase as summer progresses.

reply to this comment

XYZZ - 4/28/2007 4:30:40 AM

+1 Boost

the early IMAGES...

reply to this comment

XYZZ - 4/28/2007 4:40:04 AM

+1 Boost

cdoke:

"I NEVER said that Feedback isn't important. ENSO events are CAUSED my feedback. However, that supposition is not DIRECTlY supported by the historical tmperature CO2 curves. The reason is simple, th emeasurements are not systemic."

you also said you did not refer to the past 150 years.

THAT is the problem. aside from the generally acknowledged huge co2 output since the start of the industrial revolution, there have been ACCURATE MEASUREMENTS of c02 since the late '50s at the Mauna Kea Observatory.

you get hung up criitcizing supposed links between HISTORIC climate and historic indirect measurements of co2. whether those links are accurate or not has LITTLE relevence to recent patterns.

how about taking a closer look at what is happening NOW.

reply to this comment

cdoke - 4/28/2007 10:53:01 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

I explicitly stated:

"This isn't to say anything about the present situation."

What about that do you fail to comprehend?

In addition, anyone stating that there is a historical precedent needs to be very clear about the scope of of the work. This goes for any scientific work and is actually explicitly stated in research proposals and results in the form of "limitations". The word "historical" implies all times previous to present.

cdoke - 4/29/2007 12:55:32 AMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

....how about taking a closer look at what is happening NOW.

Because that isn't what I was reponding to. Anyway, I refuse to get involved another one of these conversations. They are pointless here. Truly they are. One could state nothing but the most provable scientific facts and someone would disagree.

XYZZ - 4/29/2007 6:29:58 AM

+1 Boost

yes they are pointless. to you. because you take relatively simple suppositions and, seemingly just to parade your "brilliance" throw in complex considerations of little or no relevance.

when naturally, no one follows your abstruse arguments, you assume you've won your argument, which to many was NOT EVEN an argument worth pursuing.

maybe you've been watchng TOO MUCH of south park and think it's cool to make to take jabs at EVERYBODY. not that there are not people who set themselves up, with dumb arguments. but why do you criticize even those who RECOGNIZE we have a problem?

reply to this comment

cdoke - 4/29/2007 2:30:35 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

"yes they are pointless. to you. because you take relatively simple suppositions and, seemingly just to parade your "brilliance" throw in complex considerations of little or no relevance. "

Parading my brilliance? Mhwah ha ha ha ha. Deary I don't go around yelling at which age I actually started college or my I.Q. either for that matter.

Those have nothing to do with it. But systemics is not easy. Things must be proven to be minutia, within a certain scope.

Now, I am not entirely sure who it is you are referring to with "but why do you criticize even those who RECOGNIZE we have a problem? "

Who did I criticize for saying that there even was a problem? I admit that those who would use metaphor to attempt to provide some form of validity to scientific principles don't receive a warm reception from me. It shows a massive and disturbing dearth understanding about the universe.

It is sort of like trying to argue that god exists because all things are "dependent". All things "dependent" require something "independent", thus god exists as that independent.

Fundamentally they utilize the same method [ultimatly: that is to say nothing of vague definition]: the utilization of a construction within the english language to attempt to prove a natural phenomenon.

XYZZ - 4/29/2007 6:34:27 AM

+1 Boost

and WHY NOT respond to today's problems? yes historical perspectives are useful as bases for better understanding of the present.

but what good is all of that, if not APPLIED to current problems?

reply to this comment

XYZZ - 5/3/2007 2:52:47 AM

+1 Boost

"Who did I criticize for saying that there even was a problem? I admit that those who would use metaphor to attempt to provide some form of validity to scientific principles don't receive a warm reception from me."

well "science" does not exclusively OWN newton's 3rd law. it applies in psychology and politics too. and can even be applied in the macro sense across a whole RANGE of subjects, scientific or not.

"It shows a massive and disturbing dearth understanding about the universe."

and many "hard scientists" show a disturbing dearth of understanding about literature, the humanities, psychology and simple human relationships.

reply to this comment

cdoke - 5/4/2007 12:16:38 AMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

I suggest you go look at the context of its use. Global warming is not a problem in psychology nor truly in politics [at least as facts are concerned].

"...and many "hard scientists" show a disturbing dearth of understanding about literature, the humanities, psychology and simple human relationships...."

LOL. You can say that all you want but really that is not my experience. Whilst my school is truly a hard sciences college, I was able as a honors program undergrad student to take classes like "Paradoxes of the Human Condition as expressed through Literature" and "Cultural Anthropology". The first of these was moderated by certain professors at the school, along with the President of the State senate and a lawyer. Dr. Daniels in the ChemE dept is a former opera singer. Dr. Sloan can play the violin beautifully. I myself had much experience in college, before where I attend now, in things such as literature [Study of the novel, Proust, Solzhenitsyn the more obsure ones, cliche ones like Dickens, Austen and Shakespeare I had studied previously] and a lot of history [most of which I have forgotten unfortunatly. At the moment I am reading my 4th biography on Catherine the Great] I have a thing for classical literature: the last I read was Faust in german [part one: I wasn't so ambitious as to try the second part]

cdoke - 5/4/2007 12:23:13 AMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

...I also have a thing for classical music in particular piano and opera.

cdoke - 5/4/2007 12:24:47 AMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

If you ever have a chance be sure to watch old videos of Maria Callas. Not many exist, but she performed particularly beautifully at Covent Gardens.

XYZZ - 5/8/2007 7:30:01 AM

+1 Boost

kudos to you for being well rounded. i love the piano, opera, and classical music in general too. heve heard recordings of callas, a true artist.

what were we arguing about again?

reply to this comment

cdoke - 5/8/2007 5:24:48 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

I don't remember....

reply to this comment

To post a comment for this story, you must first Login.

If you do not have an account, you will need to Register (It's Free!).

Most Recent Stories

LA AUTO SHOW: More Goodies For The Eyes From The Show Floor In The City Of Angels Official: 2009 Porsche Cayenne Diesel unveiled and priced at €47,250 Volkswagen Touareg TDI Trophy Truck unveiled in LA Last Ditch Deal With Automakers May Get Approval- But Can They Be Trusted?GMAC Files For Banking Status In Effort To Access $700 Billion Bailout Package Vw Touareg V6 TDI priced at $42,800 Saab 9-6x patent photos LA AUTO SHOW: The All New RX, The Bread And Butter Crossover/SUV Makes Its Grand Entrance Audi Sees Dual Clutch Transmissions Making Into 90% Of Lineup In Near Future