23-08-2002 02:53									#121
	Support Apolyton

CICS, and you still don't understand the scientific world. What you're saying might be true if there was only one single scientific publication in the world.

As we all know, this is not the case. If you feel your paper was unfairly treated by the reviewers, you can submit it to a different journal. Several times, in fact... I know one paper that wa bounced four times before it was finally published. (although, the reason it was bounced so many times was because it was a worthless paper, not becuase the reviewers hated the guy. In fact, the only reason it was finally published after three years was influence from the senior author).

Furthermore, the reviewers do have to give reasons why they refuse publication. and I suspect this is the part you haven't understood: not agreeing with a hypothesis is not a basis for refusal.

I guess I should repeat that for further emphasis. Not agreeing with a hypothesis is not a basis for refusal.

What a reviewer is supposed to base his decision on is whether the conclusions in the paper are support by the data, as well as whether the paper is written in a coherent and legible manner. That is it. If you want to present a theory and your theory is supported by the data you have measured, submit away.


But why listen to me? I only have a PhD in chemistry and a number of published peer-reviewed articles. You obviously know better.

	23-08-2002 02:56									#122
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

BTW, dissident, there is a proven correlation with gas prices and gas consumption. Why do you think european nations have more than 400% tax on their gas? Raise the prices and people drive less...

Tripling the gas price in the US would help not only the environment, but would aslo fight strip malls, urban sprawl etc.

	23-08-2002 02:59									#123
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

yes but that doesn't fly in the U.S.

Just try getting rid of SUV's and see what happens. Same with huge gas taxes.

I already hate gas taxes as a source of income. Because of **** like that they won't fix our traffic lights. There is no incentive for syncronizing the lights because that would lead to better fuel efficiency and less money for the politicians.

	23-08-2002 03:32									#124
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

dissident, how is that an answer? the whole point of the Kyoto treaty is that it does require sacrifices, and Europes contempt for the US is largely based on the US unwillingness to ever make a sacrififice for the common good.

	23-08-2002 21:02									#125
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu CICS, and you still don't understand the scientific world. What you're saying might be true if there was only one single scientific publication in the world.

Yes you are quite correct.
However, I find it amusing that papers affirming "greenhouse" make it into "Science" and "Nature" whilst those refuting it have to resort to a specialist journal.

Now I know that this has changed recently, but at the end of the day, the Media only know that the "popularly known" journals have published in favour of the greenhouse hypothesis, whereas, the detractors suffer being ignored in specialist journals.

So the Public perspective on this hypothesis is driven in an unbalanced way.

You should check out Still Waiting for Greenhouse

I still worry what will happen to Science if the populace is conned into agreeing to hurtfull measures and then "greenhouse" is proved wrong, or doesn't happen.

I'm not sure that the backlash would be devastating.

	23-08-2002 21:11									#126
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu dissident, how is that an answer? the whole point of the Kyoto treaty is that it does require sacrifices, and Europes contempt for the US is largely based on the US unwillingness to ever make a sacrififice for the common good.

Which is nothing compared to the contempt of Europe felt by the rest of the world, when they say one thing and do the exact opposite with a disarmingly straight face.

Too wit: It appears that whilst Europe has ratified Kyoto, it seems that their CO2 emmisions are increasing:

quote: European Greenhouse Gase Emissions Accelerating European Greenhouse Gas Emissions Accelerating BERLIN, Germany, August 22, 2002 (ENS) - Carbon dioxide emissions in the European Union rose in 2001 by three-quarters of one percent, according to new data from the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW). Emitted by the combustion of fossil fuels, carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main greenhouse gas responsible for global warming as it forms a blanket trapping the Sun's heat close to Earth.

And as per usual, the media gets it wrong again, It's Water Vapour that is the MAIN greehouse gas on this Earth, not CO2.

	24-08-2002 01:03									#127
	Got spare money?

quote: However, I find it amusing that papers affirming "greenhouse" make it into "Science" and "Nature" whilst those refuting it have to resort to a specialist journal.

I find this amusing too. But not the same way you do.

quote: Which is nothing compared to the contempt of Europe felt by the rest of the world, when they say one thing and do the exact opposite with a disarmingly straight face.

Yeah, yeah. We're all hypocrites. Hell, I drive an SUV. (my penis seems to be normal sized, however). I also fart a lot. So what? The important thing is reducing global emissions. Not whining like little children about how we are being hurt while those other guys are getting a bigger piece of cake. I'll give up my SUV if I have to.

quote: And as per usual, the media gets it wrong again, It's Water Vapour that is the MAIN greehouse gas on this Earth, not CO2.

This is, at best, a half-truth. Water vapor does have greenhouse properties. But water vapor leaves the atmosphere continually (as rain) and does not build up unless global tempertures increase. This is NOT true of carbon, at least not in the quantities we are sending into the atmosphere.

The question is pretty much moot anyway. We can't live without huge quantities of water in the atmosphere, to run the hydrologic cycle. But we can certainly live with much less carbon in the atmosphere.

	24-08-2002 20:28									#128
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Vanguard The question is pretty much moot anyway. We can't live without huge quantities of water in the atmosphere, to run the hydrologic cycle. But we can certainly live with much less carbon in the atmosphere.

Well there's two assertions with no basis in fact.
How do you know?
What levels of H2O and CO2?

As for SUV's, I live in the City and walk to work, so I expect I'm doing more to ameliorate the so called greenhouse effect. However, that is not the point. I would wish for you to keep driving your SUV and enjoy it if you like it. I don't wish for a bunch of frightened twerps to disuade you from a perfectly normal exercise of your freedom to drive the car you choose to, on the basis of some extremely shacky hypothesis (you can hardly call it a theory as even the facts it purports to explain have been discredited) that the Earth is warming due to North Americas Economic activity!

	24-08-2002 20:33									#129
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Vanguard I'll give up my SUV if I have to.

Will you stop farting though?

	24-08-2002 23:37									#130
	Put an end to popups!

I'll try to cut back.

	24-08-2002 23:47									#131
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Actually there was a study published about the effects of bovine farting. I think the solution was to put all of the cattle under some kind of roof and to keep the gas from escaping.

	24-08-2002 23:54									#132
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Sounds dangerous to me. I picture giant barns full of cattle exploding in terrible methane fueled blasts. The horror, the horror...... the delicious horror.

Last edited by Vanguard on 25-08-2002 at 19:29

	25-08-2002 01:29									#133
	Support Apolyton

quote: However, I find it amusing that papers affirming "greenhouse" make it into "Science" and "Nature" whilst those refuting it have to resort to a specialist journal.

Do you find it amusing that papers affirming creationism or flat earth have to resort to specialist journals as well?

There is no conspiracy. There just isn't any facts that support your assumptions... It does scare the hell out of me though that people find it so easy to scream 'conspiracy' when the scientific world doesn't agree with their preconcieved notions...

	25-08-2002 01:31									#134
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Which is nothing compared to the contempt of Europe felt by the rest of the world, when they say one thing and do the exact opposite with a disarmingly straight face.

?

Does the rest of the world consist of Israel?

	25-08-2002 01:33									#135
	Got spare money?

quote: And as per usual, the media gets it wrong again, It's Water Vapour that is the MAIN greehouse gas on this Earth, not CO2.

Read the entire sentence:
Emitted by the combustion of fossil fuels, carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main greenhouse gas responsible for global warming as it forms a blanket trapping the Sun's heat close to Earth.

	25-08-2002 01:35									#136
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Vanguard, didn't realize you had answered many of the issues already *tipping hat*

	25-08-2002 07:27									#137
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: And as per usual, the media gets it wrong again, It's Water Vapour that is the MAIN greehouse gas on this Earth, not CO2.

I don't know about you, but when the words "water vapour"and "atmosphere" come through my mind, then another little word kicks in: "saturation".

At the mean earth atmospheric temperature, the atmoshere can sustain a given perentage of water vapour. If more is added, then it condenses and comes back to earth as rain. So water vapour has no primary role in global warming, since it's concentration in the atmosphere is solely dependant of the temperature. OTOH there is no saturation point for CO2 and it's concentration can increase indefinitely.

I wonder if there is a limit in the stupidity of the arguments that people are prepared to trust in order to adjust their ideological and scientifical beliefs according to their political and economic interests.

	25-08-2002 21:10									#138
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by axi At the mean earth atmospheric temperature, the atmoshere can sustain a given perentage of water vapour. If more is added, then it condenses and comes back to earth as rain. So water vapour has no primary role in global warming, since it's concentration in the atmosphere is solely dependant of the temperature. OTOH there is no saturation point for CO2 and it's concentration can increase indefinitely.

You are undoubtable correct. However, there are two things that contribute to the effectiveness of a gas in creating a greenhouse. One of course is the amount or concentration of the gas in the atmosphere. The other is the relative efficiency of absorbtion of radiation and conversion to heat. In this respect Water Vapour really is the main contributor to Greenhouse as the following table shows:
Table 2 Results of HITRAN calculations
Absorbing Gas/Vapour %Absorbtion
CO2 36Pa 17.6
2xCO2 19.3
Water 785Pa 68.7
CO2+Water 72.8
2xCO2+Water 73.5
Reference: Hug & Barrett versus IPCC

quote: I wonder if there is a limit in the stupidity of the arguments that people are prepared to trust in order to adjust their ideological and scientifical beliefs according to their political and economic interests.

This of course requires not response.

	25-08-2002 21:24									#139
	Full PM-box? Change here!

"Greenhouse effect" and "global warming" aren't the same thing. The latter is a variation statement the former is an absolute.

The amount of water in the atmosphere is practically a constant, therefore the global temperature is not changing because of it. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, therefore it is causing a variation.

CO2 increases are the largest contributor to the warming trend, even if CO2 itself is not the largest contributor to the current greenhouse effect.

	25-08-2002 22:12									#140
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Axi, Did you know that California has, on its own, passed a law limiting CO2 emissions of cars?

Do you have data on CO2 emissions from cars? Because, AFAIK, only catalytic converter cars emit CO2. This will only increase emissions of CO, NOx and other hydrocarbons.

	25-08-2002 22:20									#141
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui But a lot of scientists (in fact nearly all) don't. And I think I'll listen to them over you people, thank you very much .

Batman's a scientist.

Seriously, I think that if you look harder, you'd find that nowhere nearly "nearly all" scientists believe in the Global Warming tripe. It's almost as if people who believe in Global Warming never sat down and said "Hey! Earth, even within recorded history, is full of hot/cold cycles!"

	26-08-2002 02:00									#142
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

El Awrence, all burning of hydrocarbons result in CO2. The catalystic converter merely eliminates all the extra junk you get in the exhaust, such as NOx. The only ways to reduce CO2 emissions are to increase fuel efficiency, drive less and/or use other fuels. (CH4 yields more energy per carbon than longer hydrocarbons does).


Lonestar, what exactly are this multidute of scientists doing then? They are certainly not publishing. As I showed wraith, in the last year there were over 50 articles in the journal science that mentions global warming. NOT ONE SINGLE ONE OF THEM SUGGESTS THAT GLOBAL WARMING ISN'T REAL.

I have to second axis question: I wonder if there is a limit in the stupidity of the arguments that people are prepared to trust in order to adjust their ideological and scientifical beliefs according to their political and economic interests.

	26-08-2002 07:04									#143
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Cybergnu, but aren't motors restricted in their O2 supply for combustion? While combustion still takes place, I'm pretty sure that the majority of the combusted hydrocarbons form CO rather than CO2 from their limited supply of air available for combustion.

I thought that cars without catalytic converters emitted only negligible amounts of CO2 when compared with the CO emission.

	26-08-2002 07:05									#144
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

And, I will third the question as well.

	26-08-2002 19:59									#145
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu Lonestar, what exactly are this multidute of scientists doing then? They are certainly not publishing. As I showed wraith, in the last year there were over 50 articles in the journal science that mentions global warming. NOT ONE SINGLE ONE OF THEM SUGGESTS THAT GLOBAL WARMING ISN'T REAL.

Don't get published if they don't get accepted.
Don't get accepted if the reviewers say not too.

Most of the papers that go against anthropogenically enhanced greenhouse effect are in weather and geographic publications.

Futhermore, science is not a popularity contest. Scientists are like the rest of us. Just as likely to be fooled by something as not. However, over time, this tends to correct itself as those holding to hard and fast theories retire and newer generations arise with newer theories.