a genuine question re:earthquakes and their causes
Discussion
ive just read that some government scientist is shoving the cause of the disaster in asia is down mostly to global warming [url]www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13274374,00.html [/url]
am i the only one who thinks this is a load of bollocks??......will someone please explain their thinking as i am totally lost on this.
am i right in assuming that earthquakes are caused when the tectonic (or whatever)plates catch,then the pressure builds up and when the plates seperate all the tension is released and this causes the quake.
i may be wrong but i just dont see how global warming can cause this sort of thing happening.
>>> Edited by cortinaman on Saturday 1st January 04:11
am i the only one who thinks this is a load of bollocks??......will someone please explain their thinking as i am totally lost on this.
am i right in assuming that earthquakes are caused when the tectonic (or whatever)plates catch,then the pressure builds up and when the plates seperate all the tension is released and this causes the quake.
i may be wrong but i just dont see how global warming can cause this sort of thing happening.
>>> Edited by cortinaman on Saturday 1st January 04:11
As posted, Govt Chief Scientific Adviser Sir David King isn't saying that global warming caused the earthquake and ensuing tsunamis, he's claiming the impact of man-made global warming will be similar disasters. Unfortunately (or fortunately) global sea levels aren't rising to any significant extent, they're falling in places and rising eslewhere, but he's right in that rising sea levels would have a similar effect albeit in slower motion.
Sir David King represents a type of scientist who is highly intelligent but who appears to be in thrall to the latest evangelic EU brand of politician like Tiny Bliar, and his statements have a quasi religious tone to them, preaching hellfire and damnation.
There have been previous instances where the boundaries between science and religion have become bliurred in climate change issues, and where the scientific process has been 'modified' for political purposes.
In May, 1999, Evan DeLucia and colleagues published an article in the journal Science showing the fertilising effect of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide on trees. In a letter to the editor, Bert Bolin, who happened to be the first head of the IPCC, wrote: "In the current, post-Kyoto international political climate, scientific statements about the behaviour of the terrestrial carbon cycle must be made with care..."
This was translated by US climate scientist Patrick Michaels as "scientists had better consider NOT publishing results that might undermine support for Kyoto. Signed, the Boss."
The IPCC's former chief scientist, brit Sir John Houghton, wrote in 1996 that climate change is a "moral issue." He said that he agreed with the World Council of Churches "which calls upon the Government to adopt firm, clear policies and targets [i.e. Kyoto], and for the public at large to accept the necessary consequences."
Any reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, Houghton said, will "contribute powerfully to the material salvation of the planet from mankind's greed and indifference." Patrick Michaels commented on this - "this is the chilled environment in which the secular scientist now works. Leaders of the world's premier scientific organisations on climate change now publicly call for the suppression of research findings and invoke religion, and not science, as the basis for policy".
An associate of mine who's one of the Lead Scientists at the IPCC talks about some scientists working in this area as being "true believers", i.e. that for them man-made global warming is a matter of faith rather than evidence based science. It has looked for some time as though Sir David King has taken a position like this, and it was only a matter of time before he abused the world-wide horror felt after the tsunamis.
>> Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 1st January 11:15
Sir David King represents a type of scientist who is highly intelligent but who appears to be in thrall to the latest evangelic EU brand of politician like Tiny Bliar, and his statements have a quasi religious tone to them, preaching hellfire and damnation.
There have been previous instances where the boundaries between science and religion have become bliurred in climate change issues, and where the scientific process has been 'modified' for political purposes.
In May, 1999, Evan DeLucia and colleagues published an article in the journal Science showing the fertilising effect of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide on trees. In a letter to the editor, Bert Bolin, who happened to be the first head of the IPCC, wrote: "In the current, post-Kyoto international political climate, scientific statements about the behaviour of the terrestrial carbon cycle must be made with care..."
This was translated by US climate scientist Patrick Michaels as "scientists had better consider NOT publishing results that might undermine support for Kyoto. Signed, the Boss."
The IPCC's former chief scientist, brit Sir John Houghton, wrote in 1996 that climate change is a "moral issue." He said that he agreed with the World Council of Churches "which calls upon the Government to adopt firm, clear policies and targets [i.e. Kyoto], and for the public at large to accept the necessary consequences."
Any reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, Houghton said, will "contribute powerfully to the material salvation of the planet from mankind's greed and indifference." Patrick Michaels commented on this - "this is the chilled environment in which the secular scientist now works. Leaders of the world's premier scientific organisations on climate change now publicly call for the suppression of research findings and invoke religion, and not science, as the basis for policy".
An associate of mine who's one of the Lead Scientists at the IPCC talks about some scientists working in this area as being "true believers", i.e. that for them man-made global warming is a matter of faith rather than evidence based science. It has looked for some time as though Sir David King has taken a position like this, and it was only a matter of time before he abused the world-wide horror felt after the tsunamis.
>> Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 1st January 11:15
What annoys me is the fact that Global Warming gets dragged into every debate -
How Global Warming affects the price of eggs
How Global Warming causes the apparent drop in intelligence of children
Global Warming and the demise of the single record/cd
etc etc etc
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Saturday 1st January 10:55
How Global Warming affects the price of eggs
How Global Warming causes the apparent drop in intelligence of children
Global Warming and the demise of the single record/cd
etc etc etc
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Saturday 1st January 10:55
Eric Mc said:
What annoys me is the fact that Global Warming gets dragged into every debate
That's the tactic of choice for alarmist environ mentalists.
Maybe it'd stop or would never have started if we lived longer, say half a billion years...we'd remember that out planet's ice caps only appeared in their recent incarnation about 30 million years ago, and before that their last appearance was about 300 million years ago. It's just not 'normal' in absolute terms for so much of the planet's water to be locked up in ice continents. They come, they go, we happen to be here watching in 2005 but it's nothing to do with us.
Lovely letter here from this country's 'chief scientist' in years gone by, with some interesting news (before industrialisation):
"It will without doubt have come to your Lordship's knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.
(This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations."
President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817
From: President of the Royal Society, Minutes of Council, Volume 8. pp.149-153, Royal Society, London.
20th November, 1817.
>> Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 1st January 11:10
Eric Mc said:Quite. Also, 1817 - climate of disinterested objective science; 2005 - climate of politicised junk science scaremongering for fiscal lame excuse / research grant / tenure / influence / general toadying to paymasters
How times change - 1817, a climate of optimism. 2005 - a climate of pessimism.
Aaaaggggghhhhh!!!!!!! 
ing government scientists! Too much bloody pimms and tea with the queen.
This sort of shit really makes me angry. Do these people have no idea? You can get a bloody professorship/doctorate in this country with no bloody general knowledge at all. It makes me steam and shout at the screen. A lot of scientists (and I am one myself) are bloody idiots out of their field. Like it or not, an elite, decent education is the key to someone who can employ their scientific skills and knowledge, both general and specific. Thesenuts have got no place anywhere, if you ask me.
The bloke is a disgrace and should be shot.
Jeez, for christ sake, can we have some well read, well educated comprehensive minds on the job please?
ing government scientists! Too much bloody pimms and tea with the queen. This sort of shit really makes me angry. Do these people have no idea? You can get a bloody professorship/doctorate in this country with no bloody general knowledge at all. It makes me steam and shout at the screen. A lot of scientists (and I am one myself) are bloody idiots out of their field. Like it or not, an elite, decent education is the key to someone who can employ their scientific skills and knowledge, both general and specific. These
nuts have got no place anywhere, if you ask me. The bloke is a
disgrace and should be shot. Jeez, for christ sake, can we have some well read, well educated comprehensive minds on the job please?
love machine said:
Aaaaggggghhhhh!!!!!!!
What I would really like to know is.....
Who recruits these idiots?
I would like that sort of job. But then again, I would probably be in my lab, plotting to blow up Blair.
Jeez, there goes my positive mental attitude resolution. 15 hours 11 minutes.
>> Edited by love machine on Saturday 1st January 15:05
Who recruits these idiots?
I would like that sort of job. But then again, I would probably be in my lab, plotting to blow up Blair.
Jeez, there goes my positive mental attitude resolution. 15 hours 11 minutes.
>> Edited by love machine on Saturday 1st January 15:05
Open Letter to Sir David King,
Timo Hämeranta MLL
Climate Scientist
You have made Climate Change your favourite political agenda, but your knowledge of Climatology is totally outdated and obsolete. I refer to almost 400 new scientific studies that show that
-CO2 is not the main driver in climate variations
-Current warm phase is in no way ‘unprecedented’ in climate history
-There is no Polar amplification
-There is no dangerous or even remarkable enhanced GH effect
-The influence of increasing CO2 on global warming is almost indiscernible
-The feedback mechanisms diminish even more the minuscule warming influence of increasing CO2
-To prepare only for global warming is scientifically unjustified
-Nobody knows how climate changes in near or far future
-All the modelled projections, scenarios and ‘storylines’ presented have no predictive ability
More research is needed before any predictions, conclusions or recommendations about climate system and for human actions are in any way scientifically plausible and justified
The current prevailing scientific basis of the EU decisions in force and in preparation is obsolete and outdated
For more information incl. the references, please see my Submission to EU Commission October 24, 2004 "The SCIENTIFIC BASIS of PREVAILING CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIONS and CLIMATE POLICIES in the EU are OBSOLETE"
I also suggest careful study of these references to all scientists participating in your symposium on 'Stabilisation of Greenhouse Gases' 1-3 February, 2005 at UK Met Office, Exeter
Timo Hämeranta MLL
Climate Scientist
You have made Climate Change your favourite political agenda, but your knowledge of Climatology is totally outdated and obsolete. I refer to almost 400 new scientific studies that show that
-CO2 is not the main driver in climate variations
-Current warm phase is in no way ‘unprecedented’ in climate history
-There is no Polar amplification
-There is no dangerous or even remarkable enhanced GH effect
-The influence of increasing CO2 on global warming is almost indiscernible
-The feedback mechanisms diminish even more the minuscule warming influence of increasing CO2
-To prepare only for global warming is scientifically unjustified
-Nobody knows how climate changes in near or far future
-All the modelled projections, scenarios and ‘storylines’ presented have no predictive ability
More research is needed before any predictions, conclusions or recommendations about climate system and for human actions are in any way scientifically plausible and justified
The current prevailing scientific basis of the EU decisions in force and in preparation is obsolete and outdated
For more information incl. the references, please see my Submission to EU Commission October 24, 2004 "The SCIENTIFIC BASIS of PREVAILING CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIONS and CLIMATE POLICIES in the EU are OBSOLETE"
I also suggest careful study of these references to all scientists participating in your symposium on 'Stabilisation of Greenhouse Gases' 1-3 February, 2005 at UK Met Office, Exeter
C C said:
I don’t think he was implying that global warming caused the earthquake. Rather if sea levels continue to rise the consequences of such natural events will be more sever.
I’m just waiting for some arsh@le to say it’s all down to “gas guzzling SUVs & 4x4s.
Sea levels have risen 300 feet since the last Ice Age melted and sea levels in the Indian Ocean have fallen in the last 30 years.
King is not a climate scientist, he is a chemist who gives the impression that he knows squat about climate. I can't figure out what his motive is.
turbobloke said:
As posted, Govt Chief Scientific Adviser Sir David King isn't saying that global warming caused the earthquake and ensuing tsunamis, he's claiming the impact of man-made global warming will be similar disasters. Unfortunately (or fortunately) global sea levels aren't rising to any significant extent, they're falling in places and rising eslewhere, but he's right in that rising sea levels would have a similar effect albeit in slower motion.
Sir David King represents a type of scientist who is highly intelligent but who appears to be in thrall to the latest evangelic EU brand of politician like Tiny Bliar, and his statements have a quasi religious tone to them, preaching hellfire and damnation.
There have been previous instances where the boundaries between science and religion have become bliurred in climate change issues, and where the scientific process has been 'modified' for political purposes.
In May, 1999, Evan DeLucia and colleagues published an article in the journal Science showing the fertilising effect of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide on trees. In a letter to the editor, Bert Bolin, who happened to be the first head of the IPCC, wrote: "In the current, post-Kyoto international political climate, scientific statements about the behaviour of the terrestrial carbon cycle must be made with care..."
This was translated by US climate scientist Patrick Michaels as "scientists had better consider NOT publishing results that might undermine support for Kyoto. Signed, the Boss."
The IPCC's former chief scientist, brit Sir John Houghton, wrote in 1996 that climate change is a "moral issue." He said that he agreed with the World Council of Churches "which calls upon the Government to adopt firm, clear policies and targets [i.e. Kyoto], and for the public at large to accept the necessary consequences."
Any reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, Houghton said, will "contribute powerfully to the material salvation of the planet from mankind's greed and indifference." Patrick Michaels commented on this - "this is the chilled environment in which the secular scientist now works. Leaders of the world's premier scientific organisations on climate change now publicly call for the suppression of research findings and invoke religion, and not science, as the basis for policy".
An associate of mine who's one of the Lead Scientists at the IPCC talks about some scientists working in this area as being "true believers", i.e. that for them man-made global warming is a matter of faith rather than evidence based science. It has looked for some time as though Sir David King has taken a position like this, and it was only a matter of time before he abused the world-wide horror felt after the tsunamis.
>> Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 1st January 11:15
You are well informed Sir.
I believe King has tried to make a link in the public mind to support his man-made global warming agenda which is based on no actual science or measured temperatures at all.
Tafia said:Sea levels have also fallen substantially in parts of scandinavia as the earth's crust relaxes back and expands upwards after being crushed under tens of metres of ice throughout the ice age from which we are still warming up (naturally, slowly, normally).
...sea levels in the Indian Ocean have fallen in the last 30 years.
Tafia said:Farming is beyond my own areas of experience and expertise but scientist colleagues affected at the time remind me that we are talking about Sir David 'Foot and Mouth Fiasco' King here. They speak of him in withering terms, making me wonder exactly where else he has stuck his oar in to such effect...
King is not a climate scientist, he is a chemist who gives the impression that he knows squat about climate. I can't figure out what his motive is.
Sir David King FRS
I'm intrigued about the UEA links. A hotter hotbed of true believer global warmers would be hard to find (with one or two notable exceptions). Almost ashamed of the latter Cambridge connection.
I'm intrigued about the UEA links. A hotter hotbed of true believer global warmers would be hard to find (with one or two notable exceptions). Almost ashamed of the latter Cambridge connection.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff