User not logged in - login - register
Home Calendar Books School Tool Photo Gallery Message Boards Users Statistics Advertise Site Info
go to bottom | |
 Message Boards » » Perpetual Global Warming Thread Page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 ... 81, Prev Next  
agentlion
All American
13936 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"The sample size is so small, how can 200 years+ of measuring speak to a planet that is billions of years old"

Ice cores and other geological methods can measure back 10s of thousands of years

1/26/2009 11:36:18 AM

Hoffmaster
01010001001000110
1038 Posts
user info
edit post

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3312921/The-deceit-behind-global-warming.html


[Edited on January 26, 2009 at 12:59 PM. Reason : .]

1/26/2009 12:58:51 PM

HUR
All American
16516 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Fully 97% of the climate scientists who regularly publish on climate change agreed with the statement, "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures"."


these LIBERAL HIPPY climatologists definintly have NO clue what they are talking about as far as global warming is concerned. They are just a part of the zionist agenda that hates Amurica spreading lies that human activity can/has an effect on the weather and the climate.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1184

Quote :
"The scientists most involved in assessing the current state of the climate are the most likely to have the "pulse of the planet"--a deep understanding of how the climate works and where we are headed. If 97% of these scientists believe in significant human impact on the climate, then it is probably so. Why is there such a disparity, then, between what they believe, and what the public and other scientists, such as petroleum geologists, believe? Dr. Ricky Rood has some excellent commentary on this issue in his latest wunderground Climate Change blog, and I offer these three reasons:

1) There are a few good climate scientists (3%) that believe humans are not significantly impacting the climate. One tends to hear the beliefs of this tiny minority a disproportionate amount. This is primarily because the fossil fuel industry pumps millions of dollars into PR campaigns to make sure you hear these dissenting views. That's not to say that these scientists are paid lackeys of the fossil fuel industry--that is not the case. These scientists' point of view happens to coincide with arguments that would protect the profits of the fossil fuel industry, so naturally the industry spends a lot of money making sure you hear these points of view. The fossil fuel industry PR campaigns also emphasize the contrarian views of a handful of non-publishing scientists working for private think tanks, who provide a distorted, non-objective view of climate change science (e.g., the attempt to hide summertime Arctic sea ice loss by quoting irrelevant statistics about wintertime global sea ice). These efforts have been highly successful in casting doubt on what is an overwhelming (though not unanimous) consensus among climate scientists. The fossil fuel industry PR campaigns are similar to the ones run by the cigarette industry to cast doubt on the harmfulness of smoking. "Doubt is our product," a cigarette executive once observed, "since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy." I recommend a reading of the 2008 book, "Doubt is Their Product", which discusses the many efforts by industry over the years to cast doubt on established scientific facts in order to protect industry profits.

2) The media contributes to the disproportionate coverage of the dissenting views, since one can make a news story more compelling by dramatizing conflict and giving equal weight to both sides.

3) Many people have a deep-seated belief in the relative insignificance of humans on a planetary scale. Geologists, who take the long view of time over geologic history, are particularly prone to this. Indeed, the planet is vast, and we are but tiny ants crawling upon its surface during a brief moment in geologic time. However, when one works regularly with the data, it becomes apparent that human activities are beginning to substantially impact weather and climate. When presented with facts contrary to ones beliefs, a good scientist will check the facts extra thoroughly to verify their validity, but then abandon those beliefs that don't fit the facts. The facts as accepted by 97% of our top climate scientists are that atmosphere is but a relatively thin, fragile layer of volatile gases beginning to show unmistakable changes due to the geometric explosion in human population over recent centuries. Those effects are only now beginning to be detectable, which is why human-caused global warming is so controversial in the public's eye. I predict that twenty years from now, climate change will be so obvious that the controversy regarding human responsibility will be gone."


Why check facts when Fox News keeps us informed of the facts

1/28/2009 12:47:30 PM

TKE-Teg
All American
40367 Posts
user info
edit post

^please post things more meaningful than that waste of space. That's just dribble.


Quote :
"Ice cores and other geological methods can measure back 10s of thousands of years"


And these studies have been used to argue both for and against AGW.

Socks``, tell me why I should fully believe in destructive/harmful AGW if:
-the Roman Warming period was warmer than today
-Vikings have previously colonized Greenland
-The sea level has been rising. Well no kidding, its been rising since the last ice age.
-increased CO2 is beneficial for increased plant life
-a warmer planet is better for the human race as a whole, compared to a colder planet
-for every molecule of CO2 added to the atmosphere, its impact is less and less
-the planet temperature has fluctuated greatly since the dawn of time, without the assistance of human interaction
-increased CO2 atmospheric concentration has always, always LAGGED increased global temperature (mainly due to CO2 release from a warmer ocean)

I'm at work so I can't post in more detail but feel free to tell me the above points are incorrect.

1/28/2009 3:03:23 PM

agentlion
All American
13936 Posts
user info
edit post

^ the general response to almost all of those points is that the world is drastically different now, with billions of more people to house and feed, living in highly built-up world with large population concentrations on coastlines within feet of sea level.

1/28/2009 3:34:27 PM

LoneSnark
All American
11813 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"-a warmer planet is better for the human race as a whole, compared to a colder planet"

This one is entirely dependent upon personal taste and is impossible to agrigate. Some people may find a thousand miles of sea-ice pretty to look at from an airplane window and therefore curse a warmer world. Others may curse losing their house to higher than otherwise storm surge on a warmer world. Contrasted that with the farmer that gets to prosper from a longer growing season, the hungry that get to eat cheaper food, or the people that get saved from freezing to death thanks to more mild winters.

There is a pile of bodies and widespread destruction in both a warmer and a colder planet and it seems improbable to decifer which pile is higher. However, I have my chosen preferences, which say thusly: a small carbon tax would be good at weeding out the least advantageous uses of carbon. But overall, mitigation is better than prevention.

Quote :
"^ the general response to almost all of those points is that the world is drastically different now, with billions of more people to house and feed, living in highly built-up world with large population concentrations on coastlines within feet of sea level."

And a warmer planet, if fossil fuels mean that, makes all the issues you list manageable.

Put it another way: shut down the coal fired power plants in New York state that are keeping the pumps working and Wall Street will flood in days, not decades.

[Edited on January 28, 2009 at 3:40 PM. Reason : .,.]

1/28/2009 3:37:07 PM

disco_stu
All American
7426 Posts
user info
edit post

cold planet no make food durr

1/28/2009 4:54:43 PM

TKE-Teg
All American
40367 Posts
user info
edit post

^^^By that comment you're admitting that its difficult to say that the recent climate behavior is natural or human influenced.

^^a warmer Earth (2-3°C) greatly expands the land area suitable for irrigation and therefore food production.

^another ice age is most likely only 5,000-10,000 years away. that will be a much bigger problem than what Gore's peddling these days.

1/28/2009 6:43:11 PM

HockeyRoman
All American
11590 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"-increased CO2 is beneficial for increased plant life"

Increased CO2 makes plants less nutritious thus animals will have to eat more in order to maintain a healthy diet.

Quote :
"-a warmer planet is better for the human race as a whole, compared to a colder planet"

Also not true. A warmer planet leads to greater desertification and puts a strain on clean water sources. Not to mention a longer warm period throughout the years means an increase in mosquitoes which spread diseases.

1/28/2009 6:46:13 PM

TKE-Teg
All American
40367 Posts
user info
edit post

^there are plenty of studies that have shown increased temperatures won't cause malaria infection to increase.

1/28/2009 7:17:42 PM

moron
All American
26025 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"-increased CO2 atmospheric concentration has always, always LAGGED increased global temperature (mainly due to CO2 release from a warmer ocean)

"


That is blatantly wrong, and you're an idiot for thinking this as much as it's been discussed.

Quote :
"-increased CO2 is beneficial for increased plant life
-a warmer planet is better for the human race as a whole, compared to a colder planet
-for every molecule of CO2 added to the atmosphere, its impact is less and less
-the planet temperature has fluctuated greatly since the dawn of time, without the assistance of human interaction
"


And these are all very stupid points, especially the first 3, because not a single system on the planet exists in isolation. You have to consider the sum effect of ALL the systems.

And what's even more disturbing is that you seem to embrace the idea that humans are potentially causing significant change to the climate, but your solution is to do nothing about it. LOL. I can't tell if you rationally decided this was a good idea, or if you just can't help yourself but to swallow the stupidity of the Limbaugh types.

[Edited on January 28, 2009 at 7:29 PM. Reason : ]

1/28/2009 7:28:48 PM

TKE-Teg
All American
40367 Posts
user info
edit post

where did I "embrace" the idea of humans destroying the globe? I in no way think that's happening

Feel free to post up a graph showing CO2 not lagging since i'm blatantly wrong.

1/28/2009 7:39:37 PM

agentlion
All American
13936 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"^^^By that comment you're admitting that its difficult to say that the recent climate behavior is natural or human influenced."

that's not at all what I was saying or implying. I thought your point was: look at these previous civilizations who lived through drastic climate change, regardless of cause. My point was: our current civilization is very different from theirs, and our response to and impact of climate change will be very different

1/28/2009 8:13:13 PM

TKE-Teg
All American
40367 Posts
user info
edit post

Understood. But why were those drastic climate changes allowed to be natural but not the one some experts think we're having now?

[Edited on January 28, 2009 at 11:03 PM. Reason : and the Roman Warming Period was a golden age in civilization, helped greatly by the warmer weather]

1/28/2009 10:51:37 PM

DaBird
All American
7551 Posts
user info
edit post

whats the #1 greenhouse gas?

1/29/2009 9:20:50 AM

TKE-Teg
All American
40367 Posts
user info
edit post

water vapor is the most powerful and plentiful greenhouse agent.

1/29/2009 9:33:28 AM

DirtyGreek
All American
29305 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"That's just dribble."


drivel
http://www.yourdictionary.com/drivel

There, see? You learned something today.

[Edited on January 29, 2009 at 10:11 AM. Reason : .]

1/29/2009 10:10:37 AM

CharlesHF
All American
5530 Posts
user info
edit post

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html

Quote :
"The Amazing Story Behind Tho Global Warming Scam
By John Coleman
January 28, 2009

The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax we citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way, the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have lead to a rise in public awareness that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not a significant greenhouse gas that is triggering runaway global warming.

How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government we have to struggle so to stop it?

The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle saw the opportunity to obtain major funding from the Navy for doing measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute’s areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago, who was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle tagged on to Suess studies and co-authored a paper with him in 1957. The paper raises the possibility that the carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. It seems to be a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle’s mind was most of the time.

Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1960 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels.

These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.

Now let me take you back to the1950s when this was going on. Our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution from the crude internal combustion engines that powered cars and trucks back then and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. Cars and factories and power plants were filling the air with all sorts of pollutants. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution and a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action. Government accepted this challenge and new environmental standards were set. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed for cars, as were new high tech, computer controlled engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer big time polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. Likewise, new fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced, as well.

But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. So the research papers from Scripps came at just the right moment. And, with them came the birth of an issue; man-made global warming from the carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants began to flow and alarming hypothesis began to show up everywhere.

The Keeling curve showed a steady rise in CO2 in atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. As of today, carbon dioxide has increased from 215 to 385 parts per million. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. While the increase is real, the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about .41 hundredths of one percent.

Several hypothesis emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. Years have passed and the scientists kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.

Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation’s bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meeting.

Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations, a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But, he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This was not a pure climate study scientific organization, as we have been lead to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved the UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels. Over the last 25 years they have been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, the UN IPCC has made its points to the satisfaction of most and even shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.

At the same time, that Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950’s as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.

He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students to become a major global warming activist. This student would say later, "It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!" The student described him as "a wonderful, visionary professor" who was "one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming," That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book Earth in the Balance, published in 1992.

So there it is, Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his move, his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business."

(continued in next post)

1/29/2009 10:17:21 AM

CharlesHF
All American
5530 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax we citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way, the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have lead to a rise in public awareness that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not a significant greenhouse gas that is triggering runaway global warming.

How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government we have to struggle so to stop it?

The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle saw the opportunity to obtain major funding from the Navy for doing measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute’s areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago, who was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle tagged on to Suess studies and co-authored a paper with him in 1957. The paper raises the possibility that the carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. It seems to be a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle’s mind was most of the time.

Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1960 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels.

These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.

Now let me take you back to the1950s when this was going on. Our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution from the crude internal combustion engines that powered cars and trucks back then and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. Cars and factories and power plants were filling the air with all sorts of pollutants. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution and a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action. Government accepted this challenge and new environmental standards were set. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed for cars, as were new high tech, computer controlled engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer big time polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. Likewise, new fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced, as well.

But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. So the research papers from Scripps came at just the right moment. And, with them came the birth of an issue; man-made global warming from the carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants began to flow and alarming hypothesis began to show up everywhere.

The Keeling curve showed a steady rise in CO2 in atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. As of today, carbon dioxide has increased from 215 to 385 parts per million. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. While the increase is real, the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about .41 hundredths of one percent.

Several hypothesis emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. Years have passed and the scientists kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.

Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation’s bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meeting.

Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations, a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But, he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This was not a pure climate study scientific organization, as we have been lead to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved the UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels. Over the last 25 years they have been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, the UN IPCC has made its points to the satisfaction of most and even shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.

At the same time, that Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950’s as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus."

1/29/2009 10:18:20 AM

CharlesHF
All American
5530 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students to become a major global warming activist. This student would say later, "It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!" The student described him as "a wonderful, visionary professor" who was "one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming," That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book Earth in the Balance, published in 1992.

So there it is, Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his move, his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business.

What happened next is amazing. The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause celeb of the media. After all the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too.

But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at 65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There he had time to rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, "My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways." He added, "…we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer."

And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge negative impact on the economy and jobs and our standard of living. I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer. He assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem.

Did Roger Revelle attend the Summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in the Summer of 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore onto this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, "I think so, but I do not know it for certain". I have not managed to get it confirmed as of this moment. It’s a little like Las Vegas; what is said at the Bohemian Grove stays at the Bohemian Grove. There are no transcripts or recordings and people who attend are encouraged not to talk. Yet, the topic is so important, that some people have shared with me on an informal basis.

Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam.

Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle’s Mea culpa as the actions of senile old man. And, the next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate, From 1992 until today, he and his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when ask about we skeptics they simply insult us and call us names.

So today we have the acceptance of carbon dioxide as the culprit of global warming. It is concluded that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint which we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists to offset. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course.

We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by no drilling and no new refineries for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that the whole thing about corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies. That also has driven up food prices. And, all of this is a long way from over.

And, I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.

Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a high jacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history.

John Coleman
1-29-09"

1/29/2009 10:18:50 AM

radu
All American
1240 Posts
user info
edit post

'What a dust we raise,' said the fly upon the chariot wheel

1/29/2009 11:08:19 AM

roberta
All American
1717 Posts
user info
edit post

^^ is that a joke?

Quote :
"Scripps Oceanographic Institute"


it's actually scripps institution of oceanography

Quote :
"Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam."


roger revelle's 100th birthday would be in early march -- SIO is throwing him a party, maybe this guy can go talk to the revelle family about how revelle invented global warming... or he could ask ralph keeling about the keeling curve and 'bad science'

who is this guy anyway? a weatherman in san diego? tough job... let's see, i think it's gonna be 70 and sunny today...

1/29/2009 12:49:26 PM

HUR
All American
16516 Posts
user info
edit post

I like how every politician claims to be an armchair climatoligist. Your head has to be in the sand or you are just ignorant as it doesn't take a chemical engineering degree or a climatologist degree to understand how human processes can manipluate climate.

What is debateable is the actual extent to which human activity plays on the climate and the consequences of the effects.

1/29/2009 12:55:50 PM

DaBird
All American
7551 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"water vapor is the most powerful and plentiful greenhouse agent."


exactly!!

damn that H2O!

1/29/2009 2:30:11 PM

Prawn Star
All American
7591 Posts
user info
edit post

Water vapor's contribution as a greenhouse gas is a red herring and there is no use dwelling on it unless you are trying to be obtuse.

There is no use focusing on the amount of water vapor in the air, which is regulated by factors such as temperature and air pressure and thusly is out of our control. We can, however, control the unnaturally high fossil fuel emissions that we release through combustion, power generation and industrial processes.



[Edited on January 29, 2009 at 4:40 PM. Reason : 1]

1/29/2009 4:39:51 PM

LoneSnark
All American
11813 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"^^a warmer Earth (2-3°C) greatly expands the land area suitable for irrigation and therefore food production."

There is not currently any shortage of area suitable for irrigation and therefore food production. As such, assuming this is true does not tip the scale demonstrably. As such, I still assert that it is unclear with what we know whether the pile of bodies is higher on a colder earth or on a warmer earth. But still, suffering costs to secure one or the other would be irrational.

1/29/2009 4:53:40 PM

traub
All American
1798 Posts
user info
edit post

1/29/2009 5:45:49 PM

TKE-Teg
All American
40367 Posts
user info
edit post

This article shows how CA is suffering...

Quote :
"California's 'Green Jobs' Experiment Isn't Going Well
By STEPHEN MOORE
Los Angeles

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was all smiles in 2006 when he signed into law the toughest anti-global-warming regulations of any state. Mr. Schwarzenegger and his green supporters boasted that the regulations would steer California into a prosperous era of green jobs, renewable energy, and technological leadership. Instead, since 2007 -- in anticipation of the new mandates -- California has led the nation in job losses.

The regulations created a cap-and-trade system, similar to proposed federal global-warming measures, by limiting the CO2 that utilities, trucking companies and other businesses can emit, and imposed steep new taxes on companies that exceed the caps. Since energy is an input in everything that's produced, this will raise the cost of production inside California's borders.

Now, as the Golden State prepares to implement this regulatory scheme, employers are howling. It's become clear to nearly everyone that the plan's backers have underestimated its negative impact and exaggerated the benefits. "We've been sold a false bill of goods," is how Republican Assemblyman Roger Niello, who has been the GOP's point man on environmental issues in the legislature, put it to me.

The environmental plan was built on the notion that imposing some $23 billion of new taxes and fees on households (through higher electricity bills) and employers will cost the economy nothing, while also reducing greenhouse gases. Almost no one believes that anymore except for the five members of the California Air Resources Board (CARB). This is the state's air-quality regulator, which voted unanimously in December to stick with the cap-and-trade system despite the recession. CARB justified its go-ahead by issuing what almost all experts agree is a rigged study on the economic impact of the cap-and-trade system. The study concludes that the plan "will not only significantly reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions, but will also have a net positive effect on California's economic growth through 2020."..."


I applaud California being the willing guinea pig. Now we just need to not repeat their mistake on a grander scale.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123336500319935517.html#printMode

2/3/2009 4:49:43 PM

HockeyRoman
All American
11590 Posts
user info
edit post

I've never been a fan of "cap & trade" and it's dubiousness was solidified when I heard it touted by W. as part of his, thankfully failed, Clear Skies Act.

I am, however, still a champion of green jobs such as renewable energy research, reforestation programs, improvements to solar technology and education about the perils of unbridled and wasteful energy consumption habits just to name a few.

2/3/2009 5:04:18 PM

TKE-Teg
All American
40367 Posts
user info
edit post

^as am I! Despite what you might think I mostly disagree (not necessarily with you) in the way its implemented and why its done.

2/3/2009 7:33:29 PM

Hoffmaster
01010001001000110
1038 Posts
user info
edit post

It has snowed twice this year in Wilmington. GW is BS!

2/5/2009 9:42:47 PM

Wolfman Tim
All American
9359 Posts
user info
edit post

2/6/2009 3:04:50 AM

LoneSnark
All American
11813 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"This article shows how CA is suffering..."

And that is no where close to a real test. Afterall, society needs certain industries in order to function properly, but all California is doing is moving these industries to neighboring states. In effect, neighboring states have dedicated more of their economies to these industries and displaced the unregulated jobs to Californians. As such, California is insulated against the real adjustments it has imposed on these industries thanks to unfettered interstate trade. This adjustment may not be possible on a national scale, as some supply lines (such as electricity, etc) do not extend forever without losses. And Mexico may not be capable of adjusting sufficiently to serve America's voluntary puritanism. Afterall, Mexico can only dedicate up to 100% of its economy to dirty industries, no more.

2/6/2009 9:30:14 AM

HUR
All American
16516 Posts
user info
edit post

I have read articles that the "natural oscillation" of the earth's climate pattern is part the reason that the effects of global warming have not been as apparent as would be expected. A current slight negative oscillation offsetting the global warming influence.

Quote :
"It has snowed twice this year in Wilmington. GW is BS!"


obvious sarcasm.

Seems like everytime its 75 in December teh global warming doom sayers get excited and get on their horn.

On the reverse everytime the arctic front penetrates to the south and its 35 degrees during the day the globar warming naysayers get on their horn about this being proof its all BS

2/6/2009 2:55:52 PM

TKE-Teg
All American
40367 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"I have read articles that the "natural oscillation" of the earth's climate pattern is part the reason that the effects of global warming have not been as apparent as would be expected. A current slight negative oscillation offsetting the global warming influence."


oh here we go again. Care to post a link? I've read about these oscillations too and about how they play a large roll in the cycle of Ice Ages

2/6/2009 4:03:37 PM

DaBird
All American
7551 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"its all BS"

2/6/2009 4:08:58 PM

HUR
All American
16516 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"
Is global warming slowing down?
The global average temperature has declined over the past three years (Figure 1) and global average sea surface temperature (SST) has not increased over the past seven years (Figure 3). Is global warming slowing down, then, and taking a break? That was the theory advanced by a group of German climate modelers (Keenlyside et al., 2008) in the journal Nature in 2008. Using a climate model that offered a unique way to handle the initial distribution of SSTs,they concluded that over the next ten years, natural variations in the climate may temporarily mask the global warming due to greenhouse gases. They stated: "North Atlantic SST and European and North American surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged. Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming". However, they go on to state that greenhouse-gas driven global warming will resume full-force after the ten-year break is over. Other climate modelers disagree with this predicted "break" in global warming. Both theories are reasonable ones, and it is possible that the recent cool years portend the ten-year "break" from global warming hypothesized by Keenlyside et al. It is too early to tell, since the relative coolness of the past few years could easily be natural "noise" (weather) imposed on the long-term global warming trend. The fact that we've had a cold winter in eastern North America and in the UK--or any other anecdotal cold or snow-related record you may hear about--can't tell us whether global warming may be slowing down or not. The amount of global warming over the past century has only been about 1.3°F (0.74°C). Thus, it should not surprise us, for example, if temperatures during tonight's hard freeze in Florida bottom out at 25°F, instead of the 24°F it would have reached 100 years ago. The long-term ten and thirty year trends in global temperature are solidly upwards in accordance with global warming theory, and claims that the globe is cooling cannot be scientifically defended."


http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1187

NO FUCKING WAY THIS LIBERAL HIPPY DOUCHE SO-CALLED "CLIMATOLOGIST" KNOWS MORE ABOUT CLIMATE THAN the arm-chair weathermen like radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh

2/6/2009 6:40:53 PM

aaronburro
BigMan rules
49612 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"The scientists most involved in assessing the current state of the climate are the most likely to have the "pulse of the planet"--a deep understanding of how the climate works and where we are headed. If 97% of these scientists believe in significant human impact on the climate, then it is probably so."

That is ABSOLUTE bullshit. Consensus NEVER equals truth. That is the whole fucking problem w/ the AGW bullshit that is heaped upon us today. Most people today think that people in Columbus' time thought the earth was flat. Guess what, that consensus is meaningless. Science has NEVER worked by consensus. it has ALWAYS worked through evidence, and those who tout any "consensus" are doing science a major disservice.

Quote :
"And these are all very stupid points, especially the first 3, because not a single system on the planet exists in isolation."

And yet "climate scientists" insist on looking at only one factor in our climate when they get all alarmist about it. Hmmm...

Quote :
"The long-term ten and thirty year trends in global temperature are solidly upwards in accordance with global warming theory, and claims that the globe is cooling"

How ironic that they mention thirty-year trends. what they fail to mention is that the previous thirty year trend was down. And the thirty-year trend before that was up. And the thirty-year trend before that was down. Hmmm... What does that look like?

But, I like it. Hey, umm, the CO2 is a massive problem. really. it's causing temperatures to get higher and higher. really. oh, but the next ten years it might not happen, cause, um, well, yeah. But after that, it's gonna be huge! Really! trust us!

2/7/2009 9:58:31 PM

HUR
All American
16516 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Most people today think that people in Columbus' time thought the earth was flat. Guess what, that consensus is meaningless. Science has NEVER worked by consensus. it has ALWAYS worked through evidence, and those who tout any "consensus" are doing science a major disservice.
"


I for one happened to know that the Columbus flat earth thing was a myth. Actually read an interesting article on it can't remember where though.

Back to global warming, even though i don't necessarily agree with the doomsday global warming liberal douches i am still open to ideas. From my observation though conservatives merely just put there fingers in their ears singing "LA LA LA LA" ignoring any kind of evidence or rebuttal going against their way of thinking. Unless you are a stockholder in ExXon Mobil i am not sure if its a blind party loyalty thing or just a arrogant ignorance type deal.

2/8/2009 8:58:31 PM

TKE-Teg
All American
40367 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"NO FUCKING WAY THIS LIBERAL HIPPY DOUCHE SO-CALLED "CLIMATOLOGIST" KNOWS MORE ABOUT CLIMATE THAN the arm-chair weathermen like radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh
"


Don't be such an idiot! Just look at what you quoted for God's sake.

Quote :
"However, they go on to state that greenhouse-gas driven global warming will resume full-force after the ten-year break is over. Other climate modelers disagree with this predicted "break" in global warming. Both theories are reasonable ones, and it is possible that the recent cool years portend the ten-year "break" from global warming hypothesized by Keenlyside et al. It is too early to tell, since the relative coolness of the past few years could easily be natural "noise" (weather) imposed on the long-term global warming trend."


So overall the global temp has stayed the same or declined over the past 8 years. And these guys are saying it might decline or stay the same for the next decade, but that "long term" we should still worry. Their "long term" trend is 30 years of gradual warming, but they want us to believe in AGW when they're saying we might now have an 18 year period of temperature decline or no change?

Where do you draw the line at "long term" and "short term". To say that 30 years is a long term trend and 18 years is "weather noise" masking a trend is ridiculiously moronic to state.

2/9/2009 12:56:34 PM

HUR
All American
16516 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"o overall the global temp has stayed the same or declined over the past 8 years. "


where exactly did you derive this tidbit of information. 1998 and 2005 both tied for the record warmest years on record.
Jeff Masters actually is talkin of the contrary by saying

Quote :
"The 1999-2008 period was significantly warmer (by 0.18°C, according to NOAA) than the previous ten year period, despite the fact the record (or near-record) warmest year 1998 was part of this previous period. Thus, it is scientifically correct to say the globe has been warming since 1998, not cooling. This warming rate has been about 0.16°C per decade over the past thirty yea"


He admits though that even though he strongly supports the theory of human influenced global warming he still is not sure of the
the extent due to the net "natural" cycles and oscillation of the climate.

What more can you ask for Pat? Nahh uhhh human factored global warming is all imaginary like unicorns, dragons, and gold
at the end of the rainbow.




I'm kinda disappointed in you; as an engineer i'd think you'd at least be open to scientific research and understanding even if you question the authenticity.

2/9/2009 1:11:07 PM

TKE-Teg
All American
40367 Posts
user info
edit post

I am open minded. You, not so much.

Take it all in, and it makes perfect sense.

2/9/2009 1:23:12 PM

HUR
All American
16516 Posts
user info
edit post

how am i not open minded; i do not activly confirm or deny the extent of human impact on global climate.

You are the one that unconditionally is like "OH THIS CLIMATE SCIENTISTS DATA IS BULLSHIT and GLOBAL WARMING IS JUST A MADE UP FAIRY TAIL CREATED TO AID THE LIBERAL AGENDA blah blah blah"

2/9/2009 2:25:38 PM

TKE-Teg
All American
40367 Posts
user info
edit post

So the Environmental Minister of Northern Ireland disputes global warming and blocked an ad to be circulated urging people to turn off their lights when not being used. And what does the mainstream think of this? He should resign! Of, of course. That's the kind of tolerance we're looking for!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7878399.stm

2/10/2009 2:26:57 PM

HockeyRoman
All American
11590 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"blocked an ad to be circulated urging people to turn off their lights when not being used."

Environmental implications aside that is just blatant wastefulness.

2/10/2009 2:34:25 PM

Prawn Star
All American
7591 Posts
user info
edit post

What is? Leaving lights on, or printing up ads to discourage people from doing so?

2/10/2009 2:37:50 PM

TKE-Teg
All American
40367 Posts
user info
edit post

Look, I agree that leaving on the lights its pointless and harmful...to your wallet and yes the environment. I am a firm believer in:

-turning off lights not being used
-keeping the thermostat low and wearing appropriate clothing for the time of year
-turning off the tv when not in use
-unplugging appliances that are seldom used
-cleaning out the lint trap before using the clothes dryer
-only running the dishwasher when full
-opening blinds and curtains during the day in the summer to take advantage of solar heating, and vice versa
-driving my car with tires inflated properly
-operating an automobile in proper state of tune

To the best of my knowledge I'm not a wasteful person with energy.

But when you get this:

Quote :
"He argued that they were "giving people the impression that by turning off the standby light on their TV they could save the world from melting glaciers and being submerged in 40ft of water".

He said that was "patent nonsense".

Mr Wilson said he had written to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) to say that the advertising campaign Act on CO2 "was not welcome".

He explained that he did not believe in its message that "man-made greenhouse gas emissions are the main cause of climate change" and that the campaign was contrary to his personal views.

He told DECC: "I do not wish for climate change messages to be promoted by other Whitehall departments here".

But Brian Wilson, of the Green Party, said the environment minister should be removed from office for refusing to recognise climate change. "


then I have a problem. People are arguing that b/c he doesn't believe in AGW he doesn't care about the environment and is unfit to be Environmental Minister. That's horseshit.

2/10/2009 2:51:00 PM

moron
All American
26025 Posts
user info
edit post

AGW is not something you "believe in;" it's not a religion. It may be something you're not convinced of though.

but... carry on...

2/10/2009 2:54:08 PM

TKE-Teg
All American
40367 Posts
user info
edit post

fair enough, I'll concede the bad choice of words.

we should go out and get drunk one night man. I think we're about 180° apart on 90% of the issues out there

2/10/2009 2:57:56 PM

moron
All American
26025 Posts
user info
edit post

It's not as bad as the ads recently telling people to unplug their chargers when they're not being used.

2/10/2009 3:08:41 PM

 Message Boards » The Soap Box » Perpetual Global Warming Thread Page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 ... 81, Prev Next  
go to top | |
Admin Options : move topic | lock topic

© 2014 by The Wolf Web - All Rights Reserved.
The material located at this site is not endorsed, sponsored or provided by or on behalf of North Carolina State University.
Powered by CrazyWeb v2.37 - our disclaimer.