Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

the supreme court rules ...


zmanzzzz
 Share

Recommended Posts

as long as we're all just posting random chit....

 

April 16, 2007 issue - Judging from the media in recent months, the debate over global warming is now over. There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true. What of it? Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators—and many scientists—seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.

 

A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which released the second part of this year's report earlier this month). Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing.

 

In many other respects, the ill effects of warming are overblown. Sea levels, for example, have been increasing since the end of the last ice age. When you look at recent centuries in perspective, ignoring short-term fluctuations, the rate of sea-level rise has been relatively uniform (less than a couple of millimeters a year). There's even some evidence that the rate was higher in the first half of the twentieth century than in the second half. Overall, the risk of sea-level rise from global warming is less at almost any given location than that from other causes, such as tectonic motions of the earth's surface.

 

Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now. Interpretations of these studies rarely consider that the impact of carbon on temperature goes down—not up—the more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. Even if emissions were the sole cause of the recent temperature rise—a dubious proposition—future increases wouldn't be as steep as the climb in emissions.

 

Indeed, one overlooked mystery is why temperatures are not already higher. Various models predict that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the world's average temperature by as little as 1.5 degrees Celsius or as much as 4.5 degrees. The important thing about doubled CO2 (or any other greenhouse gas) is its "forcing"—its contribution to warming. At present, the greenhouse forcing is already about three-quarters of what one would get from a doubling of CO2. But average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn't been uniform—warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy.

 

Modelers claim to have simulated the warming and cooling that occurred before 1976 by choosing among various guesses as to what effect poorly observed volcanoes and unmeasured output from the sun have had. These factors, they claim, don't explain the warming of about 0.4 degrees C between 1976 and 1998. Climate modelers assume the cause must be greenhouse-gas emissions because they have no other explanation. This is a poor substitute for evidence, and simulation hardly constitutes explanation. Ten years ago climate modelers also couldn't account for the warming that occurred from about 1050 to 1300. They tried to expunge the medieval warm period from the observational record—an effort that is now generally discredited. The models have also severely underestimated short-term variability El Niño and the Intraseasonal Oscillation. Such phenomena illustrate the ability of the complex and turbulent climate system to vary significantly with no external cause whatever, and to do so over many years, even centuries.

 

Is there any point in pretending that CO2 increases will be catastrophic? Or could they be modest and on balance beneficial? India has warmed during the second half of the 20th century, and agricultural output has increased greatly. Infectious diseases like malaria are a matter not so much of temperature as poverty and public-health policies (like eliminating DDT). Exposure to cold is generally found to be both more dangerous and less comfortable.

 

Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia. Carbon caps are likely to lead to increased prices, as well as corruption associated with permit trading. (Enron was a leading lobbyist for Kyoto because it had hoped to capitalize on emissions trading.) The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem. The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle—Al Gore's supposed mentor—is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.

 

Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.

 

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 346
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Like cockroaches when the light comes on...

 

Where's the rebuttal to the article refuting the CO2 data & showing how the data was tampered with to support the "global warming due to CO2 levels" argument?

Edited by Bronco Billy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like cockroaches when the light comes on...

 

Where's the rebuttal to the article refuting the CO2 data & showing how the data was tampered with to support the "global warming due to CO2 levels" argument?

 

i'll save you the suspense:

 

"but...but....bush is more of a tampererer"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like cockroaches when the light comes on...

 

Where's the rebuttal to the article refuting the CO2 data & showing how the data was tampered with to support the "global warming due to CO2 levels" argument?

 

ill be back to fill youre small brain will midlesss google searches... there are numerous articles about tampering from both sides but glad to see you can perseverate like the best of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ill be back to fill youre small brain will midlesss google searches... there are numerous articles about tampering from both sides but glad to see you can perseverate like the best of them.

 

 

Here's something for you to wrap some incredibly poor grammar & spelling around:

 

Either the claims in the article are true and the entire man-made CO2/greenhouse gases causation of global warming is a complete red herring; or the claims are false and the author has introduced data sets that do not exist.

 

Do you have any evidence that the claims by the author in the article are false?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's something for you to wrap some incredibly poor grammar & spelling around:

 

Either the claims in the article are true and the entire man-made CO2/greenhouse gases causation of global warming is a complete red herring; or the claims are false and the author has introduced data sets that do not exist.

 

Do you have any evidence that the claims by the author in the article are false?

 

do u have any that are true

 

 

ask swerski he likes to lie

 

oh and im googling right now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

do u have any that are true

 

 

 

You see those little numbers superscripted after sentences? Those are called footnotes - and they clearly document the numerous sources that the author used to provide the documentation for his data. The author also makes good use of graphs that clearly denote where & how the data was cherry picked to provide false support for CO2 levels being a causation for global warming, as well as providing false conclusions regarding CO2 levels - that some in this thread have obviously swallowed as the truth - lock, stock & barrel and with no tolerance for any other conclusions.

Edited by Bronco Billy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You see those little numbers superscripted after sentences? Those are called footnotes - and they clearly document the numerous sources that the author used to provide the documentation for his data. The author also makes good use of graphs that clearly denote where & how the data was cherry picked to provide false support for CO2 levels being a causation for global warming, as well as providing false conclusions regarding CO2 levels - that some in this thread have obviously swallowed as the truth - lock, stock & barrel and with no tolerance for any other conclusions.

 

who is paying the author... exxon. Was it publish in a scientific journal? ( i didnt look) do you want me to pull up the studies that were paid for buy groups like exxon ? There are many

 

while the author makes a good point who do you trust him ? How can it be proven he is trust worthy....

 

i could find others that have footnotes etc that says he is wrong..... so who is right? who the hell knows

 

but if we are helping speed climate change and we do nothing about it what will our kids say about us....

 

does it matter?

 

we live in the age of information and disinformation , who and what to believe is almost important as the information itself...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

who is paying the author... exxon. Was it publish in a scientific journal? ( i didnt look) do you want me to pull up the studies that were paid for buy groups like exxon ? There are many

 

while the author makes a good point who do you trust him ? How can it be proven he is trust worthy....

 

i could find others that have footnotes etc that says he is wrong..... so who is right? who the hell knows

 

but if we are helping speed climate change and we do nothing about it what will our kids say about us....

 

does it matter?

 

we live in the age of information and disinformation , who and what to believe is almost important as the information itself...

 

 

 

and on that note......

 

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

who is paying the author... exxon. Was it publish in a scientific journal? ( i didnt look) do you want me to pull up the studies that were paid for buy groups like exxon ? There are many

 

while the author makes a good point who do you trust him ? How can it be proven he is trust worthy....

 

i could find others that have footnotes etc that says he is wrong..... so who is right? who the hell knows

 

but if we are helping speed climate change and we do nothing about it what will our kids say about us....

 

does it matter?

 

we live in the age of information and disinformation , who and what to believe is almost important as the information itself...

 

 

So if Exxon funds a study, the study can't be based upon facts?

 

I have yet to see you provide any evidence to prove that the facts asserted by the author are incorrect or misrepresented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

who is paying the author... exxon. Was it publish in a scientific journal? ( i didnt look) do you want me to pull up the studies that were paid for buy groups like exxon ? There are many

 

while the author makes a good point who do you trust him ? How can it be proven he is trust worthy....

 

i could find others that have footnotes etc that says he is wrong..... so who is right? who the hell knows

 

but if we are helping speed climate change and we do nothing about it what will our kids say about us....

 

does it matter?

 

we live in the age of information and disinformation , who and what to believe is almost important as the information itself...

 

 

But if Green Peace or some other environmental wacko organization who's founder is leaving them due to their militant stances on issues and misinformation funds it, you swallow it hook line and sinker. Ok, now I'm glad we know where you are coming from. :D

 

Why not argue the points of the paper, or if you can't just admit that you can't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:crickets:

 

Geez, all this documentation & not one, "Geez, maybe I am being mislead", or "I still think it's a serious problem, but I'm going to have to do some research myself instead of just listening to the enviro-screamers", or even "Those are some good points, but I still don't believe a word of it and I think we're going to fry up within a year".

 

If someone could come up with some research & solid documentation that would refute the report that says this whole crisis has been doctored up with bad science, I'd have no problem admitting that I need to take a closer look and that there was a basis for serious concern - but there's the rub. The "sky is falling" crowd hasn't presented one iota of evidence that the report exposing the bad science of man-made global warming is false, misleading, or even making shaking assumptions with good data.

 

They just run away & put their heads back in the sand, Tivos constantly replaying "An Inconvenient Truth" in the background...

Edited by Bronco Billy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:crickets:

 

Geez, all this documentation & not one, "Geez, maybe I am being mislead", or "I still think it's a serious problem, but I'm going to have to do some research myself instead of just listening to the enviro-screamers", or even "Those are some good points, but I still don't believe a word of it and I think we're going to fry up within a year".

 

If someone could come up with some research & solid documentation that would refute the report that says this whole crisis has been doctored up with bad science, I'd have no problem admitting that I need to take a closer look and that there was a basis for serious concern - but there's the rub. The "sky is falling" crowd hasn't presented one iota of evidence that the report exposing the bad science of man-made global warming is false, misleading, or even making shaking assumptions with good data.

 

They just run away & put their heads back in the sand, Tivos constantly replaying "An Inconvenient Truth" in the background...

 

BB, no-one is saying the sky is falling - that's entirely you. My side of this discussion says it would be a good idea to reduce the emission of pollutants into the atmosphere because if we don't, there may be serious consequences, and that's about it. I seriously doubt that arguing the toss with some fantasy football yahoo from Denver on this message board is going to make a big difference.

 

Ursa's gang was pwnd here.

 

Alternatively, maybe we just can't see any point in continuing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:crickets:

 

Geez, all this documentation & not one, "Geez, maybe I am being mislead", or "I still think it's a serious problem, but I'm going to have to do some research myself instead of just listening to the enviro-screamers", or even "Those are some good points, but I still don't believe a word of it and I think we're going to fry up within a year".

 

If someone could come up with some research & solid documentation that would refute the report that says this whole crisis has been doctored up with bad science, I'd have no problem admitting that I need to take a closer look and that there was a basis for serious concern - but there's the rub. The "sky is falling" crowd hasn't presented one iota of evidence that the report exposing the bad science of man-made global warming is false, misleading, or even making shaking assumptions with good data.

 

They just run away & put their heads back in the sand, Tivos constantly replaying "An Inconvenient Truth" in the background...

 

sure :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every argument against your global warming theory was shot down so you take your ball and go home instead of countering it. Thanks for playing. We win. Next.

 

Smells like Al Gore in here. Even though he thinks he won...he lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every argument against your global warming theory was shot down so you take your ball and go home instead of countering it. Thanks for playing. We win. Next.

 

Smells like Al Gore in here. Even though he thinks he won...he lost.

 

 

 

Wanna try this sentence again?

 

hes ben reading 2 much yukoniese

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information