Thanks belgareth, I for one am
weary of the Michael Moore style of "documentary".
Same here, or the Al Gore
ones!
I'm so sick of all the lies and hype surrounding climate change that I could puke. The worst part is the
number of intelligent people that are jumpling on the bandwagon without ever thinking it through. Perhaps it's a
reflection of the sad state of scientific education these days?
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Probably, but I think too its so
rampantly political, and politics has a way of suspending reason.
BTW, I was going to PM you, but could not find
a way.
PMs got shut off due to some
quasi-political BS from a group of rather disgusting creatures, Sorry. You can email me: bobgarner(at)abln(dot)com.
//RANT=ON//
In the video they cover the political beginings of the IPCC and it explains a lot. It seems the
IPCC was originally created by Margaret Thatcher in an attempt to discredit coal miners and remove their political
pull. If their product was considered evil by the public their union would have less power and less sympathy in the
event of a strike, something the coal miners did with some regularity. It worked but what she unleashed could be
compared to Pandora's Box. The IPCC's mandate from the start was to convince the public that burning fossil fuels
was harmful to the environment.
You really can't fault them for doing what they were told to do. The point of
it though is that people believe the IPCC with almost a religious fervor when they really are no more than a bunch
of paid mouthpieces. Like any other political organ, they are going to do anything, by hook or by crook, to assure
their jobs are safe and their empires grow. They've achieved their goals admirably.
People complain about the
oil companies' arguments and call them the enemy. They slam any of us who do not believe the IPCC and accuse us of
being in the pay or under the spell of the oil companies. At least the oil companies are honest about it. The IPCC
is pure fraud. And the oil companies DO have interests in non-petrolium ventures such as wind and solar power or
tapping the huge methane and natural gas reserves under the oceans but the IPCC has only it's single function and
empire to protect.
//RANT=OFF//
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
ScienceDaily (Mar. 10, 2007)
— Severe climate changes during the last ice-age could have been caused by random chaotic variations on Earth
and not governed by external periodic influences from the Sun. This has been shown in new calculations by a
researcher at the Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen University.
Several large international projects have
succeeded in drilling ice-cores from the top of the Greenland inland ice through the more than 3 km thick ice sheet.
The ice is a frozen archive of the climate of the past, which has been dated back all the way to the previous
interglacial Eem-period more than 120.000 years ago.
The ice archive shows that the climate has experienced very
severe changes during the glacial period. During the glacial period there were 26 abrupt temperature increases of
about 7-10 degrees. These glacial warm periods are named Dansgaard-Oeschger events after the two scientists first
observing them.
The global warming we experience presently will cause a temperature increase of perhaps 2-5 degrees
in the next century if greenhouse gas emissions continue, researchers claim. This will lead to increased sea levels
and more severe weather with terrible consequences. The temperature rise during the glacial period were much larger
and happened much faster.
Temperature increased by 10 degrees in less than 50 years with changes to the ocean
currents and the whole ecosystem. These changes have caused sea level rises up to perhaps as much as 8 meters and
large changes to the vegetation.
Climate shifts looks periodic
The 26 climate shifts are apparently
periodic. They seem to occur with a period of 1470 years. Every now and then a period is skipped and the shifts
occur 3-4000 years apart. Professor Peter Ditlevsen at the Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen University wanted to
investigate the periodicity of the climate shifts. He asked: "Could it be that the shifts are chaotic and random,
they just look periodic by pure coincidence. How probable is that?"
Using mathematical models of the climate shifts
he calculated the probability of the periodicity. He focused on the time intervals between the climate shifts. How
regular are they really? As a baton, periodically beating, how far from the beating are the climate shifts? If the
distances are perfectly periodic 100% is obtained. It turned out that the climate shifts hit the beats of the
baton by 70%.
Computer simulation
He then had the computer spreading the shifts over the ice age randomly.
He did this 1000 times with different random time intervals. In this he got between 40% and 90% right hits. The
major part of the calculations was between 55% and 75%.
Then he calculated the opposite assumption, that the
climate shifts has a period. Again he made 1000 calculations, but this time the numbers came out between 80% and
100%. The major part came out above 90%. But 90% is not the regularity for the real climate changes, they occur with
70%.
The conclusion drawn by Peter Ditlevsen is that the probability of hitting 70% is less if the climate shifts
are periodic than if they are random. This is very important for understanding the cause of the climate changes and
especially for predicting climate shifts. If they are random and chaotic they are fundamentally unpredictable.
University of Copenhagen (2007, March 10). Climate Change: Could It Be Random?. ScienceDaily. Retrieved
March 2, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2007/03/070309103123.htm
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
ScienceDaily (Mar. 18, 2007)
— Discussions on global warming often refer to 'global temperature.' Yet the concept is thermodynamically as
well as mathematically an impossibility, says Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University
of Copenhagen, who has analyzed this topic in collaboration with professors Christopher Essex from University of
Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick from University of Guelph, Canada.
It is generally assumed that the
atmosphere and the oceans have grown warmer during the recent 50 years. The reason for this point of view is an
upward trend in the curve of measurements of the so-called 'global temperature'. This is the temperature obtained
by collecting measurements of air temperatures at a large number of measuring stations around the Globe, weighing
them according to the area they represent, and then calculating the yearly average according to the usual method of
adding all values and dividing by the number of points.
Average without meaning
"It is impossible to talk
about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth", Bjarne Andresen says, an an expert
of thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not
governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea
currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate".
He explains that while it is possible to treat temperature
statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a
huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average
phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the
currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange
rate'.
If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the average will remain the same as
before, but it will give rise to an entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, for example,
it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25
degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely different
types of climate, because in the former case one would have pressure differences and strong winds, while in the
latter there would be no wind.
Many averages
A further problem with the extensive use of 'the global
temperature' is that there are many ways of calculating average temperatures.
Example 1: Take two equally large
glasses of water. The water in one glass is 0 degrees, in the other it is 100 degrees. Adding these two numbers and
dividing by two yields an average temperature of 50 degrees. That is called the arithmetic average.
Example 2: Take
the same two glasses of water at 0 degrees and 100 degrees, respectively. Now multiply those two numbers and take
the square root, and you will arrive at an average temperature of 46 degrees. This is called the geometric average.
(The calculation is done in degrees Kelvin which are then converted back to degrees Celsius.)
The difference of 4
degrees is the energy which drives all the thermodynamic processes which create storms, thunder, sea currents,
etc.
Claims of disaster?
These are but two examples of ways to calculate averages. They are all equally
correct, but one needs a solid physical reason to choose one above another. Depending on the averaging method used,
the same set of measured data can simultaneously show an upward trend and a downward trend in average temperature.
Thus claims of disaster may be a consequence of which averaging method has been used, the researchers point
out.
What Bjarne Andresen and his coworkers emphasize is that physical arguments are needed to decide whether one
averaging method or another is needed to calculate an average which is relevant to describe the state of
Earth.
Reference: C. Essex, R. McKitrick, B. Andresen: Does a Global Temperature Exist?; J. Non-Equil. Thermod.
vol. 32, p. 1-27 (2007).
University of Copenhagen (2007, March 18). Researchers Question Validity Of A
'Global Temperature'. ScienceDaily. Retrieved March 2, 2008, from
http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
A
Brief History of Ice Ages and Warming
Global
warming started long before the "Industrial Revolution" and the invention of the internal combustion engine. Global
warming began 18,000 years ago as the earth started warming its way out of the Pleistocene Ice Age-- a time
when much of North America, Europe, and Asia lay buried beneath great sheets of glacial ice.
Earth's climate and
the biosphere have been in constant flux, dominated by ice ages and glaciers for the past several million
years. We are currently enjoying a temporary reprieve from the deep freeze.
Approximately every 100,000 years
Earth's climate warms up temporarily. These warm periods, called interglacial periods, appear to last
approximately 15,000 to 20,000 years before regressing back to a cold ice age climate. At year 18,000 and counting
our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age is much nearer its end than its beginning.
Global warming during
Earth's current interglacial warm period has greatly altered our environment and the distribution and
diversity of all life. For
example:
Approximately 15,000
years ago the earth had warmed sufficiently to halt the advance of glaciers, and sea levels worldwide began to
rise.
bridge across the Bering Strait was drowned, cutting off the migration of men and animals to North
America.
Earth's temperature has risen approximately 16 degrees F and
sea levels have risen a total of
300 feet! Forests have returned where once there was only ice.
Over the past 750,000
years of Earth's history, Ice Ages have occurred at regular intervals, of approximately 100,000 years
each.
Courtesy of Illinois State
Museum
During ice ages our planet is cold, dry, and inhospitable--
supporting few forests but plenty of glaciers and deserts. Like a spread of collosal bulldozers,
glaciers have scraped and pulverized vast stretches of Earth's surface and completely destroyed entire regional
ecosystems not once, but several times. During Ice Ages winters were longer and more severe and ice sheets grew to
tremendous size, accumulating to thicknesses of up to 8,000 feet!. They moved slowly from higher elevations to
lower-- driven by gravity and their tremendous weight. They left in their wake altered river courses, flattened
landscapes, and along the margins of their farthest advance, great piles of glacial debris.
During the last 3
million years glaciers have at one time or another covered about 29% of Earth's land surface or about 17.14
million square miles
(44.38 million sq.
km.) . What did not lay beneath ice was a largely cold and desolate desert landscape, due in large
part to the colder, less-humid atmospheric conditions that prevailed.
During the Ice Age summers were short and
winters were brutal. Animal life and especially plant life had a very tough time of it. Thanks to global warming,
that has all now changed, at least temporarily.
[IMG]http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_I
mages/lastgla_mod_sm.gif[/IMG]
( view full size
map)
The World 18,000 Years Ago
Before "global
warming" started 18,000 years ago most of the earth was a frozen and arid wasteland. Over half of earth 's surface
was covered by glaciersor extreme
desert. Forests were rare.
Not a very fun place to
live.
[IMG]http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Pag
eMill_Images/present_mod_sm.gif[/IMG]
(view full size
map)
Our Present World
"Global warming" over the last
15,000 years has changed our world from an ice box to a garden. Today extreme
deserts and glaciers have largely given way to grasslands, woodlands, and
forests.
Wish it could last forever, but . . . .
In the 1970s concerned environmentalists like Stephen Schneider of
the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado feared a return to another ice age due to
manmade atmospheric pollution blocking out the sun.
Since about 1940 the global climate did in fact appear
to be cooling. Then a funny thing happened-- sometime in the late 1970s temperature declines slowed to a halt and
ground-based recording stations during the 1980s and 1990s began reading small but steady increases in near-surface
temperatures. Fears of "global cooling" then changed suddenly to
"global warming,"-- the cited cause:
manmade atmospheric pollution causing a
runaway greenhouse effect.
What does geologic history have to
offer in sorting through the confusion?
Quite a bit, actually.
"If 'ice age' is used
to refer to long, generally cool, intervals during which glaciers advance and retreat, we are still in one today.
Our modern climate represents a very short, warm period between glacial advances."
Illinois State
Museum
[SIZE=+3]P[/SI
ZE]eriods of Earth warming and cooling occur in cycles. This is well understood, as is the fact that small-scale
cycles of about 40 years exist within larger-scale cycles of 400 years, which in turn exist inside still larger
scale cycles of 20,000 years, and so
on.
Earth's climate was in a cool period from A.D. 1400 to about A.D. 1860, dubbed
Example
of regional variations in surface air temperature for the last 1000 years, estimated from a variety of sources,
including temperature-sensitive tree growth indices and written records of various kinds, largely from western
Europe and eastern North America. Shown are changes in regional temperature in ° C, from the baseline value for
1900. Compiled by R. S. Bradley and J. A. Eddy based on J. T. Houghton et al., Climate Change: The IPCC Assessment,
Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, 1990 and published in EarthQuest, vol 5, no 1, 1991. Courtesy of Thomas
Crowley, Remembrance of Things Past:
Greenhouse Lessons from the Geologic
Record
the "Little Ice Age." This period was characterized by harsh winters, shorter growing
seasons, and a drier climate. The decline in global temperatures was a modest 1/2° C, but the effects of this
global cooling cycle were more pronounced in the higher latitudes. The Little Ice Age has been blamed for a host of
human suffering including crop failures like the "Irish Potato Famine" and the demise of the
medieval Viking colonies in
Greenland.
Today we enjoy global temperatures which have warmed back to levels of the so called
"Medieval Warm Period," which existed from approximately A.D. 1000 to A.D.
1350.
evidently coming out of a relatively cold period in the 1800s so that warming in the past century may be part of
this natural
recovery."
Dr.
John R. Christy
(leading climate and atmospheric science expert- U. of Alabama
in Huntsville)
(5)
[
COLOR=#470d05]G[/COLOR]lobal warming alarmists maintain that global temperatures have increased since
about A.D. 1860 to the present as the result of the so-called "Industrial
Revolution,"-- caused by releases of large amounts of greenhouse gases (principally carbon
dioxide) from manmade sources into the atmosphere causing a runaway "Greenhouse
Effect."
Was man really responsible for pulling the Earth out of the Little Ice Age with his industrial
pollution? If so, this may be one of the greatest unheralded achievements of the Industrial Age!
Unfortunately, we
tend to overestimate our actual impact on the planet. In this case the magnitude of the gas emissions involved, even
by the most aggressive estimates of atmospheric warming by greenhouse gases, is inadequate to account for the
magnitude of temperature increases. So what causes the up and down cycles of global climate change?
Causes of Global Climate
Change
Climate change is controlled primarily by
cyclical eccentricities in Earth's rotation and orbit, as well as
variations in the sun's energy output.
"Greenhouse
gases" in Earth's atmosphere also influence Earth's temperature, but in a much smaller way. Human
additions to total greenhouse gases play a still smaller role, contributing about
0.2% - 0.3% to Earth's
greenhouse effect.
Major Causes of Global Temperature
Shifts
(1) Astronomical Causes
- 11 year and
206
year
cycles: Cycles of solar variability
( sunspot
activity
[IMG]http://www.geocraft.com/WVFoss
ils/PageMill_Images/pdf_logo.gif[/IMG])- 21,000 year cycle: Earth's
combined tilt and elliptical orbit around the Sun (
precession of
the equinoxes )- 41,000 year cycle: Cycle of the
+/- 1.5° wobble in Earth's orbit (
tilt
)- 100,000 year cycle: Variations in the shape of Earth's
elliptical orbit (
cycle of
eccentricity
[IMG]http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossi
ls/PageMill_Images/pdf_logo.gif[/IMG])
(2) Atmospheric
Causes
- Heat retention: Due to atmospheric gases, mostly gaseous water
vapor (not droplets), also carbon dioxide, methane, and a few other miscellaneous gases-- the
"greenhouse effect"- Solar reflectivity: Due to
white clouds, volcanic dust, polar ice caps
(3) Tectonic
Causes
- Landmass distribution: Shifting continents
(continental drift) causing changes in circulatory patterns of ocean currents. It
seems that whenever there is a large land mass at one of the Earth's poles, either the north pole or south pole,
there are ice ages.- Undersea ridge activity: "Sea floor
spreading" (associated with continental drift) causing variations in ocean displacement.
For more details
see:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankov
itch.html
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_233658.htm
[IMG]http:/
/www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/pdf_logo.gif[/IMG]
Playing with
Numbers
Global climate and temperature cycles are the result of
a complex interplay between a variety of causes. Because these cycles and events overlap, sometimes compounding one
another, sometimes canceling one another out, it is inaccurate to imply a statistically significant trend in climate
or temperature patterns from just a few years or a few decades of data.
Unfortunately, a lot of disinformation
about where Earth's climate is heading is being propagated by "scientists" who use improper statistical methods,
short-term temperature trends, or faulty computer models to make analytical and anecdotal projections about the
significance of man-made influences to Earth's climate.
During the last 100 years there have been
two general cycles of warming and cooling recorded in the U.S. We are currently in the
second warming cycle. Overall, U.S. temperaturesshow no significant warming trend over the last
100 years (1). This has been well - established but not well -
publicized.
Each year
Government press releases declare the previous year to be the "hottest year on record."
The UN's executive summary on climate
change, issued in January 2001, insists that the 20th century was the warmest in the last millennium.
The news media distribute these stories and people generally believed them to be true. However, as most
climatologists know, these reports generally are founded on ground-based temperature readings, which are misleading.
The more meaningful and precise orbiting satellite data for the same period (which are generally not cited by the
press) have year after year showed little or no warming.
Dr. Patrick Michaels has demonstrated this effect is a
common problem with ground- based recording stations, many of which originally were located in predominantly rural
areas, but over time have suffered background bias due to urban sprawl and the encroachment of concrete and asphalt
( the "urban heat island
effect"). The result has been an upward distortion of increases in ground temperature over time(2).
Satellite measurements are not limited in this way, and are accurate to within 0.1° C. They are widely
recognized by scientists as the most accurate data available. Significantly, global temperature
readings from orbiting satellites show no significant warming in the 18 years they have been continuously recording
and returning data (1).
A Matter of
Opinion
Has manmade pollution in the form of carbon
dioxide (CO2) and other gases caused a runaway Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming?
Before joining the mantra,
consider the
following:
[IMG]http://www.geocraft.com/WVFos
sils/PageMill_Images/image160.gif[/IMG]
Compiled by R.S. Bradley and J.A. Eddy based on J.T. Houghton et
al., Climate Change: The IPCC Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990 and published in EarthQuest,
vo. 1, 1991. Courtesy of Thomas Crowley,
Remembrance of Things Past:
Greenhouse Lessons from the Geologic Record1. The
idea that man-made pollution is responsible for global warming is not supported by historical fact. The period known
as the Holocene Maximum is a good example-- so-named because it was the hottest period in human history. The
interesting thing is this period occurred approximately 7500 to 4000 years B.P. (before present)-- long before
humans invented industrial pollution.
[IMG]http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/i
mage167_sm.gif[/IMG]
(view
full-size image)
Figure 1
2. CO2 in our
atmosphere has been increasing steadily for the last 18,000 years-- long before humans invented smokestacks (
Figure 1). Unless you count campfires and intestinal gas, man played no role in the
pre-industrial increases.
As illustrated in this chart of Ice Core data from the
Soviet Station Vostok in
Antarctica, CO2 concentrations in earth's atmosphere move with temperature. Both temperatures and
CO2 have been steadily increasing for 18,000 years. Ignoring these 18,000 years of data "global warming activists"
contend recent increases in atmospheric CO2 are unnatural and are the result of only 200 years or so of human
pollution causing a runaway greenhouse effect.
Incidentally, earth's temperature and CO2 levels today have reached
levels similar to a previous interglacial cycle of 120,000 - 140,000 years ago. From beginning to end this cycle
lasted about 20,000 years. This is known as the Eemian Interglacial Period and the earth returned to a
full-fledged ice age immediately afterward.
[IMG]http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_I
mages/image192_sm.gif[/IMG]
view full-size image
Figure
2
3. Total human contributions to greenhouse
gases account for only about 0.28% of the "greenhouse effect" (Figure 2).
Anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide
(CO2) comprises about 0.117% of this total, and man-made sources of other gases ( methane, nitrous oxide (NOX),
other misc. gases) contributes another 0.163% .
Approximately 99.72% of the "greenhouse effect" is
due to natural causes -- mostly water vapor and traces of other gases, which we can do nothing at all about.
Eliminating human activity altogether would have little impact on climate change.
[IMG]http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Ima
ges/image191_sm.gif[/IMG]
vie
w full-size image
Figure
3
4.If global
warming is caused by CO2 in the atmosphere then does CO2 also cause increased sun activity too?
This
chart adapted after Nigel Calder (6) illustrates that variations insun
activity are generally proportional to both variations in atmospheric
CO2and atmospheric
temperature (Figure 3).
Put another way, rising Earth
temperatures and increasing CO2 may be "effects" and our own sun the
"cause".
FU[COLOR=#00
00a0]N[/COLOR]
FAC[/CO
LOR]TS about CARBON
DIOXIDE
tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity.
Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such
sources as volcanoes and decaying land
plants.
a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere--
less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases
present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is
CO2-
impoverished.
odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe
oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and
animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When
plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon
dioxide.
atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great
retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.
global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide
emissions would have a negligible effect on global
climate!
The case for a "greenhouse
problem" is made by environmentalists, news anchormen , and special interests who make inaccurate and misleading
statements about global warming and climate change. Even though people may be skeptical of such rhetoric initially,
after awhile people start believing it must be true because we hear it so
often.
up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of
us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
Stephen Schneider
(leading advocate of the global warming theory)
(in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)
States...we have to first convince the American People and the Congress that the climate problem is
real."
former President
Bill Clinton in a 1997 address to the United Nations
solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an
over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the
audience to listen to what the solutions are...
former Vice President Al Gore
(now, chairman and
co-founder of Generation Investment Management--
a London-based business that sells carbon credits)
(in
interview with Grist
Magazine
[IMG]http://www.geocraft.com/W
VFossils/PageMill_Images/pdf_logo.gif[/IMG]May 9, 2006, concerning his book, An Inconvenient Truth)
replacement of the precise and disciplined language of science by the misleading language of litigation and advocacy
may be one of the more important sources of damage to society incurred in the current debate over global
warming."
Dr. Richard S.
Lindzen
(leading climate and atmospheric science expert- MIT) (3)
global-warming drum because they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it. . . I've been critical of
global warming and am persona non
grata."
Dr. William
Gray
(Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado and
leading expert of hurricane prediction )
(in an interview for the Denver Rocky Mountain News, November 28,
1999)
who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way
to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really
are."
Petr Chylek
(Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax,
Nova Scotia)
Commenting on reports by other researchers that Greenland's glaciers are melting.
(Halifax
Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001) (8)
warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing -- in terms of economic policy and environmental
policy."
Tim Wirth , while U.S. Senator, Colorado.
After a short stint as United Nations
Under-Secretary for Global Affairs (4)
he now serves as President, U.N. Foundation, created by
Ted Turner and his $1 billion "gift"
science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance
to bring about justice and equality in the world."
Christine Stewart, Minister of the
Environment of Canada
recent quote from the Calgary Herald
Unraveling the Earth's Temperature
Record
[IMG]http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image194.gif[/IM
G]
photo by: Vin
Morgan
[COLOR
=#0000ff]Palaeo Environment (Ice Cores) Field
WorkBecause accumulating layers of glacial ice
display annual bands which can be dated, similar to annual rings of a tree, the age of ice core samples can be
determined. Continuous ice cores from borings as much as two miles long have been extracted from permanent glaciers
in Greenland, Antarctica, and Siberia. Bubbles of entrapped air in the ice cores can be analyzed to determine not
only carbon dioxide and methane concentrations, but also atmospheric temperatures can be determined from analysis of
entrapped hydrogen and oxygen.
Based on historical air temperatures inferred from ice core analyses from the
Antarctic Vostok station in 1987, relative to the average global temperature in 1900 it has been determined that
from 160,000 years ago until about 18,000 years ago Earth temperatures were on average about 3° C cooler than
today.
Except for two relatively brief interglacial episodes, one peaking about 125,000 years ago (Eemian
Interglacial), and the other beginning about 18,000 years ago (Present Interglacial), the Earth has been under siege
of ice for the last 160,000 years.
C
ompiled by R.S. Bradley and J.A. Eddy based on J. Jouzel et al., Nature vol. 329. pp. 403-408, 1987 and published in
EarthQuest, vol. 5, no. 1, 1991. Courtesy of Thomas Crowley,
Remembrance of Things Past:
Greenhouse Lessons from the Geologic
Record
As illustrated in this final
graph, over the past 800,000 years the Earth has undergone major swings in warming and cooling at approximately
100,000 year intervals, interrupted by minor warming cycles at shorter intervals. This represents periods of glacial
expansion, separated by distinct but relatively short-lived periods of glacial retreat.
The Polar Ice Cap
T
emperature data inferred from measurements of the ratio of oxygen isotope ratios in fossil plankton that settled to
the sea floor, and assumes that changes in global temperature approximately tracks changes in the global ice
volume. Based on data from J. Imbrie, J.D. Hays, D.G. Martinson, A. McIntyre, A.C. Mix, J.J. Morley,
N.G. Pisias, W.L. Prell, and N.J. Shackleton, in A. Berger, J. Imbrie, J. Hats, G. Kukla, and B. Saltzman, eds.,
Milankovitch and Climate, Dordrecht, Reidel, pp. 269-305, 1984.Courtesy of Thomas Crowley,
Remembrance of Things Past:
Greenhouse Lessons from the Geologic
Record
Effect
[IMG]http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image195.gif[/IM
G]As long as the continent of Antarctica exists at the southern pole of our planet we probably
will be repeatedly pulled back into
glacial ice ages. This occurs because ice caps, which cannot attain great thickness over open ocean,
can and do achieve great thickness over a polar continent-- like Antarctica. Antarctica used to be located near the
equator, but over geologic time has moved by
continental drift to its
present location at the south pole. Once established, continental polar ice caps act like huge cold sinks, taking
over the climate and growing bigger during periods of reduced solar output. Part of the problem with shaking off the
effects of an ice age is once ice caps are established, they cause solar radiation to be reflected back into space,
which acts to perpetuate global cooling. This increases the size of ice caps which results in reflection of even
more radiation, resulting in more cooling, and so on.
Continental polar ice caps seem to play a particularly
important role in ice ages when the arrangement of continental land masses restrict the free global circulation of
equatorial ocean currents. This is the case with the continents today, as it was during the
Carboniferous Ice
Age when the supercontinent Pangea stretched from pole to pole 300 million years ago.
Stopping Climate
Change
Putting things in perspective, geologists
tell us our present warm climate is a mere blip in the history of an otherwise cold Earth. Frigid Ice Age
temperatures have been the rule, not the exception, for the last couple of million years. This kind of world is not
totally inhospitable, but not a very fun place to live, unless you are a polar bear.
Some say we are
"nearing the end of our minor interglacial
period" , and may in fact be on the brink of another Ice Age. If this is true, the last thing we
should be doing is limiting carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, just in case they may have a positive
effect in sustaining present temperatures. The smart money, however, is betting that there is some momentum left in
our present warming cycle. Environmental advocates agree: resulting in a shift of tactics from the "global
cooling" scare of the 1970s to the "global warming" threat of the 1980s and 1990s.
Now, as we begin the
21st century the terminology is morphing toward"climate change," whereby no matter the direction of
temperature trends-- up or down-- the headlines can universally blame humans while avoiding the necessity of
switching buzz-words with the periodicity of solar cycles. Such tactics may, however, backfire as peoples' common
sensibilities are at last pushed over the brink.
Global climate cycles of warming and cooling have been a natural
phenomena for hundreds of thousands of years, and it is unlikely that these cycles of dramatic climate change will
stop anytime soon. We currently enjoy a warm Earth. Can we count on a warm Earth forever? The answer is most
likely... no.
Since the climate has always been changing and will likely continue of its own accord to change in
the future, instead of crippling the U.S. economy in order to achieve small reductions in global warming effects due
to manmade additions to atmospheric carbon dioxide, our resources may be better spent making preparations to adapt
to global cooling and global warming, and the inevitable consequences of fluctuating ocean levels, temperatures, and
precipitation that accompany climatic change.
Supporting this view is British scientist
Jane Francis, who
maintains:
" What we are seeing really is just another interglacial phase within our big icehouse
climate." Dismissing political calls for a global effort to reverse climate change, she said, " It's really
farcical because the climate has been changing constantly... What we should do is be more aware of the fact that it
is changing and that we should be ready to adapt to the
change."
[IMG]http://www.geocraft
.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image89.gif[/IMG][IMG
]http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image90.gif[/IMG]
THIS PAGE
BY:
Monte Hieb
This site last updated October 5,
2007
PreviousTable
of
Contents
[IMG]http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Pag
eMill_Images/image38.gif[/IMG]...EMAIL COMMENTS TO:
mhieb@geocraft.com
[B][/B
]
References
(1)
A scientific Discussion of Climate
Change, Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D., Harvard- Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and Willie Soon, Ph.D.,
Harvard- Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
(2)
The Effects of Proposals for Greenhouse Gas
Emission Reduction; Testimony of Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, Professor of Environmental Sciences,
University of Virginia, before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the Committee on Science, United States
House of Representatives
(3) Statement
Concerning Global Warming-- Presented to the Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works, June
10, 1997, by Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(4) Excerpts
from,"Our
Global Future: Climate Change", Remarks by Under Secretary for Global affairs, T. Wirth, 15 September
1997. Site maintained by The Globe - Climate
Change Campaign
(5) Testimony
of John R. Christy to the Committee on Environmental and Public Works, Department of Atmospheric
Science and Earth System Science Laboratory, University of Alabama in Huntsville, July 10, 1997.
(6) The Carbon
Dioxide Thermometer and the Cause of Global Warming; Nigel Calder,-- Presented at a seminar SPRU (Science and
Technology Policy Research), University of Sussex, Brighton, England, October 6, 1998.
(7) Variation in cosmic ray
flux and global cloud coverage: a missing link in solar-climate relationships; H. Svensmark and E.
Friis-Christiansen, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar- Terrestrial Physics, vol. 59, pp. 1225 - 1232 (1997).
(8)
First International Conference on Global Warming and the Next Ice Age; Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova
Scotia, sponsored by the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society and the American Meteorological Society,
August 21-24, 2001.
Additional
Reading
Understanding Common Climate Claims: Dr. Richard S. Lindzen; Draft paper to appear in
the Proceedings of the 2005 Erice Meeting of the World Federation of Scientists on Global
Emergencies.
Geol
ogical Constraints on Global Climate Variability: Dr. Lee C. Gerhard-- A variety of natural climate
drivers constantly change our climate. A slide format presentation. 8.5
MB.
Thoughts of Global Warming: "The
bottom line is that climatic change is a given. It is inescapable, it happens. There is no reason to be very
concerned about it or spend bazillions of dollars to try and even things
out.
NOAA Paleoclimatology: An
educational trip through earths distant and recent past. Also contains useful information and illustrations relating
to the causes of climate change.
Cracking the Ice
Age: From the PBS website-- NOVA online presents a brief tour of the causes of global
warming.
Little Ice
Age (Solar Influence - Temperature): From the online magazine, "CO2
Science."
Solar Variability and Climate
Change: by Willie Soon, January 10,
2000
Earth's Fidgeting
Climate: NASA Science News "It may surprise many people that science cannot deliver an unqualified,
unanimous answer about something as important as climate change"
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
You've been doing your homework
Bel. A+ and a gold star.
I wonder at what point the media and certain politicians will get a clue? There's a
lot on the record with some of these folks and it'll be interesting to see how they get the egg off their
collective faces. How do you back out of blindly following a politically correct hoax?
I saw a recent article (if I can
find it again I'll post it) about how the current global waring will melt a lot of the polar ice (which is
happening now). This melting will send fresh water into the oceans reducing their salinity. This in turn would
destroy the "Arctic conveyor" (which circulates warm water, tempering the climate) leading to a new ice age.
(the article is a lot more detailed than my post!)
Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite.
--Lazarus Long
Oh, thank you, thank you, thank
you. I always wanted a gold star and never got one before. Yipeee!
I saw that article too, Jim. A lot of it
seemed predicated on the 'fact' that global warming is real and, as you may have guessed by now, I don't believe
it is.
The above articles were found while I was searching for something a friend told me about. It seems the
same measures that were used to determine that several previous years set warming records showed that last year was
the coldest on record, completely reversing more than 50 years of temperature increases. I personally did not see
the article so cannot vouche for it's accuracy or anything else. After reading the above articles I find myself
discounting both claims.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Originally Posted by belgareth
Basically what Jim is saying, is that the left is
changing the name of the hoax from global warming to climate change. Regardless of the weather, it is caused by the
living standards of the people of the USA, and the Marxists must control how we live to save the planet. As usual it
is typical Marxist propaganda to propagate the one world vision under elitist Marxist socialism.
Yes, I realized that. And you'll get no argument from me about it.
However, the discussion was about the science of global warming, not the fact that our freedom is steadily being
stripped from us.
So, where are the well armed wolves who want to stop that from happening?
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Well it is pretty clear that the two go hand and hand. This has been in place for a
good many years.
Global warming baloney is not about climate change. It is about taking away freedom from a free
scociety. That is the crux of the debate.
This is how they will back out of theirI saw a
recent article (if I can find it again I'll post it) about how the current global waring will melt a lot of the
polar ice (which is happening now). This melting will send fresh water into the oceans reducing their salinity. This
in turn would destroy the "Arctic conveyor" (which circulates warm water, tempering the climate) leading to a new
ice age.
former erroneous positions.
"See, we were right, and now there is a backlash, and a new and different danger
confronts us."
Beating a dead horse can often
be entertaining so I'm going to beat this one.
There were two unrelated articles recently that pertain. One
was something I have harped about and somebody finally looked at it for some other project. They discovered that
snow melts faster when it is soot covered. That includes arctic ice and glaciers. Soot from the industrialized world
is a problem as well as soot from forest fires and wood heating and many other sources including volcanic ash
fallout. It can raise the temperature of the snow and surrounding area by as much as 1.2 degrees. While that
doesn't sound like much it has a huge impact when coupled with the dirty snow absorbing more solar energy. Combined
they result in far faster than anticipated snow melt and explains much that the global warming models do not.
The other is kind of obscure but has huge ramifications. Carbon Dioxide in the upper atmosphere is causing greater
cooling of the upper atmosphere! This causes the air to become denser and sink. In turn it makes sea level air
denser. Without any change in the actual energy in the total air mass the apparent temperature increases. What the
long term net effect is nobody knows. It could go many ways. A denser air mass might result in greater thermal
radiation or it might result in higher retained heat values. Both are being looked at but nothing conclusive yet.
Now back to my favorite rant...
We need to stop the knee jerk and politically motivated responses and start
really focusing on research to determine what is really happening and why!
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
So do you admit the possibility that there might be some unprecedented
alteration in the natural weather cycle- thereby creating the possibility of unknown consequences? Whatever the
cause may be?
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one."
Well, hello! Good to see you
I admit that we do not know what is going on and I believe that tampering with a system with our limited
knowledge is plain foolish. We screw up more often than not when we try to alter nature. I've never supported
allowing the destruction of our environment. But I do not support random running in circles trying to solve one
manufactured crises after the other.
While this topic has died out here, I have not stopped reading and studying
on the subject and find myself ever more sceptical about man caused global climate change.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Useful Debate Strategy for
Climate Change and Economics
http://www.iceagenow.com/World_Cooli...challenged.htm
Something to
think about.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
With the "Global Warming" bill
passing the House in Congress, and Obama ready to pounce on another chunk of authoritarian control, bumping this
thread is timely.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/ind...1-fc38ed4f85e3
Washington, DC: Fifty-nine additional scientists from around the world have been added
to the U.S. Senate Minority Report of dissenting scientists, pushing the total to over 700 skeptical international
scientists – a dramatic increase from the original 650 scientists featured in the initial December 11, 2008
release. The 59 additional scientists added to the 255-page Senate Minority report since the initial release 13
½ weeks ago represents an average of over four skeptical scientists a week. This updated report – which
includes yet another former UN IPCC scientist – represents an additional 300 (and growing) scientists and
climate researchers since the initial report’s release in December 2007.
The over 700 dissenting
scientists are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007
Summary for Policymakers. The 59 additional scientists hail from all over the world, including Japan, Italy, UK,
Czech Republic, Canada, Netherlands, the U.S. and many are affiliated with prestigious institutions including, NASA,
U.S. Navy, U.S. Defense Department, Energy Department, U.S. Air Force, the Philosophical Society of Washington (the
oldest scientific society in Washington), Princeton University, Tulane University, American University, Oregon State
University, U.S. Naval Academy and EPA.
“Unfortunately, Climate Science has become Political
Science…It is tragic that some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know
better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomena which is statistically questionable at best,” Austin
told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on March 2, 2009.
“Whether the ice
caps melt, or expand --- whatever happens --- the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) theorists claim it confirms
their theory. A perfect example of a pseudo-science like astrology.” - Mathematical Physicist Dr. Frank
Tipler, professor at Tulane University has authored 58 peer-reviewed publications and five books.
And
where is the objective reporting from the likes of Time, Newsweek, the NY Times and the Wash Post? The "debate"
occurs in the manner of the cartoon strip I posted above. As tongue alluded above, the GW scare is just a vehicle
that carries hidden within it the desire of its proponents to establish an elite authoritarian global rule. See
next post.
‘Journalistic malpractice’
Chemist Dr. Mark L. Campbell, a professor
of chemistry at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD, who has published numerous studies in the Journal of the
American Chemical Society on topics such as methane, squarely blames the media for promoting unfounded climate
fears. “The sky is not burning, and to claim that it is amounts to journalistic malpractice…the press
only promotes the global warming alarmists and ignores or minimizes those of us who are skeptical,” Chapman
wrote on January 13, 2009.
“Scientists across the globe are catching on -- global warming is not real
science. There is a sucker born every minute who believes in it, and Al Gore is playing the role of P.T.
Barnum,” Chemist Max S. Strozier declared on December 22, 2009 in an email to the minority staff of the
Environment and Public Works Committee. Strozier spent 26 years specializing in chemical laboratory analysis, served
as a U.S. Department of Defense aerospace chemist and is a former lecturer at San Jose State University and the
University of Texas.
Some questions that should be asked:
Why do GW proponents support what is
clearly junk science even as a majority of reputable scientists express clearly researched refutations?
Why is
the Liberal/Progressive dominated press so intent on propagating a lie?
Why do otherwise intelligent people
submit themselves to a group-think mentality when it comes to certain policy issues, such as climate, economics and
taxation?
Why does the Left seek to make policy via the court system, rather than the legislature as the
Constitution provides?
What are some common threads running through these policy positions?
See next post for
thought food.
Former Vice President Al
Gore declared that the Congressional climate bill will help bring about “global governance.”
"A
climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a
climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the
Earth.
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1893/G...<br /> rnance
Even their own scientists are calling this bill crap. Make you wonder what's really behind the
push to ram this through?
NASA Warming Scientist Hansen Blasts Obama's 'Counterfeit' Climate Bill -
Calls it 'a monstrous absurdity...less than
worthless!'
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1875/N...than-worthless
And Gore lauds the Obama team with
this:
“Just two weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey climate bill,”
Gore said, noting it was “very much a step in the right direction.” President Obama has pushed for the
passage of the bill in the Senate and attended a G8 summit this week where he agreed to attempt to keep the Earth's
temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees C.
**keep the earth's temperature from
rising!!!!**
There are loads of other links on the pages referenced for those who care to read. I'm going home
before my head explodes.
This is how the peasant girl understands it ...
Temperture rise- is it real?
According to
a recent report of the UN sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC), global warming is
"unequivocal", or a fact; and "very likely," mankind is largely to blame. Some who differ with this conclusion,
especially in regard to the human factor, concede that cities may be heating up because they are growing in size.
Moreover, concrete and steel readily absorb the sun's heat and tend to cool down slowly at night. But urban
readings, skeptics say, do not reflect the trend in rural areas and can distort global statistics. On the other
hand,for example,people who live on an island off the coast of Alaska, have seen changes with their own eyes. The
people of the village travel across sea ice to the mainland to hunt caribou and moose. Rising tempertures, though,
are making the traditional lifestyle impossible because the currents and ice conditions have changed and the freeze
up of the Chukchi Sea has changed. ( The sea used to freeze up at the end of October, but now does not freeze until
late December.
In 2007, warming was also evident in the
Northwest Passage, which was fully open for the first time in recorded history. "What we have seen this year fits
the profile of lengthening melt seasons" said a senior scientist for the National Snow and data Center in the
U.S.
THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT - Vital for life... A reason given
for such chamges is an intensification of the greenhouse effect, natural phemomena vital for life on earth. When
energy from the sum reaches the earth, about 70 percent is absorbed, heating air,land, and sea. If it were not for
this mechanism, the average surface temperture would be about minus 18 degrees celcius. Eventually, the absorbed
heat is released back into space as infrared radiation, thus preventing the earth from overheating. But when
pollutants change the composition of the atmosphere, less heat escapes. This can cause earth's tempertures to rise.
Gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect include carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane, as well as water
vapor. The atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases has increased markedly over the past 250 years, since the
start of the industrial revolution and the increased use of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil. Another
greenhouse-enhancing factor seems to be the rising population of farm animals, whose digestive processes produce
methane and nitrous oxide. Some researchers point to other causes of warming that they say occurred before humans
could have influenced climate.
Just another Fluctuation?
Skeptics of human- induced warming point out that earth's temperture has undergone substantial fluctuations in the
past. They point to the so-called ice ages, when the earth was supposedly much cooler than it is now, and in support
of natural warming, they cite evidence that cold regions, such as Greenland, at one time supported vegetation that
prefers warm areas. Of course, scientists concede that the further back they go, the more their certainty about
climate diminishes.
What may have caused tempertures to vary
significantly before human influence was a factor? Possible causes include sunspots and solar flares, which
correlate with fluctuations in solar energy output. Additionally, earth's orbit moves in cycles that take many
thousands of years and that affect our planet's distance from the sun. ther is also the influence of volcanic dust
and changes in oceanic currents. I NEED COFFEE ... BE BACK LATER
There are 3 kinds of people ...Those who MAKE things happenThose who WATCH things happen
WHAT HAPPENED ???
Oh no .... I just
wrote a two page reply and it didn't send or save
Guess I know what I'm doing on my lunch-break
Wearing mones and hunting down the first maintenance guy I see
There are 3 kinds of people ...Those who MAKE things happenWHAT HAPPENED ???
Perthgurl,
The IPCC has
never had any real credibility because it was formed with the mandate of proving that the earth is warming as a
result of man's influence. They already had a bias which automatically removes any scientific validity. It is
further damaged by the fact that it is a political, not scientific, organization. Their goals are not scientific at
all. Those scientists working for the IPCC are tasked with proving a given point of view, therefore their work
cannot be accepted as valid.
There is a group of more than 30,000 scientifically educated people who have signed
a petition denouncing global warming. These are well educated, scientifically oriented, independent people. There is
another group of more than 700 climate scientists, many former IPCC, NASA, or NOAA employees who were involved in
climate research, that publicly state APW is a fraud. These people often have degrees as high as Ph.D in things like
Meteorology. Astrophysics, Geology and Biology. Yet the press doesn't print their opinions while repeating many
often mistated assumptions and half truths.
I've been sceptical about APW almost from the begining and the
more I learn, the less I believe about it. The whole thing was started on a thing called the hockey stick graph,
which has long been discredited, and has been snowballing every since. To date, there is no solid evidence that the
temperature changes of the earth have anything to do with man and sunstantial evidence to argue that it does not.
It's easy to find information that purportedly supports the global warming theories because the press is all over
it. Contradictory research has been suppressed and denounced. Yet when we look at the supporting evidence, it is all
equivical. Take the computer models they talk about so much. Climate has so many variables that our models cannot
predict the weather two weeks out. Yet these people claim to be able to predict the climate years out? Do you know
what the margin for error is on those models on the short term? High enough to make them utterly uselss. On the long
term the have no meaning whatsoever.
I am all for cleaning up our planet, the mess we have made of the
environment is inexcusable. But I am not going to support a hair-brained theory that will cause starvation to
millions of people. And yes, it will cause starvation and increased poverty.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Perthgurl,
I'm going to guess
you're in Oz.
Let me explain something to you. 40% of the American public believes that evolution is a
hoax.
Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite.
--Lazarus Long
Perthgurl,
I'm going to guess you're in Oz.
Let me explain something to you. 40%
of the American public believes that evolution is a hoax.
But I wouldn't say
hoax, just a still as yet unproven theory, which requires quite an intellectual stretch to embrace.
And I would say your 40% is a low number, esp if respondents were pressed to explain how they are descended from
paramoebacilliadudes.
"NO!" cried Martha, "the chimp is NOT a part of the family, I don't care how much he looks
like your cousin Larry!".
(well, maybe some allowances can be made...)
Perthgurl, thanks for the post,
you're thinking, don't stop reading. Also, see my post re: forum issues and your writing/editing problem.
Oh, here's your coffee...
Posted by Henry Payne (The Detroit News) on Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 12:17 AM
Sen. Debbie Stabenow, Energy Leader (National Review, 08.10.09)
Detroit, Mich. - Michigan
just experienced its coldest July on record; global temperatures haven't risen in more than a decade; Great Lakes
water levels have resumed their 30-year cyclical rise (contrary to a decade of media scare stories that they were
drying up due to global warming), and polls show that climate change doesn't even make a list of Michigan voters'
top-ten concerns.
Yet in an interview with the Detroit News Monday, Senator Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.) -
recently appointed to the Senate Energy Committee - made clear that fighting the climate crisis is her top
priority.
"Climate change is very real," she confessed as she embraced cap and trade's massive tax increase on
Michigan industry - at the same time claiming, against all the evidence, that it would not lead to an increase in
manufacturing costs or energy prices. "Global warming creates volatility. I feel it when I'm flying. The storms are
more volatile. We are paying the price in more hurricanes and tornadoes."
And there are sea monsters in Lake
Michigan. I can feel them when I'm boating.
A slow hurricane season is
predicted as well, despite the claims by the global warming crowd.
I found it interesting that the global
warming crowd blames hurricane numbers and intensity on climate change when the hurricane experts believe exactly
the opposite.
Last edited by belgareth; 08-13-2009 at 03:21 PM.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
The underlying problem is
that trying to pin down the cause of global warming is about the same as watching rocks age. You're dealing with
changes on a million-year scale, whereas we puny humans have only existed for a speck of that time. Sure, science
can give us some answers but not the whole picture. The History channel has been showing a pretty good series called
The Universe which has the best ever chronology of the Earth. My point is that at one time the planet was
indistinguishable from the others. That it's habitable for us now is no reason it will always be, I admit. My real
concern from the very beginning has been
this:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090828/...sci_ocean_junk
I do however have a talking
point (and I haven't had the time to read previous posts so apologies if this is a rerun)
- Has any
corroboration between solar cycles and/or lunar cycles with global warming been studied?
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks