Global Warming

  • Thread starter Thread starter Psychotheosophy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
a_burger said:
Maybe Valke should read the science reports rather than listen to the newspaper. They always llook for a heathen scientist who would sell his soul to the new world order to lie about global warming.
Click to expand...
heathen scientist? oy.
 
Scientists have long established that the Antarctic Peninsula is one of the most rapidly warming spots on Earth. Now, new research using detailed satellite data indicates that the changing climate is affecting not just the penguins at the apex of the food chain, but simultaneously the microscopic life that is the base of the ecosystem.
sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090312140848.htm
 
Ahhh good old urban heat island effect. First of all watch this video. youtube.com/watch?v=B7OdCOsMgCw&feature=channel_page

And another link. realclimate.org/index.php?p=43

adelaide.edu.au/climatechange/seminars/climateqanda/
listen starting at 12:45 to Barrybrooks presentation under seminar is the earth really warming. page 28-29http://www.adelaide.edu.au/climatechange/seminars/climateqanda/bwb_climate_qanda_1_warming_small.pdf show corresponding slides

Course it would be good to listen to the whole thing as well. I am just isolating the part specifically about urban heat island effect. I am slowly beginning to make my way through the whole series. 😃

realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/no-man-is-an-urban-heat-island/ and one more
 
It seems that a consensus of over 700 international scientists don’t support man-made global warming claims.

I like these folks already…

"U. S. Senate Minority Report:
More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over
Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 &
2009

(Updates Previous Report: “More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made
Global Warming Claims”)
"

epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9

here are some great quotes…(found on page 70 of the report)

The new scientific report “directly challenges the conclusions of the IPCC Summary that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing dangerous and unprecedented warming.” - Quantitative Economist Kenneth A. Haapala, the past president of the prestigious Philosophical Society of Washington, the oldest scientific society in Washington (founded 1871), has reviewed hundreds of reports based on quantitative techniques. Haapala co-authored the report “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”

“I think that climatic changes have a natural causes according many geological data…I am very glad to sign the U.S. Senate’s report of scientists against the theory of man-made global warming.” - Geology Professor Uberto Crescenti of the University G.d’Annunzio in Italy is the past president of the Society of Italian Geologists.

“I am appalled at the state of discord in the field of climate science…There is no observational evidence that the addition of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have caused any temperature perturbations in the atmosphere.” - Award-winning atmospheric scientist Dr. George T. Wolff, former member of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board, served on a committee of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and authored more than 90 peer-reviewed studies.

“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.” - 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.

“Once again we have misleading climate change pronouncements being based on data errors, data errors detected by non-UN, non-IPCC, non-peer-reviewed external observers…This is exactly what happens when you base your arguments on ‘consensus science’ and not scientific fact.” - Professor Dr. Doug L. Hoffman, a mathematician, computer programmer, and engineer, who worked on environmental models and conducted research in molecular dynamics simulations. Hoffman co-authored the 2009 book, The Resilient Earth, described as “bringing a dose of skeptical reality to climate science and the global warming debate.”

“The questions are scientific, but the UN answers are political. The global warming debate is hardly about science.” - Computer Modeler and Engineer Allen Simmons, who worked 12 years with NASA’s top climate scientists and wrote computer systems software for the world’s first weather satellites and aided in the development of computer systems for polar orbiting satellites. Simmons co-authored the new skeptical book The Resilient Earth.

Belief in climate models compared to “ancient astrology”… “I believe the anthropogenic (man-made) effect for climate change is still only one of the hypotheses to explain the variability of climate.” - Award-winning Japanese Physicist Dr. Kanya Kusano, program director of the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology who’s research “focuses on the immaturity of simulation work cited in support of the theory of anthropogenic climate change.” compared climate models to “ancient astrology.”

“There is no credible evidence of the current exceptional global warming trumpeted by the IPCC…The IPCC is no longer behaving as an investigative scientific organization or pretending to be one…Their leaders betrayed the trust of the world community.” - Chemist Dr. Grant Miles, author of numerous scientific publications who was elected to a Fellowship of the Royal Institute of Chemistry, was a member of UK Atomic Energy Authority Chemical Separation Plant Committee.
 
Oscarthecat,
  1. Do you believe that the climate is warming but it isn’t caused by humans?
  2. If you don’t believe that we are responsible for the warming, can you state (or restate :p) why you think so?
 
 
The President of the EU was recently in New York to address the scam of global warming being caused by humans. Al Gore’s scam is on its last legs. It’s so bad that the desparate followers are saying the record cooling is caused by global warming. Did global warming cause all the increase in earthquakes? It’s not global warming, it’s Revalation.
 
LOL burger if nothing else your posts are good for a laugh…and a good head scratch.
 
Michaelo said:
Oscarthecat,
  1. Do you believe that the climate is warming but it isn’t caused by humans?
  2. If you don’t believe that we are responsible for the warming, can you state (or restate :p) why you think so?
Click to expand...
Really? Do I really need to explain this?

Really?

OK,
  1. No, human beings are not causing global warming, or climate change, or climate cooling, or climate catastrophe, or whatever the current buzz word is this week.
  2. I have made my opinion on this clear, and I’m not going to rehash it. You’re welcome to go back and reread posts.
That being said, if you believe that humans are to blame for global climate change, then I would like you to provide evidence that the earth’s climate never changed prior to the industrial age. You don’t have to go back to the big bang, because that would just be silly, but you should probably go back as far as the proterozoic era and all points to the present.

I would also like you to explain evidence that the climate on other planets in our solar system have also demonstrated changes during the short period that we’ve been keeping tabs on extraterrestrial climates.

And just for fun, I would also like you to tell me when our last ice age ended, and what happens to global temperature at the end of an ice age.
 
Calliso said:
Really though I seriously doubt this updated list is anything really new.
Click to expand...
No, the fact that a lot of scientists don’t agree that global warming is man made is nothing new at all…they’ve been there all along.

Interestingly, it seems that fewer and fewer americans are falling for this nonsense, too…
source: google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gTDzuiJn1I3sT4iOWEn9b1HF1g5Q
US still skeptical about global warming: survey
5 days ago
WASHINGTON (AFP) — More Americans than at any time in the past decade believe that the seriousness of global warming is being exaggerated, a Gallup poll showed Thursday.
Forty-one percent of Americans told Gallup pollsters that they are doubtful that global warming is as serious as the mainstream media are reporting, putting public skepticism about the hot-button issue at the highest level recorded by Gallup in more than a decade.
The previous high came in 2004, when 38 percent of Americans said news reports exaggerated the seriousness of global warming.
Gallup’s 2009 environment poll, which surveyed 1,012 adults by land- and mobile phone line between March 5 and 8, also showed that Americans ranked global warming last out of eight environmental issues that respondents were asked to give a score to based on their level of concern about the topic.
The pollution of drinking water was deemed the greatest source of concern, with 84 percent of respondents saying it worried them.
Other issues that were ranked – and beat global warming by at least five percentage points – were water pollution in general, toxic contamination of soil and water, fresh water supply, air pollution, loss of rain forests, and the extinction of plants and animals.
The number of Americans who thought global warming is already affecting the planet has also fallen, from 61 percent in March last year to 53 percent this year.
And a record high 16 percent of Americans told Gallup pollsters that they believe the effects of global warming “will never occur.”
The poll results suggest “that the global warming message may have lost some footing with Americans,” Gallup analyst Lydia Saad said.
“Americans generally believe global warming is real … (but) most Americans do not view the issue in the same dire terms as the many prominent leaders advancing global warming as an issue,” she said.
Click to expand...
 
Oscarthecat said:
That being said, if you believe that humans are to blame for global climate change, then I would like you to provide evidence that the earth’s climate never changed prior to the industrial age.
Click to expand...
Your request is totally irrelevant. The natural variability of the climate prior to the industrial revolution does not preclude recent anthropogenic climate change.
I would also like you to explain evidence that the climate on other planets in our solar system have also demonstrated changes during the short period that we’ve been keeping tabs on extraterrestrial climates.
Click to expand...
Please first explain how this pertains to the debate.
And just for fun, I would also like you to tell me when our last ice age ended, and what happens to global temperature at the end of an ice age.
Click to expand...
The last glacial max was about 18,000 years ago, however…

From the EPA:
Studies of the Earth’s previous climate suggest periods of stability as well as periods of rapid change. Recent climate research suggests:
Click to expand...
Code: 
* Interglacial climates (such as the present) tend to be more stable than cooler, glacial climates. For example, the climate during the current and previous interglacials (known as the Holocene and Eemian interglacials) has been more stable than the most recent glacial period (known as the Last Glacial Maximum). This glacial period was characterized by a long string of widespread, large and abrupt climate changes (NRC, 2002).
* Abrupt or rapid climate changes tend to frequently accompany transitions between glacial and interglacial periods (and vice versa). For example, a significant part of the Northern Hemisphere (particularly around Greenland) may have experienced warming ratesof 14-28ºF over several decades during and after the most recent ice age (IPCC, 2007).
Click to expand...
**While abrupt climate changes have occurred throughout the Earth’s history, human civilization arose during a period of relative climate stability.
Click to expand...
During the last 2,000 years, the climate has been relatively stable. Scientists have identified three departures from this stability, known as the Medieval Climate Anomaly (also referred to as the Medieval Warm Period), the Little Ice Age and the Industrial Era:**
Click to expand...
Code: 
* The Medieval Climate Anomaly: Between roughly 900 and 1300 AD, evidence suggests Europe, Greenland and Asia experienced relative warmth. While historical accounts and other evidence document the warmth that occurred in some regions, the geographical extent, magnitude and timing of the warmth during this period is uncertain (NRC, 2006). The American West experienced very dry conditions around this time.
* The Little Ice Age: A wide variety of evidence supports the global existence of a "Little Ice Age" (this was not a true "ice age" since major ice sheets did not develop) between about 1500 and 1850 (NRC, 2006). Average temperatures were possibly up to 2ºF colder than today, but varied by region.
*** The Industrial Era: An additional warm period has emerged in the last 100 years, coinciding with substantially increasing emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities** (see Recent Climate Change for more information).
Click to expand...
www.epa.gov

Climate Change | US EPA

Comprehensive information from U.S. EPA on issues of climate change, global warming, including climate change science, greenhouse gas emissions data, frequently asked questions, climate change impacts and adaptation, what EPA is doing, and what you can do.
www.epa.gov www.epa.gov

source
 
Oscarthecat said:
Obviously, that isn’t true, because there are numerous examples of the private market pursuing alternative energies long before the government encouraged the current favorites.

Allowing politics, rather than market forces, to determine our course of action is hardly the best way to discover what will be the objectively superior choice for our future energy needs. For example, think of how the pursuit of ethanol is so rapidly becoming an environmental nightmare. It is well documented not only that e85 and higher concentrations of ethanol produce particularly bad exhaust fumes and are significantly less efficient than traditional gas and diesel, but also that the crops necessary to produce an adequate amount of ethanol require so much fertilizer that the runoff would ruin all arable land it comes in contact with on its way to the gulf, where it would more than triple the size of the already very large dead zone where american rivers meet the gulf of mexico. Additionally, ethanol is ruining the market for our crops because the government subsidies are artificially inflating the value of these crops such that farmers are choosing to produce crops for ethanol instead of food, thus limiting the availability of and inflating the prices of the cost of food in our country.

Meanwhile, other alternative energies, like hydrogen fuel cell technology and near zero emission diesel engine technologies are being stifled in this country thanks to ethanol lobbyists who are fighting hard to keep their political advantage.

Oh, I should also mention that ethanol literally disintegrates critical parts in car engines that aren’t specifically designed for ethanol- a little fact that is curiously absent from the pro-ethanol commercials paid for by government grants.

So before you lose any sleep over the loss of viable energies for lack of government intervention, you should consider the loss of viable energies due to government intervention…and what’s more, you should consider how the promotion and market dominance of inferior technologies due to political gaming might actually hurt us much more in the long run.
Click to expand...
There isn’t going to be a consumer led move to clean techonology until the price of oil becomes prohibitive (probably decades from now). People certainly aren 't going to buy new vehicles in the near future just to create demand for cleaner fuels - like hydrogen, which currently uses more energy (from oil) to store and transport than it can provide.
 
cynic said:
There isn’t going to be a consumer led move to clean techonology until the price of oil becomes prohibitive (probably decades from now). People certainly aren 't going to buy new vehicles in the near future just to create demand for cleaner fuels - like hydrogen, which currently uses more energy (from oil) to store and transport than it can provide.
Click to expand...
The reason being that none of the alternate means make any sense. The internal combustion engine combined with gasoline, or diesel-powered vehicles are so much more effecient that any other know means. A couple of cubic feel of gasoline can propel a 3000 pound cars with two passangers four or five hundred miles. Even the availability of abundant public transportation has not made the Germans, for example, give up on the Privat Auto, despite having to pay twice what we do for gasoline. The car provides
rare freedom in a society where life is highly regimented. The Obama administration is, evidently, committed to stiffling oil production in the United States and forcing car companies to make cars that won’t work well. Meanwhile, of course, our elites will continue to use the most expensive modes of transportation.
 
RobbyS said:
The reason being that none of the alternate means make any sense. The internal combustion engine combined with gasoline, or diesel-powered vehicles are so much more effecient that any other know means. A couple of cubic feel of gasoline can propel a 3000 pound cars with two passangers four or five hundred miles.
.
Click to expand...
Yeah, so what current motivation is there for private industry to significantly invest in clean technology to make it more efficient? It won’t be until the cost of pumping oil out of the ground becomes prohibitive that companies start investing in alternatives. IF human induced climate change is real, then by that time it could be too late. If it isn’t, then it shouldn’t matter if we continue to use fossil fuels for now.
(I take no side)

Point being, the merits of the free market are irrelevant to this particular debate, since consumers (and industries) act in their own short term interests,
 
for Caliso Since I’ve been published many times in newspapers I would say that’s pretty credible. Is that laughable Caliso? Are people losing their jobs funny because of your lies about global warming funny? That’s what’s wrong with you liberals. Is it a good laugh when you quote scripture? Where is your quotes? What did you ever do for the enviroment?

Having lived in Middletown at the time of the Three Mile Island accident I was the VP of Middletown Boro Council. I wrote the resolutions for Middletown concerning the release of debris from the plant. What did you ever do Caliso besides run your mouth?

How would you liberals change scripture? Are you going to tell Jesus where he went wrong?
 
Michaelo said:
Your request is totally irrelevant. The natural variability of the climate prior to the industrial revolution does not preclude recent anthropogenic climate change.
Click to expand...
Of course…historical data is irrelevent to the topic of global warming.
After all…it is a matter of faith, not science.
 
a_burger said:
I’ve been published many times in newspapers I would say that’s pretty credible.
Click to expand...
My local paper has a section in it called ‘sound off’
It is basically a section for anyone with a rant. If you can condense your thoughts into a few lines, which you have shown an ability to do, you can be published in the paper.

The section has its share of controversy as anyone…anyone can get their words in the paper with little to no editorial review.
There are racist views thrown in, bizarre and oddball views, and a few that make sense.

In the midst of the controversy, the paper stated they modelled this section after similar practices in many other papers across the country.

So are you credible for having your words in a newspaper?
Who knows?
 
Michaelo said:
Your request is totally irrelevant. The natural variability of the climate prior to the industrial revolution does not preclude recent anthropogenic climate change.
Click to expand...
So you admit that there is a “natural variability of the climate.”

Thank you.

Now I would like you to prove that the current climate variations would not be happening if not for those pesky humans.

Then, I would like you to provide conclusive evidence of what the climate WOULD be right now if not for human beings.
Please first explain how this pertains to the debate.
Click to expand...
Well, if the earth’s current climate change is caused by humans, then there would be no evidence that climate change on Mars has anything in common with climate change on Earth.

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
The last glacial max was about 18,000 years ago,
Click to expand...
Wrong…the answer is that nobody seems to be able to agree on when the last ice age ended. Some say that we haven’t had one in 18000 years. Others say we’re just about to begin one. Still others say that we’re just coming out of one.

Still others say that there has never been an ice age because the earth is only 6000 years old, and there is no ice age documented in the Bible.

It seems to me that someone who believes in global warming might need to know about those kinds of discrepancies.

Interestingly enough, global warming enthusiasts have the most in common with that last group-- why do you think that is?

I’ll just tell you…

Because they’re both basing scientific fact on religious belief.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top