| Name: |
MartiniMan
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
End of Global Warming?
|
|
Date:
|
12/29/2008 9:17:35 AM
|
Just curious what others think. For years I have been saying that man-made global warming will one day be looked upon as one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated on man and Al Gore will be looked upon with derision as a failed politician and charlatan. I am wondering whether the following evidence has any effect on the true believers out there?
First of all, most of the hysteria about man's influence on global climates has been based on models that predict the temperature changes vis-a-vis overall carbon emissions. Many scientists have had serious quesrtions about the validity of the models, the source and accuracy of input parameters and the inability to calibrate the models to real data. They have also questioned why the numerous models that did not predict warming or contradicted the theory that there was a relationship between carbon emissions and global climates were ignored by proponents of the theory. The cooling over the last decade was wholly unpredicted by any of these supposedly acceptable models. This cooling period proves what many of us suspected, the models were either invalid or were manipulated to get the desired output. In addition, the models predicted things like polar ice cap melting (mass is being added, not lost) and we heard hysterical predictions of the end of skiing in Europe (they just had their best snowfalls in a generation) and the end of the polar bear (despite population studies showing an overall increase in population).
Second, we have been told incessently that the debate is over and the consensus of the scientific community is that man is causing global climates to warm as a result of carbon emissions. I have long argued that there is no such thing as a consensus in science. There is scientific theory and proven fact. Consensus is a political term that has no place in science. Having said that though, there is a growing movement of actual, qualified scientists that are beginning to speak out against the orthodoxy of the day, risking grant moneys, tenure, decertification and all the other methods of intimidation. This was cumlminated in March of this year when the Manhatten Declaration was published declaring that man-made global warming is a fraud. This declaration was signed by hundreds of emminently qualified scientists in the areas of climatology, meterology, geophysics, etc., including some of the world's most renowned and respected climatologists. When you look at similar declarations from the global warming crowd they are signed by politicians, activitists, scientists with a vested research interest in perpetrating the fraud and business people promoting alternative sources of energy that will only be economically viable if government artificially increases the prices of current sources of energy or provide huge government subsidies. As for me, I will go with actual qualfied scientists and please don't bother with the canard that all these hundreds of scientists are in the pocket of big oil. Go look at the list and do some independent research and you will see there are multitudes of highly qualified scientists that are not in any way supported by oil companies.
Finally, given the state of the world's economy many of these very same politicians that embraced all sorts of wildly expensive and standard of living lowering schemes are having second thoughts. When they think the world can afford to spend trillions of dollars to fix a problem that doesn't exist or we can't influence even if it did they are all on board the train. But suddenly when the economic conditions in the world weaken right along with their political futures, these non-scientific global warming acolytes are more than willing to eject their prior alleged belief in globaloney (as I like to call it). So much for true belief. Perhaps we have another case of political expediency whereby they blindly follow the trend of the day that they believe will lead to electoral success regardless of the long-term consequences? I know its a cynical view but there is plenty pf precedent.
So, back to my original statement, man-made global warming is a fraud. By the way, for those who want to question my background, I have a B.S. in Geology and a Masters in Geophysics.
|
| Name: |
Swimmer27
-
|
|
| Subject: |
End of Global Warming?
|
|
Date:
|
12/29/2008 10:54:45 AM
|
Well said!!
But here is something that should REALLY give us pause. As a geologiist/geophysicist you will understand the implications of this:
http://www.seis.utah.edu/req2webdir/recenteqs/Maps/Yellowstone.html
URL: Yellowstone Quakes
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
End of Global Warming?
|
|
Date:
|
12/29/2008 11:29:40 AM
|
Have always believed it was a fraud and Al Gore used it to profit from it while he flew around in private jets wasting fuel and adding to the "so called" problem, along to his home in TN that is one of the biggest energy wasters. He did not start to even address this until everyone started to call him on it.
Less than 10 years ago scientist were predicting the coming of another ice age.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
End of Global Warming?
|
|
Date:
|
12/29/2008 11:39:39 AM
|
I worry less about a large earthquake in the upper West (due to fewer population centers) that I do to the New Madrid fault system in the midwest. Strongest earthquake in the US was recorded there and when it pops again there is going to be mass destruction.
|
| Name: |
Swimmer27
-
|
|
| Subject: |
End of Global Warming?
|
|
Date:
|
12/29/2008 1:11:55 PM
|
Yea, I have read of that one. Even made the mighty Mississippi flow NORTH for a while. Aftershocks for months that rocked sevearal states. The reason I point out the Yellowstone quakes is because of the super volvano that has recently been discovered laying beneath the entire area. When it blows, it is Adios to the great northwest. And notice I said 'when' not if. From what I have seen it is only a matter of time. Maybe the quakes are a precursor.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
End of Global Warming?
|
|
Date:
|
12/29/2008 3:11:38 PM
|
Not sure I agree with your statement that there is no consenus in science -- I think scientists are as susceptible to group think as any other... Even "facts" can be interpreted a lot of different ways. I've seen it happen.
But, I have no idea whether global warming exists or not. I'm a little skeptical of anything that is labeled a "crisis". And over the years have observed that the media will pick up on a concept and craft a "crisis" to get people's attention. I'm not sure that even with all we know about our planet, that we know enough to definitively say that "this" is the cause of anything. Maybe that is just the way that the ecology is evolving.
But, there are certainly a lot of people making a lot of money off of the global warming concept. And I thought you would be solidly in favor of that.
|
| Name: |
AUCATZ
-
|
|
| Subject: |
End of Global Warming?
|
|
Date:
|
12/29/2008 3:31:30 PM
|
Well, personally, anything that Al Gore promotes I will absolutely be against. What a doof. As for global warming, I must agree with da Hound - we haven't been around long enough to really know what is normal and what is man-made.
I've always thought it was a lot of hype and 'facts' got misconstrued to fit whatever ideaology one wants to promote. After all we are constantly evolving. Right?
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Cute ...
|
|
Date:
|
12/29/2008 3:33:10 PM
|
I am always in favor of capitalist making money. Innovation is good as it creates jobs and generates more tax revenue without raising taxes. Yes, us conservative republicans do believe in business growth with lower taxes generates more tax revenue.
But that does not mean I agree or support the fraud of global warming created by Al Gore because he wants to scare everyone that the sky is falling for his own personal gain, when he does not practice what he preaches. What a hypocrite.
When he was in the White House with Clinton what was done on alternative energy? Where was he then? Oil imports nearly doubled under Clinton. Al could not even convince Bill about global warming.
Science can prove anything right or wrong. As I pointed out, it was not long ago we were worried about another ice age, now the planet has warmed 1 or 2 degrees over the last 100 or so years.
The are cycles to everything in nature, and I am sure 10 years from now science will be talking about an ice age again.
That does not mean I do not favor alternative energy and believe hydro carbons can be harmful .... but no I do not buy in to the fear of global warming that if we do not stop burning oil and coal, or cutting down trees (which we have more trees today than ever). Since a tree is a renewable resource, that is also a bunch of hype that the forest products industry is harmful. The plastics industry helped that and now we have plastic bags in grocery stores that do not biodegrade and causing all sorts of problems in land fills.
|
| Name: |
MrHodja
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Question
|
|
Date:
|
12/29/2008 7:59:26 PM
|
I've been told that there is far more carbon dioxide released in a decent volcanic eruption that man could ever release in a measurable length of time.
Anyone have an educated response to that? I would really like to know.
Please no opinion - just fact.
Thanks in advance!!
Nasreddin Hodja
|
| Name: |
NautiMinded
-
|
|
| Subject: |
End of Global Warming?
|
|
Date:
|
12/29/2008 9:49:37 PM
|
Only if the cows quit farting and pooping
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Explanation of "Consensus"
|
|
Date:
|
12/29/2008 10:16:32 PM
|
What I mean to say is that scientific theories are not proven or disproven by a consensus. The theory is proven through experiment and emperical data. Consensus is not an appropriate method for closing out scientific argument or debate as it is all too often wrong. Some famous examples of scientific consensus we now know to be wrong are the earth at the center of the universe and being flat. Many others exist.
So my main point is that simply because a consensus exists the debate is not over. Especially when you consider the manner in which skeptics are excoriated and threatened simply because they question the orthodoxy of the day about man's influence on global warming.
On another note, my main thrust is about man's influence on global climates. Debating about climate change is silly, climates have always and will always change, either growing cooler or warmer or at times static. There are micro changes from year to year and decade to decade and macro changes over long periods of time (thousands to tens of thousands of years and longer). What is still open to debate is man's influence and I have seen nothing but suspect models using questionable data run by people with a vested interest in promoting our influence on climates. That is wrong and I believe we will one day, maybe soon, see that it is a hoax.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Question
|
|
Date:
|
12/29/2008 10:35:52 PM
|
Either source is actually not important in the scheme of things. CO2 comprises only about 0.038% of air so what that means is for every 100 pounds of air, CO2 equals 0.00038 pounds. So when you hear the alarmists they always want to talk about the % increase of CO2 from anthropogenic (man-made) sources and never the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere because even a non-scientist intuitively recognizes that something that comprises such a small portion of the overall atmosphere (as a greenhouse gas) would have negligable impact when compared other significantly Interestingly the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor which varies significantly but is generally around 4% or over 100 times more than CO2. So water vapor concentrations go up and down all the time and significnatly greater concentrations than CO2 but we are worried up changes in a miniscule molecule that cooincidently is associated with hydrocarbons.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Explanation of "Consensus"
|
|
Date:
|
12/29/2008 11:32:39 PM
|
You are absolutely right about that. Scientists love facts. It's hard to get a scientist to ever commit to anything with 100% certainty.
|
| Name: |
Swimmer27
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Question
|
|
Date:
|
12/30/2008 11:13:58 AM
|
I can't cite the source but it is true. I have seen several articles and even TV documentaries on this subject. A moderate valcano eruption will spew more CO2 than man has in our entire existence. As someone pointed out CO2 about .03% of the atmosphere so even a 10% increase is negligible. Besides that the science shows that in periods past, the earth has had mcuh more CO2. At the same time, it was a much lusher and greener place. Plants thrive on CO2.
Research Biosphere 2. They made a boneheaded mistake when they built it. They did not let the concrete cure long enough. The result is that the concrete absorbed more oxygen that was planned. This in turn caused an increse is CO2. Humans began to act disoreinted, but the plants THRIVED. The atmosphere inside was equivalent to about 18,000 foot altititude. The irony is that the 'warmers' all claim that what is going to happen is that the crops wont grow and mankind will starve, or as the oh so eloquent Ted Turner says, will become cannibals because we wont have anything to eat.
If you are going to disicuss "glogal warming' you MUST work in geological terms, i.e. EONS. We have accurate weather records for about 100 years or so, which is a fracrtion of eons. The Earth has been around for about 450 million years, (sorry to all you 'creationists", but facts are facts) and the only constant in all that time is that the climate has changed. It will continue to change. When it stops is when I will worry
You can ask one question of any 'warmist' that will shut them up. Simply ask them "so what is the ideal temp for Earth?" I have asked MANY of them, ( some who read this site regularly) and not ONE of them has even offered an answer. The reason is they can't, because nobody knows. Ideal temp is different to different organisims. Mankind has yet to even identifiy all the different species on the planet, so how can we pretend to know what temp is best for all?
|
| Name: |
DirtDiva
-
|
|
| Subject: |
We will know
|
|
Date:
|
12/30/2008 12:23:08 PM
|
Global warming has ended when Nauti quits wearing the CATHOUSE Marine thong........
|
| Name: |
DirtDiva
-
|
|
| Subject: |
We will know
|
|
Date:
|
12/30/2008 12:23:09 PM
|
Global warming has ended when Nauti quits wearing the CATHOUSE Marine thong........
|
| Name: |
DirtDiva
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Nauti -
|
|
Date:
|
12/30/2008 12:24:26 PM
|
I'm just jealous.............
You go girl!!!!!!
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
We will know
|
|
Date:
|
12/30/2008 6:35:56 PM
|
OK, not knowing what Nauti looks like in a thong (or anything else for that matter) I can only assume if it is a pleasant sight that there are any number of men willing to submit grant applications to the National Science Foundation to study the influence of Nauti in a thong on global climates. Having spent some time at the Rock during holidays I can at least imagine a measurable increase in global temps on a micro scale centered around the southern portion of Lake Martin.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Explanation of "Consensus"
|
|
Date:
|
12/30/2008 6:39:49 PM
|
Normally they do but on this issue they have become much more open to declaring the debate over based on incredibly thin and controversial evidence. The politicization of science in search of grant money and government funding has blinded them to evidence to the contrary. It is much like the debate over natural selection as the origin of man debate. So many flaws in the scientific argument and yet so easily accepted by so many scientists.
|
| Name: |
au67
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Explanation of "Consensus"
|
|
Date:
|
12/30/2008 6:57:31 PM
|
Sometimes concensus simple means all the fools are on the same side.
|
| Name: |
Swimmer27
-
|
|
| Subject: |
We will know
|
|
Date:
|
12/31/2008 10:03:41 AM
|
I have had the immense pleasure of meeting both Nauti and Diva ( but not in thongs unfortunately). I can assure you that each of them should be required to buy 'carbon offsets' to minimize their impact on GW. If their own hotness isn't enough to increase carbon output, surely all the 'panting guys' around them most certainly do.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
We will know
|
|
Date:
|
12/31/2008 12:21:39 PM
|
I think the only answer is for all the men on this board to get together and let Nauti model and we will be the judge.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
End of Global Warming?
|
|
Date:
|
12/31/2008 4:20:44 PM
|
Way to go Sammy! I am sure he will receive death threats from the envirowackos.
URL: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/environment/environment-minister-sammy-wilson-i-still-think-manmade-climate-change-is-a-con-14123972.html
|
| Name: |
Old Diver
-
|
|
| Subject: |
End of Global Warming?
|
|
Date:
|
1/5/2009 2:28:06 AM
|
Remember when we were all going to get cancer from cranberrys. Remember the alar scare on apples. Remember acid rain, global cooling, ozone depletion etc, etc
I have followed the enviro-wacos for over 30 years and I can't tell you anything they were correct on. They have to cerate a crisis or nobody will donate or buy their books. Their followers are the same type of people who sold all their goods and sat down in a field waiting on the end of the earth.
|
|
New Post
Search
Off-Topic Forum
Reply
»
Georgia Lakes
»
Lake Allatoona
Login
|
Home
