No such thing as a "perfect" temperature

[DealMonkey]

And PJ, you've started so many anti-GW threads it's starting to become ridiculous. It's no wonder people around here accuse you of being on someone's payroll. The propaganda is strong with you.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I started a new thread with this because I think the points raised in it are significant enough to warrant that. And unlike my ?Coldest Easter in years thread? this one is based on a strong scientific foundation.
In short this article shows that much of the Global Warming hysteria is misplaced or based on incomplete scientific evidence.

Hey PrevaricatorJohn -- This article from the Voice Of America suggests your paid consultant may be outvoted by his peers:

UN Sounds Global Warming Alarm

By Paul Sisco
Washington
09 April 2007

Thousands of climate scientists and government policy administrators from more than 120 countries worked on the report for six years. After a reported all night session on April 5, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its second major report on global warming. VOA's Paul Sisco has more.

The climate experts' report predicts rising temperatures will lead to more heat waves in the United States and elsewhere. It also envisions more hunger, particularly in the developing world; continued glacier melting; accelerated plant and animal extinctions; rising sea levels and associated environmental degradation.

"The Working Group Two Report deals with impacts, adaptation and vulnerability," explains Panel Chairman Rajendra Pachauri. "And this is what determines responses that human beings and societies will make to counter this problem, to be able to manage this problem."

Panel co-chairman Martin Perry adds, "What they've done now is finally establish at the global level there is an anthropogenic, a man made, climate signal coming through on plants, animals, water and ice."

The report's conclusions are largely based on data that scientists see now. They include changing bird migrations, earlier spring melts in temperate climate zones and rapidly declining tropical coral reefs in some warmer seas.

Life is sweet in the United States when you cast your fishing line in the Yellowstone River. But the United States is not exempt from the report's findings. This river, like most in western and southwestern United States, is severely stressed. The region is suffering from ten years of drought. Nevada's Lake Meade is 24 meters below normal levels. Docks hang from newly formed cliffs. And the once mighty Colorado River, from which seven U.S. states draw water, now trickles at the border between the United States and Mexico.

The report states clearly that poorer nations above and below the equator, are even worse off, with temperatures predicted to rise, and few resources to deal with resulting problems.

One observer commented, "It is getting worse every year."

Chairman Rajendra Pachauri says this is based on scientific evidence, "You don't need faith to believe what is being put forward, what you have is solid scientific evidence.

The report concludes that the situation is worse than previously thought. And it says that if temperatures continue to rise, one billion people could face dangerous flooding, three billion, water shortages and many species face mass extinction.

If the majority of scientists studying global warming are right, and we do nothing about reducing pollution, the world is screwed with no time left to address the possibly catastrophic consequenses. If your paid industry hack is right, and the world gets serious about reducing pollution, the worst that can happen is, we may come up with solutions sooner than we need them for our own survival.

Considering the consequenses of being wrong either way, acting to reduce global warming, now would be the more CONSERVATIVE course of action.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I started a new thread with this because I think the points raised in it are significant enough to warrant that. And unlike my ?Coldest Easter in years thread? this one is based on a strong scientific foundation.
In short this article shows that much of the Global Warming hysteria is misplaced or based on incomplete scientific evidence.

A few points he raises:

2. There was a warming trend between 1050 and 1300.

No one can explain why it happened.

But we know for sure it wasn?t caused by automobiles and green house gasses.

Never heard of Volcanos such as Pompeii or Krakatoa???

Pompeii

Try doing at least a little research yourself before such spewage.

You're hot air is worse than the volcanos of the past.

A volcano eruption for 250 years? hahahahaha

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.

LIE! Giant lie! This guy is so far up the arse of the energy companies, it isn't even funny...

"For the most part the industry has relied on a small band of skeptics?Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, among others?who have proven extraordinarily adept at draining the issue of all sense of crisis. Through their frequent pronouncements in the press and on radio and television, they have helped to create the illusion that the question is hopelessly mired in unknowns. Most damaging has been their influence on decision makers; their contrarian views have allowed conservative Republicans such as Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.) to dismiss legitimate research concerns as "liberal claptrap" and have provided the basis for the recent round of budget cuts to those government science programs designed to monitor the health of the planet.

Last May, Minnesota held hearings in St. Paul to determine the environmental cost of coal burning by state power plants. Three of the skeptics?Lindzen, Michaels, and Balling?were hired as expert witnesses to testify on behalf of Western Fuels Association, a $400 million consortium of coal suppliers and coal-fired utilities."

I thought I recognized the name.... someone on this forum tried to use a Mr. Ball's report to "disprove" global warming. Try again.

"Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services"

Link to Harper's Magazine Transcript

Apparently you dont know the difference between a paid researcher and a paid testimony witness. Ah well. Naivity FTW

 

[DealMonkey]

Thousands of professional scientists vs. a small band of industry-paid GW skeptics. Gee, I wonder which side has more credibility?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I love the people rushing in with their cut and paste attacks on this guy and his funding.

Why don't any of you question the points he actually makes?

Instead of attacking the messenger why not post some evidence that shows what he is saying is wrong.

Coz thats what schoolyard bully-wanna-be's do. They never actually debates the facts. Except, of course, when it suits them.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Thousands of professional scientists vs. a small band of industry-paid GW skeptics. Gee, I wonder which side has more credibility?

Wow I thought for sure a GWB reference woulda been made on the first page...

Get over yourself.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Thousands of professional scientists vs. a small band of industry-paid GW skeptics. Gee, I wonder which side has more credibility?

Wow I thought for sure a GWB reference woulda been made on the first page...

Get over yourself.

Are you speaking in tongues? GW = Global Warming, not George W Bush. Get over yourself.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I love the people rushing in with their cut and paste attacks on this guy and his funding.

Why don't any of you question the points he actually makes?

Instead of attacking the messenger why not post some evidence that shows what he is saying is wrong.

Coz thats what schoolyard bully-wanna-be's do. They never actually debates the facts. Except, of course, when it suits them.

It suited me which is why I posted the article about the report by "Thousands of climate scientists and government policy administrators from more than 120 countries" who "worked on the report for six years."

Go be a wannabe bully with them instead of trying to blow smoke up everyone's ass. :roll:

 

[Double Trouble]

Lets see... how many people want to bite the hand that funds...errrr.... feeds them? Of course this wacko is going to say anything those paying him want him to say, that's how he gets his big bucks. That, and the fact that every conclusion he reaches is in exact opposition to those reached by hundreds of real scientists pretty much destroys his credibility. Hence, there is little reason to refute his points one by one --- many scientists have already done so.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: tagej
Lets see... how many people want to bite the hand that funds...errrr.... feeds them? Of course this wacko is going to say anything those paying him want him to say, that's how he gets his big bucks. That, and the fact that every conclusion he reaches is in exact opposition to those reached by hundreds of real scientists pretty much destroys his credibility. Hence, there is little reason to refute his points one by one --- many scientists have already done so.

You make a great point, which applies to both sides. Many of these scientists that are claiming that man is responsible for GW would not have jobs if people weren't going hysterical over this.

But I see that the envirowhackos have arrived and this debate will go now where as long as they see us non believers threatening their religion.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Thousands of professional scientists vs. a small band of industry-paid GW skeptics. Gee, I wonder which side has more credibility?

mob rules eh?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I love the people rushing in with their cut and paste attacks on this guy and his funding.

Why don't any of you question the points he actually makes?

Instead of attacking the messenger why not post some evidence that shows what he is saying is wrong.

Coz thats what schoolyard bully-wanna-be's do. They never actually debates the facts. Except, of course, when it suits them.

It suited me which is why I posted the article about the report by "Thousands of climate scientists and government policy administrators from more than 120 countries" who "worked on the report for six years."

Go be a wannabe bully with them instead of trying to blow smoke up everyone's ass. :roll:

nvm you guys too thick skulled to argue scientic data.

 

[halik]

Untill I see a single peer-reviewed paper that saying anything else outside the mass consensus, "Global Warming hysteria" disinformation is just drivel.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: halik
Untill I see a single peer-reviewed paper that saying anything else outside the mass consensus, "Global Warming hysteria" disinformation is just drivel.

I think you better specify "peer" before you ask for something like this....surely you will get a response you wont like otherwise...

 

[Double Trouble]

I suspect there's a healthy dose of scientists jumping the gun and reaching conclusions not supported by proper research on both sides of the equation, but it's clear to me that guys like Lindzen are simply doing what they are paid to do. They are not scientists, they are PR reps paid to use their scientific background to push a political or economic agenda.

When you start looking at the other side of the fence, the possible motives for some vast conspiracy become much murkier. Sure, lots of scientists stand to gain from their GW 'research', but I just don't buy the fact that 95% of all the scientists are pushing some agenda and are part of some vast conspiracy that would result in....errrr... what are they supposed to be pushing again?

I think reasonable people have to conclude that GW is real, that there could be multiple causes for the warming pattern -- some natural some man-made -- and that taking steps for reducing pollution and carbon dioxide emissions is a good thing regardless of what is really behind GW.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

'True believers' of manmade GW would make an all out push for nuclear. Until then, it's all just Chicken Little rhetoric with no purpose except to instill fear.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
'True believers' of manmade GW would make an all out push for nuclear. Until then, it's all just Chicken Little rhetoric with no purpose except to instill fear.

Good point.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
'True believers' of manmade GW would make an all out push for nuclear. Until then, it's all just Chicken Little rhetoric with no purpose except to instill fear.

To instill fear for what purpose.

I'm a big supporter of nuclear. And fewer SUVs.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: halik
Untill I see a single peer-reviewed paper that saying anything else outside the mass consensus, "Global Warming hysteria" disinformation is just drivel.

I think you better specify "peer" before you ask for something like this....surely you will get a response you wont like otherwise...

Published academic journal articles.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
'True believers' of manmade GW would make an all out push for nuclear. Until then, it's all just Chicken Little rhetoric with no purpose except to instill fear.

To instill fear for what purpose.

I'm a big supporter of nuclear. And fewer SUVs.

I don't know...you tell me.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I started a new thread with this because I think the points raised in it are significant enough to warrant that. And unlike my ?Coldest Easter in years thread? this one is based on a strong scientific foundation.
In short this article shows that much of the Global Warming hysteria is misplaced or based on incomplete scientific evidence.

Hey PrevaricatorJohn -- This article from the Voice Of America suggests your paid consultant may be outvoted by his peers:

UN Sounds Global Warming Alarm

By Paul Sisco
Washington
09 April 2007

Thousands of climate scientists and government policy administrators from more than 120 countries worked on the report for six years. After a reported all night session on April 5, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its second major report on global warming. VOA's Paul Sisco has more.

The climate experts' report predicts rising temperatures will lead to more heat waves in the United States and elsewhere. It also envisions more hunger, particularly in the developing world; continued glacier melting; accelerated plant and animal extinctions; rising sea levels and associated environmental degradation.

"The Working Group Two Report deals with impacts, adaptation and vulnerability," explains Panel Chairman Rajendra Pachauri. "And this is what determines responses that human beings and societies will make to counter this problem, to be able to manage this problem."

Panel co-chairman Martin Perry adds, "What they've done now is finally establish at the global level there is an anthropogenic, a man made, climate signal coming through on plants, animals, water and ice."

The report's conclusions are largely based on data that scientists see now. They include changing bird migrations, earlier spring melts in temperate climate zones and rapidly declining tropical coral reefs in some warmer seas.

Life is sweet in the United States when you cast your fishing line in the Yellowstone River. But the United States is not exempt from the report's findings. This river, like most in western and southwestern United States, is severely stressed. The region is suffering from ten years of drought. Nevada's Lake Meade is 24 meters below normal levels. Docks hang from newly formed cliffs. And the once mighty Colorado River, from which seven U.S. states draw water, now trickles at the border between the United States and Mexico.

The report states clearly that poorer nations above and below the equator, are even worse off, with temperatures predicted to rise, and few resources to deal with resulting problems.

One observer commented, "It is getting worse every year."

Chairman Rajendra Pachauri says this is based on scientific evidence, "You don't need faith to believe what is being put forward, what you have is solid scientific evidence.

The report concludes that the situation is worse than previously thought. And it says that if temperatures continue to rise, one billion people could face dangerous flooding, three billion, water shortages and many species face mass extinction.

If the majority of scientists studying global warming are right, and we do nothing about reducing pollution, the world is screwed with no time left to address the possibly catastrophic consequenses. If your paid industry hack is right, and the world gets serious about reducing pollution, the worst that can happen is, we may come up with solutions sooner than we need them for our own survival.

Considering the consequenses of being wrong either way, acting to reduce global warming, now would be the more CONSERVATIVE course of action.

Ahem, in psychology that's called "group think" and is very dangerous to the validity of studies.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
'True believers' of manmade GW would make an all out push for nuclear. Until then, it's all just Chicken Little rhetoric with no purpose except to instill fear.

To instill fear for what purpose.

I'm a big supporter of nuclear. And fewer SUVs.

I don't know...you tell me.

You're the one who thinks it's some sort of terrorism.

I would say you're putting the cart before the horse, and that the correct implementation is climate change ---> study ---> action, while you seem to think that the desire for action is driving the whole process?

Or perhaps it's the desire for research funding?

I'm quite unclear, perhaps because I don't have my tinfoil hat on.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I started a new thread with this because I think the points raised in it are significant enough to warrant that. And unlike my ?Coldest Easter in years thread? this one is based on a strong scientific foundation.
In short this article shows that much of the Global Warming hysteria is misplaced or based on incomplete scientific evidence.

A few points he raises:

2. There was a warming trend between 1050 and 1300.

No one can explain why it happened.

But we know for sure it wasn?t caused by automobiles and green house gasses.

Never heard of Volcanos such as Pompeii or Krakatoa???

Pompeii

Try doing at least a little research yourself before such spewage.

You're hot air is worse than the volcanos of the past.

I'm sure someone has pointed this out already... but your "research" is a joke.

Pompei happened 1000 years before the Midieval Warming Period started.
Krakatoa happened 300 years after (at the tail end of the little ice age).

Neither of those events discredit the article in any way. Neither of those events could have been the cause (especailly since one happeded after the MWP happened).

But it is a positive sign that you are at least open to the possibility that GW can be caused by natural factors. Baby steps...

In their mad rush to defend their "side" on the issue, everyone seems to be missing the point of the article. That being:

1. The Earth's climate fluctuates - the stability we've experienced in recent centuries is the exception, not the rule.
2. Rising oceans are not new. Oceans have been rising at consistant rates for thousands of years. Despite this simple fact, it is often cited as a recent phenomenon (along with other potential "disasters") and used as a scare tactic.
3. Long term climate predictions are shaky at best and sometimes rely on data manipulation to justify the results.

And this gets to another point that I make over and over... Anyone who presents contrarion opinions, evidence or (in this case) logic in reference to GW is immediately shouted down as if one had walked into a baptist church on sunday with evidence that Jesus never existed.

It takes about the same amount of faith to believe either story...

Does this mean we shouldn't be looking at alternatives to fossil fuels? Of course not. Wind, solar, nuclear... all should be aggresively pursued. Here on Maui, where we already get 9% of our electricity from wind, we're going to double the size of our wind farm. When the upgrade is completed we should be able to generate 20% of our electricity from wind. And that figure doesn't include all the electricity powered by solar. Right now our power plant is converting over to bio-deisel. This is all good.

IMC said it perfectly yesterday. It really is too bad that the issue has become so politicized. Instead of arguing over who funds who, we could be looking at and evaluating the science of the issue... something that we tend to lose our critical eye on when the conversation starts.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
'True believers' of manmade GW would make an all out push for nuclear. Until then, it's all just Chicken Little rhetoric with no purpose except to instill fear.

Good point.

NOT

Look at all the NUCLEAR WASTE >> and how irresponsible our Govt is.. so .. uh..