Since calling global warming "the greatest scam in history," the founder of The Weather Channel John Coleman has been an outspoken advocate for climate realism.
This weekend, Coleman posted at his KUSI-San Diego blog an "Open Letter to Environmentalists" challenging them to campaign for "environmental goals on the basis of their own merit" while urging alarmists to "[l]et go of the global warming frenzy before it leaves [them] discredited and embarrassed."
Although readers are strongly encouraged to review the entire piece, here are some of the highlights:
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
- You have vigorously embraced the Global Warming predictions of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and are using the warning of uncontrollable warming and a resulting environmental calamity to campaign for elimination of fossil fuels. Your environmentally conscious friends in politics and in the media have united with you to create a barrage of news reports, documentaries, TV feature reports, movies, books, concerts and protest events to build support for your goals. The war against fossil fuels has become a massive scare campaign that is giving children nightmares
- The science behind your global warming scare is bad and no anthropogenic global warming is happening. Dissenting scientists have now produced convincing evidence that the cornerstone of your scientific argument, increased atmospheric carbon dioxide forcing a rapid, irreversible rise in temperature, is invalid. All of the various "signs of global warming" you have so widely publicized have been proven wrong. They are normal variations in climate that result mostly from the cycles of the Sun. As the Sun cycle has changed in the last three or four years, they have reversed themselves.
- Campaign for your environmental goals on the basis of their own merit. Let go of the global warming frenzy before it leaves you discredited and embarrassed. Stop screaming, "The sky is falling." It is not.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
The virus is spreading
May 4, 2008 - 11:49 ET by ThisnThatI caught a few moments of the History channel last night -- something about Mt. Baker. I turned it off when the main character, hiking Mt. Baker, made the comment that "The glaciers are receeding 6 ft per year, due to man-made global warming". No proof, mind you -- so you have to wonder why they say these things? Perhaps to drive their viewers away? Lower their ratings? It's working.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
I think the best example
May 4, 2008 - 11:57 ET by NewsbusterbrownI think the best example from the History Channel was their excellent program on the "Little Ice Age." It was going along smoothly until the end when they had to bring up "man-made global warming," countering the entire episode's view on fluctuating temperature change throughout the centuries.
“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
Nat Geo
May 4, 2008 - 18:53 ET by ahusserNat Geo had a very good documentary (up until the narrator interjected a statement about AGW) it was called "solar force" and was on "Naked Science". All the scientists interviewed were discussing solar variations as the main reason for climate change. None were promoting or even mentioning AGW. Near the end of the show the narrator, of course, interjected AGW as a proven given that is also a reason for climate change. They had to put the agenda/propaganda in because the scientists didn't I guess.
I've seen a few of these as
May 4, 2008 - 21:51 ET by RESTLESS 1I've seen a few of these as well. They are usually great shows with lots of info., for about 55 minutes, then the anouncer goes on the AGW tear. It's kind of like researching climate change. You sometimes come across a great article or experiment that challenges the manmade global warming concept, but the scientists seem to feel obligated to mention man and CO2 as if they are afraid of being admitted to an insane asylum. Frustrating, to say the least.
When glaciers receede
May 4, 2008 - 15:19 ET by 10ksnookerWhen glaciers recede, they are just going back to pick up more rocks.
Paid Off
May 4, 2008 - 11:56 ET by JoelCTNoel, it is obvious that Big Oil has gotten to him and paid him off. How in the world could a highly-trained-and-educated meteorologist possibly know more than the Nobel-Prize-winning politician AlGore when it comes to weather patterns?
Get real.
For what its worth I live
May 4, 2008 - 12:11 ET by Defector01For what its worth
I live here in San Diego and have been watching him for years, he's incredibly intelligent and very well respected in the community here for his work and intellect.
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it - Voltaire
defector
May 4, 2008 - 13:01 ET by botgi love your tag LMAO
another San Diegan? welcome
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
when i was growing up he
May 5, 2008 - 18:14 ET by red_dragon311when i was growing up he was the main weatherman on NBC channel 5
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-Thomas Jefferson
Freedom of press at KUSI
May 4, 2008 - 12:08 ET by nkviking75There's nothing I can add to what Coleman has said. Props to KUSI, which allows him to say it without so much as a disclaimer.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Re the solar cycle/solar
May 4, 2008 - 12:11 ET by SMGalbraithRe the solar cycle/solar activity.
I've read response after response by the AGW advocates who claim that this affect has been included or studied in their analysis and that the effects are minimal.
Who to believe?
Let's see...
May 4, 2008 - 12:58 ET by GlobalWarmingInsanityThe sun is 11,000 degrees and 100 times larger than the earth. But there's no chance that it could really have much impact on our temperature. It's gotta be your SUV. I have a consenus with myself. So the debate is over.
GlobalWarmingInsanity.com
Good science
May 4, 2008 - 15:22 ET by 10ksnookerGood science always tests the boundary conditions. Turn the sun off and predict the Earth's temperature. Turn the sun way up and predict the Earth's temperature. Who says the sun's output will always stay where it is.
Who Says....
May 4, 2008 - 22:02 ET by geoff.galeMost astronomers would tell you that like most of the billions of stars they've observed, our sun is a variable star and that the likelihood of solar output staying the same over long periods of time is small.
They would tell you about five sunspot minima during the past two millenia alone; the Oort (1010-1050), the Wolf (1280-1340), the Spoerer (1420-1570), the Maunder (1645-1715), and the Dalton (1740-1820). They would also tell you of the Medieval Maxima.
They would also tell you that the Maunder minimum coincided with the cold period referred to as the "Little Ice Age", and further that the Medieval Maximum (1100-1250) coincided with the warm period referred to as the "Medieval Warm Period".
As you say good science tests, retests and provides repeatable results based on provable data.
Algore is not science.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
- Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)
www.conservativeboot...
sunspots
May 5, 2008 - 16:18 ET by ender3rdIf the sunspot activity shows direct results, then that can help identify their impact. If they cannot explain glacial periods, then we must assume we are still in a warming since the last ice age.
If we look at the science of contrails and the post 9-11 observations for the 3 days all planes were grounded, then it is clear that aerosoles deflect incoming radiation, mirroring heat back to space. It wouldn't matter the source of the aerosol, just their continued work in a glacially warming environment will help cool the earth down.
Smoke and mirrors
Grasping at straws.
May 4, 2008 - 13:07 ET by jpm100I've already seen El Nino/La Nina blamed for the recent temperature trend changing.
The most creative one is Global Dimming, where a Secondary Man-made Disaster is blamed for AGW not following the predicted models. The claim is Man-made global cooling is offsetting Man-made global warming.
Shark attacks!!!!
May 4, 2008 - 13:19 ET by doug1950Just read on Drudge that GW is now responsible for the upswing in shark attacks. Im not quite sure if it is the GW that is causing physilogical changes in the sharks or if the sharks are just pissed and want to pay back humans for causing GW so they are going around biting every target of opportunity. Inquiring minds really want to know.
Doug
May 4, 2008 - 13:22 ET by BlondeThe sharks are merely angry over shark fin soup. Well, that and indiscriminate long-lining.
Plus, the surfers are very juicy, indeed.
It has nothing to do with AGW. Most sharks are warm water creatures, they LIKE it.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
He's just like Gore...only credible
May 4, 2008 - 13:23 ET by PewahJoel...thanks for keeping John Coleman in the forefront. I love when this guy talks because he debunks the climate nazis with real science. He is the antithesis of Gore...especially the parts where he knows what he's talking about and uses scientific facts. Speaking of Gore, my 15 year-old daughter was forced to watch his movie recently in a science class "as a reward" for their good behavior. She's savvy enough to understand propaganda because we've helped her to understand it, but the damage that Gore is doing to the beliefs that a lot of kids (and adults) have about global warming is going to linger on for generations.
Here is the story from
May 4, 2008 - 13:28 ET by contraryHere is the story from Yahoo providing "definitive" evidence global warming because of humans has caused the Artic sea ice to disappear.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080502/ap_on_sc/on_thin_ice
I don't know about everyone else, but I'm convinced. James Overland and Jennifer Francis simply wouldn't come to erroneous conclusions, and let an agenda influence the results, would they?
Another fabulous job of reporting the facts of the global warming debate by the AP!
"Republicans always get a huge pass on the racist issue. Huck is just another example. Provided they don't start up with the N word, they seem able to pander directly to the racist vote."
-- Chuck Davis, intellectual heavyweight, bigot
Too Cool!
May 4, 2008 - 13:50 ET by CobraMan"On the other hand, Overland explained, the ozone hole in the Antarctic
masked conditions there, keeping temperatures low in most of the
continent other than the peninsula reaching toward South America."
HaHaHaHaHa! That's got to be the LAMEST explanation I've ever heard! Doesn't this "scientist" know how high up in the atmosphere the ozone layer is? And doesn't he know that NASA's own satellite data shows a general cooling of the upper atmosphere over the last 10 years or so? Also, doesn't he know that ozone only absorbs ultraviolet light and that infrared light passes readily through it? Ozone has absolutely NO effect on atmospheric temperatures as it is not a "greenhouse" gas by anyone's definition and any heat in the upper atmosphere would pass right out into space through the ozone layer! And they call themselves scientists!
Not to mention there never
May 4, 2008 - 15:55 ET by ckc1227Not to mention there never was an ozone hole to begin with.
They finally admit the truth
May 5, 2008 - 08:04 ET by kenro85Notice the quote towards the bottom?
"The tea leaves point to a minimal amount of sea ice next September,
that would be the same as we had last summer, 40 percent loss compared
to 20 years ago," he said. Overland added that the winter freeze got a
late start last fall.
So there you have it. Tea leaves cause global warming.
Forced out of The Weather Channel after his 1st year?!?
May 4, 2008 - 14:09 ET by SyriusNoel,
You're making it seem like he's still involved with TWC and has some kind of authority. He's been a weather forecaster (think Steve Doocey on FoxNews) since being forced out of TWC in 1984. 1984, as in 24 years ago. Why do I hear, "I'm ready for my close-up." from this washed up has-been?
So, it's okay to burn as much fossil fuels as we can? No effect whatsoever on the atmosphere? Climate change is a natural event and we should be able to do whatever we like? Allrighty then, It's Party Time in the back of the SUV!
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Syrius
May 4, 2008 - 14:16 ET by Noel SheppardSyrius,
You're making it seem like he's still involved with TWC and has some kind of authority.
No. I said he was the founder, and he was. Care to refute that?
As for his authority, he is, INDEED, a meteorologist, which gives him far greater authority than a former vice president with absolutely no training in this area. Yet, to dolts on the left, Gore's somehow credible.
As such, after you refute Coleman's founding of TWC, could you explain why his opinion on this matter is less credible than Gore's?
I'm breathless with antici........pation. ns
Thank you
May 4, 2008 - 14:21 ET by BlondeDr. Frankenfurter!
:D
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
B
May 4, 2008 - 14:25 ET by Noel SheppardB,
Well, he looked at my comment at 14:18 ET. Let's see if he responds. :-) ns
Blonde...go away...
May 4, 2008 - 14:38 ET by SyriusB,
This is a discussion not an attack. Noel, will ask for your assistance if he needs it. Stop being such a troll!
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Syrius...go away...
May 4, 2008 - 14:41 ET by botgS,
This is an open forum not a phone call
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
Syrius...Bugger Off
May 4, 2008 - 14:45 ET by BlondeMy reply to Noel was an old (and inside) joke.
You are totally pathetic with that one, fella. Sheesh, get a grip, will you?
I can think of a thousand insults, but you are, syriusly, not worth my time.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
The Liberal Debate Trick
May 4, 2008 - 22:18 ET by geoff.galeAs an observation, I wonder why it is that supporters of the AGW myth invariably fall back upon ad hominem attacks rather than to engage in reasoned debate.
Syrius, you said this was a discussion, and yet you called John Coleman a "washed up has been"; inferred through exaggeration that Noel was supporting unlimited use of fossil fuels in spite of his not mentioning it at all; and you called Blonde a troll for voicing an opinion.
That doesn't amount to discussion in most circles - it's a string of ad hominem attacks on people with whom you disagree. You've cited nothing to support your position other than your obviously low opinion of people who don't subscribe to AGW.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
- Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)
www.conservativeboot...
Dolts?!? Just the other day...
May 4, 2008 - 14:35 ET by SyriusNoel,
...you were discussing how to be more civil in a discussion by not lowering yourself to name calling as found on other sites such as Kos.
Through scholarship, the education of someone does not stop once someone leaves a university. History has shown scientific discoveries being made by people outside of their fields of study. (A humorous book by Bill Bryson is a good read.). I know it's difficult to swallow that a man, a former VP, a democrat & a liberal, like Al Gore would have the capacity to explore & study Climate Change and formulate a teaching experience based upon on the knowledge he has studied over the past decade. The problem for you lies in the fact that climate change is real and we have added to its increase. What would you propose if given the microphone on how we deal with the science and the huge amount of data showing we have some part in the overall change in the atmosphere?
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Syrius
May 4, 2008 - 14:47 ET by Noel SheppardSyrius,
I'm sorry: did you refute my claim that Coleman was the founder of TWC, and back up your assertion that my post was misleading concerning this? Please advise.
As for climate change being real, you're 100 percent right. Climate changes all the time, has since the Big Bang, does on every planet, but has yet to be in any way proven that man is the cause.
That said, please explain why someone like Gore, who has no formal training in the area of meteorology or climatology, is more credible than someone that has been a meteorologist since 1953? ns
"...is more credible..."
May 5, 2008 - 03:23 ET by Giles WinterbourneOne difference is that John Coleman is writing opinion and not citing any resources - arguing from authority without establishing credentials or expertise in the field of climate science. His 'global warming is a scam' letter (.doc at Icecap) cites no research nor provides any proof for any of his contentions. Al Gore used and cited established scientific research. .
Gore's movie was an exageration piece
May 5, 2008 - 07:00 ET by Full MonteGore's flick may have been backed up by sources but those sources were used in a misleading way (and many of which have since been disproven). For example, when he lines up the graph showing the relationship between increases in temperature and increases in CO2 he implies that increases in CO2 always equate to increases in temperature. However, if we take a closer look, the opposite is true - increases in temperature are followed by increases in CO2. Gore has admitted to exagerations in the film and justified them by basically saying the ends justify the means. To me, he just admitted that he lied and any credibility he might have previously had (which wasn't much) just went out the window.
Teachers' discussion guide:
May 5, 2008 - 20:28 ET by Giles WinterbourneTeachers' discussion guide: "Teaching staff will be aware that a
minority of scientists disagree with the central thesis that climate
change over the past half-century is mainly attributable to man-made
greenhouse gases. However, the High Court has made clear the law DOES
NOT REQUIRE TEACHING STAFF TO ADOPT A POSITION OF NEUTRALITY BETWEEN
VIEWS WHICH ACCORD WITH THE GREAT MAJORITY OF SCIENTIFIC OPINION AND
THOSE WHICH DO NOT." (teachernet)
"Children's Minister Kevin Brennan had earlier said: "It is important
to be clear that the central arguments put forward in An Inconvenient
Truth, that climate change is mainly caused by man-made emissions of
greenhouse gases and will have serious adverse consequences, are
SUPPORTED BY THE VAST WEIGHT OF SCIENTIFIC OPINION.
"NOTHING IN THE JUDGE'S COMMENTS TODAY DETRACT FROM THAT." " --- (bbc)
Also, the Court ruling states "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate"
Al Gore's Movie was Scientific Propaganda
May 7, 2008 - 00:01 ET by PopularTechAl Gore used Science Fiction not Science:
Debunked By Peer Review:
An Inconvenient Truth : a focus on its portrayal of the hydrologic cycle (David R. Legates, GeoJournal, Volume 70, Number 1, September 2007)
An Inconvenient Truth : blurring the lines between science and science fiction (Roy W. Spencer, GeoJournal, Volume 70, Number 1, September 2007)
Errors:
Al Gore's climate change film 'is propaganda' (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
UK Court finds 9 Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth (The New Party, UK)
- Al Gore's Convenient Untruths (FOXNews)
- Al Gore's 'nine Inconvenient Untruths' (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
- Al Gore told there are nine inconvenient truths in his film (The Times, UK)
- An Inconvenient Lie (WorldNetDaily)
- Gore caught lying (WorldNetDaily)
- Gore’s Nine Lies (FrontPage Magazine)
- Judge attacks nine errors in Al Gore's 'alarmist' climate change film (Daily Mail, UK)
- Judge says Al Gore film has serious scientific inaccuracies (The Earth Times)
Schools must warn of Gore climate film bias (Daily Mail, UK)
- British Schools Ordered to Offer 'Balance' When Showing Al Gore's Global Warming Film (FOXNews)
- So how did An Inconvenient Truth become required classroom viewing? (National Post, Canada)
35 Inconvenient Truths (Science & Public Policy Institute)
25 Inconvenient Truths for Al Gore (The National Review Online)
20 More inaccuracies (PDF) (UKPRwire)
16 Errors in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth (Science & Public Policy Institute)
8 Questions for Al Gore (Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology)
6 Inconvenient Truths Indeed (Robert C. Balling, Ph.D. Geography)
75 Falsehoods in Gore's An Inconvenient Truth (Book) (Wm. Robert Johnston, B.A. Astronomy, M.S. Physics)
Proof: 'An Inconvenient Truth' is Science Fiction (Video) (1min)
20/20: Give Me a Break: Global Warming (Video) (8min)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Past decade?
May 4, 2008 - 15:13 ET by CobraMan"I know it's difficult to swallow that a man, a former VP, a democrat
& a liberal, like Al Gore would have the capacity to explore &
study Climate Change and formulate a teaching experience based upon on
the knowledge he has studied over the past decade."
Past decade? Where have you been? Gore's been pushing “dire earth” scenarios since at least the 80's to the best of my recollection. This "Global Warming" scare is just more of the same. I would like to know just what information that Al has studied (other than politics, his chosen profession) which conveys to him the title of “expert,” the fact that he lives in a global climate? Or the fact that several "experts" tell him that the climate is changing due to our existence on this planet?
Like Al, I too have been "studying" global climate change sine I was born. Unlike Al, I don’t think we really have much of an effect on global, or even local, climate. My 47 years of experience of living in a global climate, both here and in Europe, tells me that no matter what we do, no matter how hard we try, we can't control Mother Nature. It’s Mother Nature that controls us and any belief otherwise is just plain foolish, if not dangerous. You see, I remember the history of Mankind’s past attempts to control nature and each and every one of those attempts has failed, usually with disastrous consequences.
So, let me ask you, based on your own life experiences and your knowledge of our history, what makes you believe that this time will be any different? Is there any evidence, any evidence at all, that we really CAN do something to stop the climate from changing? Or is it better to just accept the things we can not change and allow ourselves to adapt to a dynamic world in which nothing is static, especially the climate?
Sy, It's real, like perpetual motion, anti gravity, explain this
May 4, 2008 - 15:21 ET by upcountrywaterDissenting scientists have now produced convincing evidence that the
cornerstone of your scientific argument, increased atmospheric carbon
dioxide forcing a rapid, irreversible rise in temperature, is invalid.
I hear the neo-sciencetists talk about the CATALYTIC EFFECT of carbon on the biosphere... SHOW ME how this cascade effect utlizing run-away (whatevers) deliver us to "the day after tomorrow"?
The POPE says, GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
IranianUranium<sleep>New/Infrastructure/repair?/ROFLMAO
It could happen
May 4, 2008 - 22:19 ET by pbthinkerSyrius said: "I know it's difficult to swallow that a man, a former VP, a democrat & a liberal, like Al Gore would have the capacity to explore & study Climate Change and formulate a teaching experience based upon on the knowledge he has studied over the past decade."
Anything's possible, even with Gore. However, if he'd really done his homework, he would have known the professor he had in college had changed his mind on CO2. If he had done some serious research, he would have found those that disagreed with him and put all of this in perspective. My guess is that Mr. Gore did no research. He formulated an opinion, figured out how to make some money off it. Got some scientists that agreed with him, faked out some Hollywood liberals and got them to put his slide show together, and the rest is history. There's a lot of money floating around out there and it's all dependent on man being responsible for Global Warming since, if someone proves we're not, the money dries up.
Democrats: Stuck on Stupid since 2000.
"You're making it seem like
May 4, 2008 - 16:12 ET by ckc1227"You're making it seem like he's still involved with TWC and has some
kind of authority. He's been a weather forecaster (think Steve Doocey
on FoxNews) since being forced out of TWC in 1984."
Interesting. So, following you logic, since 2 is a number, and 7 is a number, 2 = 7?
My point? SteveDoocy isn't a meteorologist(B.A. in Journalism), he simply reads the weather, and quite poorly at that. To equate the two is laughable(and quite sad, actually, but explains why you buy into the man-made global warming scam). I guess you believe the janitors at MIT and the professors at MIT are intellectual equals too, simply because of their association with the same institution.
Doocy
May 4, 2008 - 16:30 ET by candanceSyrius knows that and purposely thought of the weakest weather announcer he could. He could have compared him to Janice Dean, Jim Cantori, or even Al Roker, but he choose Doocy specifically to make the comparison to someone who is not a meteorologist.
Thus his strategy is to say, "if Steve Doocy counts as a weatherman, there's nothing special about being a weatherman." Then he's hoping we won't know about the degree in meteorology.
These spin points are perfected on HuffPo before Syrius decides to bring them to us.
Logic dictates...
May 6, 2008 - 19:05 ET by Syriusckc1227,
Interesting. So, following you logic, since 2 is a number, and 7 is a number, 2 = 7?
The answer is correct according to your question. Following logic and not mathematics why is this so...?
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Planet earth is always in flux
May 4, 2008 - 15:21 ET by HumblepieI just passed gas so I just added to our climate change. A tree is decaying in the forest and is now adding to our climate change, should we cut down all the forest? We are not saying man does not add to the climate, but, Goracle is using partial facts and distorting them to add to an over-hyped sensation. The earth, at least as I was taught in high school and college, is an ever changing living organism. It constantly goes through cycles, you know ice-ages, time of drought, even a little heat wave. What Mr. Gore and his yokes are doing is try to convince the masses that we are the sole cause and we're totally destroying the world. That is just pure BS. There is never any real discussion as to the validity of GW as anybody with dissenting views are treated as lepers. Can we do things to improve this world, yes. Let see, stop littering, use biodegradable/recyclable products, the list goes on. But, from what I can see is he's just making a profit from this crap. Gee, lets all switch to the new iridescent light bulbs, you know, the ones with mercury in it. Talk about double standards. The sun has more effect on earth than man. Look at sunspots and it's effect on heat. What should we do, ban the sun until it quits forming sunspots?
His movie is not realistic, to say the least, and he continues to hype the notion that man is the sole guilty party. Everyone knows we must conserve and help protect the environment, but to suggest a total radical change without supporting data is beyond belief. Seems like twenty years ago, scientist were telling us about the upcoming new ice-age. For the great Goracle, it's time to put up or shut up, start the debate and let everyone be heard. Use the facts, all the facts, so help us God.
During this time with political correctness at its zenith, I reserve the right to let you know you're an idiot.
Science evolves too, just like the earth
May 4, 2008 - 15:49 ET by CobraMan"Seems like twenty years ago, scientist were telling us about the upcoming new ice-age."
You make a good point, which is that science evolves just like everything else in the universe. I remember when, as a child in to 60's, I was taught that ALL life on earth was dependent upon the Sun as an energy source, ether directly through photosynthesis or indirectly though the metabolization of plant matter. This was know as the Solar-Centric theory of biology. It was a widely accepted theory. The scientific community had reached a consensus. The science was settled, and the debate was over. Sound familiar?
Suddenly, in the mid 70’s, new life forms were discovered in the deep ocean trenches that WERE NOT dependent upon the Sun as an energy source but were, instead, dependent upon the energy supplied by the earth. In a flash, the Solar-Centric theory was proven wrong with a simple picture. Since that day, science has been forced to re-evaluate that basic assumption of Solar-Centric life. Every year since then, more and more life forms are discovered that did not rely upon the Sun as an energy source. The entire science of biology had to evolved in order for new theories to include those new forms of life.
Just as with biology, I believe that the new science of climatology is rather stuck on certain theories and models which doesn't really reflect the natural world and that this science needs to evolve. Who knows what new discoveries will be made in the next few years that will cause a complete re-evaluation of climate theory, just like what happened in biology? One this is for sure, nothing the climatologists have predicted in the last 40 years has come true, even to just a small degree of accuracy.
(on edit: That's climatologists and not criminologists)
RE: on edit:
May 4, 2008 - 16:15 ET by scamorama(That's climatologists and not criminologists)
Considering Al Gore, you may have been right the first time...
Could someone tell me what
May 4, 2008 - 16:27 ET by Ryan Mc.Could someone tell me what the weather will be next week? Is it going to rain? What will the temperature be?
I rest my case...
Per an article at Foxnews.com, in the scitech section..
May 4, 2008 - 16:40 ET by JoggerNotA story called "the cost of green" (or something) claimed that driving a herts rental car 70 miles, creates 300 pounds of co2. I cant get my mind around this.
If you put a Ford Escort inside an airtight container, put that container upon a scale, and ran the motor to equal the 70 miles, the container would weigh 300 lbs more?
Prove it!
It's a chemical reaction,
May 4, 2008 - 17:27 ET by ThisnThatIt's a chemical reaction, converting (via heat) molecules of one type into another. Another way to think about it is to take a box of cake mix, add other ingredients (eggs, milk, water), stir and bake. You end up with the same weight -- but now have a cake. As in the car, you're converting the gasoline and air into CO2. After 70 miles, your gas tank weighs less -- but the converted air now contains all that CO2.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
TnT
May 4, 2008 - 18:05 ET by botg300 pounds from 20 pounds of gas???
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
Well, I seem to get that
May 4, 2008 - 18:19 ET by mandrakeWell, I seem to get that much gas from a small can of chili...go figure!
The exact CO2 calculations
May 4, 2008 - 20:03 ET by ThisnThatI didn't do the original calculations; don't know the original source; didn't try to defend the actual numbers in my previous post. Just responded to the general principle.
However, since you asked -- it's not just the gas. It's the Oxygen, too. One part Carbon (from the gas); two parts Oxygen. And Oxygen is the heavier element in this (Carbon has an atomic weight ot 12; Oxygen 16). When gasoline burns, the carbon and hydrogen separate. The hydrogen combines with oxygen to form water (H2O), and carbon combines with oxygen to form carbon dioxide (CO2). The truth is, one gallon of gas actually produces 20 pounds of CO2. Gas is 87% carbon; 13% hydrogen, so the weight of Carbon in a 6.3lb gallon of gasoline is 5.5 pounds (6.3 x .87). So 1 gallon of gasoline actually produces 20 pounds of CO2.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
TnT
May 4, 2008 - 20:07 ET by botgdon't you mean 1 gallon ≈ 20 pounds(#) of CO2?
1 # = .87# C + 2.32# O = 3.19# CO2 at 100% efficiency
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
Yes, typo - so I updated
May 4, 2008 - 20:14 ET by ThisnThatYes, typo - so I updated it. Thanks.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
thanks TnT
May 4, 2008 - 20:24 ET by botgso it's closer to 55 pounds for 70 miles (assume 25 mph)
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
25
May 4, 2008 - 20:32 ET by ThisnThat25 mpG.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Gee
May 5, 2008 - 21:33 ET by botgG thanks
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
300 Pounds?
May 4, 2008 - 19:55 ET by scamoramaThat number seemed high to me, so I ran some rough numbers.
Assuming a 2-liter engine (120 cubic inch) and 2000 rpm for 1 hour, I get about 2,080 cubic feet of air moving through the engine. Air weighs about .807 pounds/cubic foot, and 21% of that is oxygen, which means about 300 pounds of oxygen.
At 100% efficiency, 20 pounds of fuel and the available oxygen gives 320 pounds. No gas engine is anywhere near 100% efficiency, and that assumes that only CO2 comes out the tailpipe.
300 pounds of CO2 seems like nonsense, but my figures could be way off.
20 pounds of gasoline will
May 4, 2008 - 20:04 ET by ThisnThat20 pounds of gasoline will yield 63 pounds of CO2 -- see my previous post above. 16 gallons of gas will produce 320 pounds of CO2.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Assuming
May 4, 2008 - 20:07 ET by scamorama20 pounds of gasoline has about 17 pounds of carbon in it.
You're assuming 100% efficiency if you think that translates into 20 pounds of CO2.
Show me a gas engine with anywhere near that efficiency.
Yeah, the calculations
May 4, 2008 - 20:17 ET by ThisnThatYeah, the calculations aren't considering what actually happens in a car engine. They are showing the potential of a gallon of gasoline, without considering the effects of evaporation, humidity, air pressure, and inefficiency in the combustion process. Just trying to answer the original question.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Don't forget the Catlitic Converters
May 5, 2008 - 00:22 ET by CobraManDon't forget the catalytic converters, which converts some of the poisonous emissions (cabon/sulfer compounds, etc.) into water vapor and CO2. I'm not sure how much that adds to the equation, but I'm sure it's not inconsequential. Then there's the CO2 which already exists in the combustion air, that adds to the total CO2 emissions as well.
They seem to have forgotten about Hydrogen
May 5, 2008 - 01:47 ET by CobraManThe people who produced that figure have seemed to forgotten about hydrogen , alone with the rest of the components that are contained in modern gasoline. Gasoline is a hydrocarbon, part hydrogen and part carbon, with hundreds of other substances mixed in either purposely or by natural processes. Not all of the carbon bonds with oxygen to produce CO2 when gasoline undergoes combustion, some of that carbon bonds with the other substances present in the gasoline mixture, and some even bonds only to itself and produces pure carbon molecules. Then there’s the hydrogen that is providing the energy released during combustion. That hydrogen bonds with oxygen and creates water vapor. All of these other reactions will reduce the amount of possible CO2 that can be generated during combustion.
It looks to me that is 300 pound figure is pure fantasy and is not indicative of how much CO2 any given amount gasoline can produce no matter how efficient it’s combustion may be. The calculations completely ignore the fact that only a certain percentage of carbon will bond with oxygen to produce CO2. I'm not sure what that percentage is, but I would bet that's it's far less that 60 percent.
Might want to ask Fox
May 5, 2008 - 02:58 ET by Giles Winterbourne"...a gallon of gasoline,
which weighs about 6.3 pounds, could produce 20 pounds of
carbon dioxide (CO2) when burned." ( fueleconomy.gov )
"...When
combusted, each gallon of gas creates about 25.3 ...
pounds—of carbon dioxide...." ( Greenguide )
" ..Motor Gasoline 19.564 per gallon.." ( eia.doe.gov )
Our Sun vs Earth
May 4, 2008 - 17:52 ET by david999Basic facts about the Sun
100x wider and 1,000,000 x more volume
http://www.hao.ucar....
The sun's power is minor compared to a Ford Escalade.....
Scientist are still
May 4, 2008 - 18:56 ET by HumblepieScientist are still investigation the effects of the sun on the earth.
"Without the Sun, life on Earth would not exist. Our planet would
be a frozen dark ball, drifting dead in space.
We need the Sun for light, heat and energy. With the
Sun, plants can grow, and animals can eat.
The Sun's output changes over time. These changes affect not only
our daily lives and climate, but also
our communications, such as by satellites.
The more we know about the Sun, the better we can deal with these changes.
In the past, we know the Sun was a little different than it is now, and
at those times the Earth experienced ice ages. During the most
recent ice age, almost all of Canada and the Northern US was covered
in a huge sheet of ice about a mile thick! (That's about 1.6 km.)
Even recently (the late 1600s)
Europe and North America were a bit cooler than they are
now, experiencing a little ice age, and changes in
the Sun were most likely responsible."
http://www.hao.ucar.edu/Public/education/basic.html
During this time with political correctness at its zenith, I reserve the right to let you know you're an idiot.
Isn't the Escalade made by
May 5, 2008 - 12:28 ET by Tim the EnchanterIsn't the Escalade made by Cadillac? Point understood in spite of this, BTW.
Say Mr. Coleman
May 4, 2008 - 21:06 ET by pbthinkerSay, Mr. Coleman, there's no money in that! How do you expect us to get research money if we no longer agree with the folks handing out the money? Hey, it's nothing personal, but there's no money for us to disprove anthropogenic global warming, it's only there to prove it.
Democrats: Stuck on Stupid since 2000.
The next likely excuse from the climate crisis ninnies.
May 4, 2008 - 21:40 ET by Parker1227"Some time in the next few thousand years we'll be proven right. So no arguing allowed."
John Coleman for
May 4, 2008 - 22:05 ET by bigtimerJohn Coleman for Prez!
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
I care about the stories concerning trillions of pounds..
May 4, 2008 - 22:35 ET by JoggerNotof co2 that...we can not measure. Its GAS..
I will stick to my escort theory, How do you measure gas?
Billions and Trillions of tons, ? Heh!
Prove it!
J Not ;yea heres proof
May 5, 2008 - 00:59 ET by upcountrywatera picture is worth a thousand (tons/ second.. <cough, hack>) words
gaia that bit*h, as natural as a snake bite and organic too.
That vent is hosing our planet at 2 X mans rate.
stop it gaia, stop it now, Good thing she's out gassing out here in the middle of no where.
The POPE says, GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
IranianUranium<sleep>New/Infrastructure/repair?/ROFLMAO
Cubic foot
May 5, 2008 - 01:05 ET by CobraMan"How do you measure gas?"
We measure gas by volume and not by weight. CO2, in a gaseous form, is measured by the cubic foot. It still has mass, though. Not that it matters much.
The argument over how many "pounds" of CO2 we produce is just a red herring as CO2 gas (or any other gas) is not very efficient as an “greenhouse“ material since it is infrared light which is supposedly being trapped by the CO2 and converted into good, old-fashioned heat. CO2, as a gas, can only trap a small percentage of infrared light (most will pass right through) and convert it into heat, therefore its ability as a “greenhouse” material is very limited. Water vapor is a much better "greenhouse" substance as it actually reflects infrared heat, but no one is worried about how much water vapor we're dumping into the atmosphere.
Solid carbon is a great “greenhouse“ substance as it traps all of the infrared light and converts it into heat. Solid carbon, having high density, has good insulating properties as well so it tends to traps any converted heat within its structure.
Gaseous CO2, on the other hand, is not a good insulator as it is far less dense and convection currents in the gas rapidly transmits that heat upward into the higher altitudes. That convection mechanism quickly dissipates the heat away from the surface and into space. As that hot CO2 rises in the atmosphere, its density decreases, which lowers its temperature, and there is a corresponding decrease in CO2’s ability to trap heat. The less dense that gas becomes, the less insulating qualities it will provide and the less infrared energy it will convert into heat.
I never understood why people keep referring to the “greenhouse” effect and why they keep comparing what happen in a greenhouse with what is happening in the atmosphere. The two are not compatible.
In a greenhouse, air is normally trapped inside of a closed structure, that’s why the temperature increases. As the materials inside the greenhouse traps the sun’s infrared light and converts it into heat, that heat is transferred into the atmosphere inside the structure. Since the atmosphere inside of a greenhouse is trapped, any heat contained in that atmosphere is also trapped, as normal convection does not occur and that heat can not be lost due to atmospheric convection.
In the open air, though, there is no structure trappingin the air and interfering with convection. That air is free to circulate and convection currents will transfer heat from the lower altitudes up into the high altitudes and out into space.
How, then, can any gas like CO2 trap the heat and cause Global Warming? I don’t think it can in an open system. After all, there’s no barrier preventing convection from transporting that heat up and out of the atmosphere and into space. The Earth is not enclosed by a sphere of glass or other insulator. No enclosure, no greenhouse effect. Something else must be at work here, don’t you think?
C Man yes it's the sun, if this continues we will have early
May 5, 2008 - 01:13 ET by upcountrywaterfreezes this summer/fall.. Pray for spots, sorry there are none.
The POPE says, GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
IranianUranium<sleep>New/Infrastructure/repair?/ROFLMAO
John Coleman
May 4, 2008 - 22:19 ET by goldfakeLet me see 20 pounds of helium weighs, and a glass of ice will overflow when???
Nature shows and CO2 scare
May 4, 2008 - 23:00 ET by MaximusBraveheartYes they are messing up good shows when they go into their man-made C02 scare rants. The polar bear thing too. Can you pack in more one-sided presentation? It is falling over from the imbalance! Polar bear population UP 25% in the last decade: http://www.ncpa.org/... Needless to say the polar bear show did not discuss any of this info. That experts say they are lower weight in Canada due to overpopulation and the SAME food supply. Makes sense ehh? Cannot have that however! Another neat peice of info is that polar bear data shows the population increases as the temperature increases! Populations that had lower temps the population dropped. Makes sense ehh? These liars need to pull their heads out of their...
I believe this is the
May 4, 2008 - 23:02 ET by SvenI believe this is the gentleman that wants to take AlGore and his ilk to court...?
At any rate, I read a great article this morning by Deroy Murdock about this AGW BS.
Among other things, his article sites experts that fully agree based on SCIENTIFIC data and HARD FACTS that the planet has been cooling since 1998, and that ice sheets have been expanding ever southward.
Many of these experts also agree, that much of the earths cooling and heating is due to sun spot activity...imagine that, the sun beeing a main contributor to the earths heating...who'd a thunk it!!
It also mentions that water vapor, not CO2 as a possible contributing factor to temperature changes...at least in part.
Global Warming alarmists, you've jumped the shark...please just go away!
OK, if i had a hummer, I could not produce 300 lbs of
May 4, 2008 - 23:27 ET by JoggerNotBad carbon byproducts in a year of fully trying.
300 lbs.
Prove it!
What part if this article doesn't John McCain get?
May 5, 2008 - 05:28 ET by Britcom---
Communist vs. Statist '08
Q. Is Panamanian born John McCain a "Natural Born Citizen"
What part of U.S. Law don't you get?
May 5, 2008 - 06:17 ET by ThisnThatPerhaps you should study U.S. laws a bit more: "Persons born in the United States, and persons born on foreign soil to two U.S. parents, are born American citizens and are classified as citizens at birth under 8 USC 1401".
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
I was refering to the above article on Global Warming.
May 6, 2008 - 02:49 ET by BritcomThe below is a link to my forum topic. Which is automaticaly added to all of my posts. If you want to argue it go there.
(Note, you might want to read some of the legal and historical documents referred to in my forum topic before assuming that 8 USC 1401 applies to the Constitution's test for Presidential Qualification)
---
Communist vs. Statist '08
Q. Is Panamanian born John McCain a "Natural Born Citizen"
Eventual Blowback
May 5, 2008 - 11:54 ET by bgnadDo they not know that this is biggest example of science and
scientists (as perceived by the general population) sticking their collective
neck out on a prediction, in the history of the modern world?
In 20 years when they are proven so bloody wrong, what will
happen? By the time some scientist actually does come across a real problem
that can be addressed and that should be addressed, no one will take them
seriously.
I mean dang, at this rate scientist will become the semantic
equivalent of “snake oil salesman”.
Yeesh!