The L.A. Times published a story on Sunday that is supposed to be just another global warming scare piece, but even they couldn't lie through their teeth in every instance because, while the island of Kivalina, Alaska has been shrinking, even the Times admits its been doing so for well over 100 years. It's hard to pin that on "global warming" since few claim that the phenomenon has been going on that long. After all, globaloney scaremongers pin global warming on CFCs and rising CO2 levels none of which were started until after the turn of the century from 1800s to the 1900s. So, why blame global warming when normal erosion has been at work on the island for hundreds of years? Ah, because it makes a better story to fit your ideological position, that's why of course!
But, despite common sense, the Times waxes despondent over the loss of this rather stark and unattractive island and the dissension it is sowing amongst the 400 residents there. And in doing so they miss a larger and much more interesting story.
"As global warming erodes their world, the residents of Kivalina battle the elements -- and now one another."
Oh, how worrisome... or is that wearisome?
But, even as the Times tries their darndest to pin the shrinking island's fate on global warming, the Times can't ignore the real truth here.
"Kivalina is disappearing, the victim of a warming world and a steady natural erosion that probably began long before the Eskimos settled here 100 years ago. "
Wait a minute. The island has been shrinking for more than 100 years? So, um, how can it be all caused by global warming? Who claims that has been going on for over 100 years? After all, the globaloney crowd says it's man's fault with all of his industry, cars and decadent lifestyles, right? Well, there wasn't much of that a' goin' on in the 1890s and before!
In any case, the global warming aspect is obviously ginned up to sell the story. But there is a more interesting story here than the one that the Times wants to explore -- though they do hint at it -- and that is the story of human stupidity and greed. The Times starts this part of the story with as silly a line as they can desperately trying to keep the focus on globaloney instead of people's stupidity.
“The prospect of Kivalina's disappearance has set off its own storm, jarring a place that, like most of global warming's early victims, has long struggled on the fringes of the planet.”
"A jarring place... global warming's early victims" yada, yada, yada. Oh, brother! But, what is this "storm" of which they speak? Ah, now THERE is a story!
“Most of the 400 residents -- filled with dreams of a new village with running water, better homes and, perhaps, a chance at a job -- want to leave.
The big questions are: To where? And how?
Village leaders have squabbled for years with state and federal officials over relocating, which could cost as much as $250 million. No one has offered to pay.
Residents themselves are divided over where to go. Some want to move to higher ground. Others want to stay on the coast, even at the risk of seeing their new homes eventually disappear to erosion and rising seas.”
Why the Times didn't pursue this angle too doggedly is obvious because they wanted to make the nonsense of global warming their point, but this is far more interesting. Why haven't these foolish people just moved to higher ground? Why? Well, heck isn't that obvious? They want someone else to pay for it, that's why!
These people are ridiculously sitting about twiddling their thumbs as their below sea level spit of land washes out from under them because they are too cheap to up and move to safer, and longer lasting terrain themselves. Apparently they are waiting for the government to come up with the cash to move them instead of doing it themselves. Talk about a stupid move!
But, this story does tell us one more important thing about globaloney even if you do want to believe in it. It takes hundreds of years to affect anything. See, these people have had well over 100 years to move to a new home. They weren't one day sitting about enjoying life and the next 10 feet under water. In fact, they've wasted over $3 million and many years already trying to stay on a doomed strip of land. So, even if you want to believe in global warming, people have plenty of time to react to the so-called changes it might bring. Unfortunately for sensationalism, a "disaster" hundreds of years in the making just doesn't seem so darn urgent, does it?
And do you want more stupidity? Some even said they’d move to other property where global warming would still wash them out. How stupid it that? So, why the heck should tax dollars be spent on moving them, anyway? They are obviously bound and determined to be washed out wherever they intend to move to. I say let ‘em sink!
But, here is the thing, folks: If global warming is going to place your home under water someday over the next 10 or 15 years…
MOVE TO HIGHER GROUND!
And you'll have decades and decades to do it, too.
It doesn't seem like it takes too many brains to figure that out.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The end of the world
November 25, 2007 - 10:33 ET by iveseenitallThe end of the world is coming. Al's pals have already left for the mountains. Take off if your don't want to drown. There's also a wolf in town. Oh My God!
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Yep, funny isn't it ...
November 25, 2007 - 10:33 ET by 10ksnookerBeen going on since the end of the little ice age, water still rising, ice still melting. Since the last real ice age ended the sea level has risen about 400 feet, shhhh, don't tell anyone. HWere were the SUVS then?
You know what the real scientists call the recent last few inches --- margin of error. It's laughable the way the media pretends that everything in life begins when you are born.
Global Warming
November 25, 2007 - 11:06 ET by iveseenitallIt's ironic. The entire GW scare is based on ignorance. The ignorance and immaturity of the masses is what con artists always depend upon. I guess it is just the human condition.
NEVER,.NEVER trust a "liberal"
I keep seeing Professor Al
November 25, 2007 - 11:43 ET by Chris NormanI keep seeing Professor Al Gore in a straw boater, singing, "Well, you've got trouble my friends, that's trouble with a "T" and that rhymes with "G" and that stands for "Global Warming..."
The AGW scare grenade is
November 25, 2007 - 12:31 ET by Seabeach4348The AGW scare grenade is based on ignorance and fear.
The plan is to scare enough ignorant people into believing that they're gonna die, especially if you can dupe them further into thinking that it's their fault that this is occuring. Then make them feel guilty for their habits and actions which are devastating the planet!
Scare some not so ignorant people, and especially taint the minds of kids, and you've got a following.
Then phonies like Algore, IPCC, and the UN emerge with a plan (and we all know what that is) that will save us IF we do exactly what we're told and follow their instructions.
I think that some of us refer to the followers as "Kool-Aid drinkers".
the AGW scare is just like the terrorism by Islam hysteria
November 25, 2007 - 12:48 ET by professor truthboth topics are considered hysteria by their opponents. The AGW believers are generally the Islam is going to want to kill us deniers and vice versa. Both sides have "facts" to "prove" their position.
If you're a global warming denier but a terrorism hysteric, your logic is seriously flawed. All the uncertainties on both issues are used in the same logical ways.
There's a big hole in Manhattan
November 25, 2007 - 12:49 ET by dervishthat says you're full of s==t. What you got?
Please tell me you
November 25, 2007 - 13:14 ET by Gary P JacksonPlease tell me you mis-typed, and didn't mean to mention the Great Algore Swindle, and terrorism in the same breath!
There is absolutely NO proof that climate change is man made. In fact, there is plenty of history to suggest the climate has been changing since day one, long before man was even thought of, let alone SUVs and Gulfstreams! (two things Algore is very familiar with!)
On the other hand, besides that big hole in Manhatten, and the 3000 dead, any quick search will yield you all of the beheading videos you can stand. It's a fact these savages have bombed our assets around the world, killing hundreds of innocent people. It's also a fact that these savages stated goal is to kill everyone who is not Muslim.
Surely your BDS hasn't made you this silly, or has it?
Gary, you are completely wrong
November 25, 2007 - 13:22 ET by professor truthclimate models, ice core studies, carbon isotope studies, all verify manmade AGW. No one who calls themselves a scientists refutes the fact that the Earth is warming. No serious scientist refutes the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. a few serious scientists refute the warming as being attributed to humans, but overwhelming evidence says humans are the culprits. Past climate changes were not manmade, TODAY'S climate change is. In the past 5 years, what heinous acts of Islamic terror have been committed in thename of Islam here? How do you know it's not an already violent person ?
0.3%
November 25, 2007 - 14:00 ET by Free Stinker0.3%
"This generation is so damned spoiled and lazy, they wouldn't know a real threat to their freedom, until it interupted the power-source to their X-box, and killed a half a million people!" - George S. Patton (sort of)
Your feeble attenmpts at
November 25, 2007 - 14:21 ET by NL207Your feeble attempts at logic are as flawed as always. Isotopic studies verify human emitted contribution to the total atmospheric CO2 concentration, NOT man made climate change. These studies do not even support the claim that HALF of the CO2 in the atmosphere is human generated. It is actually less.
Cow farts are a greenhouse gas too, but it does follow from that statement of fact that climate is driven by bovine flatulence.
Time for some actual fact: I am going to speak in degrees K since most folks don't have a clue what watts per square meter means. The mean near surface temperature of the earth is about 288 K. Using ablack body radiator model, we can ascribe about 255 K of that to the direct influence of the sun. Of the remaining 33 K, 90-95% or about 31 K is due to the greenhouse effect of water vapor. The remaining 2 degrees is due to the combined effects of all other greenhouse gases, including CO2.
The sun is a first order term. Variations in the amount of solar energy reaching the Eart's surface are the primary driver of climate on this earth and will dominate all other causes combined.
Water vapor is the second order term. It will dominate all other terms except solar radiation.
CO2 is at most a third order term. The first order term is two orders of magnitude more important. The second order term is more than one order of magnitude more important.
==> Even if humans were 100% responsible for ALL atmospheric CO2, which humans are clearly not, it would be a drop in the bucket relative to the other known sources of warming.
AGW? Simply double talk intended to deceive the unaware.
NL207
November 25, 2007 - 19:03 ET by Mike From CanmoreYou are really going to put the PHYSICS instructor's brain in overheat with the 2nd and 3rd order talk. Nicely stated. In addition, Roger Pielke emperically measured a black body value of approx. 0.1 for the earth. The IPCC, if memory servces me correctly is using an average value of 0.5. CO2 effects just keep getting lower.
*There are 2 types of politicians. Those who know AGW is a scam and those who are stupid.
NL207
November 25, 2007 - 19:57 ET by Free StinkerNL207 - Here is a post of mine from the 23rd. No response from the professor:
"This generation is so damned spoiled and lazy, they wouldn't
know a real threat to their freedom, until it interupted the
power-source to their X-box, and killed a half a million people!" - George S. Patton (sort of)
Many serious scientists, in
November 25, 2007 - 14:30 ET by Gary P JacksonMany serious scientists, in fact some of THE most serious scientists have flat out called Algore and his snake oil Global Warming not only a fraud, but the greatest fraud ever. And Algore is laughing all of the way to the bank! His wealth has multiplied with all of his BS.
It is well doccumented that most of the temperature gathering stations in this country are seriously flawed, in either their placement, or their state of repair. You know that is the case worldwide as well.
Even the UN Scientist that shared the Nobel Prize with Algore say he is wrong!
It is simply ridiculous to think that events that are happening now, that also happened thousand or millions of years ago, could NOT have been caused by man then, but are caused by man now, as your statement: "Past changes were not manmade, TODAY'S climate change is." infers. If you would stop, re-read your own statement, and THINK about it, you would realize just how silly you are. I would use the word "stupid", but silly is the perfect word for you. You are a silly man!
As for terrorism, you again prove just how silly you are. Now have we been attacted on American soil, no, because Bush has used all sorts of evil things like "wiretapping" and other evil Patriot Act provisions to stop them. And many plot have been foiled. The rest of the world, not so much. Remember 7/7? That was the date of the London Subway bombings "in the name of Islam". Or what about the airport bombing over there this year, "in the name of Islam". Remember Spain? I could go one, but what's the point? You're an idiot!
All Bush's Fault!
November 25, 2007 - 14:34 ET by Del Dolemonte"In the past 5 years, what heinous acts of Islamic terror have been committed in thename of Islam here?"
Gee, thanks for giving Bush the credit. As Deroy Murdock reminds us:
"Since 9-11, officials have thwarted at least 19 terrorist bids to kill Americans. (Additional dismantled plots may remain classified.) These 19 include:
*The Lackawanna Six. These Americans of Yemeni descent from upstate New York pleaded guilty in 2003 to training with and providing material support to al-Qaeda. They are locked up for seven to 10 years.
*The Virginia “Jihad” Network’s 11 members had ties to al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and Lashkar-i-Taiba, a terror group that opposes India’s government. Since 2003, they have been imprisoned for conspiring and training to commit terrorist acts.
*Dhiren Barot ran a terror cell that planned to assail the New York Stock Exchange, Prudential’s Newark, New Jersey headquarters, and Washington, D.C.’s World Bank headquarters. Pakistani police found car-bomb plans on Barot’s laptop computer in July 2004. Barot is serving 40 years in a British jail for masterminding what he called a “memorable black day for the enemies of Islam.”
*James Elshafay is serving five years and Shahawar Matin Siraj 30 for endeavoring to blast Manhattan’s Herald Square subway station during the 2004 Republican National Convention.
*Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain -- both Albany, New York mosque leaders -- agreed to help an FBI informant purchase a shoulder-fired grenade launcher to kill a Pakistani diplomat in New York City. Aref and Hossain were convicted of conspiracy, money laundering, and concealing material support to terrorists.
*Also on ice are “shoe bomber” Richard Reid, so-called “dirty bomber” Jose Padilla, and Iyman Faris, who sought acetylene torches to cut the Brooklyn Bridge’s cables and plunge it 119 feet into the East River.
*Among those arrested and awaiting trial are suspected terrorists who allegedly videotaped the U.S. Capitol while preparing to assault it, and others who planned to strike California synagogues. Officials say one cell hoped to hit New Jersey’s Fort Dix Army base, while more aimed to bomb New York’s JFK Airport, Chicago’s Sears Tower, and 10 passenger jets crossing the Atlantic between London and America.
This chilling roster proves that Islamo-fascism is real, not just “a figment of the neocon imagination,” as writer Paul Krugman claimed in a recently published hallucination. He also believes he sees “fear of dark-skinned people in general” as Republicans’ rationale for fighting militant Islam.
Defeating Islamo-fascism is not about color. It’s about carnage, such as what Americans collectively experienced on live TV seven Septembers ago. If Krugman cannot fathom this, he should put down his quill pen and pick up Heritage’s report.
While the conservative think tank merits praise for publishing this document, it’s a shame it ever needed to do so. The Bush Administration’s maddening sense of modesty is among its greatest failings. Unlike its critics’ ceaseless heckling and catcalls, the president and his top aides rarely proclaim their victories, even in this vital area. Rather than trumpet terror plans unraveled and bombs defused, the White House emits a passing mention here and a presidential mumble there. Into this relative silence stroll Krugmanite detractors who denounce Team Bush as paranoid cranks who worry too much about a supposedly minor terrorist challenge. “So,” they argue, “let’s all just move on to universal health care.”
The White House needs a constant communications effort -- from presidential speeches to TV, print, and the Internet -- to highlight the deadly danger that Islamo-fascism poses and how U.S. laws, intelligence, policing, interrogation, and military action jointly stop Muslim fanatics from murdering Americans and innocents abroad.
“The best means to prevent terrorist attacks is effective intelligence collection, information sharing, and coordinated, determined counterterrorism operations that can stop attacks before they are mounted,” concludes Heritage Foundation foreign-affairs specialist James Carafano, this report’s author.
Americans have been kept secure by laws and initiatives like the Patriot Act and the Terrorist Surveillance Program that have foiled schemes to kill us by the tens, hundreds, and thousands. The fact that none has transpired reflects the diligence of U.S. and allied cops, spies, soldiers, and concerned citizens who have said something when they have seen something. This Thanksgiving, they all deserve every American’s undying gratitude."
http://www.humaneven...
The Computer Illiterate Propgandist Continues to Spew Lies
November 25, 2007 - 19:51 ET by PopularTech1. Climate Models prove you are a computer illiterate because they cannot predict or prove anything:
Climate is too complex for accurate predictions (NewScientist)
Computer Climate Models: Voodoo for Scientists (PDF) (EIR Science)
Dyson: Climate models are rubbish (The Register)
"My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. [...] But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models." - Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of Physics, Princeton University
FACT: Only Computer Illiterates believe in "Man-Made" Global Warming.
People do not understand that there is no proof of "Man-Made" Global Warming without using irrelevant computer models. Yes computer models have a place in engineering but are utterly useless at fortune telling, I mean "climate prediction".
All the computer illiterates are convinced that because something is done on a "super computer" that costs "millions of dollars" it is infallible. The more complex the model the more "mysterious" it seems to the average person. Plugging in biased, incomplete or flat out wrong data combined with poorly understood climate physics into a "model" that includes god knows how many guesses and assumptions will give you junk. Garbage in = Garbage out. I am a computer analyst and can make a computer model do whatever I want by "tuning" it (adjusting variables until I get the answer I want or think is right). Testing a model against past climate is an advanced exercise in curve fitting, nothing more and proves absolutely nothing. Processing more complex data in more complex ways via guessing gives you more complex junk results. But since the models have been "tuned" (guesstimated or deliberately altered to get the results they want) they get results that "seem" likely or even convincing to the average computer illiterate, except it is all based on a complex serious of guesses and assumptions and absolutely meaningless for prediction.
The problem is computer models need exact information (accurate data and the correct procedure to process the data) to get exact answers, without that you get junk results, period. The public gives computer climate models this mystical aura because they are largely computer illiterate about how they actually work and when they hear the term "computer" they do not want to sound or feel stupid, so they nod their heads and go along with it.
Nothing is emotional about computers they are pure logical machines, 1 + 1 must = 2. Imagine trying to use random numbers to get a right answer on a calculator but you do not know if you are to add or multiply those numbers and you have no way to confirm that "right answer" except to wait 50-100 years. Sound crazy? Welcome to Global Climate Modeling.
What the modelers do is they keep playing with the numbers in a much more complex way until they think they guess right. A useless exercise. These same climate model computers are used to predict your weather and you know how accurate they are. But damn! Al Gore and Gavin Schmidt can certainly tell your what the climate will be 50-100 years from now! Give me a break. Don't be fooled that modeling climate is different than the weather or one is more accurate than the other long term.
Why are we not turning to models to predict the future for everything? Because they can't, not even remotely. Some of them work "sort of" for the weather in very, very short term results (1-3 days) until all the data they are processing that is wrong combined with all the data they are missing and the millions of variables they are not accounting for start to kick in and grow exponentially the farther out the model runs and wham - the model is wrong. No kidding, there are simply way too many variables that they cannot account for and the computer power necessary to even start to take these variables into account does not exist.
You are expected to believe that they can "model" the climate 50-100 years in the future when they cannot even give you accurate weather 3 days out? Don't be fools, I do this for a living, Computer Models cannot predict the future with anything as complex as the Earth's climate.
2. Ice Core Studies only show that CO2 LAGS behind temperature changes by 600-1000 years:
CO2 & temperature: ice core correlations (Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physicist, Harvard)
Al Gore 'Debates' Global Warming (Video) (9min)
Peer-Reveiwed Papers Proving CO2 lags Temperature changes:
180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 2, pp. 259-282(24), March 2007)
- Beck, Ernst-Georg
Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations
(Science, Vol. 283. no. 5408, pp. 1712 - 1714, 12 March 1999)
- Hubertus Fischer, Martin Wahlen, Jesse Smith, Derek Mastroianni, Bruce Deck
"High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon
dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by
volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three
deglaciations."
Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming
(Science, September 27, 2007)
- Lowell Stott, Axel Timmermann, Robert Thunell
The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka
(Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 20, Issue 4, Pages 583-589, February 2001)
- Manfred Mudelsee
Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III
(Science 14, Vol. 299. no. 5613, March 2003)
- Nicolas Caillon, Jeffrey P. Severinghaus, Jean Jouzel, Jean-Marc Barnola, Jiancheng Kang, Volodya Y. Lipenkov
"The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2
increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and
preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation."
3. Carbon Isotopes may "suggest" that the recent increase in CO2 is Man-Made, they in no way prove AGW.
4. NO 'Consensus' on "Man-Made" Global Warming
You are a computer illiterate, a liar and a propagandist.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Owned
November 26, 2007 - 00:59 ET by zootallure"climate models, ice core studies, carbon isotope studies, all verify manmade AGW"
Wow, willfull stupidity is so cute and endearing.
I very much enjoyed reading this thread and seeing a few educated, informed and erudite conservatives hand this condescending, ignorant, liberal clowns butt to him in a gift wrapped box. Well Done. Of course its probably all way over his pointy head and most likely he will run away.
For a perfesser, you sure
November 25, 2007 - 13:25 ET by Warner Todd HustonFor a perfesser, you sure made a lot of wild-eyed assumptions to "back up" your argument there, pally!
Let me try your game...
Everyone who has eaten a carrot either has died or will die.
Conclusion: carrots kill people!
Wow, your conclusion jumping game is fun. Let me try another...
I've only seen one snake and it was green. Therefore ALL snakes must be green.
Yippie. Let's everyone try it...
Let me try one, Warner: all
November 26, 2007 - 23:26 ET by MikeBLet me try one, Warner: all divorced people were first married. Marriage causes divorce. Does that work?
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
I'm guessing you are a
November 25, 2007 - 19:29 ET by ckc1227I'm guessing you are a teacher of little children. You must be, as their logic(or lack of) is rubbing off on you.
Erosion?
November 25, 2007 - 11:43 ET by heldmywThat's it?
Haven't a few ways to prevent erosion been developed? You know, "on the cheap", like planting hardy grasses and weeds, encouraging trees, vines, using retaining walls, sandbags, contouring the terrain to minimize high-speed runoff?
It's a science, but no rockets are involved.
Otherwise, move to higher ground ya twits! Take a lesson from New Orleans and get out before you're chin-deep in cold water.
Sounds like
November 25, 2007 - 11:46 ET by dervishthey DID take a lesson from New Orleans. Sit tight and bang your spoon, and the federal dollars will start flowing your way.
When I sit in the bathtub
November 25, 2007 - 12:10 ET by ChandlerWhen I sit in the bathtub the water rises evenly throughout the tub, not just around my big toe.
How could it be that the waters are rising around this particular island and not every where else?
Chandler... Enviro-magic? Ge
November 25, 2007 - 13:04 ET by Clear thinkerChandler...
Enviro-magic?
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
Local, Not Global
November 25, 2007 - 13:19 ET by Junk Science SkepticJust like climate, sea level (in respect to any one point of land) is a local concept. Surface and coastal erosion, subsidence, local atmospheric pressure, long-term tidal trends, jet-stream flow, tectonic activity, and many other non-temperature factors can all affect the "sea level" as viewed from any one point.
The problem with most, if not all, glowbull warming/cooling/climate-change/sky-falling "evidence" is that the so-called evidence is strictly local effect, cherry-picked to promote the lame hypothesis of global change.
Back when I was a kid, a volcanic island rose out of the Atlantic near Iceland. Most normal people viewed that local change as land that rose relative to the water. Today, it would be cited as an example of falling global sea levels, as long as it served a particular political narrative.
Thompson/Giuliani 2008
Chandler, what makes you
November 26, 2007 - 23:28 ET by MikeBChandler, what makes you think the water is rising around this island? Let me see, Alaska is a geologically active zone. Could it be possible the island is subsiding? In other words, the island is sinking, not the ocean rising.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Warner... Please don't
November 25, 2007 - 13:03 ET by Clear thinkerWarner...
Please don't encourage these whackos to move to higher ground. I live in the heart of the Blue Ridge Mountains and we have enough of those people already here.
Plus, I'm looking to buy up more land around here hopiing it will someday become Ocean front property ;-)
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
How much Longer are we to
November 25, 2007 - 13:44 ET by acadia1755How much Longer are we to read the Insulting word
"Deniers” by the Phony professor? No respectable Teacher would use such a
derogatory word toward people with a difference of opinion. This is Liberal
Intolerance, Guilt tripping arrongance and ignorance at it's worst! This Individual
is purposely making a direct connection with the Murder of Million of
Innocent people with people who do not happen to believe in AGW. He has
been warn enough and if he is that much " Courtesy Challenged" as if
science challenge was not enough! then ..it’s time to Let him go.
MB has given him the courtesy to debate his fanatical “pointless” more then we get to do on RC were any scientific contradicting facts or opinion
are censured/banned from posting.
http://www.friendsof...
The target audience isn't us --- it's the children!
November 25, 2007 - 14:48 ET by Galvanicacadia1755: "How much Longer are we to read the Insulting word "Deniers” by the Phony professor? No respectable Teacher would use such a derogatory word toward people with a difference of opinion."
Yet, even teachers are participating in this undemocratic tactic. To paraphrase Gore, the debate is over, it's time to act. Just like in Nazi Germany or Maoist China, to question the official AGW "Truth" is to make one an enemy of state. Labeling opponents as 'deniers' or 'flat earthers' is intended to discourage people from questioning the 'Truth'. AGW has taken on the trappings of a religious cult, with unquestioning true-believers and outcast blasphemers.
This certainly keeps some adults from speaking out, but more deviously, it's intended to get children to accept the mantras and bumper sticker slogans as irrefutable science. Accepting things at face value from people in positions of authority, children are easier to indoctrinate, and the indoctrination is more likely to stick with them for life.
This is why Gore's organization has offered thousands of free An Inconvenient Truth DVDs to public schools -- and why so many wise school districts have declined the offer. In fact, just a few months ago, in a lawsuit brought against the UK's school system by concerned parents, a high British court ruled that the schools could not show the film to students without a counter-hypothesis being presented. The court found no fewer than 9 major falsehoods in the Gore film. In other words, An Inconvenient Truth is chock full of convenient lies.
It's worth noting that many of the people who claim that the threat of terrorism is merely a White House fear tactic to rationalize the suppression descent, are themselves using AGW pseudo-science as a fear tactic to keep us from calling attention to their lies.
Unsubstatiated scary AGW statements
November 25, 2007 - 14:26 ET by Galvanicprofessor truth: "climate models, ice core studies, carbon isotope studies, all verify manmade AGW. . . "
That's not true. The geological record indicates that the planet has undergone climate change throughout its history, and continues to do so today.
We know, for example, that the Earth was much warmer during pre-historic eras, long before mankind existed. It has also been cooler at times. we know that Greenland, for instance, was warmer and more hospitable during the initial Norse settlement, but grew colder in the Little Ice Age, forcing the Norse out.
The climate models are deeply flawed, and even the IPCC concedes that a comprehensive lack of knowledge of all the factors that determine climate, make models mostly educated guesses. Two recent examples:
1. The IPCCs regular report to the UN in 2007 LOWERED its previous estimates of alleged AGW effects, such as sea-level. Once warning us that sea-levels may rise as much as 20 feet in one hundred years (A stat that Gore still flouts), the newly revised estimate is 9 - 21 INCHES, or in other words, a few inches more than the sea-level rise of the 20th Century.
2. NASA's James Hansen published shocking stats based on his models that 6 of the 10 hottest years on record were in the 1990s, with the highest being 1998. This year, having re-examined that data and corrected the flaws in the model, NASA officially revised Hansen's earlier rreport: Four of the 10 hottest years on record were in the 1930s, with 1934 being the hottest on record (1998 is second). On its face, that data would imply that the Earth is getting cooler.
To quote Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson: "The bad news is that climate models on which so much effort is expended are unreliable because they still use fudge-factors rather than physics to represent important things like evaporation and convection, clouds and rainfall."
Isn't it ironic that climatologists, who grossly over-estimated the hurricanes seasons of 2006 & 2007 --- even their mid-season 'corrections' were too high -- want us to believe that they can forecast climate over the next 100 years?
professor thruth: "No one who calls themselves a scientists refutes the fact that the Earth is warming."
And no one would deny that parts of the Earth are cooling, nor that warming and cooling are natural and have occurred for billions of years.
professor truth: "No serious scientist refutes the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. a few serious scientists refute the warming as being attributed to humans, but overwhelming evidence says humans are the culprits.
Okay, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So what? We've understood that GHGs are critical to life on Earth because they trap heat from the sun.
Among the thousands of legitimate scientists who refute AGW are MIT professor Richard Lindzen, one of the world's most esteemed climatologists.
professor truth: "Past climate changes were not manmade, TODAY'S climate change is."
To accept this baseless declaration, we would have to assume that the Earth's climate would have remained stable for tens of thousands of years, merely to be impacted by the mankind. Of course, this is false, because periods like the Little Ice Age prove that climate change is independent of man -- that is unless you want us to believe that manmade activity made the Earth COLDER.
professor truth: "In the past 5 years, what heinous acts of Islamic terror have been committed in thename of Islam here? How do you know it's not an already violent person ?
Why just the past 5 years, professor? Is that because 6 years puts us back to 9-11?
But look at the record of Al Qaeda In Iraq --- an Islamic terrorist organization so violent that 'heinous' is a routinely ascribed adjective. They've killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians -- PREDOMINANTLY MUSLIM -- since the US invasion in Iraq in 2003. This cannot be attrributed to anti-US attacks.
Read the newspapers, p-t. Islamic terror suspects are being arreested routinely in the US, Europe, and Asia.
Snow has stopped in El Paso
November 25, 2007 - 15:58 ET by ThisnThatGW is picking up again in El Paso, a day after they received a record 4+ inches of snow. Latest report is that they are now above freezing today.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Kivalina is a barrier
November 25, 2007 - 18:41 ET by jacquejetKivalina is a barrier island. Go to Google Earth and check it out. Barrier islands aren't stable and move constantly. Whether on the North Carolina coast, Gulf coast or off Alaska, these islands are subject to the variations in the local currents, tides and storms. No one in their right mind associates the changes in barrier island dynamics to global warning (even if GW existed).
"professor truth: "climate
November 25, 2007 - 19:21 ET by ckc1227"professor truth: "climate models, ice core studies, carbon isotope studies, all verify manmade AGW. . . "
Hogwash, and a perfect example of why some folks shouldn't be taken seriously on this issue. You guys don't deal in facts, you just say whatever the hell you want about the issue, and call them "facts".
<i>ckc1227: "Hogwash, and a
November 26, 2007 - 01:25 ET by EnragedParrotckc1227: "Hogwash, and a perfect example of why some folks shouldn't be taken seriously on this issue. You guys don't deal in facts, you just say whatever the hell you want about the issue, and call them "facts".
I think what Prof Truth said was pretty much factual. Climate models show that 20th century warming is unexplainable unless anthropogenic forcings are included in the equation, ice cores studies have shown that carbon dioxide levels have increased over the past 150 years, and isotope analysis quite clearly shows that the majority of this increase is due to the burning of fossil fuels.
Thus it seems perfectly reasonable to say that all of these things fully support anthropogenic global warming theory. Why do you say that they don't?
Another Computer Illiterate?
November 26, 2007 - 08:23 ET by PopularTech1. Only Computer Illiterates think Climate Models prove AGW:
Climate is too complex for accurate predictions (NewScientist)
Computer Climate Models: Voodoo for Scientists (PDF) (EIR Science)
Dyson: Climate models are rubbish (The Register)
"My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is
grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate
model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers
predicted by the computer models. [...] But I have studied the climate
models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of
fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid
motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of
describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of
fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real
world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of
things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist
to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to
put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in
the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up
believing their own models." - Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of Physics, Princeton University
FACT: Only Computer Illiterates believe in "Man-Made" Global Warming.
People do not understand that there is no proof of "Man-Made" Global
Warming without using irrelevant computer models. Yes computer models
have a place in engineering but are utterly useless at fortune telling,
I mean "climate prediction".
All the computer illiterates are convinced that because something is
done on a "super computer" that costs "millions of dollars" it is
infallible. The more complex the model the more "mysterious" it seems
to the average person. Plugging in biased, incomplete or flat out wrong
data combined with poorly understood climate physics into a "model"
that includes god knows how many guesses and assumptions will give you
junk. Garbage in = Garbage out. I am a computer analyst and can make a
computer model do whatever I want by "tuning" it (adjusting variables
until I get the answer I want or think is right). Testing a model
against past climate is an advanced exercise in curve fitting, nothing
more and proves absolutely nothing. Processing more complex data in
more complex ways via guessing gives you more complex junk results. But
since the models have been "tuned" (guesstimated or deliberately
altered to get the results they want) they get results that "seem"
likely or even convincing to the average computer illiterate, except it
is all based on a complex serious of guesses and assumptions and
absolutely meaningless for prediction.
The problem is computer models need exact information (accurate data
and the correct procedure to process the data) to get exact answers,
without that you get junk results, period. The public gives computer
climate models this mystical aura because they are largely computer
illiterate about how they actually work and when they hear the term
"computer" they do not want to sound or feel stupid, so they nod their
heads and go along with it.
Nothing is emotional about computers they are pure logical machines,
1 + 1 must = 2. Imagine trying to use random numbers to get a right
answer on a calculator but you do not know if you are to add or
multiply those numbers and you have no way to confirm that "right
answer" except to wait 50-100 years. Sound crazy? Welcome to Global
Climate Modeling.
What the modelers do is they keep playing with the numbers in a much
more complex way until they think they guess right. A useless exercise.
These same climate model computers are used to predict your weather and
you know how accurate they are. But damn! Al Gore and Gavin Schmidt can
certainly tell your what the climate will be 50-100 years from now!
Give me a break. Don't be fooled that modeling climate is different
than the weather or one is more accurate than the other long term.
Why are we not turning to models to predict the future for
everything? Because they can't, not even remotely. Some of them work
"sort of" for the weather in very, very short term results (1-3 days)
until all the data they are processing that is wrong combined with all
the data they are missing and the millions of variables they are not
accounting for start to kick in and grow exponentially the farther out
the model runs and wham - the model is wrong. No kidding, there are
simply way too many variables that they cannot account for and the
computer power necessary to even start to take these variables into
account does not exist.
You are expected to believe that they can "model" the climate 50-100
years in the future when they cannot even give you accurate weather 3
days out? Don't be fools, I do this for a living, Computer Models
cannot predict the future with anything as complex as the Earth's
climate.
2. Ice Core Studies only show that CO2 LAGS behind temperature changes by 600-1000 years:
CO2 & temperature: ice core correlations (Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physicist, Harvard)
Al Gore 'Debates' Global Warming (Video) (9min)
Peer-Reveiwed Papers Proving CO2 lags Temperature changes:
180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 2, pp. 259-282(24), March 2007)
- Beck, Ernst-Georg
Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations
(Science, Vol. 283. no. 5408, pp. 1712 - 1714, 12 March 1999)
- Hubertus Fischer, Martin Wahlen, Jesse Smith, Derek Mastroianni, Bruce Deck
"High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon
dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by
volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three
deglaciations."
Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming
(Science, September 27, 2007)
- Lowell Stott, Axel Timmermann, Robert Thunell
The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka
(Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 20, Issue 4, Pages 583-589, February 2001)
- Manfred Mudelsee
Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III
(Science 14, Vol. 299. no. 5613, March 2003)
- Nicolas Caillon, Jeffrey P. Severinghaus, Jean Jouzel, Jean-Marc Barnola, Jiancheng Kang, Volodya Y. Lipenkov
"The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2
increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and
preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation."
3. Carbon Isotopes may "suggest" that the recent increase in CO2 is Man-Made, they in no way prove AGW.
4. NO 'Consensus' on "Man-Made" Global Warming
Unbelievable how many computer illiterates are out there? Do you also think your computer has "bad days" or works based on chaos theory? Anyone who thinks computer models prove AGW are not only computer illiterates but absolute fools. I have never seen so many suckers in my life who have absolutely no comprehension of how computers actually work. Do you people think when you computer generates an error it is normal? I am in utter disbelief at the level of computer ignorance in society.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
-
November 26, 2007 - 23:30 ET by dahliatraversBecause
#1 - To come to that conclusion, you would have to leave out a raft of other factors, including most egregiously, activity of the sun. [The much vaunted computer models on which AGW advocates hang their scientific hat also leave out these important factors.]
#2 - The contribution by man to global warming gases -- wait for it -- is not 50% -- is not 20% -- is not even 10%.
Man's contribution is less than 6%. Mother Nature contributes the other 94%. That makes the case for anthropogenic global warming even more questionable.
Look, evaluate the totality of the picture (not to mention the inconsistency of the evidence, such as collection of temperature data). We are not expecting anyone to come back here and say, "Wow, you were right!" We ... or speaking for myself ... I just want people to look at everything, think for themselves and quietly come to their own conclusions. Don't let yourself be sold a bill of goods via what will turn out to be the biggest, most baseless p.r. campaign in American history.
So, there have been
November 26, 2007 - 23:37 ET by MikeBSo, there have been warmings and coolings before. They occurred before mankind trod the surface of this planet. They occurred after mankind trod the surface of this planet. They occurred after mankind trod the surface of the planet and before the industrial revolution. Warming and cooling occurred after the advent of the industrial revolution, and all these occurrences were not Anthropogenic in nature. But this one is, and there is no other explanation? Sorry parrot and professor, you can spread that on the petunias, because I'm not buying it.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan