Cued up by Jay Leno on Tuesday's Tonight Show to deliver some quips about global warming, Dennis Miller did some show and tell as he reached behind his chair for a hard copy of the April 28, 1975 Newsweek. That's the edition often cited by doubters of dire global warming predictions because its story, “The Cooling World,” illustrates the fickle nature of media-fueled hysteria. Miller explained that “I had heard about this on the Internet, Jay, and I went back and got a copy of it. It's a Newsweek magazine” with “The Cooling World” as “the big story in the 'Science' section.” Miller pointed to a chart on the page showing “the temperature of the planet is dropping off” and he marveled at how “it says the solution to the global cooling problem is to deliberately melt the polar ice caps” -- the very phenomenon now cited as proof of global warming.
Miller's rundown, on the December 5 Tonight Show with Jay Leno on NBC, of what the 1975 Newsweek contended:
“Now this whole article is about the cooling world and you can see over here where they've got a chart where the temperature of the planet is dropping off and down here at the bottom is my favorite part. I've starred it. It says the solution to the global cooling problem is to deliberately melt the polar ice caps. Now this is like 30 years ago, this what we believed. Now we've changed -- and I'm not saying that maybe in the year 2036 it doesn't go back in the other way -- I just don't think we control it like we think we do.”
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
It's all linked to a much b
December 6, 2006 - 01:36 ET by liberal_bug_zapperIt's all linked to a much bigger effort.... the effort to defeat capitalism.... but they do not want to have that exposed, so they will come out spitting and fuming like angry cats and attack anyone who tries to link the two.
This whole global warming is caused by humans, and mostly the USA movement is an anti-capitalism movement.
These people know that the climate changes, so they fear monger and point blame and use people's ignorance to push a political agenda hidden as concern for the climate. Pitiful and dangerous! It’s time to attack these morons and ruin them politically.
L bug zapper... great post
December 6, 2006 - 01:43 ET by ww thumperL bug zapper... great post I aggree alot!! " cooling world" that's funny :-)) .....Political correctness when dealing with Islam will kill america....ww .....
Capitalism isn't easily tha
December 6, 2006 - 04:12 ET by troublemakerCapitalism isn't easily that defeated....
If 'saving the environment' becomes the trend and it becomes a revenue stream then Capitalists will pounce. *See Richard Branson pledging Billions*.
And in your theory who is trying to defeat capitalism and what can they gain from it. Scientists? The Media? There will be a few cynical supporters but what do the true believers have to gain? The British did a very reputable report through an economist recently didn't they? Didn't he recommend that nations in their own interests may have more to gain.
Capitalism navigates through the problems and realities we face in society. When obesity goes up and people become more health concious... then Fast food chains end up losing money and healthier eateries get the profits... Fast food chains must adopt with healthier menus etc... or face possible losses. Capitalists adjust according to the times. What you don't think its worth considering cheaper, more environmentally friendly solutions for our energy needs? Solutions that don't involve supporting countries who are morally questionable etc...
Well you and I know that Ca
December 6, 2006 - 04:21 ET by liberal_bug_zapperWell you and I know that Capitalism isn't easily defeated.... but that won't stop them from trying.
Try and understand, most of these people invested in the "Global Warming" scare are either in it because they are radical egalitarians who want to force the redistribution of wealth... and they don't care how they do it.... or it is the scientists who are looking for that next research grant and they don't care how they do it.
As for whether or not alternative energy and cleaner technologies are more profitable... that is something for the market to decide... and not something to be force fed to an unwilling public, either by lying to scare, or by creating illegitimate laws by edict from overzealous courts. If our legislature cannot make or will not make the law.... no court has that right. If the law does not exist, no court (including the Supreme Court) has the right to just make it up.
Global Warming
December 6, 2006 - 10:04 ET by pbanks7That's exactly it. Some people need a cause to believe in, but most have a vested interest. These causes restrict our ability to access the cheapest resources - oil and coal (also newkyahler), so we need to spend millions developing alternative energies.
Kyoto means big profits to many countries. Media profits from doom and gloom scenarios. Researchers get more grants for researching a dire problem than merely interesting science. Capitalist will gravitate to where there is a profit to be made.
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
troublemaker
December 6, 2006 - 14:46 ET by SportPoliticsYou mean like the forced court/legislative non-trans-fat law in all of NYC now ? That "marketplace" correction ? LOL
The free market to you liberals means the government forcing your hysterical dictums upon the business community. McDonalds was forced to label food calories by your activist healthfood nut cases suing. Also forced into coffee temperature regulation. Soy products have now replaced whatever it is they used to use, all from forced "healthfood calorie bean counters" suing and legislating from the bench and their in our face fanaticism, and it all tastes like rotting rehydrated cardboard.
Already, for more than 30 years psychotic wackos in the USA have stifled new nuclear plants and ANWR oil drilling and natural gas in Colorado and offshore USA oil and on and on it goes.
The worst of it is when the one enviro wacko group forces prop power to the tune of hundreds of millions of tax dollars, and some left wing enviro sicko like Robert Redford makes it a life campaign to shutdown the $$$$$$ tax dollar prop power because vultures fly into the blades and die. One enviro nut costing business and all of us millions and the next one shutting down "the progress".
I think if we put all you liberals in one spot on the planet, you'd die off in a few years, all hoarse from screaming at eachothers mother earth violations.
Breaking news...
December 6, 2006 - 14:58 ET by Clear thinkerTrans fats proven to be a Bush conspiracy to kill off Americans... News at 11:00
December 6, 2006 - 08:12 ET by Darksean
re: cooling world
December 6, 2006 - 01:44 ET by dejourAdmittedly, this shows that popular magazines like Newsweek are sometimes wrong, and sometimes inconsistent. It is wise to maintain a certain scepticism when reading magazines, newspapers or blogs.
However, this does not show that global warming is not occurring. For one thing, global cooling articles were not appearing in peer-reviewed Scientific journals. Just because a handful of scientists spoke to a mainstream publication does not mean that there was a scientific consensus. In contrast, hundreds and hundreds of peer-reviewed articles have been published supporting the theory of man-caused global warming.
Secondly, even if there were a scientific consensus in the 1970s that was wrong, it doesn't follow that the global warming consensus is now wrong. If you disagree with the idea of global warming you should attack global warming ideas directly. Basically people are using this argument:
Group Y says Proposition X. Group Z is similar to Group Y, and Group Z said Proposition W which has turned out to be false. Therefore anything Group Y says is not credible.
I could say this:
Bill Clinton said some things that were false. Therefore all presidents are not credible. Therefore you can't believe anything that George W Bush says.
I trust you see the flaw in the above argument. If you believe that George W Bush was wrong about Saddam Hussein being an imminent danger, you should make some arguments about Saddam Hussein and Iraq. If you say that you can't believe Bush because Clinton lied about Monica Lewinsky, you're not addressing the actual issue.
Mars Global Warming
December 6, 2006 - 01:59 ET by trebelocWho do the peer review articles say is resposnible for the Global Warming on Mars?
The #1 cause of all death is Birth!
L8^{I)>
re: Mars
December 6, 2006 - 02:41 ET by dejourTo the best of my knowledge, there are not enough peer-reviewed articles dealing with climate change on Mars. Certain scientists have weighed in, but if there are 3 articles, all produced by the same research team that is not a consensus.
Anyhow - I believe that the Mars argument goes that "If Mars is warming, there is probably something causing warming on both Mars on Earth (something natural or cyclical)"
The problems with this argument:
1) Not enough data on Mars to conclusively show warming.
2) A 3 year warming trend could very well be cyclical. Similarly a 3 year, a 30 year, a 300 year trend on Earth could well be cyclical. If we didn't have a grenhouse gas model to suggest that the Earth will warm, I'd tend to dismiss the observed warming as a natural trend. But the fact is we have a greenhouse gas model that predicts higher CO2 leads to warming. We've observed drastically higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. These higher levels can be explained by man-made activities. We have observed higher temperatures, and the model suggests higher temperatures will occur in the future.
I don't know if you guys like baseball, but here's an example. Rookie A is a drafted #1 overall and the scouts think he'll be a superstar. Rookie B is an unheralded free agent signing. Both players come in and each pitches a 7 inning shutout in their debut game. I'd attribute Rookie A's success due to his skill and Rookie B's success to luck. The scouts have a model of pitchers and Rookie A is supposed to do well and he does. The scouts predict Rookie B will do badly, and he does well. I'd still bet on Rookie A having a better season and continuing his trend because of the scouting model. Rookie B's success was likely a cyclical fluke and he'll probably go cold in the future.
CO2 TO YOU
December 6, 2006 - 03:16 ET by trebelocIsn't CO2 naturally made from Trees and Active Volcanoes?
Also you stated that, "A 3year warming trend could very well be cyclical, Similarly a 3yr, 30yr, 300yr trend on Earth could well be cyclical."
Well 30 years ago "MAD SCIENTISTS" were stating there would be a man made "NEW ICE AGE", and now the problem is man made "GLOBAL WARMING"! By your own statement it could be a "300 year cyclical" trend. Seeing that 300 years ago we were not as scientifically advanced as we are now, how can so many "Peer Reviewed Articles" be so sure that this new round of "Global Warming" is caused by man made emissions of CO2, as apposed to the CO2 that is naturally made? Seems like AL GORE and all of the other "Peer Reviewed Article" are proposing a theory that will take HUNDRED of YEARS to prove, yet it seems you and so many others are acting as if "MAN MADE GOLOBAL WARMING IS THE GOSPLE TRUTH!" If the Greenhouse Effect is so bad, why do we have greenhouses to grow plants in "ideal conditions", seems that the warmer the earth becomes there will become new places where "ideal conditions" become available. And as you have previously stated the computer models that are used to predict GLOBAL WARMING are no more effective that the computer models that are use to predict the daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, yearly…. weather trends! The fact is we can predict the weather for tomorrow to a limited degree, but projections into the far future are less accurate, if you want to call today’s weather reporters “accurate”.
Active volcanoes, yes, and
December 6, 2006 - 03:35 ET by liberal_bug_zapperActive volcanoes, yes, and trees........only if you burn them.
not exactly - from Carbon-Info.org
December 6, 2006 - 09:45 ET by Ron_servativeNot exactly, if I remember my biology plants emit CO2 at night and that's not all...
From carbon-info.org
It is unclear how this important fact has been missed, but Mr. Keppler is sure that plants worldwide produce millions of tonnes of methane each year, with the greatest share coming from the tropics, and that the plant contribution is likely to count for 10–30 per cent of annual methane emissions.
The research could help explain why the build-up of methane in the atmosphere is slowing down — a trend that could be due to global deforestation.
However, longer term the work is likely to lead to a re-evaluation of the value of preserving and planting forests to capture greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, and is also likely to lead to changes to the Kyoto protocol.
A team led by Frank Keppler from the Max-Planck Institute in Germany has discovered that plants produce up to one-third of the second most important greenhouse gas - methane.
"We now have the spectre that new forests might increase greenhouse warming through methane emissions rather than decrease it by storing carbon dioxide", says David Lowe of the New Zealand National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research.
Methane emissions from plants might even increase as the world temperature increases. Keppler's team found that plants produce more methane at higher temperatures, the amount doubling every ten degrees above 30 degrees Celsius.
It is unclear how this import
December 6, 2006 - 12:36 ET by dmntd1Between 1990 and 2000, the US has seen an increase in forest-acreage of approximately 10 MILLION acres. That does it folks, I'm convinced, we ARE causing Global Warming, at the behest of the Enviro-nuts!
Please make sure your train of thought carries freight.
Yes, CO2 naturally is made fr
December 6, 2006 - 03:46 ET by dejourYes, CO2 naturally is made from trees and volcanoes. The fact is though that these sources cause only minor variations in the level of CO2 over a period of 100 years. CO2 has increased by over 50% in the last 100 years and is still rising. Given that industry and transportation produce large levels of CO2 and that these started being substantial about 100 years ago, it's reasonable to conclude that the cause of the rise in CO2 is man-made.
Think of a ski hill. Some snow falls naturally, and some is produced by machines. If we turn on a machine to make snow on a certain run, and the next day we wake up and find that there is a lot more snow on that run, doesn't it make sense to think that the snow came from the snow-making machines? Maybe some snow fell naturally from the sky, but the best explanation seems to be the snow-making machines to account for much of the snow.
re: how can scientists be so sure?
Look - noone can attribute any event that has happened so far to global warming. The increase in CO2 made it more *likely* that temperatures would rise, but there are a lot of natural phenomena as well.
However, there is scientific evidence that the greenhouse effect exists. For example, look at the planets. Planet temperature is largely determined by procimity to the Sun and the atmosphere. Venus is actually a little hotter than Mercury, even though Mercury is closer to the Sun. What causes that - large concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere.
By way of analogy. Suppose the scientist says you can't make money playing roulette in Vegas. The skeptic says "Oh yeah? - I just played 5 bets and I made money" The truth is that was luck. If you keep playing indefinitely, you'll lose. There will be short term fluctuations, but the long term trend is a declining bank account. Similarly, you can have bad luck at the roulette table. If you make 5 bets and lose them all, it doesn't prove the scientists point. But the fact that the odds are against you made it more likely that you'd lose money.
Science suggests that increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere is going to raise temperatures in the long-run. Just like gambling at roulette, there may be short-term fluctuations, but an understanding of the science tells you temperatures will rise.
re: what's so bad?
There will be some positive effects from global warming but most will be negative because man and nature will have to adjust rather abruptly. eg. Coniferous trees require a certain type of soil and a certain temperature to survive. If their current environment become too hot, they won't be able to walk north. And even if they did, the northern soils might not have enough nutrients to support them. So if these trees die out, certain animals that depend on them will die out too. You suggest more "ideal conditions" but this is not necessarily so.
Similarly man has a lot of infrastructure built in coastal areas. Science suggests that we may have increased sea levels and more hurricanes in a warmed-up world. New Orleans will end up under-water. You can't just truck the buildings 40 miles north. A mild economic hit now, might save a lot of economic pain in the future.
re: models
I like the roulette example. A computer model of roulette would show you going up and down over time. It won't accurately predict when you win or when you lose, but it will accurately predict that in the long-run you will lose. Climate models are similar. We can't predict what the weather on Dec 5, 2106 will be, but chances are it will be warmer than today.
re: trees
December 6, 2006 - 03:48 ET by dejouras bug zapper points out,
trees use CO2 and produce oxygen.
The number of trees around will affect the level of CO2 (more trees means less CO2)
So there will be a "natural" impact on CO2 levels from trees.
As a matter of FACT, tree l
December 6, 2006 - 05:22 ET by Jack BauerAs a matter of FACT, tree life and plant life and seawater and and volcanoes and all sorts of natural phenomena and all breathing animals on earth PRODUCE about 95% of the world's carbon dioxide.
Carbon Dioxide is essential for life on earth.
Carbon dioxide levels have been vastly higher in the past than today.
But if you're determined to personally reduce your own C02 production, then please, be my guest: STOP FRACKIN' BREATHIN'.
That way we all win.
STOP THE ENVIRONUT PRESS -- HUMAN BEINGS BREATHE IN OXYGEN, BREATHE OUT CO2. SAVE THE PLANET, STOP BREATHING.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
Global Warming
December 6, 2006 - 10:14 ET by pbanks7In addition, I believe the last major eruption of Mt. Pinatubo (sp?), spewed millions of tons of greenhouse gases and caused global cooling. I remember the skies had a pink shade to them for at least a week.
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
spewed millions of tons of
December 6, 2006 - 10:30 ET by Jack Bauerspewed millions of tons of greenhouse gases and caused global cooling.
pbanks - has that so-called "fact" been peer reviewed by 538 of the world's scientists in the pay of partisan hacks with a political agenda involving awardring themselves vast salaries?
Because if it hasn't, then it ain't true.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
Plant life absorbs CO2 and em
December 6, 2006 - 11:15 ET by mattmPlant life absorbs CO2 and emits O2. This meas that the more CO2 in the atmosphere the more plant life can grow and thrive and the more O2 will be created which animals depend on...end result...a greenhouse. Sound scary? I don't know; the last greenhouse I visited was quite pleasant...
matt -- yeah, plants absorb
December 6, 2006 - 12:26 ET by Jack Bauermatt -- yeah, plants absorb more CO2 than they exhale.
However, they do exhale CO2 like most living organisms.
And it seems that you are correct. Greater CO2 in the atmosphere (as it was in the past) produces, more and lusher vegetation, which in turn produces more oxygen for us to breathe.
Now as we need oxygen to live; and thriving crops to eat, then we should be pushing for greater CO2 production as this will produce better conditions for better crops.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
Variables are the key!
December 6, 2006 - 05:40 ET by trebelocRE: The Snow Maker
Cute example, but a bad one. There are not enough snow makers to put 20 feet of snow all over the earth, so man can make snow but not near the amount that is made naturally. My mom told me to close the door when the air conditioner was on so that I wouldn’t "cool the outside". In the last 100 year as we have doubled the amount of CO2 in the air, have we raised the temperature by 50%, I don’t think so. It is less that half a degree. Even when we were breaking heat records this summer there are still plenty of record HIGH Temperatures from over 100 years ago! What caused the tempertures to be so high then?
RE: Venus and the high concentration of CO2 & Models
The problem that scientist have with global models is that there are variables that we don’t know how to factor into the equation. It would seem less likely that the Earth would experience the same high levels of CO2 as Venus because we have living organisms that thrive off the increased CO2 emissions, TREES. If there are more trees to consume the CO2 and turn it into O2 then we have actually made the air cleaner, no? Also the volume of water on earth also acts as a factor that stabilizes the temperature. No matter how hot the water is on the surface the water nearer to the bottom is still cold.
The plant has experienced Hot and Cold cycles and to state that the weather will be hotter in a 100 years is a bet that I would be willing to take, given we don’t know if there will be a nuclear war that will cause nuclear fallout all over the world to cause a decrease in temp, or another major asteroid could hit causing another change in temperatures like the one that "caused the dinosaurs to become extinct" , or we could have another one of those "re occurring" Ice ages that this planet has been experiencing, before we added extra CO2 to the atmosphere! Yes the poor Coniferous trees may die out, or birds or other animals may transfer the seed to more hospitable growing grounds. The Earth may be warming but even the Earth has a wide range of tempartues from freezing to burning!
RE: Abrupt changes to Nature and Man
How much hotter will the earth be in 100 years? You propose that most changes due to global warming will be "bad", that would be true if Different=Bad. When Dinosaurs were wiped out, not all life was wiped out. It seems that the thinking, inventing scientific man could think of a way to adapt and adjust to the changing temps, or in other words EVOLVE! The call of global warming rings of Chicken Little…..THE SKY IS FALLING!
re: snow makerI was just sayi
December 6, 2006 - 06:45 ET by dejourre: snow maker
I was just saying that it is reasonable to think that man has caused the increase in CO2 by factors such as: transportation, burning fossil fuels, cutting down forests, etc. It looks like CO2 has increased by 25% in the last 100 years. The half a degree increase sounds right. My understanding is that if we keep doing what we're doing CO2 will continue to rise significantly. After all it takes a few hundred years to replace an old growth forest. Even an increase of 3-5 degrees could have severe implications. The high temperatures from the past are caused by natural variation, which dwarfs the global warming trend when you compare individual daily highs. Temperatures can rise or drop 20 degrees from day-to-day - you know that. In comparison, half a degree is small.
re: Venus and trees
You're right, there is a feedback mechanism. More CO2 probably means more plants which somewhat reduces CO2. But they can't counteract the entire increase. CO2 has increased by 25% over the last 100 years. By your reasoning we should have enough extra plants on Earth now so that CO2 would not have increased at all. But that hasn't happened. In fact CO2 continues to rise just as fast as ever.
re: different= bad
Obviously some changes will be beneficial, and other changes can be adapted to. The Earth has gone through climate change before. The problem is that most climate change has happened much more gradually giving wildlife and forests generations to adapt. It is much more difficult to evolve in less than a generation. In certain cases, like the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs, change was rapid and many species perished. Sure, eventually mammals filled the vacuum and thrived but that took hundreds of thousands of years. In the short run the world was impoverished, and it wouldn't have been a fun time to be around. The Earth will survive in one form or another. No way that humans could wipe out all life. But, as humans, we're particularly interested in the next 400 years.
CO2 has increased by over 5
December 6, 2006 - 05:42 ET by Jack BauerCO2 has increased by over 50% in the last 100 years and is still
rising. Given that industry and transportation produce large levels of
CO2 and that these started being substantial about 100 years ago, it's
reasonable to conclude that the cause of the rise in CO2 is man-made.
No -- it's not "reasonable" at all. Laughable "logic." Bogus figures. Bogus reasoning.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
re: funny
December 6, 2006 - 06:18 ET by dejourLiberal Bug Zapper wrote:
You didn't really look at the site. There is a nice link in plain sight to a paper written by some very reputable scientists.
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide written by Arthur B. Robinson PhD, Sallie L. Baliunas PhD, Willie Soon PhD, and Zachary W. Robinson is a paper which helps dispute the conventional wisdom. All of these scientists are reputable in their fields
Anyways, I looked at the link to this conservative climate change paper and right there in the Summary is "To be sure, CO2 levels have increased substantially since the Industrial Revolution, and are expected to continue doing so. It is reasonable to believe that humans have been responsible for much of that increase"
Kind of funny that these conservative scientists came to the same laughable conclusion as I.
BTW, there is a CO2 chart underneath that. It looks like CO2 levels only increased by 25% since 1900. My mistake, I was going from memory.
I'm inclined not to panic a
December 6, 2006 - 07:09 ET by sarcasmoI'm inclined not to panic about CO2, but if it is truly a problem, I certainly hope the only solution isn't the plant that's one of the world's champions for photosynthesis, or logic will once-again be overwhelmed by big government hot air...
JMR
Just laying my cursor on the
December 6, 2006 - 07:58 ET by Indiana JoeJust laying my cursor on the link let me know what plant you're talking about, sarc. ;^)
But that's a point I see either ignored or completely misstated in this thread several times. Plant life, from algae to redwoods absorbs carbon dioxide, and releases oxygen. I think maybe LBZ mentioned that, but a lot of people seem to claim that trees CAUSE CO2 emissions.
Of course, this gives common cause to the GW alarmists AND the "tree-huggers," a not-too-unlikely tag-team. .... ;^)
Plants
December 6, 2006 - 08:14 ET by BarberianCO2 is an airborne fertilizer. There is extensive studies on the benefits of increased CO2 levels as well as adverse effects. Look to http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/ for starters.
My main objective is dealing with the claim that "the debate is over". It's not and is hotly contested from both sides of the issue. I look at the substance of the issues by both sides. I used to have an opposing view until this claim was made and after 3 years cannot hold to what has become an exercise in preconceptual science. I'm wrong because You disagree and ignore the reasons why regardless of their relevance? Bulls#$t!
100% spot on, Barberian. I al
December 6, 2006 - 08:22 ET by Indiana Joe100% spot on, Barberian. I always get suspicious when it's declared "the debate is over," especially as regards provable scientific "fact." When words such as "likely," and "unknown" creep into "science," the alarms start going off.
I learned in 7th grade that "science" involves provable FACTS, experiments that can be duplicated and yield the same results. Anything less is "theory."
I guess that definition is now "outdated."
Expressions like "the de
December 6, 2006 - 09:14 ET by Ruths husband BenExpressions like "the debate is over" generally mean that the debate is far from over. It is just an attempt to preemptively shut down the discussion. Unfortunately for the treehugging self-haters we aren't shutting up anymore.
Considering big government'
December 6, 2006 - 09:06 ET by sarcasmoConsidering big government's hysteria over a simple plant Thomas Jefferson & George Washington used against weeds like I use "Roundup," I'm shocked you had to bother with moving the cursor! :) But note the author/origin of the article -- a conservative dude working for a conservative newspaper. Doesn't matter when it comes to matters of faith, I guess, but the point that keeps getting made is that some plants can be used in many ways, assuming a sufficiently capitalist system for farmers like the system provided ironically by the communist Chinese & socialist Canadians.
JMR
(sigh)
December 6, 2006 - 12:15 ET by Unsane(paid for by anythingtogethighlegally.org)
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Sigh, yourself.
December 6, 2006 - 12:24 ET by sarcasmo(paid for by anythingtolie.org with help from somegranniesareexpendible.com)
JMR
Can't figure this out
December 6, 2006 - 12:37 ET by UnsaneI will never understand why you are so obsessed with drugs and why you so desperately want there to be serious rot in American society.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
And I'll never understand w
December 6, 2006 - 13:01 ET by sarcasmoAnd I'll never understand why you reflexively-lie about my motivations to end the huge-government travesty which costs innocent lives, which -- even if they're non-fetal -- I thought used to concern conservatives. Then again, I used to believe conservatives actually cared about the Bill of Rights. Silly me.
JMR
I don't know, sarc, maybe it
December 7, 2006 - 02:12 ET by UnsaneI don't know, sarc, maybe it is that silly thing called personal experience in college when dealing with the pro-legalization crowd, and more of the same while living in AK.
Perhaps you can show me in the Bill of Rights where the Right to Get Baked is enshrined.
And as for huge-government travesties where innocent lives are lost - I hate to tell you this, but government and law enforcement, being creatures of humanity, are subject to the same imperfections AS humanity itself. People have been wrongly incarcerated for all sorts of crimes and have been later found innocent. Do you therefore propose that ALL law enforcement agencies and ALL courts systems everywhere in the United States be disbanded because they are not 100% perfect as you are in all things?
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
I'd say it's more like your
December 7, 2006 - 03:35 ET by sarcasmoI'd say it's more like your proven propensity to lie, as pointed out above, since like it or not you have 0 experience with me. Goose-egg. And take a look at the first amendment (Rastafarians are an actual religion, whether or not you wish under your holy drugwar to effectively outlaw their sacrament) and the ninth sometime for the "right to get baked," which is about the same to me as the right to be left-alone. May as well not bother with the fourth, since courts have eroded it so much.
As for disbanding law enforcement, please show where I've ever advocated THAT! I'm tougher on violent crime (see Jessica Lunsford's killer/rapist, who'd have been in a cage under my proposals and was out under y'all's) than hypocrite drug warriors. You're full of imagined BS like this to the point that I literally remain unsure if you're really pro-legal-drugs. At least you've finally admitted the granny in question was innocent and has nothing whatsoever to do with the European failure of "Needle Park," and it only took you about a week...
JMR
Hey, I have already told you
December 8, 2006 - 03:26 ET by UnsaneHey, I have already told you what could have been done with Jessica Lunsford's killer/rapist. FL has The Chair still. FL can also get competent judges. You could also send him to TX where we had, and have, as memory serves, PLENTY of spare capacity. Problem solved. But no, you want to blame that travesty of justice on people not being allowed to get baked and to check out of society altogether.
There was your solution to that problem, but you'd rather use the death of a little girl to pursue your own agenda of permitting this society to rot internally. Sick.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Lie about my motivations al
December 8, 2006 - 07:06 ET by sarcasmoLie about my motivations all you want, I think you literally worship the drugwar. A jail cell is a jail cell is a jail cell, and the tax and spend drugwar's holy tenets of "mandatory minimums" led to the death of that little girl, whether you or the antiLibertarian-biased news media like it or not. And we already DO have a chair named Old Sparky, so I'm puzzled by your reference to that. I'm in favor of its use when warranted, but in this case a violent rapist of children was let out so that peaceful potheads could be kept in jail, and as with the innocent grandmother and various other innocent victims, to you it's all acceptable collateral damage in the name of 'society.' I think it's disgusting, but then, I think it's disgusting that your side prefers to call names than to coherently answer the late Professor Friedman, who has been right for decades on this issue.
JMR
They are ALL lawbreakers that
December 8, 2006 - 12:30 ET by UnsaneThey are ALL lawbreakers that deserve a jail cell (but in the case of Lunsford's killer he really deserved Old Sparky, hence that reference). But no, you don't see it that way. If the potheads are "peaceful" and should be let out of prison, should we then excuse embezzlers and armed robbers so long as they DO NOT kill anyone? Or burglars? Or people who commit auto theft?
Professor Friedman thought Hong Kong an ideal capitalist society. Last time I flew in there, I couldn't take any drugs into his idea of paradise. Had I done that, I would have gotten a tour of Hong Kong's detention facilities I don't feel the need to take. Don't believe me? Try it sometime.
Oh, andifworshippingthedrugwarmakesmeanevilperson, sobeit.
Butthen, IconsidermyselfalawandordertypeofguywhoreallydoesnotwanttoseetherotofAmerican
societythatforsomereasonYOUSOBADLYWANT.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
"I'm shocked you had t
December 6, 2006 - 13:14 ET by Indiana Joe"I'm shocked you had to bother with moving the cursor! :)"
Well, you know, just wanted to VERIFY my suspicions....
But give me credit for not needing to click the link to know! ..... ;^D
Plants remove carbon dioxid
December 6, 2006 - 10:40 ET by Jack BauerPlants remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by photosynthesis,
Indiana -- that is, indisputable. However...
Carbon dioxide is an end product in organisms that obtain energy from breaking down sugars or fats with oxygen as part of their metabolism, in a process known as cellular respiration.
This includes all plants, animals, many fungi and some bacteria. In higher animals, the carbon dioxide travels in the blood from the body's tissues to the lungs where it is exhaled.
Plants also emit CO2 during respiration,
And it's also an indisputable fact, apparently, that 95% of all CO2 is produced NATURALLY by the planet and its inhabitants.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
Ok Jack...Im with you...we ne
December 6, 2006 - 10:45 ET by bassndudeOk Jack...Im with you...we need to get rid of all these animals. I say open season all year long, no hunting license needed. Give me a few years and all those pesky CO2 exhalers will be history. We can also burn all the forests to get rid of the fungi and bacteria...:-) Oh...and what about liberals? Dont they exhale?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
SAVE THE PLANET - SHOOT A L
December 6, 2006 - 10:52 ET by Jack BauerSAVE THE PLANET - SHOOT A LIBERAL CO2 EXHALER
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
By my estimation, CO2 is no
December 6, 2006 - 07:59 ET by liberal_bug_zapperBy my estimation, CO2 is not the gas to blame for global warming. The only thing that can be shown is that in ice cores, CO2 levels have moved up and down as temperatures have moved up and down. But in test after test, the idea that CO2 is working as a "Greenhouse" gas has failed to produce the results that would back up the assertion.
Sooooooooooo maybe you need to do a little more research into the phenomenon of the "greenhouse" effect.
It's been reported that the big culprit is water vapor.... or..... you guessed it.... clouds, high atmospheric water crystals and even lower lying fogs and mists all blanket the land (and water) and keep heat in. And this, this is the one variable they cannot reasonably enter into their formulas. Global warming might increase cloud cover, or it might not. More cloud cover might trap heat and increase global warming, or it might block sunlight and decrease global warming. We can't produce models that take proper account of cloud cover because we can't predict either the effect of global warming on cloud cover or the effect of cloud cover on global warming.
Oh yes, and I was wrong. Trees do release CO2. When the drop needles and leaves. It is a part of the carbon cycle.
Let's talk about that, because whenever I get into arguments with the Sky is falling crowd, we always seem to ague some static model, i.e. CO2 is increasing.... i.e. we're doomed. Except that homeostasis is something we cannot control, and the world seems pretty good at changing to take advantage of a situation like an increase in the levels of CO2.... like, more trees.
reasonable conclusion
December 6, 2006 - 08:58 ET by Celumnazagreed, it is not reasonable
is it reasonable to conclude that any random two vehicles travelling at the same rate along side eachother on any given street came from the same origin and are travelling to the same destination because of a common cause?
imo in that case, and the gw case, we're looking at a snippet of time that Appears to have a relationship that likely doesn't exsist except in some people's minds.
interpretation of data that is not complete and coming to conclusions that are opinion but stated as fact to be absorbed by a conditioned-to-be-ignorant population.
Edit note: I wish they would take that "can't take that chance" stance about countries in the mid east and n. korea etc...
Global Warming
December 6, 2006 - 10:07 ET by pbanks7Last time I checked, we've had a 10,000 year warming trend since the last ICE AGE.
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
Here's one for you. Global
December 6, 2006 - 02:07 ET by liberal_bug_zapperHere's one for you.
Global Climate Change is a fact and is happening.
Now I can go on...
Humans do contribute to gasses in the atmosphere, some of which are contributors to climate change.
Here is another one for you...
Global Climate change is both comprised of warming and cooling and according to past trends, we're due for an ice age.
How about this one?
Global Climate prediction models are not very good, and must leave out more complex parts of the global climate such as clouds and the effect they have on the climate. Many who say they have solved this issue are not being totally honest and have really only scratched the surface.
There is no consensus. The real consensus exists on the leftist side of the aisle and their dogma calls for them to condemn anyone who disagrees with that consensus. Worldwide leftists are powerful and have a lot of influence in governments around the world, provoking scientists who need funding to do research which makes truly unsubstantiated claims, but which need to be peer reviewed and researched to say for sure that they are wrong. Some of these studies took 25 and 30 years to produce, hence, the rebuttal could take just as long.
Be open to the idea that you could be wrong.... we are and we require proof that cannot be desputed. Your side (inspite of the rhetoric) has not delivered.
re: Mars warming
December 6, 2006 - 02:25 ET by dejourI never said that global warming is definitely occurring. I simply said that pulling out an old copy of Newsweek doesn't prove anything one way or another. All it shows is that people are sometimes wrong.
So yes, I agree that, it is possible that man-made global warming will not happen inspite of the increase in greenhouse gases.
And yes, I concede that not everything in the climate is well understood. I suspect that there may be some feedback mechanisms that dampen the effect of increased CO2. One feedback mechanism is that more CO2 means more plants will thrive, which will somewhat decrease the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. There are probably other interactions that have not been considered.
Nevertheless, consensus of peer-reviewed science suggests that global warming will occur due to man-caused atmospheric emissions. There are large mountains of data supporting this, and very little disputing it.
At the end you say that you require irrefutable proof. I believe that is too high a standard. Scientists have shown that global warming is extremely likely to occur at that the results will be severe. Not irrefutably, but the impetus for action is there. Imagine for a moment that you never acted until proof was irrefutable.
Situation 1: You leave your child with a babysitter. When you get home you find your child bruised and crying, but she doesn't say what happened. The babysitter claims your child fell, but the physical evidence suggests that she beat up your child. Do you have your child babysat by the same sitter because you don't have irrefutable proof? I'd say no - further I'd report the babysitter to the police.
Situation 2: An informant tells you that terrorist are planning to blow up a large office building tomorrow. They provide you with some e-mails detailing the plans. It is possible it is a hoax. Do you do nothing because it is not irrefutable evidence? I'd say no - I'd close the building, assign security and try to hunt down the perpetrators.
Sometimes you have to take action when you are not 100% certain.
Stop saying Global Warming
December 6, 2006 - 02:50 ET by liberal_bug_zapperStop saying Global Warming or you'll be labeled a kook.
Global warming is a misnomer.
Now, to address the rest of what you're talking about.....WTF???
Stick to the subject please....
Consensus to you is anything that your media can spout as being consensus....
Here is a petition signed by more than 17,000 scientists who are against Kyoto, and basically against the conventional "Global Warming" wisdom.
I guess that the liberal idea of consensus is "Ignore those who disagree with you" and claim consensus loud enough to drown out any protests and you have a consensus
Re: WTF?
December 6, 2006 - 03:11 ET by dejourYou said that "we require proof that is irrefutable".
I said that that is an unreasonable standard, and I gave two examples where a reasonable person would take action without irrefutable proof. Thus I'm suggesting that action on global warming can be supported in the absence of "irrefutable proof". It is possible to argue by analogy.
re: petition
Look, obviously I can't go through a list of 17,000 people and discredit them one by one. For one thing, I don't know them. Some of the articles I've read criticizing these petitions say that a large percentage of people who signed are either:
a) paid to give the opinion
b) not academically qualified to give the opinion
or c) misled into signing
In any case, a petition isn't the best way to judge a scientific consensus. The best way is to look at all peer-reviewed articles determine what they suggest in aggregate.
Time for argument by analogy ;)
You could find 17,000 people that think Elvis is alive. I would still say there is a consensus that Elvis is dead.
You could find 17,000 people that think the Kansas City Royals were the best team in baseball last year. I would still say there is a consensus that they were not.
These people are scientists
December 6, 2006 - 04:01 ET by liberal_bug_zapperThese people are scientists who disagree with Global Warming. If your group of scientists is applicable, so is mine, and if mine is not, neither is yours.
And quit it with your silly analogies, they make no sense and do not in any way shape or form apply.
You are using multiple fallacious arguments like: Argumentum ad Populum and Faulty Analogies. This leads me to believe that you don't really have an argument, but rather, you are right, we are wrong and you're going to pound it into our heads until we understand.
So in the spirit of a good argument, I will restate my "we require proof that cannot be disputed" to the more moderate stance of; we require proof that can be independently verified by the skeptics. Skeptics are good to keep science honest. When your side jumps in and makes bold claims that you say cannot be disputed (as you are trying to say with the GW argument), people on my side of the aisle tend to reply "Um, I dispute that." and then we come up with alternatives with scientific backing.
To the average person, the ones who don't understand the science, the arguments are not convincing, however, the blatant scare tactics from your side do have a visceral effect on the common man's psyche. This is partly why we combat you so hard. If you kept it in the halls of academe where everyone understood the premise and the postulations, I don't think we'd be so upset. But your side politicizes it with unsubstantiated claims which you then try and stand up as "Truth by consensus." A very dangerous position indeed.
I need to go to sleep, so thi
December 6, 2006 - 04:43 ET by dejourI need to go to sleep, so this is my last post. Have the last word.
The reason why your group of scientists is not valid is because none of them have published a peer-reviewed article in a journal arguing their case. If they have valid reasons for their beliefs, they would have done this, and it would have been published. The fact that they haven't suggests that they don't have reasonable objections.
I agree. Skeptics are good. But skeptics have to be willing to accept overwhelming evidence. The fact is some skeptics can never be convinced. If you require all skeptics to agree then nothing can ever be proven. Therefore, no action can ever be taken regarding anything.
I'm not arguing that global warming is a 100% definitive fact. But I am arguing that a global consensus of experts agree that man is or will cause global warming.
This position has been endorsed by the following scientific societies:
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619
Some individual scientists may disagree, but I would humbly suggest that that if all these organizations agree, then that is a consensus. Especially as these are science organizations set up for general reasons - not the particular cause of proving a man-made cause of global warming.
BTW, I don't think my analogies are faulty. They are quite apt. If you disagree, explain why - don't just flat out state they are faulty.
Oh man! Get a new post. Be
December 6, 2006 - 05:25 ET by liberal_bug_zapperOh man! Get a new post. Be original. Quit posting the same damn crap you guys always post.
You didn't really look at the site. There is a nice link in plain sight to a paper written by some very reputable scientists.
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide written by Arthur B. Robinson PhD, Sallie L. Baliunas PhD, Willie Soon PhD, and Zachary W. Robinson is a paper which helps dispute the conventional wisdom. All of these scientists are reputable in their fields.
Now of course, because this is contrary to your view, it will be called denigrated as junk science. However, these people are well respected in their fields.
Those societies you point out all rely on monies from government grants to survive. Greenies and environmental wackos have been pressuring politicians for years now. A few bad storms and heat waves and many moronic politicians are convinced that its all true.
As many others on my side have tried to point out; 500 years ago, the general consensus was that the sun revolved around the Earth, and 150 years ago, dinosaurs were big cold blooded lizards, and 50 years ago, DNA had no traces of our ancestry in it, and today, Global Warming is man made.
re: new post
December 6, 2006 - 07:16 ET by dejourHey, I can't be brilliant all the time ;) Sometimes I have to rely on the work of others.
First off that paper was not peer-reviewed. Was it not submitted? If not, why not?
A lot of their arguments make sense to me, plus they accept the idea that man is causing an increase in CO2, that the greenhouse effect is real, and that the Earth would be 14 degrees Celsius cooler without it. They point out that there are holes in the understanding of climate. Fair enough. I also concede that there is no conclusive proof that any temperature change in recent years was caused by man-made greenhouse gases. I admit that natural variation is strong enough that observed recent increases could be caused by natural phenomena.
But they lose me with the argument that increased vegetation will stop the increase in CO2. CO2 has been increasing steadily over the past century. While increased vegetation may have slowed the increase it clearly hasn't stopped it. I don't see any reason to think this trend won't continue. I would think that if the trend were to flatten out, there would be some downward curvature to the CO2 graph, but it's not there.
Global Warming
December 6, 2006 - 07:35 ET by fosstenYou'd better be grateful the world isn't 14 degrees Celsius cooler right now. That's 58 degrees Fahrenheit. Let me see, it's 30 degrees right now in Louisville, so if it weren't for the evil humans polluting and warming the world, it would be a glorious, sunny (-)28 degrees here! Oh, I wish it were so! (This message brought to you by the scientific magazine Duh!)
Of course, my calculations weren't peer-reviewed, so I have no credibility, right?
Geez, what brains it takes to be a scientist. Maybe I should apply to the Acme School for Scientists so I can be as smart as they are.
re: duh!
December 6, 2006 - 08:08 ET by dejourOf course, I'm grateful that the world isn't 14 degrees Celsius cooler. You seem to think that I'm saying that humans are responsible for all CO2 in the atmosphere. No reasonable person thinks that. What is said is that humans are responsible for a substantial increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.
While you mock the idea of peer review, you might have benefitted from a peer-review yourself. While 14 degrees Celsius is equal to 57.2 F, a decrease of 14 degrees Celsius is equal to a decrease of 25.2 F. Keep in mind that 32 F equals 0 Celsius.
So a drop of 14 Celsius in Louisville would drop the temperature to 4.8 Fahrenheit. Your calculation is very much incorrect!
That said, a simple Fahrenheit to Celsius calculation would not need to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. However, climate science is sufficiently complex that even highly intelligent people can get tripped up.
Nothing more than an excuse
December 6, 2006 - 12:20 ET by UnsaneWhy is the idea of "peer-review" mocked? Because it is nothing more than an excuse to throw away one's own critical thinking. Even "peer-reviewed" articles can be just as wrong as ones that are not.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Global warming the pathway to global government
December 6, 2006 - 10:35 ET by TheTruthGlobal warming (solar warming) the liberals pathway to global government.
#1.Concensus to a uberliberal
December 6, 2006 - 09:22 ET by Ruths husband Ben#1.Concensus to a uberliberal means everone who agrees with me agrees with me.
#2. Situation #2, false statement. You would form a support group and try to determine what we did wrong to make the terrorists attack us.
#3. It is easy to say sometimes we have to take action when we are not 100% sure. But have you counted the cost? We are talking Billions of Billions of dollars here (that is what is motivating the so called experts). It is all about money and power. Correction. It is always all about money and power. Let that sink into your world view and it will change your vision.
Global warming
December 6, 2006 - 02:41 ET by acadia1755(For one thing, global cooling articles were not appearing in
peer-reviewed Scientific journals. )
Could you name one global warming article that was peer-reviewed?
The only Consensus today: All global warming alarmist believe in AGW.
http://www.friendsof...
re: articles
December 6, 2006 - 04:18 ET by dejourI guess I was thinking of the following study.
www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
928 peer-reviewed articles from 1993 to 2003 were found dealing with "climate change". Not one of them disagreed with a man-made cause of global warming. 25% took no position, and 75% explicity or implicitly supported the man-caused climate change view.
Anyhoo, here's a few:
Battle, M., M. Bender, T. Sowers, P.P. Tans, J.H. Butler, J.W. Elkins, T. Conway, N. Zhang, P. Lang and A.D. Clarke, 1996: Atmospheric gas concentrations over the past century measured in air from firn at South Pole. Nature, 383, 231-235.
Ding, A. and M.X. Wang, 1996: A Model for methane emission from rice field and its application in southern China. Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, 13, 159-168.
Fuglestvedt, J.S., I.S.A. Isaksen and W.-C. Wang, 1996: Estimates of indirect global warming potentials for CH4, CO, and NOx. Clim. Change, 34, 405-437.
Bengtsson, L., M. Botzet and M. Esch, 1996: Will greenhouse gas-induced warming over the next 50 years lead to higher frequency and greater intensity of hurricanes? Tellus, 48A, 57-73.
Global warming
December 6, 2006 - 05:04 ET by acadia1755Hummmm!
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000433letter_in_science.html
Group Y says Proposition X.
December 6, 2006 - 07:29 ET by fosstenGroup Y says Proposition X. Group Z is similar to Group Y, and Group Z said Proposition W which has turned out to be false. Therefore anything Group Y says is not credible.
I could say this:
Bill Clinton said some things that were false. Therefore all presidents are not credible. Therefore you can't believe anything that George W Bush says.
I trust you see the flaw in the above argument. If you believe that George W Bush was wrong about Saddam Hussein being an imminent danger, you should make some arguments about Saddam Hussein and Iraq. If you say that you can't believe Bush because Clinton lied about Monica Lewinsky, you're not addressing the actual issue.
Your logic is flawed.
If Bill Clinton said something false, then Bill Clinton has no credibility. If a weekly periodical publishes something in 1975 which turns out to be false, that publication has no credibility in 2006. If Newsweek routinely publishes biased or unreliable news, which it does, you cannot grant it automatic credibility for global warming. Group Y and Group Y.
If the scientific community shows itself to be unable to predict what the weather will do in 1975, it is likely to be just as unable to predict same in 2006. That's group X and group X, by the way.
By the way, many people believe George W. Bush lied, and many because Clinton lied and degraded the office to the extent that all subsequent Presidents will be regarded with suspicion. Thanks Willie!
I'm no climatologist nor an e
December 6, 2006 - 10:03 ET by BruzillaI'm no climatologist nor an expert on climate change, and there are so many arguments made by those who are that it's impossible to keep track of them all, yet alone distill down key points. I'm just your average "schmo", and I have this average schmo view of global warming:
1. Most reports show that the average temperature has increased about one degree while all this tracking has been going on. One degree, over supposedly hundreds of years of tracking. I don't know if a mere one degree change really means anything, but if it does I do know that I can place two identical thermometers side by side in my yard and get a few degrees difference between them throughout the day. I know that a lot of the old temperature readings the experts are citing as proof were taken by people in between their bleedings and leechings to maintain their health. So to me a one degree increase over hundreds of years, as calculated greatly on observations by people, many who were likely still debating the flat Earth theory at the time, isn't much proof of global warming.
2. If it's taken 400 years for the temperature to go up one degree, and for most of that time there was little in the way of greenhouse gases except for flatulence, then it's most likely that global warming has been going on since the ice age. I offer as proof of my average schmo view that my native state of Pennsylvania has been glacier-free for some time now. Had I as a child in Pittsburgh in the 1960s needed to claw through several hundred feet of glacier ice each morning to get to the school bus, while kids today don't, I would be a hard believer in global warming. But since the glaciers melted away long, long, before the first bit of gas hit the first spark plug, I'm thinking that what some consider global warming is just the Earth continuing to thaw itself out from the ice age.
3. Lastly, no scientist, however eminent, however accomplished, however mertitorious, will ever be able to convince me that losing most of California to a rising Pacific Ocean is a bad thing.
Bruzilla GW
December 6, 2006 - 10:13 ET by misterbillBruzilla GW
I watched "The Little Ice Age" on the History channel last night. I only heard one scientist attribute GW to be caused by man's discharge of co2 into the atmosphere. Most of the rest of them said that it was natural cycles causing the problem. A couple even had the courage to say:
1. Tree ring analysis , while helpful as to the warm years vs the cold cannot tell much more.
2. The ocean may be the cause of climate changes directly, by itself, not because of runoff from the melting ice.
3. More of the same as 1 and 2.
My summary==A lot of scientists don't know a lot of facts and a good number of them agree that there is no way of knowing very much about GW because record keeping is relatively new compared to the earth's time cycles.
I spent the first ten years o
December 6, 2006 - 11:53 ET by BruzillaI spent the first ten years of my life tracking Soviet submarines in the Atlantic Ocean, and since sea water temperatures have such a profound impact on the speed of sound and how it bends and moves through the watermass, we were always taking measurements of sea temperatures from the surface down to 2,000 ft or so. What I learned is that sea surface temperatures, which many GW reports are based on, are highly influenced by wind and wave action, that creates an isothermic mixed layer of water at the surface. This layer can be 20 ft deep, it can be 400 ft deep depending on how much wind and wave action is going on. So we could go out on a Monday with little wind or waves, and see a sea surface temperature of 65 degrees, and go back 24 hours later when there was more wind and waves, mixing surface and deep water together, and see a sea surface temperature of 61 degrees. We could go back 24 hours after that, when there was a lot of sunshine and litle wind/waves, and see a temperature of 67 degrees.
So I think the concept of using sea surface temperatures as a more reliable means of tracking change than air temperature is just as bogus as relying on tree rings for accurate measurements.
Oceans
December 6, 2006 - 12:00 ET by BarberianCorrect, temp is not a good measurement especially at the surface. More logical is measuring "heat content" in the oceans. This is usually measured from surface down to 2000 meters.
You need to read my PDF that
December 6, 2006 - 11:00 ET by kirch66You need to read my PDF that I posted below. It addresses every point of the global warming issue and knocks it on it's butt. You sited a couple of misinformation "facts" about peer reviewed consensus that the GW crowd uses to try to indicate they are right. Read the article and see why you have been drinking the cool aid my friend.
Human induced Global Warming is bunk
"The moment you give up your principles and your values, the moment you laugh at those principles and those values, you are dead, your culture is dead, your civilization is dead. Period." - Oriana Fallaci
Global Cooling....er Warming
December 6, 2006 - 01:46 ET by trebelocRush Limbaugh listeners are surely aware of this information, is old news, except for the uninformed! The only thing that would have been better was if he had a copy of the 12/2006 Newsweek Mars edition, that blamed the United States for Mars' Global Warming!
The #1 cause of all deaths is BIRTH!
L8^{I)>
Maybe they ought to send out
December 6, 2006 - 01:46 ET by The Right StuffMaybe they ought to send out thousands of copies of this article to high schools across the country. Just make sure to pay for the postage.
Thank You Dennis For B Slapping The MsM
December 6, 2006 - 07:09 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasAnother B!tch Slap heard round the world. Thanks Dennis for bringing the magazine on Leno. The Clown God called Global Warming sometimes confuses his worshippers and does a cooling trend...he has a sense of humor.
****SMACK****
If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal.
Citing peer-reviewed works
December 6, 2006 - 07:37 ET by ladyluckThis is the last refuge to cite peer-reviewed works. In the academic world it is safe to say that many, if not most, article writers are liberals with friends in the publishing world (or contacts there). Most outstanding work stands alone for a while and the army of foreign articles crying "global warming" is both the new fad for them and a way of getting "grant money". Since some of these same people (scientists) have touted a new ice age just a mere 30 years ago, it is hard for common sense people to doubt what they are "selling" today.
Experts?
December 6, 2006 - 08:20 ET by DanSThe experts who can tell us the Earth's temperature 100 years from now can't reliably predict the temperature next week. Many factors influence climate, including the Sun, ocean currents, volcanos, etc. Scientists need a panic to keep grant money coming in, and the media needs a panic to sell advertising. Remember the media hype about planes falling out of the sky and electricity shutting off due to Y2K. Unfortunately, there is no money to be made by admitting that client science is too complicated to reliably predict the future.
Oceans
December 6, 2006 - 08:38 ET by BarberianThe earth is 2/3 water, There is a gigantic nuclear reactor only 150,000,000 kms away. Why is the greatest emphasis on temperature change at 1.5 meters above the land?
The peer reviewed work they o
December 6, 2006 - 11:05 ET by kirch66The peer reviewed work they often site is one particular one that has been exposed as having been full of people who are not even scientists or if they are scientists they are not meteorologists that specialize in global weather related to the GW issue. Read my article I sent out this summer. It touches on every point they try to make and knocks them on their head with facts and data.
Human induced Global Warming is bunk
"The moment you give up your principles and your values, the moment you laugh at those principles and those values, you are dead, your culture is dead, your civilization is dead. Period." - Oriana Fallaci
kirch66
December 6, 2006 - 11:24 ET by BarberianNice work! Sorry I'm just now reading it. Gives many rebuttels in a nutshell. And the work goes on.
Three things:-Dennis Miller i
December 6, 2006 - 08:25 ET by DarkseanThree things:
-Dennis Miller is awesome.
-In one moment, Mt. Pinatubo in the Philipines did more to affect global climate change than mankind ever has. Obviously, we can better combat global warming by banning volcanoes. Problem solved!
-Until the models that "show" this dreaded global warming treat input from the sun as a variable and not a constant, they are worthless.
Why ban the volcanoes? The
December 6, 2006 - 08:40 ET by kafkakaeferWhy ban the volcanoes? The temperature decreased after Pinatubo erupted! So lets hope for more volcano eruptions.
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
I agree! We should be expendi
December 6, 2006 - 09:42 ET by Roger the ShrubberI agree! We should be expending our energies and tax dollars developing technologies that could cause and control volcanic eruptions to stop Global Warming. Just ignore all the dust and crap that gets dumped into the atmosphere.
You are a genius, Kafka!
A possibly less expensive but
December 6, 2006 - 09:49 ET by DarkseanA possibly less expensive but similar solution would be to tie Rosie to the top of the Eiffel Tower, install a dumb waiter and feed her a continuous supply of chili.
darksean - Thanks???
December 6, 2006 - 09:56 ET by misterbillI just finished breakfast. I would like to keep it. The very mention of her name starts some digestive disturbances. The thought you have planted in my mind will probably stay with me all day.
Reeeettttccchhh!
Thanks a lot!
PS But the thought of her in France is soothing!
Dark, are you trying to creat
December 6, 2006 - 12:12 ET by Roger the ShrubberDark, are you trying to create ANOTHER leaning tower in Europe?
LOL -- Leaning Tower of Ros
December 6, 2006 - 12:32 ET by Jack BauerLOL -- Leaning Tower of Rosie.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
Yeah. And Germany would be
December 6, 2006 - 11:07 ET by Jack BauerSo lets hope for more volcano eruptions.
Yeah. And Germany would be a good place to start.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
Nuclear winter
December 6, 2006 - 12:25 ET by UnsaneWhy wait on volcanoes when we can have an all out nuclear war and accelerate the process?
(Cues "Walking in a Nuclear Winter Wonderland"...)
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
I agree with banning volcanoe
December 6, 2006 - 09:30 ET by Ruths husband BenI agree with banning volcanoes, but while we are at it, we should pass a law rounding Pi down and e up to 3. This way all of the Literatue Majors would have a better chance of understanding science!
Rounding pi down is a good id
December 6, 2006 - 09:36 ET by DarkseanRounding pi down is a good idea. We don't want students who can't get to .14 to have their feelings hurt.
Pi to 3?? No!! If you do that
December 6, 2006 - 10:37 ET by bassndudePi to 3?? No!! If you do that, I never will get this pipe cut!! And the welds will always leak..
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Global Warming is bunk
December 6, 2006 - 10:53 ET by kirch66Here's an article I wrote this past summer when Al Gore's "movie" came out. It debunks ALL of the points they try to use to scare people into believing the Global Warming "threat" I was a US Air Force Weatherman for 6 years and have some back ground in this field, but I use many different expert sources to make my case. Read the PDF (link below) that I created and pass it around. It's an interesting contrast to the propaganda you see in the media from the Left
Human induced Global Warming is bunk
"The moment you give up your principles and your values, the moment you laugh at those principles and those values, you are dead, your culture is dead, your civilization is dead. Period." - Oriana Fallaci
The Clown God called "Global Warming"
December 6, 2006 - 11:15 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasNews Release
The followers and worshippers of the Clown God they call "Global Warming" are believed to be in the midst of receiving its Messiah, former Vice President Al Gore. Gore's popularity was gained via his Marchy 9, 1999, claim to "inventing the internet" and his twice spoken declaration that "a zebra does not change its spots".
The Messiah, who in the past wasn't sure whether to sport a beard and a belly, just a belly or slim down and go it alone with humiliating oneliners, appears to have settled on his Vice Presidential Cardboard Personality style to maximize ease of use and modification by his worshippers.
One example is David, a long time worshipper of the Clown God known as Global Warming who said, "I know our Messiah, Al Gore seems stupid at times or seems to have quietly pooped his pants when realizing what a fool he has become but it isn't so. Look at him, so...so...plane and simple...that must mean he is honest and what you see isn't what you get so to me, even though by all appearances, actions and communications our Messiah is a clown, well he isn't, but instead he is a brilliant mathematician, philosopher, and motorcross champion."
So the questions is for many whether Al Gore is their Messiah sent by the Clown God they call "Global Warming". Whether Al Gore is indeed the Messiah of the Clown God called Global Warming, one sure bet is that there will be plenty of jesters to cheer him on.
If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal.
His point, that scientific
December 6, 2006 - 13:22 ET by blogonatorHis point, that scientific consensus on climate has changed over the years makes the assumption that nothing else has. Let's reflect a moment on how things are different from 30 years ago... hmmm... Human population, increasing global industrialization, scientific computational power, etc.
Imagine if we looked at other issues the same way. 30 years ago the most fatal sexually transmitted disease was syphilus - look at how much research is being wasted on AIDS! 30 years ago, the biggest threat was communism... now it's Islamic fascism?!
The obvious point is that 30 years is a long time and things change and our power of observing things changes. I'd rather put my fate in the hands of scientists who (99% of the time) are living up to the standards of the scientific method rather than politicians who are LEADING us based on whatever happens to be their own moral code.
Now you've done it
December 6, 2006 - 13:55 ET by RackieOh I so want to be there when you AGW crisis mongers tell the 3 or 4 billion third-worlders that they are just gonna have to make do with what they've got right now and to for go modernity and all the benefits that go with it because you feel it's not in the best interests of Mother Earth if they have a better future. Now that's gonna go down well.
Cha, cha, changes
December 6, 2006 - 14:29 ET by acumen"Let's reflect a moment on how things are different from 30 years ago... hmmm... Human population, increasing global industrialization, scientific computational power, etc."
Why stop there?......hmmmm....in the above mentioned time period the developed world declined from just under 30 percent of the global population to just over 20 percent while the undeveloped nations increased from about 15 percent to 20 percent, industrialization moved from relying on carbon emitting sources of power to new nuclear technology, new industry guidelines for emisions were reduced and then reduced again and again while continuosly monitored by such watchdog agencies such as the EPA. Scientific computational power or human guessing replaced by computers? Please....
I don't dispute climate change, I disdain science polluted by politics. If you indeed consider humans to be the supposed cause of supposed climate change, I think your beef might be with fossil-fuel burning China, Russia and the oil producing ME (both developing areas not bound by Kyoto to meet specific reductions of emissions) . But don't take my word for it. Look at a picture of the Pittsburg Tri-River basin 30 years ago and take a look at it today. Now do the same in Beijing.
"I think your beef mig
December 7, 2006 - 00:13 ET by blogonator"I think your beef might be with fossil-fuel burning China, Russia and
the oil producing ME (both developing areas not bound by Kyoto to meet
specific reductions of emissions) . But don't take my word for it.
Look at a picture of the Pittsburg Tri-River basin 30 years ago and
take a look at it today. Now do the same in Beijing."
I don't think I mentioned who's to blame. I believe GW is exascerbated by man. That means humankind, including and especially China. While they've managed to bring their population growth under control, more and more houses are being built for individuals and individual families, whereas 30 years ago a single home housed an entire extended family. So instead of 10 houses for every 100 people, there are 30 houses per hundred people. This trend is occuring as they try to emulate what they see in western culture.
Global Warming, like terrorism, may originate in other parts of the world, but it ultimately affects us all... regardless of who is to blame.
Hmmmm, 95% of CO2 NOT related to human activities
December 6, 2006 - 14:24 ET by PSPCplLet's see. CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere by many sources. Man only accounts for 5 percent. The other 95 percent comes from other sources. Why are we tackling the smallest contributor to the problem? If I am the clown following the circus parade, what should I be looking to scoop? It seems to me that I should be scooping elephant and horse turds and not the monkey turds.
Given the libs tendency to take away property rights and the enviromaniacs' zealotry, we are more than a little skeptical of anyone saying that Man is the problem that needs to be addressed. This is especially true when the solution touted is the reduction of freedom and civil rights.
PSP -- and it's not like th
December 6, 2006 - 14:34 ET by Jack BauerPSP -- and it's not like the figures are a SECRET.
Around 157 billion tonnes of Carbon Dioxide pour into the atmosphere ANNUALLY. (That's 157,000,000,000). At least 95% from NATURE.
in 2004 the British government proudly announced that its CLIMATE INITIATIVES had reduced British CO2 production by 14 MILLION tonnes ANNUALLY
If you want to visualize that miniscule amount..
Imagine a mountain of 157,000 M&Ms (any color, no discrimination here)
Now remove 14. Impressive huh,
Those "initiatives" are of course, mainly screwing people with more tax.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
Aha, but you underestimate th
December 6, 2006 - 14:37 ET by Roger the ShrubberAha, but you underestimate the power of .0089% reduction of CO2 emissions, Jackson!!
LOL shrubbster -- yeah it's
December 6, 2006 - 14:42 ET by Jack BauerLOL shrubbster -- yeah it's always that last .0089% that gets ya.
It's well worth reducing our standard of living, and hiking up taxes to achieve such impressive outcomes.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
Well, I, for one, see nothing
December 6, 2006 - 16:35 ET by Roger the ShrubberWell, I, for one, see nothing wrong with plunging into a worldwide economic crisis if the net result would be a .0089% reduction on CO2 emission.
That is a no-brainer, ain't it?
I've already picked out my
December 6, 2006 - 20:00 ET by Jack BauerI've already picked out my cave.
Don't forget. No dinosaurs were harmed in making up the man-made global warming fantasy.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
Jack, Excellent Analogy and Spot On
December 6, 2006 - 14:46 ET by PSPCplYour analogy was an excellent compliment to mine and might I say, much cleaner. I am sure that the left tards still won't see it this way. It means trying to come up with a solution that doesn't demonize human activity.
PSP -- thanks. Of course, t
December 6, 2006 - 14:59 ET by Jack BauerPSP -- thanks.
Of course, the tards would much rather blame us -- or more accurately, capitalism -- than raise their stinkin' heads and look at that 5 billion year old nuclear furnace in the sky...
We call it "The Sun", 'tards.
And "The Sun" will be burning fuel at a rate of 5 million tons a second for the next 5 billion years.
Sure, it's "man" that affects the climate of the planet.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
Jack, Point I Made Yesterday
December 6, 2006 - 15:18 ET by PSPCplI mentioned this yesterday. We know from watching nature that there are numerous examples of cyclic variations that repeat numerous times over long periods of time. That big ball of fire undergoes cyclic changes illustrated by the changing number of sun spots decreasing and increasing over time. Why is it that the amount of energy put out by the furnace should remain constant? I would bet a pay check that the amount of radiant heat that the sun emits varies in a cyclic fashion over time, and that has more to do with global warming (and cooling) than the 5 percent of CO2 we emit as humans. It would certainly explain the (at least) 6 ice ages the earch has gone through when man was not present.
It must have been those evil conservative dinosaurs eating as much roughage as they could so that they could flatuate their collective selves to death.