All you need to know about "global warming" and its propagandists is
review the "No pressure" ad campaign, by , wherein the environmentalists
showed what they really think. They went around killing "dissenters" or
even those who questioned the dogma, by blowing them up. No pressure to
believe, they say, as they want to kill you. Just look up 10:10, the well
financed, highly influential group that put out the ad.
The most powerful psychological tools used to control populations are fear and
guilt. Man made global warming is ideal for both, disaster is coming , and it is
your fault. This is typical of the totalitarian mind-set, either communist or
fascist. Not much difference between the two, fascism is national socialism, and
communism is international socialism, rival left wing factions, not right/left
opponents and usually portrayed.
America has turned into a "wag the dog" type country. Policy change
happens because popular media decides it must. The key to creating change - as
Barack Obama has discovered - is to first get the change out into his friendly
media and let them drive the change into policy. Policy makers - senators and
house members - cave to the pressure applied by the media. This is a VERY
dangerous way to run a country and global is warming a prime example. The phony
science hatched by Al Gore has found its way into environment policy now but no
one bothered to make certain the science was accurate before creating the laws.
Companies now are dying on the vine due to extreme environmental policy and all
of it hatched from a complete FRAUD - Al Gore. WAG THE DOG
Haha. That's all you've got? Please.
To "lonepeakstudent" no, I am using NASA as a source, it is just that
the Register and other web sites have reported on the fact that NASA has cooked
the books.In addition to the report from the Register, read the
article "Nothing alarming in raw weather data" in the Iowa Gazette.
There they even include info for how you can view the NASA data and see how it
has been altered. Also see "Global warming controversy reaches NASA climate
data" in the Washington Times where they report on how NASA won't
release data explaining why they have been adjusting temperature records.Why would NASA be adjusting their data to show more warming?The fact that you can't refute the fact that NASA is adjusting
temperatures to make the warming worse only shows that the temperature data is
Redshirt:You're really using the Register as your source?
To "Twin Lights" both sides may say they want energy independance, but
who is actually making progress towards it? The liberals are shutting down coal
plants and coal mines and refuse to allow drilling on federal lands, in addition
to opposing nuclear power and reprocessing nuclear power. The Liberals are also
opposing new natural gas pipe lines and oppose the keystone pipeline.We have conservatives fighting to allow drilling on federal land, and fighting
to comission a new nuclear power plant. Conservatives are also pushing to get
the Keystone pipeline approved.It appears that conservatives are
actually doing something to get power output up and domestic.
As seen in the comments on this article, you are ridiculed, mocked or scoffed if
you question "The Doctrine". We live in a time of great intolerance and
blind arrogance from the Far Left. Thank goodness the opposition is brave enough
or even allowed to speak, although a large group of people are trying their best
shut down open dialogue. This type of narrow-mindedness has no justification.
Politics has replaced much of our science.
Man caused global warming is just about as "settled" as it can be . .
like the theory of gravity.You do know, that scientifically
speaking, the theory of gravity is not "settled" either, don't
you?Gravity is a scientific theory, and the great preponderance of
available evidence points to it being true, just like global warming.For the sake of simplicity, I consider both gravity and global warming to be
very real and "settled."All reasonable people do.
Twin Lights said:"Arctic sea ice is at the fifth lowest annual
maximum recorded."The US National Snow and Ice Data Center
(NSIDC) has an interesting report from February 5, 2014 called "Thicker on
top, more down under." Basically, Arctic sea ice is getting thicker, while
the Antarctic Sea ice extent is expanding.Here's an interesting
quote from the NSIDC report: "While satellite observations have
shown a decline in Arctic Ocean sea ice extent since the late 1970s, sea ice is
highly mobile, and a decrease in extent does not necessarily imply a
corresponding decrease in ice volume."Twin Lights said:"...But there are thousands of climate scientists around the world in
various cultures, languages, religions, and political systems who are."I can also provide scientists and climatologists who believe it to be
junk science.Twin Lights said:“As to who is making
money and where the monied interests are, who can realistically compete with the
oil companies?”Do the following companies ring a bell for you:
Solyndra, Beacon Power, AES’ subsidiary Eastern Energy, Nevada Geothermal,
SunPower and First Solar? Twin Lights said:"Do you
have the scientific credentials to declare the IPCC models junk science?"They were wrong.
Sven,Arctic sea ice is at the fifth lowest annual maximum
recorded.Individual low temperatures are not the issue - it is the
long-term averages over the span of the globe.Yep, glad we
aren't seeing any deadly storms in NYC, the Philippines . . .Agreed that Al Gore is no scientist. But there are thousands of climate
scientists around the world in various cultures, languages, religions, and
political systems who are.As to who is making money and where the
monied interests are, who can realistically compete with the oil companies?Do you have the scientific credentials to declare the IPCC models junk
science?2 bitsThey are trying to (in real time) build
models to predict what is going to happen. Such modeling is good science but
inherently messy. Think of meteorologists. When you are warned tornado weather
is forming, do you do nothing? No. Does a tornado always form? No. Does that
mean we should not listen the next time the warning goes out? No.VSTIf you see nothing scientific supporting man made climate
change then you are blinding yourself.RedShirt,Come now.
Be honest. Both sides want energy independence, but advocate different
Re: "I will focus on real climate scientists and real data."When did you think you might get started on that?Climate
"scientists" don't use real data. They stretch and bend, smooth and
norm, hide and obfuscate what small amounts of real data they actually have,
then cherry pick proxy datasets to produce preconceived results. They attempt to
explain away those data they don't like and the inevitable deviations from
their contrived model predictions with more tortured proxy "data" and
disingenuous attributions to unknown phenomena they assure us will all break
bad.That's not actually science. It is, rather, liberal
political theory.And, as we've learned about all liberal
political theory, it may be safely ignored.
To "Tyler D" the right wants to increase our enegy independence, but the
left keeps stopping us. Just look at the way the left is fighting the nuclear
power plant that some developers want in central Utah. Just look at how the
left successfully made it so that we can't reprocess spent nuclear fuel.
Just look at how the recent energy boom has been on private lands and not public
lands.What happened with the left's desire to clean the air and
to get the US energy self sufficient? They say they want it, but then you have
the leadership on the left investing in Brazilian oil fields.
We had a similar battle back in the 80's with CFC's, many scientists
claiming they were wrecking havoc on the environment, and of course many
politicians and industries claiming that was a bunch of lies. Lucky Reagan, yes
the Reagan that all of the Republicans idolize and worship, had the foresight to
look past the controversy and ban them. Had he done that in the current
political climate he would have been seen as a traitor to the party, a liberal
and probably driven out of office. Results after the ban showed a clear trend in
the healing of our ozone. It will be interesting to look back in 30 years on the
global warming debate and see how it pans out.I'm still partly
undecided on the global warming thing, I sit probably 75% on the side believing
in man made global warming, but could still be swayed in the other direction.
However it's hard to take many people serious when they are anti-science in
almost every facet and then try to use science to show you why global warming is
@2 bits – “You would have been one of the people defending that
position... because most people thought that at the time (and that's what
the scientists with the knowledge they had at the time told them)...”Except that science is only about 400 years old. Prior to this most of
what passed for knowledge was much closer to religious belief than modern
science. But given the lofty pedestal many on the Right place
religion, equating these two forms of knowledge is a common and understandable
mistake.@Sven – “What the heck is "98% of
science"?”Between 1991 and 2012 almost 14,000 peer
reviewed papers were written by scientists on climate change. Of those, 24
rejected human caused climate change.Helpful? Why
doesn’t the Right realize that most of what we can do to mitigate climate
change is stuff we should be doing anyway in order to reduce pollution, weaken
petro-oligarchs, and gain energy independence (goals the Right has always
championed… what happened?).
To "Schnee" lets look at the models and the data, and see if how much
information is really valid.According to the NOAA, if we have more
than 15 years without warming, that would prove that the models are wrong. We
are now going on 16 years without warming. That means that the models they are
using to project warming do NOT reflect nor do they approximate any warming that
may be occuring.Now, the temperature data is another interesting
topic. The UK Register pulled the data since 1980. See "Painting by
numbers: NASA's peculiar thermometer" and you can see how NASA is
adjusting the raw data to emphasize warming.If you can find the data
from RSS or UAH, you find that those two satelite based temperature monitoring
systems find that temperatures have been either steady or slightly cooling. See
"Is the earth getting warmer, or cooler?" in the UK Register.So, we have a model tht has been proven wrong, and data that has been adjusted
to show higher temperatures. What is there to trust coming out of the
airnaut,Re "98% of Science can't be that wrong"...Tell this to the people who lived when the majority believed the earth was the
center of the universe.You would have been one of the people
defending that position... because most people thought that at the time (and
that's what the scientists with the knowledge they had at the time told
them)...IF you think majority wins (in science)... YOU would have
fought against Nicolaus Copernicus when he published his heliocentric model.
You would have been one of those who put Galileo away for following the position
of Copernicus (which only had minority support at the time).This
"Majority rules" type of science is usually junk-science that is
eventually dis-proven when we learn more. I trust the science you can prove
(like the laws I mentioned earlier). Not the "majority believes"...
type of science...I lean towards believing GW theory... but I
don't call it scientific FACT just because it has majority support.
Marxist cites the AGU statement on climate. They are not credible on this topic,
I am afraid. Here is part of our news release on this:AMERICAN
GEOPHYSICAL UNION MUST SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ABOUT EXTREME WEATHER AND CLIMATE
CHANGE This week's AGU conference is an ideal chance to educate
people about the real causes of extreme weather Dr. Madhav
Khandekar, former Environment Canada Research Scientist and author of the new
report,The Global Warming-Extreme Weather Link, said, "In spite of what the
United Nations bureaucracy claim, their own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change [IPCC] said in 2012 that a relationship between global warming and
hurricanes has not been demonstrated. They had only "low confidence" in
any observed long-term trend in tropical cyclone activity [typhoons and
hurricanes], tornadoes, and hail, and admitted to an "incomplete
understanding of the physical mechanisms linking tropical cyclone metrics to
climate change."; In their September 2013 assessment report, they had
"low confidence"; that damaging increases will occur in tropical
cyclones and drought due to global warming." Tom HarrisICSC
@Sven"* The Arctic Ice Sheet grew by 60% (The "scientists"
said the polar ice caps would be gone by 2013)"You left out
context. That's a 1 year change (no legitimate scientist would ever make a
2 datapoint trend), 2012 was an extreme negative anomaly so bounceback was
expected for 2013, and the "scientists" were not saying polar ice caps
would be gone by 2013, the IPCC was saying after 2050 but even after that
increase in 2013 we're still below the entire IPCC model projected range.
"Antarctica recorded a near record low temp of -135.3 degrees
last July"In a remote area with little historical record. You
highlight one observation and ignore all the others that put the 2000s as the
warmest decade in the modern record."Last summer, the USA had
record cold temps across the nation"Last summer was the 15th
warmest summer in the contiguous US. Maybe you mean winter (37th coldest for
contiguous US). "If I remember correctly, Al Gore isn't a
scientist"He's not, yet you focus on him. I will focus on
real climate scientists and real data.
As a steward of the Earth, it is my duty to care for it and what lives on it,
and to be wise with my resources. Drowning out my concerns and desires for the
environment, however, are the screams of those wackier than I.A love
of God and what He has blessed us with should drive people to care for their
environment, not the naive paranoia that we, more than nature and all of the
cosmos itself, are completely and unnaturally destroying it all. It is an
insult to those who genuinely seek to understand their world using discovery to
say that said discovery has proven something that has rather instead proven
airnaut said:"98% of Science can't be that wrong as to do
NOTHING."Really, "98% of science can't be that
wrong..."? What the heck is "98% of science"? This doesn't
even make sense.BTW, many of the so called experts that the Left
touts aren't even scientists. The biggest proponent of this AGW garbage is
Al Gore. If I remember correctly, Al Gore isn't a scientist, but he does
make a lot of money off of this scam with his carbon credits.I can
cite a good many scientists who find AGW to be pure garbage and junk science.
Sorry, but science is never, ever settled by consensus! The Oxford English
Dictionary defines the “Scientific Method” as: “a method or
procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century,
consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the
formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses." Sorry,
but the bogus weather models and the junk science employed by the UN’s
IPCC does NOT meet the criteria of the scientific method.
@airnaut,"Science" is not the fudge factor for parts
breakage..."settled science"... is "scientific law".
Being able to KNOW that Mercury is liquid at a given temperature
and pressure. Newton's 3 laws of motion. Ohms law. Law of conservation of
energy. First law of thermodynamics, etc..."SETTLED Science"
is what allows you to reliably predict the force of gravity for the earth, moon,
etc. And calculate the force required to bring a specific mass to escape
velocity. And the velocity you must maintain for earth orbit, or to slingshot
your vehicle into orbit around the moon (if that's your goal).These are based on scientific "laws"... "settled Science"...
not majority vote... .=====Scientific laws are
"settled science". They are exact and proven "Science".
These laws are what enable us to predict the force produced by oxidizing a given
amount of fuel... so you can predict the precise amount of fuel, oxygen, etc,
you will need to launch a given mass and attain the needed velocity.... these
are based on "science".... not a vote. There's a big
difference.Fudge factor for parts breakage is NOT science... Any
engineer worth his salt would know that...
First of all, how do we know what “normal” temperatures for our
earth have been over its history? Maybe warmer or colder temperatures were the
normal, and the temperatures we’ve experienced for the past 40-50 years
have been abnormal. This begs the question: How long have humans been keeping
empirical weather data and temperature records? It’s been less than 150
years!The environmental extremists and the UN’s IPCC lay out
all of these dire predictions about cataclysmic events that will be in our
future due to AGW, but when their “science” gets it woefully wrong
(UN’s IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report), those of us who are skeptical
of AGW and question its bogus science, are called the “deniers.”
Consider:* The IPCC's own models have shown NO
warming for the past 17 years* The Arctic Ice Sheet grew by 60% (The
"scientists" said the polar ice caps would be gone by 2013)*
Antarctica recorded a near record low temp of -135.3 degrees last July* Last summer, the USA had record cold temps across the nation* In
2008, the "scientists" said deadly storms and hurricanes would be on the
rise with devastating consequences due to AGW. Didn’t happen!
2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTjoeandradeRe: "Science
is never fully 'settled'".... That may be true for
Climate Science... but not for all science in general.Most science
can be "proven", and tested and equations or mathematical models
developed that you can use to demonstrate that your hypothesis is correct (100%
of the time).======== That's funny -- We've bee wasting alot of time and money for the last 100 years.Since I've been designing and building aerospace vehicle for the last 30
years for Boeing, NASA, and the USAF with a huge fudge-factor of 1.5 just to be
sure because we don't know or can predict with certainty with parts
will break.I'd hate to fly on any Science YOU can safely rely
on with those margins.As for Climate Change -- I'm an
engineer -- I'll take the sure, safe bet.98% of Science
can't be that wrong as to do NOTHING.
joeandradeRe: "Science is never fully
'settled'".... That may be true for Climate Science...
but not for all science in general.Most science can be
"proven", and tested and equations or mathematical models developed that
you can use to demonstrate that your hypothesis is correct (100% of the
time).Concepts of Physics, Kinematics, Chemistry, etc, can be proven
and test results predicted. These sciences are "fully settled", not
just somebody saying "most people agree... so it's settled".Climate Science is different. It's more complex. And we may
never understand it to the level that we can prove our hypothesis with tests
that produce results that prove it is proven to be true. There are just too
many variables and non-exact science factors involved in world-wide climate for
us to come up with equations that work and reliably predict the expected results
or our experiments every time...Climate Science is "never fully
'settled'". But that doesn't mean ALL science is the same
as climate science...
Mountainman,Tsonis does believe we might get a pause in the warming.
Per the article on the MacIver Institute, his conclusion is "We need to
take advantage of this reprieve to get our act together". He also states
"That doesn't mean that the warming was a fluke".When a
business that is otherwise in trouble gets a huge single order that helps keep
it afloat for a few months, that order is certainly a cause for celebration.
But it is not a license to go on with business as usual.Will we get
the pause? I certainly have NO idea. But if we do, we should count ourselves
lucky and get moving to take advantage of it. Because once the ocean currents
stop helping us it the warming may come back with a vengeance.
IMO it would help IF we could separate global-warming-politics from
global-warming-science. I don't know if that can happen now though.It would have helped early on if politicians like Al Gore didn't
get involved, and leave it to the scientific community to hammer it out through
the scientific method (instead of turning to hype, PR, politics, and theatrics).
Resorting to those tactics make the science look suspect (even if it's
good science).I don't pretend to know the science completely,
but I have eyes and ears. I can hear what Al predicted would happen, and I can
see that at least early on what they predicted just didn't happen.For instance... -Al said the polar ice cap could be completely melted by
2013...-2 foot ocean level rise...-2 years scientists predicted
"worse than normal" hurricane season... we had ZERO hurricanes. And
years they didn't predict severe storms... we DID. Proves
their predictions are hard to trust...===If it
weren't for the global-governance push... And if we could scientifically
PROVE the science (not just by popular vote)... It would help convince me of the
science (not the politics) of GW.
Science is never fully 'settled'. We keep learning, studying,
questioning. But if you choose to deny a generally accepted consensus, you need
to have lots of very good counter evidence. The deniers have very little
evidence. And even if Mr. Harris and his funders want to continue to argue
against doing anything related to mitigating climate change, they may want to
consider doing something about air pollution - almost all of which comes from
burning and processing fossil fuels. So even if you propose to let the planet
warm, perhaps because you live in the far North, you might want to try to do
something about air pollution. Really the only way to do that is to switch to
truly renewable energies - and use a lot less energy. Fox News has fostered
climate change denial for many years - but now they are funding and airing the
new COSMOS series. Mr. Harris should watch and pay attention.
"We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next
15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has
stopped".“The IPCC claims its models show a pause of 15
years can be expected. But that means that after only a very few years more,
they will have to admit they are wrong.” Professor Anastaios Tsonis,
University of Wisconsin.So much for global warming!
M Stirling; Roger Pielke does not deny man influenced climate change. He
believes that the damage from extreme weather is because of changes in society,
and he is probably partially right.He has written; " that he
accepts the IPCC view of the underlying science, stating, "The IPCC has
concluded that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity are an
important driver of changes in climate. And on this basis alone I am personally
convinced that it makes sense to take action to limit greenhouse gas
thunderbolt7DUTCH JOHN, UTWhy was there no mention in this article
of allegations of fraudulent climate science? Are scientists bowing to political
pressure to create misleading results? Is data being manipulated and/or cherry
picked to produce pre-determined conclusions? How can people have confidence in
scientific results when there is political pressure to produce a certain
answer?5:19 a.m. April 21, 2014=========== Gee I don't know -- but I'm sure it misicule when compared to
the lobbying, bribery, and arm-twisting, and mis-information from BIG Oil.
Why was there no mention in this article of allegations of fraudulent climate
science? Are scientists bowing to political pressure to create misleading
results? Is data being manipulated and/or cherry picked to produce
pre-determined conclusions? How can people have confidence in scientific results
when there is political pressure to produce a certain answer?
What are Chem trails? How does the Fog disappear? What is fallout. Why
can't a car get 100 miles to the galleon? I don't know, But I have my
Science is founded on two pillars, data and theory, both are necessary. Data is
needed to test the theory and the theory is needed to give the data context. If
the data does no support the theory, the theory is wrong, no matter how many
support it, or how powerful and influential they are, it is still wrong. In
climate science the models represent the theory, and measured temperature the
data. The models consistently predict more warming than has actually happened.
They predicted heating in the equatorial troposphere as the smoking gun of man
made warming , there is none. Climate modelling is in its infancy, what we have
is a first approximation, not settled science
Re: Tom Harris According to the American Geophysical Union (our
largest geophysics organization):Human activities are changing
Earth’s climate...Human‐caused increases in greenhouse gasesare
responsiblefor most of theobserved globalaveragesurfacewarmingof roughly
0.8°C(1.5°F)over the past 140 years.
People should read Brian Fagan's THE GREAT WARMING - imagine that while
temps were stable and warm in Europe in Medieval times, the US southwest was
experiencing megadrought epochs of 100 years or more... Read Brian Fagan's
LITTLE ICE AGE; HOW CLIMATE MADE HISTORY - and see how glacier near chamonix
'ate' farmland and threatened a village, advancing every day...then
retreated leaving ruined land. These are natural cycles of glaciers. Why were
there 3 earlier warm periods, warmer than now? The Minoan, Roman Optimum,
Medieval. How could that be without SUVs? Why did global warming stop all by
itself in 1998 and now, despite a rise in CO2 we have no global warming? Was
Roger Pielke Jr lying to the US Senate when he presented evidence showing no
trends toward extremes in weather? Are people just highly suggestible? What of
the sun and cosmic factors? Read Nir Shaviv's Sciencebits.
Seventh graders don't take physics.
"Anything that is so vehemently argued should be put to the utmost scrutiny.
This goes for whatever side of the issue you are on. Politics should step aside
and let science battle it out."99 percent of all scientists
agree that global warming is real and humans are the primary cause of it.
That's as much of a consensus as you'll ever see in science. If we
trusted in scientists and not politicians and am radio blow hards then this
debate would have already ended. So perhaps the right should stop trying to
politicize this topic and actually listen to scientists?
@Thid BarkerThe Mauna Loa dataset shows a very consistent annual cycle and
consistent increase year to year in CO2, the result primarily of human causes
since CO2 levels are the highest they've been in hundreds of thousands of
years. It being primarily lower in the atmosphere doesn't change the fact
that it is in the atmosphere, is a greenhouse gas, is increasing in
concentration due to humans, and any increase in photosynthesis due to it is not
cancelling out that human increase since the global levels continue to grow at a
much more rapid rate than has been seen in millions of years.@TomHarrisICSC“do you agree that our greenhouse gas emissions will
cause dangerous climate change?” I think dangerous is a word
that would need to be better defined to provide sufficient context to meet the
standards you otherwise seem to demand out of polls of climate scientists.
Re: "The vast majority of climate scientists and geophysicists believe . . .
."But, have been entirely unable to confirm those beliefs. Such
beliefs, then, are entitled to no more weight than those of anyone else."Consensus is not confirmation." That's the basis of real
science. Which should be the basis of informed decisionmaking by world leaders.
Modern climate "scientists" -- like phrenologists and race
"scientists" of past years -- insist, however, that we're to trust
their instincts and gut feelings, and they demand that we apply ruinous sums of
money various pet socialist projects, though the honest ones among them freely
admit there's no proof or confirmation of their wild theory.Imagine if physicists asked us to pony up similar sums based on some
string-theory consensus. They'd be laughed out of their societies. Yet
climate "scientists" insist faith in their unproven models and theories
is, somehow, required of all humanity.We learned long ago that any
discipline that feels a need to include the word "science" in its chosen
appellation -- isn't.
Anything that is so vehemently argued should be put to the utmost scrutiny.
This goes for whatever side of the issue you are on. Politics should step aside
and let science battle it out.
"Gases that make up the atmosphere separate and form layers, with carbon
dioxide near the bottom, if they were not disturbed. However, that is not what
happens due to winds. Winds constantly stir up the gases that make up the
atmosphere, which homogenizes it. This allows denser gases to rise and lighter
gases to sink. "And ....Barker?
Smoke contains carbon dioxide. Rises off the campfire and climbs like a dickens
and MIXES with all the other nitrogen, oxygen and other molecules. Then it just
keeps on mixing all the way up to the troposphere. Cold CO2 mixes just the same
and thermals right on up with everything else. Balloon theory popped.
I can tell you the Treaty of Guadalupe was only signed because Mexican officials
literally had guns to their heads. Many Americans were outraged with the whole
ordeal including Abraham Lincoln, John Quincy Adams, Henry Thoreau and many
others considered it an Un-American act of aggression. Mormon's, while they
formed a battalion and marched towards Mexico admitted later they never intended
to fight and used the opportunity for their own interests. You'll have to
do your own reading. Most conservatives will say it doesn't
matter that we stole it after finally giving in that we did steal it, yet still
poke holes in the air about illegal immigrants from Mexico. "How dare they
come here!"If you don't want to be disappointed, don't
read honest history. Most people can't handle the truth. The Marines still
include, "From the Halls of Montezuma" in their song. The Halls of
Montezuma refers to a military school in Mexico City where the US killed some
kids. In Mexico they still honor the 6 kids that tried to defend their country
against the aggressor USA. We drive it like we stole it - because we
Try a science experiment. Take a helium (very light gas) filled balloon and
another one filled with CO2 (very heavy gas). Then fill a third balloon with
both gases. Release them on a windy day or not a windy day and watch what
happens. The helium balloon will go up into the atmosphere and the CO2 balloons
will not rise much at all regardless of the wind. That is a very good thing
because plants grow on the earth's surface and need the CO2 for
photosynthesis. The higher the concentration of CO2 the faster the
photosynthesis occurs! This I have proven myself. But don't let facts get
in way of your CO2 global warming theories, the UN needs your carbon
"Marxist" says "The vast majority of climate scientists and
geophysicists believe..."This is an urban legend.
"Marxist" cannot know what "The vast majority of climate scientists
and geophysicists believe..." since there has never been a reputable poll of
scientists who specialize on the causes of climate change (the rest don't
matter) about the only question that matters:“do you agree
that our greenhouse gas emissions will cause dangerous climate change?”
Only if it will be dangerous should this be a public policy concern.
No one knows the answer to this question since such a poll has never been
conducted. Overconfidence about the causes and future of climate
change has resulted in 94% of the approximately $1 billion a day being spent
worldwide on climate finance being dedicated to trying to stop what might happen
in the distant future. Only 6% of it is going to help real people suffering
today due to climate change, however caused. This is the real climate crisis.Tom HarrisExecutive DirectorInternational Climate Science
Check out the Slate article “Climate Change War Is Not a Metaphor”
by Eric Holthaus.Are we so deluded as to believe the Pentagon is
filled with hyper-liberals? Their job is to defend our birthright. One we
appear to be willing to sell for cheap.Time to take our heads out of
the sand and realize that we have a problem. We might not like the solutions
(who ever does) but we have to stop ignoring the problem.As to ALL
the easy answers I see offered on these boards as to why Climate Change cannot
be real. You have two (and only two) options to be right.Option 1 -
Your favorite non-scientist political talking heads know something that NO
scientist has ever considered.Option 2 - Nearly every climate
scientist, in every country, language, culture, religion, etc. has been
corrupted by an unseen malevolent force that is inescapable in its reach.Option 1 is so funny as to be patently ridiculous. Option 2 is possible
only if the malevolent force has found how to control people better than Stalin
and the Mafia put together (because they had more dissidents).Seriously folks – we are burning valuable time arguing nonsense. Time
“If one dares question the Doctrine, the reaction from true believers is
immediate — you are a denier”Not true…It’s not THAT you question but how you question. To understand this,
read the excellent article by Dr. David Brin on the difference between Climate
Skeptics and Climate Deniers.Bu the sad fact is that 99% of all
so-called skeptics are in fact deniers.
Marxist. All you did is attack me personally but apparently unable to refute my
points which are basic science. Probably because you are unable?
I agree completely with the central premise this article.The near
hysteria and manifestly intolerant stance toward any dissenting opinion that has
become the general characterizing feature of the "alarmists" (similar to
the term "denier", this also has a biased tone) who are pushing this
almost religiously zealous agenda is doing great harm to science.As
a dedicated scientist it is more than frustrating to see the way science has
been exploited for every bit of political influence possible. It is painful to
watch something developed over centuries to facilitate the dispassionate and
objective finding of truth become so corrupted by people who, using my most
charitable interpretation, often appear completely overwhelmed by emotionalism
and, in the case of their attitude to divergent views, hatred.This
should not be.
Screwdriver,From whom did we steal this country? The Mexicans, the French,
the Spanish or maybe the English? And who did they steal it from, the Indian
tribes? And how did they acquire it, through a realtor and a mortgage company?
@Thid Baker: According to the American Geophysical Union (the professional
society of our nation's physicists) global warming is being caused by human
activity and we need to take urgent action to slow it down. Apparently PhD
physics knows a little more than 7th grade physics.
Roughly 2000 gigatons of CO2 have been emitted from human sources since 1850.
73% of this has come from fossil fuels. Since 2001 around 440 gigatons of CO2
have been emitted by humans - 88% of these emissions, from fossil fuels. So,
about 22% of all human CO2 emissions since 1850 have occurred since 2001. Yet
there has been no increase of the global average temperature for more than 17
and one half years.Congrats to the Des News for printing at least
this one article presenting a counter point of view to the doom and gloom scare
stories we usually see here.
McKitrick, one of the economists that wrote the book Taken by Storm, sits on the
Acedemic Advisory Board of the Cornwell Alliance. The following is taken from
Wikipedia. McKitrick is a signatory to the Cornwall Alliance's
Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which states that "Earth and
its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite
power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient,
self-regulating, and self-correcting".Is information like
this important when discussing a book written by this author? I think so.
Nevertheless, the writer of the editorial choose not to include it.
@Thid BarkerVictor, IDSeventh grade physics shows that our
sister planet - Venus - has a surface temperature of over 800 degrees, because
it's atmosphere is mostly CO2.M
@Thid Barker"We just has one of the coldest if not the coldest winters
in decades in the N. Hemisphere. "False. It was one of the
warmest winters on record in the N. Hemisphere. It was one of the coldest in
decades in the eastern U.S. " In fact, the earth is in a cooling
cycle now due to the sun's activities over which mankind has no
control."La Nina's 4 of the past 6 years and the weakest
solar cycle in a century would do that. But... just one question. If the natural
patterns say we should be cooling, why is temperature "flat" the past
dozen years in the warmest decade on record, like you all like to say? @Sensible Scientist"temperatures decreased 1940-1980"Aerosols have a cooling effect and we were throwing all sorts of them in the
atmosphere in that span, then we regulated them because it was a pollution
@Thid Barker"Seventh grade physics shows that CO2's molecular
weight makes it very heavy. It can't rise high enough to cause the
greenhouse effect."Venus has an extremely dense mostly CO2
atmosphere, if what you said were accurate that wouldn't be possible."Yes, there is a greenhouse effect, but it's mostly caused by
water vapor!"That part is true, roughly 90% of the greenhouse
effect is caused by H2O." H2O is much lighter than CO2. "And that's not the reason for it, there's just much higher H2O
concentrations in the atmosphere than CO2."College freshman
statistics will show you that the error rate in temperature samples used is
greater than the claimed temperature rise. "You know how in
polls a 200 person survey may be +- 4.5% while a 2000 person survey's +-
2%? With vast numbers of global observations (land or satellite) that we have...
the margin of error gets pretty low so no, this statement is incorrect."Glaciers in Greenland have recently been shown to be getting
thicker"False."Same with Antarctic ice"That's not contrary to the climate change expectation due to how
much colder Antarctica is.
Changing the way we produce energy would cut into the profits of oil companies.
Big Oil owns the GOP. So of course repubs would be against global warming.
@Thid BarkerWe are talking about "global climate change" not
"this winter in New Hampshire."While you may have
experienced a cold winter, the real question was about the rest of the globe.
You had snow this winter, but on many days cities in Alaska were among the
warmest in the country; the Pacific Rim, including all of Australia, was having
record hot months. (Not days. Record hot months.) Meanwhile,
Antarctic sea ice is thickening, however Antarctic land ice is being lost at an
unprecedented rate. The former is part of winter, the latter is loss of ice that
has formed over thousands of years and actually raises sea level as it melts.
The real question is not how warm or how cold it is in any spot on
any given day. The question to ask is how many record setting warm days are we
having around the globe compared to record setting cold days. Over the last
decade, globally, we have seen twice as many record hot days as record cold
days. Looking at a trend globally, not at a random day or local
My word thirdbarker, you copied directly from global warming rake 01. As long as we're copying and pasting, here's your answer to number
one.Gases that make up the atmosphere separate and form layers, with
carbon dioxide near the bottom, if they were not disturbed. However, that is not
what happens due to winds. Winds constantly stir up the gases that make up the
atmosphere, which homogenizes it. This allows denser gases to rise and lighter
gases to sink. We could go on and debunk all the rest of your
nonsense but why waste the time. Most of is pretty obvious and a tee time
awaits..far more productive.
Was Krauthammer's article published?If he wrote an article on
such a controversial topic he should expect a response. In fact that's why
the newspaper published, to get readers. He wasn't arrested. His opinion
was criticized. It's not censorship.
This being Easter, perhaps we should reckon with the point of view which has it
that since the Second Coming of Christ will fix any and all environmental
problems, why sweat it? But as per the 6,000 year old earth such
should have already occurred. How far out are we talking about? 10 years, 20
years, 50 years, 200 years, or maybe never? If trends continue our
grandchildren and great grandchildren will live in an inhospitable world. We
may be on our own here on spaceship earth, not a pleasant thought but a real
RE: Thid Baker "Seventh grade physics shows that CO2's molecular
weight makes it very heavy. It can't rise high enough to cause the
greenhouse effect. "Ridiculous nonsense. But here's the
game. Climate change deniers can raise bogus arguments. Because most people
don't have the time or knowledge to make an informed judgement, the deniers
can maintain a degree of credibility though undeserved. Apparently the Deseret
News wants to grant the deniers credibility through continuing to run these
pieces. Why?I notice none of the deniers want to look at
thermodynamic arguments for solar energy. Why?
The current climate alarmism is based on two false premises. First, that
without anthropogenic CO2, climate would remain static; and second, that the
average temperature during [pick a decade] was the "right" temperature,
and any deviation from that is caused by mankind. A third false assumption
might be that a warmer world would be somehow worse for mankind.All
three are manifestly false. Climate is always changing naturally and it is
impossible to separate out an anthropogenic component. Some decades and
centuries have been warmer than today, some cooler. There is little correlation
between atmospheric CO2 and temperatures over the past century -- temperatures
decreased 1940-1980, and have been flat since 1998.Does that mean we
do nothing about air pollution? Of course not. But it means we should not
panic and ruin economies and standards of living to chase ghosts we can never
Seventh grade physics shows that CO2's molecular weight makes it very
heavy. It can't rise high enough to cause the greenhouse effect. Yes, there
is a greenhouse effect, but it's mostly caused by water vapor! H2O is much
lighter than CO2. College freshman statistics will show you that the
error rate in temperature samples used is greater than the claimed temperature
rise. Glaciers in Greenland have recently been shown to be getting
thicker, not thinner. Same with Antarctic ice, which is never mentioned by
warming alarmists. We just has one of the coldest if not the coldest
winters in decades in the N. Hemisphere. In fact, the earth is in a cooling
cycle now due to the sun's activities over which mankind has no control.
I can't believe the Deseret News is taking the Anti-Science position.It certainly has taken a REALLY hard right turn in the last 3 months...If 49 out of 50 Doctors told your son or daughter had cancer, and
left untreated, would surely die -- And one "Doctor" told
you the rest were quacks, and only he was telling the truth, and
hired college drop out on the radio to repeat HIS message...Who
would you listen to?The 49, or the one?FYI -- If you
think "God" is causing environmental trouble on us in the latter-days,
You better think again.Earthquakes in Oklahoma, South Dakota,
Texas, Diverse places?God didn't cause that - fracking did.Vapors in the air, chocking and killing -God didn't cause that -
pollution did.A Gospel principle teaches:We bring calamities
on our own selves.Water we can't drink, Air we can't
breath, food we can't eat.The scriptures only tell these
things will happen. it NEVER says God would cause them.
And yet, McKitrick and Essex got their book published, Charles
Krauthammer's opinion piece was published and the Deseret News published
this piece. According to the web-page of the ICSC, where the author of this
piece is the director, he "is regularly published in newspapers in Canada
and the U.S. and occasionally in Australia, New Zealand, the U.K. and other
countries. He is often interviewed on radio and occasionally TV." In
addition, there are any number of websites saying climate change science is
wrong. If there is an effort to prevent people from expressing
skepticism about climate change, it may be the single most ineffective effort in
Don't know these authors but a quick search shows them to be
mathematicians. So let me take a guess and say that they beef with the
"science" of climate change is the modeling. Succinctly put
the true believers beat you all to this topic. They all ready know the problems
with the past models. Models are always tricky especially as a topic unfolds.
However, the fortunate thing about climate science is pure modeling is not the
only science climate change is based on. The observable sciences
such as geology, biology, hydrology, etc. all support the premise of the climate
is changing and humans are having a major impact on that change. When you can
see what is happening to glaciers, sea level, and sea content, and compare that
to now known history it's far different than pure mathematical speculation
based on few known facts. BTW observable facts do say the models
were wrong...it's far worse than they said.
"While environmental change has always presented serious problems for
societies that did not properly adapt, it is almost certainly nature, not
humankind, that controls the climate of planet Earth." Whoa!
The writer denounces the bulk of climate science for what he sees as their
dogmatism about the importance of human discharged CO2 in climate change, and
then he makes this whopper of a statement! The vast majority of
climate scientists and geophysicists believe that global warming is due to human
discharged CO2. They also believe that the consequences could be very bad. Sea
level countries already face being wiped out. And countries which depend on
glacier runoff face drought with the disappearance of those glaciers.The physical science of thermodynamics demonstrates the importance of
migrating away from fossil fuels, which burning increases the chaos in the
biosphere, to solar which is an unlimited flow.Lastly, the advice of
the writer to in essence "burn baby burn" is irresponsible in the
extreme. Also, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the writer wasn't
part of a fossil fuel trade group.
In other countries this is not even an issue anymore. They are taking action
despite the US. I've come to realize that if our forefathers
had plowed this land for thousands of years we might be more enthusiastic about
keeping the land and air in good shape. We drive this country like
we stole it - because we did.