71
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jan, 2009 05:37 pm
@H2O MAN,
That Theon supervised Hansen means bubkis. What is his reputation?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jan, 2009 05:37 pm
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

As of December 20, 2007, over 400 prominent scientists--not a minority of those scientists who have published their views on global warming--from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

229
Physicist Dr. Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of Physics at the Institute for Advanced Study, in Princeton, is a fellow of the American Physical Society, a member of the US National Academy of Sciences, and a fellow of the Royal Society of London. Dyson called himself a "heretic" on global warming. "Concerning the climate models, I know enough of the details to be sure that they are unreliable. They are full of fudge factors that are fitted to the existing climate, so the models more or less agree with the observed data. But there is no reason to believe that the same fudge factors would give the right behavior in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world with increased CO2 in the atmosphere.," Dyson said in an April 10, 2007 interview. Dyson is also a fellow of the American Physical Society, a member of the US National Academy of Sciences, and a fellow of the Royal Society of London. (LINK) "The fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated," Dyson also wrote in his 2007 book "Many Colored Glass: Reflections on the Place of Life in the Universe." Dyson focuses on debunking climate models predictions of climate doom: "They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models."

230
Paleoclimate scientist Dr. Bob Carter of Australia's James Cook University and former chairman of the earth science panel of the Australian Research Council, who has published numerous peer-reviewed papers, discredited the UN IPCC. "Many distinguished scientists refuse to participate in the IPCC process, and others have resigned from it, because in the end the advice that the panel provides to governments is political and not scientific. Although at least -$50 billion has been spent on climate research, the science arguments for a dangerous human influence on global warming have, if anything, become weaker since the establishment of the IPCC in 1988," Carter wrote in an April 11, 2007 op-ed in the UK Telegraph. Carter, who has had over 100 papers published refereed scientific journals, continued, "For more than 90 per cent of recent geological time, the cores show that the earth has been colder than today. We modern humans are lucky to live towards the end of the most recent of the intermittent, and welcome, warm interludes. It is a 10,000 year-long period called the Holo-cene, during which our civilizations have evolved and flourished." "Similar cores through polar ice reveal, contrary to received wisdom, that past temperature changes were followed - not preceded, but followed - by changes in the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide. Yet the public now believes strongly that increasing human carbon dioxide emissions will cause runaway warming; it is surely a strange cause of climate change that naturally postdates its supposed effect?" he added. "So the evidence for dangerous global warming forced by human carbon dioxide emissions is extremely weak. That the satellite temperature record shows no substantial warming since 1978, and that even the ground-based thermometer statistic records no warming since 1998, indicates that a key line of circumstantial evidence for human-caused change (the parallel rise in the late 20th century of both atmospheric carbon dioxide and surface temperature) is now negated," Carter concluded. (LINK) Carter also wrote a June 18, 2007 op-ed detailing even more skepticism on climate fears. "Lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Niño events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent)," Carter wrote. "There are strong indications from solar studies that Earth's current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades," he added. (LINK)

0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 01:04 am
Seems that it is in the works, or may be a done deal, that any more bailout money allocated to the auto makers will have a requirement that it only go for green cars.

Has it occured to anybody, especially with all the growing evidence that 'green cars' aren't going to make any kind of dent in the global warming issue one way or the other, that our collapsing economy needs different priorities?

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/cb0129j20090129082948.jpg
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 02:57 am
That cartoon is really stupid. Have you noticed that the world's number one carmaker is Toyota. They build more cars that more people want--the closest thing built today to green cars, reliable cars with gas mileage high enough in many cases to already meet 2020 CAFE standards. They displaced GM as the world's biggest carmakers. GM is heavily tilted to dinosaurs and SUVs, and they're still sinking.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 06:19 am
@MontereyJack,
So is Toyota, if you havent looked.
GM was doing ok until this major turn.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 06:33 am
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
They build more cars that more people want


I find that somewhat disingenuous. I think "made to want" is more appropriate than "want".
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 09:29 am
Farmer, GM's been sputtering the last several years. Lotta bad market decisions, perceived lesser quality, poorer resale value, among other things. No, Spendius, "want", better build quality, better resale value, lower fuel costs because higher mpg.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 10:11 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Seems that it is in the works, or may be a done deal, that any more bailout money allocated to the auto makers will have a requirement that it only go for green cars.

Has it occured to anybody, especially with all the growing evidence that 'green cars' aren't going to make any kind of dent in the global warming issue one way or the other, that our collapsing economy needs different priorities?


This is dumb, dumb, and dumber, Foxfyre. They are meddling with the market, central planning, it won't work. Just don't bail the car companies out, get out of the way, reform overburdensome taxes, quit propping up the unions, and a few other things, and this would solve itself from the bottom up. I would not object to reform of corporate regulation that would limit obscene executive robberies from companies, but this can be done by tweaking the system that has been successful, not ruining it. Obscene pay packages could be governed with the tax system as well, but we need to be careful with how this is done. I have no objection to people that own businesses to reap the rewards of their labor without being taxed to oblivion, but the corporate world is a different breed of cat.

But having lawyers in Washington telling car companies what cars to build and how to build them, dumb, dumb, dumb. This is the change people voted for, but not all of them realized.
Advocate
 
  0  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 10:43 am
@Foxfyre,
There is little doubt that gas prices will again soar, which will nip in the bud any efforts to rebuilt our economy. We must go to electric cars or we will be in deep scat.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 10:53 am



The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam

http://www.athenswater.com/images/PrezBO.jpg
okie
 
  2  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 12:16 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

There is little doubt that gas prices will again soar, which will nip in the bud any efforts to rebuilt our economy. We must go to electric cars or we will be in deep scat.

So force car companies to build electric cars, then what, force us to buy them, so that electric utilities have to expand to gigantic proportions with power they don't have. Brilliant, Advocate, just brilliant!
Advocate
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 01:58 pm
@okie,
Oak brain, have you been living under a rock? The auto companies have made it clear that electric cars will not require massive increases in electrical supplies. Further, such cars will meet the needs of the vast majority of people, and will be purchased.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 02:08 pm
@MontereyJack,
No, the cartoon is too close to the truth. The environmental wackos are seriously considering or already have put restrictions on the bailout money limiting its use to what the wackos consider acceptable etc. We are in a deep recession. Unless those hybrids are significantly more economical to buy, run, service, and maintain than a simple old internal combustion engine-type car, people are not going to buy them. If they can't find something they can afford and that they want, theyll keep driving what they have. We do not yet have the technology or infrastructure to make electric cars feasible in anything other than extremely limited markets.

Supply and demand is a serious component of a free market. Start messing with it too much and you have no free market. Build cars that are attractive to people and are affordable, and you sell cars. Build cars that somebody else thinks people should want and you wind up with your hand out for a government bailout.

This is one consequence of an ill thought out environmental policy based on very questionable scientific theory.

Meanwhile global warming threatens to doom us all (cough)
http://i456.photobucket.com/albums/qq289/LindaBee_2008/DeerinSnow.gif

0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 03:16 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN, thanks for posting the link to this article. I decided to post some of the article's contents here and emphasize two of its very pertinent paragraphs.
Quote:

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html
The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam

By John Coleman

...
So there it is, Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his move, his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business.

What happened next is amazing. The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause celeb of the media. After all the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too.

But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at 65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There he had time to rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, "My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways." He added, "…we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer."

And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge negative impact on the economy and jobs and our standard of living. I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer. He assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem.

Did Roger Revelle attend the Summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in the Summer of 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore onto this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, "I think so, but I do not know it for certain". I have not managed to get it confirmed as of this moment. It's a little like Las Vegas; what is said at the Bohemian Grove stays at the Bohemian Grove. There are no transcripts or recordings and people who attend are encouraged not to talk. Yet, the topic is so important, that some people have shared with me on an informal basis.

Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam.

Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle's Mea culpa as the actions of senile old man. And, the next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate, From 1992 until today, he and his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when they are asked about we skeptics, they insult us and call us names.

So today we have the acceptance of carbon dioxide as the culprit of global warming. It is concluded that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint which we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists to offset. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course.

We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by no drilling and no new refineries for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that the whole thing about corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies. That also has driven up food prices. And, all of this is a long way from over.

And, I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.

Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a high jacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history.

John Coleman
1-28-2009

0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 03:33 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

Advocate wrote:

There is little doubt that gas prices will again soar, which will nip in the bud any efforts to rebuilt our economy. We must go to electric cars or we will be in deep scat.

So force car companies to build electric cars, then what, force us to buy them, so that electric utilities have to expand to gigantic proportions with power they don't have. Brilliant, Advocate, just brilliant!


yes it is. depending, of course, on whether or not you are someone who wants to keep getting bent over and shtuped by the middle easterners. or chavez for that matter.

me ? i'd rather give 'em the finger than the dollar. but i guess i'm just being a silly whacko or whatever you guys call anyone you don't agree with this week.

BTW; the "power" and "utilities" that you are so concerned about are part of what's called "infrastructure". and infrastructure is one of the things that separates a modern, first class country from the 3rd world nations.

do you not want america to be the best, or even among the best countries?

why do you hate america, okie?
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 12:55 am
@okie,
OKIE- The lunaltics are taking over the planet. They have no God. They believe in nothing except a vague Utopia they think they can build. T hey are relentlessly stupid. There is an organization in Australia called the Carbon Sense Coalition( See Christopher Horner's great book--"Red Hot Lies" for complete details) which offered a incredibly goofy list of proposals to modify behavior in the name of global warming. Here I list only ten of the thirty given:

a. Ban bottled water

b. Ban Plasma TV's

c. Ban "standby mode" on appliances

d. Ban vacationing by car

e. Ban three day weekends

f. Additional tax on second homes

g. Additional tax on second cars

h. Require permits to drive your car beyond your city limits

i, Limit choice in appliances

j. Dictate Fuel Efficiency Standards.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 10:37 am
@genoves,
Most of the measures make damn good sense. One would have to be really mindless and selfish to say otherwise.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 10:47 am
@Advocate,
Most make damn good sense? Come on Advocate. Do you have ANY clue what you are suggesting here? Do you honestly want the government to have the power to turn the USA or any country into a gulag-like Big Brother camp where our every choice is dictated and limited, where we can travel/move only with government knowledge and permission, where we give up most freedom in favor of policy/mandates based on flimsy or dishonestly advertised science? Do you have any concept of what that would do to our economy; everybody's economy? Do you honestly want the drab kind of uniform poverty you are suggesting here?

Yet every country that has fallen under that kind of dictatorship did so by increments--one day this is forbidden here, the next week that is required there--a frog started out in cold water that is gradually heated up until it no longer has the power to get out of the pot.

Please tell me you were kidding.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 12:10 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
Okay, I couldn't separate your opinion from the humor in your post, DTOM. Okie, I can assure you, does not hate America and is among those who is seriously interested in preserving what has made America great. So I'm hoping your question was tongue-in-cheek.

Are you more on the side of those who want to regulate or restrict or mandate a whole bunch of stuff to save us from what is being sold as serious/deadly global warming? Or are you more on the side of those who think the global warming scare is overblown and would rather that we expend our energies and focus on sustaining a healthy economy and lifting people out of poverty so they can join those of us who want a clean, safe, beautiful environment?
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 01:21 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxy, you are wildly exagerating the effects of the proposals. We are getting more crowded, and what one person does affects everyone. I liken it to living in a subdivision, in which there are covenants, rules, and regulations. For example, would you be happpy were your neighbor to dump his sewage into the street, or paint his house a rainbow of colors (affecting your equity)?

Further, I gather you are quite happy with our plutocracy. You have no problem with a CEO getting compensation equal to 1,000 workers in the firm, and using the money to, say, buy up a huge chunk of shoreline for use as his third home.

The proposals, in general, address this type of abuse.

 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.21 seconds on 11/25/2024 at 05:19:53