Global Warming vs. Terrorism

touche, Parados! MM reserves the right to denigrate the very notion of global warming but probably has fewer credentials than Al Gore. BTW, a career in the Senate gave Gore an education of another kind.

plainoldme wrote:

touche, Parados! MM reserves the right to denigrate the very notion of global warming but probably has fewer credentials than Al Gore. BTW, a career in the Senate gave Gore an education of another kind.

plainoldme, don't forget Gore's credentials of writing a book asserting the internal combustion engine is the greatest threat to mankind? That credential gives him even more credibility.

touche, Parados! MM reserves the right to denigrate the very notion of global warming but probably has fewer credentials than Al Gore. BTW, a career in the Senate gave Gore an education of another kind.

You insulted Gore directly, and you attempted to insult those who hold a realistic view of the world and give credence to science indirectly, although you only made yourself appear uneducated and sophomoric.

You have to ask why I worked up? The titanic ignorance of people who deny global warming and endanger all life on this planet is why.

What right have you to endanger others? None. Yet your position is dangerous to everyone and every living thing.

Now, there are threats that we can do nothing about, such as solar dimming (perhaps) and the possibility that the world will soon go through another reversal of polarity. However, we can and must on the individual level act to stop global warming and to clean up the planet.

It is a matter of personal responsibility. It is a matter of education. It is a matter of adulthood.

Lindzen, a professor of meteorology, certainly is one of the most known and most respectable of the climate 'sceptics'.

In 2004, he betted that the earth's climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today ... I do hope so!!! :wink:

He did? I thought Lindzen agreed the globe was heating up, agreed the warming was mostly man-made, and merely disagreed about the extent of future warming. (1°C over 100 years vs. the IPCC's 1.5-5.8°C)

The November 10, 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now."[17] Climatologist James Annan,[18] who has offered multiple bets that global temperatures will increase,[19] contacted Lindzen to arrange a bet.[20] Annan offered to pay 2:1 odds in Lindzen's favor if temperatures declined, but said that Lindzen would only accept a bet if the payout was 50:1 or better in his favor and that no bet occurred.[21]

In response, Lindzen denied telling Reason that he would bet at 1:1 odds that temperatures would be lower in 20 years than they are now, and stated that he would only bet if offered "much higher odds." According to Lindzen, he and Annan exchanged proposals for bets, but were unable to agree.[22]. (Annan subsequently responded to Lindzen's response.[23]).

17[/URL
[URL=http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d5/jdannan/]18
19
20
21
22
23

The one seeming to be light on facts is you jp.

These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.

plainoldme wrote:

You insulted Gore directly, and you attempted to insult those who hold a realistic view of the world and give credence to science indirectly, although you only made yourself appear uneducated and sophomoric.

You have to ask why I worked up? The titanic ignorance of people who deny global warming and endanger all life on this planet is why.

What right have you to endanger others? None. Yet your position is dangerous to everyone and every living thing.

Now, there are threats that we can do nothing about, such as solar dimming (perhaps) and the possibility that the world will soon go through another reversal of polarity. However, we can and must on the individual level act to stop global warming and to clean up the planet.

It is a matter of personal responsibility. It is a matter of education. It is a matter of adulthood.

Sorry I haven't responded. I was out of town since last Thursday.

Of course there really isn't much to respond too... just more raving of a blithering chicken little. THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING.

The whole thing reminds me of an article (written by a Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, by the way. You know... someone with some actual credentials) I once read about how you can not even debate global warming because it has already been detirmined that it is absolute truth. Anyone that has a different view is detirmined to be blind or stupid or some other insult meant to discourage discussion with more of THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING nonsense (if things are so bad, why is Gore still charging to see his little film? Shouldn't he be doing a public service and offering it to all of the networks free of charge for everyone to see? What good is the money going to do him anyway... afterall we're all good as dead already anyway).

Just about the only thing that I agree with in what you wrote above is:

"there are threats that we can do nothing about, such as solar dimming"

you are certainly proof positive of that.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Lindzen, a professor of meteorology, certainly is one of the most known and most respectable of the climate 'sceptics'.

In 2004, he betted that the earth's climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today ... I do hope so!!! :wink:

He did? I thought Lindzen agreed the globe was heating up, agreed the warming was mostly man-made, and merely disagreed about the extent of future warming. (1°C over 100 years vs. the IPCC's 1.5-5.8°C)

plainoldme wrote:

touche, Parados! MM reserves the right to denigrate the very notion of global warming but probably has fewer credentials than Al Gore. BTW, a career in the Senate gave Gore an education of another kind.

plainoldme, don't forget Gore's credentials of writing a book asserting the internal combustion engine is the greatest threat to mankind? That credential gives him even more credibility.

Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis.

"This year" would be 2006 according to the date of the piece by Lindzen. Yet the date of the data on the ftp site is 2002. (There are many references to be found on the data being available in 2002. http://climate2003.com/correspondence/mann.031112a.htm ) How can data be unavailable in 2006 when it was released in 2002 and the same study has been redone by several others?

Lindzen provides no example of anyone being refused publishing or funding. He makes vague statements without any data after making a provable false statement.

Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited."

U.S. Sees Record Breaking Temperatures For Beginning Half Of 2006

July 17, 2006 2:47 p.m. EST

Julie Farby - All Headline News Staff Writer
Washington, DC (AHN)-The government reports that the first half of the year was the warmest on record for the United States. The average temperature for the 48 contiguous states from January through June recorded at 51.8 degrees Fahrenheit, or 3.4 degrees above average for the 20th century.

This makes it the warmest such period since record-keeping began at the National Climatic Data Center.

According to the data, no state was cooler than average and five states, including Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and Missouri experienced record warmth for the period.

While much of the Northeast experienced extreme rainfall and flooding at the end of June many other areas continued below normal rain and snowfall. For instance, as of June, 45 percent of the contiguous U.S. was in moderate-to- extreme drought, an increase of 6 percent from May.

According to the National Interagency Fire Center, dry conditions spawned more than 50,000 wildfires, burning more than 3 million acres in the continental U.S.

Worldwide, it was the sixth warmest year-to-date since record keeping began in 1880.

Recent research suggests that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are at the highest level in at least 650,000 years. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could rise significantly by 2050, possibly resulting in higher temperatures, rising sea levels, stronger storms and hurricanes, and expanding deserts.

Nice try Thomas but...

What is Lindzen's point in bringing up Barton and not informing his readers that the data is presently available? I think his point is to mislead.

There are some problems with Lindzen's other claims too.