Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Articles On Environment


Evan

Recommended Posts

I agree, this feels so much like the creationism "debate", especially with the reading waaaaayyyy too much into an article like the one in the OP. Nowhere did that article say or even imply that GW has been "debunked". It merely describes a previously unknown mechanism of the earth , and even balances it by saying that this new system is not limitless.

 

I agree. The whole global warming debate is becoming another creationism debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 161
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • nivek

    109

  • Outback Jack

    10

  • Evan

    6

  • Ro-bear

    5

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

What's wrong with cutting emissions or developing cleaner energy?

 

Nothing I can see, except some people REAAALLLY don't want to spend the money to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea, but how many Steves are on that list?

 

All this talk of scientists that doubt GW also reaks of "appeal to authority" to me. I don't rely on the number of scientists that hold a postion in order for me to consider it valid. To me, the basic premise of GW makes alot of sense.

 

1) We know that certain gases like carbon monoxide, trap heat in the earth's atmosphere and can warm it.

 

2) We also know that the primary emmissions from our technology are the same gases that contribute to GW.

 

3) We are spewing these emmissions into the air in HUGE quantities. Thousands of tons of it a day actually, the world over.

 

I think part of the problem is calling it "Global Warming", because it really is "Climate Change". I hate it when one area of the country happens to have record lows and people take that as proof that GW is "bunk".

 

To me, it does not matter if the earth has mechanisims to deal with excess carbon, because at some point it will reach a time when it can handle no more carbon. At most it would buy us a few years or decades. It is just plain smart to try and create clean energy before things get out of hand. Carbon emissions do more damage than just the climate. It is a dirty, nasty fuel, and we have the means to do much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's wrong with cutting emissions or developing cleaner energy?

 

Nothing I can see, except some people REAAALLLY don't want to spend the money to do it.

 

And I'd bet the ones who really, really do not want to spend the money are the oil companies and those who have vested interests in the oil industry. I've also wondered how many of those scientists on the "GW is bunk" side are connected somehow to Big Oil, much like how every Creation "scientist" has ties to xtianity somehow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A brief list of my reasons for being skeptical:

 

Comparable temperature anomalies on other planets.

 

The trend not continuing.

 

As well as things surrounded by greater dispute and controversy, such as the activity of the sun.

 

Now, when you have reputable scientists IN RELEVANT FIELDS jumping back and forth on this issue, that says to me that there is more than just the science going on. It is a heavily politicized issue. There are many reasons why one may want to accept the common view: acceptance into the mainstream community, prior shading of opinion due to being beaten over the head with "consensus." There are not really any good reasons to take the opposite view, unless one has a passion for alienation. So when so many thousands choose to, that should definitely be a red flag.

 

The hypocrisy of poster boy Al Gore doesn't help much. But that's not a scientific criticism, since Al Gore would be a jackass no matter which side he was on.

 

The biggest annoyance for me is the lack of solutions. It seems that our only method of approaching this is to tax more! spend more! intrude more! and that will never sit well with me.

 

On "green" technology, I like it a lot. The problem is, it often turns out to be a bit browner than we thought, and has unexpected consequences. But I definitely think we should try to reduce our impact, just in case. The funny thing to me, though, is how greatly the ecofreak crowd OVERESTIMATES that impact. Remember, these are the same people who brought you, "The world's gonna freeze," "The population's too big to feed," "Plastic and aluminum goin' do fuck up the en-VI-ron-mint," and "We're all gonna die we're all gonna die we're all gonna die WE'RE ALL GONNA DIIIIEEE!"

 

They've been wrong a lot. Guess you could say I'm kind of expecting it again.

 

However, I believe there's another thread on which to argue over this. Assuming the worst case scenario, what do we DO about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe.

 

But since our technology emits the exact same gases that cause or worsen climate change, skeptical thinking seems to be dilly-dallying to me. I realize that correlation does not mean causation, but this is not the same as saying the decline of pirates is causing the rise in global temperatures. Every day we are adding millions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that were not there yesterday. This has been going on in increasing numbers for over a hundred years. We are not adding peanut butter into the atmosphere, but the exact same gases that we know will trap heat on the earth's surface.

 

Does it really matter if we are causing it or not? What if it is a natural change, but we are making it 100X worse by what we're doing? We are for sure not helping anything by sitting around and wondering. No body can dispute the fact that what we are using now is dirty and not good for the environment in anyway whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The funny thing to me, though, is how greatly the ecofreak crowd OVERESTIMATES that impact. Remember, these are the same people who brought you, "The world's gonna freeze," "The population's too big to feed," "Plastic and aluminum goin' do fuck up the en-VI-ron-mint," and "We're all gonna die we're all gonna die we're all gonna die WE'RE ALL GONNA DIIIIEEE!"

 

 

And why do I always see the GW skeptics making the emotional arguments and mocking the other side? This is another reason I think comparisons to the evolution/creationism "debate" is warranted. The word "ecofreak" and spelling like a slack jawed yokle...I just don't understand what that is supposed to convey, other than contempt for people who want to DO something rather than sit around and wait to see what happens.

 

I don't want to argue this either, new thread or not. Mainly because I am not sure if we are causing it or not, but I do not see anything at all wrong with moving to greener technologies as soon as they are available and affordable, and I am willing to invest whatever I can to advance this now. Even if we spend decades getting off of oil only to find at the end that global warming was natural and inevitable, I still would not consider it a waste of time or money. It is the right thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well seriously, even if Global Warming is bunk that doesn't mean we aren't polluting the environment and overconsuming resources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's wrong with cutting emissions or developing cleaner energy?

 

I was being sarcastic. You'd think from the way GW skeptics argue they'd want the planet to get as polluted as possible and then "see what happens."

 

The funny thing to me, though, is how greatly the ecofreak crowd OVERESTIMATES that impact. Remember, these are the same people who brought you, "The world's gonna freeze," "The population's too big to feed," "Plastic and aluminum goin' do fuck up the en-VI-ron-mint," and "We're all gonna die we're all gonna die we're all gonna die WE'RE ALL GONNA DIIIIEEE!"

 

And why do I always see the GW skeptics making the emotional arguments and mocking the other side? This is another reason I think comparisons to the evolution/creationism "debate" is warranted. The word "ecofreak" and spelling like a slack jawed yokle...I just don't understand what that is supposed to convey, other than contempt for people who want to DO something rather than sit around and wait to see what happens.

 

I completely agree. Its always the GW skeptics throwing the insults and whatnot. Why is it that anyone who shows concern for the well being of the planet automatically gets labeled an "ecofreak?"

 

I can't say for sure what is causing temperature change. Neither can anyone else on this board. But I don't find it all that far-fetched that carbon emissions could be making a natural climate change worse than it would normally be.

 

Those pollutants may not be causing global warming, but I highly doubt they're harmless either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carbon dioxide, water vapor and methane really aren't pollutants.

 

I agree on green technology, entirely. Companies that pollute in such a way as to harm the commons (air, water, soil) should be sued and forced to pay reparations, as they are damaging that which is not their property.

 

But I disagree on passing laws and creating new taxes to try to combat it. That won't help anyone, in any way.

 

You also have to keep in mind that I'm a bit of a polemicist and comedian, I'm not calling anyone here an ecofreak. I don't even know the best way to define that word. I am saying that the beliefs held by many people aren't entirely founded in reason or evidence. Environmentalism by force hurts more than it helps, and that's the MAJOR issue that I have.

 

I also think that the link between human activity and environmental change is overestimated in a large variety of ways, and purely fabricated in others. You have to consider that a lot of the proponents of an anthropocentric theory stand to make a LOT of money - probably more than oil companies make by doing the same thing that they're doing in current climates (geopolitical and economic). A lot of companies ARE investing in alternative forms of energy production for that reason. There's a great market there.

 

The gloom-and-doom types that demand government intervention NOW are the ones I can't stand. It won't help, and it isn't necessary. This has been demonstrated time and time again in the past and I don't see a reason to think this is different.

 

If there was any pressing urge to make a change in our methods, it would be made. The scaremongering does not constitute a pressing urge. I have much greater faith in the ingenuity of mankind than most others here, it would seem. Once bad things start happening we will do what is necessary to stop them, whatever the cause may be.

 

If mass human extinction begins, I will give each of you $100 US. I promise. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am saying that the beliefs held by many people aren't entirely founded in reason or evidence.

 

So you think it is unreasonable that putting thousands or millions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every day may cause, contribute to, or worsen climate change? The fact that the exact same emissions from our various technolgies are the exact same gases that contribute to trapping heat on the earth's surface is a concept devoid of any reason or evidence?

 

I think I am missing something here...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once bad things start happening we will do what is necessary to stop them, whatever the cause may be.

 

Are you sure? Some say bad things are happening right now, yet others say they are "ecofreaks".

 

The issue I have with this is that it has taken over a hundred years to get where we are today. Even if we stop burning "fossil" fuels today, climate change will likely continue for a few decades untill the atmosphere can equalize itself. By waiting untill things get bad, it will most likely be too late for humans.

 

The reason some feel the need to get active NOW is because they realize humans are not wired to think of things 100's of years into the future. Most people will not act untill they and theirs are threatened, and it will be too late by then...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...if humans all die away then perhaps something else possibly gets a turn. Too bad for us. We weren't the first and odds are we won't be the last either. We just might (maybe) end up being the first ones that did ourselves in as opposed to some asteroid but the end result is about the same. Or did I miss something in the fine print that promised us a longer turn?

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it was warmer than it is now, it is proof that the human race did just fine.

 

There is a difference between surviving as a species and "doing just fine". Billions of us could die and the species would survive, but I would hardly characterize that scenario as doing just fine, particularly if I or my loved ones were among the casualties.

 

I still haven't seen anyone refute the simple logic of: 1) Human activity produces greenhouse gases. 2) Greenhouse gases make the earth hotter, thus their label. 3) Human activity contributes to global warming.

 

I don't think it is unreasonable to discuss the problem and some potential mitigating actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still haven't seen anyone refute the simple logic of: 1) Human activity produces greenhouse gases. 2) Greenhouse gases make the earth hotter, thus their label. 3) Human activity contributes to global warming.

The question, for me, is how much we contribute. I'd say not much, but that is certainly debatable. I find Valgeir's quote about other planets also warming to be an indication that our warming is due to something outside of human's control.

Comparable temperature anomalies on other planets.

 

Does it really matter if we are causing it or not?

Considering the draconian plans, taxes, and gov't control of my personal life being considered, I'd say that it matters very much if the entire concept is based on politics and bullshit.

 

or 2) are hold over marxists from the 40's, 50's and 60's who hate captialism but no longer had a place with any form of credibility to hang out at so they fled to the Environmental movement.

Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, quit for this very reason. He claims that Greenpeace was taken over by political zealots after the fall of the USSR (as quoted in a P&T Bullshit episode I recently watched).

 

ETA:

I don't think it is unreasonable to discuss the problem and some potential mitigating actions.

Not unreasonable at all. I think it's a great idea to find alternatives to out current tech. But until that tech actually exists, I wish they'd leave their grubby hands off my freedoms and money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3657

 

Meteorologist James Spann,

 

Global Warming Movement Turns Cool

By EPW Blog Wednesday, June 25, 2008

 

Excerpt: Two years ago, it seemed like nothing could stop the global warming train. Most of the media, those in Hollywood, politicians (many on both sides of the cultural divide), and “enlightened environmentalists” were all telling us that man was causing runaway warming of the earth’s atmosphere, meaning global catastrophe only decades ahead for all of us. Scary stuff. The problem is that a majority of those in this almost religious movement have little training in atmospheric science, and little understanding of the issue.

 

They jumped on the bandwagon because it matches their worldview, or pads their pocket. This issue has generated great wealth on both sides of the argument, and I need to say up front I have absolutely no financial interest in climate. I am paid the same regardless of whether man is involved in climate change or not, and I have never taken a dime for a speech on the subject. The simple truth is that the anthropogenic global warming train has slowed to a crawl, and the riders are jumping off as the facts are discovered. […] I encourage all of you to read material on BOTH sides of the issue and make up your own mind. Mr Gore, the science is “not settled”, and the invitation for a debate remains wide open. Heaven help us this fall when ABC television tells us that the world, as we know it, is about to end because of “global warming”. Never let facts get in the way of a good story, especially one that scares you to death. I consider myself an environmentalist. There are some serious environmental issues out there. “Global warming” is not one of them.

 

 

Global Warming Movement Turns Cool

James Spann

 

Let me warn you, this is a little longer than my usual posts here, but it was prompted by a big op-ed article in the Birmingham News this morning. Take the time to read it, if you dare. Seems like our local paper has settled on one side of the climate change debate, which is certainly their right. But, I have the right to publish this article as well….

 

Two years ago, it seemed like nothing could stop the global warming train. Most of the media, those in Hollywood, politicians (many on both sides of the cultural divide), and “enlightened environmentalists” were all telling us that man was causing runaway warming of the earth’s atmosphere, meaning global catastrophe only decades ahead for all of us.

 

Scary stuff.

 

The problem is that a majority of those in this almost religious movement have little training in atmospheric science, and little understanding of the issue. They jumped on the bandwagon because it matches their worldview, or pads their pocket. This issue has generated great wealth on both sides of the argument, and I need to say up front I have absolutely no financial interest in climate. I am paid the same regardless of whether man is involved in climate change or not, and I have never taken a dime for a speech on the subject.

 

The simple truth is that the anthropogenic global warming train has slowed to a crawl, and the riders are jumping off as the facts are discovered.

 

What is the truth? Lets begin with something we all can agree on. The climate IS changing. It has always changed, it is changing now, and it will always change.

 

Beyond that, here are some simple facts that make those left on the global warming train very uncomfortable:

 

*The earth is no warmer now than it was in 1998.

*Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but a gas indispensable to plant life. Plants, in turn, release oxygen, which sustains animal and human life.

*The primary greenhouse gas is water vapor, not carbon dioxide.

*The lack of solar activity in recent months suggests global cooling might be our biggest potential climate change problem in coming years.

*The planet has had weather disasters, extremes, and anomalies since it has been here. We just didn’t have 24 hour news channels and the Internet in prior decades to spread the news.

 

I have been doing the weather on local television for 30 years, and EVERY YEAR I have had people come up to me and tell me that they can “never remember the weather being this strange”.

 

Most of those that you see and hear speaking on the subject have little scientific knowledge. Here is a quote from Dr. Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, from an article he penned recently:

 

“Alarmists like Al Gore will use pseudo-scientific justifications and comparisons in their attempt to make a connection between carbon dioxide and global warming. Even though CO2 is necessary for life on Earth, the alarmists insist on calling it a pollutant, referring to our atmosphere as an “open sewer.” For instance, Gore likes to point out that Venus has far more CO2 in its atmosphere than the Earth does, and its surface is hot enough to melt lead. Therefore, more CO2 causes warming. But we also know that the Martian atmosphere has 15 times as much CO2 as our own atmosphere, and its surface temperature averages about 70 deg. F below zero. So you see, in science a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”

 

Dr. James McClintock (marine biologist at UAB) today, in an op-ed piece published by the Birmingham News, claims that Antarctica is “warming quickly”. Dr. McClintock, I am sure, is an excellent marine biologist, and I would not even make an effort to challenge his knowledge of that science. But, what is his background in atmospheric science? And, where does that claim come from?

 

Here is what Certified Consulting Meteorologist (CCM) Joe D’Aleo says about this:

 

“The shattered part of the Wilkins ice sheet was 160 square miles in area, which is just 0.01% of the total current Antarctic ice cover, like an icicle falling from a snow and ice covered roof,” D’Aleo wrote on March 25. “We are very likely going to exceed last year’s record [for Southern Hemisphere ice extent]. Yet the world is left with the false impression Antarctica’s ice sheet is also starting to disappear,” D’Aleo added.

 

And, from climate scientist Ben Herman, past director of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics and former Head of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Arizona: “It is interesting that all of the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) stories concerning Antarctica are always about what’s happening around the [western] peninsula, which seems to be the only place on Antarctica that has shown warming. How about the net ‘no change’ or ‘cooling’ over the rest of the continent, which is probably about 95% of the land mass, not to mention the record sea ice coverage recently.”

 

I also should note that the mythical UN IPCC “consensus” continues to crumble… Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist who specializes in optical waveguide spectroscopy from the University of Tokyo, and a top UN IPCC Scientist, calls global warming fears: the “worst scientific scandal in history” in the weblog of former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke.

 

Here is what Canadian climatologist Tim Ball says about the IPCC: “The IPCC is a political organization and yet it is the sole basis of the claim of a scientific consensus on climate change. Consensus is neither a scientific fact nor important in science, but it is very important in politics. There are 2500 members in the IPCC divided between 600 in Working Group I (WGI), who examine the actual climate science, and 1900 in working Groups II and III (WG II and III), who study “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” and “Mitigation of Climate Change” respectively. Of the 600 in WGI, 308 were independent reviewers, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and only five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters of the report. They accept without question the findings of WGI and assume warming due to humans is a certainty. In a circular argument typical of so much climate politics the work of the 1900 (less than one percent of the scientific population) is listed as ‘proof’ of human caused global warming. Through this they established the IPCC as the only credible authority thus further isolating those who raised questions.”

 

I find it interesting that most of the predictions coming from the IPCC are based on computer model output. Those of us in the trench, who deal with the Earth’s atmosphere every day, know that computer model data is often horrible 24 hours in advance… how bad can it be out to 50 or 100 years?

 

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine this month announced that 31,072 U.S. scientists (9,021 with PhDs) signed a petition stating that “… There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate…”

 

John Coleman, meteorologist and founder of The Weather Channel, calls the GW movement the greatest scam in history.

 

I encourage all of you to read material on BOTH sides of the issue and make up your own mind. Mr Gore, the science is “not settled”, and the invitation for a debate remains wide open.

 

Heaven help us this fall when ABC television tells us that the world, as we know it, is about to end because of “global warming”. Never let facts get in the way of a good story, especially one that scares you to death.

 

I consider myself an environmentalist. There are some serious environmental issues out there. “Global warming” is not one of them. One of the best ways to become a truly environmentally concerned person is to walk the banks of an Alabama river or stream for a half day and pick up trash and garbage. Anyone want to join me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had two allied and concurrent similar Topics running. Blended 07052008 @2100PDT

 

kFL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something that I don't think I have seen stated on this thread...there are historical records that in the early middle ages, there is evidence that the earth was warmer then than it is even now. ...

In early England, there was records of vinyards and other plants in places that it is way too cold and in hostpitable for to grow now. There was also records of actual farming going on in Greenland in early records of the inhabitants of that place.

 

You're right. But my understanding of these past warming periods is they were caused by natural emissions of greenhouse gases from the earth. Wether it be from a volcanic eruption or two, or, (IIRC) a huge release of methane gas from underwater deposits. IOW, these warming episodes were caused by natural occurrences of greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere in mega-ton qualities.

 

The only real difference in these past episodes and our current one is that humans are drilling and digging these gases out of the earth and purposefully spewing them into the air. Besdies that, the gases are the same, their quantites are roughly the same, and their effect on the ecosystem is the same.

 

Now, lets say that the earth is going through a natural "farting" episode right now where she is releasing some gas that has her bloated. We are for sure not helping the situation by putting more of the same into the atmosphere, right?

 

And as far as warming/cooling trends on other planets...guess what is causing those fluctuations? The very same greenhouse gases that we manufacture right here!

 

I understand skepticism, really I do. And I am not advocating not thinking and discussing this. But I honestly cannot understand why some people feel so threatened by GW. It is a logical, reasonable idea that has some pretty sound principles behind it. I am at a complete loss to understand where the fear I see is coming from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And as far as warming/cooling trends on other planets...guess what is causing those fluctuations? The very same greenhouse gases that we manufacture right here!

Are you saying that my SUV is adding CO2 to other planets?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did, but it got lost in the sarcasm to your dumbass statement. (I'm not trying to insult you. Just making a pun. :)) You said,

And as far as warming/cooling trends on other planets...guess what is causing those fluctuations? The very same greenhouse gases that we manufacture right here!

You are flat out wrong.

 

From the articles linked previously,

[On Neptue] There has been no recent build-up of greenhouse gases there... Incredibly, an article has appeared in a recent issue of Geophysical Research Letters showing a stunning relationship between the solar output, Neptune’s brightness, and heaven forbid, the temperature of the Earth.
The trigger for the changes on Mars are, however, totally different from those mechanisms controlling and influencing climate here on Earth.
Jupiter's recent outbreak of red spots is likely related to large scale climate change as the gas giant planet is getting warmer near the equator.

 

(I'll address some more of your points as soon as I can. I'm having some problems downloading pages here for some reason right now.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And why do I always see the GW skeptics making the emotional arguments

You mean emotional arguments like these?

 

To me, it does not matter if the earth has mechanisims to deal with excess carbon, because at some point it will reach a time when it can handle no more carbon.
Who says?

 

What's wrong with cutting emissions or developing cleaner energy?

 

Nothing I can see, except some people REAAALLLY don't want to spend the money to do it.

 

And I'd bet the ones who really, really do not want to spend the money are the oil companies and those who have vested interests in the oil industry.

That's because they are OIL companies. NOT alternative energy companies.

 

 

Does it really matter if we are causing it or not? What if it is a natural change, but we are making it 100X worse by what we're doing?
Do humans add 100X more greenhouse substances (including water vapor) than nature does? What if we're only making it .001X worse? (I made up my number like I'm assuming you made up yours.)

 

Even if we spend decades getting off of oil only to find at the end that global warming was natural and inevitable, I still would not consider it a waste of time or money. It is the right thing to do.
If that's your view, then it's obviously nothing but your emotions speaking.

 

Marty, I'm not trying to bust your balls here. You earlier compared this to an evolution/creationism debate. I'm trying to make the point that AGW is more like a religion. It's doubtful that either side can 'prove' that it is correct. But both sides can argue from emotions, that's about all they really have. I'm skeptical of AGW for the same reasons I'm skeptical of religions. Both claim that you are in dire jeopardy and you should be very, very scared. But it'll be okay because they have the solution if only you give up a few little things.

 

Computer models CANNOT accurately predict the future of a global environment; there are just too many variables, many of which we don't know or understand yet. But since other planets are warming (without CO2, ect) at a rate that coincides with solar output, I think that the giant ball of fire in the sky that warms our globe every morning might be of more impact than human activity. Especially when all the Chicken Little's fixes always involve more taxes, bigger gov't, and more gov't control of my private life.

post-2801-1215564212_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason some feel the need to get active NOW is because they realize humans are not wired to think of things 100's of years into the future.

An interesting point, but we can understand things 100 years in the past pretty well. Which makes the first graph so damn scary. And why all the AGW proponents love it so, IMO.

 

But when you look back longer (2nd graph - 400,000 years) you can see that we're at an expected high and can expect another ice age soon, which is what the same scare mongers eco-freaks were claiming just a few decades ago. (I was not going to use that term because I know you don't like it but I just came across some inconvenient quotes in the following link) Lets look at what was being said at the first Earth Day in 1970

This theory assumes that the earth's cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun's heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born.
The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years," he declared. "If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.

Some other ecological topics...

"The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years."
By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine
By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate...that there won't be any more crude oil.
Later that year, Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000.
Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years [in 1995], somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.

 

Hell, some are still claiming that the next ice age is coming.

 

These people make their living by running around and screaming "THE END IS NEAR!" just to scare the shit out of you and get you to sign-on to whatever political 'fixes' they want to enact. They've changed their lyrics but the song is the same now as it was then.

 

(Crap, I just noticed that discussion is supposed to go in Peanutting. Mods please move my stuff there if you think it needs to be there)

post-2801-1215568778_thumb.png

post-2801-1215568783_thumb.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Former AGW supporter changes his mind...

 

What he thought then:

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

 

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

 

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

 

What he thinks now:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None.

3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980).

4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The grand exaggerator

Cato Institute

by Patrick J. Michaels

 

"OK, it's pretty much standard rhetoric in Washington to say that if

you don't do as I say, there will be massive consequences. But to say,

as Gore recently did: 'The survival of the United States of America as

we know it is at risk;' and: 'The future of human civilization is at

stake' -- that's a bit much, even for the most faded and jaded

political junkie. Here's how Gore works. He'll cite one scientific

finding that shows what he wants, and then ignore other work that

provides important context. Here's a list of his climate exaggerations

from his well-publicized July 17 rant, along with a few sobering

facts." (07/24/08)

 

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9562

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.