I'm sure you've heard the statements that "the debate is over" or "the science is settled" on anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming (AGW). The IPCC, the international body that is pushing for worldwide action against AGW, and politicians are trying to convince you that the issue is settled. Al Gore and the news media are hyping this as a worldwide disaster in the making, that drastic action must be taken "NOW!" or it will be too late. Lost in all of this is the fact that science is NEVER settled, and that debate should NEVER stop. Even worse is the idea that science can be decided by vote - referring to this nonsense about "scientific consensus" and "2000 scientists agree" and so on. Consensus is *meaningless* in science. It only takes *one* scientist with a viable theory (that can be tested and proven) to overturn an entire branch of science. The number of scientists doesn't matter, only what can be reasonably proven.
In this thread, I will be posting the evidence *against* man-made global warming. I will stick mostly to scientific papers and sources, although I will occasionally post articles from the news media, or even blogs, on the subject. However, I will try to stick to articles and blogs that cite scientific sources whenever possible. This is about valid proof, not hype, not bullshit.
I'll start with a couple of good links for those who wish to do their own reading and research. And I'd encourage you to do so. Don't believe me, don't believe everything you hear, do your own reading and make up your *own* minds.
Second is the Heartland Institute. Some will complain that the site is conservative-oriented, however they recently sponsored a conference for scientists to present their case on global warming, and most talks were against the idea that man's CO2 emissions are causing or will cause catastrophic climate change scenarios.
This link gives general info on the conference: http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/newyork08.cfm This link is to the list of speakers and the subjects they covered: http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/proceedings.cfm On the right side of the page, there are audio and video links to the scientists' talks. Some of the talks have powerpoint presentations that you can download. I'd suggest listening to the audio or video, and following along with the powerpoint slides.
If you'd like to read about the problems with the so called "hockey stick graph", a good place to start is http://www.climateaudit.org/ You can find *scientific* discussion of a number of components of the AGW theory by subject, on the left side of the page. The site's owner, Steve McIntyre, is the one who found the statistical problems with the hockey stick. He found that it was terribly biased, in that you can plug any numbers you want into it, and you will get the famous hockey stick shaped graph.
That's a good start. I'll have a LOT more info to come, and it will be primarily real science, not biased reporting, not media hype (although I will post stuff that exposes the hype).
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 06-07-2008).]
I think what most people don't look at is correlation is not causation. And any global warming is not necessarily man made. Unfortunately the argument has taken on almost religious zeal with most people. It's very difficult to have a calm rational discussion about it.
Considering Mt. St. Helens' eruption spewed out more carbon in that one event than the entire history of industrialized mankind - I'm not really concerned about my personal carbon footprint.
It's akin to saying sea levels are rising because of boats and swimmers in the oceans. Sure, physics tells us for every man made object we put in the ocean the global sea levels will rise. So should we have a global crusade to keep all people and man made objects out of the water for fear of flooding the earth? Many of the global warming arguments sound very similar.
1> how the heck did it happen last time (and the 3 previous times) - when there was no people burning stuff? especially on such a predictable schedule. almost like a cycle which comes and goes....
2> the "hockey stick" - if you follow all the graphs & info which created the "hockey stick" - especially the graphs which have BOTH the CO2 & avg. temps - you will see the ugly fact that we should be DEAD ALREADY. we should have had "scorched earth" by the 1990's.
and another thing - we are not saying we dont beleive in global warming. its is 100% fact. it happened before - it will happen again. and - we are also not saying "pollution is OK" - noone is "for" pollution. CO2 is NOT pollution. it is the most important gas on earth. CO2 is what "feeds" the food chain. without it - EVERYTHING dies. CO2, H20 & sunshine - what makes life possible here on earth. carbon footprint? bwahahaha - you are a carbon based lifeform, are you not? get yourself some diamond laofers - and make a real impressive carbon footprint. diamonds are carbon after all. carbon is good.
All I have to say is: It dosen't matter what the cause is. If we're producing pollution & yes also Co2, & that adds to global warming, shouldn't we do what we can to reduce it? Even if - no: ESPECIALLY if - the earth is going through a natural global warming period? Yeah Co2 is good stuff, but TOO MUCH of anything is bad! Every time you take a sip of alcohol (or milk, or whatever), do you make sure to drink several gallons? You are all just making excuses to forget about how much you pollute, & how much you contribute to our dependence on forien oil. The fact is you just don't give a flying duck about anyone but yourself. The more gas you burn, the higher the price will be. The only ones suffering from it are the poor. But since you're making 50 grand + a year you just don't care. Be honest: how many of you that are "pro global warming" & "pro gas guzzling" make less than 50 grand? Paul
All I have to say is: It dosen't matter what the cause is. If we're producing pollution & yes also Co2, & that adds to global warming, shouldn't we do what we can to reduce it? Even if - no: ESPECIALLY if - the earth is going through a natural global warming period?
Serious question: Do you also believe we should keep people from swimming in the ocean to prevent flooding? We do know people jumping in the ocean adds to the sea level. Shouldn't we do what we can to reduce it?
All I have to say is: It dosen't matter what the cause is. If we're producing pollution & yes also Co2, & that adds to global warming, shouldn't we do what we can to reduce it? Even if - no: ESPECIALLY if - the earth is going through a natural global warming period? Yeah Co2 is good stuff, but TOO MUCH of anything is bad! Every time you take a sip of alcohol (or milk, or whatever), do you make sure to drink several gallons? You are all just making excuses to forget about how much you pollute, & how much you contribute to our dependence on forien oil. The fact is you just don't give a flying duck about anyone but yourself. The more gas you burn, the higher the price will be. The only ones suffering from it are the poor. But since you're making 50 grand + a year you just don't care. Be honest: how many of you that are "pro global warming" & "pro gas guzzling" make less than 50 grand? Paul
not one person here is "for" pollution. just because we dont believe in wall-less green houses - does not mean we are driving down the road in '72 caddy's getting 5mpg. I am sure everyone here would like to burn as little fuel as possible. and, how did "the poor" get thrown into this? you are trying to dump way to much extra baggage on something very simple.
again - not one person here is saying "screw green". not one person is saying "set everything aflame". no one is "making excuses" for anything.
notice how everything you thrown out is emotional and made to tug heart strings? the punishment for pollution, the suffering of the poor, the excuse making of the rich....
much reminds of "the churches" tactic: better to hope for heavan and be right, than not beleive and be wrong.
but - that same arrogance applies here too. to actually beleive that - if you actually ARE right, and we are causing global warming - that there is something that could be done to stop it. you'd have better luck de-railing a train with a penny. do you actually have a clue on how CO2 must be removed? do you have a clue how much CO2 is created naturly? do you have a clue on how much CO2 is removed naturly? but we should try, gosh darn it, we should try. we could kill everyone. nope. still not enough. and...the rotting corspes give of green house gasses too....
thats right boys and girls - even with no humans left on earth - completely vacuumed off, and deposited somewhere else - there would still be to much CO2. so - what do you suggest?
All I have to say is: It dosen't matter what the cause is. If we're producing pollution & yes also Co2, & that adds to global warming, shouldn't we do what we can to reduce it? Even if - no: ESPECIALLY if - the earth is going through a natural global warming period? Yeah Co2 is good stuff, but TOO MUCH of anything is bad! Every time you take a sip of alcohol (or milk, or whatever), do you make sure to drink several gallons?
But the real question is - HOW MUCH warming is a result from Man's CO2 contribution. Answer - an insignificant amount. I'll find some info to post on this later (I'm busy today). Look at it this way - if you pee in Lake Michigan, does it raise the water level? Yes. How much? An insignificant (and basically immeasurable) amount.
As for "too much CO2", how much would be too much? Double current levels? That's what the IPCC is talking about. Doubling current levels of CO2 would *not* cause harm to plants or our breathing. How much warming would it add? *Maybe* one degree C. That's not enough to cause major ecological disasters.
quote
You are all just making excuses to forget about how much you pollute, & how much you contribute to our dependence on forien oil. The fact is you just don't give a flying duck about anyone but yourself. The more gas you burn, the higher the price will be. The only ones suffering from it are the poor. But since you're making 50 grand + a year you just don't care. Be honest: how many of you that are "pro global warming" & "pro gas guzzling" make less than 50 grand? Paul
Since you care so much about the poor, you might want to write your representatives in congress and defeat the latest climate change bill. If you think gas is expensive now, what do you think it will be after they add carbon taxes? I'll post more on this later.
This isn't about being lax about pollution and how much gas we use. This is about the bullshit we're being given on global warming. And in the coming posts, I will *prove* it.
not one person here is "for" pollution. just because we dont believe in wall-less green houses - does not mean we are driving down the road in '72 caddy's getting 5mpg. I am sure everyone here would like to burn as little fuel as possible. and, how did "the poor" get thrown into this? you are trying to dump way to much extra baggage on something very simple.
again - not one person here is saying "screw green". not one person is saying "set everything aflame". no one is "making excuses" for anything.
Read the threads about it again: Most everyone here says "I DON'T CARE". Is it really all that simple? Then why so much debate/argument about it. Even clouds hold in the heat at night. All I'm saying, is we should do what we can to reduce pollution (& Co2 since it's related), & gas consumption. It's not gonna affect me no matter what you do, 'cause I'm not gonna' be around long enough for it (global warming) to affect me, & unfortunately Tha Driver doesn't get to do much driving these days. Since I work here & live in the small room here, I don't buy much gas. Wait: I take it back - please try to reduce warming as much as possible as it's been 100 degrees in my shop for several days now & 90+ in my "home" with the AC running all day & all night. I'm sweatin' like a stuck pig... Of course no one cares... Paul
[This message has been edited by Tha Driver (edited 06-08-2008).]
Read the threads about it again: Most everyone here says "I DON'T CARE". Is it really all that simple? Then why so much debate/argument about it. Even clouds hold in the heat at night. All I'm saying, is we should do what we can to reduce pollution (& Co2 since it's related), & gas consumption. It's not gonna affect me no matter what you do, 'cause I'm not gonna' be around long enough for it (global warming) to affect me, & unfortunately Tha Driver doesn't get to do much driving these days. Since I work here & live in the small room here, I don't buy much gas. Wait: I take it back - please try to reduce warming as much as possible as it's been 100 degrees in my shop for several days now & 90+ in my "home" with the AC running all day & all night. I'm sweatin' like a stuck pig... Of course no one cares... Paul
quote
Originally posted by Formula88:
Serious question: Do you also believe we should keep people from swimming in the ocean to prevent flooding? We do know people jumping in the ocean adds to the sea level. Shouldn't we do what we can to reduce it?
Please answer the question. If you feel the question doesn't deserve an answer, please state why.
Read the threads about it again: Most everyone here says "I DON'T CARE".
I didn't start this thread because I don't care. I started it because we're being scammed. Clean the environment, reduce pollution, find an alternative to burning gas...fine. Just don't f***ing LIE to me about it. We're being lied to, and I'm going to show you how.
it's sort of interesting to read the links. some of them say there's global warming, but that human causation is minimal. some of them say there's global warming, and no human causation. some of them say there's no global warming at all lots of them really, really hate al gore.
makes me wonder what would they would say if al changed sides.
Videos don't show in my browser, & even if they did it would take FOREVER for them to load. My LOUSY didl-up usually loads at between 1.5 to 3 kps. Paul
[This message has been edited by Tha Driver (edited 06-08-2008).]
From all the data I have seen the graph in this thread covers it pretty well. Seems every time there has been significant volcanic activity the temperate rises. Overlay that over C02 charts and the C02 has been a result of the warming. Not the cause.
Of course we should reduce pollution for our own good and perhaps we have contributed to global warming to some extent. But I definatly don't think we are the root cause of it.
Id tend to believe Nostrodamus before Gore. At least some of his stuff ' can ' sorta be verified. Ive determined thru my own investigation that Mars died due to global warming. The red surface is due to the rust residue from all the Martian SUVs that caused it.
I think sums it up right there. People forget that the root of conservative is "conserve". If there is a cheaper, faster, better, more efficient way to do something I am all for it. And More efficient processes inherently mean less pollution. An engine that is tuned perfectly with No Smog equipment is STILL cleaner than the average car on the road. I am also for new technologies that will reduce pollution of air and water and I am for them as soon as is practicable.
The problem with AGW drones is that it is about power. I find it really annoying that every time the subject of AGW comes up the issue of increased government spending, greater powers, and increased taxes is not far behind the rhetoric.
AGW IS a modern cult with the backing of the media. And people who do not understand climatology (about 99.5% of the population) are being asked to pick a team. Well, when you have a predisposition to believe one person or another you are inclined to follow their lead even without the facts to support it.
Videos don't show in my browser, & even if they did it would take FOREVER for them to load. My LOUSY didl-up usually loads at between 1.5 to 3 kps. Paul
Ditto for me. Sorta. They show in my browser, they are just horribly slow to load. What is really aggrevating, is they attempt to run down in the 'review' part of the reply window while I'm typing out my reply.
I do believe in global warming, and I do believe we as a race contribute to it at least a little. I also believe the warming will continue with or without us, and without us, the effect on the warming will be negligible. I also believe that it is June, and it's supposed to be hot as heck in Texas--which it is. I personally don't see a whole lot of difference in 98 deg and 102 deg--nor do I see any difference in June 2008 and June 1958--wih is when I was 8 years old. Hot now and hot then. And, since General Phil Sheridan--back in the 1800s, commented on the Texas heat, I doubt it was much cooler 140 yrs ago. "If I owned Hell and Texas, I would rent out Texas and live in Hell."
Here's the thing - we know that anyone who gets in the ocean will raise the sea level. But nobody is worried about it because we also know the difference is so minuscule we can ignore it.
Your argument is very similar. You say we know CO2 adds to global warming, so we should do what we can to reduce it. But we don't know how much effect it has. Is man's CO2 output a major problem, or does it make about as much difference as jumping in the ocean does to sea levels?
You say my question is asinine, but the logic behind the question is the exact same that you're using. It's no more asinine than your position on global warming.
Is our affect on the atmosphere throwing gasoline on a fire, or is it more like a fart in a hurricane?
I'm in favor of reducing pollution because I like clean air and water. I'm in favor of alternative fuels because I'm tired of our economy being enslaved to foreign governments. Global warming has nothing to do with either of those. If global warming were positively, unequivocally proven false and the entire world agreed - I'd still be in favor of clean air and alternative fuels.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 06-08-2008).]
To me, the weather, climate etc. is as unpredictable as, say, somebody trying to do a Rubik's cube. Or why somebody wins the lottery above 10 million others. The weather is an incalculable number of causes and effects..and one day, a certain combination will cause an extraordinary result. Totally unpredictable, just like the 'local' weather forecast. Even with thousands of planes in the sky all over the World, feeding current information to weather stations etc.., they can never predict exactly what will happen except for a very short time. They ARE getting better..but Mother Nature has many things up her sleeve to sling into the works, and then nothing comes out as predicted. One day, that person messing randomly with the Rubik's cube might, just might, get the combination right. Just as one day, the things that contribute to weather all over the World could come together, and create Global warming, or even global distruction, in the blink of an eye. Could happen tomorrow...could maybe not happen for qnother million years.The analogy of the people jumping in the water is RIDICULOUS!! You have to think a lot deeper about it, to see it thogh. I will try to explain why I find it so. Somebody jumps in the sea.the displacement caused by their body is spread over millions of square metres of surface of the sea.And if 100 million people jump into the sea at once, then the effect would be noticable. Slightly. But where the analogy goes wrong, is here. They get back out again. and the effect is purely temporary.With carbon emissions, the amount of carbon we all create remains there.Or most of it. And when we jump into the sea, the most displacement we can cause is the total of the volume of our body. Nothing more. carbon emissions continue to grow.You would have to jump in the sea with your car, truck, air conditioning unit, garden fires, etc etc, to equate the two . No matter how many times you jump in the sea, you will always (mostly ) get back out.If we took back IN, the carbon we cause every day, then the example stands. We don´t. So the analogy bears NO equivocation at all. It is fallacious, and actually ridiculous when you consider it the way I have explained. And totally misleading. Like a lot of arguments from BOTH sides of the AGW argument. The truth of the matter is this..we are burning the World's resources from both ends, and ever quicker. We are introducing more and more carbon into the air, and reducing the things that have maintained relative equilibrium over the millions of years...cutting down millions of trees, covering vast tracts of earth with concrete and tarmac and buildings. Eventually, both ends will meet in the middle, and that will be the end of all life that depends on oxygen, AND CO2. never forget that plants, trees etc depend equally upon oxygen during the night, as they do CO2 during the day, for photosynthesis. Nick
Global warming--In My Never Too Humble Opinion---is predominantely caused by all those Limeys drinking all that hot tea. Ya know why they drink warm beer? Lucas Electrical also makes their refridgerators.
Originally posted by Toddster: People forget that the root of conservative is "conserve". If there is a cheaper, faster, better, more efficient way to do something I am all for it. And More efficient processes inherently mean less pollution.
this depends on whether youre thinking long-term or short, and those pesky hard-to-value quality of life issues. it has very often been "cheaper" and "more efficient" to throw trash, whether paper cups or toxic industrial waste, over our metaphorical shoulder and walk away. in the short term it's "cheaper" and "more efficient" to practice slash and burn, monoculture without crop rotation and mining gold with mercury.
One of the most interesting points is made with a graph on page 7. It shows the carbon dioxide concentrations of our atmosphere and the global temperature anomaly to 600 million years ago.
About halfway through the Ordovician Age--about 450, 460 million years ago--the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere was about 4,300 PPM. (Compare that to the present-day measure of about 385 PPM.) And an ice age took place.
When the ice age was effectively over, carbon dioxide had dropped to about 4,000 PPM. (A drop, by the way, greater in magnitude than all the carbon dioxide currently in the atmosphere.)
I'd now like to call your attention to page 17, figure 22, "The Warming Effect of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide".
You get about 1.55 degrees celcius of warming from the first 20 PPM of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. To double that amount of warming, you must add another FOUR HUNDRED PPM.
* * *
The PDF makes the case that our sun's variability carries the responsibility for global climate changes. The sun's variability is small--about 0.07%--but that amounts to an enormous amount of energy. 0.07% of the total annual solar irradience that Earth receives is enough energy to supply the United States' current energy needs...for THREE THOUSAND YEARS.
If the sun was more variable than that, in all liklihood, life could not have evolved here. But 0.07% is more than enough to have an effect on global climate since the sun's shortest cycle is 11 years long; and we've identified 40- and 200-year cycles as well. (There may well be longer cycles, but we've only been counting sunspots for a few centuries. Give us time.)
Right now, the latest sunspot cycle is between six and eighteen months late. The longer it takes for that cycle to start, the cooler the next decade will be. And solar astronomers are pretty certain that the cycle following this one is going to feature a low sunspot count. Any way you add this up, it spells "cold".
The really grating thing about it is that when that happens, the environmentalists are going to pat themselves on the back and claim that their programs fixed it, when nothing is farther from the truth.
this depends on whether youre thinking long-term or short, and those pesky hard-to-value quality of life issues. it has very often been "cheaper" and "more efficient" to throw trash, whether paper cups or toxic industrial waste, over our metaphorical shoulder and walk away. in the short term it's "cheaper" and "more efficient" to practice slash and burn, monoculture without crop rotation and mining gold with mercury.
All very true. Some of this was a case of "we didn't know how damaging it was at the time". But that not withstanding, polluting is bad business. If you get caught the cost of repairing the damage usually far outweighs the short term benefits you hope to receive. That has not stopped some from doing it. Which is why I am in favor of Government regulations to ensure people practice "good business". As long as those regulations are limited to restricting behavior harmful to the consumer base.
But this is the crux of the Global Warming issue. Socialist are interested in CONTROL! They are misguided souls who think you can improve an economy by exercising greater control over economic activites. They are wrong and history has proved again and again that the more you try to control economic processes the more out of control they become. Yet some people never learn. Hugo Chazez has nationalized his country and will bankrupt it in the end..it is not even a debatable issue, it WILL happen. Maxine Waters and other loonie want to do the same here in America. God only knows why. I have heard some people say, "Well, the Soviets just didn't do it the right way". These sort of remarks are typically said by people who can't even spell economy let alone understand the dynamics of one. But that does not keep them from trying.
This is what AGW is, another attempt to seize control of an economic process by manipulating the one element of control that even hard core free market purists like me will conceed we need, limited governmental regulation. By inventing a crisis that is GLOBAL in nature, effects ALL INDUSTRY, and requires INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION, the socialists have created a crisis that is, franklly, a piece of shear genius. It is the thin end of the wedge that allows control over the economy to be enacted, not by revolution or greed (in the obvious way) but by a basic desire to SAVE HUMANITY! Genius. Lex Luther would be proud.
Business is the thing that CREATES freedom and yet the socialists have made business the bad guy lately. Government is here to save the day from the "evil" business-man; same tired old crap that has never worked before and will never work because it is a fallacy of the worst kind.
The tell (in card player jargon) is the bills being proposed that will create a Goliath Government Organization to CONTROL business emmissions and subsequently their production. And all of this under the guise of SAVING THE WORLD!
What amazes me the most is how EASILY people are sold on something as preposterous as the idea that the world is coming to an end because of our behavior. All humanity combined can't change the size, strength, or direction of one single hurricane and yet by just sitting around with our AC on we are going to destroy the planet: and people are buying this hook line and sinker. I'm not sure whether to be horrified by being a member of the same race that could beleive this malarky or dazzled by the genius that managed to convince people that this is real.
either way, I'm in awe.
[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 06-08-2008).]
What amazes me the most is how EASILY people are sold on something as preposterous as the idea that the world is coming to an end because of our behavior. All humanity combined can't change the size, strength, or direction of one single hurricane and yet by just sitting around with our AC on we are going to destroy the planet: and people are buying this hook line and sinker. I'm not sure whether to be horrified by being a member of the same race that could beleive this malarky or dazzled by the genius that managed to convince people that this is real.
either way, I'm in awe of Al Gore.
Fixed it for you--before someone else did.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 06-08-2008).]
I can't call it a "fix" but I can't argue with it. Gore has successfully managed to con the world with the skill of a top of the line Snake Oil salesman. One can't help but admire raw talent.
Ah, yes, David Archibald. Good stuff. He have a talk at the Heartland AGW conference. Here is a link to a powerpoint version of the pdf file above, and it goes along with the audio/video on the Heartland conference page.
quote
One of the most interesting points is made with a graph on page 7. It shows the carbon dioxide concentrations of our atmosphere and the global temperature anomaly to 600 million years ago.
About halfway through the Ordovician Age--about 450, 460 million years ago--the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere was about 4,300 PPM. (Compare that to the present-day measure of about 385 PPM.) And an ice age took place.
When the ice age was effectively over, carbon dioxide had dropped to about 4,000 PPM. (A drop, by the way, greater in magnitude than all the carbon dioxide currently in the atmosphere.)
To summarize:
1. CO2 levels have been MUCH higher in the past. Life did just fine here on Earth.
2. Historically, CO2 rise FOLLOWS temperature increases, not the other way around.
3. CO2 levels have been high during ice ages. CO2 *cannot* create the warming scenario they've been trying to sell us.
quote
I'd now like to call your attention to page 17, figure 22, "The Warming Effect of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide".
You get about 1.55 degrees celcius of warming from the first 20 PPM of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. To double that amount of warming, you must add another FOUR HUNDRED PPM.
Put another way - the greenhouse effect from CO2 is NOT linear, but logarithmic. In other words, doubling CO2 does NOT double the amount of warming from CO2. Period. It's a scientific fact. To understand this better, you'd have to read something like this presentation.
quote
The PDF makes the case that our sun's variability carries the responsibility for global climate changes. The sun's variability is small--about 0.07%--but that amounts to an enormous amount of energy. 0.07% of the total annual solar irradience that Earth receives is enough energy to supply the United States' current energy needs...for THREE THOUSAND YEARS.
If the sun was more variable than that, in all liklihood, life could not have evolved here. But 0.07% is more than enough to have an effect on global climate since the sun's shortest cycle is 11 years long; and we've identified 40- and 200-year cycles as well. (There may well be longer cycles, but we've only been counting sunspots for a few centuries. Give us time.)
Craig Loehle's presentation at the Heartland conference mentions a 1470 year cycle that fits temperature variation quite nicely. Link to his presentation
quote
Right now, the latest sunspot cycle is between six and eighteen months late. The longer it takes for that cycle to start, the cooler the next decade will be. And solar astronomers are pretty certain that the cycle following this one is going to feature a low sunspot count. Any way you add this up, it spells "cold".
The really grating thing about it is that when that happens, the environmentalists are going to pat themselves on the back and claim that their programs fixed it, when nothing is farther from the truth.
Ed
Joeseph D'Aleo also has some good material on this. This is an *excellent* presentation on temperature, CO2 and the sun. He ties it together nicely. Follow along with audio or video from the window on the right.
If some of you are having problems downloading and viewing the Powerpoint presentations, let me know. I'll extract the key graphs and charts and post them here.
it's sort of interesting to read the links. some of them say there's global warming, but that human causation is minimal. some of them say there's global warming, and no human causation. some of them say there's no global warming at all lots of them really, really hate al gore.
makes me wonder what would they would say if al changed sides.
The reason ALGore is so controversial in this is that he is the embodiment of the IDEOLOGY that is driving the "global warming", (recently re-named to "climate change"), hoax. This is what happens when fraud, junk science and ideology gain a toe hold over objective data, science and research.
The "global warming" issue started out *agenda driven* and was promulgated on FRAUDLENT data. (Michael Mann and his bogus FORTRAN program with "cooked" data that produced the original "hockey stick" graph). Read the link I provided earlier: "ALL IN A GOOD CAUSE" by Orson Scott Card. There are other good accounts of the origins of the "global warming" issue available online, but Card summarizes it well.
With AlGore championing this hoax, (many say to his own benefit), a lot of people don't bother to look past ideology and will don blinders, and readily accept the "data" presented to them, as they see it in terms of "us vs, them", left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative, have vs. have-not, etc.
Ideology is the anthesis of objectivity.
If the evidence was solid and incontrovertable that man-made climate change is real, is an immediate emergency and is of the scale presented by the alarmists, I would be supportive of whoever was the current "champion" of the issue, no matter who it is, but even some small, objective research of the information available ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE says "it just ain't so.".
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 06-08-2008).]
) get back out.If we took back IN, the carbon we cause every day, then the example stands. We don´t. So the analogy bears NO equivocation at all. It is fallacious, and actually ridiculous when you consider it the way I have explained.
