Let the global warming rants resume...

[Chachie]

Doesn't this belong in the Lost thread?

This thread even has polar bears and smoke monsters! WTH? :applause:

[Skins24]

AlGore must be in DC today talking environment, causing the GORE EFFECT since the snow is steadily falling here today.

Happens EVERY time

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashghi.htm

[dcoles11]

AlGore must be in DC today talking environment, causing the GORE EFFECT since the snow is steadily falling here today.

You do realize that global warming doesn't mean hot weather right?

I cringe everytime someone says, "well it's cold as hell here and it's snowing, obviously global warming is a myth"

If you are going to be against a something, at least understand what it is you're against.

[Boots]

You do realize that global warming doesn't mean hot weather right?

I cringe everytime someone says, "well it's cold as hell here and it's snowing, obviously global warming is a myth"

If you are going to be against a something, at least understand what it is you're against.

I think that is why many scientists prefer "global climate change" so as not to confuse the more simple minded among us.

[SnyderShrugged]

I think that is why many scientists prefer "global climate change" so as not to confuse the more simple minded among us.

add to that statement that "Climate change" doesnt have to mean bad change or human caused bad change. I always thought it interesting that the "climate change" lingo came about once we started to see that global temperatures werent actually universally going up.

[Larry]

add to that statement that "Climate change" doesnt have to mean bad change or human caused bad change. I always thought it interesting that the "climate change" lingo came about once we started to see that global temperatures werent actually universally going up.

You mean, scientists actually revise their theories to fit reality?

And I think it's been pretty well proven that global temperatures have been going up. (There's just a lot of arguments over the details.)

[SnyderShrugged]

You mean, scientists actually revise their theories to fit reality?

And I think it's been pretty well proven that global temperatures have been going up. (There's just a lot of arguments over the details.)

I dont think the global warming/climate change/hate the humans zealots changed their theories to fit reality, just the terminology.:2cents:

I think the argument is from what point in time have they been going up from. and please note, I said "universally" going up, meaning all temperatures in all parts of the globe.

[Larry]

I dont think the global warming/climate change/hate the humans zealots changed their theories to fit reality, just the terminology.:2cents:

Recalling something I once heard from Dennis Miller:

The environmentalists have invented the term "rainforest" because they discovered that no one would give them millions of dollars to "Save the Jungle".

They are now attempting to do the same thing with the terms "wetlands" and "swamp".

I think the argument is from what point in time have they been going up from. and please note, I said "universally" going up, meaning all temperatures in all parts of the globe.

I don't believe I've ever heard anybody propose the theory that there will never ever again be a time, or a place, anywhere in, above, or below the surface of the Earth, where the temperature will ever go down, when compared with any temperature that has ever been recorded.

[PeterMP]

I dont think the global warming/climate change/hate the humans zealots changed their theories to fit reality, just the terminology.:2cents:

I think the argument is from what point in time have they been going up from. and please note, I said "universally" going up, meaning all temperatures in all parts of the globe.

I don't think anybody ever thought that temperatures were universally going up. The term 'global warming' was normally used to refer to the average temperature of the globe, which did go up.

[SnyderShrugged]

Recalling something I once heard from Dennis Miller:

The environmentalists have invented the term "rainforest" because they discovered that no one would give them millions of dollars to "Save the Jungle".

They are now attempting to do the same thing with the terms "wetlands" and "swamp".

I don't believe I've ever heard anybody propose the theory that there will never ever again be a time, or a place, anywhere in, above, or below the surface of the Earth, where the temperature will ever go down, when compared with any temperature that has ever been recorded.

LOl! Love the DM quote!

I hope you realize that wasnt what I was proposing either!

To clarify, one of the major issues I have with the current use of "climate change data" is just that the data doesnt go back anywhere near far enough to properly identify a climate change trend. I dont doubt that using the starting point of the late 1800's, we could comfortably say that the earth has warmed since then (excluding the outlier data points that will inevitably be in the sample). My cocern is more that the earth's weather is very old, so old that a sample of a few hundred years doesnt wash as representative data.

gotta go to a meetiung, but i hope we can chat more on this later.

[SnyderShrugged]

I don't think anybody ever thought that temperatures were universally going up. The term 'global warming' was normally used to refer to the average temperature of the globe, which did go up.

since the late 1800's, thats all we know with any degree of certainty

[Larry]

To clarify, one of the major issues I have with the current use of "climate change data" is just that the data doesnt go back anywhere near far enough to properly identify a climate change trend. I dont doubt that using the starting point of the late 1800's, we could comfortably say that the earth has warmed since then (excluding the outlier data points that will inevitably be in the sample). My cocern is more that the earth's weather is very old, so old that a sample of a few hundred years doesnt wash as representative data.

And therefore, there will never be enough data to prove, to you, that pollution is bad, because we will never have complete data, down to 1 degree accuracy, of daily temperatures, covering the entire Earth, going back for 10 million years.

If, 1,000 years from now, we have conclusive data showing that 900 of the last 1,000 years have been the hottest years ever recorded, then well, that's only 1,000 years worth of data. Could be a fluke.

[PeterMP]

since the late 1800's, thats all we know with any degree of certainty

Do we need to know more?

Why? Specifically.

[Burgundy Burner]

This is an excellent read and it shows you just how much Al Gore is lying.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html

The Amazing Story Behind Tho Global Warming Scam

By John Coleman

January 28, 2009

The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax we citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way, the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have lead to a rise in public awareness that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not a significant greenhouse gas that is triggering runaway global warming.

How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government we have to struggle so to stop it?

The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle saw the opportunity to obtain major funding from the Navy for doing measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute’s areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago, who was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle tagged on to Suess studies and co-authored a paper with him in 1957. The paper raises the possibility that the carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. It seems to be a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle’s mind was most of the time.

Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1960 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels.

These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.

Now let me take you back to the1950s when this was going on. Our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution from the crude internal combustion engines that powered cars and trucks back then and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. Cars and factories and power plants were filling the air with all sorts of pollutants. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution and a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action. Government accepted this challenge and new environmental standards were set. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed for cars, as were new high tech, computer controlled engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer big time polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. Likewise, new fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced, as well.

But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. So the research papers from Scripps came at just the right moment. And, with them came the birth of an issue; man-made global warming from the carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants began to flow and alarming hypothesis began to show up everywhere.

The Keeling curve showed a steady rise in CO2 in atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. As of today, carbon dioxide has increased from 215 to 385 parts per million. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. While the increase is real, the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about .41 hundredths of one percent.

Several hypothesis emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. Years have passed and the scientists kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.

Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation’s bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meeting.

Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations, a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But, he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This was not a pure climate study scientific organization, as we have been lead to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved the UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels. Over the last 25 years they have been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, the UN IPCC has made its points to the satisfaction of most and even shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.

At the same time, that Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950’s as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.

He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students to become a major global warming activist. This student would say later, "It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!" The student described him as "a wonderful, visionary professor" who was "one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming," That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book Earth in the Balance, published in 1992.

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 movie, 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 ask about we skeptics they simply 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

1-29-09

[.Guy.]

Do we need to know more?

Why? Specifically.

because this global warming could just be a trend (and/or cycle) of the earth!!!!1!!!!1

[PeterMP]

This is an excellent read and it shows you just how much Al Gore is lying.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html

The Amazing Story Behind Tho Global Warming Scam

That's great, except he left somethings out, like 50+ years of chemistry.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf

"On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground

Svante Arrhenius"

From 1896. People didn't just decide that CO2 could cause warming. There is a basic chemical and physical explanation for it that was established BEFORE the 1950's (I explain it one of the threads linked to in the beginning).

Oh and terms the concentration of CO2 being so LOW:

"In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures."

It is over 350 ppM.

Mexico city has an ozone level of ONLY 125 PPB (that's B as in Billion vs. M as in million). Go to Mexico City and tell me that 125 PPB is insignificant.

I also wouldn't suggest drinking water with any number of molecules at that level (e.g mercury).

But hey it is only a trace amount.

[PeterMP]

because this global warming could just be a trend (and/or cycle) of the earth!!!!1!!!!1

What trend/cycle?

The Earth's rotation and tilt is well understood and easily predicted into the future and the past.

[.Guy.]

What trend/cycle?

The Earth's rotation and tilt is well understood and easily predicted into the future and the past.

argument is that we have no hard evidence of the earths temps before the 19th century... how can we know that the heating up off the Earth isn't just some trend?

i mean weve only been keeping records for 200 years now.

thats basically it. all of your facts and links will not change my mind.

[dcoles11]

Again, I love how people think there are not adverse effects to the environment no matter how much we pollute.

Just keep calling everyone that thinks we are destroying the earth a crazy wacko liberal, what do you care anyway, it's not like you'll be around to have to deal with it.

[PeterMP]

argument is that we have no hard evidence of the earths temps before the 19th century... how can we know that the heating up off the Earth isn't just some trend?

i mean weve only been keeping records for 200 years now.

thats basically it. all of your facts and links will not change my mind.

Basically to part of a trend there would have to some physical underlying mechanism causing the trend, which we should be able to detect UNLESS it is something very subtle, where we could collect data for 1,000 years and not have any evidence.

That of course is true for everything. It was possible that the Cuyahoga River catching on fire was part of some larger trend that we didn't have data to uncover, it was possible that acid rain is part of some larger trend that we don't have the data to uncover, but us taking actions based on the data we do have has had a positive effect.

Of course, if facts won't change your mind, this really was a waste of my time.

[.Guy.]

SNIP

I think regardless of our opinions on global warming we can all agree that its good to recycle and generally do things that won't harm our environment.

[Reic]

What trend/cycle?

The Earth's rotation and tilt is well understood and easily predicted into the future and the past.

Well, the idea that the earth has gone through 6 ice ages seems like a cycle

[PeterMP]

Well, the idea that the earth has gone through 6 ice ages seems like a cycle

1. You can have repeated events w/o it being a true cycle if you have different underlying mechanisms. If we consider it to be a binary system (no ice age or ice age - which is what you seem to be suggesting- many things will seem to be cycles that we wouldn't consider to be a cycle. The lottery- winner or no winner. Most people wouldn't consider if there is a winner or not in the lottery a cycle and not as the general discussion here would suggest).

2. Those previous ice ages were caused by mechanisms that are understood to differing degrees and the effects of those mechanisms w/ to respect of our current situation can be accounted for. Essentially, any real effort to do so has lead to the same conclusion, the warming period over the last 50 years or so especially cannot be explained w/o a green house gas effect (which is actually believed to be responsible for other periods of time being warm).

[Reic]

1. You can have repeated events w/o it being a true cycle if you have different underlying mechanisms. If we consider it to be a binary system (no ice age or ice age - which is what you seem to be suggesting- many things will seem to be cycles that we wouldn't consider to be a cycle. The lottery- winner or no winner. Most people wouldn't consider if there is a winner or not in the lottery a cycle and not as the general discussion here would suggest).

2. Those previous ice ages were caused by mechanisms that are understood to differing degrees and the effects of those mechanisms w/ to respect of our current situation can be accounted for. Essentially, any real effort to do so has lead to the same conclusion, the warming period over the last 50 years or so especially cannot be explained w/o a green house gas effect (which is actually believed to be responsible for other periods of time being warm).

Too good points, but I am under the belief that the Earth has incredible "healing" capabilities for itself, I'm not losing sleep at night because of a slight warming trend.

[PeterMP]

Too good points, but I am under the belief that the Earth has incredible "healing" capabilities for itself, I'm not losing sleep at night because of a slight warming trend.

That's the same attitude that lead to dumping waste into rivers and the oceans and not worrying about sulfur and nitrogen containing emissions into the air and even fertilizer run off into the bay, and all sorts of other things that we know realize were mistakes.

(Unless of course you are arguing longer term tied to a decline in the human species, but of course then why should we be worried about those other things- who cares if we have acid rain, eventually the Earth will heal itself. I've already posted in this thread a study that concluded if CO2 levels go back down to pre-industrial levels in the next 1,000 years, there will be an ice age in 50,000 years. Of course, if they stay over 300 ppm (we are currently at 385ish, then no more ice ages into the indefinite future.)