Global warming... Is still a hoax.

[ironmonk]

Learn by history couple with common sense...

[url="http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807"]http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807[/url]


It's been this hot before, and it cooled off... Volcanos do more to the air than we can do in 10,000 years... We are not causing global warming... yes we still have to be good stewards.

For the people who won't click the above link....

[quote][b]Chill out over global warming[/b]

You'll often hear the left lecture about the importance of dissent in a free society.

Why not give it a whirl?

Start by challenging global warming hysteria next time you're at a LoDo cocktail party and see what happens.

Admittedly, I possess virtually no expertise in science. That puts me in exactly the same position as most dogmatic environmentalists who want to craft public policy around global warming fears.

The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University's Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree.

Gray is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.

"They've been brainwashing us for 20 years," Gray says. "Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was."

Gray directs me to a 1975 Newsweek article that whipped up a different fear: a coming ice age.

"Climatologists," reads the piece, "are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change. ... The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."

Thank God they did nothing. Imagine how warm we'd be?

Another highly respected climatologist, Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical.

Pielke contends there isn't enough intellectual diversity in the debate. He claims a few vocal individuals are quoted "over and over" again, when in fact there are a variety of opinions.

I ask him: How do we fix the public perception that the debate is over?

"Quite frankly," says Pielke, who runs the Climate Science Weblog (climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu), "I think the media is in the ideal position to do that. If the media honestly presented the views out there, which they rarely do, things would change. There aren't just two sides here. There are a range of opinions on this issue. A lot of scientists out there that are very capable of presenting other views are not being heard."

Al Gore (not a scientist) has definitely been heard - and heard and heard. His documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," is so important, in fact, that Gore crisscrosses the nation destroying the atmosphere just to tell us about it.
"Let's just say a crowd of baby boomers and yuppies have hijacked this thing," Gray says. "It's about politics. Very few people have experience with some real data. I think that there is so much general lack of knowledge on this. I've been at this over 50 years down in the trenches working, thinking and teaching."

Gray acknowledges that we've had some warming the past 30 years. "I don't question that," he explains. "And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."

Both Gray and Pielke say there are many younger scientists who voice their concerns about global warming hysteria privately but would never jeopardize their careers by speaking up.

"Plenty of young people tell me they don't believe it," he says. "But they won't touch this at all. If they're smart, they'll say: 'I'm going to let this run its course.' It's a sort of mild McCarthyism. I just believe in telling the truth the best I can. I was brought up that way."

So next time you're with some progressive friends, dissent. Tell 'em you're not sold on this global warming stuff.

Back away slowly. You'll probably be called a fascist.

Don't worry, you're not. A true fascist is anyone who wants to take away my air conditioning or force me to ride a bike.

David Harsanyi's column appears Monday and Thursday. He can be reached at 303-820-1255 or dharsanyi@denverpost.com. [/quote]

[photosynthesis]

regardless of what you believe about global warming, it's still imprudent for Americans to continue living the same oil-dependent lifestyle we're used to. There's simply not enough oil. Eventually, we'll run out and future generations will have to rebuild our economy.

So the gas-guzzling SUV's are still a bad idea...and we'd all be wise to consume less energy.

[Guest T-Bone]

[quote name='photosynthesis' post='997588' date='Jun 5 2006, 11:55 AM']
regardless of what you believe about global warming, it's still imprudent for Americans to continue living the same oil-dependent lifestyle we're used to. There's simply not enough oil. Eventually, we'll run out and future generations will have to rebuild our economy.

So the gas-guzzling SUV's are still a bad idea...and we'd all be wise to consume less energy.
[/quote]

True, but they should talk about this issue, and not the hype and hysteria of an unsound theory.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='photosynthesis' post='997588' date='Jun 5 2006, 02:55 PM']
regardless of what you believe about global warming, it's still imprudent for Americans to continue living the same oil-dependent lifestyle we're used to. There's simply not enough oil. Eventually, we'll run out and future generations will have to rebuild our economy.

So the gas-guzzling SUV's are still a bad idea...and we'd all be wise to consume less energy.
[/quote]

This is why I wrote... "yes we still have to be good stewards".

I love SUVs. Oil is not going away anytime soon. As technology advances, oil depenancy will lessen. This has been going on for years... nothing new.

Running out of oil is one theory... they don't know how the earth produces oil... it could be replenished over time for all we know.

And if it's possible for oil to run out, look around... I really doubt that oil will run out before the second coming. And if it does, people will adapt as we always have.

As for the future having to rebuild the economy... bah. Non-scientific edjucated, non-economic edjucated, anti-establishment liberal fodder.

The tone of this is not directed at you, it's just so aggravating how non-thinking the sensationalist fear monger media is.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Alledged "global warming" is the butt of many of my jokes. National Review had a good article about it in the last issue called "Snow Job".

[philothea]

[quote]Admittedly, I possess virtually no expertise in science. That puts me in exactly the same position as most dogmatic environmentalists who want to craft public policy around global warming fears.[/quote]
[. . .]
[quote]Don't worry, you're not. A true fascist is anyone who wants to take away my air conditioning or force me to ride a bike. [/quote]


Well, at least he admitted right off that he knew nothing about science...

(Note for those who have no expertise in science either: no one ever claimed that the freon that was once used in air conditioners has anything whatsoever to do with global warming. That's ozone depletion, an entirely different issue.)

I do know something about science. There are two trends known, as well proven as can be in environmental research:

(1) The carbon load of the atmosphere has increased dramatically in the last 100 years, and the rate of increase continues to rise. This directly correlates with fossil fuel use, and this makes complete sense: we're digging up carbon stored over millenia and burning it.

(2) The temperature of the world's oceans is increasing over the last few decades as has not been seen throughout human history.

It has not been proven that (1) is (or is NOT) causing (2). And yes, of course there are much greater forces that affect global climate, and there always have been. However, modern civilization is a fairly tenuous thing -- we need stable weather to maintain the lifestyle and population that first-world countries enjoy.

Major climate change may be a serious issue, whether we've caused it or not, whether we can do anything about it or not.

Or, it might be no big deal. But, I hope no one here thinks this is a foolish thing to research! We all have seen what hurricanes do. They are caused by warm ocean water...

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='998316' date='Jun 6 2006, 08:09 AM']
Running out of oil is one theory... they don't know how the earth produces oil... it could be replenished over time for all we know.[/quote]

The process by which oil is created is demonstrated on a VERY small scale by peat bogs. Heat, pressure and biological material are the primary ingredients in the natural process of carbon fuel formation. That's why they were called "fossil fuels" in the first place. The best theory I've ever heard about where the planet's reserves came from is the destruction of the antedelluvian world by the Great Flood. A global flood of that kind would have been capable of depositing MASSIVE amounts of biological material (plants, animals, people) into cavities in the crust. The high pressure of the water above and the tectonic chaos that accompanied the flood event combined to change once thriving organisms into oil and coal. This process can be nearly instantaneous with the right amount of pressure and heat, according to chemists. Or it can take a very long time as in the case of peat bogs. Oil can also be synthetically manufactured, but the process is costly.

But one thing is certain: nature needs living things to form oil and coal.

This would explain why geologists have found jewelry emebedded in coal veins. It would explain how a mass grave of human bodies got to a depth of nearly 2000 feet in the crust. This was discovered when a mining drill descended to that depth, and, when it was pulled out of the rock, the miners found human bones and flesh stuck on the drill bit.

It would seem that our world is burning for fuel a large remnant of what the Great Flood destroyed.

[quote]]And if it's possible for oil to run out, look around... I really doubt that oil will run out before the second coming. And if it does, people will adapt as we always have.[/quote]

But it very well could become SCARCE. And I have MAJOR problems with the fact that the world's primary energy source is owned by a couple of really rich and powerful men. That means that the common folks depend on THOSE folks TOO MUCH. That desperately needs to change. But it won't if people continue to require oil and coal as the primarey energy source to run the world system.

Edited June 6, 2006 by Desert Walker

[raptor13]

[quote name='Desert Walker' post='998389' date='Jun 6 2006, 09:33 AM']


This would explain why geologists have found jewelry emebedded in coal veins. It would explain how a mass grave of human bodies got to a depth of nearly 2000 feet in the crust. This was discovered when a mining drill descended to that depth, and, when it was pulled out of the rock, the miners found human bones and flesh stuck on the drill bit.

[/quote]

Do you have any sources for this? I'm not doubting you.. I just thought it interesting and want to read more about it.

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='raptor13' post='998403' date='Jun 6 2006, 09:50 AM']
Do you have any sources for this? I'm not doubting you.. I just thought it interesting and want to read more about it.
[/quote]

I heard a reference to it on the radio, but I can't track down a source on the net. I've been looking.

There is a book called [i]Forbiudden Archaelogy[/i] that talks about stuff like this.

[hierochloe]

Whether or not you buy off on global warming, or even believe fossil fuels to have come from "fossils" or something else, the fact remains that petroleum products based on fossil fuels generate massive amounts of harmful pollution both in production and usage (as compared to many alternatives). Add to that the current geopolitical pressure that is exerted by such a ubiquitous dependence on them and anyone should see that there is a critical need to move to alternatives ASAP. Any argument for their continued use at levels equal to the present is just absurd IMO.

You can grow oil. You don't need to mine it.

On topic, the most sensible assertion I've heard regarding global warming is that it is a natural process that is exhibiting acceleration and alteration as a result of climatic perturbation related to human activities, rather than a completely anthropogenic phenomenon driven solely by these human activities. As someone already stated, the statistics tend to support this. But only time will tell for sure....

[morostheos]

sigh....

At least this time you found an article that quotes reputable scientists, ironmonk. Next time go for one written by the scientists.

I agree that there's been a lot of hype about global warming that is probably going overboard, but that's how main stream media works. Unfortunately what they report has little to do with the truth. At the same time though, that doesn't in any way disprove global warming.

Philothea, good post!

[ironmonk]

Those have already been posted.

We have no effect on global warming. End of story.

[hierochloe]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='998516' date='Jun 6 2006, 11:23 AM']
We have no effect on global warming. End of story.
[/quote]
Respectfully, the article you posted doesn't even [i]imply[/i] that, IMHO. All I get from that article is:

1) There is a level of unwarranted hysteria about global warming.
2) The mainstream media coverage of the topic is mainly narrow and one-sided.

That's it. :

[morostheos]

[quote name='hierochloe' post='998549' date='Jun 6 2006, 01:34 PM']
Respectfully, the article you posted doesn't even [i]imply[/i] that, IMHO. All I get from that article is:

1) There is a level of unwarranted hysteria about global warming.
2) The mainstream media coverage of the topic is mainly narrow and one-sided.

That's it. :
[/quote]



Too bad jumping to conclusions seems to be so much fun.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='hierochloe' post='998549' date='Jun 6 2006, 01:34 PM']
Respectfully, the article you posted doesn't even [i]imply[/i] that, IMHO. All I get from that article is:

1) There is a level of unwarranted hysteria about global warming.
2) The mainstream media coverage of the topic is mainly narrow and one-sided.

That's it. :
[/quote]


This topic is much larger than this thread on this board.

This thread is in addition to everything else.

That's it.

[morostheos]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='998602' date='Jun 6 2006, 02:20 PM']
This topic is much larger than this thread on this board.

This thread is in addition to everything else.

That's it.
[/quote]

I still have not seen any convincing proof from you that we have no effect on global warming. Most things you quote simply say "we don't know," not that we don't have an effect.

[ironmonk]

Global warming is a hoax, just like the ice age cry in the 70's and 80's.

The fact is that there are so many factors that cause control of the earths temp that we are not going to have a major impact on it. The holes in the ozone have always been there, they were only "discovered" in the 50's and there is nothing to suggest that we put them there.

The earths temperature has always fluctuated and always will. There have been global ice ages and global tropical weather... Anyone applying a little common sense will realize that they may very well happen again, because it is a natural phenominon. Then take into account what the the average of 30 volcano eruptions each year put into the air... one can only shake their head at the chicken littles running around crying 'global warming'.



[quote][b]Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe[/b]
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

So we have a smaller fraction.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes.

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

Karlén explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karlén

Dr. Johnsonville brat Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.

[url="http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm"]http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm[/url][/quote]

[Azriel]

In response to Philothea's post ... I agree wholeheartedly. It is admittedly bad to become hysterical over anything, but to deny that the facts that she presented warrant further research is imprudent.

[morostheos]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='1005461' date='Jun 14 2006, 10:18 AM']
Global warming is a hoax, just like the ice age cry in the 70's and 80's.

The fact is that there are so many factors that cause control of the earths temp that we are not going to have a major impact on it. The holes in the ozone have always been there, they were only "discovered" in the 50's and there is nothing to suggest that we put them there.

The earths temperature has always fluctuated and always will. There have been global ice ages and global tropical weather... Anyone applying a little common sense will realize that they may very well happen again, because it is a natural phenominon. Then take into account what the the average of 30 volcano eruptions each year put into the air... one can only shake their head at the chicken littles running around crying 'global warming'.
[/quote]

Well, for starters, the hole in the ozone layer is a separate issue from global warming. You say there is nothing to suggest we put them there - what about the laboratory experienments that show when you mix CFCs with ozone the ozone is depleted? We did this experiment in my chemistry class in college, it's pretty straightforward. The person who discovered this won a Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the work, I hardly think the nobel prize would be awarded for pseudoscience.

Anyway, back to global warming....
I have not seen Al Gore's movie, but I do expect it to be full of political blather and half truths. He's a politician, what do you expect? However, I would say his movie probably has no more political blather and half truths than much of the "evidence" you post. Because of this, I generally prefer to read stuff regarding global climate change from science publications rather than political/opinion publications.

[IXpenguin21]

There is no such thing as global warming. Chuck Norris was cold, so he turned the sun up.