 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / British History / June 2006Scientists Respond To Gore's Warnings Of Climate Catastrophe
Algore is indeed an expert practitioner and purveyor of Junk Science. DSH ------------------------------------------- "Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe" "The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists By Tom Harris Monday, June 12, 2006 Canada Free Press "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." ****** Bingo! -- DSH 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. Yes, and Pogue Gans, the NYU chemist, is one of those babblers and prattlers who does not work in the climate field but pontificates gaily and daily, FAR out of field, quite regularly. -- DSH 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. ****** A VERY important DISTINCTION. -- DSH 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. Dick 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." Algore is indeed an expert practitioner and purveyor of Junk Science. -- DSH 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." "Tom Harris is mechanical engineer and Ottawa Director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public policy company." ---------------------------------------------- DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Deus Vult > Algore is indeed an expert practitioner and purveyor of Junk Science. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > "The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists whos paying him to say so. the vast majority of scientists agree with gore. >> Algore is indeed an expert practitioner and purveyor of Junk Science. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >whos paying him to say so. >the vast majority of scientists agree with gore. Stop confusing the issue with facts. -- Julian Richards www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV" THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL >>> Algore is indeed an expert practitioner and purveyor of Junk Science. >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Stop confusing the issue with facts. Here are the facts. The vast majority of scientists WITHIN THE FIELD OF METEROLOGY disagree with Algores conclusions. Regards, >>>Algore is indeed an expert practitioner and purveyor of Junk Science. >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL The only thing factual about Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" is the fact that it is a shameful fraud and pack of outright lies, distortions, half-truths, and misrepresentations. The fact is the Earth has for hundreds of millions of years experienced much higher average mean surface and sea temperatures and many times greater levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide with beneficial consequences. Outstanding among the facts is the fact Al Gore and his accomplices have refused to face up to the fact geology and astronomy have proven the carbon dioxide levels he claims will destroy life on Earth has already been present in far greater amounts, and our present existence is proof it did not destroy the Earth then or today. There's a huge window of opportunity open to Bush and others as *conservative* environmentalists. Environmentalism is naturally a conservative issue, *conserving* or preserving what is good in the environment, in a rational, cost-effective way. Governor Schwarzenegger is probably better clued in to that issue than any other Republican politicians, so they can learn from him. His more rational environmentalism is a very popular issue with the California public it seems. Everyone wants good environmental living conditions, the problem is how to get the maximum benefits under given economic constraints. >There's a huge window of opportunity open to Bush and others as >*conservative* environmentalists. Environmentalism is naturally a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >seems. Everyone wants good environmental living conditions, the problem >is how to get the maximum benefits under given economic constraints. If the present Republican coalition were 'Conservative' you might have an argument. Labor, regulation of business, and civil rights were once Republican issues, too. > There's a huge window of opportunity open to Bush and others as > *conservative* environmentalists. Environmentalism is naturally a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > seems. Everyone wants good environmental living conditions, the problem > is how to get the maximum benefits under given economic constraints. Clearly, "I'll be back" is his early commitment to recycling. > >>>Algore is indeed an expert practitioner and purveyor of Junk Science. > >>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > hundreds of millions of years experienced much higher average mean > surface and sea temperatures The surface of the earth was once a molten hell with a toxic atmosphere. A little common sense is called for and I'm afraid you're well short of that. KW >>>>>Algore is indeed an expert practitioner and purveyor of Junk Science. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > KW Common sense tells readers your comparison is yet another example of the fraud supporters of Al Gore and his "Inconvenient Truth" will stoop to in their efforts to deceive the public. "The surface of the Earth was once a molten hell" during the Hadean Era some 4.5 to 3.8 billion years ago "with a toxic atmosphere" until the Mesoproterozoic about 1.6 billion years ago. The paleoclimates that were the subject of my comments and the discussion were a number of long periods of time during which life often flourished during the Phanerozoic Eon, 543 million years or 0.543 billion years ago to today. Gore, Mann, and the other proponents of the fraudulent anthropogenic warming of the Earth's climate have repeatedly asserted that a doubling of the carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere must and will tip the Earth's climate into a runaway greenhouse warming that results in an atmosphere like that of Venus having air temperatures in excess of 400 degress Fahrenheit. The fatal problem with such claims is the fact that the Earth's atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were three to ten times present levels during the periods of time which produced some of the most beneficial environments for terrestial and maritime fauna and flora. The massive coal beds were created by the lush plant life that thrived in such high levels of carbon dioxide for tens of millions of years without the Earth becoming like Venus's 400+ degree atmosphere. If their claims that a doubling of the pre-industrial or pre-19th Century carbon dioxide levels must cause the Earth's atmosphere into a runaway greenhose warming like the 400 degree F. atmosphere Venus had any credibility, we could not possibly exist today. If their theory had any credibility, the Earth's atmosphere would have gone into that runaway greenhouse warming on many occassions trhoughout the past 543 million years, the Earth's atmosphere would be hot enough to melt lead today, our clouds would be composed of sulfuric acid, and there would be no liquid water on the Earth. Looking around, common sense tells us those conditions do not exist, and their theory about the consequences of a doubling of carbon dioxide is fatally flawed and simply fraudulent. > >>>>>Algore is indeed an expert practitioner and purveyor of Junk Science. > >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > fraud supporters of Al Gore and his "Inconvenient Truth" will stoop to > in their efforts to deceive the public. Quack, quack - says it all ducky. >>>>>>>Algore is indeed an expert practitioner and purveyor of Junk Science. >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Quack, quack - says it all ducky. Common senese also tells readers your deletion of the evidence and efforts to substitute denial and ridicule for reason is quite good reason to suspect your comments and conclusions are false and fraudulent. [QUOTE] Common sense tells readers your comparison is yet another example of the fraud supporters of Al Gore and his "Inconvenient Truth" will stoop to in their efforts to deceive the public. "The surface of the Earth was once a molten hell" during the Hadean Era some 4.5 to 3.8 billion years ago "with a toxic atmosphere" until the Mesoproterozoic about 1.6 billion years ago. The paleoclimates that were the subject of my comments and the discussion were a number of long periods of time during which life often flourished during the Phanerozoic Eon, 543 million years or 0.543 billion years ago to today. Gore, Mann, and the other proponents of the fraudulent anthropogenic warming of the Earth's climate have repeatedly asserted that a doubling of the carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere must and will tip the Earth's climate into a runaway greenhouse warming that results in an atmosphere like that of Venus having air temperatures in excess of 400 degress Fahrenheit. The fatal problem with such claims is the fact that the Earth's atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were three to ten times present levels during the periods of time which produced some of the most beneficial environments for terrestial and maritime fauna and flora. The massive coal beds were created by the lush plant life that thrived in such high levels of carbon dioxide for tens of millions of years without the Earth becoming like Venus's 400+ degree atmosphere. If their claims that a doubling of the pre-industrial or pre-19th Century carbon dioxide levels must cause the Earth's atmosphere into a runaway greenhose warming like the 400 degree F. atmosphere Venus had any credibility, we could not possibly exist today. If their theory had any credibility, the Earth's atmosphere would have gone into that runaway greenhouse warming on many occassions trhoughout the past 543 million years, the Earth's atmosphere would be hot enough to melt lead today, our clouds would be composed of sulfuric acid, and there would be no liquid water on the Earth. Looking around, common sense tells us those conditions do not exist, and their theory about the consequences of a doubling of carbon dioxide is fatally flawed and simply fraudulent. [UNQUOTE] Another indication is the depth of the fraud being perpetrated by the proponents of the anthropogenic Global Warming scare. First, you have people representing themselves as scientists concerned about the consequences of global warming induced by humans, and they make statements to encourage readers to believe one of the more adverse consequences possible is pushing the Earth's to the "point of no return" with a comparison to the 700C conditions on Venus. "William Le Bon. El Nino Expert Discusses Global Warming: A Conversation with Orman Granger. Orman Granger is a professor of climatology at the University of California at Berkeley... It is unlikely though that this will achieve the necessary cut back in CO2 to avoid disaster. The worst of these potential disasters is the phenomenon known as the runaway greenhouse effect. The runaway greenhouse effect is when the climatic balance of the planet is pushed beyond the "point of no return". Venus has a runaway green house effect. The surface temperature is 700C degrees, hot enough to melt lead. We don't know what the "point of no return" is for the Earth, but right now we are gambling with life on Earth." http://www.culturechange.org/issue13/globalwarming.html Second, we have other people representing themselves as scientists concerned about the consequences of global warming induced by humans who flatly DENY that humans have the capability to emit enough carbon dioxide to cause such rnaway conditions comparable to anything remotely like Venus, but they still encourage their readers to fear OTHER dire consequences. "For an atmosphere saturated with water vapor, but with no CO2 in it, the threshold absorbed solar radiation for triggering a runaway greenhouse is about 350 Watts/m2 (see Kasting Icarus 74 (1988)). The addition of up to 8 times present CO2 might bring this threshold down to around 325 Watts/m2 , but the fact that the Earth's atmosphere is substantially undersaturated with respect to water vapor probably brings the threshold back up to the neighborhood of 375 Watts/m2. Allowing for a 20% albedo (considerably less than the actual albedo of Earth), our present absorbed solar radiation is only about 275 Watts/m2, comfortably below the threshold. The Earth may well succumb to a runaway greenhouse as the Sun continues to brighten over the next billion years or so, but the amount of CO2 we could add to the atmosphere by burning all available fossil fuel reserves would not move us significantly closer to the runaway greenhouse threshold. There are plenty of nightmares lurking in anthropogenic global warming, but the runaway greenhouse is not among them." http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lessons-from-venus/#more-287 Despite the overwhelming scientific evidence from knowledgeable scientific opponents and proponents of antrhopogenic Global Warming, the Leftist proponents continue to employ such blatantly false scare tactics and scare mongering to fighten and deceive the public. Now wait a dam minute: This global warming thing maybe Bush's only policy that actually works. I think Bush plans on driving the temp. in Iraq to around 160 - 180 deg.F to put the insurgents in "Their Last Throes" you voted form him not me > >>>>>>>Algore is indeed an expert practitioner and purveyor of Junk Science. > >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 118 lines] > in anthropogenic global warming, but the runaway greenhouse is not among > them." http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lessons-from-venus/#mo re-287 > Despite the overwhelming scientific evidence from knowledgeable > scientific opponents and proponents of antrhopogenic Global Warming, the > Leftist proponents continue to employ such blatantly false scare tactics > and scare mongering to fighten and deceive the public. >>>>>>>>>Algore is indeed an expert practitioner and purveyor of Junk >>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 134 lines] >>Leftist proponents continue to employ such blatantly false scare tactics >>and scare mongering to fighten and deceive the public. > Now wait a dam minute: This global warming thing maybe Bush's only policy > that actually works. I think Bush plans on driving the temp. in Iraq to > around 160 - 180 deg.F to put the insurgents in "Their Last Throes" > > you voted form him not me The fact is the Earth is presently in a period of unusually cold climate, and it has been so for an exceptionally long time, ~18 million years. Looking at the entire 543 million years of the present Phanerozoic Eon, the average global temperatures have usually been 8 to 10 degrees Celsius higher than they have been today or during the latest 18 million years of the recent ice ages. In other words, we are presently living in one of the coldest climates of Earth's latest half billion years of geological ages, and the levels of carbon dioxide are at abnormally low levels compared with the levels that have existed for most of the past 543 million years. It must also be noted that the abnormally low levels of carbon dioxide which exist today and have existed during the past 18 million years are comparable to the low levels of carbon dioxide present at the times of the other rare periods of cold climate and their associated mass extinction events. Today's carbon dioxide levels and low temperatures have occurred for less than a very small fraction of the Earth's past 543 million years of geological history. <snip> All that information, and you don't understand any of it. > <snip> > > All that information, and you don't understand any of it. In other words, you refuse to learn the facts of reality and choose to irrationally attack myself and anyone else who disturbs your fantasies with inconvenient realities. The facts are simple. We presently live in a relatively short inter-glacial period of an ice age, and the present levels of temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide are at the abnormally low end of Earth's scale of such climatic conditions. Our planet's normal levels of temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide over the most recent 543 million yearss are 6 to 10 degrees Celsius hotter and 4 to 10 times more CO2 than we have at present. The great extinctions of life on this planet occurred during the kinds of cold climate conditions we are presently experiencing and have experienced in the recent and more ancient ice ages. The climactic conditions most beneficial to life on this planet were the hot climate periods normal for this planet during which temperatures were 6 to 10 degrees hotter and 4 to ten times more CO2 than now. The most normal climate conditions for this planet have been these much hotter climates at the opposite end of the scale from present conditions; when there have been no ice caps or only a minimal ice cap, and life was much more abundant than today. Human contributions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere are so insignificant a fraction of natural sources, it is too small to be measured with any reliability. A single volcano pumps more carbon dioxide into the earth's atmosphere than all of the industrialized nations combined, and there are a hundred times more volcanoes emitting this carbon dioxide than there are indusrialized nations on this planet. Even if humans could somehow magically release all of the carbon dioxide contained in all of our remaining fossil fuel inventories in only twenty years, the Earth's climate would remain at the low and cold end of Earth's scale of hot and cold climates. The problem with the scaremongering tactics and arguments of the proponents of anthropogenic greenhouse warming (AGW) is the fact that the past 543 million years of Earth's geologic and climatological history are proof of the irrationality of such AGW fantasies scaremongering. Consequently, AGW proponents can only deny such facts and attempt to denigrate anyone and everyone who inconveniently speaks up to observe the AGW scaremongering amounts to the classic story of the Emperor With No Clothes. Everytime you look too close to the facts of geologic and climactic reality, the AGW scaremongering simply has no substance. > A single volcano pumps more carbon dioxide into the earth's atmosphere > than all of the industrialized nations combined, and there are a hundred > times more volcanoes emitting this carbon dioxide than there are > industrialized nations on this planet. Dallas Patterson ------------------------------------------- Sacre Bleu Et Mon Dieu! DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Fortem Posce Animum > In other words, you refuse to learn the facts of reality and choose to > irrationally attack myself and anyone else who disturbs your fantasies [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > presently experiencing and have experienced in the recent and more ancient > ice ages. >The climactic conditions most beneficial to life on this planet were the >hot climate periods normal for this planet during which temperatures were 6 [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Clothes. Everytime you look too close to the facts of geologic and > climactic reality, the AGW scaremongering simply has no substance. >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > irrationally attack myself and anyone else who disturbs your fantasies > with inconvenient realities. All the major climate science authorities (including those of the US government) acknowledge that manmade emissions have been substantial enough to affect climate. It is you who is in a fantasy world. You throw around a lot of selected information, but you have little grasp of what it means let alone recent findings from ice coring etc. If you did, you would know there are some very positive implications in the fact that man can influence climatic trends. But there are also some very real "immediate" dangers that need to be acknowledged and dealt with, instead of going into ostrich-like denial. Read some books by competent people. Quit getting your science from Rush Limbaugh. >>><snip> >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > government) acknowledge that manmade emissions have been substantial enough > to affect climate. Pissing in the bay has a local environmental effect whenever enough humans do so, but having every human in the world pissing directly into the oceans at the same time is not going to have enough "affect" on the world climate or the oceans to raise the mean seal level by 50 feet or 50 millimeters. Likewise, human activities have local, regional, and global effects on the global climate; but those effects are too insignificant to alter the natural range of climate changes by any measurable amount. Cities create heat islands that change cloud patterns, rainfall patterns, and many other factors that affect infra-global climate patterns. However, those changes in the patterns of heat and rainfall distribution around the planet do not necessarily change the mean levels and the mean planetary albedo; and even when such human induced changes do have some effect upon planetary circulatory systems and mean levels, the scope of changes are dwarfed into insignificance by the pre-existing natural causes occuring during the geological time scales. > It is you who is in a fantasy world. You throw around a lot of selected > information, but you have little grasp of what it means let alone recent > findings from ice coring etc. If you did, you would know there are some very > positive implications in the fact that man can influence climatic trends. > But there are also some very real "immediate" dangers that need to be > acknowledged and dealt with, instead of going into ostrich-like denial. On the contrary, it is your AGW sources who are throwing around a lot of "selected information." For example, take the issue of the volcanic sources of carbon dioxide. AGW critics deny that natural sources of carbon dioxide dwarf human contributions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. They point to the studies by Hansen, T. M. Gerlach and others which vary widely in their estimates of how much carbon dioxide volcanoes and humans are emitting into the atmosphere. Their estimates range from numbers like 0.133 to 0.6 Gt for volcanoes to 6 to 24 Gt for humans. Aside from the huge discrepancies between their own estimates, they compeltely omit the gigantic differenses between those numbers over geological periods, when there were no humans around to contribute any such emissions at all. Volcanic activity and volcanic contributions vary hugely over millions of years, and the AGW proponents selectively omit the past and deceptively use current conditions as a basis for representing the entire past an future. The present day atmosphere and the future atmosphere did not reach its present condition from only the inputs from the past millenia, the past million years, or the past eon; and the future atmosphere will not reach its future condition from only the previous millenia, the previous million years, or the previous eon. Today's relatively quiescent volcanic activity wil not last, and any relevant estimates of volcanic activity must include the carbon dioxide contributions from all of these more active periods of volcanic acitivity, past, present, and future. > Read some books by competent people. Quit getting your science from Rush > Limbaugh. Quit presuming everyone else is as ignorant and inexperienced as yourself. Try doing some fieldwork and learn enough about the subject to not embarrass yourself. Now, if you want to demonstrate even a smattering of intelligence and education, you might try explaining how it is remotely conceivable that the Earth is going to suffer a catastrophe from AGW of 1 to 4 degrees Celsius, when the past experience of Earth shows that present climate conditions are 6 to 10 degrees Celsius colder and 5 to 10 times less carbon dioxide than normal for Earth's most beneficial climates during the past 543 million years. Of course you won't even try to do so, because you can't succeed. >>>><snip> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > during the past 543 million years. Of course you won't even try to do so, > because you can't succeed. The fact is that we have not been keeping records long enough to know for sure if we are causing a warming, or if this is a cycle; a cycle that could last hundreds, or even thousands of years. This planet has survived everything the solar system could throw at it. It is very arrogant to assume that we have enough power to disrupt the earth or it's atmosphere. If you recall, the dinosaurs were wiped out by meteor or a comet striking the earth. It wiped out 90% of life on earth, but life continued. What if the earth warms up by several degrees every 1500 years? We just don't know enough to know if the warming is natural or manmade. We do not know if it is even long term. the geological record is not accurate enough to track weather throughout the history of the planet when we are talking about 2 or 3 degrees. We can use the geological record to determine that there were ice ages, wt periods, droughts and floods. We cannot use the same record to determine with any accuracy whatsoever what the temperature was in 1131 A.D. or 4233 B.C. All we have is some data that indicates a temperature gradient that is about 1.5 degrees higher than previous gradients. Does it mean the end of the world? No. The planet will survive us. Does it mean the end of the human race? No. We will adapt to whatever the earth does to us. If we were cooling down, would the same furor erupt? Or would the scientific community simply assume that we were entering another ice age? Bobby > Despite the overwhelming scientific evidence from knowledgeable > scientific opponents and proponents of antrhopogenic Global Warming, the > Leftist proponents continue to employ such blatantly false scare tactics > and scare mongering to fighten and deceive the public. Actual climate and environment research professionals speak out about the impending global warming catastrophe: http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807 http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#anchor2150539 When an issue is being used for political objectives, and when only once side of the issue is presented, it is past time to do further investigation. In alt.history.british Nolo Contendre <jerry_jn@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Despite the overwhelming scientific evidence from knowledgeable >> scientific opponents and proponents of antrhopogenic Global Warming, the >> Leftist proponents continue to employ such blatantly false scare tactics >> and scare mongering to fighten and deceive the public. >Actual climate and environment research professionals speak out about >the impending global warming catastrophe: >http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807 >http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm >http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#anchor2150539 >When an issue is being used for political objectives, and when only >once side of the issue is presented, it is past time to do further >investigation. It is useless. There are still folks who believe that the moon landings were faked. Others who believe that the earth is flat. And still others who think that creationism is science. ---- Paul J. Gans >>Actual climate and environment research professionals speak out about >>the impending global warming catastrophe: >>http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807 >>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm >>http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#anchor2150539 >>When an issue is being used for political objectives, and when only >>once side of the issue is presented, it is past time to do further >>investigation. > It is useless. There are still folks who believe that the > moon landings were faked. Others who believe that the > earth is flat. And still others who think that creationism > is science. Sometimes it is difficult to claim global warming when the globe refuses to cooperate. Gore and his ilk we probably need another issue by which to push their socialist agenda. "Poland is experiencing its coldest winter in several decades and like other parts of Europe, temperatures have fallen to as low as minus 30 Celsius. The cold has killed nearly 200 in Poland, disrupted transport and highlighted gas supply problems." http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3555678a10,00.html "The UK Meteorological Office said that icy winds from the east would trigger the coldest winter in a decade for Britain especially in southern regions. The Office's latest predictions models indicate a colder than average winter for much of the European continent as well following a milder trend over the past few years. Experts said that such predictions could be made with an accuracy of two-thirds. The UK Met Office has been working with the country's Department of Health, discovering a dramatic increase in mortality and hospital admissions during cold weather." http://www.met-office.gov.uk/research/seasonal/monthly_forecasts/headline.html "New Zealanders have never seen snow like this - 23 Jun 06 - Napier police are advising motorists not to expect the Napier-Taupo Highway to open on Friday, with snow continuing to fall on the road. A spokesperson says a large number of vehicles are lining up at Eskdale in the hope the road may open. Police and the army are currently trying to clear the road so stranded vehicles can be returned to their owners." http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411319/763217 "Record cold in Australia - 18 Jun 06 - The city of Perth recorded its coldest night on record Friday night, as temperatures dropped below zero. The average daily low in June in Perth is 10.1C (50.2F), and the average high is 18.3C (64.9F). Not since records began has the mercury dropped below zero during any month of the year. But it dipped to minus 0.6C (30.9F) Friday night, giving Perth its first official freeze. " http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/news/18062006news.shtml "Record cold in Australia - 16 Jun 06 - Records toppled in many parts of Australia yesterday. NE VIC, Benalla, Rutherglen and Wangaratta all registered their coldest temperatures on record for any month. Rutherglen's -7.5 knocked 0.9 off the previous all-time record. Just over the border in NSW, Corowa's -5.0 was also its coldest temperature in 34 years, while at minus 3.0, Parkes recorded its coldest June reading in half a century In SA, Elliston dropped to -0.8, its first sub-zero June temperature in 45 years, while Kingscote's -2.0 set a new all-time low. " http://www.australianweathernews.com/news/2006/060614.SHTML There's an 80 or 90 % probability that we are heating up the earth with emissions. What doesn't get mentioned, is that it may be the luckiest thing that ever happened. There's an appx. 100,000 year cycle of earth warming/cooling and we're right about at the point where we should be going into a cooling cycle - and this would not be a fun thing, even for us skiers. > There's an 80 or 90 % probability that we are heating up the earth with > emissions. By "we" do you mean spamheads posting off-topic to multiple newsgroups? PLONK! Algore and his Junk Science take another swift kick in the arse from Real Climatologists. Gans, one of Algore's staunchest defenders ALSO takes another swift kick in the arse on this one. DSH ---------------------------------------------- "AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE'S MOVIE" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- June 27, 2006 "The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled "Scientists OK Gore's Movie for Accuracy" by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP's bias and methodology. AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth." In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the "more than 100 top climate researchers" they attempted to contact to review "An Inconvenient Truth." AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore "five stars for accuracy." AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore's movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific "skeptics" they claim to have contacted. The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President. In addition, Correll's reported links as an "affiliate" of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides "expert testimony" in trials and his reported sponsorship by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP. See http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm The AP also chose to ignore Gore's reliance on the now-discredited "hockey stick" by Dr. Michael Mann, which claims that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century, and that the 1990's were the warmest decade in at least 1000 years. Last week's National Academy of Sciences report dispelled Mann's often cited claims by reaffirming the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. See Senator Inhofe's statement on the broken "Hockey Stick." (http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697 ) Gore's claim that global warming is causing the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro to disappear has also been debunked by scientific reports. For example, a 2004 study in the journal Nature makes clear that Kilimanjaro is experiencing less snowfall because there's less moisture in the air due to deforestation around Kilimanjaro. Here is a sampling of the views of some of the scientific critics of Gore: Professor Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, on Gore's film: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention." "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." - Bob Carter as quoted in the Canadian Free Press, June 12, 2006 Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote: "A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse." - Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal Gore's film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect. "A study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it."- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal. Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film: "Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?"- Roy Spencer wrote in a May 25, 2006 column. Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to Gore's claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970. "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," -Tim Ball said, according to the Canadian Free Press." -------------------------------------------------------- DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.