|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 9:21 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Still, even if it isn't man made, what's wrong with living cleaner lives, reducing poisonous emissions, and slowing the flow of money to those who want to use it against us?
Liberals usually say that it is man-made, and conservatives usually say it isn't. Who cares? Why do many peopl say that it isn't man-made and then say we need to stop funding terrorism? If you really want to stop funding terrorism, stop using so much motherfrakin' oil! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The link isn't working for me....
Whats the evidence cited? If you're referring to sunspot activity- bear in mind that this has in no way corresponded with temperatures on earth. If it refers to volcanic emmissions..bear in mind that they have always occurred, but 6 billion polluting humans are a recent phenomena. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
The link isn't working for me....
Whats the evidence cited? If you're referring to sunspot activity- bear in mind that this has in no way corresponded with temperatures on earth. If it refers to volcanic emmissions..bear in mind that they have always occurred, but 6 billion polluting humans are a recent phenomena. |
The link refers more to the "illusion of scientific consensuses" that the sociologists, anthropologist and pundits insist exists and protect with cat-calls of Exxon supporter etc. It doesn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
The link isn't working for me....
Whats the evidence cited? If you're referring to sunspot activity- bear in mind that this has in no way corresponded with temperatures on earth. If it refers to volcanic emmissions..bear in mind that they have always occurred, but 6 billion polluting humans are a recent phenomena. |
Sunspot activity absolutely affects temperatures on earth, but until recently scientists didn't know why. They talk about it in the article.
As an aside, I just read that the oldest magazine in America, the Old (farmers) Almanac, is predicting a record warm year next year, based on-you guessed it-sunspots, as well as unmentioned meteorlogical activity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
from the article:
| Quote: |
| We have had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events |
The planet Venus is the SECOND nearest to the Sun (twice Mercury's distance and recieves 25% of Mercury's solar radiation because of cloud cover), yet is by far the hottest planet in the Solar System. How's that possible? A thick atmosphere of 97% Carbon-dioxide perhaps?
C02 makes planets hotter - trust me on this. And as I've said 50 billion times, let's assume solar radiation is responsible for climate change. You give me one good reason why we should not still, with even greater urgency limit our c02 production and find alternative sources of energy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
from the article:
| Quote: |
| We have had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events |
The planet Venus is the SECOND nearest to the Sun (twice Mercury's distance and recieves 25% of Mercury's solar radiation because of cloud cover), yet is by far the hottest planet in the Solar System. How's that possible? A thick atmosphere of 97% Carbon-dioxide perhaps?
C02 makes planets hotter - trust me on this. And as I've said 50 billion times, let's assume solar radiation is responsible for climate change. You give me one good reason why we should not still, with even greater urgency limit our c02 production and find alternative sources of energy. |
If that were true, than the times in Earth's history where there were 10, 20x the CO2 levels, should have been much hotter, but core samples don't bear this out.
The problem with the Global Warming bandwagon is that it was engineered by environmentalists and Great Britain to advance their own agendas regarding pollution and for political and economic reasons.
Have you watched the "Great Global Warming Swindle"? It is free on google video, I think. Very enlightening vid.
And, Sun Spot behavior links quite nicely to changes in weather on earth, while CO2 levels don't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
Sunspot activity absolutely affects temperatures on earth. |
Sun in the clear over global warming
Agence-france presse
Thursday 12 July 2007
PARIS: A solar radiation study is evidence that global warming over the past two decades cannot be blamed on the Sun, a theory espoused by climate-change sceptics.
British and Swiss researchers looked at data for radiation from the Sun, levels of which can cool or warm our planet's atmosphere. They factored in a cycle of solar radiation, which goes through peaks and troughs of activity over a period of about 11 years.
Writing in the British journal, the Proceedings of the Royal Society A, the team said that the Sun had been less active since 1985, even though global temperatures have continued to rise.
The study also puts to bed an idea that a decrease in the activity of the Sun's magnetic field � affecting the amount of galactic cosmic rays that reach Earth � could have recently altered weather patterns, causing warming.
Overwhelming consensus
"Over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures," said the scientists.
The study is co-authored by physicists Mike Lockwood of Britain's Rutherford Appleton Laboratory and Claus Froehlich of the World Radiation Centre in Switzerland, who analysed over 100 years of solar data.
The overwhelming consensus among scientists is that human activity is to blame for the rise in global temperatures.
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1451
Sun 'not to blame' for global warming
ABC News Thursday, September 14, 2006.
The sun's energy output has barely varied over the past 1,000 years, raising chances that global warming has human rather than celestial causes, a study shows.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200609/s1740577.htm
'Sun not responsible for climate change'
By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
The strongest evidence to date that the sun is not responsible for recent global warming has been set out by scientists.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/11/scisun111.xml
LONDON (Reuters) - The sun's changing energy levels are not to blame for recent global warming and, if anything, solar variations over the past 20 years should have had a cooling effect, scientists said on Wednesday.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKL101501320070711 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| The link refers more to the "illusion of scientific consensuses" that the sociologists, anthropologist and pundits insist exists and protect with cat-calls of Exxon supporter etc. It doesn't. |
It's old news. And, so far as I know, not peer-reviewed as yet. If it has been, links would be appreciated.
If you look at the naysayers, they have to a very large degree been Exxon supported, non-publishing hired guns. Most of the rest have have spent their time doing "literature reviews" with "unbiased" critique.
There are but a few doing actual research. And, many of those touted as being naysayers not owned by Exxon have done research that indicates something is happening, but that there is no "proof" of human causation. This is a bit like saying gravity doesn't exist because it's technically still a theory. If it is at all ambiguous, they claim it does not support global warming theory.
Show me the studies. It's what you naysayers can never do. Show me the studies. Sun causation? It's been answered.
For some reality, take a look at this summer's ice melt in the Arctic. (Predicted by models and decades ahead of schedule. Those models are so effing useless!!!  )
This on-going, utterly suicidal, head-in-the-sand act is going to take a great many lives in the end.
Kisses, ostriches. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
| SPINOZA wrote: |
from the article:
| Quote: |
| We have had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events |
The planet Venus is the SECOND nearest to the Sun (twice Mercury's distance and recieves 25% of Mercury's solar radiation because of cloud cover), yet is by far the hottest planet in the Solar System. How's that possible? A thick atmosphere of 97% Carbon-dioxide perhaps?
C02 makes planets hotter - trust me on this. And as I've said 50 billion times, let's assume solar radiation is responsible for climate change. You give me one good reason why we should not still, with even greater urgency limit our c02 production and find alternative sources of energy. |
If that were true, than the times in Earth's history where there were 10, 20x the CO2 levels, should have been much hotter, but core samples don't bear this out. |
Are you honestly happy to draw the conclusion that the scientific community including the Academies of Science of the major industrialized countries (plus China, India and Brazil) along with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who all endorse the man-made climate change hypothesis, have overlooked this item of climate history?
| Quote: |
| The problem with the Global Warming bandwagon is that it was engineered by environmentalists and Great Britain to advance their own agendas regarding pollution and for political and economic reasons. |
Just to clear things up here, re Great Britain, global warming was heartily endorsed by Margarat Thatcher who promoted nuclear power and sought to reduce the power of miners, unions and strikes.
In any case, this has no relevance to the truth value of the hypothesis' contents. Also, if you oppose man-made climate change because you oppose the very agendas, political, economic things you cite, your charge that man-made climate change must be questionable because it's motivated by political/economic interests is self-contradictory and utterly ridiculous.
| Quote: |
| Have you watched the "Great Global Warming Swindle"? It is free on google video, I think. Very enlightening vid. |
Very heavily-criticized vid too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
See the bit on solar activity. That in particular was absolute fiction and in my opinion fraudulently rather than incompetently.
| Quote: |
| And, Sun Spot behavior links quite nicely to changes in weather on earth, while CO2 levels don't. |
The IPCC concludes "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations" via the greenhouse effect. This has been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. Are they all talking out of their arses?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enns
Joined: 02 May 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. |
The GW crowd has been asking for something peer-reviewed, well this is peer-reviewed. Can we at least agree that a debate on global warming is warranted? The issue is too important to ignore the opinions of credible scientists.
Pligganease We should live cleaner lives and need to clean up the environment, but we shouldn't be exaggerating or concocting fairy tales to achieve this goal. People like Al Gore do a disservice to the global warming debate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
makemischief
Joined: 04 Nov 2005
Location: Traveling
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| enns wrote: |
| Can we at least agree that a debate on global warming is warranted? |
A debate on whether it exists/is man-made or not? No, not really. 
It does. We did.
Are there still any respected and/or intelligent conservatives doubting this? I thought that had been decided and they had moved on to the- "yah it's real, but who gives a *beep*" phase. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Have you watched the "Great Global Warming Swindle"? It is free on google video, I think. Very enlightening vid. |
Very heavily-criticized vid too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
See the bit on solar activity. That in particular was absolute fiction and in my opinion fraudulently rather than incompetently.
|
Not just heavily criticized, but blown out of the water. Virtually nothing in it was accurate. What was accurate was misrepresented. It's a joke. Look in the GW and other climate change threads for more links on this.
Last edited by keane on Fri Sep 14, 2007 4:03 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| enns wrote: |
| Quote: |
| A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. |
The GW crowd has been asking for something peer-reviewed, well this is peer-reviewed. |
Uh, wrong. That quote says that the review done was a review OF peer-reviewed literature. It does not mean that the review itself has been checked for validity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why am I NOT surprised?
Dennis Avery
| Quote: |
From SourceWatch
Dennis Avery is the director of the Center for Global Food Issues at the Hudson Institute, where he edits Global Food Quarterly. Avery crusades against organic agriculture claiming that modern industrial agriculture and biotechnology will save the world from starvation and disaster. Avery also disputes the scientific consensus on global warming.
He is the originator of a misleading claim that organic foods are more dangerous than foods sprayed with chemical pesticides.
Avery served as a senior agricultural analyst for the US Department of State for between 1980 and 1988 under the Reagan administration, "where he was responsible for assessing the foreign-policy implications of food and farming developments worldwide". [1]
"As a staff member of the President's National Advisory Commission on Food and Fiber, he wrote the Commission's landmark report, "Food and Fiber for the Future," his biographical note states.
"Avery studied agricultural economics at Michigan State University and the University of Wisconsin ... At Hudson, Avery continues to monitor developments in world food production, farm product demand, the safety and security of food supplies, and the sustainability of world agriculture," his biographical note states.
He enjoys a high level of influence among some sectors, and his big-business-friendly articles are disseminated to thousands of newspapers as well as subscribers in governments, banks and businesses.
Avery writes a weekly column for The BridgeNews Forum.
According to his biographical note "Avery travels the world as a speaker, has testified before Congress, and has appeared on most of the nation's major television networks, including a program discussing the bacterial dangers of organic foods on ABC's 20/20".
Avery is also a member of the scientific policy advsiory panel for the corporate-funded American Council on Science and Health. [2]
[edit]
Books and articles
* Global Food Progress, Hudson Institute, 1991.
* Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastic: The Environmental Triumph of High-Yield Farming, Hudson Institute, 1995. (A second edition was published in 2000).
* A listof articles by Dennis Avery is available at http://www.hudson.org/learn/index.cfm?fuseaction=staff_bio&eid=AverDenn
[edit]
External links
* Center for Global Food Issues, "Dennis Avery", accessed January 2004.
* GM Watch, "Dennis Avery: big daddy of E.co-lie", accessed January 2004.
* Karen Charman, "Force Feeding Genetically Engineered Foods, PR Watch, Fourth Quarter 1999.
* Karen Charman, Saving the Planet with Pestilent Statistics, PR Watch, Fourth Quarter 1999.
* J. Robert Hatherill, Ph.D, and Jeff Nelson, "Organics: The Blurred Vision of ABC's 20/20".
* American Council on Science and Health, Board of Scientific and policy advisors", accessed January 2004.
Blogs that mention this article
* Funny because they are retarded (or think we are)
* Medieval Paintings Explode Global Warming Myth!
* Deniers Sending Out Another Clone:Dennis Avery-Legitimate Skeptic Or Corporate Shill?
* Global Warming Debate FOX News Style: Two Questionable Guests With The Same Opinion
* Argumentum ad hominem
* Anyone seen an elephant?
* A RealClimate Review of the Denying Duo
Source: Technorati (view all) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
