|
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 |
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 2:09 am Post subject: "The Great Global Warming Swindle"? |
 |
|
| Quote: |
A Review Of
'The Great Global Warming Swindle'
By S. Fred Singer, (Atmospheric Physicist)
March 19, 2007
Al Gore�s An Inconvenient Truth has met its match: a devastating documentary recently shown on British television, which has now been viewed by millions of people on the Internet. Despite its flamboyant title, The Great Global Warming Swindle is based on sound science and interviews with real climate scientists, including me. An Inconvenient Truth, on the other hand, is mostly an emotional presentation from a single politician.
The scientific arguments presented in The Great Global Warming Swindle can be stated quite briefly:
1. There is no proof that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from human activity. Ice core records from the past 650,000 years show that temperature increases have preceded�not resulted from�increases in CO2 by hundreds of years, suggesting that the warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in atmospheric CO2. As the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapour is far, far more important than CO2. Dire predictions of future warming are based almost entirely on computer climate models, yet these models do not accurately understand the role or water vapor�and, in any case, water vapor is not within our control. Plus, computer models cannot account for the observed cooling of much of the past century (1940�75), nor for the observed patterns of warming�what we call the �fingerprints.� For example, the Antarctic is cooling while models predict warming. And where the models call for the middle atmosphere to warm faster than the surface, the observations show the exact opposite.
The best evidence supporting natural causes of temperature fluctuations are the changes in cloudiness, which correspond strongly with regular variations in solar activity. The current warming is likely part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that�s been traced back almost a million years. It accounts for the Medieval Warm Period around 1100 A.D., when the Vikings settled Greenland and grew crops, and the Little Ice Age, from about 1400 to 1850 A.D., which brought severe winters and cold summers to Europe, with failed harvests, starvation, disease, and general misery. Attempts have been made to claim that the current warming is �unusual� using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data. Advocates have tried to deny the existence of these historic climate swings and claim that the current warming is "unusual" by using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data, resulting in the famous �hockey�stick� temperature graph. The hockey-stick graph has now been thoroughly discredited.
2. If the cause of warming is mostly natural, then there is little we can do about it. We cannot control the inconstant sun, the likely origin of most climate variability. None of the schemes for greenhouse gas reduction currently bandied about will do any good; they are all irrelevant, useless, and wildly expensive:
� Control of CO2 emissions, whether by rationing or elaborate cap�and�trade schemes
� Uneconomic �alternative� energy, such as ethanol and the impractical �hydrogen economy�
� Massive installations of wind turbines and solar collectors
� Proposed projects for the sequestration of CO2 from smokestacks or even from the atmosphere
Ironically, even if CO2 were responsible for the observed warming trend, all these schemes would be ineffective�unless we could persuade every nation, including China, to cut fuel use by 80 percent!
3. Finally, no one can show that a warmer climate would produce negative impacts overall. The much�feared rise in sea levels does not seem to depend on short�term temperature changes, as the rate of sea�level increases has been steady since the last ice age, 10,000 years ago. In fact, many economists argue that the opposite is more likely�that warming produces a net benefit, that it increases incomes and standards of living. Why do we assume that the present climate is the optimum? Surely, the chance of this must be vanishingly small, and the economic history of past climate warmings bear this out.
But the main message of The Great Global Warming Swindle is much broader. Why should we devote our scarce resources to what is essentially a non�problem, and ignore the real problems the world faces: hunger, disease, denial of human rights�not to mention the threats of terrorism and nuclear wars? And are we really prepared to deal with natural disasters; pandemics that can wipe out most of the human race, or even the impact of an asteroid, such as the one that wiped out the dinosaurs? Yet politicians and the elites throughout much of the world prefer to squander our limited resources to fashionable issues, rather than concentrate on real problems. Just consider the scary predictions emanating from supposedly responsible world figures: the chief scientist of Great Britain tells us that unless we insulate our houses and use more efficient light bulbs, the Antarctic will be the only habitable continent by 2100, with a few surviving breeding couples propagating the human race. Seriously!
I imagine that in the not�too�distant future all the hype will have died down, particularly if the climate should decide to cool�as it did during much of the past century; we should take note here that it has not warmed since 1998. Future generations will look back on the current madness and wonder what it was all about. They will have movies like An Inconvenient Truth and documentaries like The Great Global Warming Swindle to remind them. |
Last edited by dmbfan on Sun Oct 28, 2007 4:19 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 2:12 am Post subject: Hmmmmm... |
|
|
| Quote: |
Climate Change Hysteria Costing Billions
'High price for a load of hot air' by Professor Bob Carter
The Courier-Mail 18/6/2007
WITH understandable reluctance, Prime Minister John Howard recently donned the political hair-shirt of a carbon trading system.
On the same day, NASA chief Michael Griffin commented in a US radio interview that "I am not sure that it is fair to say that (global warming) is a problem that we must wrestle with".
NASA is an agency that knows a thing or two about climate change. As Griffin added: "We study global climate change, that is in our authorisation, we think we do it rather well. I'm proud of that, but NASA is not an agency chartered to, quote, battle climate change."
Such a clear statement that science accomplishment should carry primacy over policy advice is both welcome and overdue.
Nonetheless, there is something worrying about one of Griffin's other statements, which said that "I have no doubt ... that a trend of global warming exists".
Griffin seems to be referring to human-caused global warming, but irrespective of that his opinion is unsupported by the evidence.
The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric C02.
Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric C02 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).
Third, there are strong indications from solar studies that Earth's current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades.
How then is it possible for Griffin to assert so boldly that human-caused global warming is happening?
Well, he is in good company for similar statements have been made recently by several Western heads of state at the GS summit meeting. For instance, German Chancellor Angela Merkel asserts climate change (i.e. global warming) "is also essentially caused by humankind".
In fact, there is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment, let alone human-caused warming.
For leading politicians to be asserting to the contrary indicates something is very wrong with their chain of scientific advice, for they are clearly being deceived. That this should be the case is an international political scandal of high order which, in turn, raises the question of where their advice is coming from.
In Australia, the advice trail leads from government agencies such as the CSIRO and the Australian Greenhouse Office through to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations.
As leading economist David Henderson has pointed out, it is extremely dangerous for an unelected and unaccountable body like the IPCC to have a monopoly on climate policy advice to governments. And even more so because, at heart, the IPCC is a political and not a scientific agency.
Australia does not ask the World Bank to set its annual budget and neither should it allow the notoriously alarmist IPCC to set its climate policy.
It is past time for those who have deceived governments and misled the public regarding dangerous human-caused global warming to be called to account. Aided by hysterical posturing by green NGOs, their actions have led to the cornering of government on the issue and the likely implementation of futile emission policies that will impose direct extra costs on every household and enterprise in Australia to no identifiable benefit.
Not only do humans not dominate Earth's current temperature trend but the likelihood is that further large sums of public money are shortly going to be committed to, theoretically, combat warming when cooling is the more likely short-term climatic eventuality.
In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion ($60 billion) on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one.
Yet that expenditure will pale into insignificance compared with the squandering of money that is going to accompany the introduction of a carbon trading or taxation system.
The costs of thus expiating comfortable middle class angst are, of course, going to be imposed preferentially upon the poor and underprivileged. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 2:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The Ice Age Cometh
by Andrew Kenny
The Sunday Mail, 14 July 2002
A new ice age is due now, but you wont hear it from the green groups, who like to play on Western guilt about consumerism to make us believe in global warming.
THE Earth's climate is changing in a dramatic way, with immense danger for mankind and the natural systems that sustain it. This was the frightening message broadcast to us by environmentalists in the recent past. Here are some of their prophecies.
The facts have emerged, in recent years and months, from research into past ice ages. They imply that the threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind. (Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, in International Wildlife, July 1975)
The cooling has already killed thousands of people in poor nations... If it continues, and no strong measures are taken to deal with it, the cooling will cause world famine, world chaos, and probably world war, and this could all come about by the year 2000. (Lowe Ponte, The Cooling, 1976)
As recently as January 1994, the supreme authority on matters environmental, Time magazine, wrote:
The ice age cometh? Last week's big chill was a reminder that the Earth's climate can change at any time ... The last (ice age) ended 10,000 years ago; the next one� for there will be a next on�could start tens of thousands of years from now. Or tens of years. Or it may have already started.
The scare about global cooling was always the same: unprecedented low temperatures; the coldest weather recorded; unusual floods and storms; a rapid shift in the world's climate towards an icy apocalypse.
But now, the scare is about global warming. To convert from the first scare to the second, all you have to do is substitute "the coldest weather recorded" with "the warmest weather recorded". Replace the icicles hanging from oranges in California with melting glaciers on Mt Everest, and the shivering armadillos with sweltering polar bears. We were going to freeze but now we are going to fry.
Even the White House is making cautionary sounds about warming.
What facts have emerged to make this dramatic reversal? Well, none really. The most reliable measurements show no change whatsoever in global temperatures in the past 20 years. What has changed is the perception that global warming makes a better scare than the coming ice age.
A good environmental scare needs two ingredients. The first is impending catastrophe. The second is a suitable culprit to blame. In the second case, the ice age fails and global warming is gloriously successful. It is not the destruction itself of Sodom and Gomorrah that makes the story so appealing but the fact that they were destroyed because they were so sinful.
One of the real threats to mankind is the danger of collision with a large asteroid. It has happened in the past with catastrophic effect, and it will probably happen again. But there are no conferences, resolutions, gatherings, protests and newspaper headlines about asteroid impacts. The reason is that you cannot find anyone suitable to blame for them. If you could persuade people that President Bush or the oil companies were responsible for the asteroids, I guarantee there would be a billion-dollar campaign to "raise awareness" about the asteroid danger, with sonorous editorials in all the papers.
Global warming has the perfect culprit: naughty, industrialised, advanced, consuming, Western society, which has made itself very rich by burning a lot of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas). This, so the scare goes, is releasing a lot of carbon dioxide. which is dangerously heating up the world.
THERE are two facts in the scare. First, it is true that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas one which traps heat on Earth. (Without it, the Earth would be too cold for' life.) Second, it is true that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising. The rest is guesswork.
The global warmers said the most accurate measure of climate change would be air temperatures. For the past 20 years or more, air temperatures have been measured with extreme accuracy. They show no warming whatsoever.
Surface temperatures are much less reliable since the recording stations are often encroached on by expanding cities, which warm the local environment. The curve most often used by the global warmers is one showing surface temperatures rising by about half a degree in the past 100 years. (The curve, incidentally, is a bad match against rising carbon dioxide but a good one against solar activity, which suggests the sun might be the reason for the warming.)
However, there are accurate methods of measuring sea temperatures going back much further. Past temperatures for the Atlantic Ocean have been found by looking at dead marine life. The isotope ratio of carbon-14 in their skeletons tells you when they lived. The ratio of other isotopes tells you the temperature then. Thus we are able to know temperatures in the Atlantic and northern Europe going back thousands of years. They make nonsense of the global warming scare.
The last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago. Temperatures rose to the "Holocene Maximum" of about 5000 years ago when it was about l.5�C higher than now, dropped in the time of Christ, and then rose to the "Medieval Climate Optimum" in the years 600 to 1100, when temperatures. were about 1�C higher than now. This was a golden age for northern European. agriculture and led to the rise of Viking civilisation.
Greenland, now a frozen wasteland, was then a habitable Viking colony. There were vineyards in the south of England. Then temperatures dropped to "The Little Ice Age" in the 1600s, when the Thames froze over. And they have been rising slowly ever since, although they are still much lower than 1000 years ago.
We are now in a rather cool period.
What caused these ups and downs of temperature? We do not know. Temperature changes are a fact of nature, and we have no idea if the claimed 0.3C heating over the past 100 years is caused by man's activities or part of a natural cycle.
What we can say, though, is that if Europe heats up by 1�C it would do it a power of good. We can see this from records of 1000 years ago. Moreover, increased carbon dioxide makes plants grow more quickly, so improving crops and forests.
The Earth's climate is immensely complicated, far beyond our present powers of understanding and the calculating powers of modern computers. Changes in phase from ice to water to vapour; cloud formation; convection; ocean currents; winds; changes in the sun: the complicated shapes of the land masses; the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide � all of these and a thousand other factors operating with small differences over vast masses and distances make it practically impossible for us to make predictions about long-term climate patterns, and perhaps make such predictions inherently impossible. The computer models that the global warmers now use are ludicrously oversimplified, and it is no surprise they have made one wrong prediction after another.
If the global warming scare has little foundation in fact, the ice-age scare is only too solidly founded. For the past two million years, but not before, the northern hemisphere has gone through a regular cycle of ice ages: 90,000 years with ice: 10,000 years without. The last ice age ended 10,000 years ago. Our time is up. The next ice age is due.
We do not know what causes the ice ages. It is probably to do with the arrangement of northern land masses and the path of the Gulf Stream, but we do not know.
However, a new ice age, unlike global warming, would be a certain calamity.
It may be that increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are actually warding off the ice age. In this case, we should give tax relief to coal power stations and factories for every tonne of carbon dioxide they release.
When the global warmers tell us the stakes are high, they are quite right. Global warming has become an immense international gravy train worth billions of dollars. It is now one of the largest recipients of government research money in the world.
It finances jobs, grants, conferences, international travel and journals. It not only keeps a huge army of people in comfortable employment but also fills them with self-righteousness and moral superiority. It enables the green movement to say: "The end is nigh unless you give us more funding, repent, and do what we say."
Behind these exhortations is the vision of Rousseau, of a retreat from the evil industrialised world of motor cars and electricity back to the simpler, nobler world of nature (except for the green priesthood who will still be allowed to fly in jet planes to conferences).
When President Bush denounced the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gases, the global warmers said: "It's payback time." They were referring to the oil companies which had supposedly made big donations to his election campaign.
But if Al Gore had won and given even more funding to the warmers, it would have been payback time in a more pointed way. The oil companies can easily diversify out of oil and into other forms of energy � they are already doing so; BP is the world's largest producer of solar panels.
The global warmers are a more constrained vested interest. They depend on frightening the public and need global warming. This is why they get so furious when anyone dares to challenge the scare. The fraud of the warming scare is seen most vividly when the warmers propose their remedies for it. The best technology for avoiding the emission of carbon dioxide is nuclear power. In operation, nuclear power plants release no carbon dioxide and over their whole cycle (construction, fuel processing and decommissioning) they release the least carbon dioxide of any energy source, including wind and solar power. Half of the 272 million tonnes of man-made carbon dioxide that South Africa produces comes from coal power stations; South Africa could halve its total emissions simply by turning to nuclear power for electricity generation.
Nuclear power has by far the best safety record of any large-scale source of electricity. The worst accident at a nuclear power station in the West, at Three Mile Island in the United States in 1979, killed no one, injured no one and had no ill effects afterwards. By contrast gas, oil, coal and hydro accidents almost routinely kill thousands of people every year. The Chernobyl accident, which after 16 years has killed about 40 people, was caused primarily by bad reactor design, which would never be allowed in the West. The waste from nuclear power is small, solid, stable and of finite life. Nuclear power is the only large-scale source of electricity that has procedures for disposing of its waste (which is easy to do). The waste from coal stations is enormously larger, much more dangerous and longer lived; it includes heavy metal toxins, which last for ever, and radioactive elements such as thorium, which has a half-life of 14 billion years.
COAL waste is simply thrown on to open ash tips or hurled into the air we breathe. But the global warmers fiercely resist nuclear power. They do not want it precisely because it offers the world bountiful electricity. What they want is to turn away from the modern world of plenty to a primitive world of scarcity. They do not want people in the poor countries to obtain higher living standards; they want them mired in noble poverty.
One of the biggest sources of carbon dioxide is motor vehicles. If your speed doubles, you emit four times as much carbon dioxide. Some European politicians, especially in Germany, are very concerned about global warming. So how about imposing a 80km/h speed limit on all roads in the European Union and limiting engine size to 1000cc? Ask German politicians who back the warming scare, which is more important, the future of the world or an infantile desire to travel at high speed. The answer is clear: speed. So much for serious debate.
The global warming scare uses almost every propaganda device. There are continual appeals to scientific authority. The propagandists pretend there is scientific consensus that man's activities are definitely changing the climate in a dangerous way.
This is an outright lie. You will find no reputable scientist who says so. Graphs are carefully edited so that parts showing cooling are removed and those showing warming are kept. Cooling incidents, such as thickening of ice caps, snow in Saudi Arabia and record low temperatures, are ignored. Warming incidents, such as breaking ice shelves and record high temperatures, are headlines. This is not a co-ordinated conspiracy but a fashion in which self-interest and ideology combine, and green activists, politicians and journalists help each other to get more funding, more sensational stories and more enemies to blame.
The climate of our planet is far too important for this nonsense. What we need is more genuine scientific research. If we do decide on the "precautionary principle" of keeping carbon dioxide levels stable, we can turn to those many technologies, proven or in prospect, which release no or little carbon dioxide. Nuclear power is the obvious first choice.
There is no reason the world economy cannot continue to prosper with lower greenhouse emissions. But, for heaven's sake, let's start by telling the whole truth and giving all the facts. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 2:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The earth�s atmosphere has actually cooled by 0.13� Celsius since 1979 according to highly accurate satellite-based atmospheric temperature measurements. By contrast, computer climate models predicted that the globe should have warmed by an easily detectable 0.4� C over the last fifteen years.
The scientific evidence argues against the existence of a greenhouse crisis, against the notion that realistic policies could achieve any meaningful climatic impact, and against the claim that we must act now if we are to reduce the greenhouse threat.
Current computer climate models are incapable of coupling the oceans and atmosphere; misrepresent the role of sea ice, snow caps, localized storms, and biological systems; and fail to account accurately for the effects of clouds.
Temperature records reveal that predictive models are off by a factor of two when applied retroactively in projecting the change in global temperature for this century.
The amount of warming from 1881 to 1993 is 0.54� C. Nearly 70 percent of the warming of the entire time period � 0.37� C �occurred in the first half of the record � before the period of the greatest buildup of greenhouse gases.
Accuracy in land-based measurements of global temperatures is frustrated by the dearth of stations, frequent station relocations, and changes in how ocean-going ships make measurements.
Although all of the greenhouse computer models predict that the greatest warming will occur in the Arctic region of the Northern Hemisphere, temperature records indicate that the Arctic has actually cooled by 0.88� C over the past fifty years.
Corrective environmental policies would have a minuscule impact on the climate. According to its own projections, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change�s own plan would spare the earth only a few hundredths of a degree of warming by middle of the next century |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 4:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Sorry, but that *beep* was shown to be the lying pile of excrement it is a loooong time ago.
Sad that's the best you can do. How desperate do you have to be to use a film known to be built on lies and deception to promote a bull crap agenda?
Check the Global Warming and other threads on the topic. BTW, why starting a new thread on a dead topic?
Hey, in case you haven't noticed, the North Pole just melted halfway to nothing. |
Oh, I'm sorry....I did not realize this was a poo throwing competition.
Rather then follow the rest of herd, I thought I would just bring question to the issue.
You did notice the question mark at the end of the topic title.......right?
dmbfan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 4:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dmbfan wrote: |
You did notice the question mark at the end of the topic title.......right?
dmbfan |
Anyone posting that crap already knows it is just that, crap. It's old news. Your obvious agenda from your totality of posts leaves no doubt you your complete lack of objectivity on the issue, so don't ask me to buy you didn't know this was already debunked.
In fact, with the current state of things and recent reports from Hansen and others, anyone pushing this crap should be put in jail. People are going to die because of all the lies and BS used to deny global climate change. People should suffer consequences for negligence. Were GCC a vehicle, we'd call it negligent homicide or manslaughter.
Let us assume for a minute you're just a dupe. Those duping you should still be held accountable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Anyone posting that crap already knows it is just that, crap. |
How so?
Really? Then it most not be important then,eh?
| Quote: |
| Your obvious agenda from your totality of posts leaves no doubt you your complete lack of objectivity on the issue, so don't ask me to buy you didn't know this was already debunked. |
Lack of objectivity.....you mean, not following the herd and actually doing some search into the matter, rather then swallow the crap that is fed to people by the media....without question?
| Quote: |
| In fact, with the current state of things and recent reports from Hansen and others, anyone pushing this crap should be put in jail. People are going to die because of all the lies and BS used to deny global climate change. People should suffer consequences for negligence. Were GCC a vehicle, we'd call it negligent homicide or manslaughter. |
Perhaps it is crap. But, then why are there many scientist and meteorolgists saying that the political agenda that is listed under Global Warming is NOT crap?
| Quote: |
| Let us assume for a minute you're just a dupe. Those duping you should still be held accountable |
OK...keep throwing insults. If that is all you have to offer, then that is all you have.
dmbfan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 5:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dmbfan wrote: |
| Lack of objectivity.....you mean, not following the herd and actually doing some search into the matter, rather then swallow the crap that is fed to people by the media....without question? |
How does following blindly Exxon's dollars to bought-and-paid-for lies equal objectivity?
How does dismissing what is before your eyes equal objectivity?
How does a complete lack of science supporting your bullshit equal objectivity?
How does posting as a source of your views "info" that has already been PROVEN TO BE FALSE show objectivity?
| Quote: |
| Perhaps it is crap. But, then why are there many scientist and meteorolgists saying that the political agenda that is listed under Global Warming is NOT crap? |
If you're going to open your mouth to spout lies, and the "swindle" is nothing but, at least make sense. Don't conflate "swindle" with a separate issue of the political nature of any of a topic.
You show me ONE published scientist who has done peer-reviewed work who makes this claim. ONE. Every single one so far has been shown to be a paid lackey of Exxon.
I'm tired of this loathsome laying of filth around the world by liars and paid propagandists. PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DIE, dammit.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Let us assume for a minute you're just a dupe. Those duping you should still be held accountable |
OK...keep throwing insults. If that is all you have to offer, then that is all you have. |
"Dupe" is an insult?
| Quote: |
Main Entry:
1dupe Listen to the pronunciation of 1dupe
Pronunciation:
\ˈd�p also ˈdy�p\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
French, from Middle French duppe, probably alteration of huppe hoopoe
Date:
1681
: one that is easily deceived or cheated |
If you are not a dupe, someone who is being lied to and who believes the lie, then you are knowingly lying and are just a freaking liar. Is that really better? Thanks for the heads up. It'll save me time in the future. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Safron
Joined: 05 Feb 2007
Location: portland, or
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have no doubt that global warming is happening, but I do have doubts on how much of the warming is due to people and CO2. The Multiple Linear Regression Modeling used only shows that the model is 90% accurate. I've put models like this together. You pick and choose what data you use. You throw out outlier data. Models like this get better and better over time - look at weather forecasting. But without the data needed to study the cycle (several climactic shifts -> hundreds of thousands of years) we can't really put together models that claim 90% accuracy.
I have no doubt that some of the warming is human caused, and certainly we've set off ecological and biological shifts through Industrialization the outcomes of which we'll realize in the coming decades. But I seriously doubt that the worlds scientists have this one figured out.
BTW I do believe that the global warming - regardless of the cause will create food and water shortages that will create several wars in this decade. The shifting weather forecasts that I've seen - although don't believe 100%- forecast that North America will be probably the best place to "weather out" these shortages.
Take a look at the attached links that link global warming to changes in the Sun. If people are the primary cause of global warming, why is ice that's been present on Mars for an estimated hundreds (thousands?) of years melting? Are we polluting Mars too?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_snow_011206-1.html
The fact of the matter is that Global Warming and it's Human Cause is now politicized world over. Nothings going to stop the momentum of Industrialized Countries going green, not that it's the wrong thing to do. I think perhaps energy and it's increasing scarcity are really the underlying issues that we need to deal with.
But the immediate question should be how will the world's "brilliant leaders" deal with and prepare for vast areas of the world that were once wet and able to sustain large populations drying out, and other areas becoming more fertile? No doubt a hungry and thirsty populace will pick up guns, but will they have access to nuclear technology as well? The continuing desertification in Africa hasn't meant much world wide, but it will in China and India. Will Europe be able to adapt to the predicted freeze (look at the latitude of Europe compared to Alaska). How will China react to all of this, China who's building one warship per week and has the largest military in the world (shh shh), and who's farmland is disappearing. China who's teenage, 20 and 30 year old men are finding no wives, & no release for their pent up "energy".
I think the writing is on the wall as far as global climate change. If things continue as they have been, the 22nd Century will be much different for us Westerners than the 21st has been. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Safron wrote: |
| I think perhaps energy and it's increasing scarcity are really the underlying issues that we need to deal with. |
See the Peak Oil thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harpeau
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Location: Coquitlam, BC
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Safron wrote: |
| Take a look at the attached links that link global warming to changes in the Sun. If people are the primary cause of global warming, why is ice that's been present on Mars for an estimated hundreds (thousands?) of years melting? Are we polluting Mars too? |
I agree with you. I think there could be a warming of the Solar System due to the Sun heating up. I don't believe in "Global Warming" as the globalist are spouting it. I think many are politicizing it in order to make people pay "bull shit carbon taxes. What about China, India and Indonesia? Are they to be let off the hook?!
Forty years ago, the same Globalists were complaining about Global cooling. I'm sorry, but it's much more complicated than cooling or heating. And there are MANY brilliant scientist who point out that Global Warming is not real. It seems like some people on this board are getting all emotional (like Al Gore) spouting lies about Global Warming~ when the science hasn't proven it. I agree with the article & movie that Dmbfan posted.
Last edited by Harpeau on Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:16 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
You mean like Al Gore.
Keane righteously opined:
| Quote: |
| I'm tired of this loathsome laying of filth around the world by liars and paid propagandists. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harpeau
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Location: Coquitlam, BC
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
As leading economist David Henderson has pointed out, it is extremely dangerous for an unelected and unaccountable body like the IPCC to have a monopoly on climate policy advice to governments. And even more so because, at heart, the IPCC is a political and not a scientific agency.
Australia does not ask the World Bank to set its annual budget and neither should it allow the notoriously alarmist IPCC to set its climate policy.
It is past time for those who have deceived governments and misled the public regarding dangerous human-caused global warming to be called to account. Aided by hysterical posturing by green NGOs, their actions have led to the cornering of government on the issue and the likely implementation of futile emission policies that will impose direct extra costs on every household and enterprise in Australia to no identifiable benefit. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| That review is bo-llocks! No matter. It only requires the OP does some research. |
|
| 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
