Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 28 to 36 of 54

Thread: Global Warming ? Hmmmm, not so fast there

  1. #28

    Default Re: Global Warming ? Hmmmm, not so fast there

    Quote Originally Posted by rustyshackleford View Post
    The difference with the 2 parties in this instance is that the Democrats agree with the scientists who actually study this, whereas the Republicans don't, and, generally speaking, say the experts are wrong. They just seem to be sure of it, regardless of evidence. Hell, one guy on here didn't even know what a glacier was but insists he knows the affects of warming on them. I think I'll just side with him. Why not?
    thank you for making one of my points

  2. #29

    Default Re: Global Warming ? Hmmmm, not so fast there

    I may be wrong on this, but didn't even the Bush Administration take steps to curb man-made global warming? I thought I remember sgallan posting examples.

  3. #30
    Olympic Champ RYou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    8,376

    Default Re: Global Warming ? Hmmmm, not so fast there

    Side bar....

    If you have never been to Glacier National, it's a must do vacation. Even if you are not a backpacker, there are plenty of inexpensive places to stay just outside the park and a gazillion day hikes. There is a bus service that can drop you off and pick up at many of the trailheads.

    Also, take the whitewater rafting trip down the Flathead. It has plenty of grade 3 and 4 rapids, bald eagles, elk and there's a good chance you'll float past a griz streamside. Do it before you are too old because most of the hikes are physically challenging.

    You will be awed and humbled by it's presence.

    Got kids, try an RV trip from Utah over to the Tetons, a short hop north to Yellowstone then follow the Rockies up into Montana and Glacier. Another two hours north and you can take in the Waterton Canadian Rockies.
    Life's not the breaths you take, the breathing in and out that gets you through the day ain't what it's all about. It's the moments that take your breath away.

  4. #31

    Default Re: Global Warming ? Hmmmm, not so fast there

    Quote Originally Posted by Chance174 View Post
    Most normal people understand that the world is warming, pretty hard to argue against that fact. Yes I know this year was a lot cooler than the previous but is most likely random variation. The arguement is whether or not it is man made.
    I think that, like just about every othe issue in politics today, people try to frame the issue as black or white. The current trend in global warming is probably not 100% caused by man, but we're probably having an effect on the problem. I tend to view climate in a similar way to the economy, we know both move in cycles and people's actions cannot prevent these cycles but just because we can't prevent them doesn't mean our actions and policies don't have an effect on the duration and rate of the ups and downs.
    There's no such thing as a pretty good aligator wrestler.

  5. #32

    Default Re: Global Warming ? Hmmmm, not so fast there

    Quote Originally Posted by rustyshackleford View Post
    Global warming is a liberal academic fraud, just like evolution. I thought this was common knowledge. Get with the program guys.
    Actually the proponents of anthropomorphic climate change are very similar to those who ignore the scientific evidence of evolution. Both have adopted blinders and refuse to look at any evidence that doesn't support their theory. Both see themselves as supporters of some holy crusade that justifies the corruption of science by ignoring, obfuscating, or manipulating the evidence.

  6. #33

    Default Re: Global Warming ? Hmmmm, not so fast there

    Quote Originally Posted by rustyshackleford View Post
    The difference with the 2 parties in this instance is that the Democrats agree with the scientists who actually study this, whereas the Republicans don't, and, generally speaking, say the experts are wrong. They just seem to be sure of it, regardless of evidence. Hell, one guy on here didn't even know what a glacier was but insists he knows the affects of warming on them. I think I'll just side with him. Why not?
    This has to be one of the most myopic statements I have seen in a while.

    Quote Originally Posted by rustyshackleford View Post
    The difference with the 2 parties in this instance is that the Democrats agree with the scientists who actually study this,
    Oh I suppose you believe that all the scientists are all in agreement and that those who dont arent really studying it. What you really mean to say is the Democrats choose to believe the "science" that promotes their desire to "level the playing field".

    Quote Originally Posted by rustyshackleford View Post
    whereas the Republicans don't, and, generally speaking, say the experts are wrong.
    And they do so by quoting scientists that point out the inadequacy, inaccuracies and gross errors in the anthropomorphic climate change proponents "evidence".

    Quote Originally Posted by rustyshackleford View Post
    They just seem to be sure of it, regardless of evidence.
    Which party here Rusty wants to choke off debate? It isnt the Republican side.... It is your side that wants to "end the debate" which side has been exposed for hiding data that contradicts their theories? Again it is your side.

    Quote Originally Posted by rustyshackleford View Post
    Hell, one guy on here didn't even know what a glacier was but insists he knows the affects of warming on them.
    Yes and we have another guy (Algore) who many like you listen to and naively buy into WHATEVER chicken-little prediction he makes no matter how utterly absurd.

    Quote Originally Posted by rustyshackleford View Post
    I think I'll just side with him. Why not?
    Perhaps you should at least just listen to his scientists as well.

  7. #34

    Default Re: Global Warming ? Hmmmm, not so fast there

    Or maybe I'll listen to these guys....This was signed by all of these different scientific societies, from around the world, before Al Gore took up the cause. But feel free to make up BS rationale if you want. I know you will. Funny you point out the evolution thing, because much like that, the scientific world in pretty close agreement. Granted, evolution is known fact, and this has more room for error, but that doesn't change the current scientific consensus.

    THE SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE
    A joint statement issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for
    Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of
    Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists
    Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy,
    Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society
    of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK).
    The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the
    international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most
    reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this
    consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change,
    doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change.
    We do not consider such doubts justified.
    There will always be some uncertainty surrounding the prediction of changes in such a complex system as
    the world’s climate. Nevertheless, we support the IPCC’s conclusion that it is at least 90% certain that
    temperatures will continue to rise, with average global surface temperature projected to increase by
    between 1.4 and 5.8oC above 1990 levels by 21001. This increase will be accompanied by rising sea levels,
    more intense precipitation events in some countries, increased risk of drought in others, and adverse effects
    on agriculture, health and water resources.
    In May 2000, at the InterAcademy Panel (IAP) meeting in Tokyo, 63 academies of science from all parts of
    the world issued a statement on sustainability in which they noted that “global trends in climate change …
    are growing concerns” and pledged themselves to work for sustainability – meeting current human needs
    while preserving the environment and natural resources needed by future generations2. It is now evident
    that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change.
    Business as usual is no
    longer a viable option.
    We urge everyone - individuals, businesses and governments - to take prompt action to reduce emissions of
    greenhouse gases. One hundred and eighty-one governments are Parties to the 1992 UN Framework
    Convention on Climate Change, demonstrating a global commitment to ‘stabilising atmospheric
    concentrations of greenhouse gases at safe levels’. Eighty-four countries have signed the subsequent 1997
    Kyoto Protocol, committing developed countries to reducing their annual aggregate emissions by 5.2% from
    1990 levels by 2008-2012.
    The ratification of this Protocol represents a small but essential first step towards stabilising atmospheric
    concentrations of greenhouse gases. It will help create a base on which to build an equitable agreement
    between all countries in the developed and developing worlds for the more substantial reductions that will
    be necessary by the middle of the century.
    There is much that can be done now to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases without excessive cost.
    We believe that there is also a need for a major co-ordinated research effort focusing on the science and
    technology that underpin mitigation and adaptation strategies related to climate change. This effort should
    be funded principally by the developed countries and should involve scientists from throughout the world.
    The balance of the scientific evidence demands effective steps now to avert damaging changes to
    the earth’s climate.
    Notes:
    1 Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis Contribution of WG1 to the IPCC Third Assessment Report
    http://www.ipcc.ch. The average global surface temperature is predicted to increase by between 1.4oC and 3oC above
    1990 levels by 2100 for low emission scenarios, and between 2.5oC and 5.8oC for higher emission scenarios.
    2 Transition to Sustainability in the 21st Century: The Contribution of Science and Technology. A Statement of the
    World's Scientific Academies (May 2000). http://interacademies.net/intracad/tokyo2000.nsf
    Sources of information about the signatories:
    Australian Academy of Sciences
    Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
    Brazilian Academy of Sciences
    Royal Society of Canada
    Caribbean Academy of Sciences
    Chinese Academy of Sciences
    French Academy of Sciences
    German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
    Indian National Science Academy
    Indonesian Academy of Sciences
    Royal Irish Academy
    Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy)
    Academy of Sciences Malaysia
    Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
    Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
    Royal Society (UK)
    http://www.science.org.au
    http://www.kvab.be
    http://www.abc.org.br
    http://www.rsc.ca
    http://www.e -caribtrade.com/cas/index.htm
    http://www4.nationalacademies.org/oia/iap/IAPacInfo.nsf
    http://www.academie-sciences.fr
    http://www.leopoldina.uni-halle.de
    http://www4.nationalacademies.org/oia/iap/IAPacInfo.nsf
    http://www4.nationalacademies.org/oia/iap/IAPacInfo.nsf
    http://www.ria.ie
    http://www.lincei.it
    http://www4.nationalacademies.org/oia/iap/IAPacInfo.nsf
    http://www.rsnz.govt.nz
    http://www.kva.se/eng
    http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk
    17 May 2001
    ISBN 0 85403 558 3

  8. #35
    NCAA Champ
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Oxnard California
    Posts
    1,129

    Default Re: Global Warming ? Hmmmm, not so fast there

    Does Global Warming mean that the price of beer will go up or down??
    Have to keep cool somehow during this event.
    Will enviromental politics influence Piggly-Wiggly owner/operators??

  9. #36

    Default Re: Global Warming ? Hmmmm, not so fast there

    In a study sure to ruffle the feathers of the Global Warming cabal, Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT has published a paper which proves that IPCC models are overstating by 6 times, the relevance of CO2 in Earth’s Atmosphere. Dr. Lindzen has found that heat is radiated out in to space at a far higher rate than any modeling system to date can account for.

    The science is in. the scare is out. Recent papers and data give a complete picture of why the UN is wrong.

    The pdf file located at the link above from the Science and Public Policy Institute has absolutely, convincingly, and irrefutably proven the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming to be completely false.

    Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT’s peer reviewed work states “we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate.”
    The global surface temperature record, which we update and publish
    every month, has shown no statistically-significant “global warming”
    for almost 15 years. Statistically-significant global cooling has now
    persisted for very nearly eight years. Even a strong el Nino – expected
    in the coming months – will be unlikely to reverse the cooling trend.
    More significantly, the ARGO bathythermographs deployed
    throughout the world’s oceans since 2003 show that the top 400
    fathoms of the oceans, where it is agreed between all parties that at
    least 80% of all heat caused by manmade “global warming” must
    accumulate, have been cooling over the past six years. That now prolonged
    ocean cooling is fatal to the “official” theory that “global
    warming” will happen on anything other than a minute scale.
    - SPPI Monthly CO2 Report: July 2009
    If for no other reason than this: the IPCC assumes that the concentration of CO2 in 2100 will be 836 ppmv (parts per million volume). However, current graphs based on real data show that CO2 concentrations will only be 570 ppmv in 2100, cutting the IPCC’s estimates in half right there.
    Another nail in the coffin of Global Warming is the observed rate of temperature change from 1980, which is observed to be 1.5 degrees C per century. The IPCC modeling calls for a range of 2.4 to 5.3 degree increase per century, which is far above what is observed in real data collected between 1980 and 2009. The graph below clearly represents a far different reality as opposed to the predictions.
    Graph A

    Not only is the IPCC basing its predictions on data that has been doubled from observed data, it is overstating the role of CO2 in Climate altogether. As the graph seen below shows, when charted for the years between 2002 and 2009, that solid red median line is going down, indicating global cooling.
    Graph B


    As significant as the above results are, it is not the Pi?ce de r?sistance. What is - the curious minded what to know? It is the ERBE results. The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment with 15 years worth of data. The ERBE result is absolutely devastating to the entire Global Warming Theory.
    The following graph (Graph C) shows the ERBE results in the upper left hand corner, which is real recorded data, not a computer model. The 11 other graphs are the results from the models used by the UN and everyone else which state that more radiation should be held within Earth’s system, thereby causing warming of the climate. More simply put, the UN results illogically predict that as the oceans got warmer, the earth would simply hold more heat. The UN explains that it is CO2 which is holding this extra energy. This theory is not supportable by the simple fact that CO2 cannot hold that much heat, it is a very poor greenhouse gas compared with water. If anything, more clouds -water vapor- would conceivably hold the extra heat, but the corresponding rise in global temperatures this would cause have not been observed. This leaves only one conclusion, the Earth is radiating the extra heat into space, and this is supported by the data.
    The ERBE results, which are factual data from real measurements made by satellite, show the exact opposite result from the UN/IPCC Projections (computer models which are not real data). As seas warm on earth, the earth releases more heat into space and the satellite results prove it.
    Graph C


    Observed reality vs. erroneous computer predictions:

    The mismatch between reality and prediction is entirely clear. It is this
    astonishing graph that provides the final evidence that the UN has
    absurdly exaggerated the effect not only of CO2 but of all greenhouse
    gases on global mean surface temperature. - Lindzen & Choi (2009).
    For the sake of making the above graphs clear in their meanings, the term ?SST stands for Change in Sea Surface Temperature measured in Kelvin (A unit of temperature like to Celsius and Fahrenheit), and is a measurement of change in sea temperatures. A -1.0 number would indicate cooling, a zero reflects no temperature change, and a +1.0 would indicate an increase in temperature.
    ?Flux, The Vertical line in these graphs, measures the change in the amount of radiation released by the planet in the infra-red spectrum, heat in other words. From zero to +6 shows more heat radiated out into space. From zero to -6 shows less heat being radiated into space.
    0 change in ?SST equals 0 change in ?Flux or no change. Less infra-red heat radiation going out into space should correlate to cooler sea surface temperatures, as there is less heat available to radiate out. More heat radiating out appears when sea surface temperature increases have occurred and more heat is available to radiate. Heat is radiated out into space as seas warm, and this overall maintains a climate equilibrium, This is proven by the ERBE graph in Graph C above as well as the other graphs presented in this article, which are based on observed data, not computer models.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •