For several years, the environmental groups have been using junk science to push their lies of global warming being caused by the activities of humans. When in fact, any warming of the planet that does take place, is completely natural and out of control of anything that man does. In fact, as time goes on, scientific evidence actually goes against the theory of global warming as is presented to us by the conventional environmental groups.
So what is it going to take to educate the population on the true scientific facts of this issue??? What is it going to take to set the public straight on the true myth of global warming??? Edited to reduce page distortion due to overlong URL.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 2277 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
So, give us some scientific sources to support your contention. A hyperbolic axe-grinder of the air waves does not qualify, nor does your simple say-so. **************************************************** 06-21-02, 01:12 PM Lighteningrodd
quote:Originally posted by Minnesota: Lightening
So, give us some scientific sources to support your contention. A hyperbolic axe-grinder of the air waves does not qualify, nor does your simple say-so.
Minnesota-If this is not enough, I can find some more. Have fun!!! Think I'll go outside for a while!!! cool
Minnesota-If this is not enough, I can find some more. Have fun!!! Think I'll go outside for a while!!!
06-21-02, 01:35 PM Minnesota Thanks guys, I appreciate the effort.
06-21-02, 05:44 PM EBknowsBUBBA
quote:Originally posted by Minnesota: Lightening
So, give us some scientific sources to support your contention. A hyperbolic axe-grinder of the air waves does not qualify, nor does your simple say-so.
Actually I have always enjoyed listening to the "hyperbolic axe-grinderof the air waves". I have noticed when Rush discusses the subject of Global Warming, and other subjects as well, he will always cite his sources.
06-23-02, 04:32 PM dogspit The problem I find with the data quoted by both sides of the argument is their willingness to interpolate short-term data and apply it as they see fit to a global system that has existed for so long. The data covers a speck of time, and can be warped through any paradigm you choose to reach your own conclusions. We have been part of the eco-system on Earth a relatively short period of time, and have gathered meaningful data even less time. Either side could easily be right or wrong. I feel that reducing airborne contaminants is a good idea, but I feel no need to use global warming as a reason, common sense will suffice.
06-28-02, 06:57 PM mahal You know, I once heard this very episode of Rush about 8 years ago. (I used to listen religiously to his 3-hour radio show for a good laugh, much the same reason I listen to Howard Stern now.)
I remember his quote, "If global warming is fact, then God has let us down!"
Well, global warming is a fact, it just happens to be a very small one right now, just a few degrees on the high end of the mean average. Who knows if the trend will continue?
I have faith that nature is filled with counter-balances, and that the trend will correct itself, and eventually we'll discover why. Or, nature will correct itself by destroying the human infestation. Who knows?
Personally, I'm more worried about pumping pollution into the air than I am about the "greenhouse gases" craze.
A report from CNN discussing the rising temperature change.
09-27-02, 11:14 PM DvdGStwrt Global Warming and You.
You can either accept it, or you can deny it.
If you accept it, perhaps you will do a little something to reduce the Carbon Monoxide and other green house gasses in the atmosphere. If nothing come of it, then fine, no harm done.
If you deny it, and continue to pump loads of Carbon Monoxide and Green House gasses into the atmosphere AND it is true...
How will you explain that to your Children and Grandchildren?
As I recall, we have discovered that certain materials we used in building were actually very toxic - oops - Our fore fathers didn't know, so we forgave them. But what if they did know, and still used these things, would we have been quick to forgive?
The fact remains that we are dumping a lot of Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide, and methane and clorine and... well the list is endless really - into our atmosphere on a daily basis - Trust me, pollution is a threat to all of us a very real threat, climate changes or not.
Sure, maybe the sea will not rise, maybe the weather will stay the same, but the atmosphere will be unbreathable -
David
PS, the Central Valley of California not only set new weather records, but also set a new all time high for bad air quality days - New highs on how bad, and new highs on how many days out of the year.
I just ran across this article. I thought it might be applicable here.
10-02-02, 01:52 AM chanceygardner There is the natural phonemenon of the earth's magnetic field weakening...it has been doing this for a while now and a weakening magnetic field allows more solar rays to penetrate the earths atmosphere....ergo: global warming. NB: a weakening magnetic field is a precursor to a magnetic pole flip...this would also be an ecological disaster, since at that time, the magnetic field is very weak. 11-25-02, 09:43 PM babthrower Chancey, why does the magnetic field flip?
11-25-02, 11:52 PM Minnesota It should be pointed out that the current weakening of the magnetic field is not thought to be responsible for the today's trend toward global warming. Also, not all weakenings of the magnetic field lead to a reversal of the poles.
Babs, the reason for the reversal of the poles is not at all understood, although science does have its theories.
11-26-02, 02:34 AM babthrower It depends where you get your science information from. If you get it from the media, they always hype it - always - and skip the fine print.
Every single scientific report I've read ends with a disclaimer - words to the effect that it is too soon to tell, and we need more data over a longer period of time, when the subject is global warming.
Suppose you read this imaginary headline, or saw it on TV news:
SCIENTISTS SAY DOOM ASTEROID THREATENS EARTH!!!
Then you track down the reference. It's something like this:
"Spacewatch, at an observatory in southern Arizona, is searching for asteroids in outer space. Only a small percentage of these rogue asteroids have been found by skywatchers who have identified 160 so far.
"More than a million asteroids currently fly along a belt between Mars and Jupiter. Since 1983, Spacewatch program has frequently spotted asteroids that had strayed from the main belt, taking on trajectories that could intersect with other planets.
"The odds of a catastrophic impact occurring in the next century are vanishingly small.
"But it will happen, eventually, a Spacewatch spokesman said.
"An Armageddon-style asteroid or comet such as the one that may have caused the dinosaurs' demise 65 million years ago may only hit Earth once every million years or so."
Why does the media hype science - and everything else, for that matter?
Well, if the headline read, "Relax. Asteroid risk 'vanishingly small', scientists say", no one would buy the paper.
11-28-02, 11:26 PM scubyfan i find this thread ridiculous, but in a fun way.
why is global warming refered to as the "greenhouse effect"? it is because, similar to a green house, the build-up of carbon dioxide prompts an increase in temperature, due to the inability of the sun's rays to escape the atmosphere. one of the by-products of fossil fuel combustion is carbon dioxide, among other chemicals. hence, it should follow that the temperature should increase, albeit in small incriments.
Ridiculous thread??? Perhaps. Then I find many of the so-called environmentalist claims to be ridiculous. Yet they seem to get away with slanting their position.
Here is the results of a study by the Geological Society of America. Some interesting findings. Seems they believe our climate changes to be naturally occuring.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
I thought it might be interesting to resurrect this thread in light of more recent information. It's amazing how much has been learned in less than 5 years.
Posts: 17027 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Easterbrook is a source of much amusement (and often annoyance) to scientists whenever he comments on anything scientific, be it global warming, evolution, or string theory (he's made a fool of himself on all three). It doesn't much matter that he is now an ignorant "convert" rather than the ignorant "skeptic" he once was.
But with regards to the rest of the article...
Take this:
Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in carbon dioxide should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed, assuming that the small observed increase was in fact due to increasing carbon dioxide rather than a natural fluctuation in the climate system.
Well, no. Actual warming fall right in line with the "most probable predictions." That being scenario B in this graph, according to Jame's Hansen's 1988 congressional testimony: EDIT: ok, I can't get it to show up. Click here and scroll about 1/3 of the way down. Models of the climate taking into account everything except greenhouse gases fail miserably. See, for example, this: from the IPCC report. Pink shows the modeling including greenhouse gases, blue shows the modeling excluding greenhouse gases, and black shows reality.
"remaining essentially flat since 1998." Bull. 1998 is a favorite year of global warming "skeptics". It was the warmest year on record (a product of those natural variations (el nino) and global warming), so if you simply compare it to the present year, you can actually claim cooling. Take a look at this graph though: Can you seriously tell me that the trend isn't still upwards?
"A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found" Yes, and Peiser has since admitted that he was wrong. In fact, he has publicaly withdrawn his criticism and now can only point to a single article, published in the American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin. It's unclear to me whether that article was in Oreskes random sampling, since before Peiser admitted he was wrong, he admitted he didn't actually look at the same articles as Oresekes.
I'd go on, but I've got some actual science to do....
Here's a good read. Written by Richard S. Lindzen. He acknowledges warming, but basically says, 'big deal'.
"Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies."
My link is also to Lindzen. Naturally he has become a controversial figure. His detractors will talk about fees he charged energy companies for consulting work, etc. I think it's important for us to question, probe and discover as much as possible and his position needs to be heard. Someone once took issue with my link to a letter against Kyoto to the Canadian government signed by 60 scientists. This, to me, is evidence against there being a concensus.
Posts: 7742 | Location: in the backwoods of North Carolina | Registered: 06-07-02
There's a pretty wide variety of methods used. The land and ocean thermometer record goes back to about 1850 (records exist from before that, but they don't have enough coverage or accuracy). Weather balloons go back to the late 1950s (again, records go back further, but coverage wasn't sufficient until then). Satellite data starts in the late 1970s. There are also various proxies that reinforce the measurement record, some of which can also be used to go back further in time. I once knew more about the details, but I've forgotten much of it now.
