Deleted
TonyWalsham said:" ' DENIAL' of global warming?" You are trying to paint me into a corner as a denialist, once again, I see. So, as you see it, science really is a matter of consensus. Of course, if that is true, we are no longer talking true science, are we? I have no confidence in the opinion of the heads of governments anywhere in the world, including this one, especially when it comes to matters of science. I am sorry, but I am an American. I do not believe in the almighty wisdom of the government--ANY government. Ours here in the U.S.A. has lately shown itself to be particularly inept when it comes to spending OUR money.
Perhaps Ron can name more Countries in the World than Kuwait and Saudi Arabia where the official policy of that country is denial of Global warming resulting in Climate Change, and that mankind is at least partly to blame?
In any case, all you are really saying is that all THOSE people/governments are for it, so why should I be against it? Sorry, but that is an invalid argument. Nice try throwing in a couple of countries which never evolved past the Dark Ages, but the collective opinions of those two caliphates have no more meaning or value to me than that of the Parliament of Canada, of which I am thoroughly unimpressed. Same goes for most all the other western nations.
Incidentally, I see where Europe is now doing its best to back away from all those obligations they collectively assigned to themselves to reduce CO2 emissions. It appears the true cost of what such ill-advised actions are becoming more apparent.
"… as these Europeans are currently learning the hard way, ratcheting down carbon dioxide emissions in this manner–essentially the rationing of coal, oil, and natural gas–is extremely difficult and expensive. In fact, most of these nations (as well as non-European Kyoto signatories like Canada and Japan) are not reducing their emissions, and indeed several are seeing faster increases than those in the U.S. What little has been accomplished in terms of emissions reductions has come at a high cost for regulated entities, especially smaller ones.
"Many nations committed to emissions reductions under the Kyoto Protocol are going to miss their 2008-12 targets, and efforts underway in Poznan to create additional post-2012 targets are falling apart in the face of economic concerns. In addition, the European Union’s goal of a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, being debated in a separate EU meeting, is garnering strong opposition. This measure will likely be enacted only if riddled with exclusions and delays or sweetened with handouts for the European nations struggling to balance environmental promises with economic realities. . . "
Deleted
TonyWalsham said:
So what you are saying is, all the rest of the other nations in the World can go to heck as their opinions are invalid compared to your own personal opinion eh?How elitist and insular!!! But fair enough I suppose.
The USA agrees with the rest of the World now.
There you go again trying to paint me into a corner because I do not agree with YOUR ideology when all you are really saying is that AGW exists because there is a consensus of governments who say it does. That is faulty logic. Not only is there no SCIENTIFIC consenus on this matter of AGW, but an increasing number of scientists who once were proponents of AGW have since changed their position.
As an example, check this out:
Over 650 Scientists Challenge Global Warming “Consensus”
Twelve times more than those that put their names to the IPCC report ".
Nice try on painting me into a corner–once again. Sorry. You are wrong on this one. Why do you insist on taking what has become an article of left-wing ideology and turning it into scientific dogma? You DO realize that you are not arguing science but politics, don’t you? I KNOW you do, but I want others to realize that too.
Insular and elitist, indeed.
ADDENDA: Here are a few choice quotes from the referenced article from SCIENTISTS:
“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
I think you get the idea . . .
Deleted
This was in my Gmail mailbox from just before Christmas…
Jon.
Kevin Morris said:I'm loosing track of my own posts here. Sorry.
As for "potato", is believe it was Dan Quayle, as well as and English teacher I know, that insisted it was "potatoe". Al Gore, on the other hand, talks about the polar regions but can't pronounce "arctic". It comes out something like "ardic".
Potato, potatoe, it’s honestly something I won’t help my students with!
If anyone is interested here’s a link to volcano activity that is updated weekly.
http://www.volcano.si.edu/reports/usgs/
Jon.
While you guys are debating this “Glowball” warming thing…
…I’M OUTSIDE BLOWING SNOW WITH THE TEMPERATURE HOVERING AROUND -20C…I wish your warming trend would start soon…LIKE, NOW…
Fred, I’m sitting here playing online because I’m putting off cleaning the driveway of the fresh 2 feet of snow that dropped last night…
Jon.
Forget global warming. This will toast all our technology.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=85819
WND SCIENCENETDAILY
NASA: 2012 ‘space Katrina’ may cripple U.S. for months
Damages could be trillions from solar ‘perfect storm’
Posted: January 10, 2009
6:42 pm Eastern
The sun is currently near minimum on its 11-year activity cycle, the report explains, but is expected to produce solar storms that will increase in intensity and frequency as it approaches peak activity levels in 2012.
The NASA report warns that if the sun’s activity over the next few years flares to the level of the May 1921 “superstorm” or the so-called Carrington event of 1859, a “perfect storm” that Space.com called “the most powerful onslaught of solar energy in recorded history,” the U.S. may not be equipped to handle the damages.
David Hill said:
Forget global warming. This will toast all our technology.http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=85819
WIND SCIENCENETDAILY
NASA: 2012 ‘space Katrina’ may cripple U.S. for months
Damages could be trillions from solar ‘perfect storm’
Posted: January 10, 2009
6:42 pm Eastern
.
Exactly. And while we have our western nations’ political systems chasing the non-existent ghost of AGW and prepared to throw countless billions away–much in the same manner that our Treasury Department just threw away 350 billion FOR NOTHING, there are REAL threats out there. Sometimes I think the left is out on a suicide mission of world-wide proportions with the intent of taking us ALL out IF they can’t have their way, which in the end, they won’t. AGW is a scam, folks. They–the AGW proponents (mainly on the left) LIED to us and they persist in the lies even as an increasing number of scientists are trying to find a way to admit they were wrong without jeopardizing their careers. Well good luck on that. We are debating over the existence of a POLITICAL myth–NOT an established scientific fact which is beyond debate. In TRUE science there is no such thing as “beyond debate.” Never. Science is ALWAYS open to debate. THAT is your first clue that something is rotten in Denmark.
Ron Simpson said:David Hill said:
Forget global warming. This will toast all our technology.http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=85819
WIND SCIENCENETDAILY
NASA: 2012 ‘space Katrina’ may cripple U.S. for months
Damages could be trillions from solar ‘perfect storm’
Posted: January 10, 2009
6:42 pm Eastern
.
Exactly. And while we have our western nations’ political systems chasing the non-existent ghost of AGW and prepared to throw countless billions away–much in the same manner that our Treasury Department just threw away 350 billion FOR NOTHING, there are REAL threats out there. Sometimes I think the left is out on a suicide mission of world-wide proportions with the intent of taking us ALL out IF they can’t have their way, which in the end, they won’t. AGW is a scam, folks. They–the AGW proponents (mainly on the left) LIED to us and they persist in the lies even as an increasing number of scientists are trying to find a way to admit they were wrong without jeopardizing their careers. Well good luck on that. We are debating over the existence of a POLITICAL myth–NOT an established scientific fact which is beyond debate. In TRUE science there is no such thing as “beyond debate.” Never. Science is ALWAYS open to debate. THAT is your first clue that something is rotten in Denmark.
I see, so the solar storm IS a REAL THREAT, that we need to panic over, but science is ALWAYS open to debate, and global warming is a fake? That should tell you something interesting rght there.
You’re lecturing the rest of us on how science is always open to debate? Have you actually read any of the posts here? Over and over, people arguing for global warming have agreed that science is never perfect, never absolutely right. But they, and I, have also argued that a preponderance of evidence seems to support global warming. Now, if I were to see the majority of evidence pointing the other way, I’d change my mind. It’s all about the evidence. But you have to load your argument up with self flattery about the road to serfdom and how people who support global warming are mindlessly seeking a leader to save them. What a load of preening
Gee Mike, you seem upset about something. Is that why you are resorting to the personal attack?
http://www.largescalecentral.com/LSCForums/viewtopic.php?id=10371
Steve Featherkile said:That is because this is not really a scientific argument. It is a political one. That has been my point all along. There is NO preponderance of evidence on the AGW side. AGW gains its weight from faulty computer models, improperly read ice core samples and because a recent period of warming, probably brought on by ocean oscillations and El Niño plus the effects of heavy sunspot activity seemed to support AGW. Of course, all that is over now and we appear to have entered a cycle of increasingly cold weather. Certainly we have had NO measurable warming in the last DECADE and our winters are definitely getting colder. I sincerely would wish otherwiset, as I would much rather see some real global warming. Regrettably, the PREPONDERANCE of evidence indicates otherwise. That won't stop the left from continuing to push an AGW agenda that has the effect of severely restricting our economy, of course. Reason be damned. However, the public is beginning to catch on.
Gee Mike, you seem upset about something. Is that why you are resorting to the personal attack?
And, of course, political arguments these days do tend to get nasty, don’t they?
Gee, and I was counting on some global warming to get a longer growing season for my hops. :lol:
Steve Featherkile said:Steve, do you grow hops? I've thought about giving it a try but everyone tells me I'm nuts. We've had a small vineyard in our yard for about 18 years with great success.
Gee, and I was counting on some global warming to get a longer growing season for my hops. :lol:
Jon.
Yeah, I’ve got a couple of vines I’ve been trying to kill for the last few years. Can’t beat them to death with a stick!
Seriously, I planted them just to see if they would grow at this altitude (2600 ft). They do fine. I am seriously considering putting some acreage to use.
If you can grow grapes, I think that you would be able to grow hops.
Ralph Berg said:I took a look at that graph on DVD. I paused it and looked for some time. But I don't see what you see. On the near-vertical lines on the graph, the thickness of the line is maybe 500-1000 years. It just isn't precise enough to say which line leads or follows the other.
Just using Al's 650,000 year graph to illustrate the trends. The graph shows that the temperature rises before the Co2 does. Both rise between ice ages and fall during ice ages. Ralph
The graph wasn’t intended to be that precise. It simply implies that there is a consistent relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature.
You’re right though, that there were previous hot times, as shown on the graph. But the problem now is that there are billions of people living in coastal areas and therefore very vulnerable to even a small change in sea level.