Reply With Quote
it's the new home of the communist party.
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../38574742.html
The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax we citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way, the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have lead to a rise in public awareness that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not a significant greenhouse gas that is triggering runaway global warming.
How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government we have to struggle so to stop it?
The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Ins ute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle saw the opportunity to obtain major funding from the Navy for doing measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Ins ute’s areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago, who was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle tagged on to Suess studies and co-authored a paper with him in 1957. The paper raises the possibility that the carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. It seems to be a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle’s mind was most of the time.
Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1960 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels.
These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.
Now let me take you back to the1950s when this was going on. Our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution from the crude internal combustion engines that powered cars and trucks back then and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. Cars and factories and power plants were filling the air with all sorts of pollutants. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution and a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action. Government accepted this challenge and new environmental standards were set. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed for cars, as were new high tech, computer controlled engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer big time polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. Likewise, new fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced, as well.
But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. So the research papers from Scripps came at just the right moment. And, with them came the birth of an issue; man-made global warming from the carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.
Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants began to flow and alarming hypothesis began to show up everywhere.
The Keeling curve showed a steady rise in CO2 in atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. As of today, carbon dioxide has increased from 215 to 385 parts per million. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. While the increase is real, the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about .41 hundredths of one percent.
Several hypothesis emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. Years have passed and the scientists kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.
Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation’s bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meeting.
Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations, a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But, he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This was not a pure climate study scientific organization, as we have been lead to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved the UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels. Over the last 25 years they have been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, the UN IPCC has made its points to the satisfaction of most and even shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.
At the same time, that Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950’s as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Ins ute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.
He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students to become a major global warming activist. This student would say later, "It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!" The student described him as "a wonderful, visionary professor" who was "one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming," That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book Earth in the Balance, published in 1992.
So there it is, Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his movie, his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business.
What happened next is amazing. The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause celeb of the media. After all the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too.
But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at 65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There he had time to rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, "My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways." He added, "…we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer."
And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Ins ute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge negative impact on the economy and jobs and our standard of living. I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer. He assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem.
Did Roger Revelle attend the Summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in the Summer of 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore onto this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, "I think so, but I do not know it for certain". I have not managed to get it confirmed as of this moment. It’s a little like Las Vegas; what is said at the Bohemian Grove stays at the Bohemian Grove. There are no transcripts or recordings and people who attend are encouraged not to talk. Yet, the topic is so important, that some people have shared with me on an informal basis.
Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam.
Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle’s Mea culpa as the actions of senile old man. And, the next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate, From 1992 until today, he and his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when ask about we skeptics they simply insult us and call us names.
So today we have the acceptance of carbon dioxide as the culprit of global warming. It is concluded that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a das ly carbon footprint which we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists to offset. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course.
We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by no drilling and no new refineries for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that the whole thing about corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies. That also has driven up food prices. And, all of this is a long way from over.
And, I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.
Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a highjacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history.
it's the new home of the communist party.
Then get the out.
Global Warming means hotter summers, colder winters and extreme storms.
I'm pretty sure we're seeing all that happening.
So, there's no point to this thread.
Just keep drinking the Kool-Aid. As someone who understands the sciences involved, I have been saying it's a crock of for years.
What it means is that it's all a crock of .
listen lee harvey, do you only know how foolish you sound on the internet? didn't you also say you were going to move to Chile if McCain won.
It's manbearpig, stupid.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01...climate_theon/
I'm a sceptic now, says ex-NASA climate boss
Hansen supervisor takes aim at the armageddon
By Andrew Orlowski • Get more from this author
Posted in Environment, 28th January 2009 14:18 GMT
The retired scientist formerly in charge of key NASA climate programs has come out as a sceptic.
Dr John Theon, who supervised James Hansen - the activist-scientist who helped give the manmade global warming hypothesis centre prominent media attention - repents at length in a published letter. Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009, and excerpts were published by skeptic Senator Inhofe's office here last night.
"As Chief of several of NASA Headquarters’ programs (1982-94), an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research," Theon wrote. "I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made.”
Theon takes aim at the models, and implicitly criticises Hansen for revising to the data set:
“My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit. Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it.
"They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.”
Hansen is in charge of the GISS data set, derived from readings published by NOAA. The GISS adjustment have received criticism (a potted summary here) for revising the historic record in an upward direction - and making undo ented and unexplained revisions.
Theon also takes issue with Hansen's claim that he was suppressed by NASA officialdom, and states that the science didn't support Hansen's increasingly apocalyptic warnings of an imminent thermageddon.
“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA's official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind's effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress."
Hansen has called for energy industry executives to be jailed for dissenting from the man-made warming hypothesis.
I hate cold weather.
It only requires one more course in college to get a degree as a climatologist rather than a meteorologist. You need more courses in the geosciences to understand the complete earth system enough to make claim to global warming.
the greatest scam in history is organized religion.
And exactly how many of those classes have you taken?
I have no doubt you believe that.
All one has to do is prove conclusively that something else has caused warming trends other than man-made greenhouse gases, and provide enough weight of evidence for honest scientists who actually are good critical thinkers to find that the evidence points to the alternative.
It isn't some secret, it just takes people who are good at critical thinking, which is not something that political hacks who pretend to be scientists generally excel at.
The right's problem with this is that, like WC and seemingly yourself, you can't envision people who don't really have a political agenda, because you are so mired in your own political blinders that it is inconceivable that there are people who aren't.
"I am a political hack, so EVERYBODY must be a political hack of one shade or another, and incapable of honestly evaluating evidence."
That is an erroneous assumption.
I don't have the time to delve into this to the level of being able to really truly evaluate the data. I have said as much.
What I, and just about everybody else for that matter, am faced with is formulating a course of action based on known data and weigh evidence according to a subjective assessment of reliability.
You have proven yourself to be biased and generally untrustworthy when it comes to intellectual honesty about the strengths and weaknesses of your assertions. I cannot trust your evaluation of this data with any real degree of certainty.
By the same token, you and Darrin have provided some fair evidence that the bodies behind the bulk of the AGW theory have some of the same intellectual blinders that you do.
There exists on one hand, a fair amount of data supporting a conclusion from someone absolutely known to be biased, but cannot be logically dismissed as incorrect simply because they are not honest.
There exists on the other hand, data from people who do appear to have some bias, but who have a lot of data that supports a completely opposite conclusion. This also cannot be logicaly dismissed as incorrect simply because of this bias.
I still need to make a decision, because there is at least a reasonable possibility that the IPCC is at least somewhat correct.
The worst case scenario for AGW may indeed be unlikely or even remote, but the conservative risk-mitigation strategy says that a moderate effort to avoid this is warranted.
If it really turns out to be false, we have not broken the bank to avoid AGW, and if it turns out to be true, we have at the very least bought ourselves as a civilization time to fix/avoid the worst.
This is especially true since WC and the "deniers" (for wont of a better term) can provide so little evidence of how likely their worst-case scenario is, i.e. a ruined economy. That it is reasonably possible suggests we moderate our response, as I have advocated. It is also reasonably possible that our economy will actually grow faster if we act to cut our greenhouse gas emissions. This mitigating factor adds to the case for acting to cut them.
This is how to deal with uncertainties. You evaluate risks, data, and a course of action and find the solution that offers the best mitigation of known risks.
I don't completely understand all of the data, nor do I have time to do so. I don't have to in order to decide on a course of action.
it's all been just a big scam this whole time?
cool, now I can go toss my Prius and go back to my 5 mpg Hummer. Thanks Tlong.
Shoog goes out to the country and burns tires. I've seen him
I would have too. And I'm serious now. Since you're dumb & crazy enough to truly think America is a communist nation, get the out. If I thought this place was commie, I'd bounce too. Fortunately, I'm not a horrible neo-con ideologue, so I'm not dumb or crazy enough to think America is a communist nation, but if I did, I'd grow a pair and leave.
Last edited by balli; 01-30-2009 at 01:27 PM.
i didn't say America is a communist nation. I said the global warming crowd is the new home of the communist party.
Dude, get real. Don't come in here and call the vast majority of the American public communists. You don't know what the you're talking about. You can't just call people commies because you're a skeptic of GW. What the you know about Marxism, Leninsm, Trotskyism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc, that you would dare accuse hundreds of millions of red blooded Americans of subscribing to such theories? Not a damn thing.
You're an intellectually worthless joke. And if you want a response that more serious than, "get the out," put forth a post that would deserve it. Ass ignorant jerkoff.
lee harvey, you have problems with your reading comprehension. because I said the GW crowd is the new home of the communist party doesn't mean everyone in the GW crowd is a communist. Math baby, it's a beautiful thing.
Just what global-warming trends are you talking about? Global climatic change has occurred thoughout the earth's history.
randomguy invading this thread, spewing his bull ...who DIDN'T see that one coming...
-Mars
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
