Reply With Quote
anyone who's a real conservative simply supported McCain because they didn't want Obama in office. pulling the McCain card is dumb.
So, one with a B.S. in Geology trumps Ph.D. geologists who support global warming?
anyone who's a real conservative simply supported McCain because they didn't want Obama in office. pulling the McCain card is dumb.
Ah yes, because two El Nino related cold winters counteract all of the other ecological, geological and meteorological evidence. Mmmmmm.
The Keeling curve illustrates the increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1958, increasing by 2-3ppm/yr, that is undisputed. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that is undisputed.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.
Which is all totally irrelevant as those standards were set to deal with particulates and smog, a seperate issue fromn CO2 pollution.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.
The world still suffers from pollution-related acid rain, and cars are still major polluters, just not as bad as what they were in terms of particulates and sulphur oxides.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.
Most of the atmosphere (over 78%) is nitrogen... so what? Only a non-scientist would make a claim like "it's small therefore changing it won't affect anything". Look instead at the % increase (and he got those figures wrong anyway - pre-industrial CO2 conc. was about 250ppm, not 215) - about a 35% change in a century. Perturb any system by 35% and you will get significant changes to the sytem.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.
A complete misinterpretation of what the IPCC actually does. IPCC reports are conglomerations of science published in respecteed journals from universities and other scientific organisation across the globe - they do NOT produce the science, they just compile it into one report, which shoots his grand conspiracy theory in the head... with a shotgun.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.
Hmmmmm, more money being made by carbon credit business and scientific grants or Big Oil/Coal? About 10,000x more by the latter. Yet another straw man.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.
Ah yes, the delightful Fred Singer, noted hired-gun for cigarette companies ("there is no link between smoking and cancer") and oil companies ("there is no link between the trillions of tons of CO2 we've pumped into the atmosphere and a changing climate"). I wouldn't piss on the guy if he was on fire.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.
No debate? Hahahahahahaha - these guys lost the debate 10 years ago, the just won't admit it. Want to debate climate science with real scientists, there is open, unmoderated debate of the science here: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.
http://www.realclimate.org/
Um, no. Offsetting, now there is a scam. Offsetting is bull . If we want to save this planet we have to consume less and consume cleaner... and you know what, you don't have to pay anyone a dime to do that, you do it yourself and it actually SAVES you money.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.
Um, no. How can it have been "hobbled for decades" by climate change when climate change has only actually been recognised by the US government in the last 2 years??? America's oilfields dried up, that's why there's been no drilling. As for ANWAR, there's about 12bil barrels there, or enough to run the US economy for 2 years.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.
Making ethanol from crops - bad idea. Indefensible. This moron should have done an article on that.
Because you've studied the science? No. Because you've trolled the net and re-hashed a populist conspiracy theory. Yes. You haven't even addressed the science!And, I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.
No, people like you are the scammers, and I hope that as we watch our planet's climate change due to the greed, laziness and stupidity of our species, endangering all that we have built in this wonderful civilisation, that one day we can hang people like you who use spurious argumants and misinformation to mislead laymen and excuse us from action. You are traitors to our species.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.
Articles like this make me furious because laymen will read it, and the author is clever enough to fool people into thinking that maybe it makes some sense. In fact, he has not addressed the science in any way, all he's done is rehash an old conspiracy theory and dress it up a little.
He hasn't refuted any of the science. His only scientific claim was that CO2 makes up a small part of the atmosphere and therefore changing its concentration won't have an effect. Hmmmm, let's examine that for a moment. So, by his rationale, CO2 is a meaningless gas - that is, if it was removed entirely from the atmosphere we wouldn't notice a difference. Um, no. The planet would lose vast quan ies of heat that would not be absorbed and re-radiated by CO2 at wavelengths that do not escape the atmophere, not to mention the fact that every photosynthetic plant on earth would die since CO2 is food for them*. CO2, a large part of the carbon cycle, affects both life and climate intimately, and we've just changed the concentration of it in the atmosphere by 35% - to believe that will not have effects is ABSURD. This guy is a ing moron
*studies show that some plants have problems in elevated CO2 conditions whilst others thrive, specifically eucalypts. Prepare for eucalypts to invade a space near you!
I love all you dumbass liberals who think you are smart, yet can't even see this scam owning all of you morons. 99% on this forum will shrug off this comment, but maybe one will finally question The Goracle.
THE GOVERNMENT IS USING YOUR GOOD INTENTIONS TO GAIN MORE CONTROL OVER BUSINESS & CITIZENS. YOU GET NOTHING OUT OF IT. THEY ARE LINING THEIR POCKETS OFF THE SCAM. Yet many of you will support THEM to the end. Why.
So ing easy to see from the start. Some will never get it. I'd throw up a laughter smiley, but the isn't really funny anymore.
Pulling the "I know more than you" card because you claim to "understand" the science behind global warming is ing re ed at best.
You republican hardliners are beyond idiotic.
Hey, McCain lost . . . by a landslide.
What wasn't funny was the conservatives letting Wall Street butt the American Public.I love all you dumbass liberals who think you are smart, yet can't even see this scam owning all of you morons. 99% on this forum will shrug off this comment, but maybe one will finally question The Goracle.
THE GOVERNMENT IS USING YOUR GOOD INTENTIONS TO GAIN MORE CONTROL OVER BUSINESS & CITIZENS. YOU GET NOTHING OUT OF IT. THEY ARE LINING THEIR POCKETS OFF THE SCAM. Yet many of you will support THEM to the end. Why.
So ing easy to see from the start. Some will never get it. I'd throw up a laughter smiley, but the isn't really funny anymore.
That wasn't funny at all.
But, hey, you Bushies will try to put a positive spin on it anyway.
Yeah dude, we are getting taxed for CO2.Hopefully the 2009 Tea.
LOL
Dang!
Speaking of butt ing the financial system all this time I thought Barnie Butt Frank was a democrat!
....blame Barney Frank!
What about Phil Gramm and John McCain, the Bush SEC and the do-nothing
GOP congress for not regulating derivatives and CBOs?
Einstein was a patent clerk.
Credentials don't mean when there isn't any proof of AGW. They have proof of warming which doesn't surprise anyone who looks at the geologic record.
They have no proof of a link between CO2 rising and it warming up. They have a 100 year trend with hot times in the middle and end and an almost constant rise in CO2 levels...
Meanwhile, I can post a 600 million year trend of atmospheric CO2 and no one wants to talk about it because it even further s up their argument of CO2 being a climate driver.
Are you seriously comparing yourself to Einstein?
As for credentials not meaning . . . that's got to be the stupidest argument I've ever heard.
So, you're saying that you know more than a Ph.D?
Your idiocy knows no bounds.
Besides, before Einstein started working in the patent office, (out of necessity, by the way), he had already published 2 scientific works. And, that was before he graduated with a degree in physics.
Exactly what have you published?
I'm amazed that a would be Einstein spends his time posting on SpursTalk.
LOL
McCain: "You know, that there’s been tremendous turmoil in our financial markets and Wall Street and it is — people are frightened by these events. Our economy, I think, still the fundamentals of our economy are strong."
Hahaha, that was priceless!
Ok dip , you got me. I can't argue with a PHD because he has more credentials. WHAT THE GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO ARGUE WITH ME? What is your scientific background besides making that icing volcano in 3rd grade?
That's why I said credentials didn't mean right after I used Einstein as evidence... so you wouldn't be able to take the tact that you did. But you, being the obtuse dip that you are decided to go ahead in spite of that anyway.
Nice failed flame. You have yet to dispute anything that I have said. You have not discussed the graph I posted that is 5 MILLION times the sample that most "Climate Scare" proponents use in their "proof" of AGW.
I would say THAT was the most idiotic thing that I had ever heard... if YOU HAD EVEN ING SAID ANYTHING! Say something useful or shut the up.
Hey, Einstein protege, how can I possibly argue with such a great intellect as yourself?
All I know is that there are people far more intelligent than yourself, with more and better credentials than the ones you have, that agree with global warming.
However, you don't need that much schooling to know that man made pollutants are indeed detrimental to the environment.
Hey, where did you get that cute little graph anyway?
Go look up Scotese and Bemer.
They are PHD's...
There are references on the graph to show you the sources of the information so people can look up the research.
Did they not teach you that in 3rd grade science class?
That's already been explained to him countless times. He still just doesn't get it.
I guess you have neither read, or understand the numerous thing I posted about global warming in the Political Forum then.
I don't have to say I know more than you on the subject. It's flat out obvious!
How can the Bushies spin that when democrats controlled congress since January 2007?
Isn't you lib s throwing blame on the republicans when the republicans couldn't to about it?
Absolutely. When republicans tried to stop this from happening, Barney Frank was the most vocal advocate in congress for the lending industry practices!....blame Barney Frank!
What about Phil Gramm and John McCain, the Bush SEC and the do-nothing
GOP congress for not regulating derivatives and CBOs?
Ever hear of an autodidact?
That is what I am. Like Mark Twain, I have never let schooling interfere with my education!
Why is someone who is taught and test well, better than someone who through personal desire, seeks out facts? I say those with personal motivation do better!
Formal education is far too slow for me. A waste of time. I have better things to do with my time than sit in boring classes.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
