Page 103 of 366 FirstFirst ... 3539399100101102103104105106107113153203 ... LastLast
Results 1,531 to 1,545 of 5480
  1. #1531
    Joined
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    10,610

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    1530 posts on something you think is a sham. Me thinks you try too hard. The sham is pretty obvious.


    "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them."
    - Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

  2. #1532
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    71
    Posts
    21,680

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Global Warming Scientist Once Warned Of 'Ice Age'
    Written by: Doug G. Ware
    Email: dware@kutv2.com
    Last Update: 9/22/2007 6:54 pm


    A NASA scientist, who is now sounding the alarm over global warming's threat to the planet, once believed that pumping too many greenhouse gases into the air would have the opposite effect -- a modern day ice age.

    James Hansen is currently among scientists who believe that carbon dioxide emissions are warming the planet's atmosphere -- posing a grave threat to the environment and humans' ability to adapt to it. Many others -- like public preachers Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio -- share the same view in what seems to be the "hot button" issue of the moment.

    But 36-years ago, it appears, Hansen had a completely different warning -- in what may be the scientific equivalent of a grandiose political 'flip-flop.'

    In a Washington Post story dated July 9, 1971, Hansen -- then a research associate at Columbia University -- warned of a modern day ice age, which would cause the planet's temperature to plummet as many as six degrees.

    The reason, he said then, was a fine dust emitted into the air via carbon dioxide pollution that would eventually become so dense that it would block sunlight and result in cooler temperatures -- a scenario exactly the opposite of what leading climatologists say is happening now, that greenhouse gases are trapping heat inside the Earth's atmosphere.

    Hansen and one of his research partners believed that the problem was so severe that the "ice age" could happen between five and ten years after the report -- putting the prediction for extreme global cooling between about 1976 and 1981.

    It didn't happen.

    Now a scientist for NASA, Hansen is facing criticism by some for an immense change of heart. How could he have predicted something so importunate at the time -- only to make a 180-degree turn 35-years later, and completely head in the opposite direction?

    In fact, the 1971 report even claims that Hansen and his associate dismissed the idea of global warming.

    "They found no need to worry about the carbon dioxide that fuel-burning puts in the atmosphere," the Washington Post report said.


    Copyright 2007 Four Points. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


    http://www.kutv.com/news/local/story...9ASXcYr4Q.cspx



    Please Talk with Your Grandfather

    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailin...randfather.pdf


    Shut up you little brat the planet is yours when I say it is...



    Well of course it’s swift boating…
    Last edited by tucker; 01-03-2009 at 07:51 PM.

  3. #1533
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,287

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    HuffPo: Gore Should Apologize for Spreading Climate Hysteria

    Did you ever in your wildest dreams imagine seeing an article at the liberal website the Huffington Post that not only refuted the anthropogenic global warming myth, but also asked Nobel Laureate Al Gore to apologize for the climate hysteria he's caused?

    No...neither did I.

    Unfortunately, Harold Ambler's "Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted" wasn't featured on HuffPo's home page when it was published late Saturday morning, nor was it included in the site's featured posts.

    Instead, it was buried in the e-zine's Green section well under eight other articles, some published three days earlier. These included climate alarmist Joseph Romm's January 1 post "The Top 10 Global Warming Stories of 2008."

    But, at least it was published:

    Mr. Gore has stated, regarding climate change, that "the science is in." Well, he is absolutely right about that, except for one tiny thing. It is the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind.
    As this is a lengthy debunking of the junk science typically disseminated by liberal outlets like HuffPo, I recommend readers review the entire marvelous piece.

    That said, if Arianna's goal in allowing Ambler to publish this article was to provide some balance to her website's typical alarmism, it would be more believable if pieces by realists actually made it to the front page.

    On the flipside, Saturday's front page did include a link to a Times Online piece dealing with well-known climate realist Vaclav Klaus's views on global warming.

    Makes one wonder why Arianna's people would bury a similarly skeptical article written by one of their own contributors.

    Any guesses?
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  4. #1534
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,287

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    ^^^ Article from above post. I'll preempt a lil boilerplate by stating up front I have not thoroughly researched every paper this guy has ever written.... the article probably has not been "peer reviewed".... nor do I expect the guy is a "climate expert".

    Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted

    You are probably wondering whether President-elect Obama owes the world an apology for his actions regarding global warming. The answer is, not yet. There is one person, however, who does. You have probably guessed his name: Al Gore.

    Mr. Gore has stated, regarding climate change, that "the science is in." Well, he is absolutely right about that, except for one tiny thing. It is the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind.

    What is wrong with the statement? A brief list:

    1. First, the expression "climate change" itself is a redundancy, and contains a lie. Climate has always changed, and always will. There has been no stable period of climate during the Holocene, our own climatic era, which began with the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago. During the Holocene there have been numerous sub-periods with dramatically varied climate, such as the warm Holocene Optimum (7,000 B.C. to 3,000 B.C., during which humanity began to flourish, and advance technologically), the warm Roman Optimum (200 B.C. to 400 A.D., a time of abundant crops that promoted the empire), the cold Dark Ages (400 A.D. to 900 A.D., during which the Nile River froze, major cities were abandoned, the Roman Empire fell apart, and pestilence and famine were widespread), the Medieval Warm Period (900 A.D. to 1300 A.D., during which agriculture flourished, wealth increased, and dozens of lavish examples of Gothic architecture were created), the Little Ice Age (1300 to 1850, during much of which plague, crop failures, witch burnings, food riots -- and even revolutions, including the French Revolution -- were the rule of thumb), followed by our own time of relative warmth (1850 to present, during which population has increased, technology and medical advances have been astonishing, and agriculture has flourished).

    So, no one needs to say the words "climate" and "change" in the same breath -- it is assumed, by anyone with any level of knowledge, that climate changes. That is the redundancy to which I alluded. The lie is the suggestion that climate has ever been stable. Mr. Gore has used a famously inaccurate graph, known as the "Mann Hockey Stick," created by the scientist Michael Mann, showing that the modern rise in temperatures is unprecedented, and that the dramatic changes in climate just described did not take place. They did. One last thought on the expression "climate change": It is a retreat from the earlier expression used by alarmists, "manmade global warming," which was more easily debunked. There are people in Mr. Gore's camp who now use instances of cold temperatures to prove the existence of "climate change," which is absurd, obscene, even.

    2. Mr. Gore has gone so far to discourage debate on climate as to refer to those who question his simplistic view of the atmosphere as "flat-Earthers." This, too, is right on target, except for one tiny detail. It is exactly the opposite of the truth.

    Indeed, it is Mr. Gore and his brethren who are flat-Earthers. Mr. Gore states, ad nauseum, that carbon dioxide rules climate in frightening and unpredictable, and new, ways. When he shows the hockey stick graph of temperature and plots it against reconstructed C02 levels in An Inconvenient Truth, he says that the two clearly have an obvious correlation. "Their relationship is actually very complicated," he says, "but there is one relationship that is far more powerful than all the others, and it is this: When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer." The word "complicated" here is among the most significant Mr. Gore has uttered on the subject of climate and is, at best, a deliberate act of obfuscation. Why? Because it turns out that there is an 800-year lag between temperature and carbon dioxide, unlike the sense conveyed by Mr. Gore's graph. You are probably wondering by now -- and if you are not, you should be -- which rises first, carbon dioxide or temperature. The answer? Temperature. In every case, the ice-core data shows that temperature rises precede rises in carbon dioxide by, on average, 800 years. In fact, the relationship is not "complicated." When the ocean-atmosphere system warms, the oceans discharge vast quantities of carbon dioxide in a process known as de-gassing. For this reason, warm and cold years show up on the Mauna Loa C02 measurements even in the short term. For instance, the post-Pinatubo-eruption year of 1993 shows the lowest C02 increase since measurements have been kept. When did the highest C02 increase take place? During the super El Niño year of 1998.

    3. What the alarmists now state is that past episodes of warming were not caused by C02 but amplified by it, which is debatable, for many reasons, but, more important, is a far cry from the version of events sold to the public by Mr. Gore.

    Meanwhile, the theory that carbon dioxide "drives" climate in any meaningful way is simply wrong and, again, evidence of a "flat-Earth" mentality. Carbon dioxide cannot absorb an unlimited amount of infrared radiation. Why not? Because it only absorbs heat along limited bandwidths, and is already absorbing just about everything it can. That is why plotted on a graph, C02's ability to capture heat follows a logarithmic curve. We are already very near the maximum absorption level. Further, the IPCC Fourth Assessment, like all the ones before it, is based on computer models that presume a positive feedback of atmospheric warming via increased water vapor.

    4. This mechanism has never been shown to exist. Indeed, increased temperature leads to increased evaporation of the oceans, which leads to increased cloud cover (one cooling effect) and increased precipitation (a bigger cooling effect). Within certain bounds, in other words, the ocean-atmosphere system has a very effective self-regulating tendency. By the way, water vapor is far more prevalent, and relevant, in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide -- a trace gas. Water vapor's absorption spectrum also overlays that of carbon dioxide. They cannot both absorb the same energy! The relative might of water vapor and relative weakness of carbon dioxide is exemplified by the extraordinary cooling experienced each night in desert regions, where water in the atmosphere is nearly non-existent.

    If not carbon dioxide, what does "drive" climate? I am glad you are wondering about that. In the short term, it is ocean cycles, principally the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the "super cycle" of which cooling La Niñas and warming El Niños are parts. Having been in its warm phase, in which El Niños predominate, for the 30 years ending in late 2006, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation switched to its cool phase, in which La Niñas predominate.

    Since that time, already, a number of interesting things have taken place. One La Niña lowered temperatures around the globe for about half of the year just ended, and another La Niña shows evidence of beginning in the equatorial Pacific waters. During the last twelve months, many interesting cold-weather events happened to occur: record snow in the European Alps, China, New Zealand, Australia, Brazil, the Pacific Northwest, Alaska, the Rockies, the upper Midwest, Las Vegas, Houston, and New Orleans. There was also, for the first time in at least 100 years, snow in Baghdad.

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  5. #1535
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,287

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    ^^^^ Cont.

    Concurrent with the switchover of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation to its cool phase the Sun has entered a period of deep slumber. The number of sunspots for 2008 was the second lowest of any year since 1901. That matters less because of fluctuations in the amount of heat generated by the massive star in our near proximity (although there are some fluctuations that may have some measurable effect on global temperatures) and more because of a process best described by the Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark in his complex, but elegant, work The Chilling Stars. In the book, the modern Galileo, for he is nothing less, establishes that cosmic rays from deep space seed clouds over Earth's oceans. Regulating the number of cosmic rays reaching Earth's atmosphere is the solar wind; when it is strong, we get fewer cosmic rays. When it is weak, we get more. As NASA has corroborated, the number of cosmic rays passing through our atmosphere is at the maximum level since measurements have been taken, and show no signs of diminishing. The result: the seeding of what some have taken to calling "Svensmark clouds," low dense clouds, principally over the oceans, that reflect sunlight back to space before it can have its warming effect on whatever is below.

    Svensmark has proven, in the minds of most who have given his work a full hearing, that it is this very process that produced the episodes of cooling (and, inversely, warming) of our own era and past eras. The clearest instance of the process, by far, is that of the Maunder Minimum, which refers to a period from 1650 to 1700, during which the Sun had not a single spot on its face. Temperatures around the globe plummeted, with quite adverse effects: crop failures (remember the witch burnings in Europe and Massachusetts?), famine, and societal stress.

    Many solar physicists anticipate that the slumbering Sun of early 2009 is likely to continue for at least two solar cycles, or about the next 25 years. Whether the Grand Solar Minimum, if it comes to pass, is as serious as the Maunder Minimum is not knowable, at present. Major solar minima (and maxima, such as the one during the second half of the 20th century) have also been shown to correlate with significant volcanic eruptions. These are likely the result of solar magnetic flux affecting geomagnetic flux, which affects the distribution of magma in Earth's molten iron core and under its thin mantle. So, let us say, just for the sake of argument, that such an eruption takes place over the course of the next two decades. Like all major eruptions, this one will have a temporary cooling effect on global temperatures, perhaps a large one. The larger the eruption, the greater the effect. History shows that periods of cold are far more stressful to humanity than periods of warm. Would the eruption and consequent cooling be a climate-modifier that exists outside of nature, somehow? Who is the "flat-Earther" now?

    What about heat escaping from volcanic vents in the ocean floor? What about the destruction of warming, upper-atmosphere ozone by cosmic rays? I could go on, but space is short. Again, who is the "flat-Earther" here?


    The ocean-atmosphere system is not a simple one that can be "ruled" by a trace atmospheric gas. It is a complex, chaotic system, largely modulated by solar effects (both direct and indirect), as shown by the Little Ice Age.

    To be told, as I have been, by Mr. Gore, again and again, that carbon dioxide is a grave threat to humankind is not just annoying, by the way, although it is that! To re-tool our economies in an effort to suppress carbon dioxide and its imaginary effect on climate, when other, graver problems exist is, simply put, wrong. Particulate pollution, such as that causing the Asian brown cloud, is a real problem. Two billion people on Earth living without electricity, in darkened huts and hovels polluted by charcoal smoke, is a real problem.

    So, let us indeed start a Manhattan Project-like mission to create alternative sources of energy. And, in the meantime, let us neither cripple our own economy by mislabeling carbon dioxide a pollutant nor discourage development in the Third World, where suffering continues unabated, day after day.

    Again, Mr. Gore, I accept your apology.

    And, Mr. Obama, though I voted for you for a thousand times a thousand reasons, I hope never to need one from you.

    P.S. One of the last, desperate canards proposed by climate alarmists is that of the polar ice caps. Look at the "terrible," "unprecedented" melting in the Arctic in the summer of 2007, they say. Well, the ice in the Arctic basin has always melted and refrozen, and always will. Any researcher who wants to find a single molecule of ice that has been there longer than 30 years is going to have a hard job, because the ice has always been melted from above (by the midnight Sun of summer) and below (by relatively warm ocean currents, possibly amplified by volcanic venting) -- and on the sides, again by warm currents. Scientists in the alarmist camp have taken to referring to "old ice," but, again, this is a misrepresentation of what takes place in the Arctic.

    More to the point, 2007 happened also to be the time of maximum historic sea ice in Antarctica. (There are many credible sources of this information, such as the following website maintained by the University of Illinois-Urbana: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...nom.south.jpg). Why, I ask, has Mr. Gore not chosen to mention the record growth of sea ice around Antarctica? If the record melting in the Arctic is significant, then the record sea ice growth around Antarctica is, too, I say. If one is insignificant, then the other one is, too.

    For failing to mention the 2007 Antarctic maximum sea ice record a single time, I also accept your apology, Mr. Gore. By the way, your contention that the Arctic basin will be "ice free" in summer within five years (which you said last month in Germany), is one of the most demonstrably false comments you have dared to make. Thank you for that!
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  6. #1536
    Joined
    Jun 2003
    Location
    SO CAL USA
    Age
    68
    Posts
    1,602

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Dont know his scientific background and dont care,but he does put a lot of salient points up,not all by any means,but enough to show he has researched it and found MMGW seriously wanting. Pretty nifty idea Hansen has also.A surcharge on coal and carbon right as we go into a 30 year cooling. that should help the poor during the coming winters.
    asrock x370 taichi,16g gskill flarex3200 wd250mu 3wdblack 1 tera
    Asrock 990FX FX8120 8G Gskill 2133 2x WD2T 6.0 pc p+c 950w
    Asrock 890FX 1090t 2x4 Gskill 1866 RipJaw WD 1T 6.0 mushkin 850w
    DFI 790FXB M3H5 PII 965 8 Gskill RipJaw 1866 WD1T 6.0 ocz 750 w
    DFI 790FXB M3H5 PII 965 2x4 Gskill Rip Jaw 1600 Ocz evo720
    DFI 790FXB M2RSH PII 955 2x1Gskill 1600 Saph 4670 Ocz Evo 720W
    DFI 790FXM2RS PII 720 2x1gig Gskill 1600 Sapphire HD3400
    DFI Lp ultra D SLI Opti 148@300x10 @33c 1 gig Crucial ballistix 4000

  7. #1537
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,287

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by THOMAS LYNN View Post
    Dont know his scientific background and dont care,but he does put a lot of salient points up,not all by any means,but enough to show he has researched it and found MMGW seriously wanting. Pretty nifty idea Hansen has also.A surcharge on coal and carbon right as we go into a 30 year cooling. that should help the poor during the coming winters.
    Perhaps those members of the pro-MMGW crowd who stand to gain millions if not BILLIONS of dollars from carbon trading, carbon monitoring and carbon offset businesses just to name a few.. can set up a charity for those they leave in the cold. That same crowd which coincidentally includes many of the authors and editors of the IPCC's reports. Funny how those minor details seem to continually not register the smallest of blip on the "conflict of interest" radar of those whom are among the first to point out if a voice against the MMGW alarmists has any energy company (see: OMFGBIGOIL!!) ties. Maybe thats just a me thing eh...
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  8. #1538
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Location
    midwest
    Posts
    4,217

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    ummm. excuse me, but might I throw a wrench into the works here.

    Does anyone know who got us into the "global warming" process to begin with?

    Oddly enough - the same people whom are shouting about global warming, the loudest, from the onset.

    Science.

    Perpetual motion in action is so cool to see. Esp. when this motion was self created by the very people that want to stop it now.

    Man what a racket. Call it "political science"
    Nebraska Game and Parks



    I've been at this a long time and I still know nothing!! High end digitized ~ analog, turkey hunter.

    American Audio Nut- my gear- JBL, DBX, Revel, Thorens, Shure, Odyssey, M&K, AB International, Van Alstine, PS Audio, Pioneer, Trio, Dynaco, Integra Research, Audio Research, and JBL Pro.

  9. #1539
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    74,682

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    But wait....just a few weeks Al Gore said....

    http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

  10. #1540
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,457

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    ^^^ Its pretty sad when things of serious consequence can happen in such an intelligent society, like the listing of Polar bears as endangered, because enough people throw a tizzy fit based on little more than a misguided agenda.

  11. #1541
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,287

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    ^^^ Now… now… we all know this type of evidence is all anecdotal unless it supports the MMGW alarmists claims.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  12. #1542
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    74,682

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Damned "cow haters" Just what we all need...cost increases

    http://www.businessandmedia.org/arti...230165231.aspx

    Leave poor Bossie alone!

    http://lh4.ggpht.com/_U-Ux-k70Cww/SI...2/IMG_2831.JPG

  13. #1543
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,287

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    PLAN 9 FROM AGW

    Okay, they call it "plan B", but you get the point. This is some seriously desperate, and goofy, stuff. Written by Steve Connor, the "Science Editor" and Chris Green for The Independent, it takes you deep into the warping effect AGW has had on "science".

    An emergency "Plan B" using the latest technology is needed to save the world from dangerous climate change, according to a poll of leading scientists carried out by The Independent. The collective international failure to curb the growing emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has meant that an alternative to merely curbing emissions may become necessary.

    The plan would involve highly controversial proposals to lower global temperatures artificially through daringly ambitious schemes that either reduce sunlight levels by man-made means or take CO2 out of the air. This "geoengineering" approach – including schemes such as fertilising the oceans with iron to stimulate algal blooms – would have been dismissed as a distraction a few years ago but is now being seen by the majority of scientists we surveyed as a viable emergency backup plan that could save the planet from the worst effects of climate change, at least until deep cuts are made in CO2 emissions.
    Of course The Independent never identifies the "leading scientists" it surveyed, although it does admit to it being a mere 80 later on in the article.

    This type of alarmism relies on a sort of corollary of the Rahm Emanuel principle that one should never let a good crisis go to waste but always use it to implement things which would be impossible under normal circumstances. The AGW corollary is if you don't have a real crisis, manufacture one. And that's precisely what the Science editor and the 80 "leading scientists" attempt here.

    So what is Plan B? Well, actually its Plan B1, B2, B3, B4 and, my personal favorite, B5.

    Plan B1:

    Injecting the air with particles to reflect sunlight. Also known as the "artificial volcano plan". Of course they have no idea how many of the artificial sulfate particles they would have to inject into the stratosphere or how long they'd have to do it, but they're pretty sure that it would eventually result in acid rain and have adverse consequences for agriculture.

    Okay. On to Plan B2:

    Creating low clouds over the oceans. The plan is to pump water vapor into the atmosphere to create clouds over the ocean and thereby cool the earth. This is the "we had to destroy the village to save the village" plan. You see, water vapor accounts for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect. So the cure is to put more of what supposedly ails us into the atmosphere to stop the warming?

    Hmmm. Uh, Plan B3:

    Fertilising the sea with iron filings. Or among skeptics, the "blooming idiot" plan. The idea is to salt the sea with iron filings to encourage photoplankton to grow and it would, in turn, absorb CO2. Then they're supposed to quietly give up the ghost and sink to the bottom of the sea with the CO2 conveniently trapped forever. The only problem with this brilliant plan is photoplankton is voraciously sought out and eaten by all types of sea creatures as a part of their diet. And, of course, should that happen, vs. the quiet dying and sinking, well the CO2 is returned to the atmosphere plus some.

    Lovely. And then there is Plan B4:

    Mixing the deep water of the ocean. This is known as the "cosmic Mix-Master" option. Yes, giant tubes will be placed in the ocean and surface water "rich in carbon" will be pumped to the bottom of the sea, never to resurface. Of course the problem is the water deep in the sea that is displaced has to go somewhere and it will most likely go up. Any guess what is locked in that water right now? Heh, yup - lots and lots of carbon. Any guess where it will end up?

    Yeesh. And finally, my favorite, B5:

    Giant mirrors in space. Known among the less than impressed as the "window shade option" (and by others as the "Simpson Effect"), this plan requires either giant mirrors or lots and lots of tiny mirrors be shot into space and placed between Earth and the sun. Yes, that's right. Mirrors. Between us and the sun. And then, of course, we'll just, you know, turn them as we deem necessary whenever we want to adjust the amount of sunlight and heat we receive here on earth. What could go wrong with that?

    *sigh*

    This is what "leading scientists" come up with?

    "Stupid, stupid!"

    I like Plan 9 better:



    By the way, for future reference when the AGW crowd starts trying to lay the greenhouse gases allegedly causing world-wide climate change (or global warming - whatever they're pushing that day) off on man, remind them that the anthropogenic (man-made) contribution to the "Greenhouse
    Effect," expressed as % of total (with water vapor included) is a mere 0.28%.

    Again, that's not just CO2 - that's all of the gases which allegedly contribute to that effect.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  14. #1544
    Joined
    Nov 2001
    Location
    E n g l a n d
    Posts
    10,978

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    The UK regime turns out the lights:

    Traditional lightbulb sales soar as customers stock up ahead of green switch over


    Sales of the traditional incandescent lightbulb are soaring as customers seek to stock up before they are phased out in favour of green, energy-saving versions.

    By Aislinn Simpson and Louise Gray

    Some retailers have seen sales of the 100-watt varieties triple overnight, with buyers stockpiling by asking for hundreds at once instead of the usual 10 or 20.

    Supermarkets and DIY chains are already running low on the bulbs, having begun to phase them out some months ago as part of a voluntary agreement with the Government. The light bulbs are expected to be scrapped altogether by September 2012, pending the outcome of a European Union vote on the issue.

    Ministers claim the switch over to low energy alternatives will cut carbon dioxide emissions by around five million tonnes each year.

    But there have been a raft of objections to the ban. Health campaigners claim the compact fluorescent light (CLS), the main energy saving bulb, can bring on skin rashes, epilepsy and migraines and because they contain mercury are difficult to dispose of, while many householders object to them because of their "strip-lighting" effect.

    The combination of factors has led to panic buying of traditional light bulbs on an unprecedented scale.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/gre...itch-over.html

  15. #1545
    Joined
    Nov 2001
    Location
    E n g l a n d
    Posts
    10,978

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Global warming: Al Gore's convenient untruth freezes over

    You have to wrap up well against this global warming. Over the past 48 hours the temperature has fallen as low as -12C in Dorset, with the sea at Poole Harbour frozen up to 20 yards from shore, and parts of Britain colder than Greenland. Phew, what a scorcher! Might be a good idea to start up the car (if it will start) and pump some more CO2 into the atmosphere before we freeze to death. What did the media warn us about climate change?

    "There is very important climatic change going on right now, and it's not merely something of academic interest. It is something that, if it continues, will affect the whole human occupation of the earth - like a billion people starving. The effects are already showing up in a rather drastic way."

    That apocalyptic warning came from Fortune magazine - in 1974, when it was alerting readers to an imminent new Ice Age. By 2006 it had conformed to the latest fashion and had revised its doomsday scenario to: "The media agrees with the majority of scientists: global warming is here. Now, what to do about it?" So much for the media as climatic arbiter.

    In the current climate, Fortune's earlier scenario seems more plausible. A few months ago, Lewis Pugh set off on a much-hyped journey paddling a kayak to an "ice-free" North Pole: he was stopped by ice 600 miles from his destination and 100 miles south of where a canoeist had reached a century earlier. As this egg-on-face setback for climate alarmists illustrated, there was 9 per cent more ice at the Arctic last autumn than the year before. After a record ice melting there was a record freeze.

    Although Arctic sea ice last summer reached the lowest level recorded since satellite observation began (an important qualification), Antarctic ice reached the highest, but Al Gore was not shouting about that. Global average temperatures hit a peak in 1998, but have been declining since. Now, to the further embarrassment of alarmists, Kerry Emanuel, professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, who first advanced the thesis of a connection between global warming and hurricanes, has rejected his own theory after further research.

    Bad luck for Al Gore, who used the image of a hurricane emerging from a smoke stack to promote his fantasy extravaganza An Inconvenient Truth. The core ice samples featured in Gore's film actually proved that increased CO2 emissions have historically followed 800 years after warm periods - but what the hell, this ain't science, it's politics. Just how we are supposed to influence carbon emissions when mankind is only responsible for 3.5 per cent of them is unclear.

    But the cash from UN grants, wind farms, carbon trading and all the billions squandered on a politically useful (to totalitarians) superstition is very clear indeed: this is big bucks. "Man-made" global warming is the new sub-prime commerce of the planet. Meantime, wrap up well.
    Hmmm.. well said. I'm freezing my arse off every time I go outside.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/gerald_...h_freezes_over

Posting Permissions

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