|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Wakebrad
Ladies Man
Joined: 11 Dec 2003
Posts: 12257
City: Dallas
|
 Posted: Jun 14, 2006 10:18 am Post subject: Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe |
 |
|
Good read.
This guy is almost as bad as Michael Moore with his research..
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
| Quote: | "The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006
"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?
No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."
This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.
So we have a smaller fraction.
But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."
We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.
Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."
Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."
But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes.
The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.
Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."
Karlén explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karlén
Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."
Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."
Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."
Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."
In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.
|
_________________
You have just entered the twilight zone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
8824
Ladies Man
Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 15136
City: Wilmington, Delaware
|
| Posted: Jun 14, 2006 10:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
But Tipper and her PMRC group, censored all the good information, so how can we tell what is real or memorex?
_________________
www.integrity-wake.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
-=LoneStar=-
Addict
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 751
|
| Posted: Jun 14, 2006 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
I was about to spend a bunch of time that I can't really spare debating all of the false and/or irrelevant arguments in this column when I wondered: "Who is this Tom Harris?"
"Tom Harris is mechanical engineer and Ottawa Director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public policy company." (from the article)
"Tom specializes in strategic communication and media relations and has 28 years experience in science and technology in the energy and environment, aerospace and high-tech sectors. He has worked with private companies and trade associations to successfully position these entities and their interests with media and before government committees and regulatory bodies." (http://www.highparkgroup.com/tharris.htm)
IOW, someone almost certainly paid him to write that column (and to adopt the stance that he has) and I think it's kind of pointless to debate a stance that someone's been paid to take. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jt09
Ladies Man
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 22083
City: Austin
|
| Posted: Jun 14, 2006 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nice pick up -=LoneStar=-. As a PR major in college, I know how that works.
I don't care if Gore is as much as 95% wrong. Doing right by the environment can only increase our quality of life. And our kids. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
boobybunny
Guest
|
| Posted: Jun 14, 2006 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hmmm,
Also ask what does Gore have to win/lose by his stance? Worst case, if global warming, climatic change is a falsehood, what do we have to lose by trying to correct it?
My Step dad is an economist, specializing in economic environmental impact. Nothing exists in a bubble, what is your business plan, how does it affect the environment. Looking at economic impacts without looking at the environmental impact is VERY short sighted to say the least.
"Strategic communication and media relations with 28 years experience in science and technology in the ENERGY sectors"  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
microman
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 5377
|
| Posted: Jun 14, 2006 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
This issue should be about science but like many other things unfortunately it isn't, and politics rears it's ugly head.
The fact is that global warming is occuring, there is virtually no debate about it anymore. Most importantly though, the majority of scientists believe that our activities are contributing to it.
If we continue to ignore the warning signs future generations will face the consequences. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tyler T
Wakeboarder.com Freak
Joined: 14 Apr 2003
Posts: 4772
City: Portland
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wakebrad
Ladies Man
Joined: 11 Dec 2003
Posts: 12257
City: Dallas
|
| Posted: Jun 14, 2006 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Would the people who actually read the article please stand up. I guess I should have put an executive summary on it. It did not state that global warming is not occurring and that it's definitively not our fault. It's just poking holes and showing how Gore is misleading people with his information.
Lonestar's post is a great example of an ad hominem fallacy and it looks like you all bit.
| Quote: |
This issue should be about science but like many other things unfortunately it isn't, and politics rears it's ugly head.
|
Isn't that true of pretty much all science? Someone has to pay these scientists so who's side they're working for obviously alters the results.
| Quote: |
majority of scientists believe that our activities are contributing to it.
|
| Quote: | | Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field. |
_________________
You have just entered the twilight zone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
8824
Ladies Man
Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 15136
City: Wilmington, Delaware
|
| Posted: Jun 14, 2006 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
microman,
cant be proven,
the history of our planet has had warming and cooling trends based on numerous therioes,,,,,
so, how can you be certain we are the result of it?
explain the ice age and what followed while you are at it........
One thing is certain. TIPPER GORE IS A FOKIN BITCH WHO TRIED TO SENSOR PEOPLE IN THE US AND ARREST THEM FOR USING WORDS SHE DID NOT LIKE. not to hijack
_________________
www.integrity-wake.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
-=LoneStar=-
Addict
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 751
|
| Posted: Jun 14, 2006 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wakebrad,
You're assuming that I'm debating the guy. I am not. If I were to go around debating everyone on the Internet, I would never leave my computer. In a debate, it is true that one should avoid questioning the motives of his opponent (ad hominem attack). When deciding whether or not a debate is worthwhile, however, I find it is a very valid and useful exercise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wakebrad
Ladies Man
Joined: 11 Dec 2003
Posts: 12257
City: Dallas
|
| Posted: Jun 14, 2006 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
-=LoneStar=-, I understand where you're coming from. I just think everyone who followed only read your post and not the article; like Tyler T who's a walking argument for birth control.
This guy does come with a motive, but that does not mean that his points aren't valid. He really didn't make that many assertions except to poke holes in Gore's argument.
_________________
You have just entered the twilight zone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
microman
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 5377
|
| Posted: Jun 14, 2006 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wakebrad wrote: |
Isn't that true of pretty much all science? Someone has to pay these scientists so who's side they're working for obviously alters the results.
|
It's true, but it shouldn't be. Science should be free to investigate without outside influence determing what is right and wrong.
| Wakebrad wrote: |
| Quote: | | Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field. |
|
I'm not a climate expert but most of the articles I've seen in various journals seem to agree with the premise that global warming is happening now and that human activity plays at least some role.
Think about where most of the opposition comes from in regards to global warming, it isn't usually scientists it's big business and people with money at stake. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
8824
Ladies Man
Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 15136
City: Wilmington, Delaware
|
| Posted: Jun 14, 2006 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
microman,
i feel so cheated when you ignore me
_________________
www.integrity-wake.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
microman
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 5377
|
| Posted: Jun 14, 2006 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| muckmeister wrote: | microman,
cant be proven,
the history of our planet has had warming and cooling trends based on numerous therioes,,,,,
so, how can you be certain we are the result of it?
|
Well I doubt we can ever be 100% certain that human activity is the cause of it, however the more evidence we accumulate the more easily we can make that inference.
Studies such as this one indicate that we are contributing:
| Quote: |
Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications
Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse gases and aerosols, among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85 ± 0.15 watts per square meter more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space.
This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years. Implications include (i) the expectation of additional global warming of about 0.6°C without further change of atmospheric composition; (ii) the confirmation of the climate system's lag in responding to forcings, implying the need for anticipatory actions to avoid any specified level of climate change; and (iii) the likelihood of acceleration of ice sheet disintegration and sea level rise. |
Science 3 June 2005: Vol. 308. no. 5727, pp. 1431 - 1435 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
8824
Ladies Man
Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 15136
City: Wilmington, Delaware
|
| Posted: Jun 14, 2006 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
microman,
thats great, but the tech tonic plates under the sea are releasing more gasses than normal, so how can we claim that humans are the sole cause, a contributing factor
of course, the main cause?????/
_________________
www.integrity-wake.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tyler T
Wakeboarder.com Freak
Joined: 14 Apr 2003
Posts: 4772
City: Portland
|
| Posted: Jun 14, 2006 1:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I understand where you're coming from. I just think everyone who followed only read your post and not the article |
There you go thinkin' again. I read the whole article. I understand the position he takes and I am no expert on the subject, but I have a brief understanding of the complexities surrounding the issue.
I also understand that Tom Harris is a lobbyist for the industries that would greatly benefit from the article he wrote. His motives are very suspect. Is that ad hominem? Sure it is, but it's reasonable. Unlike:
| Quote: | like Tyler T who's a walking argument for birth control.
|
which is neither reasonable nor relevent.
But as long as we're being unreasonable and irrelevent, you can
SUCK MY FAT C.OCK, ASSHAT
Toodles! 
_________________
Get Frugally Green!
Care to have a listen? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wakebrad
Ladies Man
Joined: 11 Dec 2003
Posts: 12257
City: Dallas
|
| Posted: Jun 14, 2006 1:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
SUCK MY FAT C.OCK, ASSHAT
|
touche
_________________
You have just entered the twilight zone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
microman
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 5377
|
| Posted: Jun 14, 2006 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| muckmeister wrote: | microman,
thats great, but the tech tonic plates under the sea are releasing more gasses than normal, so how can we claim that humans are the sole cause, a contributing factor
of course, the main cause?????/ |
Well I certainly wouldn't want to make that the claim that we are the "sole cause", although some others might, but even if we are *only* a contributing factor doesn't it make sense that we should at least try to minimize our impact as much as possible?
Anyway here's a piece of news from last month on this subject:
| Quote: | GLOBAL CHANGE:
No Doubt About It, the World Is Warming
Richard A. Kerr
Global warming contrarians can cross out one of their last talking points. A report released last week* settles the debate over how the atmosphere has been warming the past 35 years. The report, the first of 21 the Bush Administration has commissioned to study lingering problems of global climate change, finds that satellite-borne instruments and thermometers at the surface now agree: The world is warming throughout the lower atmosphere, not just at the surface, about the way greenhouse climate models predict.
"The evidence continues to support a substantial human impact on global temperature increases," added the report's chief editor Thomas Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, North Carolina. The additional support for global warming will not change White House policy, however. Michele St. Martin, spokesperson for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, says President George W. Bush believes that greenhouse gas emissions can be brought down through better use of energy while the understanding of climate science continues to improve.
Critics who blasted research under the White House's Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) (Science, 27 February 2004, p. 1269) as mere obfuscation might not have expected such a forthright conclusion from the report. Karl attributes the clarity to the CCSP approach. "For the first time, we had people [who initially disagreed] sitting down across the table. That's a tremendous advantage," he says. "The process is great for improving understanding. It led to not just synthesis but to advancing the science." The CCSP synthesis and assessment process prompted new, independent analyses that helped eliminate some long-standing differences, Karl says.
The 21 authors of the report included researchers who for years had been battling in the literature over the proper way to analyze the satellite data. Meteorologists John Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, were the first to construct a long record of lower-atmosphere temperature from temperature-dependent emissions observed by Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs) flown on satellites. By the early 1990s, Christy and Spencer could see little or no significant warming of the middle of the troposphere--the lowermost layer of the atmosphere--since the beginning of the satellite record in 1979, although surface temperature had risen.
In recent years, report authors Frank Wentz of Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, California, and Konstantin Vinnikov of the University of Maryland, College Park, led separate groups analyzing the MSU data. They and others found atmospheric warming more on a par with the observed surface warming (Science, 7 May 2004, p. 805). Hashing out those differences over the same table "was a pretty draining experience," says Christy.
In the end, the time and effort paid off, says Karl. The report authors eventually identified several errors in earlier analyses, such as not properly allowing for a satellite's orbital drift. They had additional years of data that lengthened a relatively short record. And they could compare observations with simulations from 20 different climate models, which researchers had prepared for an upcoming international climate change assessment.
The report authors found that over the 25-year satellite record, the surface and the midtroposphere each warmed roughly 0.15°C per decade averaged over the globe, give or take 0.05°C or so per decade. The tropics proved to be an exception: The models called for more warming aloft than at the surface lately, whereas most observations showed the reverse. Reconciling that discrepancy will have to wait for the next round of synthesis and assessment. |
Science 12 May 2006: Vol. 312. no. 5775, p. 825 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
8824
Ladies Man
Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 15136
City: Wilmington, Delaware
|
| Posted: Jun 14, 2006 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
microman,
i tried to bait you earlier
see my stephen hawking thread? this planet is already doomed,,,,,, so fill the ballast and burn some shi t
time to porkrind up outer space!
_________________
www.integrity-wake.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
microman
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 5377
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
8824
Ladies Man
Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 15136
City: Wilmington, Delaware
|
| Posted: Jun 14, 2006 1:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
microman,
there is sooooooooooo much more to ruin............
I am familiar with the crap we put into orbit,,,, LOL
this planet is toast,,,,,,,,,, NEXT
_________________
www.integrity-wake.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
8824
Ladies Man
Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 15136
City: Wilmington, Delaware
|
| Posted: Jun 14, 2006 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| muckmeister wrote: | microman,
thats great, but the tech tonic plates under the sea are releasing more gasses than normal, so how can we claim that humans are the sole cause, a contributing factor
of course, the main cause?????/ |
Micro, you are slippin, btw 3-2 end of the first.
i made that up! you used to catch that shi t all the time.........
tectonic,
_________________
www.integrity-wake.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lcap
Ladies Man
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 10973
City: Homeless
|
| Posted: Jun 14, 2006 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Will you gentlemen settle down!!!!
In a parallel universe Al Gore IS PRESIDENT. Clinton actually learned how to avoid soilingl any blue dresses by requiring the fuglies to swallow.
Less likely but still the case Microman and CB are conservatives and one of the trillions of me are off somewhere in a galaxy far far far far far away dancing in a gay pride parade.
So you see all is good.
_________________
I hope the weather is calm as you sail up your heavenly stream |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neognosis
Ladies Man
Joined: 13 Jan 2003
Posts: 17617
City: Webster
|
| Posted: Jun 15, 2006 5:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting.
To me, debating whether or not the huge amount of greenhouse gasses caused by manufacturing, travel, and commerce contribute to climate change is akin to debating whether or not the pack of cigs a day that my uncle smoked caused his lung cancer---
| Quote: |
In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years."
|
But scientists speculate that was caused by a slight "wobble" or variation in the tilt of the earth. With little plant life to consume C02, of course levels will rise. And the earth still stays cold because its axis is "misaligned" and the sun's rays aren't hitting at the angle they strike us now. This is an example of giving a "half-truth" and in essence, telling a lie.
In other words, if the earth is tilted on the wrong angle, it wouldn't matter if the sky was made up of fibreglass insulation....no heat is coming in to be retained. So saying that "hey, it was cold then, and we had a lot of C02, so therefore C02 doesn't contribute to warming" is patently false. This misleading statement alone causes me to dismiss the article as being a valid source.
_________________
I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
8824
Ladies Man
Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 15136
City: Wilmington, Delaware
|
| Posted: Jun 15, 2006 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cameraboy wrote: | Interesting.
To me, debating whether or not the huge amount of greenhouse gasses caused by manufacturing, travel, and commerce contribute to climate change is akin to debating whether or not the pack of cigs a day that my uncle smoked caused his lung cancer---
| Quote: |
In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years."
|
But scientists speculate that was caused by a slight "wobble" or variation in the tilt of the earth. With little plant life to consume C02, of course levels will rise. And the earth still stays cold because its axis is "misaligned" and the sun's rays aren't hitting at the angle they strike us now. This is an example of giving a "half-truth" and in essence, telling a lie.
In other words, if the earth is tilted on the wrong angle, it wouldn't matter if the sky was made up of fibreglass insulation....no heat is coming in to be retained. So saying that "hey, it was cold then, and we had a lot of C02, so therefore C02 doesn't contribute to warming" is patently false. This misleading statement alone causes me to dismiss the article as being a valid source. |
Anyone?
I think this is all trivial, our planet is already doomed, there is nothing we can do, so Trekkies, get it on!
_________________
www.integrity-wake.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wakebrad
Ladies Man
Joined: 11 Dec 2003
Posts: 12257
City: Dallas
|
| Posted: Jun 15, 2006 6:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
But scientists speculate that was caused by a slight "wobble" or variation in the tilt of the earth. With little plant life to consume C02, of course levels will rise. And the earth still stays cold because its axis is "misaligned" and the sun's rays aren't hitting at the angle they strike us now. This is an example of giving a "half-truth" and in essence, telling a lie.
In other words, if the earth is tilted on the wrong angle, it wouldn't matter if the sky was made up of fibreglass insulation....no heat is coming in to be retained. So saying that "hey, it was cold then, and we had a lot of C02, so therefore C02 doesn't contribute to warming" is patently false. This misleading statement alone causes me to dismiss the article as being a valid source.
|
"But scientists speculate" is the prominent clause. Really everyone is just speculating. So why dismiss one speculation for the other? Really we don't know. And why should we throw our economy into the dumpster on a whim? It's easy for rich people like Al Gore who can afford the ridiculous inflation rate we'll see if we start implementing some of these changes. I doubt the underprivileged dem's will see it the same way.
Excelsior!
_________________
You have just entered the twilight zone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
8824
Ladies Man
Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 15136
City: Wilmington, Delaware
|
| Posted: Jun 15, 2006 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wakebrad,
That picture is great... that is not scuzzlebutt(sp) with patrick duffy for a leg is it?
_________________
www.integrity-wake.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wakebrad
Ladies Man
Joined: 11 Dec 2003
Posts: 12257
City: Dallas
|
| Posted: Jun 15, 2006 6:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
muckmeister, haha no, that's MAN-BEAR-PIG. You have to watch the South Park episode. Hilarious.
_________________
You have just entered the twilight zone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
8824
Ladies Man
Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 15136
City: Wilmington, Delaware
|
| Posted: Jun 15, 2006 6:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wakebrad,
I have seen it, the scuzzlebutt was just on the other night, at least on my tivo.....
_________________
www.integrity-wake.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wakebrad
Ladies Man
Joined: 11 Dec 2003
Posts: 12257
City: Dallas
|
| Posted: Jun 15, 2006 6:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
hmm, not sure I've seen it. I'll have to check my tivo when I get home.
_________________
You have just entered the twilight zone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
8824
Ladies Man
Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 15136
City: Wilmington, Delaware
|
| Posted: Jun 15, 2006 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wakebrad,
its with a volcano that will hit southpark, that was the description of the episode i think..
_________________
www.integrity-wake.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chavez
Ladies Man
Joined: 22 Sep 2003
Posts: 27375
City: Roseville
|
| Posted: Jun 15, 2006 7:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wakebrad, its from one of their early seasons. Possibly even the first season...
_________________
| Quote: | | That's Mr. Gingermex to you a$$hole. |
RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neognosis
Ladies Man
Joined: 13 Jan 2003
Posts: 17617
City: Webster
|
| Posted: Jun 15, 2006 7:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
But scientists speculate" is the prominent clause. Really everyone is just speculating. So why dismiss one speculation for the other? Really we don't know
|
When scientists "speculate" they aren't just making a guess. They are basing a theory on evidence and the most likely scenarios. To say "everyone is just speculating" seems to put you on the same level as the people who devote their lives to this study.
How about instead of "speculate" I said "are reasonably certain?"
_________________
I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wakebrad
Ladies Man
Joined: 11 Dec 2003
Posts: 12257
City: Dallas
|
| Posted: Jun 15, 2006 8:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
To say "everyone is just speculating" seems to put you on the same level as the people who devote their lives to this study.
|
What I mean, is scientists on both sides are speculating. Not just you and I.
From what I have read, yes the Earth is getting hotter. But in the temperature cycle we are following the pattern just as we have in previous times. There is also a debate over whether rising CO2 causes the extra heat or whether the extra heat causes added CO2.
_________________
You have just entered the twilight zone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neognosis
Ladies Man
Joined: 13 Jan 2003
Posts: 17617
City: Webster
|
| Posted: Jun 15, 2006 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think you'll find that, just like the evolution debate, the science and scientists on one side is going to be suspect.
I understand the debate about cause and effect of CO2, but look out your office window at the traffic. Now magnify that by a factor of every town and city and village and highway in the world. That's a LOT of extra material from combustion. You can't tell me that isn't having an effect, even if it's not the primary cause.
_________________
I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Add To Favorites
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Copyright © 2012 - Wakeboarding - Wakeboarder.com - All Right Reserved
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Stats
Favorites
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
