Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Not ugly - Revolting! America fights back against extremists and corporate tyranny. Also, some light hearted commentary from your basic average dude.
Not ugly - Revolting! America fights back against extremists and corporate tyranny. Also, some light hearted commentary from your basic average dude.
31 comments:
Or, they are recovering from a completely natural and normal occurrence of the type of extreme weather events that have been regularly happening throughout the history of the planet.
The scientific case for anthropogenic global warming alarmism continues weaken:
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
Nobody has denied that our planet goes through natural cycles of climate change. However, when SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE shows that the climate this century is changing at a rate far more rapid than history has indicated it has in the past, then reasonable people take notice.
I find it interesting that the article you linked used the term "Alarmist Computer Models" rather than a scientific computer models. It seems biased from the start.
"..when SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE shows that the climate this century is changing at a rate far more rapid than history has indicated it has in the past, then reasonable people take notice."
Yes, but that is exactly the question being debated, isn't it? What does the scientific evidence show and what does it not show?
Apart from the fact that there IS uncontested scientific evidence that shows past examples of rapid heating and cooling (long before human civilization existed at all, let alone modern industrial civilization); and apart from the fact that ice core samples show periods with much higher atmospheric CO2 levels AND simultaneous far cooler global temperatures than today, that is not what the current Anthropogenic Global Warming theory is based on.
It is based primarily on the results of controversial and unproven computer modelling. Computer modelling that often directly contradicts real world empirical evidence.
This short video interview with renowned physicist Freeman Dyson explains the problem much more concisely and intelligently than I could ever hope to:
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Is-The-End-Near-For-Anthropogenic-Global-Warming
Teaser:
Four years ago noted theoretical physicist and mathematician Freeman Dyson warned about the heavy reliance on computer modeling to predict the proposed future harmful effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere...Dyson advocated using new and very sophisticated instruments to more precisely measure carbon dioxide levels – because flawed input could result in flawed output....In a report published three days ago in the scientific journal, Remote Sensing, it appears that Dyson’s warning is being vindicated."
Another wheel falls off the Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/cern_cloud_cosmic_ray_first_results/
Apparently, when Al Gore (and others) told us that the "science was settled", what they forgot to add was "except for all the other science".
The CERN experiments are extremely interesting to me. But you needn't be a scientist to see what is happening right before our eyes. Advanced climate change is happening even though we might not know exactly why yet.
Did you see that the previous climate scientists were cleared of any wrongdoing?
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2011/02/noaa-climate-sicentists-us-report/1
"..you needn't be a scientist to see what is happening right before our eyes. Advanced climate change is happening.."
But that just begs the question, doesn't it?
Is "Advanced climate change" actually occurring? What is the evidence that is being offered in support of that claim, and how does that evidence, and the science on which it is based, stand up to close, skeptical, scrutiny?
I can't say that I have a definitive answer to that question, but as the CERN story illustrates, the results so far are quite mixed, and the science is evolving ( no where near "settled").
Anyone who tells you differently is either lying to you, or just uninformed (or, as is probably the case with Al Gore, and most other politicians, , both of those things at the same time).
There is plenty of scientific evidence that the climate is changing far beyond the natural cyclical patterns. However it would not be considered definitive by any means. Personally I believe our current knowledge of the situation is only the tip of the iceberg.
"Personally I believe our current knowledge of the situation is only the tip of the iceberg."
Ditto.
"There is plenty of scientific evidence that the climate is changing far beyond the natural cyclical patterns."
Not really.
The IPCC tried to peddle that lie in it's 1990 Report, with the infamous Mann "Hockey stick" graph, now so thoroughly discredited that the IPCC finally had to withdraw the graph from it's 2007 Report, and retract the alarmist (and false) claims that it had made.
Details (and the real temperature graph):
http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=51
If you ignore facts - they are still facts. Again - you needn't be a scientist to observe what is going on in your own current world.
Yes, but the whole point of the Mann "hockey stick" graph fiasco was that it was exactly the promoters of the man made global warming hysteria who were the ones ignoring the facts!
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100102296/sun-causes-climate-change-shock/
Here is the problem Andre - you and your conservative buddies think climate scientists have a personal vendetta against business. That the goal of climate science is to put unnecessary and burdensome regulations on business - for whatever reason - I would have no idea.
The reality is that climate scientists are trying to understand extreme climate change in order to save their own lives (along with yours and mine). If rapid climate change is real - no matter what causes it - we will ALL be dealing with violent storms, food shortages, energy shortages and a host of other global issues. Our very lives depend on accurate analysis of the situation and more importantly, swift response to whatever is determined to be the underlying cause. The Earth is the only inhabitable planet that we know of at this time. We only have one shot at keeping conditions here habitable. If we are too slow to react to any imbalance that we might have control over then we will all suffer the consequences. Clearly you and the GOP are more concerned about business than having an actual planet to live on. That is so bizarre to me.
"... you and your conservative buddies think climate scientists have a personal vendetta against business."
No, we merely think that they are probably overstating the actual risks, and that much of the available scientific evidence either does not support, or in many cases, directly contradicts their claims.
In other words, it's just junk science. As the recent CERN findings show, good science will eventually correct and push out the junk science, but that can take awhile, during which time, if left unchecked, the environmental activist loonies can exploit the situation to inflict huge economic damage upon the world.
It is the Left wing politicians that have a personal vendetta against business, as the more honest ones among them freely admit, and they have repeatedly demonstrated that they are more than willing to exaggerate and hype up any unproven theoretical "threat" if it will assist them in their unbridled greed to expand their power and control over people's lives.
"probably overstating the actual risks"
When it comes down to the very existence of our lives on this planet - I should think an over abundance of caution would be recommended.
A small, but actual risk exists that a new ice age may come upon us. By your own standard, would not an "over abundance of caution" recommend that we institute policies now to begin warming the planet? Just in case...
A small, but actual risk exists that sometime in the next hundred years we may be wiped out by a large asteroid impact. Should we not begin right now moving billions of dollars of our national budget towards building a fleet of massive nuclear tipped space rockets to intercept such a threat (we should probably start testing them soon on smaller space debris)? Which federal program should we cut to fund this "just in case" program? High-speed rail? Food-stamps?
Of course, statistically speaking, you are in far more danger of being harmed in a car crash than you are of being harmed by even the most extreme climate change that the IPCC is forecasting as possible. By your reasoning, shouldn't you immediately get rid of your car? It goes without saying that the bicycle will have to go too.
Maybe it would be safest if you just never left the house again.
Of course, then there is radon....
All silliness aside, the amount of risk aversion you engage in should be reasonably proportional to the likely reality of the threat.
The ability to make an accurate assessment of the threat is directly proportional to the quality of the information and scientific understanding of that threat (if any) which you possess.
As the recent CERN discovery illustrates, our current under standing of these climate issues is extremely limited and unreliable. For all we know now, to aggressively charge ahead half-cocked based on our current understanding, might even end up doing more damage to our environment.
I think we need to learn more first.
Deny Deny Deny
Pollute Pollute Pollute
Profit Profit Profit
Who has the real vested interest here.
"Who has the real vested interest here."
Good question.
Al Gore does adamantly DENY all the growing scientific evidence that contradicts his pet theories (although curiously, he has consisted refused to publicly debate anyone about these questions).
His lavish lifestyle (numerous large residences, flying all over the world on private jets, the boats, the limos, etc, etc) must be quite POLLUTING (certainly compared to you or I).
And he certainly has PROFITED (and continues to profit greatly) from the lucrative career he as built peddling the "Global Warming" snake oil.
Deny, Pollute, Profit = Al Gore
I think the rapid climate change problem is a combination of a variety of causes. They all need to be addressed. Even if cosmic rays and cloud cover are the most major contributing factor - human generated pollutants are only adding to the problem. Ignoring our contribution would be stupid. We likely can't do much about cosmic rays - but we can help a little by controlling our part of the problem.
Shouldn't reducing pollutants always be the plan? Even if it is just so we can breath better and not get cancer from drinking water? If corporations cared - at all - they would do this voluntarily.
I am completely amazed and stunned that we have people that are actually fighting for toxic air and water.
"Shouldn't reducing pollutants always be the plan? "
Within reason, yes.
Beyond reason, no.
Arguably, outlawing the private possession of cars would reduce pollutants. Come to think of it, when you ride your bicycle, you increase the amount of CO2 that you exhale into the atmosphere, and since co2 is a "greenhouse gas",and has recently been classified by the EPA as an atmospheric "pollutant", it would also be arguably true that banning the private ownership of bicycles would also reduce pollution. I hope we can agree that both of those suggestions are unreasonable. That being the case,we have established that somewhere there is a demarcation line between which policies are reasonable to enact and which are unreasonable. The precise location of that line is what is up for debate.
"...and not get cancer from drinking water?"
Who is getting cancer from drinking water? I have not heard that anyone is, at least not in the US. Did I miss something?
"... we have people that are actually fighting for toxic air and water."
We do? Who would that be? Are you "fighting for toxic air" when you drive your car?
I like that last post Andre. It really shows the power of words - how they can be used to twist logic to suite one's purpose. Any topic can be argued when one uses words in that way. It might be considered brilliant if it wasn't so damaging.
All I'm trying to say is that in every aspect of human activity on this planet, it can be argued that some form of "pollution" results.
Everything we do involves a choice and a trade off of benefits and costs.
There are no free rides.
Cars, for example, pollute (even the cleanest electric car is responsible for some pollution, both from it's manufacture and from the generation of electricity needed to power it).
Pollution, on balance, is a undesirable thing, and is not conducive to human flourishing.
Cars also provide many benefits to us, and to our society. To forgo them in order to avoid some bad results, would necessarily result in us having to accept other bad results (perhaps even worse ones).
We have to choose how much of the bad we are willing to accept in exchange for the good.
You can never completely have one without the other.
In order to wisely balance the two (whatever they are), and in order to make informed decisions, we need to have the best evidence-based information available.
Is that really such a radical idea?
And my point is that we should always do whatever is in our power (yes, within reason) to protect our environment - it is the only one we have. Unfortunately corporations won't do that on their own - it requires regulation.
Electric cars are stupid. Why isn't anyone saying that?! Electricity is neither cheap nor environmentally friendly. We need to develop hydrogen power technology for automobiles. The byproduct of hydrogen power is water. What could be more environmentally friendly than that?! Plus, hydrogen power is a great advancement for the next stage in transportation where we leave roads behind and travel by air. Lets think BIG folks!
Yes! Where are the damn flying cars!? When I was a kid we were constantly told that within our lifetimes we would all be zooming around like the Jetsons.
I'm still waiting ( and hoping).
Me too!
The plot thickens...here is some new ammo for you (maybe).
Of course, you may have to reject it out of hand because apparently one of the main financial backers for the research were the Koch brothers, so by definition it must be biased and faulty, right?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html#articleTabs%3Dcomments
Thanks Andre - but I really don't need any more evidence. Anyone with a brain and eyes can see we are already too late.
"I really don't need any more evidence."
So much for the scientific method. (you Fundamentalists really are all the same, aren't you?)
***
He said, she said:
http://www.express.co.uk/features/view/280948/Is-global-warming-over-
"“There is no scientific basis for saying that global warming hasn’t stopped,” she (Prof. Curry) says.
“To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.” New research also seems to back up Prof Curry rather than Prof Muller.
A report published by the Global Warming Foundation, which is based on BEST’s findings, includes a graph of world average temperatures over the past 10 years and it is absolutely flat, suggesting that temperatures have remained constant.
This issue is crucial because the levels of carbon dioxide in the air have continued to rise rapidly over the last decade and if temperatures have remained constant during that period it would suggest there is no direct link between carbon gas emissions and global warming."
This was a feature story in USA Today - today.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/story/2011-11-01/climate-weather-extremes/51031618/1
This year it begins the first days of March. Hmmmmmmmm.
Post a Comment