Icy reality cools the climate cultists

[Rearden]

Originally Posted by nostatic

Pish posh. Science journals are the refuge of leftwing moonbats who couldn't get a real job so they sit and play with test tubes all day like some sort of pyrex Barbie playhouse.

Next thing you'll want data sets. And statistical analysis. And lack of hyperbole. Won't someone think of the hyperbole?!?!?

Editor of The Lancet speaking at anti-war rally

[Mule]

Originally Posted by john70t

Bush's socialism or Obama's?

Obama is much closer to Algore. So is Nazi Pelosi.

[Mule]

What a guy!

[CRH911S]

RoninLB brings up a point that I failed to mention. Methane is being released into the atmosphere at an alarming rate to the extent scientist have studied thus far. Ice core samples going back 400,000 years show nothing comparable to what we're seeing today.
So what's really wrong with cutting back on greenhouse gases anyway? And why are they a political issue? We went through this same crap with lead based paint and asbestos. Why is it when one group or the other raises an alarm we freak out and start calling each other names? Shouldn't we be encouraging and supporting the world's best scientific minds to get to the bottom of this one way or the other? That's what I'd like to see but mean while error on the side of caution until we do find out for sure, 100% sure.

[island911]

Originally Posted by CRH911S

..
So what's really wrong with cutting back on greenhouse gases anyway? ...

feel free.

Originally Posted by CRH911S

..
... And why are they a political issue? ....

because politicians can gain power and money.

Originally Posted by CRH911S

..
... Why is it when one group or the other raises an alarm we freak out and start calling each other names? ....

Because nobody likes alarmists. Especially when the alarmists demand that they are arbitrators of carbon emissions. ...from sitting their massive compound, ..or private jet.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by CRH911S

RoninLB brings up a point that I failed to mention. Methane is being released into the atmosphere at an alarming rate to the extent scientist have studied thus far. Ice core samples going back 400,000 years show nothing comparable to what we're seeing today.
So what's really wrong with cutting back on greenhouse gases anyway? And why are they a political issue? We went through this same crap with lead based paint and asbestos. Why is it when one group or the other raises an alarm we freak out and start calling each other names? Shouldn't we be encouraging and supporting the world's best scientific minds to get to the bottom of this one way or the other? That's what I'd like to see but mean while error on the side of caution until we do find out for sure, 100% sure.

Spoken like Algore himself! We'll just give up on vehicles & electricity untill something better comes along. Brilliant!

[john70t]

Originally Posted by island911

Because politicians can gain power and money by controlling the world's energy supply and forcing the continued use of oil.
Because nobody likes Abu Jabu alarmists. Especially when the alarmists demand that the USA empty it's entire vault in order to fund the alarmist's private army to invade the wrong country. ...while sitting their massive Texas skyscraper, ..or private jet..and protecting the terrorists.

Fixed that for 'ya.

[island911]

So you can't handle the topic, eh John?

[Chuck Moreland]

Read the following link:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

This settles the global warming argument for me.

[RoninLB]

if anybody's interested in snorting my carbon footprint they're more than welcome to follow my PMOs anytime. I was told I'm good for 1/8 mile of fumes on a good day.


Otherwise this article has different info.
It's also boring if you're not into it. Or go right to last 3 paragraphs.


http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/33383/title/Forest_invades_tundra

"Forest invades tundra"
By Janet Raloff
Science News; June 20th, 2008

[john70t]

I'm not an alarmist, more like a cynical realist/pragmatist. The concept of a rapidly changing planetary ecosystem due to human activity is hardly new.

The idea that water vapor contributes to greenhouse gas?
-Could (possibly) be the number #1 cause.
Then again the Middle East used to be a "garden of eden", Iceland was reported to be heavily forested before the Vikings, and giant sequoias used to blanket the north California coastline.
No heavy vegitation, no water storage. No water storage, no localized buffer. The effect on regional thermal mass to the N'th.

The idea that increased CO2 accelerates vegitative growth?
-Ok by me, but it also decreases animal cellular growth too- the bipedal kind has been seen a lot more these days. The upcoming changes won't be the first time this planet has seen catastrophy, but can 10,000 years of the highest form of animal advancement be ruined overnight? I think we deserve better.

The US isn't responsible for most climate change. There are riverboats running into each other in southeast asia from the slash-and burn smoke(which can be seen from space), the Amazon is shrinking from the ethanol expansion, and there are daily disasters all over the planet. The US has an obligation to give those third-world countries a solar panel and plenty of condoms, though.
Until a problem is identified and acknowledged, a solution cannot be possible.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by Chuck Moreland

Read the following link:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

This settles the global warming argument for me.

Case closed.

Excellent article.

[nynor]

wow. great article.

[CRH911S]

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html, no doubt an interesting read. However, where is the peer review supportive of the inference that the human contribution to the natural greenhouse makeup is not disruptive to the atmoshpere's natural balance?
Nothing in the article deals with the fact that the levels of CO2 today, as opposed to 50 years ago, is destroying the natural ecology of the ocean. These small human contributions are affecting other parts of earth's science. So is it prudent to be jumping on the band wagon here like so many of you are? Gee, I bet some of you still believe in the easter bunny and that stork's bring ya babys.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by CRH911S

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html, no doubt an interesting read. However, where is the peer review supportive of the inference that the human contribution to the natural greenhouse makeup is not disruptive to the atmoshpere's natural balance?
Nothing in the article deals with the fact that the levels of CO2 today, as opposed to 50 years ago, is destroying the natural ecology of the ocean. These small human contributions are affecting other parts of earth's science. So is it prudent to be jumping on the band wagon here like so many of you are? Gee, I bet some of you still believe in the easter bunny and that stork's bring ya babys.

If you really believe that, here is the quickest way to a zero carbon footprint.

[boba]

Originally Posted by Chuck Moreland

Read the following link:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

This settles the global warming argument for me.

Thank you Chuck. It is nice to have data that shows how much hype and agenda there is in the global warming movement.

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by CRH911S

no doubt an interesting read. However, where is the peer review supportive of the inference that the human contribution to the natural greenhouse makeup is not disruptive to the atmoshpere's natural balance?

Where was the peer review for Earth in the Balance, et al?

And the petty bunny and stork references? I hope your other debate nut drops soon, then you can join the fray as an adult.

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by nostatic

Pish posh.

Funny...our two barn cats, rescued from some interesting circumstances, are named Pish and Posh. Pics to follow.

[CRH911S]

And the petty bunny and stork references? I hope your other debate nut drops soon, then you can join the fray as an adult...Seahawk
Funny you should mention it, I was thinking the same thing when I made the comment...guess it takes awhile for some. And no, I won't be joining this circle of thought....

[RWebb]

Earth in the Balance, like other Gore output, is a popularization based on his reading and discussion with climate scientists. It was never subject to peer review and does contain a few inaccuracies. Gore can be credited, however, with delivering an important "wake up" message to many people. I have some friends who are/were neighbors of his ( the guy used to run a chemical plant for Ethyl Corp.) - they are elderly and staunch Republicans BTW. They say he is a very sincere man.

The geocraft site does not look like it is presenting agreed upon data to me. I'd have to analyze it further to check the figures. At least some of the conclusions however, are way off.

Another problem is that is cites statements by Fred Singer, the notorious Exxon/Mobil "payrolled scientist." His claims, of course, are not peer reviewed. Maybe he is sincere -- I don't know.

Bottom line - I hope Singer is right. But it sure doesn't look like it. And we appear to be in for some very unpleasant times.