Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scientists cool outlook on global warming
The Washington Times ^ | 4-21-06 | Jennifer Harper

Posted on 04/21/2006 11:08:08 AM PDT by JZelle

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-36 last
To: RoadTest

Park it with Y2K.


21 posted on 04/21/2006 11:50:58 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (BTUs are my Beat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JZelle

You are looking at a public display of suicide by research director Gabriele Hegerl of Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences. Her career is FINISHED!! She'll never get another grant.


22 posted on 04/21/2006 11:57:09 AM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JZelle

Duke, huh? Very interesting timing, the libs will say.

Also, did you notice one group even wanted to blame the forests for global warming.



23 posted on 04/21/2006 11:58:44 AM PDT by Right Wing Assault ("..this administration is planning a 'Right Wing Assault' on values and ideals.." - John Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JZelle

I guess it's time to watch the comedy classic "The Day After Tomorrow" again.


24 posted on 04/21/2006 11:59:10 AM PDT by manwiththehands (Lead, follow or shut up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JZelle
Amazing. When I tell folks in the SF Bay Area that the case on Greenhouse warming is still full of scientific holes, they look at me like I'm some sort of tree bulldozing Nazi fringe maniac. The MSM long ago bought into the case presented by the NGO's over the last 10 years that this is a fact that can no longer be debated on any level.

The interesting phenomena here is how catastrophisim concepts can eventually become "fact" when repeated enough.

Surprisingly, the press still presents this as a much greater threat than the far higher likelihood of nuke terror over the next 30 year period.
25 posted on 04/21/2006 12:03:08 PM PDT by Wiseghy ("You want to break this army? Then break your word to it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JZelle
Essentially the same thing was posted yesterday by DaveLone Ranger.

If you take off the spin and look at the numbers, the Duke study confirms what is pretty much the consensus estimate for climate forcing: about 3 degree Centigrade (5.4 degree Fahrenheit) temperature rise for a doubling of CO2 concentration, whcih is predicted for about 2100. The one thing they do is exclude estimates on the very high tail of the range.

26 posted on 04/21/2006 12:04:33 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JZelle
Global warming may not be as dramatic as some scientists have predicted.

...paging Dingle-Norwood.

27 posted on 04/21/2006 12:06:01 PM PDT by floozy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: street_lawyer

How did you leave out Ronnie?


28 posted on 04/21/2006 12:22:38 PM PDT by Waverunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: JZelle
Guillermo Gonzalez & Jay W Richards, The Privileged Planet
29 posted on 04/21/2006 12:22:41 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

The problem with the “consensus” is that it must continually be readjusted as the blatant errors of computer models are corrected by reality. The global warming lobby is foolishness.

If “consensus” means whatever scientific opinion the driveby media feels like reporting, then “consensus” is the last thing we need to listen to. Unless we seek deception and stupidity.


30 posted on 04/21/2006 8:36:46 PM PDT by reasonisfaith (liberals are sissies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith
The consensus forcing estimate is the same it was in 1990. The only thing that has changed is the uncertainty.

How odd that scientists, who have spent their lives doing something, got it right. Far more likely peanut-brained ideologues who probably never finished high school know better.

Why exactly do you think you have an opinion on this anyone should care about?

31 posted on 04/21/2006 8:57:46 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor (Evangelical Reformed Atheist, Missouri Synod.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Comment #32 Removed by Moderator

To: DaveLoneRanger
It was a relevant news article; I also think they have it about right.

I still contend it DOES change the alarmism. It puts a ceiling on the way-high predictions, and curtails the alarmism.

I agree.

33 posted on 04/25/2006 9:04:31 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
It was a relevant news article; I also think they have it about right.

I still contend it DOES change the alarmism. It puts a ceiling on the way-high predictions, and curtails the alarmism.

I agree.

34 posted on 04/25/2006 9:04:58 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: JZelle

Oh NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

They're going to transition back to "pollution will bring on the ice age"!

Where's my woolys???????


35 posted on 04/25/2006 9:07:45 PM PDT by G Larry (Only strict constructionists on the Supreme Court!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #36 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-36 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson