Posted on 07/12/2006 9:42:12 PM PDT by byteback
To take the issue of rising sea levels, these include: that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940; that icebergs have been known since time immemorial; that the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average. A likely result of all this is increased pressure pushing ice off the coastal perimeter of that island land, which is depicted so ominously in Gores movie.
In the absence of factual context, these images are perhaps dire or alarming. They are less so otherwise. Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we dont know why.
The other elements of the global-warming scare scenario are predicated on similar oversights. Malaria, claimed as a byproduct of warming, was once common in Michigan and Siberia and remains common in Siberia mosquitoes dont require tropical warmth.
Hurricanes, too, vary on multidecadal time scales; sea-surface temperature is likely to be an important factor. This temperature, itself, varies on multidecadal time scales. Even among those arguing, there is general agreement that we cant attribute any particular hurricane to global warming.
A general characteristic of Gores approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse. Regardless, these items are clearly not issues over which debate is ended at least not in terms of the actual science.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Listening to clips of Gore on his silly movie reminds me of Pat Paulson having a plank to create a toupee for Mount Baldy.
umm. . . doesnt that show an increasing tendency? Or am I looking at it incorrectly.
My favorite is that advancing glaciers in Greenland are a sign of global warming while while retreating glaciers in Alaska are also a sign of global warming.
Unfortunately it's those junk science links that harden your already hardened attitude. I am a skeptic and I am very open-minded. I think the most conservative yet scientific approach to this problem is to recognize that science is still a few decades (at most) away from knowing the answers and that "tipping points" and other proclamations are not scientific although they might sound conservative. If I knew that CO2 was NOT logarithmic or if I believed that weather has no or little negative feedbacks, then I would worry about tipping points myself.
Doesn't look like it from THIS article:
COLD ON WARMING: DEM VOTERS DON'T REALLY CARE
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1665608/posts
Twenty years is spit in the geologic time frame. You can't get global warming from 20 years. Meteorologists can't even get tomorrow's forecast right sometimes.
There is a complete scientific consensus and it has been building for 20 plus years.
The only consensus that I've ever got from the other meteorologists that I've known, is that there is no global warming. I haven't met one yet that believes it. Delude yourself, if you will, but that's all you're going to be getting from the libs and media.
Thanks for the link. That is good and I passed it on.
In line with the *colder winters in the northeast are a sign of global warming*. So what would warmer winters be a sign of? The new ice age? Wonder what they're smoking?
Big ping
By minipulating the data to show our climate has been constant for the last 2000 years and ignoring written history that clearly shows we have had a warming period and a mini-ice age. Even if their highly selective data and minipulated graph was true, it would still not be conclusive proof.
Exactly, if there is a theory to global warming they should be able to say if x (the temp goes up) then y should happen. What we have here is z happening then the logical acrobatics trying to prove that z follows from x.
I should have payed closer attention to that graph, and I am sorry for providing false raw data.
Obviously, any CO2 measurements prior to 1960 were computer generated, and not factual information.
This debate is complex enough, without people introducing false information.
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.