Proposing Nuremburg style trials for people who merely express a differing opinion, and actually being serious about it is more than a red flag that their theory is on shaky ground.
This cartoon really does sum it up perfectly.
Posted on 01/30/2007 7:30:32 AM PST by Notwithstanding
Two New Books Confirm Global Warming is Natural; Not Caused By Human Activity Tue Jan 30 2007 10:02:32 ET
Two powerful new books say today’s global warming is due not to human activity but primarily to a long, moderate solar-linked cycle. Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years, by physicist Fred Singer and economist Dennis Avery was released just before Christmas. The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change, by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and former BBC science writer Nigel Calder (Icon Books), is due out in March. --- break --- Unstoppable Global Warming documents the reality of a moderate, natural, 1500-year climate cycle on the earth. The Chilling Stars explains the why and how.
(Excerpt) Read more at drudgereport.com ...
Proposing Nuremburg style trials for people who merely express a differing opinion, and actually being serious about it is more than a red flag that their theory is on shaky ground.
This cartoon really does sum it up perfectly.
They haven't given up on this plan yet. If they get the WH AND Congress, we will see a law requiring Global Warning to be the official mantra. Stifle American production, trash the economy to make everyone more government dependent, ship boatloads of dollars to squalor riddden nations. Just for good measure, ban BBQ grills, gas lawn mowers, all pick ups, and any vehicle over 2500# or more than 4 cylinder engines. Require some $4500 pollution contraption on each new car sold, etc., etc.
This Global Warming BS is the greatest scheme these fruitcakes have ever come up with to take over all aspects of daily life.
Helping FReepers to have an informed opinion of this issue, which I'm interested in.
1. Has the Earth ever been warmer on average than it is today?
Sure, it has been a lot warmer. There used to be no ice caps, if you want to go back that far. In the recent past, it appears that the peak of a couple of the previous interglacials might have been slightly warmer.
Does the Earth go through hot and cold cycles and is it possible that this warming trend is just another cycle?
The Earth clearly goes through warming and cooling cycles, glacial/interglacial periods being the most recent and most significant. The Holocene has been very stable with little evidence of a strong cyclical influence. The preponderance of evidence indicates that the current warming trend which began in the mid-1850s (about when the Little Ice Age terminated) is not predominantly part of a natural cycle, particularly the warming since the mid-70s. The elimination of natural cyclical influence as part of the cause of the warming is one part of the attribution to human activities.
The slight ups-and-downs you note are part of the Holocene's remarkable climate stability. "Climate stability" means relatively small changes in climate. Best illustrated with an image:
The section in the far right-hand "column" is the Holocene. The figure below expands it.
Starting 11,000 years ago -- that's climate stability.
Why would freshwater resources be reduced? We have advanced recycling capabilities right now and, as noted, desalination techniques.
Both require energy and are expensive for the places that are going to need them. One of the main concerns is shrinking mountain glaciers, which supply water to a lot of people.
Do you have actual sources for these "scholarly papers"? I am afraid I don't have a high tolerance for argument by intimidation.
I wasn't trying to be intimidating. Here's some:
deMenocal, Science, 2001: Cultural Responses to Climate Change During the Late Holocene. I can only give you the abstract:
"Modern complex societies exhibit marked resilience to interannual-to- decadal droughts, but cultural responses to multidecadal-to-multicentury droughts can only be addressed by integrating detailed archaeological and paleoclimatic records. Four case studies drawn from New and Old World civilizations document societal responses to prolonged drought, including population dislocations, urban abandonment, and state collapse. Further study of past cultural adaptations to persistent climate change may provide valuable perspective on possible responses of modern societies to future climate change." (full article is subscription only)
Fagan, "The Long Summer: How Climate Changed Civilization" (book, search Amazon)
Hodell et al., Nature, 1995, "Possible role of climate in the collapse of Classic Maya civilization"
This isn't a paper, but it is easily available online:
Start reading at "But at the end of this deglaciation..."
NOW, there is one school of thought that climate change also forced urbanization. Could be true, but there is good evidence that organized societies suffered considerably, and sometimes collapsed, when climate went bad unexpectedly. And there's always the example of Easter Island, too.
I have been hearing about excessive heat from global warming for 19 years now and hardwoods still grow in the upper Midwest, winter still occurs, rivers and lakes still freeze, rains come in the warmer seasons, crops grow, people live on barrier islands and along coastlines and commoditties still exist and are utilized.
Did you know that there is a defined trend of lakes and rivers freezing later in the autumn and earlier in the spring over the past 150 years?
Warming may threaten Vermont maples
"McNulty said virtually every one of the computer programs that scientists use to predict how a changing climate will affect the Earth show that sugar maples will essentially disappear from Vermont by the end of this century." (But it's good for Quebec)
There's nothing hysterical about it. We can't do it today, but the technology will be quite feasible in 50-100 year time frame should it be needed then. Furthermore, I am confident by then our climate models will be accurate enough.
Predicting weather is not necessary for climate models. But modeling weather in some detail is necessary despite the contention from both sides in the debate that all they need is energy equations. The reason in a nutshell is that water vapor causes warming and without detailed water vapor models (especially where it counts like the tropics), the climate cannot be predicted with any useful accuracy. But accurate predictions of temperature or precipitation for any one place or time are not necessary because they simply don't matter.
Two more points. Computing power will increase in the next 10-20 years to make my argument moot and the GW debate will be resolved except for the politics. So there's no reason to do any mitigation now. Second, mitigation is cheap and easy with accurate climate models. Ask the leftist scientists why they don't use their models to tell us how much sulfur to put in the upper atmosphere to cool the earth should that become necessary. They won't answer because they want to limit carbon (i.e. wealth) not warming.
I think more is required. They should show that their models predict better than others. As an example, I took some public hurricane predictions and compared them with random models and the predictions didn't do better than the random ones. I can provide more details if you like.
Maybe Algore would want to debate this man.Al Gore is far too busy battling ManBearPig to spend his time debating this man. Besides, Global Warmonology is based on Faith, not real science.
Hysteria is never helpful but sometimes it's entirely reasonable to non-hysterically call for draconian responses. For example, I am in favor of draconian (by which I mean very severe) punishment for companies that knowingly employ illegal aliens.
So, do you consider the idea of investigating the deployment of a space based shield and/or other active interventions sometime in the next hundred or so years should it be feasible and cost effective a draconian response? I don't. I'd even be tempted to call that characterization hysterical.
Hansen made predcitions for global temperature increase 10 years ago. He was off by only about 800%.
Global warming has been happening for many, mnay years now, thank goodness since the alternative is not a pretty picture.
The problem with scientists like Hansen is that they suffer no consequences from predictions that were so inaccurate a 2 year old chimp could have made them.
So the Earth is warming. For those who think that is a catastrophic problem they have two choices, they can offer methods to mitigate global warming, color me very skeptical here, or they can do some science taht allows Earths inhabitants to adapt. They choose to do neither and thus get the well deserved reputation as the boy crying global warming, or cooling, whatever the cureent fad is.
As for CO2, I would love for somebody to give me proof that CO2 leads temperature increases rather than lags. The charts I've seen from ice cores seem to indicate that CO2 upticks lag temperature increases.
Don't the Weather Channel (The "W" stands for All-Warming-All-The-Time) know. They can't handle the intellectual challenge.
Another reason is that the "greens" have made a religion of environmentalism.
As I've said to some "greenies", they are the biggest proselytizers on the planet.
Environmentalism has become the Morality in Schools, the Eschatology of Belief, and the Purpose for Living among these Believers.
Michael Crichton made an excellent speech on this topic several years ago.
The apex of the Medieval Maximum tracks quite well with the apex of the Cahokia Culture in the Midwest, and the Zimbabwean culture in Southern Africa.
I've been to both sites over several decades and noted the timeline of both.
Later, upon reading of the Medieval Maximum, I remembered that an explosion of people and trade had occured in both areas at that time.
Obviously, this time also corresponds with the settling of Greenland by the Norse.
You may think of other cultures that flourished during that timeframe.
"Global Warmonology is based on Faith, not real science"
Love it.
So Warmo-Tology would be the religion to the Leftist- Athiests
Bravo ! (stands up clapping).
I understand that "The Weather Channel" is issuing a fatwa on Mr.s Singer, Avery, Svensmark, and Calder.
For one thing, it puts the lie to the bogus charge that we should destroy our standard of living in a vain attempt to change nature.
For another, I am very much pleased that mankind cannot influence the climate. Can you possibly imagine the mess we'd have if governments could institute policies that changed our climate? Look how they screw up things when they try to regulate economies. They would destroy the earth with the same efficiency.
The atmospheric sulfur would be high enough to mostly not precipitate. It's just an example anyway, once the models are adequate there will be plenty of ways to cool (or warm) the earth if that becomes necessary.
Please enlighten me and the other bafoons on this board how man can eliminate Global Warming without throwing the entire planet into a state of chaos worse than the ill you seek to cure. If you mention taxes one time, you must explain who collects them and how they are used to eliminate anything other than bureaucratic poverty.
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.