Posted on 02/18/2007 5:22:21 AM PST by Mount Athos
Since I slipped and fell four times this week in Times Square on my way to work, it's time to weigh in on the glo-bull warming debate. Because when I'm inconvenienced by the weather, there's something wrong with the planet.
It's no wonder the political left is all over the global warming phenomenon, as it falls into line with the rest of their causes that require no logical argument, only a bumper sticker, protest sign, or T-shirt. No matter what the weather happens to be doing -- whether its snowing or scorching hot -- these people will simply point to the nearest window and mumble, "Yeah man, global warming."
The last time I argued like that, I was five years old and in front of a menu board at McDonalds, jumping up and down with my little finger pointed at the picture of a Quarter Pounder.
I can see why the issue would be appealing, though, as it beats fighting that never ending "War on Poverty" which involves going outside and counting all the homeless people. Pointing is even easier.
Watching liberals play scientist is like observing a chimp while it attempts to operate an Easy-Bake oven. It's entertaining, but rather harmless.
But it's the folks who actually call themselves "scientists" who concern me. Until "climate change" became a catchphrase, experts in this field were called "weather men" and we watched them at work on the nightly news. Given their general track record for accuracy, most of them may as well be reading us our astrology charts instead of the weather maps.
A U.S. Congressional hearing on climate change was cancelled this week because of a massive snowstorm in DC. I'm just wondering, how many academic degrees are required for a person to find that funny?
An article in the Los Angeles Times perfectly sums up global warming quackery: "As glaciers from Greenland to Kilimanjaro recede at record rates, the central icecap of Antarctica has been steadily growing for 11 years, partially offsetting the rise in seas from the melt waters of global warming, researchers said."
The "experts" claim to be able to measure the temperature of the Earth. (I don't want to know where they stick the thermometer.) They travel to remote regions and declare that because ice is melting somewhere and growing somewhere else, that means the Earth is (drumroll) warmer! Duh. Of course it does.
As if a glo-bull warming scientist is going to walk into the finance department of his institution and say, "There's nothing to worry about. It's all crap. My work here is done. Oh well, time for me to get a job at Denny's!"
FOUND THEIR FAITH
This week, a Boston Globe columnist compared global warming skeptics to holocaust deniers. The far-left has finally found faith and religion, and they're about as rational as a suicide bomber when it comes to their convictions.
You know that all objectivity and perspective has gone out the window when a PowerPoint presentation on the issue, featuring esteemed actor Al Gore, gets an Oscar nod. Gore has also announced this week he'll be holding climate change concerts, called Live Earth, in support of his own foundation to "fight" glo-bull warming.
Here's the real "inconvenient truth": People who spend this much time contemplating the weather need to pick up some extra shifts at work, or even take a ballroom dancing or pottery class.
A very eye-opening fact are the glaciers in Alaska and Scandinavia.
These glaciers are, in some places, over 1 mile thick.
History has shown that these glaciers have melted and refroze 7 times in the past, long before industrialization.
My nephews tell me that in their eighth grade class they are teaching that man can cause global climate change as proven scientific fact. Their parents did not know this, they were not happy. These government schoold are merely liberal propaganda mills.
That is the heart and soul of the matter. Global Warming is the catechism of the Druid Left (Earth Worshipers).
Fine article...had many smiles as I read it. Thanks.
I went to the site to read and I see that it's -10C right now in Toronto. I'll bet is was a different temperature on this date last year.
Guess that proves climate change is real.
Priceless!
She's the Canadian Ann Coulter!
When they first saw it, it was green, so they called it Greenland.
So, when these alleged scientists go all whingy about how temps in Vinland (Newfoundland) are going up, or that the Greenland ice is melting, I say:
"Been there, done that, it was good, let's do it again!"
I watched Gore's movie last night and to be honest...I found it compelling and powerful television. I'm new to this debate, but I'd very much like to see the counter arguement to a few of his KEY POINTS
1) Regarding the EPICA Core glatial ice analysis that tightly correlates CO2/TEMP over the past 650,000 years+.
Is the accuracy of this data disputed among paleoclimatologists or other scientists?
2) With regard to the debate on whether higher past CO2 levels were a CAUSE or EFFECT of tempature increases...does it really matter if the current data shows both to be rising concurrently?
3) Are the calculations of the affects of land-based glacier melting in places like East Antactica/Greenland accurate? Are those calculations disputed?
Are you serious? It makes a HUGE difference.
My nephews tell me that in their eighth grade class
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Have you attempted to persuade their parents to remove them from this government school? Are they that desperate financially and socially that they must do this?
For a rebuttal see here... http://www.cei.org/pages/ait_response-book.cfm
If you think about it, most well done TV productions are very convincing. It's what they do.
Gore's movie is like a Michael Moore documentary. Everything is taken out of context and cleverly manipulated to support his orginal thesis.
If the Earth warms, more CO2 is released from the oceans. So, can they show us which came first, CO2 or warming? The historical graphs show that the warming came first!
The problem is that the wrong timescale is being used to measure what is really happening. Consider alternating cuurent (your home electricity). If you average the voltage, it comes out around 120 Volts. If however you take millisecond or microsecond observations you will find that it varies enormously! That is the problem with near term temperature movement. It tells you nothing about the trend.
There are others here who can debate the details. I am not willing to get caught up in the minutae as climate is not a static thing.
The Earth is a not a static rock. It is continuously changing in many, many ways.
We already know that the continents are in motion. We know that the ozone hole grows and shrinks on a regular basis. We know that volcanic activity has slowed. We know that the sun's output is not a constant.
Given all the above, how much of temperature change should be attributed to natural causes versus manmade causes? Nobody can answer that.
Given the fact that the best computers and minds in the world cannot consistently get a weather forecast correct over any 3-day period, how should we trust longer-term forecasts?
Do temperature readings for the last 30 years constitute a trend? There were no thermometers positioned around the world 50 years ago. The data does not exist.
Historical temperatures cannot be accurately estimated by ANY means currently available. Especially if we do not know the state of macro-climate conditions (volcanoes, meteor impacts, etc) that can greatly affect temperature.
Think about this: When there is a great deal of volcanic activity, temperatures decrease due to the dust in the atmosphere. As the dust settles out, temperatures rise. Therefore, one component of temperature increases could be a decrease in volcanic activity.
Are any of these mitigating factors given credence by the global warming crowd? No.
Look, 30 years ago, this same group said manmade emissions were going to cause another ice age. Then they switched to global warming. Now, they claim climate change (temperatures up and down) as the result of man's presence on the planet.
Don't get sucked in by people who keep moving the target as the previous did not fit the facts.
Skeptics and Deniers of Global Warming. Its not a settled science. Debate continues. 10 part series
Financial Post/National Post ^ | February 02, 2007 | Lawrence Solomon
10 Part series on critically assessing the claim of global warming. Lawrence Solomon through the works of distinguished scientists demonstrates that contrary to the media accepted verdict that the Global Warming science is settled, its not. The skeptics are called by a dirty word "The Deniers" to illicit a negative analogy with Holocaust Deniers. But the skeptics/Deniers quoted by Lawrence Solomon are all distinguished scientists with curriculum vitae to die for. They may be wrong, as any scientist may be wrong, but theirs is an honest science, not politics. The debate is far from over. Lawrence Solomon himself (as far as I can tell) is not a "right-wing extremist" that can be easily dismissed. Judge by yourself:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1782042/posts
LOL...I probably shouldn't even be commenting on this with my lack of knowledge, but thanks for acknowledging me.
What I mean is...if the end result is a temperature rise that causes catastrophic land-based glacial melting - ahhh forget it. I'll go do my research first.
Hilarious! All we have left is satire, mockery and sarcasm. The science is "settled!"
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.