FReepmail me to get on or off
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
Posted on 05/04/2007 1:20:15 PM PDT by Shermy
Which enticingly ends,
"Next: Who are the hoaxers, and what are they after?
.
save bump
Actually the opposite is happening. Due to recycling and re-planting of trees, and reducing the emissions of cars, CO2 is actually dropping while O2 is rising. What this means is plants could die from not enough CO2. Photosynthesis in plants basically stops when the CO2 level in the atmosphere drops below 0.02%. Right now it is 0.0383%. A few years ago it was 0.04%.
What this means is we should stop recycling, cut down more trees, and burn fossil fuels dirtier. No, I am not kidding about this. All liberals are doing with this global warming hoax is just speeding up the destruction of plant life on earth, and guess what? No plant life = no life. No people, animals, fish, birds, insects, on and on.
ping
Most of the models that "work" have "non-physical adjustment"s. Otherwise they are typically only good for making comparisons, not producing absolute values.
Do you have a reference or link?
I feel much better now, knowing that as the Red Chinese work towards capitalism and eventual freedom.............that their pollution will help save the world...........two birds with one stone.........
:}
Where do you get the data suggesting that atmospheric CO2 is decreasing? All the data I’ve seen says its going up.
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
Monbiot’s reply:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=57&ItemID=12743
snip...”He appears to rely on the testimony of one man who studied meteorology for three years a long time ago, while dismissing the work of thousands of others with greater experience and better credentials. As Cockburn must know from his work on the 9/11 conspiracists, you can find an “expert” to support just about any position on any subject. If you want to believe that HIV does not cause AIDs, you can find a professor of medicine who supports that view. If you want to claim that smoking does not cause cancer, or that black people are less intelligent than white people, you can find a self-appointed “expert”, with academic qualifications, to defend that position. The cherry-picking of experts is just what the 9/11 conspiracists have done, and this is just why their approach is unscientific.
· He provides no evidence that he has asked other climate scientists to determine whether or not Martin Hertzberg’s argument has merit. The scientific approach demands that, rather than sheltering them from criticism, you subject your beliefs to the same scrutiny and scepticism with which you treat opposing views.
· He uses arguments - such as the claim that “water is exactly that component of the earth’s heat balance that the global warming computer models fail to account for” and the claim that global temperatures were higher in the medieval period than they are today - that have long been discredited. For a discussion of these positions, see here and here.
· He has not understood that a temperature rise initially pre-dating an increase in CO2 in the ice core record strengthens rather than weakens the standard theory. Temperatures rose as a result of changes in the Milankovic Cycle, sunspot activity or other forcing agents. They then caused the release of greenhouse gases from the biosphere, which then caused temperatures to rise further. Climate scientists warn that rising temperatures caused by carbon dioxide emissions today will cause exactly the same effect: the release of further carbon dioxide and methane by oceans, soils and forests, causing further rises in temperature. What would he expect to find - evidence of industrial civilisations 600,000 years ago?”...snip
If global warming were from the beginning a cause of conservatives, I wonder what the left would be doing right now?
Early on it was a cause championed by Margret Thatcher, according to "The Global Warming Swindle".
Moonbiat is a real piece of work. Hope he’s getting paid.
What an overreaction. Comparing him to 9/11 truthers is like playing the Hitler card.
“”He uses arguments - such as the claim that “water is exactly that component of the earth’s heat balance that the global warming computer models fail to account for” and the claim that global temperatures were higher in the medieval period than they are today - that have long been discredited.””
Well, some “models” try to account for water - all slanted to find CO2 the main culprit. As for the medieval period he’s absolutely wrong. Just a few modellers and such tried to eliminate that warming. Which, by the way, if it were warmer then that doesn’t necessarily discard the CO2 warming idea, BUT that calls attention to other climate factors...which isn’t a good way to sell carbon credit trading and catastrophe.
“”He has not understood that a temperature rise initially pre-dating an increase in CO2 in the ice core record strengthens rather than weakens the standard theory. Temperatures rose as a result of changes in the Milankovic Cycle, sunspot activity or other forcing agents. They then caused the release of greenhouse gases from the biosphere, which then caused temperatures to rise further.””
Bogus. The IPCC propagandists faced the dilemma, then created the self-serving new “standard” solution that temps rise “further”. Doubtful but if true, how much? A teensy bit?
He has not understood that a temperature rise initially pre-dating an increase in CO2 in the ice core record strengthens rather than weakens the standard theory.
[secretagent was quoting "Monboit"]
Good grief! I can understand arguing that the green house theory might still be salvageable after such evidence...but to suggest it is strengthened by it? GET REAL!
bttt
It does seem like a rationalization assertion, but I can see how the science may support Monbiot. Perhaps the initial non-GHG warming could only account for so much, leaving the rest for GHG.
Now that the SCOTUS has declared CO2 a ‘pollutant’ and therefor under the governing auspices of the Federal EPA, if what you say is true, how soon can we expect the EPA to ban trees and recycling?
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.