Posted on 11/11/2007 7:28:52 PM PST by kathsua
Why do they buy the nonsense about alleged greenhouse gases causing dangerous global warming? The claim about the power of greenhouse gases sounds like magic and the evidence for “global warming” is of little value.
Those who talk about global warming claim a 0.5 C (1 F) increase in what they call the global average temperature indicates the earth is getting warmer. You don’t have to be a mathematician or physicist to recognize that one temperature cannot represent every place on earth from frigid polar regions to blazing deserts. Nor can a single temperature represent year round conditions in temperate regions where temperatures can range from -18 C (0 F) in the winter to 35 C (100 F) in the summer.
The claim that a 0.5 C (1 F) increase is significant ignores the fact that the number represents only a 0.17% change over a century. (Note: Per cent changes in temperature must be calculated using the Kelvin scale because of the arbitrary zero points of the Celsius and Fahrenheit scales.) Scientists might be able to obtain an accuracy within 0.17% in laboratory conditions, but not in the real world. Inadequate maintenance of equipment can reduce accuracy. Changes in the area near the site of the reading can affect temperatures.
Carbon dioxide constitutes less than 0.04% of the atmosphere. How can anyone believe that an increase from 0.036% to 0.037%, for example, could possibly increase air temperature?
One of the oldest scams in physics involves the perpetual motion machine. Such machines supposedly operate with little or not energy. The inventor may claim that his machine may produce nearly as much energy as it consumes. Claims about greenhouse gases imply they cause the atmosphere to function as a perpetual motion machine.
The idea that individual CO2 molecules can actually radiate enough energy to heat anything sounds so ridiculous that it’s hard to understand how any logical person could believe it.
Police will tell you that if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Scam artists tend to oversell whatever they are peddling. The people who claim global warming, are overselling claims about climate change and gullible journalists are buying what they are selling.
Why can’t this problem be solved by better sealing of greenhouses? Don’t let the gas out, no problem with the gas.
I took earth science for 2 years only because I never did homework. I loved that class otherwise.
Reporters study journalism and social sciences and are not required to have even one Freshman level science course in their curriculum. Reporters have so much liberal arts pumped up their rectums they only spew reverse peristaltic material. Most reporters can't tell the difference between DNA and a phone book.
In the post-journalism days of academia, they were all tough that only bad news sells. In parallel, the left-drifting liberal socialist left has picked up on the same basic core theme, and made bad news and negativism their mantra and purpose for existence (to cure it all). There really is no true, comprehensive journalism any more. The MSM, in all its grotesque beauty, has morphed into a propoganda machine for the dark side of anti-truth as their chosen destiny.
Yes, I am old enough to remember the days when there were REAL investigative journalists that were so good at their craft, they would have hung the Clintons in their first four years of crime in the White House, and put them behind bars....but that is all behind us now as the MSM fawns over these and the other mob bosses of the Beltway. All of it, an ugly sign of things to come for what was once America.
Readers’ Digest condensed version:
1. Ultra liberal profs
2. “advocacy journalism”
3. No “real world” knowledge. There are many TV reporters in their jobs simply because they want to be “on TV.”
4. The more outrageous a story, the better chance you have of getting extra air time (”face time”)
5. Liberal organizations and people, especially the ones who profit hugely from their “cause” (many environmental and anti-war groups.. You don’t think Al Gore, Jane Fonda or Patty Shehan come for free, do you?) work very hard a developing close contacts with the media, while the Conservative groups adopt a ‘screw the media” attitude.
They are not gullible. They are socialists.
>>>>The inventor may claim that his (perpetual motion) machine may produce nearly as much energy as it consumes
Actually they claim the machine produces the same as or more energy than it consumes.
Producing NEARLY as much would just mean it would slow down slowly.
Why do I put it like that? If they were only concerned with the quality of the environment, they would not approve of giving China or India a pass from the pollution they cause. In fact, they give the entire third world a pass. Tellingly, who do they expect should be the first to obey the most stringent standards? The English-speaking world and developed parts of Europe.
Further, they see no conflict in ever-increasing environmental standards in the US even when that means that net world pollution increases when the US imports raw materials instead of producing them locally.
Based not on their words, or the stories and people they champion, but the net effect, the goal is not to improve the environment but to reduce US power and prosperity while increasing the power of groups they approve of.
There is also a measure of what I call “co-credentiallying”, which is where environmental group A gives reporter B an award for his “hard hitting” reporting. Reporter B later speaks very highly of environmental group C. Group C gives an award to reporter D. And so on, in one big, festival of self-elevation.
When this process is mature in some area, like so-called “Global Warming”, people like AlGore can claim the “weight of consensus” on the topic by just counting groups and their staff that all agree.
There is no scientific perpetual motion machine error. The whole system runs for now, while the sun shines. When the sunshine stops, the weather stops, the earth freezes, and it’s game over.
For now, water vapor, CO2, methane, and some other compounds are greenhouse gases. All else equal, an increase in CO2 will just automatically make for an increase in temperature. A 50% increase in CO2 from the time before the industrial revolution is significant. Heaping ridicule on the idea that it might cause a half-degree increase in world average temperature is not good logic. It’s also a mistake to say that we just cannot measure temperatures that accurately. The science of thermometers is very well understood, and the mathematics of taking the average of a lot of data points is understood too. In fact, taking averages tends to average out whatever errors there may be in the data.
in the u.s. journalists are trained at “j-schools”
which originated in the 1960’s.
they’re usually separate colleges within a university; so, they’re isolated from other colleges’ requirements—
like physics, math, chemistry, latin, greek, history, etc.
j-school courses are a snap.
that bidness chick with the blue eyes is DUMB AS A ROCK... but it is fun to watch here talk about capital gains and rising interest..... double entendres are always fun.
~~ AGW™ ping~~
Because “D” grades land one in Journalism schools.
I've met quite a few people who were easily gulled, and were socialists, myself.
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.