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.
Unless you think the earth's history is only 18,000 years old both statements are consistent and have no conflict.
Huh?!?
Please explain how the CO2 levels more than 18,000 years ago can--no matter what they were--somehow make today's levels lower than they were 18,000 years ago. We are obviously not at the lowest point, no more than you can be at the coldest part of the day if the temperature has been rising for the past hour.
I have been on several occasions. It is a very heady experience...
Well respected critics of global warming doomsday scenarios still believe that humans are warming the planet, they just question whether the situation is as grave as the media and many politicians have made it out to be.
Kudos to Gondring for hanging in there.
http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/michaels.shtml
I go to UVA and Professor Michaels wrote this influential book “The Satanic Gases” Here’s a quote from the review:
“Climatologist Michaels acknowledges that the earth is warming because of anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, but he insists that the warming will probably be modest and that nature and humanity will easily adjust to it.”
I have come to believe that if the people that go into journalism could understand numbers, they would have chosen a different line of work. I place little stock in journalist's opinions that are based on numerical input.
"journalist's opinion"--I caught myself using an expression that wouldn't be used in an ideal world. With a competent journalist, their personal opinion should be undetectable by the reader.
Far more well respected climatoligists think AGW is total horse hockey.
Gullibility has nothing to do with it... 
99% of the MSM reporters are willing accomplices and lockstep cohorts to the Liberal Democrats!
The other 1% work at the Fox News Channel.
After 12 years in print media and nearly 20 in radio, I’d say you hit the nail on head with all points.
Is this a trick question?
Name one. Your game is weak.
Did you even go on Amazon and read what the book says? Michaels is a libertarian, and for most of the book he derides the fearmongering and falsification that we often see in the media surrounding this issue. He has been criticized by liberals for being connected to oil money, but his science is well founded and is even more well regarded now than in 2000 when he first published his book. Back then, Michaels hypothesized that most warming would occur at the poles and in northern lattitudes. This is because the air there is dry and the frozen surface creates an albedo effect. Thus, dry air = low heat retention due to greenhouse effect (water vapor is a major greenhouse gas) and frozen surface = low heat retention (snow reflects sunlight). Michaels wrote “Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air About Global Warming” 7 years ago. His predictions have been proven correct. Almost all of the warming we’ve seen has been at high latitudes, in Siberia and at the poles...places where the greenhouse effect would otherwise be low, and CO2 can make a difference. (he predicted that we would not see much warming at lower latitudes for multiple reasons including the limiting albedo effect of clouds, cooling effects of oceans, and the asymptotal limit associated with the finite supply of energy in the sun’s rays that can actually be trapped.) You were very correct to mention the fact that CO2 levels have been higher in the past. Michaels mentions this, and points out that even during its warmest periods, the Earth’s surface temperatures at any given place were never much hotter than modern day Florida. The “average global temperature” was much higher, but mostly because of the temperatures at high northern and southern latitudes: there were tropical rainforests at the poles. Read the comments on Amazon, Patrick Michaels is lauded by libertarians and conservatives. For years he has been a voice in the wilderness saying “global warming is not going to be the end of the world” Something I think we all can agree on.
Mark
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.