Hey Meekster!
Posted on 04/21/2008 8:55:33 AM PDT by pissant
Once you realize humans are not causing global warming and/or climate change, then you need an explanation for how and why so many people appear to think they are. In two previous articles (Environmental Extremism and Historical and philosophical context of the climate change debate.) we examined the philosophical and historical context of climate change and specifically the focus on humans as the cause.
We explained the philosophical concept of uniformitarianism that dominates western science; the incorrect idea that change is gradual over long periods of time. We looked at how the scientific method of testing the theory that human CO2 was causing warming/climate change was effectively bypassed. Now we need to examine how politics took over climate science through exploitation of public fear and lack of knowledge.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
That's not what I said, now is it?
Stephen Hawking was the son of a Communist, however, and he claimed Bertrand Russell as an early hero of his.
Taken along with his push for global warming nonsense, his anti-war stance, his support of other leftist ideology... it may be correct to label him as such.
The evidence says they are not.
2008 Surface snowmelt in Antarctica 40% below the average of the period 1987–2007.
OK. I will do more research to find out the latest data whether or not icecaps are melting. History Channel may be making it up because they are lefty luney tunes. Its possible. However, they showed satellite data and other BRILLIANT decorated scientists, Nobel prize winning scientists (not peace prize but actual natural science research - not an easy thing to do) who all said the same thing that its happenning. You can say they are all lying to get funding and they have socialist agenda. That would be a fair point in some cases. But you have to make judgement based on the people you are listening to. They didn’t come across to me as members of Berkeley City Council. They were serious brilliant individuals and all backed up the same claim with same data, that Greenland is melting at crazy pace.
Also, only recently there were breaking stories where Danish and other Governments are arguing and staking claims on lands that are emerging in Greenland.
For a while no one really wanted to even be associated with that land. All of a sudden at the possibility of drilling other resources which are much easier to get to, they are all angling to get control of it.
My question is that have all those Governments lost their mind, if their is NO melting going on? Obviously, there is a real problem and that’s why these lands are becoming accessible.
Second, as I said above, I don’t need any data to believe that we can keep burning all the fossil fuels we want, wipe out all the forests, and nothing bad would come of it. I just can’t believe that.
How much of what you are writing on this thread do you know from your first-hand, qualified, scientific studies versus how much are you repeating from the oft-repeated articles on global climate change?
Do I have to get PHd in Climatology to argue there is a price to pay for burning fossil fuels? I mean that silly. No one first gains a doctorate in the field before they can talk about it.
All the people here arguing there isn’t any Climate Change or impact of Human activity on Climate change have FIRST HAND RESEARCH EXPERIENCE in this field?
Thats a silly questiion.
Don't limit your research to melting icecaps. Look at the actions being proposed to "solve" this (non-existent) proplem and look at who is pushing them. The solutions result in a massive wealth redistribution and global governance over our daily lives. Now who might want to push for that? Think about it.
Its says some areas are MELTING slower and other glaciers saw a little gain. Doesn’t tilt the debate one way or other. This doesn’t have to be a linear relationship that every single molecule of CO2 is going to immediately increase the temperature by some millionth of a degree. That’s not how it works. As a matter of fact as I posted many hundred posts ago, SOME CO2 is needed to not only serve as protective layer, but we do need heat to be trapped to keep the planet warm. Question is that if we are going in other direction where the blanket is so thick that not enough heat can eascape.
The number is supposed to be about 30%.
That’s the whole problem in a nut-shell. All of the “talk” on this subject from people in the media, politics, etc., who are virtually illiterate in science, but continue to parrot what they’ve heard somewhere else. I dare say that I have more scientific training than Nobel Laureate Al Gore.
Hey, just because I acknowledge as my HERO Newt does that problem of impact on enviorment of human actions is REAL doesn’t mean I am signing up for *any* of Algor’s agenda. We can’t let Algor and dems hijack issue after issue. This is NOT their issue and they don’t own it. We live here and we have to answer questions for ourselves and if there is a problem, find our own solutions.
I however vehemently disagree that there is ABSOLUTELY NO CONSEQUENCE of pumping greenhouse gases in atmosphere. MOST people would find that argument laughable.
Lower the CO2, which slows plant growth, and at the same time start switching to bio-fuels. Now there’s a brilliant plan. ;^)
I tried to explain above that Scientist that History Channel had in their documentary were NOT leftist paid hacks, and didn’t seem like Politicians to me. Seemed like serious brilliant people who got thier awards for moving the human quantum of knowledge further in fields of natural science and not how AlGor got his - politics, propoganda, and BS.
Since the atmosphere is made of "greenhouse gases," which make life possible, I can't see how adding infintessimal percentages of the same gases will have much effect. However, feelings about what they might do aren't enough to commit trillions of dollars, restrict liberties, slow down industries, hamstring the world's economies and give world regulatory bodies unprecedented control over the tiniest aspects of people's lives.
Wipe out all the forests? Dramatic much?
Actually, cutting down and replanting old-growth forests is a valid global warming strategy, since young forests absorb far more CO2 than old ones.
And if there isn't a problem, then what? Shouldn't we define the problem and prove the proposed solution before throwing trillions of taxpayer dollars at it and hog-tying our economy?
Or, should we just jump on the bandwagon because it's popular (after years of propaganda pushing total BS) and we don't want the Democrats to "own" the issue?
BTW, what is your native language?
*sigh*
Iyou want to imagine the makeup of Earth’s atmosphere, visualize a football field - 100 yards from end to end.
“Nitrogen, oxygen and argon make up the first 99.96 yards.”
“Carbon dioxide makes up 0.038 of the total gas in the atmosphere. The amount represents approximately 1.4 inches of the 100 yards on the football field” - pretty much a tiny sliver of the chalkline at the goal line.
“Surprising that this tiny percentage of the total atmosphere is blamed for climate change over the entire planet.”
Gas Content of the Atmosphere Gas Percent Composition Nitrogen (N2) 78.080
Oxygen (O2) 20.946
Argon (Ar) 0.934
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 0.038
Neon (Ne) 0.00182
Helium (He) 0.000524
Methane (CH4) 0.00015
Krypton (Kr) 0.000114
Hydrogen (H2) 0.00005
Retrieved from “http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Talk:Meteorology/Makeup_of_the_Atmosphere";
BIG BUMP!
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.