Replies

When you have to resort to insults, your point must be weak. The “Maverick Scientists” who disagree are few and far in between.

You simply have to ask yourself two questions:

What impact would it have on sea-levels if Polar Caps and Greenland Ice-sheet melt?

Is there evidence that melting is occurring as we speak?

Don’t think you need to work too hard to get answers to those questions. BOTH GOP and DEMS now recognize that we can’t ignore this issue because its not a political issue but it impacts future human survival.

Stephen Hawkings vs Sean Hannity! What is a “joke” Alex?

Many scientists vehemently disagree with the political conclusion of man-made global warming. A little of what's out there---

U.S. Senate Report Debunks “Consensus” - Over 400 Prominent Scientists Dispute Man-Made Global Warming Admin, Thursday 20 December 2007 - 19:17:30 // comment: 1

The U.S. Senate has released a truly groundbreaking report that busts the Al Gore "consensus" myth over global warming: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007. The report is monumental in size and scope considering it's focus. We expect this report to be quoted by those disputing man-made global warming for years to come.

What follows is mostly excerpts from the report and Senate press release. The report pretty much stands on it's own merits. We believe this report to be an important piece of evidence showing that most of the hype about global warming is pure fabrication and crowd hysteria. Perhaps now the media will stop its policy of not admitting that there is even another side to the issue. We encourage everyone to read the entire press release and report, it is long but worth it.

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

“Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking."

Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” ”

“This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate.”

“Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.

“Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation ”

One of many links to the above report is here.

>>You simply have to ask yourself two questions:<<

Baloney. I work in risk assessment and risk management.

You ask three questions and even that is oversimplifying. But it will suffice for here:

1. What is the impact of the thing happening.
2. What is the likelyhood of the thing happening.
3. What is the cost of mitigating the risk of it happening.

Apply these three questions to hardening your home against being struck by a large meteorite. They all point to the same conclusion: you do nothing. Number three is the killer in this case.

Apply the questions to global warming. But let me add a piece: Let’s say the earth suddenly went up in average temperature by ten full degrees and stayed there. How long do you think it would take to fully melt the poles? The answer is SEVERAL THOUSAND YEARS.

And even then, would it be bad? Flooding in florida may be offset by surfing in northern Canada, and Russia FINALLY getting a warm water port. ;)

People know just enough here to be dangerous.

*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";