Posted on 01/24/2005 12:53:45 PM PST by missyme
They would not be exempt, but as still developing nations they would not have to curb their emissions levels at the same rate as developed nations.
Why shoud we believe Michael Crichton rather than Olympia Snowe?
Global warming does not predict that temperatures will always be hotter than normal at any given place on any given day...but the average temperature of the planet in 2004 was the 4th hottest of any on record. The only three hotter years have all been in the past decade. I am not sure why some conservatives are so adamant about denying that the science is valid on this issue. Can anyone help me out?
In the report they define "irreversible" pretty clearly. They mean that after a certain point, theoretically 400 parts per million of CO2, then various natural CO2 reducing mechanisms in the environment will no longer function and we won't be able to simply fix the problem by lowering human induced emissions.
I am curious why global warming is a "liberal" lie? There are quite a few conservatives, not just politicians but scientists too, who are concerned about it and think it is a very real problem. And insurance companies, whom DUmmies love to hold up as the great satan, are developing computer models and have been for some time to help them predict how certain problems are starting to effect the bottom line.
Why shoud we believe Michael Crichton rather than Olympia Snowe?
Probably because Michael Crichton spent three years researching the issue, has a profuse bibliography backing it up, and offers a factually based analysis ?
Kyoto is many things, but it's not pointless.
It aims to redistribute wealth on a worldwide scale.
It aims to pay the watermelon (green on the outside, red to the core) environmentalists to the tune of trillions.
It aims to take down the United States economy.
-------------------------------------------
I still an waiting for the researchers to take their computer models and turn them around to predict the past.
We know a lot more about the past than the future. When their computer models can predict the past with any accuracy I'll be much more likely to listen to their predictions of the future.
Thermometers are an invention of man
Who do we hold responsible for effecting you?
The Cooling World
There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth etc. blah blah blah.
For instance, your statement about 2004 being the 4th hottest on record is based on data from what is referred to as 'The Hockey Stick' charts. These charts have been shown to have been assembled using data that was improperly collated, misinterpreted, and in conflict with other data sources of the time periods covered. Additionally, the starting time on those charts conveniently begin immediately after core sample and tree ring data showed the tail end of a previous period of global warming, which would have ruined the desired conclusions of the precious charts.
Four years out 150(?) years we've been keeping temperature records. We have compared that to the Earth's 4.5 billion years and have spotted an almost irreversable trend?
Also see my post #50. What better test than to "predict" the past which we know at least a little about. If the models work going forward in time they must also work going back in time.
Has anyone turned their computer models around to prove the soundness of their computer model? If not, why not?
No, Crichton's bibliography is not thorough it is intentionally selective. And he has an axe to grind with science more generally. What I find interesting is that Crichton seems to accept most of the premises, he just phrases them differently. For instance he agrees that the earth has warmed over the past century but he says it is by "merely one half of one degree Celsius." Well that is exactly what the scientists say too. The problem is that when the trends are extrapolated out over time the results are very troubling. Or he points to the fact that the glaciers in Greenland are actually growing as evidence that the theory is bunk. But the theory doesn't predict that all the glaciers will retreat uniformly. In fact the best models predict that glaciers in Greenland will continue to grow due to increased moisture flow (the southeast is due to get wetter as well). It may be warmer but Greenland is getting a lot more snow in the wintertime, hence glacier growth. Look, I'm not trying to convince anyone, I'm just saying that the science isn't all bunk. I also should say that I used to live in Alaska, and everyone I know up there accepts global warming as a basic fact, we watched the glaciers retreat right before our eyes. and breakup now arrives almost a month earlier than it used to.
Michael Chricton's (sp?) new book, "State of Fear" is awesome on this subject. It makes you look at these greenies in a whole new light.
Science predicts global warming. Junk science claims it is man's fault, while discounting any evidence to the contrary.
Yes, Amazing how his book predicted sudden change when the 100yrs. out scenario didn't seem to get people excited.
His graphs and charts blow the extreme weather increase crowd out of the water.
I'm about 3/4 through the book.( They just landed in the S. Pacific)
Very good read.
I have his book 'Prey' I'm saving for jury duty in 2 weeks.
I completely respect your skepticism as to the cause of the warming trend...it seems to me that CO2 levels are currently accepted as the cause mainly because they have risen at a remarkable rate, based on ice-core samples, and because no one has a better explanation. And the explanation that this is just nature being nature doesn't explain why the levels of CO2 are increasing so much beyond previous levels or why the warming trend, when graphed, is so much steeper even than anything we have evidence for in the ice cores.
I for one am not at all skeptical about our ability to cause global environmental change. You should the levels of lead in the ice cores, they rise drastically in mid first century BC, then drop of slightly then rise even higher during the Roman Empire. By the thrid and fourth centuries, when indeed silver was getting very scarce in the Roman empire, the levels begin to drop way off and by the 5th century AD they are basically normal and stay that way until the industrial revolution. The lead levels seem to be the result of argentiferous ores being mined and smelted into silver. It is pretty cool how all of the science dovetailsl with the history books.
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.