|
| Christopher Horner Video: "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming" |
Posted on 03/06/2008 4:13:54 PM PST by EPW Comm Team
That is why I stopped my subscription to Nature. They stated outright, years ago, that they too considered the global warming issue settled and would not publish any papers contradicting it.
I never thought I would live to see science become so politicized that one of the two top science journals would become no more than a propaganda organ.
It teaches you to raise your level of skepticism in science even higher. Now I have to filter it for political content.
Talk about garbage...
Good old open minded science.
Notice how the term “Global Warming” is losing ground to the term “Climate Change”. Whatever the weather does, they want to blame it on mankind, especially Americans.
This whole Global Warming scam is nothing more than the Global Communists attempting to take control of the Global economy.
[Note: Clarification from original posting. Miskolczi worked with NASA, not Zágoni.]
Paragraphs should read:
Prominent Hungarian Physicist Dr. Miklós Zágoni, who recently reversed his views about man-made climate fears and is now a skeptic, presented his scientific findings at the conference. Zágoni’s scientific mentor Hungarian scientist, Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist, resigned from his post working with NASA because he was disgusted with the agency’s lack of scientific freedom. Miskolczi, who also presented his findings at the conference, said he wanted to publish his new research that significantly countered man-made global warming alarm, but he claims NASA refused to allow him.
“Unfortunately, my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results,” Miskolczi said according to a March 6 Daily Tech article. (LINK)
Whhaaaaattt!??!!??!
Purely motivated and logicaly detached scientists? Nawww
John McCain is a global warming advocate. We don't have any chance in the next election.
There is some good news. I don't believe McCain thinks Islam is a religion of peace. - tom
On one hand we have Dr. James Hansen, NASA GIS, alleging that he was being suppressed from presenting his work showing that global warming is caused by mankind. On the other hand Dr. Miklós Zágoni is complaining that his skeptical views about man-made global warming were being suppressed by NASA officials. Which is it? Who are these NASA officials?
I had the bright idea the other day of developing a test for the proposition that increased CO2 would result in “Greenhouse” effect or cause “warming” by inhibitting cooling.
First step was to look at local planets and planteoids for atmospheric componenets and what I found was tha every instance of high % of CO2 was coincident with drastically high temperatures.
Seems to support the Greenhouse effect.
(I am not an astronomer or climatologist).
bookmark.
|
| Christopher Horner Video: "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming" |
Your assertion that “CO2 breathes up and down on this planet, just like everything else” is untrue.
Our industrial release of CO and C02 is constantly on the rise and the natural check on these gases, photosynthesis, is constantly on the decline with the destruction of forest.
I know of no other physical system in which an attribute or variable can be consistently increased without check and the sytem not be completely changed with out reverse or break down.
Wow.
Bookmark
Where do the Creationists stand on this political matter?
It seems the verified evidence does point to increasing CO2 leading to increasing temperature.
But the question has always been “But By How Much?”
The verified evidence points to a lower “How Much” which indicates global warming will not be a catastrophe but will be a nice minimal increase in temperatures which should be good for the planet (considering ice ages cannot exactly be good for the planet.)
I think we are all better off just accepting that increased CO2 leads to higher temperatures (because it really should according to the physics.)
But the verified evidence points to a minimal impact which is nothing to worry about if it is not, indeed, a positive thing.
While our release of CO2 is definitely increasing, do you have a reference for the second part of your assertion that "photosynthesis, is constantly on the decline with the destruction of forest" ?
30-some years ago, when I looked into this, the biggest contributors to CO2 removal were oceanic: plankton photosynthesis, dissolution in water, calcium carbonate synthesis by various organisms, etc.
Also, it would appear that increasing agricultural yields would offset any forest declines, at least to some degree.
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.