Rights, farms, environment ping.Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.
updated List of Ping lists vol.III(Get Your Fresh Hot Pings Here!)
"Why are we still debating climate change? How soon will we hit peak oil supply? When politics mix with science, what is being brewed? Join speakers from the left & the right, from the lab & the field, from industry & advocacy, as we air the ongoing debate about whether human activity is actually changing the climate of the planet.
From June 2–4, 2006, the Environmental Wars conference will host scientists, writers, environmentalists, and thinkers from all points along the environmental spectrum at the California Institute of Technology for questions, answers, and opinions.
Special Guests: John Stossel, Michael Crichton
Speakers: Gregory Arnold, Jonathan Adler, David Baltimore, Gregory Benford, Brian Fagan, David Goodstein, Paul MacCready, Chris Mooney, Donald Prothero, Tapio Schneider
Could be fun. Crichton should have a few things to say!
If a hypothesis cannot be disproved then it ain't science it is throwing the bones.
I'm waiting until the scientific consensus is "Ice Age Coming!" again.
I figure that then the global temperature will be just right.
All this hooey ignores the number one reason for increase or decrease in global temperatures worldwide, which has NOTHING to do with anything humans are doing.
Its called the SUN which is the source of all warmth the earth receives. It naturally goes through warming and cooling trends giving off more and less energy... The sun is currently increasing its output... which means more heat for us... This trend will end and less energy will reach the earth daily and the planet will cool again...
Going around and looking at how overfarming the land in mesopotamia caused civilization to collapse there is hardly evidence of man caused world wide warming or cooling of the planet.
Water molecules in the upper atmosphere have more direct impact on global heat absorbed/reflected/retained than any C02 nonsense.
C02 is PLANT FOOD.. its not something that's going to turn the earth into an oven.
For those worried about the threat of melting ice caps and rising seas and coastal flooding, read 'A new Sea is Born' at http://wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/start.html?pg=20
"A new ocean is forming in the hottest place on Earth, and it’s putting on one hell of a show.
In the Afar Triangle – a region of northeastern Africa where summer temps hit 131 degrees Fahrenheit and scientists have armed bodyguards for protection against guerrillas – the ground is splitting apart, making room for a sea.
The process usually takes eons, but last autumn several vents suddenly cracked open, spewing hot gases and ash near where geologists were working.
When the dust settled, researchers found a 40-mile-long, lava-filled fissure that hadn’t been there six days earlier"
If the Ocean rises a few feet, chances are a new sea will be formed in the desert wastelands of North Africa.
The area is already 300 feet below sea level, and it can hold a lot of water - after the mountain range in Eritrea is breached.
Bump for later napalming.
Where did all that oil and gas and coal come from in the first place.
Answer: Plants and algae and geological processes sucked it out of the atmosphere and buried it. In the early Earth, the CO2 ppm was 800,000 versus today's 380.
Plants and algae got so good at this process that by 6 to 8 million years ago, they had absorbed out just about as much C02 as possible, down to 500 ppm.
The Earth started to dry out after this period. Jungles and temperate rainforests receded in favor of grasslands, savanna and deserts.
By 3.0 million years ago, regular glaciation cycles started to overtake Europe, Asia, North America and mountaineous regions.
Greenland and Antarctica stayed glaciated just as they had been for 15 million years in the case of Greenland (when it was much warmer and wetter and C02 concentrations were much higher by the way - ie Greenland is not going to melt) and for 35 million years in the case of Antarctica (CO2 ppm was 3000 when Antarctica started freezing over - ie. there is no way Antarctica is going to melt either.)
So in the past, when C02 was higher, what did we have, say 10 million years ago?
Lush Rainforests, rapid plant growth, no deserts, comfortable living for the animal family which dominated the planet at the time, the Apes (our family). At that time, there were over 50 different species of Apes on the planet, the dominate family of animals, while today there are only 4.
It seems to me that we were built for higher CO2 concentrations. We certainly were not built for the 180 ppm of CO2 that resulted in the last 4 ice ages. We are a naked Ape for example.
It is actually quite pleasant in a greenhouse and plants seem to grow really well in them too - the climate scientists are so wrapped up in their own little panic that they cannot see the forest for the ice in the way.
Rights, farms, environment ping.updated List of Ping lists vol.III(Get Your Fresh Hot Pings Here!)
So a misguided liberal environmentalist starts to believe Al Gore, thus becoming more misguided.
This is not a flip.
How does the author explain the melting of the ice caps on Mars? Have we been driving SUVs on Mars?
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_snow_011206-1.html
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
An excellent discussion of greenhouse gasses.
Summary page:
Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!
Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor).
And he proceeds to not list any data.
His books and church groups are all mere knee-jerk political statements, and fluff.
I would be more worried about the sunspot activity decline being predicted...
The only thing Al Gore could ever convince me of is that he is completely insane. Long ago, the alleged "science" and "data" that "flipped" Shermer and many other simpleminded leftist was shown to be distortion and deception. No matter. Just keep repeating it, over and over, and add a bit more urgency as time goes on.
Like a "Wizard taking away the sun" during a solar eclipse, the vast unwashed mob of the easily-led are made to believe that what the Wizard says MUST be true! They saw it with their own eyes, just as we see proof of receding glaciers and "data" that "confirms" what Al Gore screams in his feverish delusion. "Man is doing this! And we must stop it now!" CO2 is the culprit. End of debate. Yet...
Yet, no mention of the fact that CO2 is but a tiny percentage of what is considered "Greenhouse gases" in our atmosphere. And of the CO2 that is there, only a tiny percentage of that is the result of human activity. So much more data and scientific fact MUST be left out and ignored to even begin to build a case for "man made global warming" that any standard of scientific research ethics would dismiss the entire tortured concept of "MMGW" for lack of credible evidence, much less its totally faulty logic.
No, my friends, science has little to do with it at this stage, rational scientific debate, even less. To finish my argument, I ask you all to ask of a "Global Warmer", "Just what do we do then, to avert this impending doom for all of Mankind?" There is no answer, short of the virtual shutdown of the world's industrial economies. Drastic reduction in all combustion, not just fossil fuel, will be necessary, to even affect the CO2 levels by a tiny amount, and that would be difficult to measure even then. They have no "solution", short of human extinction, really, since no nation would simply sit by and die an economic death and collapse for the sake of the insane policies of leftist environmentalists. And I guarantee there are loonies out there in leftist Academe that are building a case for that too!
Even given that the globe is warming, the evidence that man is the cause is pretty shaky. But then, liberals tend to be consumed with guilt, anyway...all it needs is a focus.
Look at the weather forecast on Yahoo several times a day. Educated meteorologists can't even tell me what the G-d D@mn temperature is going to be each day within one degree, and when or whether it's going to rain, and they have ALL of the data necessary at hand to determine that.
If Scientific American, a populist science mag, has to address the "inconvenient truth" of real scientists do NOT agree with global warming BS, then it is clear they are on the loosing end of the PR debate.
Remember none of the industrial contries met KYOTO BS protocols.
I didn't read the article, but I'm assuming that there is a point where the skeptic flipped which coincided with him meeting Al Gore or Hillary or something?