|
Posted on 04/08/2007 7:13:19 PM PDT by PajamaTruthMafia
|
What did he say that was false? It's curious that you dismiss him with nonsense and non sequitors of your own.
1. warming in last 150 years has been measured, and its about 0.6C. It doesnt matter if there was a mini ice age before, previous warming, or previous ice ages. His statement about last 150 years is well-accepted and based on many measurements.
2. "our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level." is correct, where "some level" could be anything from 'almost non-existent' to 'have some significance'. The REAL debate between reasonable skeptics and the climate alarmists is not if the greenhouse effect exists, but its the degree to which manmade GHG inputs to the atmosphere will contriute to further warming. Lindzen says it will be 1C from a doubling of CO2, the IPCC estimates are 1.5C to about 4.5C on the outside and the hyperbolic alarmists like al Gore postulate some additional impacts to give us the (bogus imho) 20 foot sea level rise. It is not debatable that (a) CO2 concentrations are up and (b) man had something/much to do with it. As for "absolutely ZERO evidence there is even such a thing as a "green house gas", " Huh? Without the fact that H2O and CO2 and other gases keep the earth warmer, the steady temp of the earth would be 30C colder. The greenhouse effect is a well-studied and understood physical phenomonon and does certainly exist.
3. "So called UN "scientists" are completely ignoring the FACT that in recent history, within 4,500 years or so, the entire north pole and all the land within the artic circle was once a lush tropical enviroment, a fact proven by the huge amount of animal carcasses; elephants, rino's, hippo's, tigers, wolf, fox etc. discovered throughout the region in that last century, some so "fresh" the meat was still edible, and being eaten by the local animals as it emerged from the ice." Sarcasm??? I hope so. There have been greenland ice core samples taken and solid reconstruction of temperatures back hundreds of thousands of years have been made. The 'land' may have once been tropical, just as middle of continental US may have been a sea, but that was millions of years ago, not thousands, due to movement of continents and plate tectonics. It's nutty statements like that which are discrediting the 'skeptic' side.
You ought to listen to this MIT prof, he is not a climate alarmist but a skeptic of them, and you might learn something.
“Your rant does our side no good, as you seem to confuse Dr. Lindzen with the U.N. and the Islamists all in one incoherent blast. I can assure you that Dr. Lindzen is beholden to neither. Dr. Lindzen is a man of science and is not swayed by any political agenda. I also think he would be outraged by your comments on Islamist influence, as much of his family was killed in the Holocaust.
It is you who is wrong about greenhouse gasses; they are very real and water vapor is the most important of them. No atmospheric scientist denies what can be objectively proven. What is at issue is how much effect these gasses really have and the exact mechanisms of their behaviors. The Ozone Al camp uses a simplistic model of an exquisitely complex three-dimensional fluid dynamic system, while Dr. Lindzen has studied the problem in considerably more detail. I have read several of his technical papers and I assure you that he probably has more knowledge on this subject than any other human on the planet.”
Here hear and well said.
Far too many had a financial stake in the .COM boom too. Didn't prevent it from going BUST.
I set that image as my desktop background for my machine at work. It isn’t 1024x768 in size so it distorted nicely. I can’t wait to see what my lefty office mates think!
Not sure how your post goes along with the idea of “no climate change”
The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle—Al Gore's supposed mentor—is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.
GW Ping
and here I thought I was the only one who wanted to put in a good word for the Puritans. Good folk who are much maligned by today's revisionists who are offended by people who actually believed the Word of God and tried to live by it.
I'm sure the Puritans had weightier matters to think about than a 1.4 degree fluctuation in temperature, over 100 years [doing my part to shift this tangential Puritan commentary back towards the original subject of this post...]
Climate change is something always happening. But that doesn’t make it irrelevant—its rate may be enhanced by man to above what’s natural.
The current climate change might be entirely natural. But that doesn’t make it irrelevant—the effects must be endured by mankind, regardless of the source.
The effects might not be “catastrophic.” But that doesn’t make it ireelevant. Many people could likely *survive* the loss of their lifestyle, but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be unpleasant or highly disruptive.
It’s important not to overstate Dr. Lindzen’s comments. He says there’s no compelling evidence for something, but that is not the same as saying there is compelling evidence against it.
Recall 15 years ago, when conservative earth scientists pointed out that we had insufficient evidence of global warming. Some conservatives took an extra step and claimed there was no global warming. Now that we know that claim was false, conservatives got a black eye because of those who exaggerated the scientific claims. Even Dr. Lindzen is conceding the global warming trend—the question now is the cause.
We must keep our economies strong to deal with the changes, in case they continue and in case they are a lot stronger than conservatives would anticipate. Mass migration worked for people tens of thousands of years ago, but would be a difficult coping strategy for the modern world.
it was the coldest ever in the month of april.gobal warming is a tough sell here.
Put it this way, their “evidence” of global warming is like someone taking a fistful of sand away on a beach once in 100 years and saying the beach is eroding because of humanity. That truly is the best analogy you can get when it comes to their claims of global warming by humans.
Look at the facts:
The planet Venus has a greenhouse effect/global warming effect as it`s atmosphere is composed of 96% CO2.
By comparison, earths atmosphere is composed of .0383% CO2. How much do you think humanity contributes to that amount? You can`t even count it unless you get into PPMV, parts per million volume measurements, which is counting one molecule (particle) of CO2 for every 999,999 particles of air.
Over a century we`ve been burning fossil fuels yet we still can`t even get that CO2 level to even .05%!!
EXCELLENCE PING!!
Truth is, we should stop polluting our atmosphere because it is bad for our health. Other then that, I feel we are at least a century or two away to have the technology to change the natural cycle of warming/cooling to not mess things up for the worst.
There goes his career.
Indianapolis had the record cold twice this weekend along with the coldest high for the date on one day.
This is Great!:
“Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now.”
There was a series of articles a few months back about global warming skeptics. Does anyone have a link to those or recall where they came from (I think they were in a UK paper).
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.
