Posted on 07/19/2007 5:27:19 AM PDT by Valin
LOL!
Who wrote this? An Englishman?
The understatement is almost painful.
That's gonna leave a mark.
At least among the Gorons who know how to read and join two logical thoughts together...
What is less obvious and more dangerous is when science prostitutes itself to "funding", control, self-importance, tenure or whatever drives the darker side of human nature.
Four hours ago it was 3:15 a.m. and I was fast asleep.
Without knowing the post and the nature of the post I would never think to search for it. Perhaps you missed the memo:
What do you mean posted already?
I never saw it before, and Im the center of the universe!"
Not much of an argument when you string "So say...", "theoretically...", and *might* together into a cogent discussion of facts, as in science.
That is simply a "warming" computer model in words...
Garbage in --- garbage out.
I need to start using it.
boomarked
This statement can also be applied to the macro-evolution zealots.
The Chilling Stars: The New Theory of Climate Change
by Henrik Svensmark
I just finished reading this. Not as well written as I would have liked but the science is all there and over the next several years will be shown to be indisputable. If you care about this issue this book is must-read.
Agree. I read A LOT about the GWOT and something I’ve noticed is there are a lot of people who really need to take a creative writing class, as some of this stuff while good will put you right to sleep.
I think “New” is the operative word here.
Lord knows I’m not smart enough, or informed enough to say weather or not it’s bunk, but I do look forward to following the debate.
Somewhere is my readings, I read a statement made by Marx when confronted with the notion that industrialized Western democracies were progressing rapidly both economically and culturally and in doing so, they were eliminating the "impending class struggle" that Marx was relying upon to fulfill his dire predictions.
Marx responded with something to the effect, "Well, we can always use the environment to justify imposing socialism upon the people. After all, no one can actually do anything about the weather."
I believe that's where we are with global warming. It's simply a mechanism to extract wealth from the United States, which will be used to prop up the UN bureaucracies and finally eliminate the freedoms we have enjoyed since our inception.
While commenting on minutiae, he and others like him ignore the the larger question, if anthropogenic CO2 is the culprit, how to explain the factual statement early in this article?
"... over the past 1,000,000 years in climate observations, there have been about 600 periods of warming, and we can surmise from these cycles that among them are about 599 periods of cooling."
Please note that most of those cycles occured before there were any "anthropos' to "genic".
The silence is defeaning.
And yes, I have read hundreds of "refutations" to the findings of the real scientists. I don't need to read more, thank you.
I am not an advocate of MMGW, to the point where I have devised a test to determine the rationale of those arguing in its behalf, that you may find interesting.
It is based on the fact that many who advocate MMGW, do so only because of two axioms they have for *any* efforts to reduce MMGW:
1) That whatever solutions increase their political power as its primary goal, and,
2) That whatever solutions *must* reduce consumption, lower standards of living, result in less development, and otherwise inhibit individual and national aspirations.
If these two axiomatic conditions are not met, they have no other interest in the advocacy of MMGW, and will move on to other environmental issues that they believe will advance their hidden agenda.
Therefore, the test of this is straightforward, and can be made in argument against them.
“If anthropogenic global warming exists, would you accept a solution to it that would support continued economic development and prosperity, increased fuel use, increased consumerism, and for energy companies to become far wealthier than they are now?”
The typical MMGW advocate would be horrified at the very idea of people having more, using more, becoming wealthier, improving their lot, and not surrendering an iota of political power to the MMGW advocates in the process.
But if someone thinks that such increasing prosperity is a grand idea, then they are probably reasonable as far as climatology and environmental science go. Their arguments can at least be looked at objectively, without obviously being advocacy concealed as research.
The bottom line is that todays MMGW advocates are almost all made in the image of Paul Ehrlich, of “The Population Bomb” infamy. That is, their two motives have not changed a bit, only the subject they are trying to create a public panic with.
They are indifferent to the fact that their hysterical projections never come about, only that they succeeded or failed to give them the power and control that they wanted.
Were they to get the power and control they wanted, they would make no serious effort to stop MMGW, because they would be of the belief that their having power automatically solves the problem. It simply ceases to be an issue.
B4L8r
Dips like Algore will never admit they are wrong. They will argue that ‘in the spirit’ of helping mankind, they wanted to sound the alarm.
So if (say) only 1% of the radiant energy is at the wavelengths blocked by CO2, then a doubling of that gas will not have much of an effect--it depends on whether the absorption is linear with increasing CO2 concentration, the solubility of CO2, in the oceans and its temperature dependence, the change in plant growth and how much CO2 is fixed by new plants, etc.
It's not as cut and dried as some people would have it.
Cheers!
I thought geocentrism was passe'.
...oh, I'm sorry. That sentence is egocentrism. :-)
Cheers!
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.