Skip to comments.
IPCC Challenged to Recant Global Warming Position
MensNewsDaily.com ^
| April 19, 2008
| Roger F. Gay
Posted on 04/19/2008 11:56:23 AM PDT by RogerFGay
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-71 next last
To: RogerFGay
AlGore abd Rather Dan. Two legumes in a pot of brioche.
41
posted on
04/19/2008 1:28:39 PM PDT
by
Shady
(The Fairness Doctrine is ANYTHING but fair!!!!)
To: RogerFGay
I'm still waiting for media-based science to debunk the greenhouse effect. The concept is a falsehood. Higher CO2 concentration provides no long term atmospheric insulating properties against convection, water vapor and air flow -the processes by which the atmosphere loses heat. It's a total scam.
42
posted on
04/19/2008 1:36:50 PM PDT
by
Justa
(Politically Correct is morally wrong.)
To: TiberiusClaudius
Interesting presentation. There does appear to be a coincidental relationship between CO2 and temperature, just as “skeptics” have said. Thanks for adding to the database on hockey stick information.
To: Sherman Logan
There is of course a great deal of evidence that can be interpreted to support the IPCC's position. There is evidence we had very modest warming in the 20th century. But there is no evidence that links CO2 to the change. The historical data suggests that temperatures drives atmospheric CO2, not the other way around.
44
posted on
04/19/2008 1:56:38 PM PDT
by
Always Right
(Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)
To: TiberiusClaudius
Thank you for the link.
Bookmarked for later printing.
45
posted on
04/19/2008 2:03:16 PM PDT
by
IrishCatholic
(No local communist or socialist party chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing.)
To: RightWhale
>You’ll never know why. You’ll know how it works well enough to use in in a circuit design.
Should I assume that you have a strange definition of why, rather than assume that you think knowing something about quantum mechanics is not useful?
To: chipengineer
Quantum mechanics does not explain why but how. Only God knows why.
47
posted on
04/19/2008 2:31:33 PM PDT
by
RightWhale
(Repeal the Law of the Excluded Middle)
To: RightWhale
So why are you complaining about scientists trying to understand ‘how’ CO2 affects temperatures (if it does)?
To: chipengineer
why are you complaining about scientists trying to understand That is a proper question in form, but materially fallacious. I have not complained about scientists trying to explain nature. I am actually a physicist myself.
49
posted on
04/19/2008 3:38:15 PM PDT
by
RightWhale
(Repeal the Law of the Excluded Middle)
To: Dutch Boy
Al Gore is starting to remind me of Jim Jones.Jim Jones was more honest.
50
posted on
04/19/2008 4:39:08 PM PDT
by
facedown
(Armed in the Heartland)
To: RogerFGay
51
posted on
04/19/2008 5:27:39 PM PDT
by
Delacon
("The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." H. L. Mencken)
To: chipengineer
It is not quite fair to choose to start in 1998, which was the warmest year in at least 50 years... You are correct. It is also inappropriate for the IPCC and many, many, of the global warming studies to start from the mid 50s, where the temperatures are well on their way into a trough. ...not to mention any support whatsoever for Mann's Hockeystick.
52
posted on
04/19/2008 6:21:38 PM PDT
by
lepton
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
To: lepton
>...not to mention any support whatsoever for Mann’s Hockeystick.
I agree about Mann (notice I wrote 50 years, not 1000 as Mann claims).
To: RogerFGay
By the way...have you seen what the IPCC did with the Briffa graph? They used it to support the correlation between CO2 and temperatures (via proxy), and then when Briffa updated the proxy beyond the training period...they clipped it (and Rutherford) when it diverged. A reviewer of the IPCC document pointed out that they should at least explain why they did so, and their response consisted of “Rejected - though note divergence’ issue will be discussed, still considered inappropriate to show recent section of Briffa et al. series.” No explanation of WHY...
http://www.climateaudit.org/?m=200712
54
posted on
04/19/2008 6:42:58 PM PDT
by
lepton
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
To: RogerFGay; 11B40; A Balrog of Morgoth; A message; ACelt; Aeronaut; AFPhys; AlexW; America_Right; ...
55
posted on
04/19/2008 6:55:46 PM PDT
by
Tolerance Sucks Rocks
(To the liberal, there's no sacrifice too big for somebody else to make. --FReeper popdonnelly)
To: RogerFGay
We don't really even know if the temperatures are actually going up or if so by how much. There is so much urban heat island effect distorting the numbers that it is hard to say with say with any accuracy.
Of course temperature measuring equipment like this doesn't help.
How about a hot parking lot as a place to measure temperature?
Lots more
56
posted on
04/19/2008 7:32:43 PM PDT
by
Straight Vermonter
(Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
To: RogerFGay
There is a relationship but the question is which one drives the other? I think it is becoming increasingly clear that warm temps decrease the ocean’s carrying capacity for CO2 and so there is more CO2 in the atmosphere. The Mauna Loa observatory actually recorded LESS CO2 this year. The thinking is that the strong La Nina has resulted in lower temps and more carrying capacity for the oceans.
57
posted on
04/19/2008 7:41:11 PM PDT
by
Straight Vermonter
(Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
To: RightWhale
Giving non-scientists control over science has always been a devastating formula. In both Russia and China, agricultural science and practice driven by political ideology led to mass starvation, for example. In the US, political ideology pretending to be science led to the destruction of marriage and family - and at the root the elimination of individual rights.
Allowing policy to be created based on false problem definitions and false information about cause and effect just defies common sense. It throws our modern society back into the dark ages with rules and investments based on superstitian. It is truly the way to bring civilization as we know it to an end.
But doing this stuff is not unusual these days. The root of the problem is pork barrelling; and the two parties are not giving up on exponential growth in this corruption. They've been forced to say something about it, and as usual they've defined the problem with much smaller scope than the actual problem, and will likely address only a small part of that - with a way around the solution so that there is no actual reduction in pork barrel spending.
Then of course there are constantly new initiatives, like this global warming thing that will push the practice farther faster. Here is where you will actually find a hockey stick relationship leading to an international crisis that will be very, very difficult to deal with. I predict that we will enter a new dark age because of it. At this point, no one seems to know how to address it - and the masses continue a zombie like imaginary "lesser of two evils" approach to letting the two parties continue to rule in the US.
To: lepton
I mentioned this before. I think the graph is appropriate. You have to consider its context. The IPCC has seen the other data. The letter and its graph show recent data that contradicts the hockey stick hypothesis.
To: Straight Vermonter
I think knowledge about temperature is sufficient. The level of uncertainty is not high enough to support much continued debate about AGW except among specialists who really want to get down to the nitty gritty. At the level involved in policy decisions - it’s nonsense.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-71 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson