Skip to comments.NASA extinguishes global-warming fire
Posted on 02/03/2002 3:17:00 AM PST by Cincinatus' WifeEdited on 07/12/2004 3:50:51 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
It really happened. The NASA scientist who lit the bonfire of the global warming vanities with his flamboyant congressional testimony 14 years ago, has turned the hose on its dying embers.
There is now no reason for the Bush administration to give an inch on climate change. Sure, energy efficient technologies (like my Honda hybrid) are worth exploring. But there is absolutely no scientific reason for any expensive policy like the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. Mr. Bush led the world by being the first to walk away from Kyoto, and science has proven him correct.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
|To find all articles tagged or indexed using Enviralists, click below:|
|click here >>>||Enviralists||<<< click here|
|(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)|
Folks, all of us, when lauding, promoting, or referring to Free Republic to lurkers or browsers or the curious, ought to make a point of showing them- perhaps by emailing the link to it- the bump list.
With the admonition, "See how much you have not been told about? Now think of what you may have missed, because it simply was not talked about...."
They are Liberal/Marxist/Communists and just want to reduce the world to a common level of missery so they can be in charge.
Which means that air head Algore was totally wrong and wanted to spend $trillion& of dollars to change the weather. Lets all be thankful gore did not succeed in stealing the presidency from Bush.
(1) Emissions Scenarios: Mr. Schneider complains that "Lomborg dismisses all but the lowest" scenarios for future carbon dioxide emissions and consequent global warming.
Mr. Lomborg does so with good reason. An analysis of atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentrations over the last quarter-century reveals that the standard assumption of strong exponential growth is wrong. You could read about that it in NASA scientist James Hansen's recent writings in the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences." [End Excerpt]
I just thought it would be fun watching them making fools of themselves
In 2050, the biomass of all humans will be greater than the biomass of all humans in 2002, and thus so should the average temperature of the air increase.
All we need is to test the idea. The number-crunching can then begin.
True but this throws a BIG wrench into their propaganda machine.
Is there a correlation between planting trees and grass in Phoenix and warmer nights?
Not to worry. The Aids epidemic will take care of that.
Silly question. There are Republicans and conservatives to be smeared, Christians to be demonized, abortionists to be supported, gays to be glorified, victims to be created. Who has time for this story any more?
Maybe would could send some (why not a whole bunch) environmentalist wackos to the Sun. Their mission: adjust the thermostat.
Ah, yes, the heat-island effect. Most of the older climactic data came from airports, which were (reasonably) located out away from the cities they served. However, as time went by, cities expanded and surrounded the airport with construction, concrete, people, etc. This raised the ambient temperature of the airport, without any climactic change whatsoever.
Is there a bibliography available? I mean, nothing is more fun than an afternoon in the Science Library reading journals, but before I dig into PNAS I'd like to know where...(grin)
Sorry, I've had it with purveyors of lies, deception, and outright evil, that includes radical environmentalists, earth firsters, wilderness lovers, who want to destroy that wilderness conquering ideal that the founding fathers were so proud of. They should all be on bended knee in gratitude for living in a land of freedom and liberty where I can't just exercise that deportation option. Why would I desire to take the nation backwards 200 plus years along with all of the scientific and technological advancements, just so I can walk in the woods? Oh, I get it, they want it both ways.
Common sense dictates that a world population fitting inside the borders of Gambia, Jamaica, Lebanon, or the Bahamas is not capable of destroying the earth.
While it is beneficial and desirable to have a clean environment, it also is true that the Greens suffer from a severe case of myopia coupled with supremely absurd arrogance about the powers of humanity versus those of nature.
Cities have always been dirty, and always will, but that's where the most rabid environmentalists live. They are deluded by their own surroundings. It is almost funny.
I once asked a hardcore environmentalist what she saw when looking out the window of a cross-country flight. Was it people, pollution, and devastation, or green trees and arable land? She was unable to answer the question.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 98, Issue 26, 14778-14783, December 18, 2001-- Trends of measured climate forcing agents By James E. Hansen and Makiko Sato
A major clearing house for these types. IPS The Institute for Policy Studies( The Progressive Challenge: Linking grassroots activists, scholars, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus toward a multi-issue movement for fairness and justice for all.)
If they would even look around the city they could witness the resilience of nature. For example, one of the sidewalks where I walk my dog crosses a utility easement for about 200 feet. No one maitains this section and the sidewalk is cracked and coming to pieces from the weeds growing through it.
You can see many of these socialist players at the LINK at Post # 32.
He does call for the regulation and reduction of emissions of: methane which is a greenhouse gas and for those smog producers such as NOx and VOC. Whereas there is no political or scientific consensus on CO2/warming, there is no disagreement on smog/ozone as a problem.
Hansen has written that any global political/economic consequences faced by Bush/US for rejecting CO2 regulation would be offset by regulating smog producing compounds. Hansen refers to this as "taking the high ground away from Europe".
It is important to note actions being taken by individual states on CO2. There are several and where else but the west coast and the northeast. Most recently California has indicated that they will attempt to regulate tailpipe CO2 while Texas, on the other hand, has rejected even doing a CO2 inventory and will concentrate on NOx, VOC, CFC, etc.
Thanks, CW, I'll be sure and distribute this article to my students who are doing research in the area.
I caught one of those old "In Search Of" episodes on the history channel the other day, you know the ones with Mr. Spock?
Anyway, the focus was how we were surely headed back into another Ice Age and therefore we were ALL DOOMED!
And big ears had a bunch of credible (?) scientists on to back up this theory, of course.
All I could think was if that were a modern episode the focus would be how were were all sure to burn to death from Global Warming caused by our charcoal grills and SUV's..
You are correct.
Think also of Pompeii, Chichen Itza, or Angkor Wat. The largest cities of their time, overtaken by vines and volcanic dust.
The environmentalists are nearly insane in their denials of reality.
The Skeptical Environmentalist
Subtitle:Measuring the Real State of the World
by Bjorn Lomborg
ISBN 0 521 01068 3 paperback
Cambridge University Press
This is the book that has stirred up the liberal environmentists recently. There are several hit pieces in the recent issue of "Scientific American" attacking Lomborg's scholarship. After perusing the book, I think that he has done an amazing job of ferreting out articles and data. You can hear the environmentalist squealing if you listen for a minute.
I suggest that we send copies of this article to some of the groups that espouse ridiciulous positions.
Naturally I agree... are you familiar with John Lott's "More guns- Less Crime?" What I found fascinating was his chapter on how his book was received by opponents- many would not even read his work! Did not stop them from critqueing it, naturally....
These pseudo-scientists have never done a sensitivity analysis of their models - something that competent scientists that work in the field of math modeling know is a prerequiste before you ever make any predictions. A proper sensitivity analysis would have displayed these kinds of flaws in the 'climate models', thus confirming that the predictions of 'global warming' were incorrect. However, that would not have met the agenda being pushed by the 'global warming' advocates so they sacrified scientific validity for political gain.
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.