Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

National Geographic: Melting Mars Means Man-Made Global Warming a Myth
NewsBusters, National Geographic ^ | 3/1/2007 | Noel Sheppard

Posted on 03/01/2007 8:43:13 AM PST by AT7Saluki

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-159 next last
To: DBrow
"Christopher Monckton discusses it here:"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml

Nice article and good to see just how much 'science' changes the facts to fit the politics.

Thanks.

51 posted on 03/01/2007 9:26:29 AM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: AT7Saluki

You puny humans will regret sending your greenhouse gasses across the solar system and into our atmosphere!!!

52 posted on 03/01/2007 9:27:33 AM PST by VeniVidiVici (ˇEl proletariado del mundo, une! - Xuygo Chavez)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

Oh, I thought Pre-PC meant you used a Sinclair or TRS-80.

Sorry.

I was using a PDP 1180 back then myself.


53 posted on 03/01/2007 9:28:01 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: vigilante2
no doubt Mars was once a Republican planet inhabited by conservatives driving SUV's

Which, of course, explains why there is no longer life on Mars...

54 posted on 03/01/2007 9:29:33 AM PST by Texican72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Yours is an excellent exercise in missing the point.

Your point was that both arguments are wrong. I didn't miss it, I wasn't responding to your point, but to your remark about Rush Limbaugh.

I was saying that you could have made your point without dissing Mr. Limbaugh. So, you essentially missed my point.

55 posted on 03/01/2007 9:30:08 AM PST by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: taxed2death

>>spoooooky stuff.<<

I think "Goooofy" would be more accurate. But spooky fits too, as it does with lots of fiction, like "The Ring".


56 posted on 03/01/2007 9:32:02 AM PST by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AT7Saluki
I like this quote from the article:

"Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."

But it still gets play in the media. Go figure.

57 posted on 03/01/2007 9:35:18 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBrow
"Oh, I thought Pre-PC meant you used a Sinclair or TRS-80."

LOL! My fault. I think everybody should understand what I mean.

I do remember one of the staff auditors bought a TRS-80 back in 1981 or so and was showing me his program that did some cursor movements.

I was verrrry underwhelmed at the time, but the rest is (as they say) history.

He's probably a wealthy geek somewhere now. ;-)

58 posted on 03/01/2007 9:35:32 AM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: ChessExpert
b) the earth is cooler now than 1000 years ago.

That cannot really be said with any confidence.

59 posted on 03/01/2007 9:36:37 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: AT7Saluki
Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming

This is very evident in Fairbanks where it is -34 this morning.

60 posted on 03/01/2007 9:36:53 AM PST by RightWhale (300 miles north of Big Wild Life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AT7Saluki

An inconvenient fact for Al Gorebbels' "Inconvenient Truth" propaganda piece.


61 posted on 03/01/2007 9:39:19 AM PST by guitfiddlist (When the 'Rats break out switchblades, it's no time to invoke Robert's Rules.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
But it's only been a portion of 1C during the first part of the 20th century and general cooling since then.

General cooling since when? The 1930s?


62 posted on 03/01/2007 9:40:50 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: L98Fiero
I've always thought that those who expect our climate to remain static are the kooks.

I had a conversation about Global Warming last night with my 14 year old cousin who told me that she's been really scared by a all the talk about Global Warming and specifically, a commercial on TV about it that she keeps seeing. We discussed it, and she then came to the conclusion that the climate is probably changing "just like the seasons." Smart kid. :)
63 posted on 03/01/2007 9:40:54 AM PST by California74
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: AT7Saluki
The left (media) is disgusting. notice these 2 quotes:
"one scientist's controversial theory."
"The article marvelously continued:"
The leftist-oriented media can't resist telling us how to think.
It's obvious that they would really prefer not reporting on this fact.
64 posted on 03/01/2007 9:41:56 AM PST by Leftism is Mentally Deranged (mediabots are 100% in the tank for the left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra
You need to read the article a little more closely: Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming

While I agree with you that based on the science Earth temps have increased a pretty puny (IMO) .7% C, this guy calls that "rapid warming".

What's up with that ?

65 posted on 03/01/2007 9:42:14 AM PST by cinives (On some planets what I do is considered normal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
"We are currently in a critical transition phase. Within the next 90 days we can expect the entire northern hemisphere to experience a significant increase in the average daily temperature. This will result in substantial melting of the frozen ground cover and perhaps flooding of low lying areas."

That's funny. Hee-hee-hee!

"Scientists are currently seeking federal grants to fund research necessary to explain the causes and help to limit the impact. They warn that new taxes are almost surely required to fund the necessary retraining of citiznes to correct their behavior and attitudes."

Follow the money...

66 posted on 03/01/2007 9:43:27 AM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: California74
We discussed it, and she then came to the conclusion that the climate is probably changing "just like the seasons." Smart kid. :)

Good for her - and you! If this assault by the left is going to be answered it will have to be on the personal level as well as the scientific.

67 posted on 03/01/2007 9:44:40 AM PST by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight
If Mars is warming anyway, let's terraform the damn place and turn it into a CONSERVATIVE planet-wide Republic like the US is supposed to me. ;-)

Red state/Red planet.

68 posted on 03/01/2007 9:46:51 AM PST by DungeonMaster (Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: bcsco
I listened to an interview Limbaugh conducted yesterday with a noted former NASA scientist/meteorologist.

Roy Spencer has been a conservate favorite for a long time. First because his satellite data (analyzed with John Christy) didn't show any warming; then, after discovery of several methodological errors, a reanalysis of the data showed significant warming (other groups analyzing the same data find an even stronger signal than Spencer and Christy). So now, he has, begrudgingly but with scientific honesty dogging him, gone over to the position that the Earth is warming, any future warming will be moderate, and the human contribution is still uncertain.

This position (in bold)) is now the refuge of skeptics who are trying to remain honest about what the data is increasingly indicating, without entirely abandoning their skepticism.

I believe, however, that as more information from responsible scientists, climatologists and meteorologists comes out, we've come to realize that while there is something that is causing the earth to warm at this time, little has to do with man's affect on our environment.

The position of the majority of climate scientists who aren't trying to preserve their skeptical bona fides is that the human contribution (atmospheric greenhouse gases) is the dominant factor currently affecting climate.

Please give those of us not blessed to be among the scientific community credit for due diligence in developing an understanding of a complex issue, and advancing our position as the situation changes.

Absolutely: and if you do so, it's important to know the backgrounds (and history) of individuals espousing a given position. I hope I was helpful.

69 posted on 03/01/2007 9:48:21 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: bcsco
Habibullo Abdussamatov

There's a name to quote in your next argument.

70 posted on 03/01/2007 9:48:24 AM PST by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
Global warming is a fact.

Then why are you talking about seasonal hemispheric variability?

71 posted on 03/01/2007 9:49:31 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight

Yea it is a RED planet.


72 posted on 03/01/2007 9:50:48 AM PST by FlatLandBeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: AT7Saluki
Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

When's this global warming coming to Earth?!?

It's freekin' 27 degrees in Seattle IN MARCH!!

I'm welcoming Global Warming with open arms!!!

73 posted on 03/01/2007 9:51:14 AM PST by MooseMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bcsco
So, you essentially missed my point.

No.

74 posted on 03/01/2007 9:51:44 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
b) the earth is cooler now than 1000 years ago.

“That cannot really be said with any confidence.”

I have gone to websites you have linked. I cannot accept you claims with any confidence.

75 posted on 03/01/2007 9:51:45 AM PST by ChessExpert (Reagan defeated the Soviet Union despite the Democratic party. We could use another miracle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Mr. Limbaugh: "Not Our Fault, therefore No Global Warming.

Since I am no fan of the formerly fat boy, lemme say that this NOT, repeat NOT, IMHO, what the wannabe pro golfer says.

Nor I either. Recent measurements seem to reliably indicate a Global Warming trend. The question is, "Is this man's doing?" Sensible answers range from 1 to 2:

(1)"Maybe.... quizás, peut-être, the teensiest bit in certain tiny micro-regions, like Mexico City, sitting in its bowl-shaped depression at 6,000 feet. But nobody knows, because that black cloud of crap hanging over most of neighbor republic's high colonial cities just might be keeping them cooler!

(2) No.

After all, when the Vikings were farming Greenland in the 12th, and 13TH centuries, it was one hell of a lot warmer place than it is now. They didn't call it "Greenland," cause it was the same color as ice, which of course, being Vikings, they had certainly seen before.

And at one point, fine wine grapes grew in England.

So before Fat Al thinks about selling the McMansions, maybe he should check out solar activity, the Earth's Precessionary period, its changing angle toward the Sun, undersea volcanic activity etc. etc. etc. etc.

The earth is warmer? OK, if you say so, but so what? Scientifically speaking, we have nothing to do with it. Rising sea levels? Nah. I'd be more worried about buildings built on permafrost. That could effect some big cities in Siberia. We might have to beef up the bases of the Alaska Pipeline. Those caribou tragically affected by drilling in the ANWAR will not be affected, too much, one of course, prays.

Worry? Be my guest, Mr. Gore, and bring your fans.

76 posted on 03/01/2007 9:52:01 AM PST by Kenny Bunk (Don't get excited. It is simply our turn in history to cut Islam back..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

...is it possible you missed the obvious and brilliant sarcasm in the post you respond to...


77 posted on 03/01/2007 9:52:14 AM PST by IrishBrigade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

More importantly, did you sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night?


78 posted on 03/01/2007 9:53:32 AM PST by Bat_Chemist (I was on a roll, and then the backspin kicked in...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
Reproduced (again) from an earlier post:

I've already addressed the entire Solar System in this thread, in post 50. I've grabbed it again for you. All of the quotes are from articles on the Internet (not left-wing sites) regarding the phenomena being observed. Use Google with the name of the planetary body and the word "warming". http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1727767/posts

Regarding Mars: "Thus inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted. The observed regional changes in south polar ice cover are almost certainly due to a regional climate transition, not a global phenomenon, and are demonstrably unrelated to external forcing."

Regarding Jupiter: "The latest images could provide evidence that Jupiter is in the midst of a global change that can modify temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of the globe. ... The global change cycle began when the last of the white oval-shaped storms formed south of the Great Red Spot in 1939. As the storms started to merge between 1998 and 2000, the mixing of heat began to slow down at that latitude and has continued slowing ever since." [No linkage to solar variability suggested]

Regarding Pluto: "The change is likely a seasonal event, much as seasons on Earth change as the hemispheres alter their inclination to the Sun during the planet's annual orbit. ... Though Pluto was closest to the Sun in 1989, a warming trend 13 years later does not surprise David Tholen, a University of Hawaii astronomer involved in the discovery. "It takes time for materials to warm up and cool off, which is why the hottest part of the day on Earth is usually around 2 or 3 p.m. rather than local noon," Tholen said. "This warming trend on Pluto could easily last for another 13 years." [No link to solar variability suggested, though there is a link to solar insolation, similar to Milankovitch forcing of Earth's climate]

Regarding Triton: " There are two possible explanations for the moon's warmer weather. One is that the frost pattern on Triton's surface may have changed over the years, absorbing more and more of the sun's warmth. The other is that changes in reflectivity of Triton's ice may have caused it to absorb more heat." [No link to solar variability suggested]

Regarding Enceladus, warming is not even suggested. The question is about how Enceladus has an internal heat source allowing the generation of water-ice jets.

Regarding Saturn: The observation is that Saturn's south pole is "warm", with a polar vortex due to atmospheric circulation. No global warming is suggested and no linkage to solar activity or variability is suggested.

79 posted on 03/01/2007 9:54:44 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Folks tend to combine these two questions such that "Global Warming, Therefore Our Fault". The counter by such noted scientists as Mr. Limbaugh is to say, "Not Our Fault, therefore No Global Warming." Interestingly, these are logically equivalent statements -- and both wrong.

Wouldn't it be nice if every "self-esteem" class was dumped and a class in formal logic was taught instead? Then people might recognize the "post hoc, ergo promter hoc" BS when the MSM feeds it to them.

80 posted on 03/01/2007 9:55:16 AM PST by LexBaird (98% satisfaction guaranteed. There's just no pleasing some people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
The counter by such noted scientists as Mr. Limbaugh is to say, "Not Our Fault, therefore No Global Warming."

Rush has not said that. I would like to see transcripts of where he stated such. Rush's main thrust is to question those who are "certain" that GW is man-made; that it is "settled science." Rush like many, myself included, who are utterly exasperated at the insanity of those who believe the Earth's climate is at the "tipping point." I am an engineer who has been involved in circuit and systems modeling. Just dealing with how to determine valid initial conditions is difficult enough; handling non-linearities is another layer of complexity.

My intuition would tell me that any output from models of the Earth's climate should be not taken as "truth or settled science." Who knows what seemingly "simple" parameters yet to be accounted for in their models, will result in vastly different results. The Scientist on Rush's show yesterday was a breath of fresh air over this non-problem. I was astounded when he said that precipitation is not an integral part of many models. That alone should give anyone pause over the claim of the nuts like Gore. I choose to be happy and appreciate the beauty of nature, knowing man will NOT destroy the climate. I fear the freaks on the left who have found yet another pathway to try impose their totalitarian hell upon civilization.

81 posted on 03/01/2007 9:55:29 AM PST by sand88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

...so you're complaining that the media is being too vigourous in pushing the anti global warming position...???


82 posted on 03/01/2007 9:56:25 AM PST by IrishBrigade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: IrishBrigade
...is it possible you missed the obvious and brilliant sarcasm in the post you respond to...

Anything's possible.

83 posted on 03/01/2007 9:56:37 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: IrishBrigade
...so you're complaining that the media is being too vigourous in pushing the anti global warming position...???

How do you infer that?

84 posted on 03/01/2007 9:57:32 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

"Then why are you talking about seasonal hemispheric variability?"

Did you read my entire post? My point is the only 'global warming' is the seasonal and natural warming variances the earth has experienced throughout recorded history.

The socialist and anti-technology people have jumped on their version of global warming as a way to control people.


85 posted on 03/01/2007 10:00:12 AM PST by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: AT7Saluki
In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Not to appear to be a supporter of "Global Warming Theory" but the simple fact of the matter is that Mars was nailed by a global dust storm in 2001.  It's entirely possible that the subsequent warmer years are an after-effect of that epic storm.

86 posted on 03/01/2007 10:02:30 AM PST by Psycho_Bunny (I'm holding out hope that at least the DEMOCRATS might accidentally nominate a conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChessExpert
'High Confidence' That Planet Is Warmest in 400 Years; Less Confidence in Temperature Reconstructions Prior to 1600

"Less confidence can be placed in proxy-based reconstructions of surface temperatures for A.D. 900 to 1600, said the committee that wrote the report, although the available proxy evidence does indicate that many locations were warmer during the past 25 years than during any other 25-year period since 900. Very little confidence can be placed in statements about average global surface temperatures prior to A.D. 900 because the proxy data for that time frame are sparse, the committee added."

Don't ask me, ask the National Academy of Sciences, and note that this report cast considerable doubt on the original paleoclimate "Hockey Stick", particularly for quantitative comparisons before 1600.

I.e., regarding global temperatures ~1000 years ago, it cannot reliably be said that it was warmer then than now. It cannot be reliably said that it was cooler then than now. All that can reliably said is that it appears it was warmer for the period 900-1300/1400 and for the period 1850-present than the period in between (commonly known as the Little Ice Age).

87 posted on 03/01/2007 10:03:46 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Leftism is Mentally Deranged

Check the source of the quotes, and I think you'll find that Newsbusters is being sardonic.


88 posted on 03/01/2007 10:04:53 AM PST by LexBaird (98% satisfaction guaranteed. There's just no pleasing some people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

"The position of the majority of climate scientists who aren't trying to preserve their skeptical bona fides is that the human contribution (atmospheric greenhouse gases) is the dominant factor currently affecting climate."

HUH?

The 'scientist' that support global warming almost always are getting money from it.

The earth probably is warming. If you look at the data you will see that the earths temperature has varied wildly throughout history.

But perhaps I'm wrong. As soon as one of those people pushing new taxes and massive govt control gives up their mansion and private jet I will consider listening.


89 posted on 03/01/2007 10:05:03 AM PST by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

"I.e., regarding global temperatures ~1000 years ago, it cannot reliably be said that it was warmer then than now. It cannot be reliably said that it was cooler then than now. All that can reliably said is that it appears it was warmer for the period 900-1300/1400 and for the period 1850-present than the period in between (commonly known as the Little Ice Age).'

So we can't say it was warmer or cooler BUT we can say man evolved based on the evidence of a couple bones found 4 miles apart. I guess it all depends on your agenda.


90 posted on 03/01/2007 10:06:47 AM PST by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
Yes, I read your whole post. You said "global warming is a fact" and then you "demonstrated" this by describing the seasonal warming of the Northern Hemisphere. That's not global warming.

I know it was satire. It was lousy satire. My response was likewise satirical.

91 posted on 03/01/2007 10:06:47 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: sand88

If Rush did say "Not our fault, therefore no global warming," it was more than likely said tongue in cheek and in order to illustrate a point. He likes to illustrate absurdity by being absurd.


92 posted on 03/01/2007 10:06:56 AM PST by California74
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."

But it still gets play in the media. Go figure.


...since you stated it directly in your post, is I guess why I infer that...


93 posted on 03/01/2007 10:07:49 AM PST by IrishBrigade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
...if you do so, it's important to know the backgrounds (and history) of individuals espousing a given position. I hope I was helpful.

Absolutely.

The position of the majority of climate scientists who aren't trying to preserve their skeptical bona fides is that the human contribution (atmospheric greenhouse gases) is the dominant factor currently affecting climate.

Does the fact that Dr. Spencer has altered his viewpoint mean his bona fides are questionable? I wouldn't think so; only that his methodology may have been erroneous but now is being corrected. And does this mean that all those who are skeptical of GW use faulty models to promote their beliefs?

There is also much skepticism of the methodology used by those who promote man-made Global Warming. And Dr. Spencer addressed that issue in his discussion with Rush Limbaugh. In effect, the models used by virtually anyone, when collecting data on global temperature fluctuation, by nature, is likely inexact. So, I guess, the question is: "Do we really have the ability to correctly gauge what is causing this current warming"? And if the answer is 'no', then how do we know how to react?

Color me skeptical until I can feel confident all the facts are in.

94 posted on 03/01/2007 10:11:26 AM PST by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: AT7Saluki
Just set off a couple of Super Volcanoes, that will pretty much balance the whole thing out.
95 posted on 03/01/2007 10:13:50 AM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

"I know it was satire. It was lousy satire. My response was likewise satirical."

I don't think it was brilliant but it wasn't lousy.

The data for global warming is suspect and incomplete. The people pushing it also have an agenda.

They always point to America as being evil. That we produce 20-25% of the 'greenhouse gases'. That we make America nasty with pollution?

Have these folks ever been to a major city anywhere else? In Russia the snow is orange and yellow before it hits the ground. The air in mexico city is thick enough to cut with a knife. The water in china is so foul with pollution that you can strip paint of your furniture with it. In India the untreated human waste from millions of people flows directly into their main water source.

And yet the answer is to cripple America's economy? The answer is to tax my lawn mower and the flatulence of the cows in the field?

I'd recommend these 'scientists' cut down on the LSD before they make their next recommendation.


96 posted on 03/01/2007 10:15:30 AM PST by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: bcsco
Thanks for your post.

The global warming topic is usually brought up in the wrong way. It may be advanced in an alarmist way, an accusatory way, and in a way that takes political sides. The people who advance the topic usually consider themselves liberal and vote Democrat. All this has led to a reaction. As a reaction, Rush Limbaugh or someone else may take issue with global warming. So we end up with global warming debates. All the while global warming is undefined. This enables some to shift from one definition to another.

When people ask me if I "believe in global warming," I answer that I believe in global warming after every ice age, and I believe in global cooling before every ice age. That usually stops the conversation.

We have had no end of "experts" who have made exaggerated claims. These include Malthus, Marx, Freud, Kinsey, and Erlich and many others. The oscillating predictions of global climate experts have been exaggerated also. Often these experts have their own terminology that is designed to impress and intimidate. I find that positions that have merit can be clearly presented and be persuasive to both the lay reader and the specialist. Knaves and those who are not fully competent have to hide behind jargon.

Global warming scare tactics may lead to the imposition of great and unnecessary costs on all of us. This should be resisted.

As for the science, the more I read the more convinced I become that mankind does not understand all the factors contributing to climate change. Economists of a socialist bent have had to step back from socialism over the past seventy years as they came to appreciate their ignorance. Climate experts of a socialist bent are simply decades behind economists in gaining a modicum of wisdom.
97 posted on 03/01/2007 10:21:42 AM PST by ChessExpert (Reagan defeated the Soviet Union despite the Democratic party. We could use another miracle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: IrishBrigade
...since you stated it directly in your post, is I guess why I infer that...

I did find it slightly amusing that a theory unsupported by theory or observations got picked up by National Geographic News -- particularly because there are conventional scientific explanations for the observations on Mars unrelated to solar variability.

98 posted on 03/01/2007 10:26:44 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
They always point to America as being evil. That we produce 20-25% of the 'greenhouse gases'. That we make America nasty with pollution?

Here's an interesting article that disputes that to some degree: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?page=article&Article_ID=14224. At least it shows we are doing better toward conservation than others.

99 posted on 03/01/2007 10:26:58 AM PST by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: ChessExpert

I'm not a scientist, climatologist, meteorologist, nor do I have any degree in related sciences. I will remain skeptical until I've seen sufficient factual data from one side or the other. And I've yet to see any that's been convincing. Nor am I convinced that anyone, on either side, has developed adequate modeling from which factual data can be generated.

That's my position in a nutshell.


100 posted on 03/01/2007 10:36:51 AM PST by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-159 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson