MIT Scientist: 'Alarm over climate change is based on ignorance...

by Bryan 48 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Bryan

  The earth will always be changing.

  What ever happened to the acid-rain, sky is falling, BS?

  Learning To Live With Global Warming

  By Richard S. Lindzen Newsweek International

  "The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week."

  "There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

  "At present, the greenhouse forcing is already about three-quarters of what one would get from a doubling of CO2. But average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn't been uniform—warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy."

  Full Disclosure:Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.

  Could it be that some scientists are pushing global warming to bring in fresh new government grants? Just a thought.

  Bryan
• 

  Mystla

  But... that's not what we have been told to believe... so it can't be true!! We must believe what we are told and do as the majority do. I can't believe anyone would attempt to deviate from the norm like this... lets dunk him and see if he's a witch!!

  Misty
• 

  Anti-Christ

  Could it be that some scientists are pushing global warming to bring in fresh new government grants? Just a thought.

  It's a posibility that crossed my mind. I'm always suspicious of things that become very popular. But I still believe we should try our best to cut on pollution. I think we sould use what we know now to become self sufficient, not only for the environment but just to be free of the "Man". I feel too dependent on the system.
• 

  SixofNine

  "What ever happened to the acid-rain, sky is falling, BS?"

  Good question. What happened is that in spite of people like yourself working hard to infect everyone with your we-can't-hurt-the-planet-no-matter-what-we-do abject silliness, the grown-ups in charge took action and the problem has been substantially mitigated and is on it's way to being solved. Perhaps you'll start your next propaganda piece for big business with a question about CFC's and ozone depletion?

  Fortunately, the same thing will happen wrt to CO2 and methane.
• 

  Mystla

  Personaly, I think that pollution is a bigger threat to our own health, than it is to the planet. We need to clean up our act to save ourselves, the planet will take care of itself.

  Good thread, btw... Sorry about the sarcasm in my first reply.. this is a topic that frustrates me greatly... Thank you sixofnine for illustrating why.

  Misty
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Bryan,

  Could it be that some scientists are pushing global warming to bring in fresh new government grants? Just a thought.

  I think that is a valid question that deserves debate.
• 

  Bryan

  ...I still believe we should try our best to cut on pollution. I think we sould use what we know now to become self sufficient, not only for the environment but just to be free of the "Man". I feel too dependent on the system.

  I agree A-C. I think the whole debate is a great igniter for green enegies and life. I would love to be off the system and If I could afford the $15,000 solar power system, I would do it. For now I do what I can; saving rainwater, flouresent bulbs, etc.

  I hate drivng into Los Angeles, Houston or recently, Denver, and seeing the thick, hazy, polution millions of people are breathing to thier bodies.

  Bryan
• 

  rassillon

  There are a lot of people who just don't get it.

  They think GW is caused by humans and they don't use the capacity to reason on the matter.

  So no matter what you say to them, they just won't get it.

  They will attack with vicious scathing remarks and a superiority complex that they are right and there is no other option.

  They somehow feel that if you disagree with them you MUST be working for big conspiracy. Not that you could possible have an original thought or valid reason for how you feel.

  Their points are the only valid ones.

  RRRRRIIIIIIGGGHHTT!

  -r
• 

  XJW4EVR

  In researching this issue, I have seen enough information on both sides to demonstrate that a non-dogmatic position is the best to take. Should we think about the environment, and our effect on it? Absolutely. Conservation makes sense, economically and environmentally. However, there should not be this gung-ho run to abolish everything that we have attained.

  As an aside, when the chief proponent of Global Warming has a larger carbon footprint than the Enemy of all things environmental, why should I take the proponents serious?
• 

  frankiespeakin

  I do think some scientist make a valid point that the sun radiance fluctuates slightly and this may be the big cause of the currant warming trend. As far as CO2 increases goes, I think the graphs show that it lags behind behind and not ahead of global warming, which would indicate that co2 increase may be caused by GW and not the other way around. After all co2 is produced in nature many times over what we human produce.