The Great Global Warming Collapse

by MegaDude 35 Replies latest jw friends

  • leavingwt
    leavingwt

    I enjoyed this post by Steven Novella. . .

    My personal understanding of the current state of climate science is this – the evidence is very solid that average global temperatures are trending up over the last century and that human forcing through CO2 production is the best current answer to explain this trend. If this trend continues (a somewhat big “if”) then there will likely be significant unwanted consequences – not for the earth, but for human civilization. Shifting around agriculture and shorelines will be inconvenient, to say the least. But there is admitted uncertainty in this, and we don’t know all the ways in which the environment will respond to CO2 and temperature increases. But, as is often the case with applied sciences, we have to act prior to certainty if we want to affect the outcome.
    Further, the current plans for fixes to rising CO2 and climate change are as much political as scientific. I think the best solutions to focus on are those things that we would benefit from anyway. Let’s accelerate research and development into alternative energy sources and increased energy efficiency. Even if AGW is a non-issue, these will be good things. It’s a win-win.

    http://skepticblog.org/2010/02/08/climate-skepticism/

  • HappyGuy
    HappyGuy
    So what if it's a bunch of hooey? Do you not all deserve clean and usable air?

    If this issue was presented as a need for investing money into new sources of energy and conservation programs issue (hot water heaters on every rooftop as an example) then there would be large support for such a program. But this climate change hysteria is absolutely the wrong way to go about achieving such aims, which says to me that the promoters of this nonsense don't really care about the energy issues they really care about cap and tax (MONEY$$).

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips

    Lots of here from some, and on the other recent warmie threads. The silence is deafening.

    BTS

  • MegaDude
    MegaDude

    The Democratic foaming at the mouth ominous predictions and demonizing of skeptics at a hysterical level should have set off everybody's BS detector. Nice to see the tables turned on the Global Warming Inqusitors for a change.

  • villabolo
    villabolo

    HappyGuy:

    The global warming nutjobs themselves admitted that global warming was in error when they switched their language to "climate change"

    HappyGuy, that is false. You don't know the meaning of either term nor does Climate Change supercede Global Warming. Global Warming refers to the increase in temperature worldwide throughout time. Climate Change refers to all the aftereffects that Global Warming initiates such as changing rain patterns.

    An excellent example are the recent cold fronts in the US and parts of Europe. The Arctic was actually 10 to 18 degrees warmer than usual while parts of the US are colder than usual. 90% of the earth was warmer than usual during December of 2009. The reason for this in scientific terms is Negative Arctic Oscillation. In simple terms it means that the Arctic was spilling its frigid guts to places south of it while being warmer itself. For a more detailed explanation go to You Tube and search under ClimateDenial Crock of the Week. Go for the video that's titled It's So Cold, There Can't Be Global Warming. Make sure it's the video with an 8:55 minute running time not the one that runs for 6:20. Sorry I have problems posting links.

    villabolo

  • villabolo
    villabolo

    HappyGuy:

    ". . . which says to me that the promoters of this nonsense don't really care about the energy issues they really care about cap and tax (MONEY$$)."

    Wrong again HappyGuy, the fact is that the majority of people educated in Global Warming (and believing in it) DO NOT BELIEVE IN CAP AND TRADE. Butwhat would most deniers like you know since you never investigate anything. I suggest to those who would like to verify my point that they go to a Liberal web site like Alternet.org and do a search under "Cap and Trade". They will find that the majority of references there are negative and skeptical of the issue.

    villabolo

  • besty
    besty
    Worse still, the Times has discovered that Mr. Pachauri's own Energy and Resources Unit, based in New Delhi, has collected millions in grants to study the effects of glacial melting – all on the strength of that bogus glacier claim, which happens to have been endorsed by the same scientist who now runs the unit that got the money. Even so, the IPCC chief is hanging tough. He insists the attacks on him are being orchestrated by companies facing lower profits.

    I don't expect MegaDude to update us on the article pasted above smearing the reputation of Mr Pachauri, who has now been completely exonerated of any impropriety.

    Climate chief cleared over payments

    By Fiona Harvey in London

    Published: March 28 2010 22:12 | Last updated: March 28 2010 22:12

    The embattled head of the United Nations’ scientific panel on climate change has been cleared of allegations of financial irregularity by an independently conducted review.

    KPMG, the professional services company, examined the personal finances of Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, after media suggested late last year that he received money for advising several private sector companies, including Toyota and Credit Suisse. The review found these were all paid to Mr Pachauri’s non-profit organisation TERI (The Energy and Resources Institute), which commissioned KPMG.

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/44a0a92c-3a8e-11df-b6d5-00144feabdc0.html

  • besty
    besty

    The full text of the KPMG report exonerating the IPCC chief can be found here:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2010/aug/26/kpmg-review-pachauri-accounts

    Is MegaDude going to apologize to the JWN audience for pasting unreliable, unfounded rumor?

  • JWoods
    JWoods

    Somehow, the 63-mile long Chinese traffic jam indicates to me as well as anything that international reduction of CO2 emissions is simply not a reality for many decades in the future.

    Therefore, this (CO2 emmisions causing warming) is a backwater political debate which is irrelevant to actual human activity.

  • besty
    besty

    JWoods - you're ongoing dedication to confusing anecdotes with science is truly impressive.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit