More on Global Warming

  1. One more degree and we're done for? Yikes!

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-done-for.html
    •  
  2. 58 Comments

  3. by   ZASHAGALKA
    It's 15 degrees colder outside then it was a month ago: 83 deg instead of 98!

    I'm sure it's because of global warming. . .

    ONE more degree, and I'll have to cut back on how much I drive. Ummm, wait a minute, gas is cheaper so I can drive LOTS more. Scratch that last.

    I've said this before, WATER VAPOR is the primary greenhouse gas. It drives 98% of the warming and cooling cycles of our environment. Unless you have a plan to do away with the oceans, global warming is driven by nature, not man.

    CO2 buildup might be problematic for other reasons, but to say it is the cause or solution to global warming is like saying that Sears is the cause or solution to our economy. It MIGHT be a factor, but, in the grand scheme of things, it is not nearly the principle factor. Focusing on Sears to keep our economy in check would be both short sighted and wrong. Just like focusing on CO2 to keep global warming in check is.

    Focusing on decreasing CO2 to improve global warming is akin to saying, "If we could just get sales for Sears up 10%, we could have a wonderful economy". In reality, the ECONOMY drives sales at Sears and WATER VAPOR drives CO2, not the other way around.

    And even the most dedicated global warming activist scientist KNOWS that the driving factor in greenhouse gases is WATER VAPOR. Why don't they menton that? Because they correctly know that a reasonable discussion of water vapor vis a vi global warming completely undermines their arguments.

    In fact, we discussed this in the LAST thread on global warming. The ONLY reason that these scientists can forecast gloom and doom a hundred years from now is because it takes that long before the skew in their data reaches proportions worth blubbering about. The WAY they make headlines is by taking standard error and playing it out for decades until that error reaches critical mass, and then to report on THAT. But, in reality, because of the substantial and exponential error that factors by such long ranging forecasts, the results are less than even mere speculation: it's outright crystal ball gazing. And I hardly find it surprising that their crystal balls say EXACTLY what they want them to say.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Sep 29, '06
  4. by   indigo girl
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    It's 15 degrees colder outside then it was a month ago: 83 deg instead of 98!

    I'm sure it's because of global warming. . .

    ONE more degree, and I'll have to cut back on how much I drive. Ummm, wait a minute, gas is cheaper so I can drive LOTS more. Scratch that last.

    I've said this before, WATER VAPOR is the primary greenhouse gas. It drives 98% of the warming and cooling cycles of our environment. Unless you have a plan to do away with the oceans, global warming is driven by nature, not man.

    CO2 buildup might be problematic for other reasons, but to say it is the cause or solution to global warming is like saying that Sears is the cause or solution to our economy. It MIGHT be a factor, but, in the grand scheme of things, it is not nearly the principle factor. Focusing on Sears to keep our economy in check would be both short sighted and wrong. Just like focusing on CO2 to keep global warming in check is.

    And even the most dedicated global warming activist scientist KNOWS that the driving factor in greenhouse gases is WATER VAPOR. Why don't they menton that? Because they correctly know that a reasonable discussion of water vapor vis a vi global warming completely undermines their arguments.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Thanks for clearing up that old argument. I guess it's passe'.
  5. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from indigo girl
    Thanks for clearing up that old argument. I guess it's passe'.
    No offense, but it also suffers from being fact.

    If you want to discuss CO2 and acid balance and its effects on growing and living cycles, I'll bite.

    And I can be convinced to move to 'clean' fuels for other reasons, principally the national security implications on relying on foreign oil.

    I've said this before, remove the issue of energy independence as a liberal 'wedge' issue and make it a non-partisan issue, and you CAN get conservatives on board.

    But to say that the sky is literally falling because of CO2 is just not correct. Greenhouse gases are a GOOD thing. Water Vapor keeps our environment in balance. Without the 'greenhouse effect', we would be a cold dead globe.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Sep 29, '06
  6. by   CHATSDALE
    you hear so much nonsense that you began to tune out...stating that sheep and cows need to be done away with because of gas in/out that they produce
    maybe people are contributing to the disaster...lets do away with brocoli and cabbage
  7. by   gwenith
    There is a lot of nonsense being spoken but most of it is coming from astroturf sites. (Astroturf = grassroots organisations funded by vested interests - in this case the oil industry) In case anyone is thinking that I have fallen for some grand "anti- global warming" conspiracy theory there is this.
    Last week, the Royal Society in London sent a measured complaint to the oil company ExxonMobil, asking it to end its long-standing and extensive funding of lobby groups that the society says "misinform the public" on climate change. What response does it get? Nothing from ExxonMobil and its lobbyists, whose contempt for one of the world's oldest scientific institutions seems to rival their contempt for good science. Instead, we get lectures from climate change sceptics, such as the UK-based Scientific Alliance,
    http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...te-change.html

    Timothy - I am willing and more than willing to debate you on this. I cannot do it at present but I will be back and I will refute your points for you.
    Last edit by gwenith on Sep 29, '06
  8. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from gwenith
    There is a lot of nonsense being spoken but most of it is coming from astroturf sites. (Astroturf = grassroots organisations funded by vested interests - in this case the oil industry) In case anyone is thinking that I have fallen for some grand "anti- global warming" conspiracy theory there is this.

    http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...te-change.html

    Timothy - I am willing and more than willing to debate you on this. I cannot do it at present but I will be back and I will refute your points for you.
    Well, this issue was well debated in this thread:

    http://allnurses.com/forums/f112/inc...th-164718.html

    If you debate it again here, I reserve the right to repaste my indepth comments from there.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  9. by   Corvette Guy
    LOL, I cut up my Sears credit card a long time ago. So, am I helping, or hurting global warming?

  10. by   gwenith
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    Well, this issue was well debated in this thread:

    http://allnurses.com/forums/f112/inc...th-164718.html

    If you debate it again here, I reserve the right to repaste my indepth comments from there.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    You are free to do so - I would be more than a little interested in seeing your reasoning behind the allegations and assertions you have made here - also your sources. I have not been involved in this forum for a while but I have kept abreast of the global warming argument and feel I can rebut many of the falsehoods in relation to greenhouse gases and water vapour that are currently circulating.

    By the way Timothy - the Australian Bureau of Meteorology is also more than a little concerned about global warming
    Australia and the globe are experiencing rapid climate change. Since the middle of the 20th century, Australian temperatures have, on average, risen by about 1C with an increase in the frequency of heatwaves and a decrease in the numbers of frosts and cold days. Rainfall patterns have also changed - the northwest has seen an increase in rainfall over the last 50 years while much of eastern Australia and the far southwest have experienced a decline.
    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/

    THIS site is not a media site - it is goverment owned, funded and operated. They have no reason to "make headlines"
  11. by   gwenith
    Quote from Corvette Guy
    LOL, I cut up my Sears credit card a long time ago. So, am I helping, or hurting global warming?

    Truth is - those things that will help are little things and most of them also do YOU good

    Switch off the lights when you leave the room - saves you money as well as the environment
    Walk instead of taking the car - when you can - this will also keep your heart healthy

    Little, everyday things
  12. by   gwenith
    Ah! I have been reviewing that thread and see where you get your information

    http://allnurses.com/forums/1708203-post32.html

    You could not have done better if you had posted a link to junk science.com. I fear that that group is the one I was just referring to - definitely astroturf.

    You can check out the names at sourcewatch http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...nds_of_Science
  13. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from gwenith
    Ah! I have been reviewing that thread and see where you get your information

    http://allnurses.com/forums/1708203-post32.html

    You could not have done better if you had posted a link to junk science.com. I fear that that group is the one I was just referring to - definitely astroturf.

    You can check out the names at sourcewatch http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...nds_of_Science
    Nevertheless, here is a statement by 60 scientists, who far from being 'junk', are some of the actual experts in this field:

    (and these were primarily just Canadian and Australian scientists) that disagree with the junk science of global warming:

    http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/a...5/warming.html

    "While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policy formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the Protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.

    We appreciate the difficulty any government has ,formulating sensible science-based policy, when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality, and so benefit both the environment and the economy."

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Sep 30, '06
  14. by   gwenith
    As I stated the group you are quoting have no validity.

    Try googling the names - remember that to remain in academia one must publish and that means that you are easy to find on the internet.

    I have dealt with this group before and just tried googling one of the more obscure names on the list of 60 scientists and found this

    http://cache.zoominfo.com/cachedpage...6%3a35%3a28+PM

    This is not the first time "Dr Auer" has called for expert panels to be set up on climate change - in fact if you read that link he has called for a panel to

    - To audit statements by other organizations, both in New Zealand and overseas, which are published in New Zealand, or are expected to influence New Zealand public policy and public opinion.

    - To audit the forthcoming IPCC report, either on its own, or through the Asia Pacific Climate Science Coalition, or equivalent organization, if one has been established in time.
    http://cache.zoominfo.com/cachedpage...6%3a35%3a28+PM

    Interesting choice of phrase - "audit" reports - not debate, not refute but "audit" them - presumably before the "gasp" public can see them?

    Remember that too that that reposrt contains only 60 names out of how many climatologists world wide??

    By the way - they are not all climatologists by any stretch of the imagination. Take this member of your 60

    Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Department of Economics, University of Guelph, Ontario

    http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/a...5/warming.html

    Those that are - well there is "Dr Tad Murty" on your link he is described as and "adjunct professor" whereas other copies of virtually the same article describe him as a "private sector climate researcher"

    but the star of them all is this man

    Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service
    .

    What they do not say is that he is also the author of a site called junkscience.com
    In a Sept. 24, 1993 sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association.
    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fred_Singer

    Got some more sources supporting your position?
    Last edit by gwenith on Sep 30, '06

close