What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

More climatological grist for the mill . . .

"The World has Never Seen Such Freezing Heat."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml

For those unfamiliar with Steve McIntyre (mentioned in the UK Telegraph article), I have included a link to one of his many papers, refuting the so-called "hockey stick" model of anthropogenic climate change:

http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf

Arguing climate change -- even among some scientists -- is tantamount to debating the validity of fifth century Arianism versus Monophysitism. No one ever leaves satisfied.

Enjoy Koolaid® . . .
 
If you ask me, this is just some reporter trying to claim that global warming is a myth just because some scientists screwed up a weather report. He also lamely tries to attack Al Gore by mentioning, barely in context, that Hansen supported Greenpeace and also mentions something Greenpeace has done in the past that he calls "criminal," although note that the article never mentions Hansen having anything to do with that particular case. Just because somebody affiliated with Al Gore supported Greenpeace doesn't mean Gore supports the destroying of lifestyle for the environment. I don't trust any data given in an article from an author who is clearly biased. I was surprised by his mentioning that the '30s were the hottest decade, but I bet another would say just the opposite, and with the same evidence.

I agree it was a bad blunder and certainly didn't make those who talk about a climate crisis look good, but the article jumps to conclusions that don't seem justified to me by the actual facts. I've seen Inconvenient truth, and also seen a TON of evidence that says we do have a climate crisis... way too much to be discredited by this Simon Powell wannabe. Inconvenient Truth is biased too, but at least it provides concrete scientific information -- and not just from this weather company -- pointing out specific indicators of a crisis. Saying that all that's not true just because the GISS screwed up is ridiculous. And one more thing. If the GISS's readings are a month behind schedule, as the article seems to imply, everything would balance out and the yearly recording would still be accurate. July would be measured as June, June as May, etc.
 
given its the second admitted screw up in the last year or so on temp measurements and most of the global warming scientists are using this data to prove their hypotheses........well yah have to ask yourself if something is wrong here.....Montana's weather is swinging from a long drought back to more normal rainfall and such based on the last 150 years of data......whatever is going on im all for it.......
 
Saw this study that said that man-made climate change might prevent the onset of the next ice age. They were talkin like it was a bad thing. I thought "well, good"

I would prefer global warming to having an ice sheet cover my state.
 
the climate changes......it aint static.....general consensus even among those that believe that we may be causing issues on a world wide level tend to agree there aint nothing we can really do about it to reverse it.....and given i HIGHLY doubt we are going to be able to do anything to slow down emissions from China and India especially its prolly all academic anyways.........
 
As we have gone over this subject so many times, you already know my position on this. All I would like to add is that the people who actually know jack about the subject are well aware climate is always changing and is never very static. The only issue is whether or not our modifying the composition and gas proportions of the atmosphere will change the climate.

All that said, this will likely only end when we run out of fossil fuels. Think of the climate change acts this way: it will make the fossil fuels last us longer.
 
im all for reducing emissions within reason(though i dont see CO2 as a dangerous emission)........all for alternative clean power........though where the real research needs to be done is in batteries as the waste from trying to store no longer usable batteries isnt any prettier than throwing greenhouse gases into the air.......save the climate but kill our groundwater through landfill leaks?

much rather see the money dumped into things such as tidal energy research than billions pumped into global warming studies.............do more good in the long run IF man made global warming is real anyways..........
 
Well, CO2 traps heat. This is proven beyond doubt. You can even test that at home. The general idea is CO2 traps heat in atmosphere - more CO2 means more heat trapped - the more heat trapped the warmer the earth. The gass's heat trapping powers are really out of proportion to its volume. A bit goes a long ways.

Apperently you did not get the memo that tidal energy is the least viable of the alternative energies? Powered by the moon, it may be important but it just does not have the energy to really churn out a decent wattage. On a large scale, as for serious power plants, it just does'nt have the oomph to make it worth investing in. Money would be better spent anywhere other than tidal energy.
 
i said "and such"........wasnt singling out tidal......throw the money at solar, nuclear, wind......whatever.........

water vapor traps more heat than CO2 by a long shot........our irrigation practices are putting more water vapor in the air than at anytime in the past aswell.........pivot irrigation is playing hell on ground water around here...........
 
  • #10
political-pictures-al-gore-omg-did-.jpg
 
Back
Top