Get yer despicable oiliarchic propaganda here folks...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=59991
Get yer despicable oiliarchic propaganda here folks...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=59991
Go soothingly on the grease mud, as there lurks the skid demon
I certainly hope so. Shortly after that post I received a link to a published paper that appears to validate my claim with data. (Yes, I am still receiving climate data at home, I can't imagine how much is waiting for me to analyse when I get back to work). There are 67 pages, and so far I've only taken in 29 of them. there are 27 pages of references, and I have no intention of checking every single one of them. However one staetment already backs up much of my claim: http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/132.pdf
Furthermore, thermometer warming of the 20th century across the world seems neither unusual nor unprecedented within the more extended view of the last 1000 years. Overall, the 20th century does not contain the warmest or most extreme anomaly of the past millennium in most of the proxy records.
Time to ride
Note your use of the word "can". That doesn't always mean 'does". I would still ask for an answer to my question "How can polluting an underground waterway with wood treatment chemicals change the climate?"
Too true, and I am in regular contact with many of them.- don't forget that there are real scientists out there who have clues and are concerned about the matter.
Time to ride
Try this guy.
4. In 13th March edition of the Guardian, George Monbiot takes out the claims of the programme one by one. Link… On his website full scientific references are given for his article which, unlike the Swindle, was checked by professional climate scientists before publication.
Its in the last link I posted. The bit after the charactor 'assassinations.' Seems to have a credible reputation and as he say his article was checked by professional climate scientists before publication.
Skyryder
Skyryder
Free Scott Watson.
Every adult should be forced to use a 'carbon ration card' when they pay for petrol, airline tickets or household energy, MPs say.
The influential Environmental Audit Committee says a personal carbon trading scheme is the best and fairest way of cutting Britain's CO2 emissions without penalising the poor.
Under the scheme, everyone would be given an annual carbon allowance to use when buying oil, gas, electricity and flights.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-say-MPs.html
David must play fair with the other kids, even the idiots.
The vast majority of research scientists do not have agendas. The idea of assuming results and jumping to conclusions is completely contrary to the scientific method. Test hypotheses, try to replicate the data, peer review, face criticism from journals, other researchers, on it goes.
What drives scientists is their curiosity and wonder at what is discovered - and what remains to be discovered.
So I cannot and do not accept that the climate change debate is captured by immoral or deluded scientists on both sides. There are simply too many people of integrity with no axe to grind who would shout alarm - not to mention the journals.
Where the arguments go askew is when people go outside their fields and comment on things they have no specialisation in. Metorologists (weather) trying to argue with climatologists (global trends). On top of that, oil companies promote disinformation and wheel out pseudo scientists. Sad but it happens.
So - the lesson is to look hard at who is doing the research and what their experience is.
Right - Up until now its been big business denyiing that there is climate change - just listen to Bush. The tide is changing however. To change behaviour you need to hit people in the wallet. In NZ Autocar there is talk of higher taxes next year on big cars, less tax on small cars. I wonder where the litre plus bikes fit in?
To me,you can't have 5 billion people using energy, food and water and not have an affect on the climate after the last couple of centuries. Anyone seen pictures of Beijing?
I have to admit, looking at many of the graphs that have been slapped together to make a point (abundant in Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" but found on both sides of the fence) can make me curdle.
Can anyone point out a single problem with the message that the global warming believers spout? The idea that we should be developing and implementing more efficient technologies, trying to minimise our impact on the environment.
Doco's like "The Great Global Warming Swindle" might turn out to be more scientifically accurate but the only thing that Joe Public will take away from it is that there is no need for change. Even if this message isn't stated explicitly, it is implied.
So tell me, what is the worst case scenario if we accept the global warming phenom? We clean up our act?
And my god how aweful that would be!
p.s Jantar, anything we do to the environment can have an effect on climate. Urban Heat Island effect affects micro climates and enough of these could potentially have a global effect.
Let me illustrate.Originally Posted by Jantar
Pollutant adds suspended solids -> water will eventually reach the ocean (and it does) -> additional suspended solids increase energy absorbed by the water -> more evaporation etc.
Conversely you could use it as a toxin killing animals, promoting algae/microbial growth, thus possibly affecting climate. Not to mention deforestation which definitely has tangible effects on climate i.e desertification etc. etc.
Yes, there are two problems with that message. First is that there has been no warming for the past decade and the earth is currently cooling. Second, more efficient technologies has nothing to do with AGW.
Just the opposite in fact. It is saying that we should be doing things for factual reasons, not for religious like beliefs.Doco's like "The Great Global Warming Swindle" might turn out to be more scientifically accurate but the only thing that Joe Public will take away from it is that there is no need for change. Even if this message isn't stated explicitly, it is implied.
We bankrupt our country, hold back developement in emerging economies, and cause massive starvation.So tell me, what is the worst case scenario if we accept the global warming phenom? We clean up our act?
And my god how aweful that would be!
I look forward to seeing your data supporting this claim.p.s Jantar, anything we do to the environment can have an effect on climate. Urban Heat Island effect affects micro climates and enough of these could potentially have a global effect.
Let me illustrate.
Pollutant adds suspended solids -> water will eventually reach the ocean (and it does) -> additional suspended solids increase energy absorbed by the water -> more evaporation etc.
Conversely you could use it as a toxin killing animals, promoting algae/microbial growth, thus possibly affecting climate. Not to mention deforestation which definitely has tangible effects on climate i.e desertification etc. etc.
Time to ride
Yes but these very scientists give their 'opinions' based on the data that they have seen. This is how the general public learn. Unless you have been trained for a specific dicsapline most would not understand data from a scientific paper or be able to come to any reliable conclusion.
The data that has been presented in the Swindle 'has' been discredited by the very people who understand climate science. I don't have access to raw data and even if I did I don't have the training to interpret it. I have to rely on 'credibility' as a yardstick as do most of us in one way or another. The anti global warming people don't seem to have any credibility. Their theories seem to suit big buisness politics in as much that their emissions are not cause of riseing Co2 levels
I'm still waiting for you to show me some credible alternative data that can can explain the speed of global warming. and I confess it is the speed of warming that is occuring that leads me to believe that Co2 emissions are the primary cause of riseing temperture.
Skyryder
Free Scott Watson.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks