Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
You misunderstand, clearly. I have NOT said that the greenhouse effect does not exist! What I have said is that CO2 changes FOLLOW temperature changes, near as scientific measurements of glaciers, sediments, etc., can show. What I COULD have said is that CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, that computer models showing it is significant are WRONG, going wildly off the path of any reasonable approximation, and thus the parameters must constantly be "revised," (read "fudged") in order to give the answers that the modelers have ASSUMED should result. In other words, they are scientific bullshit, to use a technical term.
Yes, Virginia, there is a Greenhouse Effect. But believing in a greenhouse effect does NOT mean that one must believe in manmade global warming or that CO2 is a significant element of that greenhouse effect.
In regards to your earlier letter to me: Two points: 1.) No one is saying that man can't impact his environment. 2.) The four quetions I asked may have nothing to do with your argument, but they are the only four questions about global warming that matter. Until they are answered, every other question it moot.
In regards to C02 -- again, the leading greenhouse gas (in fact, about 95% of greenhouse gas) is simply water vapor. All this "carbon footprint" talk is like complaining about a mouse when there is an elephant in the room.
And, as for scientists: As I said earlier, in the 1970's, "Global Cooling" was getting its share of magazine covers. At that time, the theory was that too much pollution in the air was deflecting the suns rays, so everything was cooling. If that's the case, let's just start polluting more so we can keep warming in check!
Yes, I'm being silly with that last comment. But the logic of much of the "computer modelling" upon which much of the warming alarmism is based is equally silly.
When people, including scientists, begin asking, "What makes a heterosexual?" only then will the question about what makes a homosexual become relevant.
John Rechy
In regards to your earlier letter to me: Two points: 1.) No one is saying that man can't impact his environment.
I posted a quote from page 2 that said exactly that.
2.) The four quetions I asked may have nothing to do with your argument, but they are the only four questions about global warming that matter. Until they are answered, every other question it moot.
The bullcrap pop argument I refuted is real, as evidenced by the fact that someone posted it. It's entirely incorrect, but not moot.
In regards to C02 -- again, the leading greenhouse gas (in fact, about 95% of greenhouse gas) is simply water vapor. All this "carbon footprint" talk is like complaining about a mouse when there is an elephant in the room.
We can go with analogies all day, and never address the science. It's pointless. In your analogy, if the mouse startles the elephant, he might stampede a hole through your wall. You still have offered no research to support your contentions, merely pop arguments of the sort that Michael Chrichton uses.
And, as for scientists: As I said earlier, in the 1970's, "Global Cooling" was getting its share of magazine covers. At that time, the theory was that too much pollution in the air was deflecting the suns rays, so everything was cooling. If that's the case, let's just start polluting more so we can keep warming in check!
Translation: some scientists have gotten wrong answers, therefore the scientists I disagree with are probably wrong?
Yes, I'm being silly with that last comment. But the logic of much of the "computer modelling" upon which much of the warming alarmism is based is equally silly.
Hundreds of scientific disciplines point to the same answer as the computer models, and it's a typical disingenuous tactic of deniers to characterize all of climate science as a computer model. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Post a scientific paper supporting your position, or admit you're just making stuff up.
is always Camillas - Lordy did I need a break from Glenn you know over there you have to be really serious but here its all fun, fun, fun until Joan takes the old bird away - not that I have anything against old birds - my parents had a parrot and it needed a lot of love when they went on vacation so i took care of it and what i really wanted to say - this time I even didn't read at
all what Camilla was writing about I just felt it looking at the headline and "dishes' and woes
and the the weather and Freud that the long sleep that sounds just like her...
Was it any good?
Re CO2 levels FOLLOWING temp changes:
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?articleid=22787
Re Man's CO2 contribution to total CO2, one notes that recent studies showed that the ground--dirt--contributes 20 times more to CO2 than man. And in addition, some recent research on such esoteric topics as benthic bacteria indicates they contribute 300 times more than man. One also notes the harassment suffered by the true scientists who dared publish data contradicting the dogma of the Church of Global Warming:
"We feel an obligation to publish, both in the cause of scientific objectivity and to prevent a terrible mistake - with extremely costly implications - from being made by the world's governments. But we recognize that in doing so, we lay our careers on the line. As we have found in seeking to broach this issue gently with colleagues, and in attempting to publish these findings in other peer-reviewed journals, the "consensus" on climate change is enforced not by fact but by fear. We have been warned, collectively and individually, that in bringing our findings to public attention we are not only likely to be deprived of all future sources of funding, but that we also jeopardize the funding of the departments for which we work. We believe that academic intimidation of this kind contradicts the spirit of open enquiry in which scientific investigations should be conducted. We deplore the aggressive responses we encountered before our findings were published, and fear the reaction this paper might provoke. But dangerous as these findings are, we feel we have no choice but to publish."
Indeed, the science fascists such as Al Gore and others who continually try to stifle true research and debate are to be deplored and opposed by all honest men.
But on to the research. See Article here. Klein et al have correlated changes in benthic bacterial populations with the atmospheric CO2 levels. Furthermore, they note that the bacterial production of CO2 is at least 300 times as large as the amount of CO2 produced by man. Even more interesting, they note that the benthic bacterial populations correlate much more closely with CO2 levels and temperature fluctuations than the lovely graphs and diagrams of Al Gore.
I note that they still believe that changes in CO2 levels drive climate changes, though other evidence strongly suggests it is more likely the opposite, but that's a topic for another discussion. I am sure Klein et al would be quite willing to discuss their disagreements with other scientists, unlike the politicians and less honest and less courageous so-called "scientists" who try to shout down dissent.
So note carefully, all true believers of the Church of Global Warming: Your attempts to impose your belief systems on all of us infidels is failing.
Various communications follow:
Mr. Hansen says that Greenland is losing ice faster than recorded ever before.
He says that melt is now occuring at the dramatic rate of 200 cubic kilometers
per year! But the European Space Agency reports (4 Nov 2005) that the Ice Sheet
is getting thicker. Meanwhile, on 20 Oct 2005 Ola M. Johannessen, et al reported
that between 1992 and 2003 ... "An increase of 6.4 ± 0.2 centimeters per year
is found in the vast interior areas above 1500 meters, ..." What gives?
--Riley Still, CCNet, 17 February 2006
Analysis of new data for eight stations in coastal southern Greenland, 1958-2001,
shows a significant cooling (trend-line change -1.29ºC for the 44 years), as do
sea-surface temperatures in the adjacent part of the Labrador Sea, in contrast to
global warming (+0.53ºC over the same period). The land and sea temperature series
follow similar patterns and are strongly correlated but with no obvious lead/lag
either way. This cooling is significantly inversely correlated with an increased
phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) over the past few decades (r = -0.76),
and will probably have significantly affected the mass balance of the Greenland Ice
Sheet.
--Edward Hanna and John Cappelen, Geophysical Research Letters, 2003
The results are inconclusive for the {Greenland] ice sheet as a whole, owing to the
large uncertainties when balancing very large, difficult to measure, offsetting
quantities. Even the direction in which the mass of the Greenland ice sheet is
currently changing is in dispute.
-- P. Chylek et al., Climatic Change, 63, 2004
A continuous data set of Greenland Ice Sheet altimeter height from ERS-1 and ERS-2
satellites, 1992 to 2003, has been analyzed. An increase of 6.4 ± 0.2 centimeters
per year is found in the vast interior areas above 1500 meters, in contrast to
previous reports of high-elevation balance.
--Ola M. Johannessen et al., Science, 20 October 2005
Using satellite radar interferometry observations of Greenland, we detected
widespread glacier acceleration below 66- north between 1996 and 2000, which
rapidly expanded to 70- north in 2005. Accelerated ice discharge in the west
and particularly in the east doubled the ice sheet mass deficit in the last
decade from 90 to 220 cubic kilometers per year. As more glaciers accelerate
farther north, the contribution of Greenland to sea-level rise will continue
to increase.
--Eric Rignot and Pannir Kanagaratnam, Science, 17 February 2006
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
