Welcome to Powerblog! Feel free to read and post your comments. Opinions expressed herein are exclusive to Powerblog! and do not represent the views of of any employer, organization or outside entity. Thanks to all who help spread the word about POWERBLOG!
This Guy Was a Heartbeat Away!
GORE WARNS OF “THE END OF CIVILIZATION” A goofy moment from the story: He said he was "carbon neutral" himself and he tried to offset any plane flight or car journey by "purchasing verifiable reductions in CO2 elsewhere". Huh?????
Some of us are actually old enough to remember the last fad "crisis" of shody agenda driven science in the 70's, the coming "global cooling", i.e. the next ice age. It was on the cover of all the driven-by weekly rags. Everyone assured us, that given rising oil prices, and shortages, that world's population was going die by freezing to death long before starving because of the inability to grow crops in an eternal winter.
Official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, show that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).
Keep in mind the above was recorded in the era of the huge growth in SUVs!
AND there was a 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998.
AND a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation.
AND that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.
Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.
Your list of "facts" has been debunked elsewhere, better than I can do.
This is a typical answer - provide the debunking!
As for the 1990s -- we've learned more since then.
Yeah - this period of atrocity ont he environment was committed under the Clinton Administration and Gore was VP - kinda makes his movie a filmstrip of crap ... not to mention every ticket sold sends money to his campaign coffers ... hmmm looks a lot like science 'so-called'.
Yes, I'm well aware of Scafetta & West's virtually arbitrary number and their faulty research, which is where the 30% figure originally came from.
I shall try to find the report on the comparing of glacial retreat on Mars and the statistical correlation with climate change on earth. Its a lot of calculations and statistics, so I hope you have a heavy background in mathematics.
Why should I do your homework for you? As I said, there are much better sources on the Internet, and they're plentiful.
Again, this is a typical response. You said the facts were countered. Show it to be so. You aren't doing my homework as much as you are defending your own position - which seems like it is starting to be indefensible ...
You quoted one fact so far ... and you stuck 'at most' around both ends ...
Which supports my view that such alarmist rhetoric is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and leads me to conclude that it is devoid and ignorant of scientific fact and principle, and it is akin to nonsense.
You really are a clueless true believer. You just hate the Right, and Envron-Fundamentalism is your new religion.
Every Chicken Little drive-by MSM weekly mag GUARANTEED that the data was flawless, and that the coming ice age was INEVITABLE. Why should we believe them this time?
Reagan never said trees cause acid rain. It was pollution, a type of haze in particular. He was also correct. Rob, you really are an long time old school hater to bring that up.
While you are at it, check the achives of the NYT. In the 50's, back before CFC's were patented, and amonia was used in refrigerators, the precedessor to NASA launched probes and toke measurements in the artic. They found there was an ozone layer. It was not known for sure to exist before then. They also found its thickness varies over the year, i.e. the "HOLE". This decades before CFC.
11 comments:
I'm not in favor of trashing the earth, but I also don't buy shoty, agenda driven science.
We need to respect life before we start defending ice.
There is no doubt that the Earth is warming and that humanity is responsible for at least part of the damage.
Venus and Mars are warming at an equal rate. That gives major doubt to the idea that humanity is responsible.
Some of us are actually old enough to remember the last fad "crisis" of shody agenda driven science in the 70's, the coming "global cooling", i.e. the next ice age. It was on the cover of all the driven-by weekly rags. Everyone assured us, that given rising oil prices, and shortages, that world's population was going die by freezing to death long before starving because of the inability to grow crops in an eternal winter.
One speech/article that I particularly like is Michael Crichton's "Environmentalism as Religion"
Here's some interesting facts:
Official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, show that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).
Keep in mind the above was recorded in the era of the huge growth in SUVs!
AND there was a 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998.
AND a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation.
AND that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.
Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.
Your list of "facts" has been debunked elsewhere, better than I can do.
This is a typical answer - provide the debunking!
As for the 1990s -- we've learned more since then.
Yeah - this period of atrocity ont he environment was committed under the Clinton Administration and Gore was VP - kinda makes his movie a filmstrip of crap ... not to mention every ticket sold sends money to his campaign coffers ... hmmm looks a lot like science 'so-called'.
Yes, I'm well aware of Scafetta & West's virtually arbitrary number and their faulty research, which is where the 30% figure originally came from.
I shall try to find the report on the comparing of glacial retreat on Mars and the statistical correlation with climate change on earth. Its a lot of calculations and statistics, so I hope you have a heavy background in mathematics.
I can tell you right now, solar heating cannot account for all the heating the Earth has experienced.
After seeing the studies, I can confidently say that you are wrong.
nothing more than greed and irresponsibility.
Really? I see it as rationality rather than give in to disproven junk science based upon political opportunism.
Be careful throwing around judgement upon the eternal destination of other peoples' souls. That judgement is reserved for God alone.
cigarettes do not cause cancer or heart disease
If ever there was a false analogy...
Why should I do your homework for you? As I said, there are much better sources on the Internet, and they're plentiful.
Again, this is a typical response. You said the facts were countered. Show it to be so. You aren't doing my homework as much as you are defending your own position - which seems like it is starting to be indefensible ...
Let the facts speak for themselves ...
You quoted one fact so far ... and you stuck 'at most' around both ends ...
Which supports my view that such alarmist rhetoric is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and leads me to conclude that it is devoid and ignorant of scientific fact and principle, and it is akin to nonsense.
Rob,
You really are a clueless true believer. You just hate the Right, and Envron-Fundamentalism is your new religion.
Every Chicken Little drive-by MSM weekly mag GUARANTEED that the data was flawless, and that the coming ice age was INEVITABLE. Why should we believe them this time?
Reagan never said trees cause acid rain. It was pollution, a type of haze in particular. He was also correct. Rob, you really are an long time old school hater to bring that up.
While you are at it, check the achives of the NYT. In the 50's, back before CFC's were patented, and amonia was used in refrigerators, the precedessor to NASA launched probes and toke measurements in the artic. They found there was an ozone layer. It was not known for sure to exist before then. They also found its thickness varies over the year, i.e. the "HOLE". This decades before CFC.
As for pin headed regulation solving things, or that the "hole" is gone:
The size of the Arctic area of anomalously low total ozone in 2004-2005 was larger than in any year since 1997.
OPPS, wrong again.
"I've studied numerical methods for solving partial differential equations, tensor calculus, etc.
Oooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Am I supposded to be impressed? What, that is like, sophmore level college math?
Post a Comment