Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
Doubters, however misinformed, are shouted down, insulted and their intelligence questioned by the overinformed,

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? Have you even seen the title of the OP?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
wacki :

What do you make of the argument we are warming up because we're coming out of an ice age? Also what are your thoughts on methane gas from cows and other sources?

[/ QUOTE ]

The agriculture/food aspect of climate change is the perfect argument why ardent conservationists are out of touch with reality. As long as we continue to use 6 barrels of oil to grow a cow we will have problems. Change those 6 barrels to biodiesel and things look a lot better. As long as we continue to use fossil fuels to power our cars or create fertilizer any behavioral modifications on the individual scale will only delay the inevitable.

If you want to understand the ice ages this is a good book that reads like a novel:
http://www.amazon.com/Ice-Ages-Solvi.../dp/0674440757

Realclimate.org and Grist Mill's Coby Beck have several posts about why the "coming out of the ice age" argument doesn't hold water.

Here is an easy to read but incomplete post from newscientist:
http://environment.newscientist.com/...change/dn11645

[Praetorian Card]

I love this new wave science. You are either on board or you are a heretic. A kook. Thousands of scientists have come out against AGW. And the AGW fanatics fight back without mercy. Why? Because Global Warming is a BIG business. Careers are established. Grants have been procured. Paid lectures must be given.

I highly doubt a paid AGW scientist is going to slice his own throat by erring on the side of caution, because then there is no reason to listen to such a scientist. But warn people we are going to drown, then my friend, you get to collect a paycheck and give lectures.

To date, NO scientist has come out saying Global cooling is better than Global Warming. Man can adapt to a warming planet.....Global Cooling is a whole different story - that is a real threat.

Global Warming is a religion. It's morphed into a social movement. It's trendy to be green. It's cool to drive your hybrid car to the airport when you go on vacation. You are saving the planet when you buy mecury light bulbs, of course until you need to dispose of them.

There are PLENTY of articles on the sun, and how it influences our climate and many kooks (as you would describe them) are pretty confident next decade we will cool when the sun calms down a bit. Then the movement will quiet. I find it absolutely hilarious the AGW crowd dismiss the sun altogether, and dismiss the fact that Mars and other planets are also warming. They have an answer for everything, and blame every natural weather event on Global Warming. Ever notice a warm winter in Europe is AGW.....but a frigid Febraury/March in the USA is "local weather"?

The AGW crowd can't prove their theory - all they have is 100 years of real temprature data (and who knows if its accurate), of a 4 BILLION year old planet. AGW based on belief. And that my friend is a religion.

Read this article by Tony Blankley. He sums up the movement much better than me.

Beware the charlatan my friend. http://www.creators.com/opinion/tony...on-of-sin.html

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
Read this article by Tony Blankley. He sums up the movement much better than me.

Beware the charlatan my friend. http://www.creators.com/opinion/tony...on-of-sin.html

[/ QUOTE ]


Very nice article.

Falls in line with my perception of most things in life that we humans adhere to ie politics. Seems that the default position for how we view the world is through the lens of religion whether we call it that or not.

[Praetorian Card]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Read this article by Tony Blankley. He sums up the movement much better than me.

Beware the charlatan my friend. http://www.creators.com/opinion/tony...on-of-sin.html

[/ QUOTE ]


Very nice article.

Falls in line with my perception of most things in life that we humans adhere to ie politics. Seems that the default position for how we view the world is through the lens of religion whether we call it that or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tony was supremely criticized by the AGW crowd after this article. Probably because is was so eloquently written and really touched a nerve within the movement.

For those that do not have the time to read right now, here is the last sentence...It sums it up best:

"In the neo-animist church of global warming — as in all religions — the truth is acquired by faith — not science. And as in all religions, the faithful should be on guard for charlatans."

[adios]

I think climate models actually are valuable and worthwhile. The fact that they're unproven doesn't mean they have no value. I'm comfortable saying that over time the models will be improved upon a great deal. Also they're far from primitive but modeling something as complex as the climate is a task that is quite complex (and computationaly extremely instensive). It should go without saying that a relatively new area of study would have uncertain findings at this point in time. We're certainly in an age where technology will help scientists make rapid progress in this area. Too bad it will take a long time to validate the predictive value of climate models. It's also too bad that people can't see that and that politicians have IMO provided alot of disinformation to push political agendas. I think alot of people become skeptical when politicians are hyping an issue and exploiting it for their own political agenda. Here's a prime example IMO:

Climate change behind Darfur killing: UN's Ban

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that the slaughter in Darfur was triggered by global climate change and that more such conflicts may be on the horizon, in an article published Saturday.
"The Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis, arising at least in part from climate change," Ban said in a Washington Post opinion column.

UN statistics showed that rainfall declined some 40 percent over the past two decades, he said, as a rise in Indian Ocean temperatures disrupted monsoons.

"This suggests that the drying of sub-Saharan Africa derives, to some degree, from man-made global warming," the South Korean diplomat wrote.

"It is no accident that the violence in Darfur erupted during the drought," Ban said in the Washington daily.

See violence caused by drought, which was caused by global warming, which is caused by insensitive U.S. citizens driving SUVs. If you drive an SUV you have responsibility for the killing in Darfur. I drive an SUV so I'm accountable for the killing in Darfur. Obviously if the U.S. gave more suppor to the U.N. agenda regarding climate change then we'd have less killing like we have in Darfur. Therefore as a U.S. citizen I not only need to quit driving my SUV, I need to vote for U.S. candidates that support the U.N. agenda regarding climate change. Also since the U.N. has such a stellar policy regarding climate change, support U.S. candidates that acceed more power to the U.N.


Let me say though that the climate models being unproven in their predictive value doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned about what at least some of them are telling us. I've maintained over the years on this forum that we should err on the side of caution. What a sensible policy should be, not sure. Maybe no policy. I'm also fairly certain that many of those concerned with the effects of greenhouse gasses on the environment are underestimating the role technology can and will play in decreasing greenhouse gas emissions.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Plus I'm not even sure gore said all of those things.

[/ QUOTE ]

The article was talking about his just released book in addition to the movie, which is probably where the things you're not sure of came from. And even then it was probably ghost written, so he probably didn't say them. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
From the article:
[ QUOTE ]
Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."

[/ QUOTE ]

I went here:
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?requ...levance#results

Clicked on Journal of Climate and searched for: Glaciers growing Himalayan Mountains

I had one hit and that was not the right paper. I searched for "Glaciers confounding" and had zero hits. We seem to have a missing journal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I found the article:

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?...5%2FJCLI3860.1

Can't read it without the membership, but the abstract definitely makes it seem unlikely that the article would contain such an abrasive quote. Of course, the Sun-Times article said the quote came from the magazine, not any specific article, so I'm gonna guess that the quote used was actually a flashy cover blurb.

[ QUOTE ]



No comment necessary. I might to a full writeup on my blog. But I think I've made my point.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do? The 2nd half of that chart certainly has the lines match pretty well, but given the first half, especially given the beginning where it cuts off right as the hurricane intensity is at its highest pre-late 90s point, it seems like it might well be a coincidence.

More importantly though, you're making a point about intensity in response to a quote about quantity, making your chart a complete straw man. Although to be fair, the article made it look like it was including intensity by saying "Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes." It talked only about quanitity after that, but it was definitely a standard media-news trick to make people think it's both.

All in all, I agree with you that this article is crap. Of course, what I see wrong with it is the same kinda stuff I see wrong with the articles from the other side.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Zeno, thanks for stopping by. I will check it out. Just found this pic from wikipedia. Looks like the sun-times is a tabloid. I'm not at all surprised.



[/ QUOTE ]

Ahhh.... that explains it.

[Arnold Day]

[ QUOTE ]
Trying to predict the next moves of a 4 Billion year old planet 100 years from now is stupid, especially when we cannot predict the weather a week in advance....

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a joke or do I have to explain why predicting global weather 100 years from now is MUCH easier than predicting local weather in a week?

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
I have done a tremendous amount of reading, on both sides - I do not need an elementary summary from wikipedia, LOL. The earth, by many accounts will enter a cooling phase on 2012 when the sun calms down a bit.

Of course, the AGW crowd will go away and move on to the next big thing when that happens.

One thing for sure. Man can easily adapt to natural global warming. Sustained global cooling, ie Ice Age, is a death sentence.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, you either read conspiracy websites, believe in intelligent design, or both.

Which one is it?