Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement

[Praetorian Card]

I have long thought the Man Made Global Warming theory was crap. Just another fanatical green movement desinged to punish big business and the US by socialists. It does not help the guy leading the charge is a bitter ex President trying to stay busy.

Here is a compelling argument on why this movement is a fraud. 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....Funny how the UN is the organization leading the charge, huh?

Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny

June 30, 2007
BY JAMES M. TAYLOR

Article deleted for copyright reasons.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/othervi...REF30b.article

[Phil153]

All this article does is cast doubts on some of Gore's more specious claims. One would wonder what the opinion or claims of Gore, a non scientist, has to do with the debate?

Why doesn't he article address the IPCC report? It does make scientifically rigorous claims, with error boundaries and all. That's the content here - what other, non scientists say is irrelevant.

[Praetorian Card]

The IPCC is a highly politcal organization. Most of the so called "scientists" are government shills who are part of a international group that hates the US and capitalism as a whole.

Funny how all the third world countries get a pass, eh? Mass polluters like China get a free pass.

Ironically, the "scientists" claim their forward thinking is saving the planet, like they honestly think they can influence a 4 Billion year old planet. LOL, how arrogant. The cruel irony is the world they envision ultimately deprives third world countries like those in Africa, from getting affordable energy, further causing these countries misery.

Meanwhile, the do gooder global warming shill, errr, "scientist" in France takes a hybrid car to an airport where he flys to some Global Warming conference half way around the world pontificating how to save the planet while he turns down the AC.

Exactly what was the worldwide temprature in 1847? Yep, the global warming crowd has no idea. Yet, they draw iron clad conclusions on a 4B year old planet by looking at temp data from the past 30 years.

Suckers born every day.

[MelchyBeau]

[ QUOTE ]


Here is a compelling argument on why this movement is a fraud. 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....Funny how the UN is the organization leading the charge, huh?


[/ QUOTE ]
Very played out arguement 'gee the weatherman is wrong alot' Well as it turns out meterology is different from climatology. I predict the weather next year in the sahara will be dry. It will rain alot in South East Asia, and there will be tornadoes in Texas and Oklahoma. Many things where short term forcasting is difficult long term forcasting isn't as hard. I can't tell you exactly when it will snow in Norway, but I'm willing to bet it will be very cold in december in Oslo.

[Praetorian Card]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Here is a compelling argument on why this movement is a fraud. 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....Funny how the UN is the organization leading the charge, huh?


[/ QUOTE ]
Very played out arguement 'gee the weatherman is wrong alot' Well as it turns out meterology is different from climatology. I predict the weather next year in the sahara will be dry. It will rain alot in South East Asia, and there will be tornadoes in Texas and Oklahoma. Many things where short term forcasting is difficult long term forcasting isn't as hard. I can't tell you exactly when it will snow in Norway, but I'm willing to bet it will be very cold in december in Oslo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet the AGW crowd can predict a 30' rise in seal level in a 100 years based on a natural warming trend over a couple decades? the whole cooling trend from the 1940-70s does not count, eh, even in wake of the industrial revolution? In 1975 Newsweek/Time wrote a cover on the coming ICE AGE.

AGW is simple alarmism and the movement has followers. Sadly.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
The IPCC is a highly politcal organization. Most of the so called "scientists" are government shills who are part of a international group that hates the US and capitalism as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's a big claim. Any evidence to support it?

[ QUOTE ]
Funny how all the third world countries get a pass, eh? Mass polluters like China get a free pass.

[/ QUOTE ]
Politics, unfortunately.

[ QUOTE ]
Ironically, the "scientists" claim their forward thinking is saving the planet, like they honestly think they can influence a 4 Billion year old planet.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ask even the most fervent denier what would happen if we increased CO2 concentration three times (still < 1% of atmosphere), and they will tell you that the temperate will rise significantly. CO2 traps heats - this is well known science and beyond dispute. It's a question of degree, not effect.

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly what was the worldwide temprature in 1847? Yep, the global warming crowd has no idea. Yet, they draw iron clad conclusions on a 4B year old planet by looking at temp data from the past 30 years.

Suckers born every day.

[/ QUOTE ]
The conclusions aren't "ironclad". In the first report in 1997 they were "tentative", and the evidence since then as well as improved model resolution from greatly increased computing power have led them to say

* "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
* "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

If you read the actual report:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fo...essment_Report

you will see that nothing is "iron clad", but based on probability assessment with error bars so wide that conclusions are not controversial. Let me repeat that again. The conclusions are not controversial. Some are actually deliberately understated in order to get total agreement among the scientific community. The anthropogenic warming model includes "level of scientific understanding" in its assessment of error ranges. The conclusions stand.

It's obvious to me that you haven't examined the evidence at all. If you still hold the same opinion after doing so, then we have something to discuss.

[Praetorian Card]

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.

[MelchyBeau]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Here is a compelling argument on why this movement is a fraud. 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....Funny how the UN is the organization leading the charge, huh?


[/ QUOTE ]
Very played out arguement 'gee the weatherman is wrong alot' Well as it turns out meterology is different from climatology. I predict the weather next year in the sahara will be dry. It will rain alot in South East Asia, and there will be tornadoes in Texas and Oklahoma. Many things where short term forcasting is difficult long term forcasting isn't as hard. I can't tell you exactly when it will snow in Norway, but I'm willing to bet it will be very cold in december in Oslo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet the AGW crowd can predict a 30' rise in seal level in a 100 years based on a natural warming trend over a couple decades? the whole cooling trend from the 1940-70s does not count, eh, even in wake of the industrial revolution? In 1975 Newsweek/Time wrote a cover on the coming ICE AGE.

AGW is simple alarmism and the movement has followers. Sadly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Newsweek and Time are both very reliable scientific journals.

[Phil153]

Have you read the actual text of the report? I suggest you do. If you have specific disagreements, please state them, because this represents the near consensus of the world scientific community and 113 government representatives, including the US.

If you have done a tremendous amount of reading, why do you say this:
[ QUOTE ]
Exactly what was the worldwide temprature in 1847? Yep, the global warming crowd has no idea. Yet, they draw iron clad conclusions on a 4B year old planet by looking at temp data from the past 30 years.

Suckers born every day.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you a liar, a fool, or intellectually lazy?

[ QUOTE ]
The earth, by many accounts will enter a cooling phase on 2012 when the sun calms down a bit.

[/ QUOTE ]
Both solar fluctuations and CO2 forcing are extremely well understood mechanisms. Since you've done so much reading, what is the magnitude of the known forcing of each component? What does this say about your theory?

[iron81]