Bryn Mawr;848657 wrote: Judge the merits of the global warming debate on the science - not by taking the p!ss out of one of the people trying to put the message across.
Ignorance must be bliss.... :-5
I only replied about this topic, which was "Al Gore and his list of nonsense", which is what it is in my opinion... And in no way did I insult or show disrespect to the author of the topic in my replies... If you think for one second that we must agree with every topic here, and only post positive replies, then you need to do some serious thinking...
And you should take your own advice, and study the science a bit more... There are way too many contradicting views, studies and so called evidence that go both ways, for you to disreguard others views concerning this issue... I am still searching for the truth, but it doesn't look to me like it's anything but greedy politicians, enviro-wackos, and media hysteria powering all this green bs...
And at least I stuck to the topic for the most part, unlike the many posts earlier that took it to gawd knows where, or made it about me and my posts... You SIR are disrespecting the author of this topic, and quite a few members that posted above on completely off topic issues..... Not me...!!!!!
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
-
Snidely Whiplash
- Posts: 176
- Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:33 pm
-
Bored_Wombat
- Posts: 377
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:33 am
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
RedGlitter;848751 wrote: Bryn, I see your point but there's something to be said for integrity and sincerity, that of which a lot of us feel Gore lacks. Besides, while he's living in that electricity usurping mansion, changing all his special lightbulbs, I can't take the guy seriously.
Gore is not the only messenger.
There is also the world's climate scientists, who appear to be speaking with essentially one voice.
Gore is not the only messenger.
There is also the world's climate scientists, who appear to be speaking with essentially one voice.
-
Bored_Wombat
- Posts: 377
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:33 am
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Snidely Whiplash;848757 wrote: There are way too many contradicting views, studies and so called evidence that go both ways, for you to disreguard others views concerning this issue.
For instance?
For instance?
-
Snidely Whiplash
- Posts: 176
- Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:33 pm
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Bored_Wombat;848773 wrote: For instance?
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
INTRODUCTION:
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.
Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust. (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)
This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters report is poised to redefine the debate.
Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.
Brief highlights of the report featuring over 400 international scientists:
Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. “First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!
Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled “The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth. “Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ double man would not perceive the temperature impact, Sorochtin wrote. (Note: Name also sometimes translated to spell Sorokhtin)
Spain: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. “There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried, Uriate wrote.
Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, “I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting – a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number – entirely without merit, Tennekes wrote. “I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."
Brazil: Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo – Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil declared himself a skeptic. “The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming, Hackbart wrote on May 30, 2007.
France: Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, is a climate skeptic. Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming – Myth or Reality? - The Erring Ways of Climatology. “Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up’ - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts’ and ‘sea level rises,’ the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless ac*ceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!
Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: “It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.
Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. “The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases."
Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. “I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong, Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added: “The earth will not die.
Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: “To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.
Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid, Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007.
India: One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles.
USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: “Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real’ climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem.
Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers: “Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."
New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher and scientist Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: “The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers’ might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so.
South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa’s Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics: “The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming.
Poland: Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw: “We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels.
Australia: Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia: "There is new work emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation.
Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: “To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions.
China: Chinese Scientists Say C02 Impact on Warming May Be ‘Excessively Exaggerated’ – Scientists Lin Zhen-Shan’s and Sun Xian’s 2007 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics: "Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated." Their study asserted that "it is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change.
Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics: “The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth’s surface will therefore affect climate.
Belgium: Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute’s Royal Meteorological Institute (RMI) co-authored a study in August 2007 which dismissed a decisive role of CO2 in global warming: "CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. “Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it.
Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping promoting climate fears in 2007. “Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate.
USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: “In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this. Wojick added: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.
Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary
The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of “hundreds or “thousands of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking “consensus LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) & (LINK) (Note: The 52 scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party’s convention platform battle, not a scientific process - LINK)
Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK)
The most recent attempt to imply there was an overwhelming scientific “consensus in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged “thousands of scientists. (See AP article: - LINK )
UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri urged the world at the December 2007 UN climate conference in Bali, Indonesia to "Please listen to the voice of science.
The science has continued to grow loud and clear in 2007. In addition to the growing number of scientists expressing skepticism, an abundance of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. A November 3, 2007 peer-reviewed study found that “solar changes significantly alter climate. (LINK) A December 2007 peer-reviewed study recalculated and halved the global average surface temperature trend between 1980 – 2002. (LINK) Another new study found the Medieval Warm Period “0.3C warmer than 20th century (LINK)
A peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists found that "warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK) – Another November 2007 peer-reviewed study in the journal Physical Geography found “Long-term climate change is driven by solar insolation changes. (LINK ) These recent studies were in addition to the abundance of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007. - See "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears" (LINK )
With this new report of profiling 400 skeptical scientists, the world can finally hear the voices of the “silent majority of scientists.
LINKS TO COMPLETE U.S. SENATE REPORT: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
Complete Report: (LINK) - Released December 20, 2007 - U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (Minority)
Majority Office
410 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.Washington, DC 20510-6175
phone: 202-224-8832
Minority Office
456 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.Washington, DC 20510-6175
phone: 202-224-6176
Members | Majority Press | Minority Press | Legislative Calendar | Hearings | Committee Schedule | Nominations | Committee Resources
Subcommittees | Search | Home | Contact | Site Map | EPW Multimedia | All Text Version | Privacy Policy
U.S. Senate Links: Senators | Senate Committees | Legislation | Reference Site
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
INTRODUCTION:
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.
Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust. (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)
This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters report is poised to redefine the debate.
Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.
Brief highlights of the report featuring over 400 international scientists:
Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. “First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!
Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled “The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth. “Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ double man would not perceive the temperature impact, Sorochtin wrote. (Note: Name also sometimes translated to spell Sorokhtin)
Spain: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. “There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried, Uriate wrote.
Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, “I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting – a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number – entirely without merit, Tennekes wrote. “I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."
Brazil: Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo – Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil declared himself a skeptic. “The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming, Hackbart wrote on May 30, 2007.
France: Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, is a climate skeptic. Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming – Myth or Reality? - The Erring Ways of Climatology. “Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up’ - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts’ and ‘sea level rises,’ the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless ac*ceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!
Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: “It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.
Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. “The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases."
Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. “I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong, Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added: “The earth will not die.
Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: “To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.
Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid, Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007.
India: One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles.
USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: “Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real’ climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem.
Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers: “Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."
New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher and scientist Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: “The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers’ might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so.
South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa’s Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics: “The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming.
Poland: Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw: “We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels.
Australia: Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia: "There is new work emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation.
Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: “To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions.
China: Chinese Scientists Say C02 Impact on Warming May Be ‘Excessively Exaggerated’ – Scientists Lin Zhen-Shan’s and Sun Xian’s 2007 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics: "Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated." Their study asserted that "it is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change.
Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics: “The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth’s surface will therefore affect climate.
Belgium: Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute’s Royal Meteorological Institute (RMI) co-authored a study in August 2007 which dismissed a decisive role of CO2 in global warming: "CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. “Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it.
Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping promoting climate fears in 2007. “Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate.
USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: “In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this. Wojick added: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.
Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary
The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of “hundreds or “thousands of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking “consensus LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) & (LINK) (Note: The 52 scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party’s convention platform battle, not a scientific process - LINK)
Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK)
The most recent attempt to imply there was an overwhelming scientific “consensus in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged “thousands of scientists. (See AP article: - LINK )
UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri urged the world at the December 2007 UN climate conference in Bali, Indonesia to "Please listen to the voice of science.
The science has continued to grow loud and clear in 2007. In addition to the growing number of scientists expressing skepticism, an abundance of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. A November 3, 2007 peer-reviewed study found that “solar changes significantly alter climate. (LINK) A December 2007 peer-reviewed study recalculated and halved the global average surface temperature trend between 1980 – 2002. (LINK) Another new study found the Medieval Warm Period “0.3C warmer than 20th century (LINK)
A peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists found that "warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK) – Another November 2007 peer-reviewed study in the journal Physical Geography found “Long-term climate change is driven by solar insolation changes. (LINK ) These recent studies were in addition to the abundance of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007. - See "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears" (LINK )
With this new report of profiling 400 skeptical scientists, the world can finally hear the voices of the “silent majority of scientists.
LINKS TO COMPLETE U.S. SENATE REPORT: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
Complete Report: (LINK) - Released December 20, 2007 - U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (Minority)
Majority Office
410 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.Washington, DC 20510-6175
phone: 202-224-8832
Minority Office
456 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.Washington, DC 20510-6175
phone: 202-224-6176
Members | Majority Press | Minority Press | Legislative Calendar | Hearings | Committee Schedule | Nominations | Committee Resources
Subcommittees | Search | Home | Contact | Site Map | EPW Multimedia | All Text Version | Privacy Policy
U.S. Senate Links: Senators | Senate Committees | Legislation | Reference Site
-
Bored_Wombat
- Posts: 377
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:33 am
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Snidely Whiplash;848776 wrote: U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
INTRODUCTION:
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
I have heard of this senate report.
It appears that none of the scientists named were contacted over their views on global warming, and many of them are included on outdated or misunderstood quotations attributed to them on the internet.
I don't find it compelling evidence of "many contradicting views, studies and so called evidence that go both ways". I do find it evidence of how the debate has become politically charged.
By "for instance" I was more asking for an example of a "contradicting view, study and evidence", perhaps from a scientific and peer reviewed source, rather than a hack job political paper written for congress based on a weekend's googling.
Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
INTRODUCTION:
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
I have heard of this senate report.
It appears that none of the scientists named were contacted over their views on global warming, and many of them are included on outdated or misunderstood quotations attributed to them on the internet.
I don't find it compelling evidence of "many contradicting views, studies and so called evidence that go both ways". I do find it evidence of how the debate has become politically charged.
By "for instance" I was more asking for an example of a "contradicting view, study and evidence", perhaps from a scientific and peer reviewed source, rather than a hack job political paper written for congress based on a weekend's googling.
-
Snidely Whiplash
- Posts: 176
- Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:33 pm
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Bored_Wombat;848784 wrote: By "for instance" I was more asking for an example of a "contradicting view, study and evidence", perhaps from a scientific and peer reviewed source, rather than a hack job political paper written for congress based on a weekend's googling.
Well I certainly would never want to confuse you with facts, or with the "quoted" remarks by some of the worlds most prominent scientists, I'm sure you are much better educated and informed than they are, and have much more experience in climatology and all the various earth sciences involved in this issue.........
BTW, what is your college level degree in...???? You put down these scientists "Quoted" statements, and they have they're education and vast experience in they're field to back up they're words, so what do you have to back up your dismissal of they're words..????
Well I certainly would never want to confuse you with facts, or with the "quoted" remarks by some of the worlds most prominent scientists, I'm sure you are much better educated and informed than they are, and have much more experience in climatology and all the various earth sciences involved in this issue.........
BTW, what is your college level degree in...???? You put down these scientists "Quoted" statements, and they have they're education and vast experience in they're field to back up they're words, so what do you have to back up your dismissal of they're words..????
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
RedGlitter;848751 wrote: Bryn, I see your point but there's something to be said for integrity and sincerity, that of which a lot of us feel Gore lacks. Besides, while he's living in that electricity usurping mansion, changing all his special lightbulbs, I can't take the guy seriously.
Then take the thousand and one other people telling the tale (at least nine hundred and ninety nine of them far more qualified that Al Gore to do so) seriously instead :-6
Al Gore is a messenger, not the message.
Then take the thousand and one other people telling the tale (at least nine hundred and ninety nine of them far more qualified that Al Gore to do so) seriously instead :-6
Al Gore is a messenger, not the message.
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Bryn Mawr;848802 wrote: Then take the thousand and one other people telling the tale (at least nine hundred and ninety nine of them far more qualified that Al Gore to do so) seriously instead :-6
Al Gore is a messenger, not the message.
I'm neither convinced nor unconvinced about global warming personally; I keep an ear out for news and I'm not going to credit or discredit either way what they're saying, just that having Gore as the Ambassador of Global Warming is a bit much for me. That's all.
And I have looked everywhere for the article I posted I thought, just a couple weeks ago about the scientists who say now we have an ice age coming. I can't find the darn thing.
Al Gore is a messenger, not the message.
I'm neither convinced nor unconvinced about global warming personally; I keep an ear out for news and I'm not going to credit or discredit either way what they're saying, just that having Gore as the Ambassador of Global Warming is a bit much for me. That's all.
And I have looked everywhere for the article I posted I thought, just a couple weeks ago about the scientists who say now we have an ice age coming. I can't find the darn thing.
-
WonderWendy3
- Posts: 12412
- Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 7:44 am
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Okay, I just got here for the first time, have been tempted a few times to post, but just couldn't be bothered.
First of all...Al Gore is a twerp!....yes I said it, I dislike the man very highly, if he really cared about the environment then he would change his lifestyle, except he's just in it for the publicity and well, maybe he might invent something better than the internet, just to "out-do" himself!!:wah:
On to the subject at hand though....I am taking a class in college called "Environmental Science" and the first week was about "going green" and that we need to start family planning and personally I think its a load of crap. I had a tough time with people saying we needed to let the government regulate the number of people in our families in order to save the earth for our children and their children......
I am all for conserving energy and appreciating nature and we should recycle and not waste our resources....I guess I'm just one of those skeptics when it comes to the Rich people of America....they sit on their high horses and complain about what the "little people" should be doing, while they are eating high on the hog with all the lighting possible and definately not caring about throwing out enough to feed a family of 5....okay, maybe I'm bitter.....
First of all...Al Gore is a twerp!....yes I said it, I dislike the man very highly, if he really cared about the environment then he would change his lifestyle, except he's just in it for the publicity and well, maybe he might invent something better than the internet, just to "out-do" himself!!:wah:
On to the subject at hand though....I am taking a class in college called "Environmental Science" and the first week was about "going green" and that we need to start family planning and personally I think its a load of crap. I had a tough time with people saying we needed to let the government regulate the number of people in our families in order to save the earth for our children and their children......
I am all for conserving energy and appreciating nature and we should recycle and not waste our resources....I guess I'm just one of those skeptics when it comes to the Rich people of America....they sit on their high horses and complain about what the "little people" should be doing, while they are eating high on the hog with all the lighting possible and definately not caring about throwing out enough to feed a family of 5....okay, maybe I'm bitter.....
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
I would balk at the family planning bit too unless I saw some seriously dire proof that it was necessary or our world would end. :-3
-
WonderWendy3
- Posts: 12412
- Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 7:44 am
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
RedGlitter;848808 wrote: I would balk at the family planning bit too unless I saw some seriously dire proof that it was necessary or our world would end. :-3
Yeah, it was a discussion question week, where the classmates discuss the materials we were assigned to read and then answer questions and a lot of times it is basically how we feel about a certain subject. We are to talk it over in threads with each other. I had to "behave"....one lady answered a post before I could get there, she did it much more calmly and eloquent than I was going to. I did get my point across though.
Yeah, it was a discussion question week, where the classmates discuss the materials we were assigned to read and then answer questions and a lot of times it is basically how we feel about a certain subject. We are to talk it over in threads with each other. I had to "behave"....one lady answered a post before I could get there, she did it much more calmly and eloquent than I was going to. I did get my point across though.
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
RedGlitter;848803 wrote: I'm neither convinced nor unconvinced about global warming personally; I keep an ear out for news and I'm not going to credit or discredit either way what they're saying, just that having Gore as the Ambassador of Global Warming is a bit much for me. That's all.
And I have looked everywhere for the article I posted I thought, just a couple weeks ago about the scientists who say now we have an ice age coming. I can't find the darn thing.
You can't say fairer than that.
As for an Ice Age coming, I'd seriously look at who it is saying it and their antecedents.
And I have looked everywhere for the article I posted I thought, just a couple weeks ago about the scientists who say now we have an ice age coming. I can't find the darn thing.
You can't say fairer than that.
As for an Ice Age coming, I'd seriously look at who it is saying it and their antecedents.
-
Bored_Wombat
- Posts: 377
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:33 am
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Snidely Whiplash;848785 wrote: Well I certainly would never want to confuse you with facts,...
You seem to have misunderstood my objection.
I don't accept that those quotes are generally in context, reflective of the person's actual belief and current belief, and genuinely counter to the current scientific consensus.
You seem to have misunderstood my objection.
I don't accept that those quotes are generally in context, reflective of the person's actual belief and current belief, and genuinely counter to the current scientific consensus.
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Jester;849850 wrote: I am not convinced of a polar icecap melt down doomsday in 2013 and I cant wait to get to 2013 to laugh at the fools who think that even if the icecaps melt as much as they claim the affects will be the ocean rising any more than an inch above normal tidal ranges.
That's rather unfair of you, nobody I've seen has ever suggested that completely melting the Arctic ice cap will raise sea level by so much as a millionth of an inch. How could it?
That's rather unfair of you, nobody I've seen has ever suggested that completely melting the Arctic ice cap will raise sea level by so much as a millionth of an inch. How could it?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
spot;850036 wrote: That's rather unfair of you, nobody I've seen has ever suggested that completely melting the Arctic ice cap will raise sea level by so much as a millionth of an inch. How could it?
Al Gore wrote:
We are melting the North Polar ice cap and virtually all of the mountain glaciers in the world. We are destabilizing the massive mound of ice on Greenland and the equally enormous mass of ice propped up on top of islands in West Antarctica, threatening a worldwide increase in sea levels of as much as twenty feet.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=5441976
Al Gore wrote:
We are melting the North Polar ice cap and virtually all of the mountain glaciers in the world. We are destabilizing the massive mound of ice on Greenland and the equally enormous mass of ice propped up on top of islands in West Antarctica, threatening a worldwide increase in sea levels of as much as twenty feet.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=5441976
-
Bored_Wombat
- Posts: 377
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:33 am
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Jester;849850 wrote: I'd certainly say that we do have climate changes, but that they are at this point a normal variance of the world we live in.
0.2°C per decade is very fast warming. 0.01°C per decade is rapid natural warming, such as what occurs at the end of an ice age, and that is associated with a decrease in biodiversity.
I am not convinced of a polar icecap melt down doomsday in 2013 ...Neither am I.
... and I cant wait to get to 2013 to laugh at the fools who think that even if the icecaps melt as much as they claim the affects will be the ocean rising any more than an inch above normal tidal ranges.The problem with the disappearance of the northern summer sea ice is not sea level rise. The ice is already on the water, so melting it won't raise sea levels.
The problem is that the temperature of the ice at the pole is a significant contributor to air and ocean currents, and it's collapse would result in strong disturbance of climate systems all over the northern hemisphere, that would be in many places profound (and in all places difficult to predict with confidence).
It's likely to be the first of global warming tipping point that carries high-casualty and high-cost impacts.
(Having said that, if the other pole melts completely, we're looking at 60 metres of sea level rise, but that is not likely to happen, even in several hundred years.)
Neither do I see any evidence of an ice age in our near future.Nor the reasonably distant future. We're looking at about half a million years before we get the ice ages back. (According to the work of Dr Toby Tyrrell of the University of Southampton's School of Ocean and Earth Science)
0.2°C per decade is very fast warming. 0.01°C per decade is rapid natural warming, such as what occurs at the end of an ice age, and that is associated with a decrease in biodiversity.
I am not convinced of a polar icecap melt down doomsday in 2013 ...Neither am I.
... and I cant wait to get to 2013 to laugh at the fools who think that even if the icecaps melt as much as they claim the affects will be the ocean rising any more than an inch above normal tidal ranges.The problem with the disappearance of the northern summer sea ice is not sea level rise. The ice is already on the water, so melting it won't raise sea levels.
The problem is that the temperature of the ice at the pole is a significant contributor to air and ocean currents, and it's collapse would result in strong disturbance of climate systems all over the northern hemisphere, that would be in many places profound (and in all places difficult to predict with confidence).
It's likely to be the first of global warming tipping point that carries high-casualty and high-cost impacts.
(Having said that, if the other pole melts completely, we're looking at 60 metres of sea level rise, but that is not likely to happen, even in several hundred years.)
Neither do I see any evidence of an ice age in our near future.Nor the reasonably distant future. We're looking at about half a million years before we get the ice ages back. (According to the work of Dr Toby Tyrrell of the University of Southampton's School of Ocean and Earth Science)
-
Snidely Whiplash
- Posts: 176
- Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:33 pm
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
I think that the admin and staff here should give me an award.......... :wah: :wah:
Cuz I definately have added to the board totals as far as posts go, from my replies and others agrumentive replies here and in other topics...... LOL :wah:
I will sleep good tonight.......................
Cuz "man made global warming" may haunt some of you tonight and keep you awake with worry and dispair............. :-2 But I'll be in heaven, because I know that the history of the planet has been never ending changes, from the begining of time, or more recently in the 70's when everyone was panicing about the up coming ice age, to today when some are thinking that warming is ending our civilization, when all these things have happened many times in the past, and have never involved humans.... And even when the changes were tens of times more drastic than anyone is predicticting today, the planet always adjusted, and was left as it is today for us..... "Please try and grasp that last phrase"
I wish more of the hysterics and worriers would just spend their time enjoying they're lives, and not stressing over the doom and gloom portrayed by the ones we should really be fighting against, instead of ourselves.......
Cheers..
Cuz I definately have added to the board totals as far as posts go, from my replies and others agrumentive replies here and in other topics...... LOL :wah:
I will sleep good tonight.......................
Cuz "man made global warming" may haunt some of you tonight and keep you awake with worry and dispair............. :-2 But I'll be in heaven, because I know that the history of the planet has been never ending changes, from the begining of time, or more recently in the 70's when everyone was panicing about the up coming ice age, to today when some are thinking that warming is ending our civilization, when all these things have happened many times in the past, and have never involved humans.... And even when the changes were tens of times more drastic than anyone is predicticting today, the planet always adjusted, and was left as it is today for us..... "Please try and grasp that last phrase"I wish more of the hysterics and worriers would just spend their time enjoying they're lives, and not stressing over the doom and gloom portrayed by the ones we should really be fighting against, instead of ourselves.......
Cheers..
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Neither of you seem able to read clear English (Jester and Acc, that is). That quote from Al Gore doesn't imply the least rise in sea level due to the melting of the Arctic Cap. There will be no rise in sea level due to the melting of the Arctic Cap. The Arctic Cap floats. You can take as much water from the sea and freeze it onto the Arctic Cap as you like and you'll not change the sea level, and vice versa, not by a millimeter. Go and look at the full stop in the middle of the quote please. It's there for a reason.
There's a cave not far from here. It's only accessible at low tide, it's on a beach. A skeleton was found in it in 1823 which (depending on your religious convictions) was either placed there by God on the day of creation or died 26,000 - 30,000 years ago. Either way, when the man died (or God put a skeleton there to confuse us all) the cave was 70 miles from the then-coastline, in a rock face overlooking a grass plain. Sea level at the time was about 400 feet lower than it is now, all of that being frozen in ice deposits on land. The point about Al Gore's 20 metre maximum rise if the rest of the land ice melts is that it's only another 70 feet, the rise that's already happened naturally is 400 feet, there's very little land ice left to melt. Nearly all of it's in Greenland and Antarctica.
Are you two saying that you don't believe the glacial to non-glacial rise of 400 feet happened over the last 16,000 years (I do realize Jester's absolute belief in God's creation of the universe in 4004BC messes up this discussion a little, but could he please translate that as God created the planet just as it would have looked if there had been a rise in sea level, over a previous non-existent history of 10,000 years, of 400 feet). If you accept that we're in a non-glacial period, what on earth is so hard in agreeing that if the rest of the land ice goes then the final 70 feet of rise will happen in just the same way?
I spent the afternoon looking at parrots from the Philippines this afternoon, each species with small survival variations from the others, each from one of the main seven islands. Before the sea rise the Philippines weren't separate islands, what you see there now is the high ground of what was originally a single large island which only had one species of parrot. The sea rose and separated them. Once separated, their adaption to the local habitat altered their physical appearance. Yes Jester, I apologize, what I mean is that God posed us a mystery by planting slightly variant parrots on each of these islands when he created all the parrots in one day having laid a trap for the unwary by making the Philippines look like the sea level had risen, cutting the islands off from each other.
There's a cave not far from here. It's only accessible at low tide, it's on a beach. A skeleton was found in it in 1823 which (depending on your religious convictions) was either placed there by God on the day of creation or died 26,000 - 30,000 years ago. Either way, when the man died (or God put a skeleton there to confuse us all) the cave was 70 miles from the then-coastline, in a rock face overlooking a grass plain. Sea level at the time was about 400 feet lower than it is now, all of that being frozen in ice deposits on land. The point about Al Gore's 20 metre maximum rise if the rest of the land ice melts is that it's only another 70 feet, the rise that's already happened naturally is 400 feet, there's very little land ice left to melt. Nearly all of it's in Greenland and Antarctica.
Are you two saying that you don't believe the glacial to non-glacial rise of 400 feet happened over the last 16,000 years (I do realize Jester's absolute belief in God's creation of the universe in 4004BC messes up this discussion a little, but could he please translate that as God created the planet just as it would have looked if there had been a rise in sea level, over a previous non-existent history of 10,000 years, of 400 feet). If you accept that we're in a non-glacial period, what on earth is so hard in agreeing that if the rest of the land ice goes then the final 70 feet of rise will happen in just the same way?
I spent the afternoon looking at parrots from the Philippines this afternoon, each species with small survival variations from the others, each from one of the main seven islands. Before the sea rise the Philippines weren't separate islands, what you see there now is the high ground of what was originally a single large island which only had one species of parrot. The sea rose and separated them. Once separated, their adaption to the local habitat altered their physical appearance. Yes Jester, I apologize, what I mean is that God posed us a mystery by planting slightly variant parrots on each of these islands when he created all the parrots in one day having laid a trap for the unwary by making the Philippines look like the sea level had risen, cutting the islands off from each other.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Speaking of Global Warming, here's an expert who says schools are misleading our kids about GW:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5736103.html
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5736103.html
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
spot;850787 wrote: Neither of you seem able to read clear English (Jester and Acc, that is). That quote from Al Gore doesn't imply the least rise in sea level due to the melting of the Arctic Cap. There will be no rise in sea level due to the melting of the Arctic Cap. The Arctic Cap floats. You can take as much water from the sea and freeze it onto the Arctic Cap as you like and you'll not change the sea level, and vice versa, not by a millimeter. Go and look at the full stop in the middle of the quote please. It's there for a reason.
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were making a serious point, rather than playing with semantics. *Going back into the audience*
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were making a serious point, rather than playing with semantics. *Going back into the audience*
-
Bored_Wombat
- Posts: 377
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:33 am
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Jester;850104 wrote: I thought in reality the science suggested a very minor amount of increase in the ocean tidal volumes of which I still dont agree with , but per Acc's link, Al Gore pretty much says it all withthe express purpose of creating panic instead of valid science.
The Greenland Ice Sheet and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet are the two that might cause serious sea level rise this century.
Or next.
There's not much data for predicting the progression and rate of the collapse of an ice sheet, but it's likely to be non-linear, with large chunks falling into the ocean near the end of the process, with only the melted run-off entering the ocean at the beginning.
However together they would produce about 13 metres of sea level rise, and are expected to collapse in about in 1½°C to 2½°C for Greenland and 2½°C to 3½°C for the West Antarctic Ice sheet, although, since it is the change in local climate systems rather than the global warming itself that is the significant player in the gain or loss of these ice sheets, these are not as accurately predictable as a policy-maker could hope for.
Still, risk of that magnitude is well worth avoiding until it is clearer when exactly the axe will fall.
The Greenland Ice Sheet and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet are the two that might cause serious sea level rise this century.
Or next.
There's not much data for predicting the progression and rate of the collapse of an ice sheet, but it's likely to be non-linear, with large chunks falling into the ocean near the end of the process, with only the melted run-off entering the ocean at the beginning.
However together they would produce about 13 metres of sea level rise, and are expected to collapse in about in 1½°C to 2½°C for Greenland and 2½°C to 3½°C for the West Antarctic Ice sheet, although, since it is the change in local climate systems rather than the global warming itself that is the significant player in the gain or loss of these ice sheets, these are not as accurately predictable as a policy-maker could hope for.
Still, risk of that magnitude is well worth avoiding until it is clearer when exactly the axe will fall.
-
Bored_Wombat
- Posts: 377
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:33 am
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Jester;851396 wrote: In the world wide flood of Noah's time, many cataclismic events took place in a swift period of time, and dropped many such bodies as your fellow beach comber in amazing places [...]
[...]Al Gore is thier leader. The man is deluded, period.
Pfffft!
[...]Al Gore is thier leader. The man is deluded, period.
Pfffft!
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Jester;851396 wrote:
I agree there will be no rise in sea level, first off becasue the polor icecaps wont melt by 2013. Even if they did the rise in sea levels would be miniscule.
And despite why we agree on here, many in the green camps are still out there perpetuating the sea level rise as a 'world killer'... Heck there's been made for tv movies about it already...
I'll ignore the whole issue of Noah being a world wide flood as I know you're not concerned with practicalities but are you seriously suggesting that you believe that, if the Antarctic ice were to melt, there would be no change in mean sea level?
If so, would you care to explain why not?
I agree there will be no rise in sea level, first off becasue the polor icecaps wont melt by 2013. Even if they did the rise in sea levels would be miniscule.
And despite why we agree on here, many in the green camps are still out there perpetuating the sea level rise as a 'world killer'... Heck there's been made for tv movies about it already...
I'll ignore the whole issue of Noah being a world wide flood as I know you're not concerned with practicalities but are you seriously suggesting that you believe that, if the Antarctic ice were to melt, there would be no change in mean sea level?
If so, would you care to explain why not?
-
Snidely Whiplash
- Posts: 176
- Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:33 pm
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
This aught to ruffle a few feathers...? :wah:
The comments at the bottom were especially funny...! At least I thought they were...
Enjoy...
..............................................
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Brrrr... The Disappearing Arctic Ice Is Back And It's Thick
Is it safe to say we've been scammed yet?
A record cold January has helped winter sea ice grow across the Arctic.
Temperatures in January set cold weather records and caused the Arctic Sea Ice to expand to its previous levels.
The Financial Post reported:
The Cryosphere reported that the Arctic sea ice is back... and it's thick.
The disappearing sea ice that was supposedly going to dramatically change the North, if not the world, is back. Thanks to really cold weather -- gee, where did that come from?--winter sea ice has been growing across the North. "Clearly we're seeing the ice coverage rebound back to more near normal coverage for this time of year," says Gilles Langis, a senior ice forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa.
There goes a good story. And if you doubt me on this, the source is as biased on climate change as sources get: The CBC. And if the weather stays cold, the ice will get even thicker, says the report...
This isn't the only sign of rising sea ice and extra-cold temperatures. The U.S. National Climatic Date Center reported the other day that temperatures in the United States set cold records in January. "The average temperature in January 2008 was 30.5 F. This is -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 49th coolest January in 114 years."
...As for ice, A University of Illinois report showed that Arctic sea ice is back to its previous level.
The American Thinker reported that not only is the ice growing, but it is growing thick.
Previously:
Brrrr... Antarctica Records Record High Ice Cap Growth
Brrrr... South America Has Coldest Winter in a 90 Years
Brrrr... Iraqis See First Snow in 100 Years As Sign of Peace
Brrrr... Worst Snowstorms in a Decade in China Cause Rioting
Brrrr... Jerusalem Grinds to a Halt As Rare Snowstorm Blasts City
Brrrr... Worst Snowstorms in 50 Years Continue to Cripple China
Brrrr... China Suffers Coldest Winter in 100 Years
Brrrr... Pakistan Suffers Lowest Temps in 70 Years-- 260 Dead
Brrrr... Record Cold Hits Central Asia-- 654 Dead in Afghanistan
Brrrr... Severe Weather Kills Dozens in Kashmir
Brrrr... Tajikistan Crisis!! Coldest Winter in 25 Years!
Brrrr... Record Cold Wave Blasts Mumbai, India
Brrrr... Snow and Ice in San Diego?
Brrrr... Wisconsin Snowfall Record Shattered
posted by Gateway Pundit at 2/16/2008 02:57:00 PM Trackback
15 Comments:
OpenID datatroll said...
It's sure making these National Wildlife Federation people look awfully silly in their commercial.
5:11 PM
Blogger Christopher said...
so if we have solid proof that the world isn't going into global warming, can we stop making our food sources into fuel.
but wait, maybe that is the evil plan.
when the world goes into another for real global cooling period, we won't have enough food stored up and will cause chaos and the 'new world order' will take over, ending life as we know it, because we are using all the corn for fuel now.
the evil liberal plan will kill us all.
5:22 PM
Blogger BEAR said...
Christopher, please stop. You are scaring me.
But wait! Does this news mean that my recent mass purchases of shorts, spf-1000 sun screen, and cantaloupe futures are for naught? DRAT the luck!
6:28 PM
Blogger BEAR said...
I forgot to ask if I can stop making ice cubes and throwing them onto the lawn?
7:02 PM
Anonymous Gringo said...
I forgot to ask if I can stop making ice cubes and throwing them onto the lawn?
ROTFL!
Global Warming is a debatable issue. I am not sure what the answer is. What annoys me about GW is the great number of savants,who know less science than I have forgotten, pontificating on the issue.
It is so amusing to hear JFKerry on global warming, since he was afraid to oppose Ted Kennedy on the issue of the wind farm off Cape Cod that would disrupt Ted's view.
Wait a minute: maybe JFKerry also said that wind energy contributes to Global Warming? Perhaps that is an insight that is "seared into his memory"( or is it brain)? Just kidding
8:43 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
So does this mean my gas guzzling SUV is good for the climate and hybrids are bad? Or does this mean that we have no clue as to how our burning of fossil fuels really affects climate?
One thing is for sure: "The debate is OVER!"
1:06 AM
Blogger Rivka said...
Love this post. I don't know when it will be 'safe' to claim we have been hoodwinked by the tax and spend left. Despite all this evidence the G.W. religion seems to be catching on kind of like the Obama cult phenomenon.
California is pushing through legislation to change the Science curriculum to include Global Warming and they probably won't include the other side. OF course we in the midwest obtain our curriculum from California so it is coming down the pike for Kansas and Missouri as well.
3:54 AM
Blogger Rivka said...
Love this post. I don't know when it will be 'safe' to claim we have been hoodwinked by the tax and spend left. Despite all this evidence the G.W. religion seems to be catching on kind of like the Obama cult phenomenon.
California is pushing through legislation to change the Science curriculum to include Global Warming and they probably won't include the other side. OF course we in the midwest obtain our curriculum from California so it is coming down the pike for Kansas and Missouri as well.
3:54 AM
Blogger Jason said...
Sadly, this won't stop the "global warming" kooks. As with everything else that contradicts their doom-n-gloom predictions, they'll just take it and twist it to fit their crackpot theory. They'll say, "Global warming actually is causing the ice sheet to grow and thicken just like it caused 2 years of diminished hurricane activity!" See, because after Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast, they claimed "global warming" would make bad hurricanes more frequent. Then we had 2 years of virtually nothing, so they changed their tune. Instead of abandoning the obviously wrong theory, they made the evidence fit it. "Global warming" is an unfalsifiable theory and thus is invalid.
9:34 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Leftists will say it's about "Climate Change", not Global Warming. They always have an answer and they're never wrong.
:wah::wah:
The comments at the bottom were especially funny...! At least I thought they were...
Enjoy...
..............................................
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Brrrr... The Disappearing Arctic Ice Is Back And It's Thick
Is it safe to say we've been scammed yet?
A record cold January has helped winter sea ice grow across the Arctic.
Temperatures in January set cold weather records and caused the Arctic Sea Ice to expand to its previous levels.
The Financial Post reported:
The Cryosphere reported that the Arctic sea ice is back... and it's thick.
The disappearing sea ice that was supposedly going to dramatically change the North, if not the world, is back. Thanks to really cold weather -- gee, where did that come from?--winter sea ice has been growing across the North. "Clearly we're seeing the ice coverage rebound back to more near normal coverage for this time of year," says Gilles Langis, a senior ice forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa.
There goes a good story. And if you doubt me on this, the source is as biased on climate change as sources get: The CBC. And if the weather stays cold, the ice will get even thicker, says the report...
This isn't the only sign of rising sea ice and extra-cold temperatures. The U.S. National Climatic Date Center reported the other day that temperatures in the United States set cold records in January. "The average temperature in January 2008 was 30.5 F. This is -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 49th coolest January in 114 years."
...As for ice, A University of Illinois report showed that Arctic sea ice is back to its previous level.
The American Thinker reported that not only is the ice growing, but it is growing thick.
Previously:
Brrrr... Antarctica Records Record High Ice Cap Growth
Brrrr... South America Has Coldest Winter in a 90 Years
Brrrr... Iraqis See First Snow in 100 Years As Sign of Peace
Brrrr... Worst Snowstorms in a Decade in China Cause Rioting
Brrrr... Jerusalem Grinds to a Halt As Rare Snowstorm Blasts City
Brrrr... Worst Snowstorms in 50 Years Continue to Cripple China
Brrrr... China Suffers Coldest Winter in 100 Years
Brrrr... Pakistan Suffers Lowest Temps in 70 Years-- 260 Dead
Brrrr... Record Cold Hits Central Asia-- 654 Dead in Afghanistan
Brrrr... Severe Weather Kills Dozens in Kashmir
Brrrr... Tajikistan Crisis!! Coldest Winter in 25 Years!
Brrrr... Record Cold Wave Blasts Mumbai, India
Brrrr... Snow and Ice in San Diego?
Brrrr... Wisconsin Snowfall Record Shattered
posted by Gateway Pundit at 2/16/2008 02:57:00 PM Trackback
15 Comments:
OpenID datatroll said...
It's sure making these National Wildlife Federation people look awfully silly in their commercial.
5:11 PM
Blogger Christopher said...
so if we have solid proof that the world isn't going into global warming, can we stop making our food sources into fuel.
but wait, maybe that is the evil plan.
when the world goes into another for real global cooling period, we won't have enough food stored up and will cause chaos and the 'new world order' will take over, ending life as we know it, because we are using all the corn for fuel now.
the evil liberal plan will kill us all.
5:22 PM
Blogger BEAR said...
Christopher, please stop. You are scaring me.
But wait! Does this news mean that my recent mass purchases of shorts, spf-1000 sun screen, and cantaloupe futures are for naught? DRAT the luck!
6:28 PM
Blogger BEAR said...
I forgot to ask if I can stop making ice cubes and throwing them onto the lawn?
7:02 PM
Anonymous Gringo said...
I forgot to ask if I can stop making ice cubes and throwing them onto the lawn?
ROTFL!
Global Warming is a debatable issue. I am not sure what the answer is. What annoys me about GW is the great number of savants,who know less science than I have forgotten, pontificating on the issue.
It is so amusing to hear JFKerry on global warming, since he was afraid to oppose Ted Kennedy on the issue of the wind farm off Cape Cod that would disrupt Ted's view.
Wait a minute: maybe JFKerry also said that wind energy contributes to Global Warming? Perhaps that is an insight that is "seared into his memory"( or is it brain)? Just kidding
8:43 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
So does this mean my gas guzzling SUV is good for the climate and hybrids are bad? Or does this mean that we have no clue as to how our burning of fossil fuels really affects climate?
One thing is for sure: "The debate is OVER!"
1:06 AM
Blogger Rivka said...
Love this post. I don't know when it will be 'safe' to claim we have been hoodwinked by the tax and spend left. Despite all this evidence the G.W. religion seems to be catching on kind of like the Obama cult phenomenon.
California is pushing through legislation to change the Science curriculum to include Global Warming and they probably won't include the other side. OF course we in the midwest obtain our curriculum from California so it is coming down the pike for Kansas and Missouri as well.
3:54 AM
Blogger Rivka said...
Love this post. I don't know when it will be 'safe' to claim we have been hoodwinked by the tax and spend left. Despite all this evidence the G.W. religion seems to be catching on kind of like the Obama cult phenomenon.
California is pushing through legislation to change the Science curriculum to include Global Warming and they probably won't include the other side. OF course we in the midwest obtain our curriculum from California so it is coming down the pike for Kansas and Missouri as well.
3:54 AM
Blogger Jason said...
Sadly, this won't stop the "global warming" kooks. As with everything else that contradicts their doom-n-gloom predictions, they'll just take it and twist it to fit their crackpot theory. They'll say, "Global warming actually is causing the ice sheet to grow and thicken just like it caused 2 years of diminished hurricane activity!" See, because after Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast, they claimed "global warming" would make bad hurricanes more frequent. Then we had 2 years of virtually nothing, so they changed their tune. Instead of abandoning the obviously wrong theory, they made the evidence fit it. "Global warming" is an unfalsifiable theory and thus is invalid.
9:34 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Leftists will say it's about "Climate Change", not Global Warming. They always have an answer and they're never wrong.
:wah::wah:
-
Snidely Whiplash
- Posts: 176
- Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:33 pm
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Jester;851946 wrote: Brilliant! I'm saving this one to repost in lots of places!
Thanks.
Nooo, not brilliant, thats for sure, I'm still searching for the truth too, just like you guys.... And my reguards to the others here who have quoted me, debated me, and snickered at my views, guess thats just like we all face in real life with what we believe or question..? Guess we better get used to it, and respectfully but couragously stand our ground, and defend our position, as it is to us at this point in time for us...!!!
That was just a 2 minute google search, it was the first page, no the 3rd page that came up...
Surely some of you don't type with 2 fingers, and can do better....
This was a fun topic, lots of good info... You guys rock, no matter what you say about g.w....... :wah:
Thanks.
Nooo, not brilliant, thats for sure, I'm still searching for the truth too, just like you guys.... And my reguards to the others here who have quoted me, debated me, and snickered at my views, guess thats just like we all face in real life with what we believe or question..? Guess we better get used to it, and respectfully but couragously stand our ground, and defend our position, as it is to us at this point in time for us...!!!
That was just a 2 minute google search, it was the first page, no the 3rd page that came up...
Surely some of you don't type with 2 fingers, and can do better....
This was a fun topic, lots of good info... You guys rock, no matter what you say about g.w....... :wah:
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Jester;851941 wrote: I did not think we were talking about the Antarctic icecap here specifically. I'd have to check out the land mass first.
I think if both caps melted, I mean really totally melted we'd have a sea level rise but it would still be minimal and my point is that it would not be catastrophic.
And further more if that were to be the trend, there is little man can do about it, it would be a natural change not a man made change. Thats my focus here... And certainly the issue here is of a slow melt as some have pointed out so if the sea levels did start to rise significantly we'd slowly adjust to it and move uphill, that sort of defeats the alarmist doomsdayers claim.
I just dont buy the doomsdayers it what Im trying to say, apparently not very well either.
There's another thought to this whole ideology about normal variances in changing weather patterns, which is more likely whats really going on in my book. So if it is an atypical change or shift in a pattern, so what? We will do as we always do and adapt to the changes... it doesnt have to be doom and gloom, what if its a blessing, and its exposing more land mass in order to accomodate a growing population? Will we find more resources, maybe make some things more accessible? What I'm hearing from the greenies is that mankind is the cause and we have to reverse it or its going to be 'bad news', well Im not a pessimist, I'm an action man, an optimistic man that says, bring it on and lets deal with it.
I'm not buying the doom, thats all, they can peddle the doom somewhere else.
It was your use of the plural in "I agree there will be no rise in sea level, first off becasue the polor icecaps wont melt by 2013. Even if they did the rise in sea levels would be miniscule. " that led me to assume you meant both. Miles thick covering a large continent, it would have a significant effect on sea levels.
There are already Pacific islands being abandoned by the inhabitants because they are being inundated so it is already happening. The east coast of the UK and much of Holland are in real danger of being lost - it's getting harder and harder to build the sea walls quickly enough.
Whether you buy it of not, reality is out there waiting to bite you [insert evil laugh here] "We'rrr alllll doomed" :wah:
(forgive the reference to a British sit-com but he said it so well)
I think if both caps melted, I mean really totally melted we'd have a sea level rise but it would still be minimal and my point is that it would not be catastrophic.
And further more if that were to be the trend, there is little man can do about it, it would be a natural change not a man made change. Thats my focus here... And certainly the issue here is of a slow melt as some have pointed out so if the sea levels did start to rise significantly we'd slowly adjust to it and move uphill, that sort of defeats the alarmist doomsdayers claim.
I just dont buy the doomsdayers it what Im trying to say, apparently not very well either.
There's another thought to this whole ideology about normal variances in changing weather patterns, which is more likely whats really going on in my book. So if it is an atypical change or shift in a pattern, so what? We will do as we always do and adapt to the changes... it doesnt have to be doom and gloom, what if its a blessing, and its exposing more land mass in order to accomodate a growing population? Will we find more resources, maybe make some things more accessible? What I'm hearing from the greenies is that mankind is the cause and we have to reverse it or its going to be 'bad news', well Im not a pessimist, I'm an action man, an optimistic man that says, bring it on and lets deal with it.
I'm not buying the doom, thats all, they can peddle the doom somewhere else.
It was your use of the plural in "I agree there will be no rise in sea level, first off becasue the polor icecaps wont melt by 2013. Even if they did the rise in sea levels would be miniscule. " that led me to assume you meant both. Miles thick covering a large continent, it would have a significant effect on sea levels.
There are already Pacific islands being abandoned by the inhabitants because they are being inundated so it is already happening. The east coast of the UK and much of Holland are in real danger of being lost - it's getting harder and harder to build the sea walls quickly enough.
Whether you buy it of not, reality is out there waiting to bite you [insert evil laugh here] "We'rrr alllll doomed" :wah:
(forgive the reference to a British sit-com but he said it so well)
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Jester;851941 wrote: I think if both caps melted, I mean really totally melted we'd have a sea level rise but it would still be minimal and my point is that it would not be catastrophic.Good lord, I put the figure earlier. If all the world's ice melted the rise in sea levels will be 70 feet, to go on top of the current 400 foot rise which already happened in the last 10,000 years since the last ice age started to retreat.
70 feet still to go, you've got that? The sums are so simple it's hard to know what you're hung up on. That's how much ice there is, and if you put it all into the sea then the level rises 70 feet. It's beyond belief that anyone can just reject something so easily calculated.
70 feet still to go, you've got that? The sums are so simple it's hard to know what you're hung up on. That's how much ice there is, and if you put it all into the sea then the level rises 70 feet. It's beyond belief that anyone can just reject something so easily calculated.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Wild Cobra
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:42 pm
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Bryn Mawr;851461 wrote: I'll ignore the whole issue of Noah being a world wide flood as I know you're not concerned with practicalities but are you seriously suggesting that you believe that, if the Antarctic ice were to melt, there would be no change in mean sea level?
If so, would you care to explain why not?
Well, I guess I'll jump in. I still have some time today before I have better things to do.
First of all, limiting yourself to the earth dynamics may not explain the flood during Noah's time. Also remember there was 40 days and nights of rain!
Let me start with Ice. If all the Arctic ice were to melt, we would see no change. However, the Antarctic ice is mostly on land. Therefore, there would be a significant rise in sea level should it melt. Ask yourself this... How hot would the earth have to be to melt that ice! Life as we know it would likely already be extinct before that could occur.
Back to Noah's time. There are some suggestions that he lived in what is now the Mediterranean basin, below sea level, than the land used to protect the area between span and Africa, and that it moved, or gave way, allowing the area to flood. This point is called the Strait of Gibraltar.
I prefer a lesser theory that the earth may have gone through an area around the sun that a super sized comet may have left a water vapor trail so intense, that we had severe rainfall, and that the sea level was far lower before that time. It is hard to otherwise conclude that the earth could see such an event. There several other historical accouns that records the flood. Such an event with an eternal source of water could then spill over the Strait of Gibraltar. The slow moving wave could have then pushed Noah's Ark up the side of the Mountains of Ararat.
If so, would you care to explain why not?
Well, I guess I'll jump in. I still have some time today before I have better things to do.
First of all, limiting yourself to the earth dynamics may not explain the flood during Noah's time. Also remember there was 40 days and nights of rain!
Let me start with Ice. If all the Arctic ice were to melt, we would see no change. However, the Antarctic ice is mostly on land. Therefore, there would be a significant rise in sea level should it melt. Ask yourself this... How hot would the earth have to be to melt that ice! Life as we know it would likely already be extinct before that could occur.
Back to Noah's time. There are some suggestions that he lived in what is now the Mediterranean basin, below sea level, than the land used to protect the area between span and Africa, and that it moved, or gave way, allowing the area to flood. This point is called the Strait of Gibraltar.
I prefer a lesser theory that the earth may have gone through an area around the sun that a super sized comet may have left a water vapor trail so intense, that we had severe rainfall, and that the sea level was far lower before that time. It is hard to otherwise conclude that the earth could see such an event. There several other historical accouns that records the flood. Such an event with an eternal source of water could then spill over the Strait of Gibraltar. The slow moving wave could have then pushed Noah's Ark up the side of the Mountains of Ararat.
-
Wild Cobra
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:42 pm
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
spot;852126 wrote: Good lord, I put the figure earlier. If all the world's ice melted the rise in sea levels will be 70 feet, to go on top of the current 400 foot rise which already happened in the last 10,000 years since the last ice age started to retreat.
70 feet still to go, you've got that? The sums are so simple it's hard to know what you're hung up on. That's how much ice there is, and if you put it all into the sea then the level rises 70 feet. It's beyond belief that anyone can just reject something so easily calculated.
I agree that 70 ft. is likely correct. I have never seen anyone give temperature calculation to which severe ice melts would have to occur to even see the feared 20 feet.
How warm would the Earth be? Would we even still be alive with the increased CO2, methane, and other ocean soluble gasses that would be expelled into the atmosphere?
70 feet still to go, you've got that? The sums are so simple it's hard to know what you're hung up on. That's how much ice there is, and if you put it all into the sea then the level rises 70 feet. It's beyond belief that anyone can just reject something so easily calculated.
I agree that 70 ft. is likely correct. I have never seen anyone give temperature calculation to which severe ice melts would have to occur to even see the feared 20 feet.
How warm would the Earth be? Would we even still be alive with the increased CO2, methane, and other ocean soluble gasses that would be expelled into the atmosphere?
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Wild Cobra;852258 wrote: Well, I guess I'll jump in. I still have some time today before I have better things to do.
First of all, limiting yourself to the earth dynamics may not explain the flood during Noah's time. Also remember there was 40 days and nights of rain!
Let me start with Ice. If all the Arctic ice were to melt, we would see no change. However, the Antarctic ice is mostly on land. Therefore, there would be a significant rise in sea level should it melt. Ask yourself this... How hot would the earth have to be to melt that ice! Life as we know it would likely already be extinct before that could occur.
Back to Noah's time. There are some suggestions that he lived in what is now the Mediterranean basin, below sea level, than the land used to protect the area between span and Africa, and that it moved, or gave way, allowing the area to flood. This point is called the Strait of Gibraltar.
I prefer a lesser theory that the earth may have gone through an area around the sun that a super sized comet may have left a water vapor trail so intense, that we had severe rainfall, and that the sea level was far lower before that time. It is hard to otherwise conclude that the earth could see such an event. There several other historical accouns that records the flood. Such an event with an eternal source of water could then spill over the Strait of Gibraltar. The slow moving wave could have then pushed Noah's Ark up the side of the Mountains of Ararat.
Perfectly happy with the breaching of the Pillars of Hercules and the flooding of the Mediterranean basin as the explanation of the Biblical flood but I fear Jester takes the story literally and would insist on it being a world wide inundation.
Be it ever so humble six weeks of rain could not raise sea level by five miles to cover the highest land - nor could such a volume of water drain away afterwards.
As this was a total side issue to the discussion I chose not to pursue it.
First of all, limiting yourself to the earth dynamics may not explain the flood during Noah's time. Also remember there was 40 days and nights of rain!
Let me start with Ice. If all the Arctic ice were to melt, we would see no change. However, the Antarctic ice is mostly on land. Therefore, there would be a significant rise in sea level should it melt. Ask yourself this... How hot would the earth have to be to melt that ice! Life as we know it would likely already be extinct before that could occur.
Back to Noah's time. There are some suggestions that he lived in what is now the Mediterranean basin, below sea level, than the land used to protect the area between span and Africa, and that it moved, or gave way, allowing the area to flood. This point is called the Strait of Gibraltar.
I prefer a lesser theory that the earth may have gone through an area around the sun that a super sized comet may have left a water vapor trail so intense, that we had severe rainfall, and that the sea level was far lower before that time. It is hard to otherwise conclude that the earth could see such an event. There several other historical accouns that records the flood. Such an event with an eternal source of water could then spill over the Strait of Gibraltar. The slow moving wave could have then pushed Noah's Ark up the side of the Mountains of Ararat.
Perfectly happy with the breaching of the Pillars of Hercules and the flooding of the Mediterranean basin as the explanation of the Biblical flood but I fear Jester takes the story literally and would insist on it being a world wide inundation.
Be it ever so humble six weeks of rain could not raise sea level by five miles to cover the highest land - nor could such a volume of water drain away afterwards.
As this was a total side issue to the discussion I chose not to pursue it.
-
Snidely Whiplash
- Posts: 176
- Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:33 pm
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Bryn Mawr;852092 wrote: There are already Pacific islands being abandoned by the inhabitants because they are being inundated so it is already happening. The east coast of the UK and much of Holland are in real danger of being lost - it's getting harder and harder to build the sea walls quickly enough.
I did a google search for info on UK and Holland in danger of being lost from global warming... I found 1 webpage from back in 2004 with that view, and I clicked every link on the first 5 google pages, about 100 top links of my search, and other than that 1 page... nothing of any signifigance..? Maybe I didn't do my search right, i don't know..?
I did a google search looking for info on Pacific islands being abandoned due to global warming... I found some web pages with scenereos of what some think might happen if seas rise higher in the future, and a couple that show that seas are rising somewhat... I don't see however any evidence that it's from man made global warming? And one page where a government outpost somewhere had to be abandoned, but that article also stated it was also due to river usage by humans and changing river paths...
At least post some proof of some of these things, so us poor shlobs who are trying to honestly figure this all out can see where you get some of the info from that you base your beliefs on..? Please post some data that shows human activity is causing these things you are describing..? Otherwise it's just an "Us verses Them" argument, and nobody learns anything, we just fight about it..?
Honestly people, and I mean no disrespect to anyones views, but the more I look and search for credible info on man made G.W., the more info I find that supports natural climate changes and what probably is most true that we just don't know for certain if anything humans do has any measurable effect on our climate..? I just don't see much in the way of all this documented scientific evidence that supports global warming, it apears mostly personal opinions and views from environmental groups or others having an agenda, and little un unbias scientific fact...
I'm open to learn more, and hope I will... Some of the info posted here has been very helpful... Thanks for that..
I did a google search for info on UK and Holland in danger of being lost from global warming... I found 1 webpage from back in 2004 with that view, and I clicked every link on the first 5 google pages, about 100 top links of my search, and other than that 1 page... nothing of any signifigance..? Maybe I didn't do my search right, i don't know..?
I did a google search looking for info on Pacific islands being abandoned due to global warming... I found some web pages with scenereos of what some think might happen if seas rise higher in the future, and a couple that show that seas are rising somewhat... I don't see however any evidence that it's from man made global warming? And one page where a government outpost somewhere had to be abandoned, but that article also stated it was also due to river usage by humans and changing river paths...
At least post some proof of some of these things, so us poor shlobs who are trying to honestly figure this all out can see where you get some of the info from that you base your beliefs on..? Please post some data that shows human activity is causing these things you are describing..? Otherwise it's just an "Us verses Them" argument, and nobody learns anything, we just fight about it..?
Honestly people, and I mean no disrespect to anyones views, but the more I look and search for credible info on man made G.W., the more info I find that supports natural climate changes and what probably is most true that we just don't know for certain if anything humans do has any measurable effect on our climate..? I just don't see much in the way of all this documented scientific evidence that supports global warming, it apears mostly personal opinions and views from environmental groups or others having an agenda, and little un unbias scientific fact...
I'm open to learn more, and hope I will... Some of the info posted here has been very helpful... Thanks for that..
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Jester;852283 wrote: Spot and Bryn,
My point gentlemen, is that there still is no doomsday. And no conclusive proof the any area of the earth is on a warming trend to create catacylsmic issues, Snidleys post sufficently stated that the ice sheet is sustaining and not retreating.
So to get back to my original point, Al Gore's not worth listening to, hes much like Oliver Stone in that he only selects part of a story to make into a movie.
Ten years from now I'm certain the same old tired arguments will still be discussed, and we wont be either any warmer nor any cooler, and we'll still enjoy our icepacks!.
I have never listened to Al Gore - the guy's a politician and I've posted my opinion of politicians here many times. I do, however, listen to the many reputable climatologists who have, for the past twenty years, been telling us what we're doing to our home planet.
My point gentlemen, is that there still is no doomsday. And no conclusive proof the any area of the earth is on a warming trend to create catacylsmic issues, Snidleys post sufficently stated that the ice sheet is sustaining and not retreating.
So to get back to my original point, Al Gore's not worth listening to, hes much like Oliver Stone in that he only selects part of a story to make into a movie.
Ten years from now I'm certain the same old tired arguments will still be discussed, and we wont be either any warmer nor any cooler, and we'll still enjoy our icepacks!.
I have never listened to Al Gore - the guy's a politician and I've posted my opinion of politicians here many times. I do, however, listen to the many reputable climatologists who have, for the past twenty years, been telling us what we're doing to our home planet.
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Snidely Whiplash;852275 wrote: I did a google search for info on UK and Holland in danger of being lost from global warming... I found 1 webpage from back in 2004 with that view, and I clicked every link on the first 5 google pages, about 100 top links of my search, and other than that 1 page... nothing of any signifigance..? Maybe I didn't do my search right, i don't know..?
I did a google search looking for info on Pacific islands being abandoned due to global warming... I found some web pages with scenereos of what some think might happen if seas rise higher in the future, and a couple that show that seas are rising somewhat... I don't see however any evidence that it's from man made global warming? And one page where a government outpost somewhere had to be abandoned, but that article also stated it was also due to river usage by humans and changing river paths...
At least post some proof of some of these things, so us poor shlobs who are trying to honestly figure this all out can see where you get some of the info from that you base your beliefs on..? Please post some data that shows human activity is causing these things you are describing..? Otherwise it's just an "Us verses Them" argument, and nobody learns anything, we just fight about it..?
Honestly people, and I mean no disrespect to anyones views, but the more I look and search for credible info on man made G.W., the more info I find that supports natural climate changes and what probably is most true that we just don't know for certain if anything humans do has any measurable effect on our climate..? I just don't see much in the way of all this documented scientific evidence that supports global warming, it apears mostly personal opinions and views from environmental groups or others having an agenda, and little un unbias scientific fact...
I'm open to learn more, and hope I will... Some of the info posted here has been very helpful... Thanks for that..
It has been known for some time that East Anglia is at risk - not even newsworthy any more. Do a search, however, on east anglia flood defences and, taking the first article on page one that is not about a specific event gives you :-
http://scratbycoastalerosion.org.uk/200 ... -cut-back/
"Huge swathes of England will be abandoned to the seas under controversial plans to cut back coastal flood defences.
Proposals due to be published soon will put hundreds of homes and businesses at risk of flooding and thousands of acres of farmland in danger of being subsumed by high tides."
Similarly, a search on pacific island abandoned flooding picks out many items including :-
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/levels.htm
"Earlier this month, landowners in PNG’s East New Britain province agreed to allow Duke of York islanders threatened by rising sea levels to move to the mainland. About 2,000 people living in Bougainville’s atoll island of Cateret have also asked to be moved to higher ground in the mainland, but lack of government funds have prevented this movement."
and a more sensationalist piece from the Sidney Morning Herald :-
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/goi ... e=fullpage
"With rising seas swamping the graves of their forebears, Torres Strait Islanders face an uncertain future. Liz Minchin writes."
With work calling, however, I do not have the time to find detailed articles detailing the effect. As to proving that human activity is to blame for it, the point I was trying to counter was that sea levels would not rise due to the melting of the polar ice caps. Bored Wombat is doing a far better job than I could of showing due cause.
I did a google search looking for info on Pacific islands being abandoned due to global warming... I found some web pages with scenereos of what some think might happen if seas rise higher in the future, and a couple that show that seas are rising somewhat... I don't see however any evidence that it's from man made global warming? And one page where a government outpost somewhere had to be abandoned, but that article also stated it was also due to river usage by humans and changing river paths...
At least post some proof of some of these things, so us poor shlobs who are trying to honestly figure this all out can see where you get some of the info from that you base your beliefs on..? Please post some data that shows human activity is causing these things you are describing..? Otherwise it's just an "Us verses Them" argument, and nobody learns anything, we just fight about it..?
Honestly people, and I mean no disrespect to anyones views, but the more I look and search for credible info on man made G.W., the more info I find that supports natural climate changes and what probably is most true that we just don't know for certain if anything humans do has any measurable effect on our climate..? I just don't see much in the way of all this documented scientific evidence that supports global warming, it apears mostly personal opinions and views from environmental groups or others having an agenda, and little un unbias scientific fact...
I'm open to learn more, and hope I will... Some of the info posted here has been very helpful... Thanks for that..
It has been known for some time that East Anglia is at risk - not even newsworthy any more. Do a search, however, on east anglia flood defences and, taking the first article on page one that is not about a specific event gives you :-
http://scratbycoastalerosion.org.uk/200 ... -cut-back/
"Huge swathes of England will be abandoned to the seas under controversial plans to cut back coastal flood defences.
Proposals due to be published soon will put hundreds of homes and businesses at risk of flooding and thousands of acres of farmland in danger of being subsumed by high tides."
Similarly, a search on pacific island abandoned flooding picks out many items including :-
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/levels.htm
"Earlier this month, landowners in PNG’s East New Britain province agreed to allow Duke of York islanders threatened by rising sea levels to move to the mainland. About 2,000 people living in Bougainville’s atoll island of Cateret have also asked to be moved to higher ground in the mainland, but lack of government funds have prevented this movement."
and a more sensationalist piece from the Sidney Morning Herald :-
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/goi ... e=fullpage
"With rising seas swamping the graves of their forebears, Torres Strait Islanders face an uncertain future. Liz Minchin writes."
With work calling, however, I do not have the time to find detailed articles detailing the effect. As to proving that human activity is to blame for it, the point I was trying to counter was that sea levels would not rise due to the melting of the polar ice caps. Bored Wombat is doing a far better job than I could of showing due cause.
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
posted by snidely whiplash
Leftists will say it's about "Climate Change", not Global Warming. They always have an answer and they're never wrong.
What on earth does that mean? What's a leftist? The debate about global warming-is not a political one. There's no left or right wing viewpoint. The question is whether the scientific evidence is credible or not. The only way politics comes in to it is if a scientist has a vested interest in debunking someone else's research. The classic is the medical researchers working for tobacco companies that spent their time ignoring scientific evidence and did what their paymasters told them
Leftists will say it's about "Climate Change", not Global Warming. They always have an answer and they're never wrong.
What on earth does that mean? What's a leftist? The debate about global warming-is not a political one. There's no left or right wing viewpoint. The question is whether the scientific evidence is credible or not. The only way politics comes in to it is if a scientist has a vested interest in debunking someone else's research. The classic is the medical researchers working for tobacco companies that spent their time ignoring scientific evidence and did what their paymasters told them
-
Wild Cobra
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:42 pm
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Bryn Mawr;852261 wrote:
Be it ever so humble six weeks of rain could not raise sea level by five miles to cover the highest land - nor could such a volume of water drain away afterwards.
Well, if some celestial phenomena made it happen, let's say it was as intense as 3" per hour. Over the course of 40 days, it would be 240 ft. Remember, we cannot always take poorly translated versions of the Bible we have today as literal. This level of water would cause intense flooding world wide. It wouldn't have to cover everything, and the Ark would flow with the water to areas of lower elevation, and there would be no land in sight.
Besides, we know from other historical accounts that Noah's family were not the sole survivors.
I don't know that this is the answer. I am simply open to possible explanations, and I do believe it happened.
Be it ever so humble six weeks of rain could not raise sea level by five miles to cover the highest land - nor could such a volume of water drain away afterwards.
Well, if some celestial phenomena made it happen, let's say it was as intense as 3" per hour. Over the course of 40 days, it would be 240 ft. Remember, we cannot always take poorly translated versions of the Bible we have today as literal. This level of water would cause intense flooding world wide. It wouldn't have to cover everything, and the Ark would flow with the water to areas of lower elevation, and there would be no land in sight.
Besides, we know from other historical accounts that Noah's family were not the sole survivors.
I don't know that this is the answer. I am simply open to possible explanations, and I do believe it happened.
-
Wild Cobra
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:42 pm
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Snidely Whiplash;852275 wrote:
Honestly people, and I mean no disrespect to anyones views, but the more I look and search for credible info on man made G.W., the more info I find that supports natural climate changes and what probably is most true that we just don't know for certain if anything humans do has any measurable effect on our climate..? I just don't see much in the way of all this documented scientific evidence that supports global warming, it apears mostly personal opinions and views from environmental groups or others having an agenda, and little un unbias scientific fact...
Well, I see no credible evidence we are the cause. All I see is the scientific community of those who are alarmists, correlating warming with CO2. I see it as no more than coincidence. It's about as credible as this:
There is an appoximate 1500 year cycle known as the Bond Event. Here is a graph that shows various temperatures over the last 12,000 years:
Notice how warming does not follow CO2 increases in the last 12,000 years:
Temperature is the red trace. CO2 level is blue. Temperature stops increasing with CO2 at about 264 ppm.
Honestly people, and I mean no disrespect to anyones views, but the more I look and search for credible info on man made G.W., the more info I find that supports natural climate changes and what probably is most true that we just don't know for certain if anything humans do has any measurable effect on our climate..? I just don't see much in the way of all this documented scientific evidence that supports global warming, it apears mostly personal opinions and views from environmental groups or others having an agenda, and little un unbias scientific fact...
Well, I see no credible evidence we are the cause. All I see is the scientific community of those who are alarmists, correlating warming with CO2. I see it as no more than coincidence. It's about as credible as this:
There is an appoximate 1500 year cycle known as the Bond Event. Here is a graph that shows various temperatures over the last 12,000 years:
Notice how warming does not follow CO2 increases in the last 12,000 years:
Temperature is the red trace. CO2 level is blue. Temperature stops increasing with CO2 at about 264 ppm.
-
Wild Cobra
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:42 pm
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Something else about the rising sea level. There were times in known nautical history that the sea was higher than today. This was likely when the Vikings went to America, there are photos somewhere out there of ancient high water marks.
As for other increases in the ocean, there is erosion and stellar matter. As the rivers move soil into the sea, the displacement causes the sea to rise. As the solar winds hit the earth, much of it converts to water by mixing with oxygen. Of course these are both small factors, but it does happen. Over long periods of time, it adds up.
I don't believe we have any control over the rising sea level. Even what little global warming accounts for it, there is no real evidence that it is anthropogenic warming. The only evidence is circumstantial. Real science endeavors cast real doubt of all these theories saying mankind is causing warming.
Want to reduce CO2? Here is a real answer. Cut down the old growth forests and replant with new trees. Young trees grow faster and absorb more CO2 out of the air. Use the wood for long term projects where the carbon remains sequestered.
As for other increases in the ocean, there is erosion and stellar matter. As the rivers move soil into the sea, the displacement causes the sea to rise. As the solar winds hit the earth, much of it converts to water by mixing with oxygen. Of course these are both small factors, but it does happen. Over long periods of time, it adds up.
I don't believe we have any control over the rising sea level. Even what little global warming accounts for it, there is no real evidence that it is anthropogenic warming. The only evidence is circumstantial. Real science endeavors cast real doubt of all these theories saying mankind is causing warming.
Want to reduce CO2? Here is a real answer. Cut down the old growth forests and replant with new trees. Young trees grow faster and absorb more CO2 out of the air. Use the wood for long term projects where the carbon remains sequestered.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Honestly. Some of you will be standing here saying, "There's no evidence humans caused this," as the Earth turns to a small black cinder and us with it! There's no point arguing because the best evidence - collated by the IPCC - you dismiss. Crop failures - you dismiss. Changing weather patterns - you dismiss.
Fine, keep your heads stuck in the sand. This is the attitude that will kill us. Shrug. I haven't got children.
Fine, keep your heads stuck in the sand. This is the attitude that will kill us. Shrug. I haven't got children.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
Snidely Whiplash
- Posts: 176
- Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:33 pm
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Bryn Mawr;852455 wrote: It has been known for some time that East Anglia is at risk - not even newsworthy any more. Do a search, however, on east anglia flood defences and, taking the first article on page one that is not about a specific event gives you :-
http://scratbycoastalerosion.org.uk/200 ... -cut-back/
"Huge swathes of England will be abandoned to the seas under controversial plans to cut back coastal flood defences.
Proposals due to be published soon will put hundreds of homes and businesses at risk of flooding and thousands of acres of farmland in danger of being subsumed by high tides."
Similarly, a search on pacific island abandoned flooding picks out many items including :-
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/levels.htm
"Earlier this month, landowners in PNG’s East New Britain province agreed to allow Duke of York islanders threatened by rising sea levels to move to the mainland. About 2,000 people living in Bougainville’s atoll island of Cateret have also asked to be moved to higher ground in the mainland, but lack of government funds have prevented this movement."
and a more sensationalist piece from the Sidney Morning Herald :-
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/goi ... e=fullpage
"With rising seas swamping the graves of their forebears, Torres Strait Islanders face an uncertain future. Liz Minchin writes."
With work calling, however, I do not have the time to find detailed articles detailing the effect. As to proving that human activity is to blame for it, the point I was trying to counter was that sea levels would not rise due to the melting of the polar ice caps. Bored Wombat is doing a far better job than I could of showing due cause.
Bryn Mawr;852455 wrote:
http://scratbycoastalerosion.org.uk/200 ... -cut-back/
Thanks for the effort to post those links Bryn....
But I see no reference to "Global warming" anywhere in that article..? Just beach erosion...? Beach erosion takes place everywhere, always has, and always will..... Don't build your house on the beach, build your house inland, then go to the beach to watch the girls in bikini's...! :wah:
Bryn Mawr;852455 wrote:
http://scratbycoastalerosion.org.uk/200 ... -cut-back/
Oh c'mon, that was posted in 2001...??? :-2 And was just an article that said that quote "This is the latest in a series of such flooding across the South Pacific in recent months, an occurrence that experts say is caused by rising sea levels due to global warming.
What experts..? Who said that...??? I could have said that, and they could have said I was an "expert"..?? Not buying it... It's not evidence or data, just opinion.... :-3
Bryn Mawr;852455 wrote:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/goi ... e=fullpage
That was an interesting one... Thanks for posting it... Sorry you're at work trying to do this stuff....
Quote from article "The islanders can't prove that climate change is to blame for the tidal flooding or inexplicable shifts in the weather, but elders are baffled by what they are seeing." Taken from that article.... End quote
Quote from article "According to the draft fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, written by the world's leading climate scientists and seen by the Herald before its official release next year, the recent king tides exposed the need for better short-term coastal protection and long-term planning to potentially relocate up to half of the 4000 people living on the islands" Taken from the article... End quote
The IPCC report is quite frankly a joke, and thats not just my personal view, so please don't think I'm attacking anyone... The thousands of united scientists from all over the world turned out to be a more like 50-70, and they only were asked to write a page or two on a detailed subject of thier expertise, not on global warming... NONE OF THEM were asked to agree on anything..??? The U.N. put that paper together from all of the short pages from the various scientists... NOW, many of the most prominent scientists associated with the IPCC report have bailed from it, and many are now sueing the United Nations to have thier names removed from that report, because it is ficticious... There are also reports of the U.N. listings of participating scientists to not be legitimate, but just anyone who had any help in the paper, not necesarily a person with a scientific degree...
Thanks for your posts, you have made me think and learn...
http://scratbycoastalerosion.org.uk/200 ... -cut-back/
"Huge swathes of England will be abandoned to the seas under controversial plans to cut back coastal flood defences.
Proposals due to be published soon will put hundreds of homes and businesses at risk of flooding and thousands of acres of farmland in danger of being subsumed by high tides."
Similarly, a search on pacific island abandoned flooding picks out many items including :-
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/levels.htm
"Earlier this month, landowners in PNG’s East New Britain province agreed to allow Duke of York islanders threatened by rising sea levels to move to the mainland. About 2,000 people living in Bougainville’s atoll island of Cateret have also asked to be moved to higher ground in the mainland, but lack of government funds have prevented this movement."
and a more sensationalist piece from the Sidney Morning Herald :-
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/goi ... e=fullpage
"With rising seas swamping the graves of their forebears, Torres Strait Islanders face an uncertain future. Liz Minchin writes."
With work calling, however, I do not have the time to find detailed articles detailing the effect. As to proving that human activity is to blame for it, the point I was trying to counter was that sea levels would not rise due to the melting of the polar ice caps. Bored Wombat is doing a far better job than I could of showing due cause.
Bryn Mawr;852455 wrote:
http://scratbycoastalerosion.org.uk/200 ... -cut-back/
Thanks for the effort to post those links Bryn....
But I see no reference to "Global warming" anywhere in that article..? Just beach erosion...? Beach erosion takes place everywhere, always has, and always will..... Don't build your house on the beach, build your house inland, then go to the beach to watch the girls in bikini's...! :wah:
Bryn Mawr;852455 wrote:
http://scratbycoastalerosion.org.uk/200 ... -cut-back/
Oh c'mon, that was posted in 2001...??? :-2 And was just an article that said that quote "This is the latest in a series of such flooding across the South Pacific in recent months, an occurrence that experts say is caused by rising sea levels due to global warming.
What experts..? Who said that...??? I could have said that, and they could have said I was an "expert"..?? Not buying it... It's not evidence or data, just opinion.... :-3
Bryn Mawr;852455 wrote:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/goi ... e=fullpage
That was an interesting one... Thanks for posting it... Sorry you're at work trying to do this stuff....
Quote from article "The islanders can't prove that climate change is to blame for the tidal flooding or inexplicable shifts in the weather, but elders are baffled by what they are seeing." Taken from that article.... End quote
Quote from article "According to the draft fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, written by the world's leading climate scientists and seen by the Herald before its official release next year, the recent king tides exposed the need for better short-term coastal protection and long-term planning to potentially relocate up to half of the 4000 people living on the islands" Taken from the article... End quote
The IPCC report is quite frankly a joke, and thats not just my personal view, so please don't think I'm attacking anyone... The thousands of united scientists from all over the world turned out to be a more like 50-70, and they only were asked to write a page or two on a detailed subject of thier expertise, not on global warming... NONE OF THEM were asked to agree on anything..??? The U.N. put that paper together from all of the short pages from the various scientists... NOW, many of the most prominent scientists associated with the IPCC report have bailed from it, and many are now sueing the United Nations to have thier names removed from that report, because it is ficticious... There are also reports of the U.N. listings of participating scientists to not be legitimate, but just anyone who had any help in the paper, not necesarily a person with a scientific degree...
Thanks for your posts, you have made me think and learn...
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Wild Cobra;852480 wrote: Well, if some celestial phenomena made it happen, let's say it was as intense as 3" per hour. Over the course of 40 days, it would be 240 ft. Remember, we cannot always take poorly translated versions of the Bible we have today as literal. This level of water would cause intense flooding world wide. It wouldn't have to cover everything, and the Ark would flow with the water to areas of lower elevation, and there would be no land in sight.
Besides, we know from other historical accounts that Noah's family were not the sole survivors.
I don't know that this is the answer. I am simply open to possible explanations, and I do believe it happened.
There is too much evidence of a flood to not believe that (at least) one happened.
Such rational explanations, however, would not satisfy the literalist requirements of inerrancy.
Besides, we know from other historical accounts that Noah's family were not the sole survivors.
I don't know that this is the answer. I am simply open to possible explanations, and I do believe it happened.
There is too much evidence of a flood to not believe that (at least) one happened.
Such rational explanations, however, would not satisfy the literalist requirements of inerrancy.
-
Snidely Whiplash
- Posts: 176
- Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:33 pm
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Clodhopper;852500 wrote: Honestly. Some of you will be standing here saying, "There's no evidence humans caused this," as the Earth turns to a small black cinder and us with it! There's no point arguing because the best evidence - collated by the IPCC - you dismiss. Crop failures - you dismiss. Changing weather patterns - you dismiss.
Fine, keep your heads stuck in the sand. This is the attitude that will kill us. Shrug. I haven't got children.
The IPCC report was devised by a bunch of politicians who now want the whole world taxed as a result of that report, and trillions of dollars going straight to the U.N. supposedly to be used to combat G.W. , which isn't even a possibility, because there isn't a cure for the changes the planet goes through(because it's natural), only adaptation to those changes is possible, and we don't don't need the U.N. to help us with that..!!! When was the last time a politician, or more direct, the U/N did something to benefit the world, and not just themselves...??? What was the last thing they did with your money that they didn't pilfer most of it for themselves, and screw up whatever the original goal was..??? They are a totally useless bunch of greedy self centered corrupt world class gangsters, you know it and so does everyone else...!!!
You're sooooo Naive... There are major scientists, as well as authors of the ICPP report bailing from the end result that the U.N. put together from the many small contributions from each scientist, some are now suing to have they're names removed from this phony document, made up so the politicians of the world can reach they grubby greedy dirty little hands deeper into your pockets, and take more of your hard earned pay away...
Think about it..? Even if it was true, no one can do anything about GW if it were a danger, and nothing humans could do, even going back to living in caves would change a thing in the future... There’s not 1 single plan that will change anything worth mentioning, but still, they want to reach deep into your pockets, and keep you frightened so you won't feel their hands, taking away your money, your freedom and numbing your common sense... You might even praise them for it if they pull the blanket over your eyes far enough, and get you scared enough...?
There is well documented evidence from all over the world, not just from one source but hundreds or thousands in many cities, states, towns and countries all over the planet that show there's been no G.W. in the past decade, but the opposite, a drastic cooling trend that is continuing now... How does that fit into your IPCC report..???
You are the one with your head in the sand... And that sand hasn't been warming in a decade, only cooling............
Fine, keep your heads stuck in the sand. This is the attitude that will kill us. Shrug. I haven't got children.
The IPCC report was devised by a bunch of politicians who now want the whole world taxed as a result of that report, and trillions of dollars going straight to the U.N. supposedly to be used to combat G.W. , which isn't even a possibility, because there isn't a cure for the changes the planet goes through(because it's natural), only adaptation to those changes is possible, and we don't don't need the U.N. to help us with that..!!! When was the last time a politician, or more direct, the U/N did something to benefit the world, and not just themselves...??? What was the last thing they did with your money that they didn't pilfer most of it for themselves, and screw up whatever the original goal was..??? They are a totally useless bunch of greedy self centered corrupt world class gangsters, you know it and so does everyone else...!!!
You're sooooo Naive... There are major scientists, as well as authors of the ICPP report bailing from the end result that the U.N. put together from the many small contributions from each scientist, some are now suing to have they're names removed from this phony document, made up so the politicians of the world can reach they grubby greedy dirty little hands deeper into your pockets, and take more of your hard earned pay away...
Think about it..? Even if it was true, no one can do anything about GW if it were a danger, and nothing humans could do, even going back to living in caves would change a thing in the future... There’s not 1 single plan that will change anything worth mentioning, but still, they want to reach deep into your pockets, and keep you frightened so you won't feel their hands, taking away your money, your freedom and numbing your common sense... You might even praise them for it if they pull the blanket over your eyes far enough, and get you scared enough...?
There is well documented evidence from all over the world, not just from one source but hundreds or thousands in many cities, states, towns and countries all over the planet that show there's been no G.W. in the past decade, but the opposite, a drastic cooling trend that is continuing now... How does that fit into your IPCC report..???
You are the one with your head in the sand... And that sand hasn't been warming in a decade, only cooling............