Al Gore writes: "The climate crisis, in reality, is a struggle for the soul of America. It is about whether or not we are still capable - given the ill health of our democracy and the current dominance of wealth over reason - of perceiving important and complex realities clearly enough to promote and protect the sustainable well-being of the many. What hangs in the balance is the future of civilization as we know it."
Portrait, Al Gore, 11/03/09. (photo: Graeme Robertson)
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
In Florida, businesses have rallied politicians in both parties to oppose efforts to clean up the state's waters and Florida's Dirty Deadly Secret: harmful algal blooms that create neurotoxic cyanobacteria. In West Virginia, coal interests are annihilating mountaintops--a nd the health of nearby residents. Both were grouped together in a "fast track" House bill today aimed at preventing environmental remedies.
This has reached a crisis point that touches the future health of most Americans. Is making a fast buck more important? That's really what this all comes down to.
A few years later I noticed that the trend had once again shifted: the earth was getting warmer. I watched that trend develop over the years, noticing some strange assumptions obtain cultural status.
CO2 as a pollutant is a gross misperception of one of the most fundamental compounds on the planet - without CO2 photosynthesis would end and food production on the planet would come to a halt. In fact, as I planned the greenhouse I would one day build, the augmentation of CO2 content is one of the greatest stimulants to growth of plants. Many years ago far more CO2 was in the atmosphere and plants flourished, just like they do in a greenhouse that completes the carbon cycle by using CO2 from animals or fish.
As I studied this amazing assertion, I found that CO2 is a very poor absorber of long wavelengths and that the re-transmission of the absorbed heat occurs in ALL directions, not just back toward the earth. The greenhouse effect is a very poor hypothesis to explain global warming.
"Reposition global warming as theory, rather than fact."
Well, it is a theory -- that is a scientific fact.
There is no debate with that - nothing has been proven - it's all up for debate, this AGW theory for climate change.
"In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantia ted, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. 2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.
Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.
CONT.
http://www.notjustatheory.com/index.html
. . . context is in regards to evolution - natural selection.
To me, that is so well demonstrated now, that I wouldn't consider it theory, but real scientific fact - there is so much evidence - it's everywhere. But, that's just me.
AGW, on the other hand, isn't living up to the predictions their theories were promoting. And we probably won't know for decades, to a 100 years, or more, if it's even partially correct.
"This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain."
Without scientific "theories", you wouldn't be using a computer or getting your information from a tv channel called fox or listening to some more of your news on AM radio. None of these things would work. Do you "in fact" use a computer? If so, thank a scientist for coming up with a theory that made that possible.
Sea level in LA is currently lower than it was in 1940 - yet our media keeps reporting that these quacks are predicting some 55 Inches of rise (because of "climate change") by the end of this century -- or 89 years from now. The 100 yr trend here is 3 1/4" per 100 yrs - and the rate or rise, much like everywhere else is not accelerating.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) just recently took down their elaborate web site, which mapped out the details of where the 50 million climate refugees -- by the year 2010 -- were to be coming from.
Oops - that must have been a climate theory, right?
Sea Level trends in Los Angeles:
http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9410660
Why is this all about what happens in LA to you? Do you live there? Are you aware that 7 billion people live outside the Los Angeles metropolitan area? Every single time you bring this up, you harp on about Los Angeles.
PLEASE go back and re-read the RSN article by Olbermann: "Special Comment: The Death of Bin Laden".
Here's a link:
http://readersupportednews.org/off-site-opinion-section/133-133/5818-special-comment-the-death-of-bin-laden
(RSN, PLEASE DISPLAY THIS LINK. IT PROVES A POINT THAT IS NECESSARY TO SHOW forparity's AGENDA)
In the comments section of that article, I think you will find the ENTIRE argument fortheteaparty is trying to start over with me. You'll find the exact same links and tailored "facts" he plans to unveil again in an attempt to wear us down.
If you bother to read the back and forth we had in early May (assuming you have half an hour to kill), you'll notice the exact same comments being used here. They were disputed pretty affectively - AND PRETTY TEDIOUSLY.
I don't see where you proved it wrong.
A while back, I called NOAA - that section. Was told that in summary - all of their records - that so far, they have absolutely no mathematical evidence that the rate of sea level rise has increased during the past 100 years . . . just clipping along. To be fair - he expressed to me that his view, however, is that it will start rising because of AGW sometime.
So did the UNEP not take down it's elaborate web page where they predicted the 50 million climate refugees by 2010?
So much shrill out there. NYCity to be under 20 feet of water by 2050. Fortunately, we haven't heard that one for a while. Skiing the Alps and in CA - will soon be a thing of the past - our children may never see snow.
This year's intense weather was caused by cold water in the Pacific - the jet stream, etc. Was predicted. Not from AGW.
I'll take NOAA's word for what I stated in what NOAA told me.
Credentials - thru the lens of how the alarmists so accept the incredible lack of credentials of Al Gore as a spokesperson for the AGW crowd:
And that was quite an insult for the meteorologists from you; to say they know "nothing" about the climate??
..And previous musings saying that astrophysicists are not qualified?
Geologists? Oceanographers? Biologists?
But politicians, if they speak the view that one likes - are beyond reproach.
Must be why numerous scientists have walked away from the IPCC political - non scientific - process.
Not an insult.
Just a fact.
I guess this is the point in the back and forth where you RE-quote some cherry picked poll among scientists "proving" that there's a major debate going on (like you did in early May); NEXT, I'm supposed to ONCE AGAIN go through all the trouble of RE-proving that you cherry picked your results by showing you, AGAIN, the same CONSERVATIVE sources that PROVE there is NO serious debate about this among the scientific community.
The game you're playing is getting tedious.
When I mentioned the "debate" going on, I was refering to townhall styled debates that you can easily engage in near any major university of this subject. These involve SCIENTISTS debating laypeople who refuse to accept reality and a few professional skeptics. This ONCE AGAIN, is much like the ongoing "debate" about evolution.
Furthermore, an examination of the selection of temperature data points has shown a bias toward weather stations that report warmer temperatures than normal. The placement of data collection stations is not uniform around the world and data collection stations cluster in urban areas of First World countries in the Northern Hemisphere.
An hypothesis is only useful to explain observed phenomena. If the hypothesis does not predict accurately, the hypothesis must be scrapped and another brought forward for consideration. Climate-modelle rs predicted a hot spot in the middle altitudes of mid latitudes...non e have been found after years of looking with satellites and balloons, weather-sondes. http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/15/former-alarmist-scientist-says-anthropogenic-global-warming-agw-based-on-false-science/
billy bob said theory and forparity said theory and ya'll shot em down, are you confused?
Even IF we followed the Kyoto protocols - it would do nothing to reduce carbon creation or protect the environment - what it is successful at is to create a big brother control mechanism for every person.
Are there any other sins I am supposed to confess to the holy Al (just a couple of kilometers down it is MILLIONS of degrees) Gore? He the blessed one who fly's rather then using his internet to telecommute to anti carbon foot print conferences.
Live as I say .. not as I do
- Love ya Al, you make hypocrisy easy.
The Gores are a wealthy family, with a background, frankly, in Coal interests, his dad was in the congress, he was in the senate and the VP of the US. They don't need money. If he's done this, its because he believes in it.
Kyoto was a start, but only a start. If the human race is to survive, its time we started behaving like adults, put responsiblilty before immediate profits, and took future generations into consideration. You snide comments about the "scam" do nothing to further what should be==and is except in America==a planet wide discussion of how to fix what we can fix and how we can deal with the coming effects of our own folly and greed.
Pure propaganda.
There is lots of room for honest debate,
and Honest people will debate -- dishonest ones won't.
There's ALWAYS room for "debate". It's a free country. BUT, there's NO room for HONEST debate on this subject. If you're debating it, you're either dishonest or feel the need to only listen to dishonest sources of information.
There ya go -- now, that's a dandy view indeed.
Thousands of scientists are debating it, whether you like it, or not. That our national media doesn't have an interest in reporting that is indeed a shame.
I've run into 2 or 3 perhaps. The NYT's mag did do that one piece with the progressive Freeman Dyson - seems the rest of the media looked the other way. Rose had him on, as well. Immediately alarmists all rush to smear Dyson - typical.
The NY Times editorial board did once actually ask Gore to can his loud obnoxious rhetoric; I think implying that his wild claims were so outlandish that he was hurting the cause.
Seems to me that when scientists who are a part of the IPCC review process, raise objections and then resign in protest over the non-scientific process of the IPCC -- that there is no interest in telling the story. Landsea and Curry being two that come to mind. There are more.
We hear all the time that $50 million has been spent by the oil companies combating the AGW crowd. Of course, $billions are being invested by the oil companies, and others, on alternative energy - so that they can capitalize on it. On the other hand, a few years back, I read that $50 billion had been spent on the pro-AGW agenda. Who knows how much really - but, certainly most is going that way.
Enron was one of the largest wind farm co's back in the 90's - does that mean that wind energy is ugly - bad - corrupt?
Thank for at least admitting that the past happened, regardless of whether or not you'd like to forget what was said.
And, is it any wonder that the GOP/TEA/It's-al l-about-Me Party is working so hard to undermine public education? The dumber the general population, the easier it will be to fool them into believing in creationism, regressive taxes, trickle-down economics, etc.
Wait - do you mean climate change, global warming, or do you mean global warming caused by man's activities - or climate change caused by man's activities?
Congratulations to him do not suffice, but we owe him our gratitude for the forthrightness of his statement, for the clarity of his vision and the depth of his righteous convictions.
It remains for all of us engage in the struggle for which he has issued this clarion call.
"Make Them Do It" should be our watchword, and Mr. Gore should be our leader.
"The past decade was the hottest ever measured, even though half of that decade represented a "solar minimum" — the low ebb in the natural cycle of solar energy emanating from the sun."
If you can find us some seriously scientific evidence that disagrees with the overwhelming consensus of scientists, in other words, NOT coming from employees of the petroleum industry, or weather men who aren't actually climate experts but have a strong opinion on the subject, then please do.
Hey Eat Crap - 8 billion fly's cant be wrong.
If a scientist disagrees with the religion of global warming then they are not real scientist.
If science is analogous to "crap", please explain why you're responding to a thread on the internet? Do you believe in the existence of electricity?
Oil will run out. Coal will run out, and gas, too.
Renewable energy will last as long as the Earth and the Sun.
Neil
Both are self serving, and standing in the way of an intellectual educated and beneficial discussion.
I'd but the coch brothers in the category of people who are trying to own, stifle, control and manipulate public discourse in order to make sure that no real debate actually occurs.
I do agree that both have an agenda and that both make money. I agree with Gore's agenda. You agree with the coch's, but it doesn't serve your argument to admit it.
No - I do not agree with the Koch's agenda.
Reality check::
It is Al Gore and his sycophants who are refusing the honest debate.
The skeptic side of AGW is loosing? I don't think so; if they were loosing, the alarmists would not have dropped the use of AGW as the talking point and changed it to global climate changte - with 'anthropogenic' missing.
Someone a while made the clearest observation of what is going on:
"When everything is evidence of the thing you want to believe, it might be time to stop pretending you're all about science."
Which side receives by far the most of the money?
We all know how and why most studies which "seek" to prove AGW are funded.
It's obviously $billions to $millions.
I remember the big SW US drought caused fires caused by AGW have increased dramatically in recent decades.
I called the author - asked him if they considered that in recent decades, catalytic converters, off-road vehicles, camper's fires, encroachment of urban development into rural national forest boundaries, suppression of natural fires creating additional fuel for fires, etc. And he said, "No - our grant was to determine if global warming would have resulted in more fires - not to determine the cause of the fires." "Hmmph," I querried. "Then he volunteered, "oh my - that's why the headlines are misrepresenting what we were doing."
One of the most often quoted "scientific studies."
Of course we know that CA's been in a slight cooling trend for almost 3 decades, anyway - according to NASA's GISS.
And even though they've been predicting no more snow - well, a dandy year once again. Can't wait until we hit 75 this summer, if it ever happens.
Let's function like intelligent adults and ACT to correct this enormous problem before it's too late. Intelligent people don't wait until a problem becomes a crisis to act and solve a potentially dangerous--and lethal--situati on.
The evidence is all around us.
Only those who are self-destructiv e, in denial and lying to themselves and others approach life in this way. And in this era, that seems to be almost all Republicans.
"By the time we invaded Iraq, polls showed, nearly three-quarters of the American people were convinced that the person responsible for the planes flying into the World Trade Center Towers was indeed Saddam Hussein."
and it seems that propaganda is getting better - like NATO bombing Libya to "protect civilians". Very depressing.
Just the same - there are kooks all over the place - just imagine how in the world so many think that 9/11 was an inside job by Bush/Cheney. Amazing. And how many believe that Oliver Stone's movie JFK, was an accurate source/story.
By the way, HE WASN'T INVOLVED EITHER - AND WE KNEW IT AT THE TIME.
Personally, I rather thought Gore had it right, years preceding, when he suggested it was time to send in ground troops into Iraq to put an end to that madman's regime.
I don't know why we have to wait until the number of dead exceeds 2 million.
Activista brought up polls.
I responded to "polls."
Billbob added a comment on the subject the polls.
I responded to your comment on polls.
And then.. you jump on me for not sticking to the subject?
Please WHERE? In Kurdish (anti Sadam territory) - targeting Iran?
If you don't like McDonald's - keep on moving, go to Wendie's or a mom and pop down the street - the choice is yours you vote with your wallet.
Government is the monarchy - if you don't support them - they put leans your wages, your home, they evict you from your home and sell it at sheriff sale and or throw you in jail if you dare to choose to not support them.
CONT.
Government is as responsible to its citizenry as its citizenry forces it to be. Corporations are only as responsible to anyone not a share holder as governments force them to be. If a corporation profits from slavery or child prostitution, I have no ability to stop them from doing that simply by boycotting them. Those things are a niche market and don't require a majority to agree with them for them to be profitable. If I live in a country with a government (i.e. not under a bloody anarchy), I have the ability to affect my government in ways that protect my interests and safety against the interests of corporate shareholders who couldn't care less whether or not my children have enough to eat. You can vote for McDonalds if you like. If it's all the same to you, I'll participate in a democracy.
Very recently, a very high level, retired military friend of mine confirmed the weather control satellites do exist. But, he stated, he does not think they are effective.
And then came a most disturbing explanation at a party in Kansas City last Sat. night, including some of the recent weather generating tragedies that we've recently experienced. Anyone care to offer details on weather control satellites?
You may believe in it. That's your right. I have no reason to question your motives. I just think that if such technology actually existed it would be used to benefit SOMEONE, even bad guys.
Our current climate situation poses as serious threat to the lives of all humans who need to eat food to survive. I can't think of any reason for a technology that could solve the most serious threat mankind has faced in a few hundred years, NOT to actually be used to solve that problem. Instead, we are risking crop failure in the U.S. Potential crop failure is a MAJOR cause for concern among military types who are about as conservative as you can get. The Pentagon is worried about it. I seriously doubt they'd want to actually cause it and risk a bloody civil war or global anarchy. These people LOVE stability at all costs.
Maybe it's been tried. If it has, I don't think it's doing anything.
One has only to read the Climate Gate emails to become painfully aware of the high level of malfeasance practiced by the leaders of the IPCC fear mongers.
If you are curious about a motive, check out multiple billons spent annually throughout the world on the "researchers" whose affluence is tied to this monstrous false alarm.
The "debate" happened among climatologists a decade ago, and their conclusion was co-signed and published by every single government meteorlogical office on the planet through the International Panel on Climate Change.
It's conclusion? Man-made global climate forcing is an indisputable fact. Updates by that same body, reinforced by independent MIT research, reinforce those conclusions and further warn that it's actually accelerating faster than originally predicted.
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/plotcomp1.png
So, do you think that these folks simply plotted the data wrong here; what the IPCC predicted vs what was measured?
In reality, haven't they missed miserably on almost all of their predictions made a decade or more back?
Has our technology gone backwards? Or is it just possible that someone wants us to stop trying to use less oil?
You're also right about the experiment. We're experimenting with the global food supply. In the end, does it matter if our crops fail and we all starve because the atmosphere keeps getting hotter and hotter, OR if the EXACT SAME THING happens, because it tops off and causes an ice age? Either way, we're toying with our children's ability to eat.
Another report came out recently that said that if we want to keep warming to 2 degrees C above preindustrial levels, the rise in CO2 emissions from 2011 through 2020 has to be LESS than the rise from 2009 to 2010. (See www.iea.org/index_info.asp?id=1959.) I don't see any way that can possibly happen. That is the amount of warming that virtually every country on earth said we must avoid. Yet we are hardly even trying to avoid it. It's insanity. We are guilty of a crime far worse than genocide, far worse.
Our government has utterly failed us. It's now up to us. Are we going to lay down and die, or are we going to do something about it? This is the survival of your children we are talking about here. Are you really going to let them die without even trying? Really????
Not entirely convinced that human extinction would be a bad thing for this planet.
Logic, simple logic, dictates we do something about our CO2 emissions, and most of the evidence indicates that doing it sooner rather than later would be prudent.
The only persons destruction you have a right to do is your own.
We start by putting a $15 per ton fee on carbon fuels collected at the point of entry. This fee is steadily increased over a ten year period until carbon fuels are more expensive than renewables. This steady increase allows businesses to adjust over time to the new reality. The money collected is split up evenly among the population of the country 100%. The proposal suggests a monthly Green Check. It is estimated 70% of citizens will get back more than expenses go up. The plan would not penalize low income people, because energy use by the poor is much less than the population in general. The plan pays people to conserve, basically. Sounds real good to me.
It's time to ask in all seriousness what planet those still pooh-poohing climate change are living on.
The sick inadequacy of our response to the climate challenge could very well prove mortal. Elizabeth Kolbert in the current New Yorker and Al Gore in the excellent summing-up here deserve thanks from all--but will we, for God's sake and our grandchildren's , finally listen and act?
If we have another one of those, then it will be blamed on man-made global warming - correct?
In the US more record state high temps were set in the first half of the 20th century, than the 2nd half. I believe the number is something like 33 to 17.
Both world-wide, and in the Atlantic basin, both the number of hurricanes, and the total combined intensity of hurricanes was greater in the 1st half of the 20th century than the 2nd half.
Greenland had it's most recent major warming episode in the decades preceding the onset of supposed CO2 caused global warming. Recent warming has not yet caught up with that cycle.
Arctic polar ice cap melt has ceased - is it reversing?
Tornado activity in the US this year was tragic and rare - but no where near that which has occurred in the past - before AGW.
Sea level rise is slowing down - not accelerating.
And I flew over Arizona's fires this past week, on my way to southern Texas. Ugly and very sad. These one year droughts are tough - the native American Indians were probably much more careful than today's careless campers, smokers, and catalytic converter equipped automobiles.
Sorry about your hot weather and your weather-here in LA we could use some weather.
Arctic polar ice cap melt has ceased - is it reversing?
It's hard to say that it has "ceased". The graph zigzags, but overall the downs have been bigger than the ups.
"Arctic sea ice extent for May 2011 was the third lowest in the satellite data record since 1979, continuing the long-term decline. ... Although ice extent is low for this time of year, ice extent at the end of summer largely depends on weather over the next few months."
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
That being said -- indeed, the arctic ice cap has been in a warming/melting cycle since the mid- to late 70's. (30-40 years).
Of course before that, it had been in a cooling/expandi ng cycle for, well, 30-40 years. Hmm.
Then there are those little 300-600 year cycles of cooling and warming - then the longer ones.
But - this year could bring another rare hurricane season. Perhaps it's just due - following a rather cold winter.
For his college board achievement tests, Gore earned a 488 (out of 800) in physics, and a 519 (out of 800) in chemistry." - http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/climate-expert-al-gore-got-d-natural-sci
Gore's propodoc used images from simulations in a movie to ramp up emotional impact, even though glaciers in the summer break off and fall into the sea...naturally . In summer the nature of glaciers to slowly slide down hill under the immense weight of the ice-pack. In winter that stops as the snow accumulates.
Gore has us worrying about those poor ole polar bears with no place to go but neglects to inform that polar bears are great swimmers and spend a major part of their lives swimming at sea.
He is good at using suggestion and innuendo and it is carrying the day instead of using the cold, hard science that stands against the global warming cultists.
To "brianf:" I have never taken a nickel from any fossil fuel company. And my four years of investigation into the AGW problem has been on my own nickel.
As a firm believer in nuclear energy, I could advance my favorite energy source by subscribing to CO2-caused global warming, as could any of my NE colleagues, the overwhelming majority of whom share my conviction that AGW is a sham. The technical training required for such a career provides sufficient insight to see through the Al Gore fraud.
The open blogs on the Internet which invite comments on all sides have many more denier respondents that supporter respondents for AGW. Check thm out.
Here’s the thing: I have a doctorate in my own field of expertise and am very well equipped to defend my knowledge in that field. My degree is NOT in Climatology. Neither is yours. Unlike you, I’m willing to defer to the expertise of those who ACTUALLY ARE experts in the field.
CONT.
Regarding Al Gore’s grades when he took science, I don’t know if you’re right or wrong. I also don’t care. He’s an intelligent man. His degree was from Princeton I believe, and I also believe his degree was in journalism. It doesn’t matter. He’s not setting himself up as someone with the credentials to disagree with scientific consensus. Quite the opposite. He’s setting himself up as the MESSENGER. Blaming the messenger doesn’t change the message. Like me, he’s deferring to the experts. Unlike the people you disagree with, you’re presenting yourself as an expert privy to facts unknown by the scientists who are actually qualified to discuss this subject knowledgeably.
Regarding the fact that you’re a big proponent of nuclear energy, I imagine you had some interest in the subject even before you began pursuing your doctorate. If you had a doctorate in a field where you have no interest I’d be surprised.
CONT.
Do you remember what it took for you to ACTUALLY GET your PhD.? Do you remember, not only a lot of work involved, but the necessity to further the field and defend your knowledge? Believe it or not, people with a PhD. in climatology underwent the same rigorous process. They’ve been challenged again and again. If your challenge to their science is, in fact scientific, then I’d suggest you take it up with them and present your argument in a slightly more scholarly way than on a public thread to an article in Rolling Stone. Might I also suggest that you leave the basis of your argument in the realm of scientific fact, rather than political insults? I’m sorry for doubting your credentials. It just seems a bit fishy that you’re as much of an expert in the field as the people specializing in that very field and that, as a “scientist”, you’d be unable to understand how your own argument is undermined by unprofessional language used in a public thread.
CONT.
Could you point to some of your own published peer reviewed articles on the subject? I’d be greatly interested in how your arguments against the vast consensus of climate science are presented and how seriously they’ve been taken by the overwhelming majority in the scientific community who disagree with you. If you’re an expert in any field, you should have no problem proving your point to simple folk like us. Still, if you’re interested in furthering science, you should have no problem actually defending your arguments against the very people qualified to tell you if they have any validity.
As it stands, I’m not convinced that I should stop deferring to the expertise of experts in the field, but should disregard that consensus in favor of comments made by a proponent of nuclear energy in a thread commenting on a Rolling Stone article. As a skeptic of widely accepted science, I’m sure you can understand my skepticism of some anonymous guy on the internet.
I read your article, "G4. Proof of Insignificance of Carbon Dioxide in Earth Warming".
I also read the remarks criticizing your scientific method, by Eric P. Grimsrud who has a doctorate in chemistry, and Dr. Al Tekhasski.
Additionally, I read Al Tekhasski's "Physics of the Greenhouse Effect". It seems to disagree with you. You have interacted on another thread with both of these people. Would you care to insult their credentials as well to the rest of us?
In Florida, many opposing water safety and cleanup efforts have insisted we do nothing until "the science is settled." They also say "the science is not conclusive." They wrongly believe and assert that a final, absolute scientific conclusion must be reached--before doing anything. Meanwhile, the waters here erupt in dangerous bacteria.
If you followed their approach, no medical treatment would ever be applied as new advances could one day be possible. So the best we know now would never be good enough. Such thinkers fail to understand the big lesson most of us learned at an early age, that science never "concludes" or stops. It, and our understanding of science, always advances.
I know there have always been naysayers, but this is the first time a major party and major factor (business) in a nation have ever tried to roadblock science. This is a very dark and reckless stage in American history.
Al, you're just one of the many scoundrels bilking us with carbon taxes and getting rich while America turns corn into a pollutant, and jet planes spray our skies with God knows what and HAARP arrays all over the world fiddle with the atmosphere. The Earth's poles have shifted. What are the effects? Science is silent. Very large celestial bodies are arriving in our area of the galaxy. What are the effects? Science is silent.
Al, you're just part of the cover-up, of what, the average citizen has no idea. Al, get your dog and pony show out of our schools. Just go away. You're a joke!
For a layman like me consider Dr. Lewis the scientist scientist resigning from the chair position of the American Physical Society..(you must have earned a PHD in physics to be a member) "For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientifi c fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist."
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus/reasonmclucus/15835660/professor-emiritus-hal-lewis-resigns-from-american-physical-society/
His arguments about not being able to convince his fellow members were shot down convincingly, but sadly, by APS.
APS stands by its statement supporting the worldwide consensus on Global Warming.
a 6 million dollar investment to return Billions. Gosh - why is it if an right winged corporatist makes a profit it is evil - but when a leftist does it...crickets (and they need the force of government guns to make it happen).
http://greenhellblog.com/2009/06/02/al-gore-invests-millions-to-make-billions-in-cap-and-trade-software/
I also wonder if Al Gore is also investing in the forced fascist medical insurance industry.
I did some stochastic modeling - modeling of business and modeling in Ecology.
Had teacher in Atmospheric Science - his models were differential equations - perfect - but NOT applicable. Physicists like deterministic - "GOD does NOT play dice" thinking.
Global (everywhere) and climate (per thousand years) predictions to specific time (year, 10 years) are impossible.
Predicting patterns and trends are valid.
---
That anthropomorphic CO2 is changing the climate is valid pattern. That CO2 concentration in atmosphere is causing GLOBAL warming is also valid pattern.
Now back to the real WORLD - there are so many positive/negati ve feedbacks: cluds, deforestation, volcanoes, particle pollution, ....
Predictions how much water level will rise in the next 10 years ???
But MOST glaciers are melting ..
www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2010-050
Oceans are getting warmer ... EARTH is in crisis.
"During the past 6-years since Hurricane Katrina, global tropical cyclone frequency and energy have decreased dramatically, and are currently at near-historical record lows. According to a new peer-reviewed research paper accepted to be published, only 69 tropical storms were observed globally during 2010, the fewest in almost 40-years of reliable records.".
This mornings (not really new news - mind you):
Furthermore, when each storm's intensity and duration were taken into account, the total global tropical cyclone accumulated energy (ACE) was found to have fallen by half to the lowest level since 1977.
RSS feed for comments to this post