Jump to content

An interesting read....


Tom Adams

Recommended Posts

I agree. However, from my vantage point, the skeptics don't seem to be given the same amount of "air time" so-to-speak and IMHO there seems to be a rush to judgement about "Global Warming". From my small research, for every bit of evidence "for" I can find similiar evidence against. And to make matters worse, it's the scientists that disagree. So what does that tell you?

And I fail to see how someone publishing only one paper in 2000 makes them a "hobbyist skeptic". That would be like you being judged solely upon the merits of the posts you make here. I've only had one employee suggestion in my 24 years here that resulted in a monetary reward for saving the company some money. Does that make me any less knowledgeable/valuable or some kinda of "hobbyist Mfg. Engr."?

As for pumping billions of CO2 in to the air.....I would agree that from an observation perspective, it would "seem" bad. But that doesn't mean that it is bad. Only through research can we determine that. I mean, what if we were to find out that the Earth, treated as some sort of conversion machine (which it is), is able to convert X amount of man-made CO2 per year. And that X amount is less than what man pumps into the atmosphere. Do we still look at the smoke stack and label it as bad just because it LOOKS bad? Shoot - there's some folks here who have speakers that LOOK bad. [:D]

Seriously though, I shall remain true to the scientist I believe myself to be and be a skeptic until I see non-tainted evidence of "Global Warming". And anything that comes out of ANY politician's mouth will not be viewed by me as evidence.

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, from my vantage point, the skeptics don't seem to be given the same amount of "air time" so-to-speak..

Here's a nice write up about challenges to skeptics to show any bias. You can read the whole thing, but here was the bottom line.

>>> snip <<<

I'd put it more directly: If 99% of scientist believe "A" and 1% believe "B", what portion of air time should be devoted to each in say, a one hour program? You know, in the USA, if you don't have 15% polling support, you can't even get on the stage in a Presidential Debate! You get ZERO TIME.

My observation is we give the skeptics way, WAY to much time relative to their merits.

See?? Now there ya go - bringing politics into it. I thought you told me to stop?? Wink

As for the professor....no I don't take him as the all-knowing, all-seeing with respect to climate change. Nor do I view others - from BOTH sides - as all-knowing, all-seeing. I guess I didn't make that part of my position clear - my bad. Listen, at the risk of sounding like I'm defending the guy (which I can assure you I'm not), that professor did nothing more than A LOT of professors and those in academia who write "papers" or give presentations.....and that is to insert certain other folks' cites to either refute or substantiate their position/hypothesis. This method, if you will, goes back a loooooong way. Many "brains" have used others' work to build upon. BUT - once that person's theory/hypothesis/whatever is out there, then it's open season IMHO to verify or shoot it down, no??

And I have to disagree with the statement that none of the skeptics has "put forward a compelling, rich, and variegated theory." C'mon Mark.....can you honestly say that's true?? Please don't go asking me to quote them or point you to such-n-such for I don't keep a laundry list of such on my hard-drive just waiting for the opportunity to shove it up someone's behind. But I can tell you for a fact, I've read several "compelling, rich, and variegated theory(ies)". And it's for that reason I remain skeptical. Again, I'm driven by facts (well....except for religion in which I make no excuses for my faith in things. HEY - gimme a break.....I managed to work politics into this, why not religion?? [:#] ).

And yes, Mark, I took your question seriously (thanks for the benefit of the doubt [:(] ). I thought we're talking about greenhouse gas emissions and hence my focus on CO2. In hindsight, we probably should be focused on water vapor. Anyhow, I didn't realize that you wanted to drag in all the other crap that comes from burning coal. If that's the case - have at it, I'm all ears. But if the topic is greenhouse gases, then I stand by what I said.

Oh - and thanks for the link. I haven't read it all yet (sssssshhhhh......I'm at work ya know).

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science has shown that CO2 can raise temperature.

What it hasn't shown is to what degree. Is our man made CO2 pouring gas on a flame, or is it a fart in a hurricane?

Peeing in the ocean can be scientifically shown to raise sea levels, but I don't see people panicing about impending floods because of it.

Research I've seen on public access suggests that temp and CO2 are indeed related, but not in the way the GW experts would have you believe. In periods of warming, there was a rise in atmospheric CO2 *after* the warming period. CO2 levels dropped back off after cooling periods.

The one thing most GW "experts" (including Al Gore) keep mistaking is that correlation does not equal causation.

With sensors placements like this, it's no wonder they can get data saying the earth is warming.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/05/how_not_to_measure_temperature.html

Just look at the concern of Dihydrogen Monoxide:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4534017/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah, and remember the level in your glass doesnt rise as the ice cubes melt!

where was all that ice when the vikings first settled GREEN Land? Why didn't it get named Ice land? How high were the oceans then? Has it always been covered with ice? Have crops ever been grown there? Have fossils of creatures that would have lived in warmer climates every been found there? Have ice sheets ever cover lower wisconsin and upper Iowa and Illinois? Did I ever find fossils of aquatic animals in limestone from central Iowa? Lots of questions and observations that make me think that there could be lots of other factors than antropogenic additions of CO2. Just a thought.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

where was all that ice when the vikings first settled GREEN Land?  Why didn't it get named Ice land?  How high were the oceans then?  Has it always been covered with ice?  

Here's the best explanation I could find for the naming of Iceland and Greenland: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1965/shouldnt-greenland-be-known-as-iceland-and-vice-versa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of questions and observations that make me think that there could be lots of other factors than antropogenic additions of CO2. 

While it is still a theory held by most scientists, the beaches here on Long Island make a pretty convincing argument, they are literally shrinking before our eyes... and faster than ever in recent history. http://www.newsday.com/community/guide/lihistory/ny-history-hs108a,0,5912511.story
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Also saw this post.......

CONFESSIONS FROM A FORMER GREENHOUSE SCIENTIST
David Evans used to be a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office. He spent six years with the Australian government building models about the influence of carbon emissions on our atmosphere. This was the Aussie who wrote the carbon accounting model that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol.
Well .. guess what Dr. Evans is saying today? Since he started working in the office in 1999, "new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming." By the year 2007, the evidence is conclusive: carbon played only a minor role in recent global warming and was not the main cause.
Dr. Evans put together some basic facts for the public and government officials in regards to global warming. Here is just a taste.
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming.
3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980).
4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.
Keeping that last point in mind, Al Gore still preaches in his movie that the ice cores are the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. Dr. Evans says, "In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was an interesting post as well.........

I've stated this here before. I am an Earth Science teacher in a government school in rural SW Pennsylvania. I teach my students to be wary of any governmental intervention or regulation of the environment. The EPA classification of carbon dioxide as a pollutant is no exception.

What is missing here is an answer to a very simple question. So far, in all of the debate over climate change, no one has been able to answer this question. Throughout the history of Planet Earth, the temperature has been warmer than it is now, and it has been cooler than it is now. These changes in temperature have gone on for millions of years without human beings on the planet. So, the question is this: What is the ideal temperature for Planet Earth? Are we certain that the warming or cooling trend that we are currently experiencing isn't part of the natural cycle of temperature changes of the planet? What should Earth's temperature be?

Until someone can answer this question, the entire argument of climate change/global warming is irrelevant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I have always thought the whole global warming thing was [bs], it's just used to spread fear and the idea you need the government and certain politicians, and policies they want to push. The politicians like Gore and the tree Hugger groups are not in it for anything more than the money or there political agenda. If they really cared about what they push why do they use private jets and then get to these functions in busses chased by at least 3 other vans for the staff and camera crews and there "people" ?

I have some carbon credits for sale who wants them, half price ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always thought the whole global warming thing was PWK BS Button, it's just used to spread fear and the idea you need the government and certain politicians, and policies they want to push. The politicians like Gore and the tree Hugger groups are not in it for anything more than the money or there political agenda. 

I have to respectfully disagree. Most all of the European countries have accepted the Global Warming theory and have implemented ways to help reduce it. So what does that have to do with Al Gore, or any American political agenda?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

" I have to respectfully disagree " [Y]

Just my opinion here but some of the last people I would follow would be European countries. [+o(]

I don't want it to sound like I am against anything that would cut pollution that is man made, this needs to be done. But to panic and make claims which they can not prove over a longer time period than just the last 20-50 years is kind of silly considering we barely know about the earth's natural changes. Also most countries are far behind in pollution standards compared to the US and are not going to change anytime soon, not a good thing.

Most politicians to me are self serving slime and only have an opinion if in some way it benefits them. I pick on Al Gore because he is a big cry baby about this global warming stuff and wants everyone to panic. What he FAILED at politics so he jumped on this bandwagon with way more [bs] than even his people can back up.

It would be a reason to panic if every person on earth would waste as much as him !

You have to remember, this is just my thinking and I have been wrong before ! [:|]

But even if I am wrong " I " think AG is a hypocrite and a flake I would not believe if he said the sky was blue.

I have to respectfully disagree. Most all of the European countries have accepted the Global Warming theory and have implemented ways to help reduce it. So what does that have to do with Al Gore, or any American political agenda?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Mark -

I've been on this forum for a fairly long time and have read many of your posts. Now, I've not read ALL of them mind you for, unlike some, I have to work 50+ hours a week and then there is the wife I must service, er.....I mean, uh....pay attention to and of course there's grass to cut, my workshop (almost done), motorcycle racing, and......well you get the picture. Anyhow.......

From what posts I have read, there's a question I keep hearing in my head. And that was a question posed to me many years ago by Emile Casadaban.....

"Have you ever considered the possibility that maybe.....just maybe.....you might be wrong? And when you are wrong, what do you intend to do about it?"

Just curious........Smile

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...