All right guys, settle down. The experts have said we have global
warming, so you are gonna believe it and like it.
And no big stink from the peanut gallery, either.
I couln't stand it if Al Gore swept the Oscars.
I'm sure everyone is aware of this, but just in case...
The concept of global warming is just that...a global annual average.
Those who predict it are *also* predicting more extreme weather in
general. So its quite possible to both have global warming and harsh
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, global warming causes all kinds of mayhem including
the hurricanes, tornados, hailstorms, lightning storms, and lest we
forget, it definitely caused Pangea to split apart.
These idiots that you call scientists were the same ones, 30 years ago
that were saying that we were all doomed because another ice age was
Show me a scientist who says that there is global warming and I'll
show you a hundred more who say that there are only global cycles and
a very dynamic planet that is constantly changing.
The fossil records speak very clearly. Areas 10,000 years ago were
once deserts, now they are lush and other areas where giant lakes and
forests are now arid.
Global cycles yes, man made global warming, a big fat NO.
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:57:48 -0600, Chris Friesen
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: If this is global warming...
[Snip of Steve's opinions]
Maybe these references will help you get up to speed on global warming.
"Every now and again, the myth that "we shouldn't believe global warming
predictions now, because in the 1970's they were predicting an ice age
and/or cooling" surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column
and the egregious Crichton manages to say "in the 1970's all the climate
scientists believed an ice age was coming" (see Michael Crichton's State of
Confusion ). You can find it in various other places too. But its not an
argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles
under analysis. That doesn't stop it repeatedly cropping up in *newsgroups*
I should clarify that I'm talking about predictions in the scientific press.
There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g.
Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But we're only responsible
for the scientific press. If you want to look at an analysis of various
papers that mention the subject, then try
Okay. I'll take you up on that. Show me the hundred that agree with your
opinion. Here are eight that say you are very wrong.
J Ren (China)
N Nicholls (Australia)
M Rusticucci (Argentina)
P Stott (UK)
U Lohmann (Switzerland)
R Stouffer (USA)
V Kattsov (Russia)
T Matsuno (Japan)
No, I'm not going to post 800 references, but I will ask you a very
logical question for you to ponder that was originally posted by Phil
We are being bombarded with horror stories about how the arctic
regions are warming and the polar bears are disappearing (actually
their numbers have increased by some 20,000) but we are not informed
by Mr. Gore and his acolytes as to how a warming arctic region can
continue to send more and more record breaking cold waves southward,
creating the incredibly frigid weather much of the northern U.S. is
If your refrigerator is running low on freon it will not keep its
contents cold. If the arctic is our refrigerator, and the refrigerator
is rapidly running out of coolant, how can it create colder and colder
Please acquaint yourself with the difference between weather and
climate. Global warming ain't about weather.
The Arctic is not a refrigerator-- it is an effect and not a cause of
climate. It is now mostly free of ice, as you admit, the result of
global warming. Which, BTW, is the subject of a meeting of 600
scientists at the present. You made the unsubstantiated claim that you
could provide the names of 100 scientists who believe that global
warming is cyclical for every one who believes that is is man-made.
You owe us 6,800 names.
I'll give you the name of one (most definitely) non-scientist who
believes that it is man-made: George W. Bush. Or is Charlton Heston
still your president?
And I guess abdominal pain isn't associated with appendicitis, yeah
Quite frankly, I never wrote that the arctic is mostly free of ice.
Quite the contrary, on his Web site, Bob Felix cites facts ignored or
lied about by the global warming alarmists. He shows that despite
their claims that the worlds glaciers are melting, fully 75 percent
are actually growing.
In response to claims that oceans levels are rising and threatening to
drown New York City, he shows they are actually falling.
And once again, yes Skippy, the arctic is a refrigerator.
Don't know what you're babbling about there Skippy.
WHoa, backup, and slowdown there Bubba. It is not "the scientists" who
are idiots, it's the people who take their incomplete work and make
political fodder out of it *pretending* it is science. Science in
the service of politics - left- or right- - is prostitution, nothing more
or less. If you respond to this prostitution of science rather than to
the actual known science, then you get nowhere but into another endless
debate of political ideology.
If I may, let me summarize that I think the current state of the actual science
1) There is some global warming taking place. It is slight, in keeping with
the 20,000 or so year trends since the last ice age, and far lower than
all the climatology models thus far were predicting.
2) We are at local (with the last 200 year) highs in injecting CO2 into the
carbon cycle of the planet. BUT ... they are not "all time" highs (that
happened millenia ago) AND no one is certain that a) CO2 actually causes
and uncontrolled warming or b) That global warming - however much it may be
is necessarily a bad thing.
3) To the extent that global warming is actually happening, there not yet an
*causal* relationship between human action and warming. There is that
suspicion, but it
is not yet demonstrated. No serious scientist on any side of the scientific
believes humans *cause* GW. The most aggressive claim is that humans are
natural process and in so doing may change the quiescent state of things
drastically - sort of the
straw that breaks the camel's back model. However, even if this eventually
to be demonstrated as being so, it is far, far, far less clear that humans
modify their behavior sufficiently to make a real difference. One of the
reasons not to
rush off and go start randomly trying to "stop" global warming is that it may
better to use our limited resources to *adapt* to it's consequences. For
over the past 20,000 years, the ocean levels have risen about 600 feet. This
to about 1 cm per year. Now, let's say that human action were to double
that. It is
probably a lot more socially, economically, and politically practical to
a 2cm/yr rising coastline than trying to radically retool modern
economies all at once.
5) There is also considerably more debate about this particular topic within
circles than the popular political discussion would have you believe. That's
politicians like to use words like "consensus" - as if scientists vote on
what the laws
of nature will become. But science proceeds by means of skepticism and
*data* - which, to date,
are insufficient to come to any final conclusions about GW, who causes it,
and whether anything
can be done about it.
In the end, it is in everyone's best interest to preserve and protect the
"commons" - the things
we cannot divide up as private property that are common to us all. However, the
spewing, exaggeration, and flatout lies about the nature and severity of the
are causing otherwise smart people to make really stupid judgments. This is not
We're terrified by the thought of someone breaking into our homes and killing us
we sleep (which very rarely happens) but don't think twice about driving on
kill 30,000 people a year in the US alone. The disaster prophets of the
and the deniers of the political right have one thing in common: They want to
and artificial sense of emergency in the minds of the public and then
propose themselves as the solution. The *real* (smart) idiots are people like
Gore who wants
to terrify the population into electing him and <insert your favorite
rightwinger here> who
wants to terrify the population with spectre of economic meltdown if we even
a strategy of alternate fuels and lower emissions.
The fact is that the politicians are ignoring the *real* driver here: Energy
for the West would mean we could rapidly disentangle ourselves from the sewer
the oil-producing Middle East, Africa, and South America. That's because they
the brains, will, or selling skills to get the public rallied behind them in a
way. The politicians will only act if it is good for "their side", and almost
it is just "good". The reason to hold people like Gore in complete contempt is
both lie about what is known, and play patently obvious political games while
to address more pressing short-term threats.
Bah, humug, and blech upon both the earth-worshiping pantheists as well as the
costs worshiping idolators. We all - every one of us - ought to be thinking
about what is
in our own long term durable self-interest. It is not in our interest to "save
if it means the highway death toll goes up 10x because we're all riding in tin
exploding batteries. Commerce is a good thing - essential to human freedom and
but it cannot be used as an excuse for justifying *everything*. Most
importantly, we need
to stop looking to any politician for answers on these (and most all other)
The fact is that Western democracies are good for defending personal liberty and
else. The "answer" to global warming - if it is needed at all - will come from
understanding of real science, not listening to Gore's Inconvenient Pack Of
Exaggerations And Lies...
The smarter thing to do is round up every ground hog, slap them around
until they start talking, and get their prediction. That is about as
scientific as as the political morons looking for votes. And if
their 'consensus' is correct, vote them in to office. At least we'll
get intelligent government 50% of the time.
And just to show them who's boss, wear a morning suit, white gloves
and top hat.
No, the breakup of Pangaea was caused by local warming.
OK, I'll take you up on that by showing you Kevin Trenberth:
Here is quoted as saying, in effect, that there is global warming and
And here is his bio,showing he is a scientist:
Your turn. Don't forget to include the biographical information
needed to show the hundred on your list ARE scientists and
not economists, engineers or whatever else.
Then maybe we can discuss the "lst of Steves".
Do you deny that the Earth's albedo has been changed
by human action?
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.