: >>> Really and truly none of the global warming/climate change malarkey : >>> came about until we started trying to clean up the environment and : >>> stop air pollution. For hundreds of years a lot of wood was : >>> always being burned for : >>> cooking and heating, no global warming problem then. : >>
: >> As long as the rate of burning doesn't exceed the rate of growth, : >> burning wood for energy is carbon neutral. : >
: > That sounds lile a fuzzy feels good formula. : : Not really. If there is a problem it is the result of suddenly releasing a : lot of carbon that was sequestered over millions of years. Trees are short : term--burn them and plant new ones where the old ones were and the new ones : store the same amount of carbon as the old ones released while being burned. : : >> 200 years ago the population of the planet was under a billion : >> people. Now it's 6x that. : >
: > But every one was burning then not so now, actually few by contrast. : >
: >
: >>
: >> From 1850 to 2000, the total energy consumption of the USA increased : >> by a factor of 50. Of course a large amount of that is due to : >> population increase, but the per-capita energy consumption has : >> increased roughly 4x over that period. : >
: > So.. much cleaner energy consumption compared to way back when. : : How do you figure?
: >>> I've been on the environmental bandwagon for nearly 40 years, but I no : >>> longer call myself an environmentalist because of what the movement : >>> hath wrought. I think ecoterrorists may outnumber the greenies now. : >>> : >> As a home builder with a recent, alternative construction, "green" : >> project under my belt, I can guarantee you that more waste hit the land : >> fills due to its "green" nature then in any two of my usual traditional : >> construction projects. : >>
: >> .... still marveling at the sheer, unconscious ignorance of many of the : >> misguided folks who have embraced this "movement" ... all warm, fuzzy, : >> self congratulatory, and without a clue! : >>
: >
: > Read something today that makes a lot of sense regarding this. There are : > two camps of people, materialists -- those people who say that there is a : > material universe which behaves in a consistent way, and if you study it you : > can learn the way it works, and teleologists -- those who say that the : > universe is an ideal place. From what I read: : > "More or less, it exists so that we humans can live in it. And human : > thought is a fundamental force in the universe. Teleology says that if a : > mental model is esthetically pleasing then it must be true. Teleology : > implies that if you truly believe in something, it?ll happen." : >
: >
: >
: > The people you describe above Swingman are of the latter persuasion. They : > don't care if what they want to try hasn't worked before -- it just wasn't : > done correctly, they are going to do it correctly. If the idea of a "green" : > economy feels good, by golly, it will be good. Ignore those niggling little : > details like more waste or less available resourced -- by golly it FEELS : > good! : >
: So the doomsayers on the right believe that doing nothing besides : reciting mantras such as "there ain't no such thing as global warming", : that the problem will go away. And further that there never was a : problem and that scientists lie for any reason. Wow. Thank you for : clearing that up.
I thought these scientists (and Big Al, of course) stand to make brazillions and brazillions of dollars. Why else would you want to dream up and perpetuate such a huge hoax?
Well, we've just learned of a significant amount of proof in falsification and misrepresentation of data and in scheming to prevent dissenting scientific opinion and research from being accepted...
Indeed. There are no long term (paleo)climatological models that operate on 40 years worth of data. Tree rings, earth cores, sea cores, and even the written descriptions of various weather phenomena go back hundreds, if not thousands of years. New Vostok data have extended the historical record of temperature variations and atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane and other greenhouse trace gases (GTG) back to 420,000 years before present.
This is all science that won't go away just because you will it so. Perhaps nothing will come of it or even the massive amounts of fresh water that are entering the oceans will alter the thermohaline circulation patterns resulting in colder temperatures. Research in these areas should not be curtailed despite the anti-science popularity in certain political arenas.
Which all indicates that the previous temperature rises (greater by far than the recent) all _precede_ the CO2 levels thereby negating the cause of higher temperatures being CO2 but rather that it appears that the rising temperatures resulted in higher CO2 levels (probably by stimulating additional plant growth???)
IOW, it refutes the hypothesis currently being posited as the causative factor.
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 12:53:33 -0500, Tom Watson wrote:
The following is by Joe Bastardi, senior meteorologist for Accu-Weather. It is presented for your edification.
MONDAY 6:30 AM.. A DELIGHTFUL DAY IN NYC AND COPENHAGEN SATURDAY... IF YOU ARE A POLAR BEAR
The upcoming climate conference in Copenhagen will be attended by many who for some reason, seem to believe they can control the planet's temperature. Actually, this isn't about control of the planet's temperature, but control of the planet's people, since that is much easier to do if you can hoodwink them into believing they are being controlled for a good reason.
Folks, it's the only logical conclusion. Why? Because while I will acknowledge I am not 100% sure we humans have nothing to do with it, there is no way any man alive can be 100% positive we are. And to force feed ideas down another man's throat is simply trying to enslave them to your ideas. It's that simple, given the evidence, which can certainly fight any warming argument to a draw.
In any case, another example of a power greater than Al Gore is showing up, and whether you believe it's simply nature, or whoever created nature, it should not be lost on people that maybe someone is trying to give this now immensely rich carbon crusader a hint, that he should cash in his chips and leave the climate casino happy that he made this much. Saturday will be cold day across the United States after a brutal winter storm that will lead to a blizzard on the Plains into the Great Lakes, an interior Northeast snow and ice storm, a lake-effect outbreak that may be one of the nastiest in years, and a pattern that is threatening to wreck many a holiday travel plan in the longer term. And that is in the States. Meanwhile, back at the climate debacle ranch where I was expecting that at least the attendees would get there by horse and buggy, or fly coach (see headline below) northeast winds and a big Scandinavian high should at least keep Copenhagen chilly, if not snowy.
By the way, the "trick" in the Climategate scandal that is being referred to is not getting rid of something minor like the last 10 years of cooling. IT WAS TO GET RID OF 350 YEARS OF WARMING FROM
1000-1350. I have already told you that this is simply because it got so warm... the real cooling is getting ready to start, probably after this El Nino, but more so in the middle of the next decade. Perish the thought, but by 2015, the Earth's temps may be "normal" whatever that mythical value is, and the melting icecaps, will be looked at as Peggy Lee "is that all there is" meltdown. If this is all we can get,
formatting link
it won't take much to have us well above normal in 10-15 years.
But on they go, these new Gods of our ages, with the wisdom of their models which have plainly been busting and a generation of people who believe they are "liberal" (what a joke... since when does a liberal-minded person simply follow along like a sheep... another case of a misnomer to describe a group... look at one of the definitions: Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that considers individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goals...) If there was truly liberal thought here, people would be looking at all the facts, not simply following along.
I still think that this whole Climategate fiasco will lead to an open debate where men and women of good will can see this is not an open-and-shut case, and they are being lead like sheep to the slaughter. Problem is some of wolves don't want any part of it.
If these people meeting in Copenhagen really want to show us their virtue, do not use any power at all while at the conference. That's right... no heat, no electricity, none of the fruits of true progressive and enlightened thinking. Let's see you put your money where your mouth is. Fat chance with the arrogance of imagined authority you display.
I want you to think about this. James Hansen may be arguably America's greatest astronomer, but he is no expert on climate or weather. Sorry, the facts are there. I don't think he understands what the weather was like in this country in the 1930s-50s, nor does he understand that the Earth's climate is constantly changing; there is no perfect climate. That being said, I can't see how people will not question him on the climate issue, where he came aboard as a concerned observer, with best of intentions.. when he and his agency is missing what may be the greatest astronomical event of our lifetimes, the falling asleep of the Sun. It is now two years behind NASA's idea that this sunspot cycle would come alive in 2007 and right in line with what Soviet scientists back in the early 1990s were saying, the same people who opined we could return to a little ice age around 2030. How is it that the people who are actually right are shouted down, while people who are not are allowed to jam their ideas down everyone's throat? That is what this Climategate is about... the FREEDOM to debate and the scary thought that yet another utopian idea-based movement is out to take over the world. It's not done with guns, but with a more subtle approach. SORRY, BUT THAT CONCLUSION IS JUST VALID AS "THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED" idea. A degree or two up or down is not going to kill the planet, and think about it, would you rather it colder or warmer.
In any case, a word of advice to NASA, which seems to have some linkage to all this:
I couldn't agree more. Especially with the truth hiding in plain sight.
Well...
Karl... I wanted to stay out of this. But actually, blaming Canada earlier was just a smoke screen on the real truth.
I didn't want to post the REAL truth, since (thinking of Jack Nicholson here) many couldn't handle the truth. Well, here it is. And it's been out there for many years, and NO ONE, no matter how they internet search and quote, can disprove it.
Not if you don't allow, or actively discourage, peer review. Proof of that happening is available, but you just don't seem to be hearing about it from the AP.
Just call me skeptical/suspicious as to why ... but I'll be glad to change my mind if someone can refute it beyond doubt and from an unbiased source.
I like old Joe ... even after he said that Rita would come roaring down the "Texas 59 Corridor" and basically "wipe out Houston" just hours before it hit, well to the East, and leaving an evacuated Houston high and dry, but many evacuee's in misery and/or dead.
(Being a skeptic, I watched it from my porch with a bottle of Pinot noir, and had to water the grass the next day to keep it from dying)
Ahhh well, the fortunes of weather and climate modeling, win a few, lose a few ...
BTW, I routinely watch Joe, on your favorite cable news channel, for all hurricane build ups in the Gulf.
I see them every day, even on TV. I tell Linda I can spot'em a mile away. Their eyes are close together, on either side of big noses; and you can see all their front teeth, with even the whisp of a smile. Sorta like the ballon boys father, or Jerry Seinfeld!
I am well aware of the _data_. You understand, do you not, that _data_ is not a _model_?
Show me a _model_--something that allows computation--that accurately describes a full glaciation cycle and that is accepted by IPCC, and then tell us why NASA Goddard is not using _that_ model instead of the one that they _are_ using which according to their own reports has only been validated for the period subsequent to 1951.
I have been asking you people to present me with a model that accurately describes the full glaciation cycle for years and you are the first who has not simply told me that I was crazy for wanting such a thing. If the model exists please present it and then explain to us why _that_ model is not being used by IPCC instead of the Hansen model.
A model will not spring into existence simply because you wish it so.
Who has advocated "curtailing research". Research anything you want to. But don't tell me that something is proven because somebody got some numbers out of a computer.
You seem to have only the most nebulous familiarity with the scientific method and even less with the actual basis for the assertions of global warming.
Well, one case in point, if you feed a flat temperature reading into one of CRU's models, it returns the infamous "Hockey Stick" result. i.e., it massages data in a way that appears to have hardcoded in the researcher's bias.
All of this bleating about peer reviews would be a lot more credible if the peer review process had not been subverted. *That* is definitely shown in the released e-mails. When the only peers who review your work are those who agree with your conclusions, and the only papers accepted for peer review in journals are those that agree with AGW, and when journals that dare publish peer reviewed papers that don't agree with AGW are threatened and coerced into stopping that behavior, one no longer has science. One has dogma and religion. In this case, the collars and cassocks have been replaced with white labcoats. Still religion with orthodoxy being strictly enforced.
The warmist religion is attempting to predict disaster with average temperature increases on the order of 0.6 deg C (~1.2 deg F). In order for the models to be believable to that degree of precision, then the records going back in time must be accurate on the order of 0.1 deg C. Do you seriously believe that tree rings, driven by multiple confounding factors, average temperature being much smaller in contribution than rainfall, or ice core samples, again driven by multiple confounding factors can be relied upon to that degree of precision? That isn't science, that's reading goat entrails.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.