Alaska Darin Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Monckton's Analysis of the IPCC Report Last month he challenged Al Gore to an internationally televised debate on Global Warming. Gore has yet to acknowledge the challenge (big surprise). Now, ask yourself why the "Mass" Media here in the U.S. hasn't reported a single word on the challenge (yeah, I know Pasta Joe - it's because they're only interested in the truth )? Climate Chaos? Don't Believe It The Sun is Warmer Now than it Was 11,400 Years Ago More Contrarian Global Warming Information Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Monckton's Analysis of the IPCC Report Last month he challenged Al Gore to an internationally televised debate on Global Warming. Gore has yet to acknowledge the challenge (big surprise). Now, ask yourself why the "Mass" Media here in the U.S. hasn't reported a single word on the challenge (yeah, I know Pasta Joe - it's because they're only interested in the truth )? Climate Chaos? Don't Believe It The Sun is Warmer Now than it Was 11,400 Years Ago More Contrarian Global Warming Information Damn AD, dont you know that facts kill a great rant? Algore and the global warming cronies dont have time to be bothered with data such as this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Good title, subtle More on Global Warming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Cleaveland has been officially declared, a non Global warming area by Al. Though, he did send the city 250K Carbon credits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.Y. Orangeman Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 What is your argument: that it isn't occurring or that its effects are still as yet to be determined? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 11, 2007 Author Share Posted April 11, 2007 What is your argument: that it isn't occurring or that its effects are still as yet to be determined? Both. I'm not convinced it's occuring due to the things I've read and the inconsistancies in both measurement and "what I like to refer to as "accepted guestimation". I'm FAR less convinced that the CAUSES are within our control. As far as the effects go, I'll believe the voodoo when the climatologists can accurately predict an El Nino based on their god forsaken computer modeling (they can't today and won't for a LONG time). If they can't predict a weather pattern that takes place between 20 and 25 times a century, there's no way I'm going to buy into the rest of the scare tactic (never mind that virtually none of it is occuring today). I do not begrudge that as a species we absolutely suck at taking care of the environment and should be doing a hell of a lot more where that is concerned. That much is completely clear. At the end of the day, my overwhelming point is to be skeptical of anything that's being sold to the public on this scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetbaboo Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 As far as the effects go, I'll believe the voodoo when the climatologists can accurately predict an El Nino based on their god forsaken computer modeling (they can't today and won't for a LONG time). If they can't predict a weather pattern that takes place between 20 and 25 times a century, there's no way I'm going to buy into the rest of the scare tactic (never mind that virtually none of it is occuring today). well said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 Both. I'm not convinced it's occuring due to the things I've read and the inconsistancies in both measurement and "what I like to refer to as "accepted guestimation". I'm FAR less convinced that the CAUSES are within our control. As far as the effects go, I'll believe the voodoo when the climatologists can accurately predict an El Nino based on their god forsaken computer modeling (they can't today and won't for a LONG time). If they can't predict a weather pattern that takes place between 20 and 25 times a century, there's no way I'm going to buy into the rest of the scare tactic (never mind that virtually none of it is occuring today). I do not begrudge that as a species we absolutely suck at taking care of the environment and should be doing a hell of a lot more where that is concerned. That much is completely clear. At the end of the day, my overwhelming point is to be skeptical of anything that's being sold to the public on this scale. They predicted a wet winter here in southern CA and we're in the middle of maybe the driest ever on record. Good job guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Warden Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 They predicted a wet winter here in southern CA and we're in the middle of maybe the driest ever on record. Good job guys. Last year's Atlantic hurricane prediction turned into post mortem mush - as most hurricanes turned out to sea - Las Vegas should throw these on the futures board. Anyone here who was alive in the 60's saw predictions of the "Next Ice Age" - some of them (sic) Buffalo winters back then - gave those predictions some credence. Old axiom: Climate is what you predict - weather is what you get When was that first weather satellite launched anyway ? Unless Jules Verne left one in orbit on his way to the moon (1870) it would seem that modern (or retired )scientists have only 40+ years of recorded obeservations from space and not some thermometer stuck in a snowbank outside Uncle Uri's yurt since the last time the camp moved on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 Both. I'm not convinced it's occuring due to the things I've read and the inconsistancies in both measurement and "what I like to refer to as "accepted guestimation". I'm FAR less convinced that the CAUSES are within our control. As far as the effects go, I'll believe the voodoo when the climatologists can accurately predict an El Nino based on their god forsaken computer modeling (they can't today and won't for a LONG time). If they can't predict a weather pattern that takes place between 20 and 25 times a century, there's no way I'm going to buy into the rest of the scare tactic (never mind that virtually none of it is occuring today). The insurance industry has no ability to predict individual death accurately, which seems to occur several thousand times a day, but they do a pretty good job in the aggregate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 11, 2007 Author Share Posted April 11, 2007 The insurance industry has no ability to predict individual death accurately, which seems to occur several thousand times a day, but they do a pretty good job in the aggregate. The best part is you're actually serious. I know, I know. The science is compelling. I'm sure the science was compelling back in the "world is flat" days. I'm sure your ancestors were all over that one too. It's compelling. You know, except when it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 Good enough/works for me... I say... Let's consume! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 The best part is you're actually serious. I know, I know. The science is compelling. I'm sure the science was compelling back in the "world is flat" days. I'm sure your ancestors were all over that one too. It's compelling. You know, except when it isn't. I have some copies of a 1975 Newsweek article about the dangers of Global Cooling. The article has maps and charts and it reads exactly the same as all the alarmist climate articles in Newsweek, etc. today except that in 1975 life as we know it was ending because the temperature was decreasing. The last paragraph even has an ominous quote from a scientist about just how bad things are going to get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 11, 2007 Author Share Posted April 11, 2007 Good enough/works for me... I say... Let's consume! Had some trouble with the whole "I do not begrudge that as a species we absolutely suck at taking care of the environment and should be doing a hell of a lot more where that is concerned. That much is completely clear." thing, huh? I know, I know. You just can't help but put some smileys in a post. It's that "wry sense of humor thing" coupled with your aluminum foil diet. It's all good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 Had some trouble with the whole "I do not begrudge that as a species we absolutely suck at taking care of the environment and should be doing a hell of a lot more where that is concerned. That much is completely clear." thing, huh? I know, I know. You just can't help but put some smileys in a post. It's that "wry sense of humor thing" coupled with your aluminum foil diet. It's all good. You bet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D_House Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 I have some copies of a 1975 Newsweek article about the dangers of Global Cooling. The article has maps and charts and it reads exactly the same as all the alarmist climate articles in Newsweek, etc. today except that in 1975 life as we know it was ending because the temperature was decreasing. The last paragraph even has an ominous quote from a scientist about just how bad things are going to get. What the media presents as science and what scientists actually think often are not the same. http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 The best part is you're actually serious. I know, I know. The science is compelling. I'm sure the science was compelling back in the "world is flat" days. I'm sure your ancestors were all over that one too. It's compelling. You know, except when it isn't. I do believe it is compelling, but that's not my point - this isn't fertile ground for a discussion of global warming. Rather, I'm making a technical point about your example. In chaotic systems individual behavior may be impossible to predict, but the collective behavior quite predictable. Think gas dynamics, or Brownian motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 I do believe it is compelling, but that's not my point - this isn't fertile ground for a discussion of global warming. Rather, I'm making a technical point about your example. In chaotic systems individual behavior may be impossible to predict, but the collective behavior quite predictable. Think gas dynamics, or Brownian motion. And Darin already made the quite credible point that the collective behavior of the atmosphere, while perhaps theoretically predictable, is so far as a practical matter defying such prediction. Hell, the scientific "consensus" on global warming right now says the planet will either get warmer or plunge into an ice age. The predictive abilities of climatological models can't even agree on that basic statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 I have some copies of a 1975 Newsweek article about the dangers of Global Cooling. The article has maps and charts and it reads exactly the same as all the alarmist climate articles in Newsweek, etc. today except that in 1975 life as we know it was ending because the temperature was decreasing. The last paragraph even has an ominous quote from a scientist about just how bad things are going to get. I'm really tired of how this is constantly brought up, and wonder if it is the same people each time. The work in the seventies were based on the emerging understanding of the earths long-term trends. They realized that (1) for the past two million years the earth was swinging between glacial periods and warm periods, and (2) within that cycle we were in a warm period that had gone on about as long as the longest. Ergo, if the pattern holds, we should swing back into a glacial period within the next 1,000 years at most. There is *nothing wrong* with this reasoning, as long as you bother to understand the basis. It is based on a past pattern, and implicitely assumes both that the pattern will hold and that there are no extranous forces. If I watch a clock march towards midnight and predict that in a few minutes it will read 12:01, only Silver&Red would stop the clock and use it to discredit the scientific method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 And Darin already made the quite credible point that the collective behavior of the atmosphere, while perhaps theoretically predictable, is so far as a practical matter defying such prediction. Hell, the scientific "consensus" on global warming right now says the planet will either get warmer or plunge into an ice age. The predictive abilities of climatological models can't even agree on that basic statement. Who predicts an ice age? Serious question - I'd like to read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts