[cowgirlup]

Originally Posted by warvet

HOLY COW! IS CW back already lmao

Tim

Yep, I'm versatile.
Be glad I don't think you're a sissy or I'd have had to drop the "S" (issy) bomb on you.
hehehe

[John Galt]

Global warming is a scam. Any scientist who believes this theory is backed up by observations should have their degree(s) taken away. Most global warming theory is based on computer models that are rarely correct. When they are proven wrong "scientists" simply "modify" the program for the next prediction.

Any "data" used to argue for global warming is based on a very small number of measurements that would not be considered statistically relevant in any other field.

Global warming, opps, I mean, climate change is simple a tool for more taxation and control .

I also have some ocean front property is Arizona for sale, if any one is interested.

Also, recent outbreaks of smelly poop have spurred scientists to investigate trans fat as the possible source.

[Rant Off]

[tjwilhelm]

Howdy John,

You sound pretty certain and sure of your assertion that "Global warming is a scam." I like to think of myself as a pretty open minded person -- open to looking at new facts and to re-evaluating my opinions, based on those new facts -- open to finding the most accurate version of the "truth" I am able to find.

Are you willing to share any of the data, facts, or peer-reviewed studies that support your assertion? If you're willing, I'd be grateful to see what new info might be available.

Thanks!

[John Galt]

Hi TJ,

Having an open mind is a good thing. Perhaps I was not specific enough in my opinion so let me re-state it. Man made global warming is a theory with virtually no data to support it. Al Gore's opinion is not data, Katie Couric's opinion is not data, a politician's opinion is not data, a "scientist’s" opinion (motivated my grant money) is not data.

The American Physical Society published this a while ago. I am not sure of your scientific background but my intent (unlike most scientists) is not to overwhelm you with equations and terminology. If you wish to skip the equations, please just read the conclusion.

Conclusion
Even if temperature had risen above natural variability, the recent solar Grand Maximum may have been chiefly responsible. Even if the sun were not chiefly to blame for the past half-century’s warming, the IPCC has not demonstrated that, since CO2 occupies only one-ten-thousandth part more of the atmosphere that it did in 1750, it has contributed more than a small fraction of the warming. Even if carbon dioxide were chiefly responsible for the warming that ceased in 1998 and may not resume until 2015, the distinctive, projected fingerprint of anthropogenic “greenhouse-gas” warming is entirely absent from the observed record. Even if the fingerprint were present, computer models are long proven to be inherently incapable of providing projections of the future state of the climate that are sound enough for policymaking. Even if per impossibilethe models could ever become reliable, the present paper demonstrates that it is not at all likely that the world will warm as much as the IPCC imagines. Even if the world were to warm that much, the overwhelming majority of the scientific, peer-reviewed literature does not predict that catastrophe would ensue. Even if catastrophe might ensue, even the most drastic proposals to mitigate future climate change by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide would make very little difference to the climate. Even if mitigation were likely to be effective, it would do more harm than good: already millions face starvation as the dash for biofuels takes agricultural land out of essential food production: a warning that taking precautions, “just in case”, can do untold harm unless there is a sound, scientific basis for them. Finally, even if mitigation might do more good than harm, adaptation as (and if) necessary would be far more cost-effective and less likely to be harmful.
In short, we must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong. If the concluding equation in this analysis (Eqn. 30) is correct, the IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity must have been very much exaggerated. There may, therefore, be a good reason why, contrary to the projections of the models on which the IPCC relies, temperatures have not risen for a decade and have been falling since the phase-transition in global temperature trends that occurred in late 2001. Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no “climate crisis” at all. At present, then, in policy terms there is no case for doing anything. The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.

Consider what type of evidence it would take for this organization or reverse their opinion. A scientist can only claim to be a scientist so long while supporting what they know to be a false conclusion.

I would love to find some primary references from the literature for you but I no longer have access to the electronic journals (graduated). The references listed at the bottom of the article should be easy to track down in any university library.

Aside from scientific data, I am confident in my opinion using just my little knowledge of the scientific method and experimental design. First, how do we determine the global temperature? Can it even be done for a city? Are we to believe scientists can predict the weather 50 years from now when they can’t accurately predict hurricanes a few weeks in advance? Even if the global temperature did rise a measurable amount, is CO2 the only possible cause? Even if man made CO2 was causing global warming, is that a bad thing? Why would plant food destroy the planet?

There is no way to conduct any laboratory experiments that mimic the complexity of our atmosphere. Global warming (climate change) is the perfect theory because it cannot be proven or disproven. Just that alone should tell you something about the theory.

There is also the constant modification to the theory. If something is really correct, it is not constantly modified to incorporate the disproving data into the theory. Think of Einstein’s work. Yes there was some debate at first, but it was rapidly settled and remains accurate and intact. How much has the theory of global warming/climate change changed in the past few years. The OP’s link is a prefect example of this.

In addition, you can look at the political motivations for tricking the population into believing in global warming (but that is an entirely different discussion ).

To keep this on topic. Would a warmer earth make it easier to survive?

Edit: I will keep my eye out for new data and will continue to re-evalute my opinion.

[George]

Originally Posted by John Galt

....

Edit: I will keep my eye out for new data and will continue to re-evalute my opinion.

Me too.


Quite a while ago (do not want to rub creationist wrong way) must have been much more CO2 available in the Earth’s atmosphere in order for plants to produce so much coal and other fuels.

Also while ago, there were times that the Earth was solid frozen then much warmer than now.

So nothing new, if we believe some scientists we are over-due for next Ice Age.
If this is true, we should try to get all the warming we possibly can.

Our biggest problem is number of people located 1 to 5 meters above sea level.

Not to mention that warming or not, we have reached peak oil production and extra stampede toward alternative fuels is in my opinion a good thing.

I wander why we slept at the fuel wheel for so long?
Suppose oil Co’s used their influence here to stop or slow down possible competition.

So many unknowns and variables that it is not funny.

[tjwilhelm]

John Galt,

Thanks for the feedback John! I'm gonna check that out.

Just curious...you're from Texas, and you mentioned you've "graduated." Is it possible that you graduated from UTD? If "yes" did you ever run into a prof there (math and computer science) named Tim Farage? Like I said...just curious. I always like to check and see if it really is "a small world."

[scorch]

I will say this. The global tempeture has risen over the last 50 years, that is a fact. However there is no proof that co2 is even a pollutant(what do plants breate) doesn't it seem coincidence the temperature rise has been followed by increased solar activity. stop burning oil or gas is just an excuse for alot of crazy ideas.

[John Galt]

TJ,

Cant say that I know that professor, Maybe it is a medium world

George,

We may have reached peak oil production but there is more oil than "people" would like you to beleive. "Oil Reserves" and "Oil Resources" are very different. Oil resources are plenty.

[George]

Originally Posted by John Galt

TJ,
...
George,

We may have reached peak oil production but there is more oil than "people" would like you to beleive. "Oil Reserves" and "Oil Resources" are very different. Oil resources are plenty.

For a moment I don’t say you are not right, but even if the whole planet Earth was nothing else but oil it would still be finite resource.

If it is true that our planet Earth’s got another 5 billion years to go, for our Sun expanding to destroy whatever’s left on a planet before collapsing.
With a bit of luck that human race survives that long will be pushing to make it last that long.

Until we develop fail-safe alternative fuels this is hell of the long time to make it last.

But we seem to be digging our hills and stick to our corners.

[hunter480]

I don`t believe anyone has a handle on the so called, "climate change". There isn`t enough recorded data on the warming and cooling history of the earth to say exactly what`s happening, much less what the cause may be.

al gore, the messiah, and any others who are trying to sell you a bill of goods, are simply using the unknown to further their agendas.

In Indiana this summer, and as a matter of fact, all across the east coast, we experienced one of the coolest summers on record. And certainly, the U.S. isn`t the only measurement of what`s happening with the climate, but it`s all we have first hand experience with. We can watch the gore footage of the glaciers falling into the ocean, but what does that mean or prove? We`ve seen higher temps in most U.S. cities, that we know is due to the heat absorbed from all the concrete and such. Again, what does that prove?

There may indeed be something happening, but no on ecan say what exactly, or what the cause(s) may be. Sadly, some are attempting to use the situation to push their agendas down our throats.