|
The hockey stick graph has been long exposed as fradulent.
|
Originally Posted by maddmaxx
So whats the cure, eleminate mankind??? eleminate cows??? not feed the people or move the food from where it is grown to where it is eaten??? eleminate fossil fuel..can we build a nuke plant in your town..for that matter can we build a wind farm in you town.
In these "few decades", the average temperature of the planet has risen 0.7 degrees. How much do you think it went up at the end of the last ice age. Not many cars around to blame then. There are very specific things that we are doing wrong to our environment.....The "sky is falling global warming" crowd is an agenda to sell books, put viewers in front of CNN and make reputations for competing crews of scientists. Lets do something about the things that we can. As to cars.....1 running lawnmower emits as much polution as 30 properly smog equipped cars per hour.! I see that your against fossil fuel Like me. Why are we in the middle east? answer fossil fuel. Why are we helping to accelerate climate change fossil fuel. Buy local food or grow your own. Use solar even on the Northeast of USA. Push for wind power in your area. and ride your bike more. Get us to hell off the use of fossil fuel and the world will be better place. 0.7 degrees is allot in just 100 or so years. Just look at places like Nome Alaska and ask that question to the Inuit. They are losing there perma frost at an alarming rate and they say this has never happened in all the years they have populated this area.(several thousand years) and with the melting of the frost comes more carbon. We need to do something instead of denying it.:) |
Originally Posted by phone
Before you start believing UN propaganda educate yourself on the UN and its history.
Here's a quote from a real scientist, Kary Mulls, whom has the integrity to stand up to the nonsense: "The concept that human beings are capable of causing the planet to overheat or lose its ozone seems about as ridiculous as blaming the Magdalena paintings for the last ice age. There is a notion that our emissions are causing the temperature of the planet to go up, even though the temperature is not going up. Even if the temperature were going up, we would be foolish to think we caused it. We could just as reasonably blame it on cows. In the nineteenth century the temperature went down. In this century it's gone up only about half a degree. The trend over the last two centuries is down. Down is not warmer. So if you like to worry, worry that we might be moving into a new ice age. We could be." I guess he doesn't get his data from the UN. Look out its another conspiracy theory Just like 911 get real. |
Originally Posted by n4zou
I've been through the fake sciences of global cooling, acid rain, nuclear winter, and now global warming. It's nothing more than attempting to scare people into paying more taxes and padding the pockets of people like Al Gore. The Earth has always had heating and cooling cycles and we might (has yet to be proven) be experiencing a slight upswing in temperatures. This gradual increase has been going on for over 75 years now (if you believe the old recorded temperatures) and has averaged about 1/2 a degree higher in that time but considering we have only been recording temperatures for about 150 years, who's to say that 1/2 degree is actual or just from inaccurate gages used in the early years of temperature measurement and recording. It has not been conclusively proven there is even a non-normal shift in global temperature so the scientists who get research money to study global warming have now started using the "consensus" word meaning that all the global warming scientists sat it's true so it must be and we all must believe them. There was also a consensus of scientist's claming the Earth was flat, the Earth was the center of the solar system and universe, global cooling was real, acid rain (which was going to kill off all the trees and oceans), and any number of hydrogen bombs starting a nuclear winter. You can tell there about to lose the argument when the "consensus" word starts getting used and that anyone making any argument ageist there consensus science makes them say they need to be disqualified and fired by not joining the consensus crowd pushing global warming. You hear nothing from the global warming crowd when record low temperatures are recorded but the first time we get even close to a hot summer day all you will hear from the pro global warming media is " Its global heating and this proves it" news report.
|
Originally Posted by The Weak Link
The hockey stick graph has been long exposed as fradulent.
From what I read, most of this type of data comes from information like tree ring growth and glacial ice cores. I don't know much about the latter, but I have looked at tree rings and you can see each ring is not the same. You can also count the rings back to years you know had bad weather and correlate the small rings with the lower temps. But if you know otherwise, please let us know... |
Originally Posted by Gojohnnygo.
0.7 degrees is allot in just 100 or so years. Just look at places like Nome Alaska and ask that question to the Inuit. They are losing there perma frost at an alarming rate and they say this has never happened in all the years they have populated this area.(several thousand years) and with the melting of the frost comes more carbon. We need to do something instead of denying it.:)
A House committee released documents Monday that showed hundreds of instances in which a White House official who was previously an oil industry lobbyist edited government climate reports to play up uncertainty of a human role in global warming or play down evidence of such a role. http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...AA0894DF404482 |
I'm going to ask one more time...does anyone recall that during the 50's and 60's the climatic predictions were for another ice age?
|
Originally Posted by Monoborracho
I'm going to ask one more time...does anyone recall that during the 50's and 60's the climatic predictions were for another ice age?
|
Originally Posted by Monoborracho
I'm going to ask one more time...does anyone recall that during the 50's and 60's the climatic predictions were for another ice age?
I think most of that was recognition that glacial cycles from the Pleistocene epoch could potentially be extrapolated to imply we're about due for another cycle. Interestingly, the warm periods between glacial advances were notable for their increased CO2 content in atmosphere --although our current level is way off the chart of those peaks. (Personally I was always fascinated by the huge ice-marginal and meltwater lakes that dominated the warm periods. Evidence of those lakes can be seen throughout the upper midwest. Very cool to observe during long bike rides through Wisconsin.) |
Originally Posted by Monoborracho
I'm going to ask one more time...does anyone recall that during the 50's and 60's the climatic predictions were for another ice age?
The ice fields on Mars are melting.......I think it's the SUN not man. The planet earth was significantly warmer X thousand years ago than today (or predicted for the next 100 years) suficient to cause huge oil (fossil) deposits in Alaska (ANWR) and Siberia......prior to *****apien influence. It's too cold now.......we need global warming to reduce consumption of fossil fuels to heat our homes and businesses. My T shirt is on order: http://www.cafepress.com/buy/news/-/...C_20070405wire |
Didn't even fight it this morning. Just got on the trainer like it was January.
Here you go... http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
Originally Posted by gerv
Could you tell us a little more? Give us some data...
From what I read, most of this type of data comes from information like tree ring growth and glacial ice cores. I don't know much about the latter, but I have looked at tree rings and you can see each ring is not the same. You can also count the rings back to years you know had bad weather and correlate the small rings with the lower temps. But if you know otherwise, please let us know... |
I am real. Look at the graphs you posted. They're published by the UN and contain data which has been thoroughly debunked in the scientific community. Do you realize the UN has an agenda and are using global warming pseudoscience to promote that agenda? Please stop being so gullible.
I keep hearing how the rest of the world is melting and heating up. It's hard to find the time to dig into each report to determine whether it's authentic or hype. What is easy to do is consider my local climate. This winter I had the largest snow piles next to my driveway in almost ten years of living here. I also don't use air conditioning and so get to experience the actual temperatures during the summers. When I was a kid I would sleep outside most of the summer because of the heat. Last year was a good sleeping year, only a couple of nights were really uncomfortable. And don't think it's because the house I have now is cooler, the old house was shaded by wonderful giant elm trees - don't see those anymore.
Originally Posted by Gojohnnygo.
Look out its another conspiracy theory Just like 911 get real.
|
Originally Posted by Gojohnnygo.
Cars are clean? I guess you haven't stop next to one at a stop light. One more question about cows why do we have so many? Its because humans need them to feed the human population. Think of all the smog created by the production of feed, transportations of this feed and all the use of fossil fuel just grow it and house livestock. Don't blame the cow its mankind causing this. An all this points toward is are endless dependency of fossil fuel. Which is causing climate change plus other natural climate change factors. We humans are helping to accelerating it, With in just few decades not the slow process the mother nature has gone through over thousands of years.
Nobody wants dirty air but I am not joining in until the Chineese and Indians are on board. Why do they get a total pass and the US is the devil in this thing. China recently "discovered" 10 brand new coal fired electic plants with 1/10 the capacity of the UK with NO POLLUTION CONTROLS AT ALL! The whole thing is designed to make you feel bad about yourself while the "undevloped countries" are given a pass. Look at all the Made in China tags proudly displayed on almost every Trek under $1000. |
Originally Posted by Monoborracho
I'm going to ask one more time...does anyone recall that during the 50's and 60's the climatic predictions were for another ice age?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_St._Helens That event according to the global cooling and nuclear winter scaremongers should have plunged the Earth into a several decades long population killing year round winter. The end result of this massive eruption was pretty sunsets for about 2 years. The same people pushing the Global-cooling scare started the ozone hole scare. Dupont's patents on Freon were about to run out so anyone anywhere could start producing and selling it. Dupont's strategy was simple. Produce an alternative to Freon with patents and have Freon made illegal to be used in this and other countries. Environmentalists are an easy target and are easily duped into supporting anyone pushing an agenda to eliminate anything that can be clamed to be a pollutant. As an example of how successful this is every animal on this Earth is now emitting a so called greenhouse gas "pollutant" with every exhale of it's breath. This same exhaled gas is required by plants in order to survive. Animals require Oxygen and plants require Carbon Dioxide. Plants produce Oxygen and animals produce Carbon Dioxide. So what do the Environmentalists want to do? Kill off all the plants?! |
Originally Posted by oilman_15106
Nobody wants dirty air but I am not joining in until the Chineese and Indians are on board. Why do they get a total pass and the US is the devil in this thing. China recently "discovered" 10 brand new coal fired electic plants with 1/10 the capacity of the UK with NO POLLUTION CONTROLS AT ALL! The whole thing is designed to make you feel bad about yourself while the "undevloped countries" are given a pass. Look at all the Made in China tags proudly displayed on almost every Trek under $1000.
If we just do what the Chinese and Indians do, we will be like them. I do not think that will appeal to you or me. We need to do better. Do not be so sure that a cleaner environment and cleaner manufacturing will not produce a better way of life. I suggest that we are careful that other nations do not show us the way and we loose our position in the global economy. This statement has nothing to do with environmental activism. It is opportunism.:) |
Originally Posted by phinney
Didn't even fight it this morning. Just got on the trainer like it was January.
Here you go... http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm . That's why it's important to use other sources. This is a list of most of the other proxies besides tree rings. The source isn't an environmentalist group or the Al Gore site. It's your National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/proxies.html I suppose they could be blowing smoke. But they do seem to think that trees rings and all the other proxies combined have a compelling story to tell. |
I'd think ring growth is only secondarily related to temperature. During the very hot but dry dust bowl years the surviving trees showed almost no growth. It probably depends more on what is the limiting factor to growth in the given habitat and how whatever that limiting factor is varies from year to year. The interpretation of proxy data has many "ifs" that need to be chained together and is susceptible to subjective interpretation as has been shown to happen.
|
At least the Global Warming Crisis has replaced the "Bird Flu Pandemic" CRISIS......and it's a diversion from the media keeping a scoreboard for the enemy in Iraq.
IMO the epitome of scietific/political/intilectual expertise ditraibe/hype/ was the Y2K "end of the world as we know it" CRISIS. What was the CRISIS in the early 70s that was promoting the puschase of Silver to offset the resulting looming economic colapse??? We should start a pool on the what the next human eliminating CRISIS might be. http://www.cafepress.com/buy/news/-/...C_20070405wire |
Scientists and farmers around the world are debating a very serious subject at the moment. Cow farts. Yes, really, they're talking about farting cows. They're talking about cow burps as well, and sheep burps, and even sheep farts.
Farts and burps are basically pockets of gas that get released from human and animal bodies. This gassy mixture isn't useful, so our bodies push it out and away as best they can... in burps and farts. Got it so far? Hope you're not giggling by the way, this is very serious science. One of the gases found in farts and burps is called 'methane'. A certain amount of methane in the atmosphere is natural, and is a good thing. Along with other so-called 'greenhouse gases' methane collects in the sky and traps warm air around our planet. A scientific report published in California recently claimed that dairy cows in the area were producing almost 20 pounds (in weight, that's almost 10 kg) of gas every year, each. That's a huge, huge amount. If that figure is accurate, it could mean that cow farts were causing more global warming than pollution from cars in that region, as millions of cows live there. There’s an “Inconvenient Truth” for you. :rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by ondajib
Scientists and farmers around the world are debating a very serious subject at the moment. Cow farts. Yes, really, they're talking about farting cows. They're talking about cow burps as well, and sheep burps, and even sheep farts.
Farts and burps are basically pockets of gas that get released from human and animal bodies. This gassy mixture isn't useful, so our bodies push it out and away as best they can... in burps and farts. Got it so far? Hope you're not giggling by the way, this is very serious science. One of the gases found in farts and burps is called 'methane'. A certain amount of methane in the atmosphere is natural, and is a good thing. Along with other so-called 'greenhouse gases' methane collects in the sky and traps warm air around our planet. A scientific report published in California recently claimed that dairy cows in the area were producing almost 20 pounds (in weight, that's almost 10 kg) of gas every year, each. That's a huge, huge amount. If that figure is accurate, it could mean that cow farts were causing more global warming than pollution from cars in that region, as millions of cows live there. There’s an “Inconvenient Truth” for you. :rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by gerv
Could you tell us a little more? Give us some data...
From what I read, most of this type of data comes from information like tree ring growth and glacial ice cores. I don't know much about the latter, but I have looked at tree rings and you can see each ring is not the same. You can also count the rings back to years you know had bad weather and correlate the small rings with the lower temps. But if you know otherwise, please let us know... The statiticians who reviewed the data came very very close to calling Mann a fraud. |
Originally Posted by The Weak Link
http://users2.wsj.com/lmda/do/checkL...ays_us_opinion
The statiticians who reviewed the data came very very close to calling Mann a fraud. This is what Mr Mann had to say about it in Scientific American. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...EF83414B7F0000 More recently, Mann battled back in a 2004 corrigendum in the journal Nature, in which he clarified the presentation of his data. He has also shown how errors on the part of his attackers led to their specific results. For instance, skeptics often cite the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming Period as pieces of evidence not reflected in the hockey stick, yet these extremes are examples of regional, not global, phenomena. "From an intellectual point of view, these contrarians are pathetic, because there's no scientific validity to their arguments whatsoever," Mann says. "But they're very skilled at deducing what sorts of disingenuous arguments and untruths are likely to be believable to the public that doesn't know better." Mann thinks that the attacks will continue, because many skeptics, such as the Greening Earth Society and the Tech Central Station Web site, obtain funds from petroleum interests. "As long as they think it works and they've got unlimited money to perpetuate their disinformation campaign," Mann believes, "I imagine it will go on, just as it went on for years and years with tobacco until it was no longer tenable--in fact, it became perjurable to get up in a public forum and claim that there was no science" behind the health hazards of smoking. |
The tree ring data only changes to a limited degree with temperature so it lessens the extremes and flattens out the data. Not to mention many other problems with tree rings as a temperature indicator such as lack of data and sensitivity to temperature independent parameters. Mann's claim of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming Period being regional phenomena is debated.
Mann used tree ring data up to about 1980 then used measured temperature data for the rest of his graph. Measured temperature data has lots of problems but flattening out the extremes is not one of them. Regardless, the hockey stick is awful science as it uses one data source for a broad period then suddenly switches to a second source and the entire conclusion drawn is solely based on the differences in the two data sources. Not the kind of thing you'd want to do on your statistics homework. Of course all that would need to be done is replace the measured temperature data with more current tree ring data. Amazingly this hasn't been done and the main reason cited is that it would be too expensive to get updated data! Steve McIntyre can be found on the web and he has done a-lot of work rigorously investigating the science around the topic of global warming. There is certainly reason to doubt whether climate change is occurring at all before even considering whether human activity could be the cause. Gerv, you ask good questions and obviously have an open mind. I think if you continue to research into this issue you'll find there is much to be questioned and feel a lot less concern over our impending doom. Well, as far as global warming. My $$$asteroid$$$ is still out there though. |
I'm not an expert, but I know a couple of experts. Professors from the UW-Madison Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences. I was chatting with one a couple of months back and asked him how widely was human-caused global warming accepted by the nation's top scientists in atmospheric sciences / meteorology. Was is 60-40, 80-20, or 90-10? He said it was more like 97-3. A handful of the 98 still think it is a minor contributor, so it might be more like 90 feel it is a strong factor, 7 a weak factor, with 3 undecided.
Here's a recent article from National Geographic: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...l-warming.html |
Asking professors at UW-Madison about a liberal consensus makes as much sense as asking Kentucky Fried Chicken to comment on whether PETA is a good organization or not.
I'm amazed how political this crap is becoming. On the Weather Channel, Al Sharpton and Wes Clark are now contributing their insight into the weather. These are people I don't want to see when I'm trying to find out whether it's going to rain tomorrow or not. BTW, the truth is not subject to a vote. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:24 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.