Jump to content

Global Warming - What do you think (and tell kids)?

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic


I can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate you telling me who to believe, and who not, who is real and who is fake. That takes a tremendous load off my shoulders.


You mentioned that Tim Ball is 85% wrong, while Al Gore is 80% right. Can you please tell me what % each of the following scientists and professors are wrong? That would be very helpful in convincing me that I am wrong.

Dr. William Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University

Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences

Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Meterorology

Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville

Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences

Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia




Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics


Once Believers, Now Skeptics:


Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre


Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta


Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists


Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government


Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada


Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University


Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z.


Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences)


Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm


Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw


Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa


Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa


How much are each of these scientists and professors wrong?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yah, BA, nobody's tellin' yeh what to believe, eh? Everyone's free to believe what they want. You're welcome to believe every PR piece that a special interest lobby puts out. Just understand it for what it is, eh? :) And don't tell the kids it's objective science.


The percent thing was just a way of sayin' that we have to look at each argument or issue, not just buy into what our political tribe is sayin' because it's our tribe. But that's just what I believe, eh? ;) I think a lot of honor has to do with when people have the courage to stand up and admit they're wrong, or to stand up and tell their friends that they're wrong. It's easy, and requires little honor, to shout that our opponents are wrong because we don't want to believe them.


As for your list, I don't know any of the lads or lasses personally. As a group, they look to be almost all retired folks not currently doing research. About half look to be commenting outside of their fields of research or expertise.


Some quick searching gives us:


Dr. William Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University

Actually an emeritus (retired) professor, Dr. Gray's area of expertise is seasonal hurricane prediction in the Atlantic basin. He has no published work in climatology or global climate change. He apparently does maintain that human-caused warming has occurred, but doesn't believe the magnitude is as large.


Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences

A real guy, and a participant on past IPCC boards. A quick read of his objections finds that they are well-reasoned qualification of the limits of current data. Like either of us, he objects to the policy politization/polarization on the subject, not to the current scientific work being done.


Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

A stellar astrophysicist whose work looks at solar energy variations over time, using underlying historical data which is even sketchier than the atmospherics folks doin' CO2 levels research. A natural advocate for his own work, which is interesting stuff. Collaborates with Baliunas (below), so they're the same team. When dealin' with sketchy data, it really helps to have independent verification in science, even when the team's work is interestin'. Baliunas has spent a lot of time in policy areas outside of research, and in that context has a record of some more careless errors in commenting outside of her field.


I'll let others do their own homework on the rest, eh? Scientific communities are like any human communities, as far as I know. There's bright folks, and more limited folks, arrogant folks who overstate things and comment outside their expertise, and some nuts. Listin' a half dozen or a dozen names off an advocacy website doesn't give us any real information on their arguments, their expertise, or their character.


I know some economists who are flamin' socialists. That doesn't mean that the consensus, mainstream view in economics is that capital markets are BS.



(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in December and again in February when the temperatures here in the Midwest dipped well below zero, everyone was saying, "Where is Global Warming when we need it?!" Then in April when temperatures soared close to 100 degrees, people thought, "oh no, it's Global Warming!" No, that's just weather in the Midwest. If you don't like today's weather, just wait, it'll change in a day or two!


When my own kids ask about Global Warming, I tell them that temperatures are warming up, but that throughout history there have been climate changes. I agree with all scouters that we need to follow Leave No Trace, and be good stewards of our environment. That does not mean that I believe that humans are causing Global Warming. It means that I don't want a polluted earth.


I resent the fact that this topic is political rather than scientific. If Al Gore really wants people to do as he says, then HE needs to do as he says. It is absolutely ridiculous that he expects people to believe that BUYING carbon off-sets is equal to actually DOING something to decrease carbon emmissions. I am amazed that people actually fall for his logic.


My brother in San Francisco chose to keep his kids from viewing Gore's movie when it was shown at his kids' schools. His kids were pressured by the liberal teachers, and made to feel bad about their parents' decision. My brother wanted to view the movie before his kids did, but wasn't given the chance. And of course, the school did not offer any of the science from the opposing opinion, but only offered Al Gore's opinion. Is this science or is this politics?


I do not want CFL bulbs in my house. I am very concerned about the increase in mercury levels that we are going to see when all these bulbs end up in dumps. If only people would do thorough research before coming up with ideas and forcing them on other people. The very proponents of environmentalism are doing a disservice to our environment by promoting CFL bulbs without safe, convenient ways to dispose of them. Hmmm.... this is kind of like the ruse where we were supposed to use plastic bags instead of paper, in order to save trees! Now, we aren't supposed to use plastic!


Has anybody heard about the "gag" products being advertised about how to decrease the carbon emmissions of our pets? I can't remeber what they were called, but the ads were pretty funny.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Beavah, you really kill me on this topic. Because we disagree on this subject, everything I read is a PR piece, but everything you read is scientific fact. Any scientist or professor I listen to is an energy company hack or retired or out of his field. Everyone you listen to is the top expert on the subject. Do you realize how insulting that is? And you are the one telling everyone how to communicate with each other properly??


Here is an excerpt from the chief GW advocate, Jim Hansen, from 2003:


Summary of opinion regarding scenarios

Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as "synfuels," shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions. Scenarios that accurately fit recent and near-future observations have the best chance of bringing all of the important players into the discussion, and they also are what is needed for the purpose of providing policy-makers the most effective and efficient options to stop global warming.


"Emphasis on extreme scenarios.." So, scare them into believing is the best policy?? In the same report, he writes:

My opinion: Practical uncertainties

Science and politics don't mix. I believe that active researchers should offer objective assessment of the science problem and leave it to others to extract policy implications.


Looks to me like he has been trying to influence policy for a long time, through fear.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gainesville, GA 73 degrees F

Should be about 87, so I guess it's getting cooler, not warmer.


We better outlaw lightning, because lightning is burning up the forests, at the rate the forests are burning, ther won't be a country in about 4 months.


We'd better outlaw pinto beans while we're at it, you know, methane and "green house gas"


Of course I'm being silly for a minute. The political left has taken GW as it's sacred cow. Only the left are "real" "authorites" on the subject.


The atmosphere is an elastic medium, that is, high pressure here, low pressure there. High temp here, low temp there. Temperatures are cyclical. They go up and down. Col wind from Canada brings cooler air, warm air from the Gulf of Mexico brings warmer air.


Let's be good stewards, don't pollute, put out fires and eat more beans.


Packsaddle, I don't know about the measuring thingy.

Link to post
Share on other sites


I re-read your earlier post about not driving for weekends, 8 days a month without driving.


Remember right after the attack on September 11? No planes flew for 4 or 5 days. That's a lot! But the environmental lefty's didn't say anything about how much cleaner the air was. It didn't make a difference in the big picture.


That's all.



Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no need to worry. In a few million years, the Sun will have converted all of its hydrogen to helium, and thus have spent all its fuel. At which point, it will swell in size to a red giant. In the process, Mercury and Venus will be swallowed up, while a singed and fiery Earth will be kicked off its orbit.


Luckily, the size of the red giant will make life on one of Saturn's moons very hospitable. Hopefully, humanity will move there. Unfortunately, the red giant will then collapse in a supernove (after a few million more years) and form a neutron star. The weight of the neutron star will be so heavy that gravity actually sucks it into space, thus creating a black hole. Good thing for us that black holes emit Hawking radiation, and hopefully but the time we get to this stage, we'll be able to harness the radiation for energy.


Eventually, all stars will burn off like this and form blackholes. The blackholes will then begin to merge into super-massive blackholes and all rocks and debris in space will join their orbits. As the blackholes slowly emit their Hawking radiation, they are actually giving off the remainder of their mass.


Several billion (possibly trillion) years down the road, the universe will have no light and no bodies of mass. Instead, it will be a giant, empty space filled with nothing but energy.


So why worry about Global Warming?

Link to post
Share on other sites



I believe Woody Allen summarized your point some 30 -35 years ago in one of his movies, when in a flashback scene to his childhood in Brooklyn, he explained why he didn't do homework with, "What's the point. The universe is expanding."



Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not quite the same thing. Yes, the universe is expanding and objects are becoming more and more distant. Some physicists theorize that this will either result in a universal "rip" or that it will all suddenly stretch so far, that it snaps back (like a rubber band) resulting in a sort of reverse Big Bang.


But I'm talking about all the matter in the universe being consumed and us being left with a universe filled with nothing.


Of course, everyone else is talking about Global Warming.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Time to throw another log on the GW fire.


Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny


June 30, 2007


In his new book, The Assault on Reason, Al Gore pleads, "We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth." Gore repeatedly asks that science and reason displace cynical political posturing as the central focus of public discourse.

If Gore really means what he writes, he has an opportunity to make a difference by leading by example on the issue of global warming.


A cooperative and productive discussion of global warming must be open and honest regarding the science. Global warming threats ought to be studied and mitigated, and they should not be deliberately exaggerated as a means of building support for a desired political position.


Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.


For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."


Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."


Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.


Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes. However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity.


Gore claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts. However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, "Africa's deserts are in 'spectacular' retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa."


Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet. But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, "the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain." In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.


Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming. Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century.


Each of these cases provides an opportunity for Gore to lead by example in his call for an end to the distortion of science. Will he rise to the occasion? Only time will tell.




Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...