UtahBill

CNSNews.com - A False Frenzy on Global Warming

Another article that refutes GW....
The way I see GW, it exists, but man's contribution is insignificant.

Having said that, I think it is still very wise to limit our use of carbon fuels based on the expense involved in our wasting of it in the first place, and the further economic impact of the pollution resulting from burning fossil fuels.
Energy conservation by limiting its use, and and my more efficient use where we must use it are essential to a sound economy.
No smart manufacturer hauls its waste to the dump when they might be able to make something useful from it. And no smart manufacturer sticks with processes that generates excess waste when alternate processes are financially feasible.

__________________
Education is expensive, ignorance is costly.

Each generation should have more opportunities than the last, but not at the expense of the next.

American

I have an issue with allowing everyone except the US to fill the skies with black smoke, because somehow we're the supposed bad guys in the world. I don't see treehuggers protesting in third world countries where no attention to the environment exists. Americans are supposed to be all green while other nations are allowed to defecate directly into a river. This intellectual dishonesty is what convinces me of the folly of global warming and the crookedness of the global warming promoters.

__________________
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." -- Thomas Jefferson יהוה

SouthernDemocrat

CNS News (basically the Onion is probably a more reputable news source) versus every single Scientific Society in the Western World with expertise in Climate............. Hmmmm, gosh after thinking about it, I think I am going to go with The National Academy of Sciences over "CNS News".

__________________
“A drink a day keeps the shrink away”

- Edward Abbey

Gladiator

I searched John Coleman and found a 40 page pdf file of his comments on Global Warming,


http://media.kusi.clickability.com/d...+Warming02.pdf


I agree that there seems to be a political element to the poor countries complaining about the rich countries, and the Liberal Democrats (out of power) complaining about the Republicans and Blue Dog Democrast (In power).

Conservation of fossil fuels is an answer to the man induced extra CO2 in the atmosphere. Conservation is not a bad idea if not done in a "frenzy" or inconvenient regulations or laws.

Nepal does not use much Gasoline, and they pride themselves on being pleasant, happy, well exercised, with good longevity. People in Nepal mostly walk to wherever the need to go.


..

__________________
_______________________________
How did Our Oil get under Their Sand?

gregleo

I agree with UtahBill when he says that our contribution seems to be insignificant.

We need to remember that within Earth's atmosphere, hydrogen and oxygen make up over 95% of it. Less than 2% is the actual c02 that is in the air.

But as a part of Earth's natural cycle, I think that there is a sort of "global warming" that is indeed happening. The problem is we think we need Kyoto or whatnot to stop this.

However, by trying to ineffectively combat it in itself instead of trying to combat its effects, we are wasting money and making the problem worse. Think about it: take some of the money you could waste on global warming and Kyoto and instead put it in treatment for animals affected by the crisis, like polar bears and penguins.

__________________
-Greg Hawkins
My Blog: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1369563272

Gladiator

"Atmosphereic warming does not exceed that of the surface..." Which means that there is no appreciable Greenhouse Warming effect. The Atmospheric increases should be 2-3 times greater than surface temperature warming, if a greenhouse effect was causing the warming of the surface of the Earth.

P, 21

http://media.kusi.clickability.com/d...+Warming02.pdf


2 May o6

Previously reported temperature increases in Atmospheric Temperatures compared to Surface Air Temperatures were incorrect, and have been revised. There is no appreciable difference between Atmospheric and Surface Temperatures on Earth, therefore Global Warming is not being caused by an increase in the Greenhouse effect, from CO2 or any other increase in greenhouse gasses, from man, beast or the elements.

Press release: Report reconciles atmospheric temperature trends (2 May 2006)



CO2 reported to cause FORCING, causing warming temperatures is based on false calcualtions.

P. 18-21, Media.Kusi


..

__________________
_______________________________
How did Our Oil get under Their Sand?

thecheesypig

Global Warming is one of the biggest scams in the history of humanity. Its ridiculess what the evirmentalist politicians are pulling off

Gladiator

I think this is monumental, the news that upper Atmosphric temperatures were incorrect, and that in comparison with Surface Temperatures, the upper Atmospheric temperatures are not significantly higher.

NASA satellite temperature measurements fuel Global Warming debate




..

__________________
_______________________________
How did Our Oil get under Their Sand?

UtahBill

I have said before that we have too few measurements taken, and one of your links shows that many of the temperature monitoring stations are incorrectly sited in close proximity to man made heat sources.

I have also said before that if you are paying engineers and scientists to come to a conclusion, they will take their sweet time doing so. They get paid by the hour, and if they finish the job too soon, they are out of work.
Don't we all get too comfortable in our jobs at times, and resist change? Completion of a project means having to start another, and there may not be funds for another...

And you don't hear much about volcanic warming of the oceans in these studies.
Most of that heat source is under the oceans, where we can't see or measure so easily. Get the oceans warmed up a single degree and you have a LOT of heat storage that has to go somewhere, and where else but to the atmosphere? But until we got satellites to measure ocean surface temperatures, we were running almost blind in that department. Water stores a lot more heat than air and will have a longer term effect on temperatures over time. But even then, we are measuring surface temperatures, and part of that is from solar. How do we determine where the heat comes from in constantly mixing oceans?
The issue is too complicated for even the best minds using the largest computers, especially if you start the study with preconceived notions....

__________________
Education is expensive, ignorance is costly.

Each generation should have more opportunities than the last, but not at the expense of the next.

metreon

The linked article is a secondhand account from a political commentator of a speech about a weatherman's opinion, without any quantifiable data. How is it "remarkable" thought in any conceivable way? He criticizes science without producing any himself. *Yawn*

The more subjective level of "alarm", however, is something more reasonable to debate, but unless he actually produces some data to back up a claim, then he really doesn't have much to say.

Is it alarming that some agricultural areas may become deserts? It would depend on the scale of the change and the rate of change. It may also depend on the geopolitical distribution of those changes. What might happen if much of America becomes an infertile desert and Russia became the breadbasket of the world? Russia already has the largest reserves of natural gas and has the second largest oil reserves in the world, - what if they also controlled much of the food supply as well? As it is, even without climate change, American grainbelt aquifers are being sucked dry by overuse.

The rate of those changes are also very significant since people and economies can accommodate to change only so quickly. Even subtle climatic changes can bring sudden changes in weather patterns which can produce dramatic changes in livability and economic viability to large areas. For example, the possible increase and severity of hurricanes might make 100 yr storms come through with 10 yr or less frequency which could eviscerate economies in the areas affected.

Whether the human species will survive is not the real alarm, since clearly we have survived as a species through various climatic changes, the "alarm" is the concern whether humanity will survive with similar economic viability and geopolitical stability. If you are unaware, there are approximately 6692 times as many people living simultaneously today than there were 12,000 years ago, - a population that requires a sophisticated and stratified civilization to perpetuate itself at its current size.