I’m definetely what some might call a “green freak”, I know global warming is real, and it is a serious problem. I am all for the protection of the enviroment, it’s not man’s world to do what we want with; we just happen to live on it along with a ton of other animals.
What these people are doing isn’t exactly very smart though; first of all, it’s dangerous, and second of all, it’s seriously putting a bad face on us “enviromentalists” to the general public.
To get this thread back on track, how many tons per hour was a “tallowpot” expected to feed into a “hand bomber.” This may be a good metric on how many able-bodied young people to bring to your Global Warming protest to unload a hopper car before the police take them away.
They must be handling science differently these days. When I went to school, the scientist of integrity didn’t claim to have a complete understanding of anything. They tried to work with hypotheses and theories, but they certainly didn’t claim to have a firm grasp on an absolute. Yet, the global warming proponents insist they have it down pat, and that the rest of us should darn well catch up.
Run away. Run far away. Their dogma is dogma still.
BTW, was it not announced that 31K scientists around the globe had signed on to a petition to kill the global warming agenda? Why are astrophysicists not chiming in with the notion that our star, a flare star, goes through 22 year cycles, and then cycles of other orders that impose their own climatic variation? Or is that just a less well understood theory not worthy of more conjecture?
Why have others calculated that the oceans and swamps and lakes produce quantities of CO2 that dwarf, by orders of magnitude, what are known as anthropocentric derivations?
So many good questions, but for sure we need to get millions of acres into corn production so that we can produce more CO2. I guess that passes for logic in schools these days.
-Crandell
Paul,
My reference to being pseudo-scientist was in reference to another posting. I am a retired analytical chemist and know full well that green plants use carbon dioxide in their normal metabolic processes. And yes sir, the chemistry of global warming is rock solid whether you want to believe it or not. And no sir, my last paragraph does not need re-wording. However, you are seriously lacking in logic and need remedial courses in biology, ecology and other natural processes occurring on this planet.
Wayne
Crandell, all due respect, but while your masonry work on that wall you’re building might be according to Hoyle (even if I don’t like the pattern or the color), it’s a wall that’s not on the blueprints for this building.
RWM
on a similar note…“they” are saying in 50 years the icecaps will melt…when was the last time “they” predicted next weeks weather correctly??..and yes 31,000 scientist (9,000 of which hold Masters degres in Physics) from around the world did inded sign a petition stating, on their reputations, that “global warming\climate change” was a hoax a phalicy a piece of doo-doo…and again the “mainstream media” dismiss that…yet they give “quack” scientist air time to tell ya…“yup global warming is true…and the world isnt round…its shaped like a burrito”
just to fuel the fire…
from News With Views.com
Hundreds of scientists reject global warming. December 21, 2007. A new U.S.
Senate report documents hundreds of prominent scientists - experts in dozens of
fields of study worldwide - who say global warming and cooling is a cycle of
nature and cannot legitimately be connected to man’s activities.
“Of course I believe in global warming, and in global cooling - all part of the
natural climate changes that the Earth has experienced for billions of years,
caused primarily by the cyclical variations in solar output,” said research
physicist John W. Brosnahan, who develops remote-sensing instruments for
atmospheric science for clients including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and NASA."
from Icecap.us
Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’ http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/ Intro by Joe D’Aleo, Icecap, CCM
I was privileged to work with John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel in the year before it became a reality and then for the first of the 6 years I was fortunate to be the Director of Meteorology. No one worked harder than John to make The Weather Channel a reality and to make sure the staffing, the information and technology was the very best possible at that time. John currently works with KUSI in San Diego. He posts regularly. I am very pleased to present his latest insightful post.
By John Coleman It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same e
Science has always been about developing a hypothesis that may eventually evolve into a working theory. Theories are not written in granite, they get changed all the time as we acquire more knowledge. One of the three requirements for a scientific theory is the capacity to make predictions that can be tested and validated. (The other two are: a Theory has to explain the observations in question and secondly, a Scientific Theory has to be falsifiable— a theory has to have the potential of being proved false, in order for it to be considered a scientific theory).
The chemistry behind global warming is rock solid, the theory about climate change is just that: a theory. Gravity is just a theory, but it is certainly reliable. The theory regarding climate change was presented decades ago and exactly predicted what is happening today. This same theory is predicting what will happen in the next few decades. Are scientists absolutely correct? Of course not. I just think it is foolish and short sighted to have an attitude of doing nothing today and just wait and see what happens 30 years from now. That is not a world I want to leave my daughter.
Wayne
[quote user=“Paul Milenkovic”]
Tire inflation is perhaps a percent or two difference in your car gas consumption, and if you are using electricity for a main source of heat, such as domestic hot water or space heating, whether through resistance or heat pump, there is not much you can do in a cold climate unless you want to risk freezing to death (hypothermia, and this will be a real concern for those having trouble this coming winter paying for $4+/gallon home heating oil and may be dialing thermostats way down because they lack the money).
But there is enormous potential for cutting way back on home electricity consumption by the combined influence of “knickknack remedies such as changing light bulbs.”
Our local power company Madison Gas and Electric has a Web site where you can find the electric and gas usage of anyone in their service area if you know the street address. I compiled my own list of monthly electric usage of members of the faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, leaving off some newly hired assistant professors living in apartments or with unlisted home addresses – the entries on my list are all for stand-alone houses.
The low was 236 kWHr/month, the median 729 kWHr/month. The high of 3789 kWHr a month was for the outgoing UW Chancelor, who happens to be a faculty member of ECE. You can excuse the Chancelor living in the Chancelor’s residence because it is this massive old structure, and I suppose the Chancelor has to leave lights on a lot because numerous official receptions and other hostings of university visitors takes place in that residence. But it may say something ab
Yes, but not this theory. If somebody comes forward with new information that challenges this theory, they will be told that the debate is over.
Morons. Hope they get max penalites allowed by law.
Global warming ? pffffft. Same “world is ending” hysteria clowns that screamed y2k would be the end of the world, have latched onto this gem.
I wonder what they’ll come up with next, when the global warming balloon bursts.
Not necessarily, at least in the scientific community. Theories are always being challenged, modified and changed—it is the very essence of scientific research. Einstein challenged Newton’s theory of Gravity and as a result we have a new understanding of our universe. And there are times when this is not just an intellectual exercise: Einstein’s theory of relativity is needed everytime one uses a GPS system.
What needs to be kept in mind regarding the theory of climate change is that it has been challenged and has always been shown to be correct. A true scientific study is a very rigorous exercise with many checks and balances. Is this current theory of global warming absolutely 100% correct? Of course not. But instead of quoting politicians how about naming a scientific study, that has refuted the current theory? A scientific study that has withstood the pressure of peer review, that has made verifiable predictions, and that has the capacity to be proven false. It is one thing to have opinions, but we all have to deal with the same set of facts.
Let’s all try to imagine what our country would be like if we had no air pollution laws in effect. If cars had no pollution controls of any kind, if industries could discharge anything they wanted into the air and into our drinking water suppli
so…Al Gore getting a Nobel …counts him as an award winning scientist?
but realy folks…how bout that airline food…
I hear what you are saying about the discipline of science. And maybe the scientific community is as open-minded as that discipline demands. But nearly all news media and politicians are telling us that the debate is over. I have heard it a hundred times. They tell us that it is settled science or a scientific consensus, and therefore, there can be no challenge to the theory. They brand skeptics as deniers, hoping to stigmatize them with all the sinister baggage that word implies. That does not sound like science to me.
You say the theory of MMGW has been challenged and always been shown to be correct. But is it shown to be correct based on a scientific refutation of the challenge, or is it shown to be correct by the declaration that it is beyond questioning?
Let’s see…coal power pollutes the air & water, atomic plants are dangerous, wind turbines offend the NIMBY’s as unsightly & noisy , natural gas electric plants will kill your budget and hydro-dams destroy the habitats of the yellow-pimpled bog frog. I give up. I’m moving my track outside ( to use the natural sunlight ) and I’m going to convert all my engines to spring wound, hand crank prime movers. Not going to catch me wasting energy ! Are any “green” model railroaders with me ? Or was that a collective …NOW WAIT JUST A MINUTE.!!..I heard from the Al Gore fan club ? Al Gore…the hypocrite that burns more electricity in his compound than a small town.
Come on, I wasn’t speaking about Al Gore and you know it. I was referencing respected scientists and not retired politicians. But if I were you I’d be very reluctant quoting from the likes James Inoke and John Coleman.
Mr. Inoke is a Senator from Oklahoma with extreme views on most anything relating to scientific research. He is an ardent supporter of creationism (aka: Intelligent Design) and would like to revisit the dark ages by banning the teaching of evolution in schools.
And your favorite weatherman John Coleman is just that, a weatherman. A weatherman in San Diego where predicting weather is something even I could do. Yes, he was the founder of the Weather Channel but has no credentials on long term studies of global climate change. I would love to see Mr. Coleman, or you, reference just one peer review article refuting what most main stream scientists feel about climate change. To add insult to injury, John Coleman has been refuted by the organization he belongs to, “The American Meteorological Society.” This organization has , on more than one occasion, stated that “The evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.”
So, I’m not asking for much…just name one peer review article on global warming that refutes what I’ve mentioned in this thread. Not something yo
What was in my post that suggested in any way that I had any doubt that the “chemistry of global warming is rock solid”, that is, that the mechanism by which increases in the amount of atmospheric CO2 at the current levels of concentration indeed increase the amount of heat input to the climate system? I referred to those who had doubts about this mechanism as being “on the fringes.” What makes you say that I am believing or even agnostic about that view?
I also wrote that the computer models were forcasting much larger increases in temperature for years forward than the amount of temperature increase observed to date, and that the computer model forecasts were based on the hypothesis of one or more positive feedback mechanisms amplifying the effect of CO2 alone in trapping heat.
These feedback mechanisms relating to changes in atmospheric water vapor and cloud cover, I had reasoned, were more speculative than the “rock solid” science of CO2 radiation bands. In the past two years, in fact, I had attended a seminar at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in Atmospheric Sciences, where the speaker addressed these feedback mechanisms, presented a “back of the envelope” atmospheric model based on the Hadley tropical, temperate, and polar circulation bands, and presented evidence that the amount of 21st century warming could be at the low end of the prevalent forecasts, and what warming would occur would be tempered by increased wind circulation transfering that heat to higher latitudes. This talk was received in a friendly spirit from a small classroom full of weather and climate
Looks like Wayne and I are in the minority…
I may be wrong, but I seem to be the only person here (unless there are any other teens) who’ll live long enough to see any of these changes affect the world. Call it what you like; but even if global warming isn’t actually caused by humans, it still doesn’t mean we should just keep dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Even if it’s not causing all of the glabal warming, it certainly isn’t “good”, is it?
That’s my final post on this thread; it’s doomed to be locked/deleted soon anyway…[#dots]
All the changes that are propsed are all GOOD things in and of themselves (global warming or not). Using less electricty (through knickknack lights and more green homes and buildings) and saving money is good. Throwing less pollutants into the air is good. Can anyone argue with that?
As far as the weather channel? They are just prostitues to their advertisers. Of course they’ll say global warming is a myth - either that or risk losing sponsors like Chrylser and their Dodge Rams…