Must See For Climate Change Skeptics

Options
1234568

Comments

  • arthurdent
    arthurdent Posts: 969
    hey, where did those guys go, anyway? They were here in January, telling us that there is no global warming. I can't seem to find a trace of them now that I'm in my third week of 115 degree heat indices.
    Rock me Jesus, roll me Lord...
    Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,289
    arthurdent wrote:
    hey, where did those guys go, anyway? They were here in January, telling us that there is no global warming. I can't seem to find a trace of them now that I'm in my third week of 115 degree heat indices.
    Hot weather in the summertime? Inconceivable! ;)
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • arthurdent
    arthurdent Posts: 969
    Jason P wrote:
    arthurdent wrote:
    hey, where did those guys go, anyway? They were here in January, telling us that there is no global warming. I can't seem to find a trace of them now that I'm in my third week of 115 degree heat indices.
    Hot weather in the summertime? Inconceivable! ;)

    you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it mean. :D

    personally, I'm just tired of reading this everyday:
    Dangerous heat index. Outdoor exposure should be limited.
    Rock me Jesus, roll me Lord...
    Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    there is drought in many places ... mass flooding has taken the lives of a bunch of people ... it's only gonna get worse ...
  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,289
    polaris_x wrote:
    there is drought in many places ... mass flooding has taken the lives of a bunch of people ... it's only gonna get worse ...
    I'm observing and taking notes. Per everything I've seen from the climate change people has foreseen this to be the typical weather pattern from now on. I'll check back in a year.

    It is a hot mofo today....
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    Jason P wrote:
    polaris_x wrote:
    there is drought in many places ... mass flooding has taken the lives of a bunch of people ... it's only gonna get worse ...
    I'm observing and taking notes. Per everything I've seen from the climate change people has foreseen this to be the typical weather pattern from now on. I'll check back in a year.

    It is a hot mofo today....

    foreseen??? so theyre looking into the future to explain the weather today when it goes spazzy. its climate change people! hmmm
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,656
    arthurdent wrote:
    hey, where did those guys go, anyway? They were here in January, telling us that there is no global warming. I can't seem to find a trace of them now that I'm in my third week of 115 degree heat indices.

    Don't worry, the skeptics will be back as soon as fall arrives. What they CHRONICALLY seem to forget (or refuse to acknowledge) is that checking local weather- no matter what it does- is not at all the way to track global climate change/warming. I'm not sure their outdoor thermometers- no matter what they read- will change their mind. The spread of malaria, melting glaciers, shrinking ice caps and rising oceans might change their minds... when it's too late to do anything about it. The price of denial can be a very sad thing.

    We've been very lucky here on much of the west coast this year having had (so far) a relativley mild summer. To all the rest of you who are under that nasty blanket of heat (be you a skeptic or otherwise) my thoughts go out to you. I know what it's like to sit in a puddle of sweat with 115 degree temps and humidity. No fun! I hope you're finding a way beat the heat at least a little.
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni











  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    catefrances wrote:
    foreseen??? so theyre looking into the future to explain the weather today when it goes spazzy. its climate change people! hmmm

    let me know when you have decided to study the science and you have something to dispute it ...

    otherwise i get it ... earth 4.5 billion years old ... not enough time ... :(
  • lukin2006
    lukin2006 Posts: 9,087
    Why do we have to look at the science? Why can we not get on with reversing the trend? Why not spend money on improving things? We don't spend money on trying to prover cancer exists, aids exist? Why still spend money to prove our climate is changing? What's it going to hurt to polluter less, conserve energy, be a little more conscience of the environment? Probably won't hurt at all!!!
    I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin

    "Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
  • bigdvs
    bigdvs Posts: 235
    le sigh .....its a "settled" and "complex" issue....


    CERN in Geneva—will soon announce that more cosmic rays do, indeed, create more clouds in earth’s atmosphere. More cosmic rays mean a cooler planet
    The next climate debate bombshell
    Share |
    (3) Comments | Subscribe | Print friendly | Email Us
    - Dennis Avery Tuesday, July 19, 2011
    Get ready for the next big bombshell in the man-made warming debate. The world’s most sophisticated particle study laboratory—CERN in Geneva—will soon announce that more cosmic rays do, indeed, create more clouds in earth’s atmosphere. More cosmic rays mean a cooler planet. Thus, the solar source of the earth’s long, moderate 1,500-year climate cycle will finally be explained.



    Cosmic rays and solar winds are interesting phenomena—but they are vastly more relevant when an undocumented theory is threatening to quadruple society’s energy costs. The IPCC wants $10 gasoline, and “soaring” electric bills to reduce earth’s temperatures by an amount too tiny to measure with most thermometers.

    In 2007, when Fred Singer and I published Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years, we weren’t terribly concerned with cosmic rays. We knew the natural, moderate warming/cooling cycle was real, from the evidence in ice cores, seabed sediments, fossil pollen and cave stalagmites. The cycle was the big factor that belied the man-made warming hysteria of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    When Willi Dansgaard and Hans Oeschger discovered the 1,500 year cycle in the Greenland ice cores in 1984, they knew immediately that it was solar-powered. They’d seen exactly the same cycle in the carbon 14 molecules in trees, and in the beryllium 10 molecules in ice cores. Both sets of molecules are formed when cosmic rays strike our atmosphere. The cycle had produced a whole series of dramatic, abrupt Medieval-Warming-to-Little-Ice-Age climate changes.

    The IPCC, for its part, announced that the sun could not be the forcing factor in any major climate change because the solar irradiation was too small. IPCC did not, however, add up the other solar variations that could amplify the solar irradiation. Nor had the IPCC programmed its famed computer models with the knowledge of the Medieval Warming (950–1200 AD), the Roman Warming (200 BC–600 AD), or the big Holocene Warmings centered on 6,000 and 8,000 BC.

    The IPCC apparently wanted to dismiss the sun as a climate factor—to leave room for a CO2 factor that has only a 22 percent correlation with our past thermometer record. Correlation is not causation—but the lack of CO2 correlation is deadly to the IPCC theory.

    Henrik Svensmark of the Danish Space Research Institute added the next chapter in the climate cycle story, just before our book was published. His cloud chamber experiment showed natural cosmic rays quickly created vast numbers of tiny “cloud seeds” when our mix of atmospheric gases was bombarded with ultra-violet light. Since clouds often cover 30 percent of the earth’s surface, a moderate change in cloud cover clearly could explain the warming/cooling cycle.

    Svensmark noted the gigantic “solar wind” that expands when the sun is active—and thus blocks many of the cosmic rays that would otherwise hit the earth’s atmosphere. When the sun weakens, the solar wind shrinks. Recently, the U.S. Solar Observatory reported a very long period of “quiet sun” and predicted 30 years of cooling.

    Last year, Denmark’s University of Aarhus did another experiment with a particle accelerator that fully confirmed the Svensmark hypothesis: cosmic rays help to make more clouds and thus could cool the earth.

    The CERN experiment is supposed to be the big test of the Svensmark theory. It’s a tipoff, then, that CERN’s boss, Rolf-Dieter Heuer, has just told the German magazine Die Welt that he has forbidden his researchers to “interpret” the forthcoming test results. In other words, the CERN report will be a stark “just the facts” listing of the findings. Those findings must support Svensmark, or Heuer would never have issued such a stifling order on a major experiment.

    Stay tuned.

    also interesting:
    http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/260 ... e-sceptics
    "The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
    — Socrates

  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    lukin2006 wrote:
    Why do we have to look at the science? Why can we not get on with reversing the trend? Why not spend money on improving things? We don't spend money on trying to prover cancer exists, aids exist? Why still spend money to prove our climate is changing? What's it going to hurt to polluter less, conserve energy, be a little more conscience of the environment? Probably won't hurt at all!!!

    it's hurting bottom lines ... oil companies make a lot of money because they've convinced us that we need to use their dirty product ... it's no different than tobacco ... they fought long and hard to try and disprove their product was bad ... oil companies are doing the same thing ...

    unfortunately, it takes leadership ... political leadership to make things better but when that leadership is controlled by companies that would lose out ... it basically is non-existent ... especially when the people that vote in that leadership continue to read only ideological sources ...
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    bigdvs wrote:
    le sigh .....its a "settled" and "complex" issue....


    CERN in Geneva—will soon announce that more cosmic rays do, indeed, create more clouds in earth’s atmosphere. More cosmic rays mean a cooler planet
    The next climate debate bombshell
    Share |
    (3) Comments | Subscribe | Print friendly | Email Us
    - Dennis Avery Tuesday, July 19, 2011
    Get ready for the next big bombshell in the man-made warming debate. The world’s most sophisticated particle study laboratory—CERN in Geneva—will soon announce that more cosmic rays do, indeed, create more clouds in earth’s atmosphere. More cosmic rays mean a cooler planet. Thus, the solar source of the earth’s long, moderate 1,500-year climate cycle will finally be explained.

    sooo ... this is the guy you listen to ... :roll: ... honestly ... if you guys don't want to read up on global warming ... read "trust us, we're experts" ... a great book on the role of PR in issues such as this ...

    http://www.desmogblog.com/dennis-avery
  • bigdvs
    bigdvs Posts: 235
    but what were all those crazies thinking believing in Darwin and Mendel, there was proof and it was settled that lamarckism was real...



    Lysenkoism, named for Russian botanist Trofim Lysenko, was a political doctrine in Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union that mandated that all biological research conducted in the USSR conform to a modified Lamarckian evolutionary theory. The underlying appeal was that it promised a biology based on a plastic view of life that was consistent with the plastic view of human nature insisted upon by Marxist-Leninist dogma.

    Lysenko was, though a thorough crank, a political favorite of Stalin who promised great advances in the Soviets' agricultural system by breeding plants based on characteristics acquired from drastic alterations of their environments. Despite the political success of Lysenko's hypotheses, the actual implementation was a failure, wrecking Soviet biology research and risking famine on several occasions.

    At the core of Lysenkoism was rejection of the work of Gregor Mendel and denunciation of the concept of genes as "idealist" (one of Stalin's favorite snarl words for ideas he found unacceptable). Though DNA had not been discovered at the time of Lysenko's rise in the 1930s, much productive work -- starting with understanding of how to breed "pure" (i.e. predictable) strains of plants and animals in order to provide proper experimental controls in breeding work -- had been done since the discovery of Mendel's work. Lamarckism (the idea that offspring inherit traits their parents acquired in their lifetimes) provided a more politically correct view in the eyes of Stalin, who felt (as had many Lamarckian holdouts) that Darwinian/Mendelian biology rendered life unacceptably deterministic.[1]

    The Lysenkoists employed Stalinist terror in their struggle with Darwinian biologists for bureaucratic and academic positions. Anti-Lysenkoists faced the threat of public denunciation, loss of communist party membership, loss of employment position and arrest by the secret police. Between Lysenko's grip on power and the "disappearances" of numerous of his opponents, it would be years until the Soviet biology program would recover.[2] Similar political strong-arm tactics also hobbled the Soviet nuclear physics program, requiring Soviet scientists to follow only theories that had the Communist Party's blessing. This forced them to steal working designs from the United States, including the decisive Teller-Ulam hydrogen bomb design.

    Like much of Stalin's legacy, Lysenkoism fell out of favor in the mid-late '50s and early '60s, as Nikita Khrushchev "de-Stalinized" the Soviet Union. Lysenko himself was stripped of his power as head of the Soviet agricultural academy in 1956 after a couple of years of intense criticism by the Party, and he slipped into obscurity afterwards. However, Lysenkoism would retain some influence well into the '60s.
    "The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
    — Socrates

  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,656
    If you read (read, not skim) this article, you'll see that the CERN experiment will do nothing to debunk the reality of anthropogenic global warming:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -blown-up/
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni











  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,656
    lukin2006 wrote:
    Jeanwah wrote:
    If my die-hard Republican father in law can see the light, I believe that everyone has a chance of changing face on learning the effects of climate change. (And I've never met a closed mind as tightly shut as my Father in law) But one has to want to learn. How do we get more people curious?

    I'm changing...I believe in climate change more and more...just a little skeptical on the cause...but I now believe more than ever that we do contribute, now I'm more curious about why more is done to reverse it or slow it down. My wife and I both do our part, have energy efficient appliance's, energy efficient light bulbs, don't leave lights on, both of drive fuel efficient cars, only drive when necessary...we do all kinds of things...but why isn't more effort being done?

    I also admit that I was dead set in believing in climate change...but If you do the reading and listening of the facts then you'll see that climate change does exist...

    I just wonder why more isn't being done...why is bottle water popular still? look at the waste with all those bottles and it's just overpriced tap water. Why is so much package items in that hard plastic? I have so many questions, doubtful I'll get satisfactory answers.


    Here's an excellent 8:04 video on bottled water: http://www.youtube.com/storyofstuffproj ... e12y9hSOM0
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni











  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    http://www.grist.org/climate-skeptics/2 ... ate-change

    :)
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,656
    Volcanic vs. Anthropenic CO2:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... genic-co2/
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni











  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    brianlux wrote:
    Volcanic vs. Anthropenic CO2:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... genic-co2/

    from one of the comments ... pretty scary if true ...

    When Eyjafjalajokull was erupting and shut down European/N. Atlantic air traffic for more than a week, folks were trying to estimate the change to carbon emissions… the result I remember was that CO2 emissions into the atmosphere dropping at least 10-fold for that period. Yes, the volcano emitted a lot, but the amount not emitted just from having no European air traffic was much greater.
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,656
    polaris_x wrote:
    brianlux wrote:
    Volcanic vs. Anthropenic CO2:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... genic-co2/

    from one of the comments ... pretty scary if true ...

    When Eyjafjalajokull was erupting and shut down European/N. Atlantic air traffic for more than a week, folks were trying to estimate the change to carbon emissions… the result I remember was that CO2 emissions into the atmosphere dropping at least 10-fold for that period. Yes, the volcano emitted a lot, but the amount not emitted just from having no European air traffic was much greater.

    Good point. Too many people don't want to admit that climate change is mainly anthropgenic because they don't want to admit the need to change their habits. Kurt Vonnegut said we would do ourselves in because we are too damn cheap. I think he also meant chintzy in our willingness to change. It's easier to just jump in the car than to walk a block or two to the store. (Not meaning to pick on anyone here. We all need to give up some habits and things in order to make a difference.)
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni











  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    brianlux wrote:
    Good point. Too many people don't want to admit that climate change is mainly anthropgenic because they don't want to admit the need to change their habits. Kurt Vonnegut said we would do ourselves in because we are too damn cheap. I think he also meant chintzy in our willingness to change. It's easier to just jump in the car than to walk a block or two to the store. (Not meaning to pick on anyone here. We all need to give up some habits and things in order to make a difference.)

    for sure - we all have to make changes ...

    it's just sad tho how easily manipulated many people are ... i just got preliminary approval with my company to push forth an environmental sustainability strategy ... my presentation to the execs was met with a lot of preconceived notions of that it all meant ... but after explaining to them that actions to preserve our environment is a win-win situation for all - they were more supportive ... it's amazing how much mis-information is out there ...

Categories