Glenn Beck: global warming's equal time
Purple Hawk
Posts: 1,300
anyone interested in actual dialogue, check the show out tomorrow night...
And you ask me what I want this year
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
what i mean by actual dialogue is that an opposing viewpoint is put out there. yes, he opened by saying it was one-sided...that's honest.
what's dishonest is saying "the debate is over" and shouting down dissent. you can't shout down people saying the debate is over b/c if it was over, there would be no dissent.
I thought he brought up many good points in the show...especially about reversing the arrow of causality between co2 and temp.
the global warming push is nothing more than a push towards bigger government, by instilling fear into people and making them feel guilty.
what i mean by dialogue is actually having one, instead of ramrodding this notion that "the debate is over" when we don't even agree what the debate is about.
i give you credit though, that you actually watch the show...this coming from someone who cannot turn away from randi rhodes...like a car crash.
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
or maybe the founder of greenpeace, who was ostricized b/c he had a differing opinion.
the show was more about actually about promoting debate (since we are spoon fed one side day in and day out) than it was debunking anything.
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
So actual dialogue is showing your side?
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Hurricane forecaster: Oceans, not CO2, cause global warming
04:44 PM MST on Monday, April 30, 2007
Dan Elliott / Associated Press
DENVER -- Hurricane forecaster William Gray said Friday that global ocean currents, not human-produced carbon dioxide, are responsible for global warming, and the Earth may begin to cool on its own in five to 10 years.
Gray, a Colorado State University researcher best known for his annual forecasts of hurricanes along the U.S. Atlantic coast, also said increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere won't produce more or stronger hurricanes.
He said that over the past 40 years the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined compared with the previous 40 years, even though carbon dioxide levels have risen.
Gray, speaking to a group of Republican state lawmakers, had harsh words for researchers and politicians who say man-made greenhouse gases are responsible for global warming.
"They're blaming it all on humans, which is crazy," he said. "We're not the cause of it."
Many researchers believe warming is causing hurricanes to get stronger, while others aren't sure.
A study published last week suggested warming might make it more difficult for hurricanes to form because it produces more vertical wind shear, which can weaken hurricanes.
But the researchers, Gabriel A. Vecchi of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Brian J. Soden of the University of Miami, said it was unclear whether the dampening effects of wind shear would cancel out the boost that warmer water gives hurricanes.
Gray complained that politics and research into global warming have created "almost an industry" that has unfairly frightened the public and overwhelmed dissenting voices.
He said research arguing that humans are causing global warming is "mush" based on unreliable computer models that cannot possibly take into account the hundreds of factors that influence the weather.
Gray said ocean circulation patterns are behind a decades-long warming cycle. He has argued previously that the strength of these patterns can affect how much cold water rises to the surface, which in turn affects how warm or cold the atmosphere is.
He also disputed assertions that greenhouse gases could raise global temperatures as much as some scientists predict.
"There's no way that doubling CO2 is going to cause that amount of warming," he said.
Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, said natural changes in the environment cannot account for the magnitude of global warming in the past four decades.
"Since about 1970, the global temperature change is outside of the range of natural variability," he said in an interview.
He also challenged Gray's assertion that ocean currents have more effect on temperatures than carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
"Global warming is pervasive. It has an influence on everything," Trenberth said. "It has an influence on ocean currents, it has an influence on hurricanes, it has an influence on rainfall."
Trenberth said computer climate models are the best quantitative tools available for predicting climate change. "They have been getting better over time," he said.
Gray said warming and cooling trends cannot go on indefinitely and that he believes temperatures are beginning to level out after a very warm year in 1998.
"We're going to begin to see some cooling," he said.
Pensacola '94
New Orleans '95
Birmingham '98
New Orleans '00
New Orleans '03
Tampa '08
New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
Fenway Park '18
St. Louis '22
if that is the case - then there really is no debate left - the science is clear in the relationship between gHg and temperature ... anyone who chooses to do an experiment at home is welcome to try and you will see for yourself ...
I believe you are exactly correct.
Pensacola '94
New Orleans '95
Birmingham '98
New Orleans '00
New Orleans '03
Tampa '08
New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
Fenway Park '18
St. Louis '22
Well, if we can't agree what is causing global warming, then how in the hell are we going to agree whether we need to act on it and how to fix it (if humans are the ones causing it). We might make a lot of stupid decisions and plans to combat global warming when the problems we think we were solving weren't even a problem (as far as global warming) to begin with.
uhh ... not sure what you are getting at?
to me - there is a consensus already ... my comment on this thread is that if we have moved from *there is no climate change* to *ok - there is climate change but what is causing it* then all anyone has to do is study the greenhouse effect ... this is factual science - no one has disputed it ... therefore, the cause is simple - it is us ... it is NOT only us but we are the main contributors ...
the IPCC released a plan today to address things ...
If the debate has moved to "what is causing it" like you are saying, then you are implying there is disagreement on what is causing global warming. So, what I was saying is that there is still a long way to go because if we can't agree on what is causing global warming, then we won't be able to agree on how to fix it. From your response though, you already believe you have your answer to "what is causing."
If what some scientists are saying is correct and the correlation between CO2 and the global temperature is that CO2 goes up after temperature goes up, then how can CO2 play a main role in global warming? Maybe it is the oceans' currents like this guy is saying and has nothing to do with humans?
the thing is most people agree already ... it's not like a 50-50 split here ... there is an overwhelming consensus ... i can tell this hurricane guy is off his rocker because he uses the lamest reasoning that our peak warm year was 1998 and therefore we are in a cooling period ... meanwhile - all subsequent years have been well above average ... with i think now 2006 being the warmest ever ...
what have you been reading? - no one is saying CO2 goes up with temperature, temperature goes up with CO2 ... again - the greenhouse effect is not disputed by anyone ... there should not be a debate anymore as to the cause ...
maybe if you wanna grasp - you can argue the degree of impact but really then you're just looking at ways to not do anything ...
I cannot believe people still do not buy into the CO2-Temperature relation....its fucking simple to understand..then again since I am a chemical engineer this stuff comes easier to me....blows my mind.....
People seem to believe that Earth is a mega planet capable of anything, in the grand scheme of things we are nothing and we are alone on a very very very small planet and yes dumping tonne upon tonne of gas into the air will do something....people need to trust the people who know science not political pundits who have no clue has to what they are talking about.....this whole arguement reminds me of those idiots that think cigarette smoke didn't lead to cancer...actually seen a show the other day where the two highest paid people out there promoting attacks on the global warming debate were the same two guys going across America saying smoking didn't lead to cancer.....too funny...
There's a lot of old money, huge money, tied into the ancestors of the industrial revolution. They're attached to to all things Property. It is so pervasive now that our media is controlled by it. We Americans see the world through those influences.
I'm close enough to the border to get a few Canadian TV stations, and I don't know that I can explain the difference. It's so fucking unbelievable the childishness that America subjects itself to while Canadians express educated, non-plussed views on the state of affairs of the goings-on in the world today. I'm not saying Canada is free of some of the influences I'm talking about, but the way they handle themselves puts the American system to shame.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
i think there is a stigma relating environmentalism with suppression of freedoms or something ... i mean sustainability should be the cornerstone of conservative views but yet somehow they are so against it ...
I am not a scientist, so I'm not going to argue who is right or wrong. I don't really trust when people say "most people" or "overwhelming consensus." That was the kinda talk we would hear for many years from abortion advocates who would state that the majority of women were pro-abortion, when in fact that was never the case. Their network in the media would repeatedly say it though, and people started to believe it.
Humans may be the cause. They may not be. But they way you or some folks on here look at the Bush administration and the runup to the war, who is to say that scientific data is not being pieced together by politicians and action groups to read the way they want it too? I am sure there are respected scientists on either side of the fence on this issue. I don't trust the media to present both sides. The other side is expressed so little that of course it won't get any respect, and those who express those views are painted as "crazy hillbillies."
I understand CO2 cause temperature increase. The CO2 argument stems though from charts (I've seen them, know as much that they are right that I know that they are wrong) that show CO2 levels increase after the warming of the earth. If true it does not mean that CO2 does not cause heat, but indicates that there are much, much larger factors that increase temperature outside of CO2.
I am not coming at this view from a corporate standpoint. I think we should be making changes to help the environment, if not for global warming, but for humans who breathe the air, drink the water, and eat the crops.
i really don't know what to say to you ... the media is generally reporting what the major scientists are saying ... it's like saying you don't trust that the warriors beat the mavericks in basketball last nite cuz it comes from some media source ...
it's really quite simple ... educate yourself on the subject and make an opinion if you don't trust me or the media ... but to say maybe yes maybe no is absolving yourself of your participation in this ...
as for the last paragraph ... i am utterly confused ... higher temperatures do not cause CO2 - no one is saying that ... i've not heard of any chart that shows the former ...
The point I am trying to make is that the media shows one side, every once in a while you hear rebuttles (like ones disproving "fact" showed in "An Inconvenient Truth"). So, I'm not ready to jump on the global warming bandwagon. Far lefties weren't ready to listen to the President, CIA, FBI, media, every major nation as far as WMD's were concerned, so you can see why some in the same way may not trust what SOME (NOT ALL) scientists are saying. Since you haven't even heard of the "CO2 vs. Warming Correlatioin," which I have heard by not even trying to research, then you may need to work on your "research" skills. I just googled this article that explains the last paragraph and how CO2 increase lag during periods of warming. That neither proves nor disproves CO2's ultimate influence, but does show that warming periods have been started not because of C02 increases, but by other causes. Then, it appears that it is debatable as to CO2's ultimate effect in these warming periods.
From: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13
This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.
Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.
The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.
The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.
It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.
From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.
First off you sound like Laurie David..... Mrs.'s don't question my movie....
Maybe if you took a minute to read all the ice core data (remove yourself from Laurie David's rear) for the last.... I don't know maybe, you could see the whole 5MM years worth, than you will not see the selective garbage that is being thrown around daily in the media .... As temperature goes up CO2 lags behind, in some epochs, CO2 catches up (like now) and levels with temperature. It rides the line for a little while, then temperature begins to go down, CO2 lags behind. There have been several temperature drops in ice core data, where CO2 is higher. Not the other way around.
The people who agree with you happen to be making the most noise about this. That is the "consensus". There is something to be said for perpetuating a point for political purposes (i.e. - trying to sway a population to win an election... sadly this is the motivating factor).
We should be doing our best not to polute the environment. There are plenty of good reasons to cut back on fossil fuels. But blaming rising CO2 levels for the warming trend on earth is not it, and we will eventually accept that fact. CO2 is an extremely minor greenhouse gas. Molecule for molecule CH4 (methane) is 20x stronger than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. It is more effective at trapping gases in the atmosphere than CO2. Many scientists, who are proponents of man-made global warming don't want to touch that hand (because that would tie to the oceans - which is known for the outgassing of CH4, many many times in the distant past and recent past). And that will cut into their grant money. I am all for science as the way of things, but sometimes, some people will use it for their own purposes (including some scientists).
Why is it that we have to be zombies and tow the line ? Differences in opinion are important. Throwing around opinion as fact is dangerous. There are many, many dissidents in the scientific community, give it time they will make their voices heard.
Q. Is warming happening ???? A. YES !
Q. Are we contributing ???? A. Not unless all humans, animals, and plants collectively fart non-stop for 5000 years ! (and throw in a couple CH4 ocean farts for good measure).
Q. Can we control it ????? A. Absolutely not, there are forces at hand driving this and we can't do a damn thing about it ! We can't control our cyclical albedo, we can't control the cyclical intensity of the sun, we can't control CO2 outgassing by the planet !. We can only hope the nature of things balances this all out, like it has in the past. If not then we can find ourselves in a greenhouse stage (bad) or an ice age phase (bad).