If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
I have an opinion on global warming!
On 6 Apr 2007 20:13:28 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:
It's amazing how gullible some of the supposedly smartest people in ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the world can be. Of course, this is happening in a society that ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ spends $7 BILLION dollars annually on...bottled *water*. you're referring to people in the US. There *are* people with a clue - both within and outside the US. #m -- I am not a terrorist. http://www.casualdisobedience.com/ |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
I have an opinion on global warming!
Gene Seibel wrote:
Satellite and balloon readings show no warming. Only surface measurements, and they are very susceptible to errors. This is a reflection of increased solar activity. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
I have an opinion on global warming!
Mxsmanic wrote in
: Borat writes: With respect, I tend to go with people who have been studying this for years and overall there are more scientists supporting the global warming prognosis. Nothing makes people who have been studying something for years honest or objective (even with themselves). Scientists have to eat, and they soon learn that one good way to eat is to do studies that reach acceptable and desirable conclusions. Doing studies that reach unpopular conclusions leads to ridicule and a loss of income. Right now, global warming is where the money and glory are. So scientists study global warming, and they make sure that they reach the right conclusions. What has changed is the availability of even more powerful computers available to model various scenarios. Computer power is not the problem. Accurate models are the problem. Nobody knows how to create an accurate model of global climate. Nobody even has a clue, in fact. There are too many variables and the climate is too complex. Nobody knows which factors are important; indeed, nobody knows all the factors to begin with. There is no way today to predict the climate 100 years from now, or even a year from now, no matter how powerful the computers. Scientists can't even predict local weather 24 hours from now. Global warming is not about what happens on a day by day basis but over long periods of time. And that's why we really know nothing about it. We can only watch and observe. You would be well ****ed if they started telling you how to be an inn keeper. Most people get upset whenever anyone questions their competence. That doesn't mean that competence should not be questioned. Thirty years ago, scientists were predicting a new ice age. Where's the ice? In your brain and nuts? Bertie |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
I have an opinion on global warming!
On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 18:28:47 +0100, "Borat" wrote:
I think we have to be very careful about the facts in this discussion. The data (or "Back-casting", as we used to call it) shows that temperatures worldwide have climbed incrementally in the last hundred years. The data does NOT show why this is happening, and everyone is misconstruing "educated guesses" as "facts". With respect, I tend to go with people who have been studying this for years and overall there are more scientists supporting the global warming prognosis. But how would you know? The IPCC Summary for Policymakers was written by bureaucrats with political motives. It is supposed to be a summary of the Technical Summary of Working Group 1 on the Scientific Basis of Climate Change. The Technical Summary has not been released yet as it is being rewritten TO CONFORM TO THE SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS. I'm not making that up, the science will be rewritten to conform to the political document before being released in May. Fortunately, the final draft of the Technical Summary was leaked by some of the participants who were upset by the politicization of the study. It is available at www.junkscience.com among other places. Read it and you will see the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) does not reflect the Technical Summary (TS) in many places, particularly sea level rise. The worst case sea level rise by 2100 in the TS is 17 inches, not 23 inches as in the SPM, much less the 20 to 200 ft thrown around by Gore and the Associated Press. The TS states that without melting the Greenland Ice Sheet and the Antarctic Ice Sheets, the forever maximum rise is about a meter. The SPM does not mention that limit and hints that the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets could melt though the TS flatly rejects that possibility. Many of the scientists in working group one resigned over the politicization of the study, but the IPCC is still listing them as authors. You can see them interviewed in the BBC Channel 4 documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" which is available in Google Videos and YouTube. In short, what you seem to think scientists agree on is very different from what they actually believe. You have to go past the popular media and political statements from the UN and activists to learn what is real and what is hype. Don Virginia - the only State with a flag rated "R" for partial nudity and graphic violence. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
I have an opinion on global warming!
Judah wrote: Maybe it's not "Global Warming". Maybe it's just "Southwest Warming". Well, seems you missed the sarcasm. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
I have an opinion on global warming!
"Don Tabor" wrote: Many of the scientists in working group one resigned over the politicization of the study, but the IPCC is still listing them as authors. You can see them interviewed in the BBC Channel 4 documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is known load of bs which some of those same scientists have called "pure propaganda," complaining that their comments were taken out of context and deliberately distorted. The producer, Martin Durkin, has been caught pulling this trick before, and the tabloid UK Channel 4 (not BBC, which would have nothing to do with this bozo) has had to apologize for the other program of his that it aired. http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0...aganda_the.php -- Dan C172RG at BFM |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
I have an opinion on global warming!
On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 21:59:30 -0500, "Dan Luke"
wrote: "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is known load of bs which some of those same scientists have called "pure propaganda," complaining that their comments were taken out of context and deliberately distorted. T I would not claim TGGWS is totally unbiased, but keep in mind I suggested it as a balance to Gore's film. However, the MediaLens refutation is the real load of BS. They concentrate on one scientist who said he was misled on the films purpose, but even he does not say that what he said on the film was inaccurate. Then they dismiss about half a dozen other scientists who would not refute their parts in the film in a single sentence claiming they are all influenced by right wing think tanks. Guilt by association. One even is an NRA member, horrors. Read the About Us tab for MediaLens and you will see they are exactly the anti-capitalist environmental nut cases who are pushing the whole man caused global warming as end of the world foolishness. Again, go to the IPCC working group one Technical Summary and read it. TGGWS is a lot closer to the science than Inconvenient Truth is. Don Virginia - the only State with a flag rated "R" for partial nudity and graphic violence. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
I have an opinion on global warming!
"Don Tabor" wrote: I would not claim TGGWS is totally unbiased, LOL but keep in mind I suggested it as a balance to Gore's film. So in your mind, two piles of bull**** add up to one pile of truth? -- Dan C172RG at BFM |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
I have an opinion on global warming!
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 16:32:05 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote: RomeoMike writes: People with credentials are not always correct, but in my experience they are correct more often than people without. Often people without credentials focus on some small part of a problem, unaware of the full scope. Often people with credentials adopt an opinion without a solid basis and then attempt to impose it upon others by constantly referring to their credentials. Their sycophants and others who agree with them will also attempt to impose the opinion based on credentials. Personally, I have no idea if this is a valid point. I'm not an expert either. I don't think it's a relevant point. The temperature drops with altitude up to a certain point, then rises again, reaching several thousand degrees at some altitudes. However, I don't see how this correlates at all with global warming. well if there is warming it is only surface warming not global warming. has the earth's weather ever been stable? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
lowrance 500 opinion | d&tm | Piloting | 2 | March 17th 07 06:57 AM |
Aviation Conspiracy: CBS Spotlights Aviation's Effect On Global Warming!!! | Free Speaker | General Aviation | 1 | August 3rd 06 07:24 PM |
Your opinion about helmets? | Dave Russell | Aerobatics | 8 | March 13th 04 02:32 PM |
Opinion on club share | Paul Folbrecht | Owning | 10 | January 8th 04 05:17 AM |
Opinion on this please | Frederick Wilson | Home Built | 11 | December 24th 03 06:01 PM |