For those who don’t believe in global warming, how do you explain the melting ice caps? Not dealing with the issue of man made or not.
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
From: Obamaforever
To: Mark T. (I create lists I do not understand!!!!!!) per #56
Mark T., you have a right good list there. In your list you show lead in gasoline.
Question: Do you think it was good to take lead out of gasoline?
I do not see smoking tobacco or second hand smoke (from smoking tobacco) on your list. Did you forget, Retard?
Question: Do you think it is O.K. for people to smoke?
Is second hand smoke bad for people?
Would you please look up the expression-mad as a hatter- and tell me what it means.
Mark T., I am thinking as a second occupation you could be a hatter. It would improve your I.Q.
The amazing thing I am also seeing in all this is no one has mentioned HEMP. You know, that wonder plant that has been outlawed due to its amazing versatility? From textiles to fuel to food. Yet, no one has brought it up until now, and I am just using it as a comparator.
Not only would it help reduce CO2 levels, but it also makes a decent shirt, a great wall (and other textiles) but it also contains nutrients (which were taken OUT of food these days) and essential oils that we as Humans need.
But…its illegal. So I guess it doesn’t count.
Now here’s a question: Why is it ILLEGAL?
From: Obamaforever
To: Smith (aka the village idiot) per #60
God, where do I start!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Base on your post a car mechanic should be able to work on a jet engine and a jet engine mechanic should be able to work on a car because they both use the same “tools” (more or less). Would this be true? Nooooooooo!!!
This would only work if the car mechanic had a thorough understanding of how a jet engine worked and hands on experience on repairing jet engines. You can say the same thing for the jet engine mechanic.
To be a climatologist (PhD) you need to have a thorough understanding of how climate works, how to collect data, and how to write a paper on the findings from the data. This paper would be peer reviewed.
Without a background in climatology a person with a PhD in mathematics, physics, and computer modeling would not have clue what he/she was looking at (see car mechanic/jet engine mechanic above).
I will be blunt. Smith, you are an idiot.
Go away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
# 14
The majority of the CO2 to O2 conversion from plants doesn’t come from the rain forests that are apparently getting cut down (gee by now there shouldn’t BE a rain forest anymore, but that’s another BS story).
The idea that the “lungs” of the planet is the amazon rain forest is false. It’s already too small to support the “whole” planet. It’s ocean sea water (that covers most of the earth’s surface) that absorbs most of the CO2, the plant life in the water (sea weed, moss, fungus, plankton, etc al) is the real “lungs.”
I dunno, perhaps that thing in the center of the solar system called “The Sun”.
# 36
It’s people YOU that keeps changing the story. Everyone is talking about “melting polar ice caps” I never head any one say “ice on land is melting” So which is it, can’t you make up your mind, Obamaforever?
Keep your name calling to your self, jerk. Why do people who can’t make more than one point you have to resort to insults as “filler” so it looks like you have more clever things to say that has zero to do with your point, let alone the topic?
So let me follow your example. Fuck you Obamaforever, you’re the one with your head so far up your own ass you can’t see logic amongst all the bullshit. Come back to me when you can give a strait answer and not flip-flop. Such an amazing douchebag… were you born that way or did you work on that achievement?
Obamaforever,
Hey, I clearly said “Some were valid. Some were arguable. Some were bogus.” I guess you don’t read so good.
Right back at you, retard.
And, no, second hand smoke is not the all encompassing threat to mankind that Congress made it out to be. It is nasty, smelly, and a bother to those around it. However, second hand smoke WAS used as a reason to raise taxes on tobacco $1.50 a pack. The Congress used the teen smoking “crisis” to pass billions of $$$ of new taxes without, from what I can find, having one single confirmed death that can be definitively and solely attributed to second hand smoke. If second hand smoke was so deadly, why don’t they ban cigarettes??? Nah, they just want the money. Now that they raised taxes, they probably need us to smoke our way out of debt.
That takes me back to my original contention. Politicians and, many times, lobbying concerns turn everyday events into crises in order to either raise taxes, reduce freedoms, or make a fast buck (ala Algore).
In this regard, the global warming hysteria is simply the biggest political con job to date. Bar none.
#27
Isn’t this EXACTLY what we are talking about? The fact is that this “proxy” data they have been using to basically “guess” at global temperatures from the year 1000 to 1980 is really just MADE UP. Since they data they DID calculate just doesn’t show the BS they have been hyping. Just read the article.
BTW you may want to look up “Plankton” it’s not a specific species, it’s a floating collection of different organisms which also includes PLANTS, so yes plankton can absorb CO2 (eating wouldn’t be a correct term).
So please, take you own advice. Don’t scream about “dissinformation” or when you can’t even get your own shit strait.
So why don’t you GIVE US those stats of temperatures from the start of the industrial revolution up to now. Oh yeah a lot of that doesn’t EXIST…. it’s all Proxy, and even THAT data doesn’t show a correlation to “human” activity to what may appear as global warming.
Just because I don’t buy into this doesn’t mean I want people to pollute and make my environment dirty. That’s still a problem, and we are running out of sources of energy too.
It’s just this “global warming” stuff is just hyperboyle, exagerating the issues of pollution to making you feel guilty every time you take a breath, eat, or fart, because its going to destroy the planet.
Hey Mark T. You didn’t list the El Nino, did you? Wasn’t that blamed on excess CO2 from cow farts or some such BS? lol
#27 Rabble Rouser:
“Damn, all you have to do is look at the temps from the start of the industrial revolution.”
You must’ve missed that whole fabricating-data-but-oops-we-threw-it-out thing. lol.
FRAGaLOT, yeah, I thought of that afterwards. The list is far from complete. There are hundreds of other examples, I am sure. Maybe thousands.
If you want to learn more about the hockey stick data, watch this:
http://tinyurl.com/yhr8tga
They discuss how the data in question was gathered from measurement of growth rings on sample trees. Unfortunately, the sample included only THREE trees. And the data was horribly biased compared to later, more significant, samples. This sample from three trees was the genesis of the hockey stick phenomena.
But the records have been destroyed so we shouldn’t ask any more questions.
Ooh, another good one for my list. Since they banned freon, they had to change the insulation foam on the Space Shuttle’s external fuel tank. Unfortunately, the new foam didn’t stick as well as the original freon created foam.
One piece of that new “environmentally friendly” foam just happened to come off and punch a hole in the leading edge of the wing, thereby dooming the crew of the Shuttle Columbia.
Maybe John should do a bit of research on arctic ice in general. http://www.athropolis.com/arctic-facts/fact-polynyas.htm might be a place to look. Areas of 20K square miles of open water in the arctic for 9-10 months per year. Been like that for a long time and will be for more. Deal with it …. ’cause we don’t have the technology to change it.
Most of Greenland’s ice is in a bowl in the land, so melting of that glacier would create a really big lake.
I wonder what the normal/mean/average/correct temperature of the earth is supposed to be…
I’m guessing a lot warmer than it is now. Why is our body chemistry at 98.6′ ? Could it be that the ocean/soup that which we came from was 98.6′ ? I’m guessing that it was.
Where did all of the C02 go from that ancient Earth? Into the plants and stuff that became all of the hydro carbons that we pump out of the ground? Arn’t we just putting things back to where they once were?
Really I just wonder if we aren’t trying to subvert the natural cycle that will eventually return the Earth back to hot house utopia it once was.
It’s interesting to think of what it might have been like here way back then.
#76 MikeN
Interesting, and it would actually be shallower than how the ice appears now since ice takes more volume than liquid water.
#77 bill
98.6 is just human body temp, and even that fluctuates over time, and between different people. But life began long before humans whom had varying body temps.
Jason is correct. (#41 comment)
Listen to him.
The CO2 that is in “fossil fuels” will enter the atmosphere someday, regardless of whether humans burn it or not. This is a law of thermodynamics.
What the alarmists really want is for mankind to have no impact on the planet. They want no roads, no cars, no planes, no damns, no asphalt jungles, no farms, no meat, no tuna, no whaling, no hunting, no fishing, no water use, no sewage, no trash, no heating water at nuclear power plants. It’s a mental illness.
If mankind does not destroy the planet, nature will for sure.
Breaking news:
The earth is flat.
The sun revolves around the earth.
All the science showing otherwise is wrong, and for centuries has been nothing but a vast conspiracy to enrich scientists. The fact that Galileo admitted to this deceit in front of a tribunal is sufficient evidence of the conspiracy.
My vast knowledge of science also tells me that ozone protects the earth from space radiation, so we should be producing as much ozone as possible, hence ozone control in car exhaust is another conspiracy, led by the medical industry to increase the incidence of skin cancer and generate more business.
———–
Does anyone remember the Tobacco ‘scientists’ claiming that cigarette smoke was perfectly safe and non-addictive, when every independent scientist knew otherwise? History has a way of repeating itself. We even have some morons on this forum claiming that pollution is good.
Personally, I just think that the owner of this blog is tired and bitter that his technological, political and scientific analysis is 100% wrong 100% of the time, so his is trying to save his ‘reputation’ by being a contrarian.
Libertarians and Conservatives have a long history of calling scientific consensus into question.
Radon is harmless.
Tobacco doesn’t cause cancer.
Evolution doesn’t happen.
Industrial waste doesn’t cause lasting harm.
Sun-bathing does not contribute to skin cancer.
Asbestos does no harm.
Mercury is fine to drink.
We were told over and over that any attempt to address these issues is nothing more than a government conspiracy of subjugation.
And here we are again.
more than the government to dominate our lives.
Yet, somehow, the libertarian/wingnut faction would be shocked if we re-crammed their walls with asbestos and fed their kids lead paint.
As always, they want to live in the healthier world that others have created, and against whose efforts they fought at every turn. They are leeches.
Hey Wretched Gnu,
How has the government addressed tobacco? Taxing it. Why is it not illegal? Fail.
What does government have to do with evolution? Is there an evolution crisis too? Are we devolving? Oh no! What does evolution have to do with health? Fail.
Good point about sun bathing… We need to tax citizens for exposing skin to the sun. Fail.
Now I get it. Liberals want health, conversatives do not.
We should not listen to scientists and so-called “Climatologists” with their fancy-schmancy degrees, their snooty math and their “research findings”.
I get my info from Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin! They know more than those longhair scientists and Jesus never said anything about global warming.
I believe in scientists who are interested in researching problems that affect this planet and its inhabitants. They accomplish this by using the scientific method.
I don’t believe in scientists who falsify data for some political purpose or demagogues who stand to make a fortune off such false data.
Here’s a thought: the extent to which humans contribute to environmental problems needs to be studied seriously by scientists who are interested in the truth. The extent to which we pollute may actually be a problem for us down the road, whether it contributes to climate change is another question that warrants study. This means being honest with the raw data, not destroying it, leaving only the doctored data intact that suits your agenda.
The problem with grants to study problems and the peer review process of scientific journals is that they are affected by politics. You want funding? Toe the line.
If you want to be published (which will affect your being granted tenure if you’re an academic) you need to please the reviewers. This also means toe the line.
Maybe the global warming group are right. If so, they need their data to be available for testing, not cloistered and hidden. The scientific method calls for testing assumptions which means testing data. Of course, such openness means the possibility of falsifiability. But that’s OK, right? We’re all interested in truth…well, some of us at least.
It’s too bad that it took hackers to bring the false data and emails forward.
# 66
And don’t forget that the capacity for water to absorb gases is less for warmer water. Think of a soda bottle. If you warm it it releases a lot more bubbles (CO2). I think it’s Henry’s law or something.
Anyway this means that if the climate is warming due to natural reasons as for example increased solar activity, the oceans would start to release CO2. That’s a real scientific fact.
This is a good thing though since CO2 is such a good fertilizer. Increased CO2 levels give a higher crop yield and an increased regrowth of forests.
But of course, good news doesn’t sell newspapers and is no reason to increase taxes and take away liberties so don’t tell anyone.
Get rid of this contributor JCD.
The guy is an idiot.
Climate change – yes. Always has, always will.
Man made? In your head.
Even that Brasilian chap had better posts than you.
After skimming through all that crap, my head hurts a bit. It’s like watching a bunch of drunken UK wives talking about their husbands and squalling kids during a cricket match.
Anyway, the answer would be: there IS global warming, no “belief” involved; it is NOT proven to be manmade in any way; there is NO proof that the impact of global warming will actually be BAD.
Now for the conjecture: there is a strong likelihood that a group of politicos and scientists are attempting to make a global ethical change without knowing what the final results will be; there is also a strong likelihood that much of the “reparation” type activity is driven by Russia and China through proxies in an attempt to bankrupt the west completely.
I have not seen definitive, reproducible proof (you know, DATA) that conclusively points to human based warming. Plus, there is an inherent flaw in the logic — because if we DID cause such an action in the environment globally, we then SHOULD be able to reverse it. Quite simply, actually, just build nuclear power plants all over the world and replace all coal/oil burning power plants. Then replace all jet liner traffic with dirigibles. You then also fix the “global pandemic” problem, since most trips would take significantly longer.
Gradually convert all rail, car and trucking traffic to electric. Suddenly all we’re using is nuclear, with no emissions.
I’d love to see that as the solution. If it’s to be a global solution, then globally retool and move on.
Ahh, but nobody would want to do that, it might cause major economic output and bring most countries into the 21st century.
I don’t need no advice from them there book learn’n scientific types. When the lord see the temp go up, he set the temp down.
Lord just busy and not pay’n tention cause it’s christmas and all the orders back’in up. Also needs to follow Palin book sign’n to protect her from the librals.
Just out of curiosity, has anyone scientifically proven that Global Warming is caused mainly by mankind and not the Sun?
Or is this “debate” still based on a theory that man has more influence on this planet than the sun when it comes to global temps?
Remember those people who shouted over and over and over and over again that there was no global warming at all, man-made or not?
Remember those guys?
Those guys were you. Those people were the exact same people who insisted that there was no warming at all, that the data confirming it was actually just government conspiracy and greedy grant-seeking science.
Remember that?
Well, now… those people and everybody in this thread admits they were wrong. There was no conspiracy, the science was sound.
They were wrong, they were lying, their total ignorance was exposed.
But now they’re back! And despite their total and proven ignorance, they insists that *this time* they’re right and all the scientists are wrong — again. Human activity has nothing to do with this warming!
Have you people ever heard of a “track record”? Do you wonder why nobody listens to Dvorak and his libertarian contributors on this issue…?
#91 Let see. Take an ordinary school globe and paint it with shellac . Now measure the thickness of the shellac.
When you read that thickness is directly proportional to the thickness of the earths atmosphere, it may cause you to pause.
Next, humans started burning fossil fuels 24×7 only about 60 years ago. That was only to industrial the western nations. Now imagine 5X the rate of pollution with 3rd world nations catching up. Think about that.
Next, go to Beijing and witness the air quality. Ask if the sun did that. I’m so global warming scientist but it’s not a leap to conclude they may be on to something.