|
Post by phinehas on Mar 5, 2007 18:03:29 GMT -5
www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388Dr. Allegre, a renowned geochemist, wrote 20 years ago in Cles pour la geologie.." Fifteen years ago, Dr. Allegre was among the 1500 prominent scientists who signed "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity," a highly publicized letter stressing that global warming's "potential risks are very great" and demanding a new caring ethic that recognizes the globe's fragility in order to stave off "spirals of environmental decline, poverty, and unrest, leading to social, economic and environmental collapse." but now..... Since then, governments throughout the western world and bodies such as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have commissioned billions of dollars worth of research by thousands of scientists. With a wealth of data now in, Dr. Allegre has recanted his views. To his surprise, the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming. Meanwhile, increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena. Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Mar 5, 2007 18:18:55 GMT -5
a common sense analogy....when a person has a direct deposit from work going to a bank and for years on the first of the month the deposit is made...what global warmers are claiming is that the money is NO LONGER coming from their employer that some other entity is making that deposit now(before any thought is wasted on that new entity making the deposit show me proof that my job no longer is).
the earth has warmed and cooled in cycles for millions of years before humans were even here, BEFORE even considering human CAUSATION one must prove that the natural forces that have been in control for eons are NOW NOT IN EFFECT!
|
|
|
Post by Thomas on Mar 5, 2007 20:56:42 GMT -5
A little information about Claude Allegre his politics (and political motivations 15 years ago and now), and some scientific debate about his speech back in 2006. www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/con-allegre-ma-non-troppo/ "The French climate research community was of course not very pleased about this short sequence of misrepresentations and personal attacks (“les Cassandres”) and corrected Allègre in an open letter published here on the website of the Institute Pierre Simon Laplace (which includes links to the ongoing back and forth, for those that speak French)." Please read the comments about the story to get a better understanding of the issues, Allegre's positions and training, and some of the misrepresentations and inaccuracies that other scientists pointed out as a result of that speech. One comment that gives a good taste of Allegre in respect to speaking out in scientific areas where he is basically a novice. "In 1994, I happened to be sitting next to Carl Sagan at a conference table when Claude Allegre came in and sat down across the table from us. Sagan immediately started criticizing Allegre for something he had written about early planetary atmospheres. I have never witnessed such a hard-edged scientific critique in my life. Sagan was really mad at Allegre for continuing to push something that had been shown to be wrong (or so I remember, not knowlng the subject material myself). This went on for perhaps ten minutes, with Allegre having trouble getting a word in edgewise. Comment by William H. Calvin "
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 5, 2007 21:31:29 GMT -5
Global warming is the new creationism. Phinehas, do yourself a favor and back away from this debate. No one will take Christianity seriously in 10 years if you guys keep clinging to this sort of nonsense. Your on your way to being marginalized. Some day you'll thank me for this: www.amazon.com/Why-Christianity-Must-Change-Die/dp/0060675365
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Mar 5, 2007 22:30:30 GMT -5
What does Christianity have to do with it? I don't recall seeing anywhere, on this forum or any other media, where Christians have based and espoused, from either side of the debate, from a religious perspective. Marginalized?....Atheists make up less than 1% of the world's population...it's going to take a lot longer than 10 years.
Let me play devil's advocate with your last comment and Amazon link. What if there is no God, which you continue to push as a premise, no matter the topic....You fail to understand that my life, in no way, is restricted in enjoyment or possibilities as compared to yours. What exactly is it you think I or any other Christian will gain by the realization that you are right?
Now I don't want to take this thread into another religious discussion, so why don't you post a couple of premises you wish to talk about in a new thread because I don't see where it is relevant to this topic.
|
|
|
Post by family1st on Mar 6, 2007 6:31:49 GMT -5
Global warming is the new creationism. Phinehas, do yourself a favor and back away from this debate. No one will take Christianity seriously in 10 years if you guys keep clinging to this sort of nonsense. Your on your way to being marginalized. Some day you'll thank me for this: www.amazon.com/Why-Christianity-Must-Change-Die/dp/0060675365This should read "Global warming is the new Big Bang hypothesis".
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 6, 2007 7:05:37 GMT -5
It's a matter of being totally wrong. Motivated by something other than a search for the truth.
All reputable sources fall on one side of these debates.
A lot of people will dismiss you right away if you don't believe in global warming or evolution.
Forget the actual debate and look how the sides have been drawn up.
Only look at .gov and .edu sites and see where the facts lay.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 6, 2007 9:09:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Mar 6, 2007 15:39:37 GMT -5
Matt Murphy, just the other week, implied that since it was cold outside global warming must be false. The right-wingers who deny it have an obvious political agenda. Matt's statement is just as sensible (and scientific) as Al Gore's quantum leap to the conclusion that global warming is man made... and i suppose you think that those who are so passionate about man's causing global warming do NOT have a political agenda?? mmm-hmmmm
|
|
|
Post by billt on Mar 6, 2007 15:58:35 GMT -5
please note that NOT ONE of the warmers have rebutted even ONE point i have made about the common sense involved.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 6, 2007 16:06:19 GMT -5
Matt's statement is just as sensible (and scientific) as Al Gore's quantum leap to the conclusion that global warming is man made... and i suppose you think that those who are so passionate about man's causing global warming do NOT have a political agenda?? mmm-hmmmm I can remember, just a few short years ago, right-wingers said global warming didn't exist at all. Now it's not caused by man. Next they'll be taking credit for warning everyone about it. I can't argue against someone who doesn't believe in global warming. I can just advise you to learn about it. My point is to stop because you're embarrassing yourself. I'm trying to help you people out.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Mar 6, 2007 17:13:07 GMT -5
blondie, wanted happened to Global cooling? I thought there was going to be another ice age?
|
|
|
Post by Twista on Mar 6, 2007 18:56:23 GMT -5
please note that NOT ONE of the warmers have rebutted even ONE point i have made about the common sense involved. Hey BillT, What were those points you made? I guess I missed that thread, or lost my mind somewhere down the line.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Mar 6, 2007 19:54:19 GMT -5
in the local section the original thread about james spann and global warming.
one indisputable FACT is the global warming side is calling co2 "pollution" and that is LUNACY, co2 is a required component of life on this planet.
another is they claim co2 ALONE is the CAUSE of recent warming.....common sense dictates that in a system as complex as the earth's atmosphere a portion as small as co2 could NOT POSSIBLY assume control over the whole system!
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 6, 2007 19:58:13 GMT -5
blondie, wanted happened to Global cooling? I thought there was going to be another ice age? Please, stop with this. Everybody knows Newsweek did a story on global cooling in the 70s. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling"At present, the dominant (consensus) theory amongst scientists is that Earth as a whole is not cooling, but rather is in a period of global warming attributed to human activity."
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 6, 2007 20:00:29 GMT -5
Matt's statement is just as sensible (and scientific) as Al Gore's quantum leap to the conclusion that global warming is man made... and i suppose you think that those who are so passionate about man's causing global warming do NOT have a political agenda?? mmm-hmmmm Did you know Al Gore wrote Earth in the Balance in 1993? I heard something about a movie too.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Mar 6, 2007 20:57:06 GMT -5
dominant (consensus) does not = scientific proof. If Man-made global warming is actually true then there would be a push for an actual debate on this issue. Obviously, there are some very credible people who doubt the validity of this issue so, instead of bashing them and comparing them to Holocaust deniers, they should insist on discussing the problems and examining the actual Science involved.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Mar 6, 2007 21:09:06 GMT -5
Solution found to Global Warming in blondie's Global Cooling link:
[edit] Aerosols Human activity — mostly as a by-product of fossil fuel combustion, partly by land-use changes — increases the number of tiny particles (aerosols) in the atmosphere. These have a direct effect: they effectively increase the planetary albedo, thus cooling the planet by reducing the sunshine reaching the surface; and an indirect effect: they can affect the properties of clouds by acting as cloud condensation nuclei. In the early 1970s some speculated that this cooling effect might dominate over the warming effect of the CO2 release: see discussion of Rasool and Schneider (1971), below. As a result of observations (aerosol concentrations may have increased, but not enormously) and a switch to cleaner fuel burning, this no longer seems likely; the overwhelming bulk of current scientific work concentrates on the forcing, prediction and understanding of possible global warming. Although the temperature drops foreseen by this mechanism have now been discarded in light of better theory and the observed warming, aerosols are believed to have contributed a cooling tendency (outweighted by increases in greenhouse gases) and also have contributed to "Global Dimming".
Start Spraying them cans! It will be cheaper than the alternative. ;D
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 6, 2007 21:42:10 GMT -5
dominant (consensus) does not = scientific proof. If Man-made global warming is actually true then there would be a push for an actual debate on this issue. Obviously, there are some very credible people who doubt the validity of this issue so, instead of bashing them and comparing them to Holocaust deniers, they should insist on discussing the problems and examining the actual Science involved. The debates over. Where are these credible people?
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Mar 6, 2007 21:50:28 GMT -5
I know that I personally posted links to the works of literally THOUSANDS of bona fide scientists- as opposed to Al Gore who flunked out of divinity school- refuting the alleged "consensus" of anthropogenic global warming.
I'm sorry, but science by consensus isn't science; it's intellectual mob rule.
Now I'm not all that keen to go into the Christianity-based refutation of global climate change. It's not necessarily that I disagree with it, but I believe there are far more provable refutations to be offered rather than cross the line into relying on faith to disprove the eco-chondiracs.
The fact is that the global warming hysterics are largely either former or current socialists and America Haters that are looking for a more palatible method of destroying the American economy. Any treaty that singles out the United States for punishment while exempting the likes of China and India simply cannot be taken seriously by any rational human being.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 7, 2007 7:11:04 GMT -5
I know that I personally posted links to the works of literally THOUSANDS of bona fide scientists- as opposed to Al Gore who flunked out of divinity school- refuting the alleged "consensus" of anthropogenic global warming. Can you toss me the name of one reputable group as well respected as the EPA, UN, or the Bush Administration? You statement that "Al Gore who flunked out of divinity school" gives me an idea where you're coming from. I don't think that's a very fair summery of his career. Here' what Wikipedia says: "He left Vanderbilt after completing the required one-year Rockefeller Foundation scholarship for students returning to secular work to run for Congress in 1976."
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Mar 7, 2007 8:09:24 GMT -5
[Did you know Al Gore wrote Earth in the Balance in 1993? In fact, I did know that...that was the book where he condemned the existence of the internal combustion engine, and said that gasoline should be about $4.50 a gallon to curb its use... then...when he was running for president in 2000, he insisted that Bill Clinton do something to curb rising gasoline prices... so...yes...i was aware that Gore's hypocrisy is not a new thing...
|
|
|
Post by deovindice on Mar 7, 2007 8:36:29 GMT -5
Matt's statement is just as sensible (and scientific) as Al Gore's quantum leap to the conclusion that global warming is man made... and i suppose you think that those who are so passionate about man's causing global warming do NOT have a political agenda?? mmm-hmmmm Did you know Al Gore wrote Earth in the Balance in 1993? I heard something about a movie too. Did you also know that he invented the Internet?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 7, 2007 9:04:34 GMT -5
I'm really open to any legitimate organization that doesn't believe that global warming is happening and caused by humans.
One with out an obvious political agenda.
I see a lot of ad Hominem attacks on Al Gore and attempts to make the evidence so confusing that any conclusion can be arrived at.
How about a big national or international organization that we can all agree is objective? Does anybody know of such a critter?
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Mar 7, 2007 10:35:49 GMT -5
The debates over. Where are these credible people? It appears you only get your news from NBC. Or maybe ABC. There have been numerous articles of highly-educated individuals stepping forward and questioning the Science behind this movement and they, in turn, have been compared to Holocaust deniers or worse. Instead of welcoming questions that might challenge the data put forth in this movement, there has been a surge to silence any critic by many different means. Would you like to address my observation in my previous post? "dominant (consensus) does not = scientific proof"
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 7, 2007 11:14:28 GMT -5
It appears you only get your news from NBC. Or maybe ABC. There have been numerous articles of highly-educated individuals stepping forward and questioning the Science behind this movement and they, in turn, have been compared to Holocaust deniers or worse. Instead of welcoming questions that might challenge the data put forth in this movement, there has been a surge to silence any critic by many different means. Would you like to address my observation in my previous post? "dominant (consensus) does not = scientific proof" Nothing says foaming at the mouth propaganda like NBC and ABC. Oh, that's right. I'm not a looney, right-wing, nut-case conspiracy theorist. Once again: I'm really open to any legitimate organization that doesn't believe that global warming is happening and caused by humans. Just one little link. I ain't asking for much.
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Mar 7, 2007 11:25:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by billt on Mar 7, 2007 11:29:38 GMT -5
blondie just ONE shred of evidence that humans have taken control over the atmosphere, just ONE?
i asked many weeks ago and while you have made many posts, sorry "i heard it on TV" just isnt evidence!
i have made several POINTS about the science, YOU blondie have made ZERO points in relation to science!
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Mar 7, 2007 11:38:17 GMT -5
billt, this is my favorite graphic from the link. It shows the fluctuation you have been describing.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 7, 2007 11:38:52 GMT -5
This is just somebody's person web site.
Would you accept this as a refutation of the EPA? If he knew what he was talking about there would be some institution, like a university, behind him.
This has all the warning signs of quackery.
|
|