| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Signs, Portents, and the Weather- |
| Global warming unstoppable, resistance is useless |
| 2007-02-02 |
| Posted by:Anguper Hupomosing9418 |
| #37 "Destroy freedom" > other people's freedoms, NOT THEIR OWN. Toga Parties aside, I don't know or have heard of any Radical/Pol Activist that wants to go back to a US$1-4.00 minimum wage, do youse, back to a lower/minimalist-quality of life whilst still keeping what consumer goods they have now, iff not more??? As said before, NOT EVEN THE SOCIALISTS, etc aligned WANT SOCIALISM. The latter 'tis for "other people", NOT THEMSELVES. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-02-02 23:28 |
| #36 How about we get all the die hard ecoloons to self darwinate! Then they'll no longer be contributing to the rising CO2 levels and they'll help ensure the lower population will have less impact. We could have bumperstickers! Protect Mother Earth! Kill yourself! |
| Posted by: Silentbrick 2007-02-02 23:23 |
| #35 TW, reforestation is too easy a solution. It is one that is overtly controllable and, even worse, measurable. You need something amorphous and rather squishy so that you can continue to use it as a whipping horse until you move all of the world under the control of the "Idiots of Davos". |
| Posted by: Remoteman 2007-02-02 22:15 |
| #34 The Acquittal of CO2 The Rocket Scientist (real rocket scientist) asserts that AGM proponents don't understand modelling, that they would flunk Control System Theory 101 and that their practices are scientific only in the case where "scientist" is synonymous with "grant suckling". |
| Posted by: Classical_Liberal 2007-02-02 21:11 |
| #33 I remember about a year ago that NASA reported that "Global Warming" was A proven fact, On Mars, OK, so what's the human population there, ZERO. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2007-02-02 20:57 |
| #32 It is the hysteria that turns me many shades of sceptical. It reflects such hubris, odd for liberals I know. These people are more Calvinist puritans than political ideologues of any stripe. If there is any problem in the world, it is due to the evil in man. Man must pay for his sin. And as they have special knowledge of the Almighty's intentions, they should implement them here on Earth to make it the Kingdom come. If this were the 1690's they would be threatening heretical weathermen (and women) with the dunking chair. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-02-02 20:19 |
| #31 Whoops! Accidentally hit Submit too soon. So perhaps if the oh-so-outspoken rest of the world would stop destroying their forests and jungles, and instead plant some bloody trees, the problem would diminish enough that they could stop fussing about this, and move on to their next cause du jour! |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-02-02 20:11 |
| #30 Building on Kalle's point, when the plants, particularly trees, grow faster, they sequester CO2 for their lifespan. Which for temperate climate hardwoods is generally upward of half a century, and often multiple centuries. Part of the problem that's being ignored is the continued deforestation of Europe, Asia, Africa and South America. In fact, as far as I know the only human-populated part of the planet that's been undergoing steady reforestation since the beginning of the 20th century is North America, specifically the U.S. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-02-02 20:09 |
| #29 agree with you anymouse What we DO know is that plants love CO2. Most of them are starved for CO2 and grow much faster and better with higher levels of CO2. Most likely because they evolved at a time when CO2 was more PLENTIFUL in the atmosphere. CO2 is a major nutrient for plants. Try to explain that to liberal anti-industrialists, Al, and the UN. |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2007-02-02 19:08 |
| #28 More of Greenland would actually be above water if the ice cap melted. The ice is actually pushing the center of the island down and if it was removed, you would get a rebounding effect. See map in post#9. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-02-02 19:02 |
| #27 The Tampa PBS station plays the BBC news program in the morning. They had one "expert" say that Greenland would be totally submerged by global warming. If my caculations are right the highest point in Greenland is 12,000 feet or 3700M. If this was truly the case why not point out NYC, London, etc. are toast? |
| Posted by: bruce 2007-02-02 18:50 |
| #26 KKF...The issue with CO2 is that no one...and I mean no one understands if excessive CO2 produces "global warming", or if "global warming" produces excessive CO2. Secondly no one understands how all of the major independent variables (e.g., mankind, industry, volcanos, natural greenhouse natural outgassing, etc.) interact, and the lag coefficients of all the CO2 sinks (CO2 in diatomaceous shell fragments and gaseous form in the ocean, etc.), and sources. And liberalhawk...if the current deterministic, short-term numerical weather prediction models go unstable after 10 days....what does that say about global circulation models (GCMs) that run out centuries? I can tell you one thing for absolute certain: The politics (and "religion") of the scientist drives the assumptions and parameterization for the GCMs. In almost all cases the preconceived, revealed-truth affects the parameterizations that in turn drive the models to justify the revealed truth. It is circular reasoning at its worst. |
| Posted by: anymouse 2007-02-02 18:21 |
| #25 Right on, remoteman. Or, better still, we could put an end to the senseless killing of innocent people because of their chosen belief systems. Like in Thailand, Iraq, Israel, Gaza, Pakistan, India, Indonesia, Sudan, Somalia, the Philipines, and a plethra of other countries. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2007-02-02 17:52 |
| #24 KKF hits this issue spot on. It is the hysteria that turns me many shades of sceptical. It reflects such hubris, odd for liberals I know. But it implicitly says that man controls or can control everything. That is just crap. Basically it is saying that man can control the weather, or actually something much more complex, the climate. LH, you don't want the wild swings the earth has undergone in the past. Think about that statement. What if we are just going through another natural cycle? Do you think we can stop it or should we adapt to it? Me thinks the latter because that is what humans are good at. The one positive of the screaming is that it will push major polluting entities to greener technologies. That is a good thing and will occur as those technologies become more developed/less expensive. But this crap about average temperatures going up 8 degrees in the next century is just so much BS. I'd like to see all those wee wee makers in Paris focus on something that IS man made and CAN be reversed by changes in human activity...that would be managing fish stocks around the world. Forestation is another one. Both are things that we can impact directly and quickly for the good of the planet. Trying to control the climate is like trying to to catch a cloud. |
| Posted by: remoteman 2007-02-02 17:36 |
| #23 So, LH, how are you going to stop the Poles from reversing???? |
| Posted by: anonymous2u 2007-02-02 17:20 |
| #22 Most of the rise in CO2 in the last 250 years is very likely due to human action. So what? The fact that CO2 levels have evolved WILDLY over the past millions of years is certainly not due to human action. So, do you, or Al Gore, or the UN, know why CO2 levels have changed so much in the past? do you, Al and the UN know whether CO2 changes correlated (one way or the other) with temperature changes over the last 500 MY? I know for a fact that you don't. How a liberal jumps from the above to "global warming is caused by humans and will destroy Earth unless we destroy industrial civilization" is the weird part. Temporary warming, if it is indeed happening, has happened before. This is why there have been Ice Ages, and the periods in between. None of the past cooling and warming has destroyed the Earth. And there is zero evidence that current human activity is CAUSING a temporary warming, if indeed it is happening. There is however ample evidence that liberals and the UN are constantly seeking ways to shackle the West and destroy freedom. |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2007-02-02 17:04 |
| #21 I mean let the Greenies put that in their pipe and smoke it. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2007-02-02 16:45 |
| #20 BTW, whos on an antiindustrial bandwagon? Global warming is an argument for nuclear power, as much as anything else. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2007-02-02 16:44 |
| #19 I dont think anyones denied that. The question then becomes, how much of the recent rise in CO2 levels is due to human activity, and thats what recent studies have addressed. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2007-02-02 16:43 |
| #18 IF you were willing to think about it you'd see this as EVIDENCE that CO2 levels change A LOT over time WITHOUT humans around. Too busy wanting to jump on the anti-industrial bandwagon? |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2007-02-02 16:39 |
| #17 The climate variation over geological ages is far more dramatic than anything in the last 2000 years. I dont think we want macro changes like that. Its like saying that on the scale of humanity from like 8000 BC, the govt of Saudi Arabia leans in the liberal direction. Compared to, you know, Bronze age Ur. Im more interested in the narrower range of variation over the more recent time period. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2007-02-02 16:28 |
| #16 IF one looks at evidence from geological ages (the last 500 My) one would see that the level of CO2 is currently at a low and has previously been 3-4 times as high as the current level. I know, big IF for liberals and sundry haters of freedom. |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2007-02-02 16:24 |
| #15 Its always good to delay action while you gather more data. |
| Posted by: Hans Blix 2007-02-02 16:21 |
| #14 "How about a really good scientific study that isn't funded by leftists " considering how broad the definition of leftist around here is, thats a pretty tall order. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2007-02-02 16:16 |
| #13 I don't want 100% proof. 50% would do fine. How about a really good scientific study that isn't funded by leftists with all facts taken into account? Oh, and there have been improvements to the computer power of the models. Just very little on the data that goes in. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Long term climate modeling still sucks. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-02-02 15:48 |
| #12 Greenland, wow. There is natural climate variation, and this PROVES there cant be manmade climate impacts now. Amazing. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2007-02-02 15:47 |
| #11 "Heard a hysterical news report - on NPR, no less! - with the commentator reading from a 1974 issue of Time, which solemnly declared that there was no more need to investigate the climate changes that had so bedeviled the planet in the previous years - global cooling was a undeniable, irrefutable fact, and only massive changes in the way man lived and worked was going to avoid another ice age by the late 80s." yeah, cause there have been no improvements in climate modeling since 1974. And esp no improvements in computing power. Or is it just the certainty you take issue with. Well they're your right. So, you can quote me on this, we CANNOT be 100% sure that man made global warming will take place. That folks here on Rantburg, of all places, think you need 100% proof of a disaster to take steps to prevent it, is mindboggling |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2007-02-02 15:45 |
| #10 Run in circles, scream and hide! The sky is falling! Oh woe, oh woe, oh woe! We're all doomed! Doomed, I tell you! Doomed! |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2007-02-02 15:40 |
| #9 Oh boo hoo. Even if all the ice melts (See Here) it is not gonna be that tragic. It ain't us, you damn UN think tank that wants to use this as an excuse to hobble America's economy. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-02-02 14:48 |
| #8 Global warming is caused by the hotair of crackpot scientists and politicians. Interesting link to plug into browser: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-02-02 14:45 |
| #7 Actually they called it Greenland to make other Norse think that Iceland must be much worse. In reality Greenland was the edge of habitable and Iceland quite comfy.... for a beserker, of course. |
| Posted by: Shans Elmolurt6104 2007-02-02 14:27 |
| #6 CB...another obsure fact is that methane, the major component of bovine flattulence, is approximately 23x more effective than CO2 as a "greenhouse gas". |
| Posted by: anymouse 2007-02-02 14:04 |
| #5 Mike when I was in grad school in the late 70's that was the accepted dogma. It actually was part of the nulcear winter scenario proposed by Carl Sagan and friends. |
| Posted by: anymouse 2007-02-02 14:02 |
| #4 The global warming zealots have probably been sucking on bovine gas. |
| Posted by: CB 2007-02-02 14:01 |
| #3 ...Heard a hysterical news report - on NPR, no less! - with the commentator reading from a 1974 issue of Time, which solemnly declared that there was no more need to investigate the climate changes that had so bedeviled the planet in the previous years - global cooling was a undeniable, irrefutable fact, and only massive changes in the way man lived and worked was going to avoid another ice age by the late 80s. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2007-02-02 13:47 |
| #2 In 1803 the French Academy of Sciences produced a report proving conclusively that stones falling from the sky is a mythos. And they didn't have computers to hide sloppy thinking under mountains of numerical simulation results |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2007-02-02 13:00 |
| #1 These people are idiots. The next time you get into an argument with one of the global warming zealots, ask them, "Why do you think they call it Greenland?" http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/viewTopic.do?o=read&id=501 http://www.physorg.com/news3694.html http://blog.tomevslin.com/2006/04/global_warming_.html http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N5/C1.jsp http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/mwp/studies/l2_songhong.jsp http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/ushcn/stationoftheweek.jsp http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N13/EDIT.jsp http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/NYT-vikings_greenland/NYT-vikings_greenland.htm |
| Posted by: anymouse 2007-02-02 12:54 |