Here
Excerpt:
"We could stop all industrial activity and require all cars and trucks off the roads of the world and it would not make a single bit of difference. It is not manmade carbon dioxide that is bringing about these changes. It is active volcanoes, some a mile or more high, yet entirely hidden from view under the oceans."
Interesting.
Monday, July 10, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
41 comments:
Sorry, this doesn't jive with the for-profit global warming industry which requires researchers, professors and grad students to slant all research into the global warming boat lest their funding grants not renewed the following year.
Good example of how complex the old earth really is. It doesn't necessarily fit tidily in the political spin machine.
It's all about cow flatulence, I tell ya...
Sigh...
Go see "An Inconvenient Truth."
I thought the title was "An Illogical Truth."
Wait...we are talking about AlGore's movie, right?
"An Inconvenient Truth" is being dismissed as trumped up fiction which is short on facts, by all but the True Believers.
I've never been impressed with intentional ignorance, but your partisan intransigence on this issue is alarming.
If you were to see "An Inconvenient Truth," which I'm quite sure your partisan predilections will not allow, you'd see with you own eyes the evidence of the effects of human activity on global warming. You'd see with your own eyes decades of photographs that expose the "expert" in the article you cite as an ignorant fraud for asserting that glaciers are actually growing, instead of drastically shrinking as they are.
"An Inconvenient Truth" presents sourced facts from a multitude of authoritative sources. Bubba, however, is resigned to citing the opinions a self-described "former architect" who's conclusions are determined to be "complete bullshit" by the World Glacier Monitoring Service.
Yet, here is Bubba, proudly regurgitating complete distortions of the facts from the very worst of charlatans hoping, I suppose, that some guidable schmucks will not recognize his interest is not in finding the truth, but rather in adhering to an ideology at any cost.
Roch, if I were to see "An Illogical Truth" I'd see OPINIONS supporting a political agenda.
If I want opinions, I read blogs.
Fact is, global warming is not new or the result of man's interference with the climate. It's a well-known cyclic event that's occurred since before man was even around.
There you go again Jaycee, spouting YOUR opinion instead of established fact. roch is absoultely right and you and Bubba are both fucked. Its a sad, sad state of affairs that people like the two of you are helping to put distance between people actually doing something about our effect on this world when you could be helping to find a solution. Your partisanship is blinding you to the truth, and sadly, for you two, it is indeed "Inconvenient".
One of my favorite lines was when a dittohead was on The Al Franken Show and he was defending a blatant Rush lie (Lie: glaciers in North America are actually growing. Truth: One glacier is growing; in the caldera of Mt. St. Helens). The dittohead finally gave up on defending Rush and said that we should think of what it will do to open up shipping lanes in the arctic...
I laughed, I cried...It was better than Cats.
Good one Penguin. The funniest part is that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see and understand the connection between the increase in human population, the increase in carbon dioxide in the air due to human activity in the last 100 years and the increase in average global mean temperatures.
Its pretty clear actually. But do the numb-nuts here admit it? No. But that's because they are seeing things through the fog of their "Worship the leader" glasses that they refuse to take off, even for a second.
Could Al Gore actually *be right* about this? No, its not even remotely possible... because he's... Al Gore!! Nevermind the science. Nevermind the scientific consensus. Nevermind that their naysayers are in the pocket of the petrolium industry. He's Al Gore after all!
Bubba:
The quote you excerpted about undersea volcanoes is demonstrably false. There isn’t enough total heatflow from the Earth to make any meaningful contribution to global warming. According to Tim Lambert:
"Scientists have extensively measured the flow of heat from inside the earth—it amounts to 0.075 Watts per square metre, while incoming solar radiation is 342 Watts per square metre, about 5000 times as much. … [H]eat from the earth is not included in climate models—but that is because it is negligible."
As Roch pointed out, the source used in the article you linked to is a former architect - not a geologist, climatologist, or any-other-ologist. Do you feel that this is a legitimate primary source for an article about global warming?
Yes, Jaycee, the earth has been through many warming and cooling cycles. And it is different this time because...?
BTW Jaycee, I do admire your ability to divine what you would see in a movie you haven't seen.
Lambert is a partisan hack on this issue, with no credibility. We established that on the Michaels/Hanson thread on Ed Cone's blog.
I realize that no amount of common sense will get through to the True Believers, who will follow the orthodox talking points to the bitter end.
You are not entitled to chose your own facts on this subject. We've let you get away with this nonsense for years, but it will not continue that way.
We won't get fooled again.
"Do you feel that this is a legitimate primary source for an article about global warming?"
What are Lambert's particular qualifications to discuss this subject?
Lambert is not the actual source for the data he's using. The numbers he gives, that I quoted, come from two scientists with the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a geophysicist (a fact that would have been easy to find if you had bothered to follow the links involved, as I did with your article). They certainly are qualified to speak in their areas of expertise.
You hurl accusations of "choosing facts". At least I have presented facts: Actual measurements of the amounts of heat involved. You, on the other hand, have presented an article whose source isn't even a scientist, who presents no actual scientific data or measurements. It's obvious which one is more credible.
If you want to dispute the facts I presented, please do. But you'll have to do better than "nuh uh" for anyone (other than jaycee) to take you seriously.
Climatic change has occurred cyclically throughout the existence of the world. It's the nature of weather and the climate.
It was doing this long before automobiles, SUV's, Right Guard spray deodorant, or liberals spouting otherwise.
Mt. Pinatubo spewed more bad stuff into the air when it erupted in June 1991 than all the cars ever made.
Man's contribution to climatic change is insignificant, regardless of what AlGore says.
Jaycee, we're wasting our time trying to convince the True Believers that the "facts" and their "truth" doesn't hold up to scrutiny. There's too musch of The Agenda at stake to admit otherwise......
Taking about glaciers, I found this to be interesting.
http://www.canary-project.org/
Yes, Jaycee, the earth has been through many warming and cooling cycles. And it is different this time because...?
Roch, it's not different this time at all. History will tell. You can't look at one day's returns on the Stock Market and make a judgement. You can't look at one century, or even 500 years of climate and make a judgement. Let's look at this 1,000 years from now (a small segment in climate history) and decide, shall we?
One year it's colder than the previous winter; the next it's warmer. What does this tell us? Nothing at all. You have to look at trends over hundreds or thousands of years to understand it.
You are right Jaycee. That's why in An Inconvient Truth, Gore presents data going back over 650,000 years (through 6 ice ages), and the trend is clear and unmistakable. But you'd know that if you went to see the movie, which you didn't.
Bubba,
Project much?
Jaycee:
As requested, here is 1000 years worth of data for you to look at, from the NOAA. Notice any trends?
"Roch, it's not different this time at all." -- Jaycee
And you, my freind, have just posted a big ol' public display of your ignorance.
"Jaycee, we're wasting our time trying to convince the True Believers that the "facts" and their "truth" doesn't hold up to scrutiny. There's too musch of The Agenda at stake to admit otherwise......" -- Bubba
Riiiiight. And it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that I inform myself from a variety of sources and evaluate them for credibility, while you cite quacks and charlatans -- intentionally avoiding anything that might change your mind.
smallpotatoes, thanks for your wonderful, 4-color, impressive graph.
Let's look at it in 1000 years and see what it tells us. That's the only way it will have any relevance on this conversation.
Roch, by swallowing the AlGore, et al, "The sky is falling!" rhetoric you've just made a big 'ol public display of your ignorance, naivete, and bias.
anonymous wrote:
"But you'd know that if you went to see the movie, which you didn't."
So your point is that a lie, if told often enough and boldly enough, should be believed as the truth?
Not in the real world, my friend.
"Let's look at it in 1000 years and see what it tells us. That's the only way it will have any relevance on this conversation."
No, it won't have relevance on our conversation, because you and I won't be here in 1000 years. That's very convenient for your end of the argument, isn't it?
We don't need to wait 1000 years because we can see the effects right now and compare them to historical data. You might like to sit around and wait, but if global warming is indeed a fact, it'll be too late by that point to do anything about it.
Oh, and I love it that you feel insecure enough in your arguments that you feel it necessary to make fun of my name when you address me. That's awesome! Keep up the good work!
Jaycee,
Facts don't lie, that's why they are called facts. Just because you don't happen to like the messenger that doesn't change the data and the inescapable conclusions they present. And how would you know the difference between the two anyway since you refuse to even look at the movie or apparently even the data. Either that or you are even more ignorant that you make yourself out to be, which, frankly wouldn't be surprising.
"Riiiiight. And it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that I inform myself from a variety of sources and evaluate them for credibility, while you cite quacks and charlatans -- intentionally avoiding anything that might change your mind."
Blah blah, woof woof......
"Quacks and Charlatans" indeed. Like Pat Michaels.
Your arguments are not supported by uncontroverted facts.
Your over the top True Believer protestations carry no weight.
End of discussion.
"Facts don't lie, that's why they are called facts."
Just one little problem, friend.....the "facts" you support don't past the agenda smell test.
smallpotatoes, the point of my post is that you can't look at last year or the last couple of years and see a "trend" when it comes to climate and weather. That's something that is only significant over hundreds or thousands of years. It will be another 50 years or so before we can assess the short-term damage from Mt. Pinatubo.
anonymous, just because you don't like the "facts" that there is no appreciable effect on the weather and climate caused by man doesn't change the data or the inescapable conclusions they present.
Yeah, its not really happening. Pay no attention to that thermometer in the corner...
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13860976/
"Roger said...
Yeah, its not really happening. Pay no attention to that thermometer in the corner..."
Yeah, that's real proof there, Roger.
(Where DO these Rocket Scientist True Believers come from?)
This site is one of the best I have ever seen, wish I had one like this.
»
Britian's temp hits 100 for only the 2nd time in history:
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1185369.ece
Temperature in Prague beats 141 year old record
http://www.ctk.cz/english/services/english/index_view.php?id=200159
I find some information here.
Oh and incase you missed this one...
http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/newsreleases/articles/36111.php
bubba.
you are an ncompetent idiot, which can’t come up with one valid argument against a vast vast array of facts that are quite indisputable.
all you have are drunken rambles of someone that should be in a padded room
Post a Comment