Time Magazine Compares Iwo Jima to Global Warming

[Frenchy]

Originally Posted by DanTheEldest

Happy 11,000 posts, Frenchy. It's karma time.

DAMN...your right. Stay tuned Monday for my offering.

[jmichna]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

Then, I disagree with you. There is a concerted effort on the part of the oil companies, particularly Exxon, free market fundamentalists and haters of Al Gore to create doubt in the minds of the public that there is scientific consensus on man's role in global warming. Many of these same people and organizations were behind the fight to protect the tobacco companies.

From "The Deniers" publisher:
Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.

Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."

Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.

Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.

Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."

Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."

Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."

Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."

Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time "preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."

Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."

Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."

Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.

The Deniers is one of the

Originally Posted by Etta Place

Both books I would never read because they sound like propaganda.

Originally Posted by Etta Place

Yes, the people who are warning about global warming ARE a crowd. They in fact represent the vast majority of scientific opinion on the matter.

I'm saying that the goal of these "skeptics" is to create doubt about the consensus. The fact that they are doing this doesn't "prove" (sic) there is a consensus. But they wouldn't be doing it if there weren't a vast amount of scientific data supporting global climate change that is influenced by man's activities on the planet.

Etta,
Can you describe or explain, briefly, your understanding of the scientific method? How do you understand scientific laws or truths to be determined?

[Palmguy]

Originally Posted by Frenchy

My next car....

Are you getting the Yaris for financial impact for you and your family, just because you like it, or to make a dent in the greenhouse gasses that are being expended in this country?

[Judge]

It is cute as hell...

I also kinda like the new Mercedes Benz line called "Smart cars" - they're not here yet... (and they're like 12 to 15K).

But to me, they are kinda like bulldogs - they're so ugly they're cute:



And yes, that is a convertible,

Originally Posted by Frenchy

My next car....

[JeffXD]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

What's your stake in this?

What new data?

First of all, I have no stake in this. Second, I guess any link I provided describing the data was unreable on in my posts, thats the only conclusion I am able to come to.

The new data from the NASA Aqua Satellite that has been analyzed by Roy W. Spencer. This data indicates that earth temperatures have not been steadily increasing as reported by others. Furthermore there is an idication that weather processes are being able to compensate for any appreciable amount of warming that might be occuring. This new information has been published this year in the last month. It IS new and should be taken into account when running climate modeling programs. Anyone that dismisses new data because it is in conflict with thier eariler results is not engaged in good science. One must use all the data that is available whether they like it or not. This new data from the NASA Satellite is some of the first long term information from an orbital perspective.
Roy W. Spencer: Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat

"Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for University of Alabama in Huntsville. In the past, he served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. Spencer is a recipient of NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement"



"Fig. 9. Satellite-measured monthly globally averaged lower atmospheric temperature variations since 1990. When one considers that the cooling from the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo and the warming from the 1997-98 El Nino were not part of any underlying trend, one can imagine a period of roughly steady temperatures from 1990 to 2000, then warming until 2002, then roughly steady temperatures again from 2002 through 2007"

I fully understand that this is all wrong and I am probably working for an oil company myself, but take this information as you will.

[Brickboy240]

Even if we do finally agree that #1 we are warming and #2 man is the cause...where is the guarantee that we can stop or even slow the warming?

There is none. Thats right....even if we ALL agree on the warming and that man is causing it...NOONE can guarantee that we can control the earth's climate. Not Al Gore...not anybody.

Beware the "we've gotta do SOMETHING" crowd....they were the bringers of several bad ideas in the past and bear no responsibility for wrecking our lives as we know it, trying to slow or stop something with no guarantees at all. Many of you are too young to remember, these jokers told us in the 70s that we'd be COOLING and that we'd have huge water and food shortages and be running out of livable spaces by the year 2000.

Not to mention that many that ARE pushing these measures have a chip in the game. Carbon credit companies, solar panel manufacturers (like GE) or anti-capitalists that simply want to hurt big oil.

Do you really want to risk this?

Do you all REALLY trust these people?

Sorry, but I am not buying it again. To our younger viewers, I know this all sounds VERY convincing but anyone over the age of 42 has seen this malarky before and sorry, I am not buying it again.

But go ahead and call us skeptics "anti-science" or whatever if it makes you feel good. You too will laugh at all of this in another 30 years.

- Brickboy240

[JeffXD]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

Even if you have cute kitty-cats, you're wrong, Jeff.

Oh, thats an excellant rebuttal.

[JeffXD]

Originally Posted by Frenchy

Ya know what's funny. If Gore was a Conservative Republican, y'all would be on board!

Actually, that isnt true. Below is my opinion of Bush's latest opinion on global warming. This issue should not be political. ALL politicians need to stay the hell out and not make policy in the hopes they will gain political support. The IPCC is an excellant example of twisting any data they can get thier hands on to promote thier agenda.

"For the record, I am pretty irritated tht Bush has jumped on the global warming band wagon this week. He no more than any other politican has the knowledge to take position on this issue other than to gain some politcal currency. I see his recent proclamation as nothing more than that."

[Brickboy240]

Not true.

Newt Gingrich is "on board" with this warming mumbo jumbo and although we share many conservative views, I think he is dead wrong on this.

I am also VERY leery of his suddenly coming around on this issue. I am sure Newt has a chip in this game - part ownership in a carbon credit company or a solar panel manufacturer or something else. I doubt very seriously, that Newt just "came around" to this on hs very own. I am not buying that, sorry. Ditto for Pat Robertson...he too probably has a chip in the climate change game. Come on people...wake up and smell the coffee!

True conservatives do not just buy onto the whole platform of beliefs posted out there by the Republican party. Unlike the left (who tend to buy into all that the DNC pushes in one package), we just don't work this way. Hence, the situation you see right now with many right-leaning people's gnashing of teeth over McCain.

- Brickboy240

[Palmguy]

Originally Posted by Brickboy240

Not true.

Newt Gingrich is "on board" with this warming mumbo jumbo and although we share many conservative views, I think he is dead wrong on this.

I am also VERY leery of his suddenly coming around on this issue. I am sure Newt has a chip in this game - part ownership in a carbon credit company or a solar panel manufacturer or something else. I doubt very seriously, that Newt just "came around" to this on hs very own. I am not buying that, sorry. Ditto for Pat Robertson...he too probably has a chip in the climate change game. Come on people...wake up and smell the coffee!

True conservatives do not just buy onto the whole platform of beliefs posted out there by the Republican party. Unlike the left (who tend to buy into all that the DNC pushes in one package), we just don't work this way. Hence, the situation you see right now with many right-leaning people's gnashing of teeth over McCain.

- Brickboy240

Bingo. I don't want to vote for McCain, especially because of his immigration and global warming policies. What some of these people propose is going to literally piss away billions (or more) dollars and for what? I'm all for being a good steward of our planet, but this goes way beyond that firmly into the realm of downright irresponsibility and fraud.