Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

(1) We measure air trapped in arctic ice cores.
(2) The world of science disagrees.

 

No, peer-reviewed scientific journals and groups like NASA, NOAA, EPA,
National Aacdemy of Sciences, etc.

 

No, we look to science -- peer-reviewed scientific journals, groups like EPA,
NASA, NOAA, etc. We don't just call people who disagree "socialists" like
some little child.

 

They're as known as anything in science can be where you can't do controlled
experiments. That CO2 is causing the current warming is as known as, say,
CFCs destroy the ozone layer, or evolution explains the current diversity, or
the big bang is how the universe began.

It does not.

Since the problem is CO2 emission, the solution is obvious.

Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.

No, we deduce it from data and scientific principles. If I add HCl to water
and the pH goes down, I don't throw up my hands and say:

1. We don't know why the pH went down.
2. The pH went down last year from other reasons, so we can't say why it's
going down now.

 

Come live in Canada.. the Ice Age is alive and well and about to take its
grip for yet another winter.. lol

 

I am being rather clear in saying that "models" can model anything
that the programmers want them to model.

Yet, the actual *causes* for this warming are not known.
They are *assumed* to be caused by C02 released by us, but we don't
*know* that.
We don't know for sure what causes climatic shifts on a grand scale.
We can see what happened, but we can't say why they happened.
So, we are being told that we must creat economic upheaval, and
drastically change our livings, because we are somehow "bad".

I can make one.
You are asking me to do something you can't do yourself, when I made
no claim that I can do that.
Sorry, but that's a bogus defence of the claim that we are causing
global warming.

???
Where did this come from?
Kyoto doesn't do more than pretend that it will reduce C02. Instead,
it only shifts the production of C02 from some countries to others.

Maybe we should actually determine the real solution before we take
such drastic steps.

Again, we could actually find the solution rather than base one on the
idea that we are "bad".

Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the past.
We do know that happened, but we don't know why.
Yet, we are so amazingly arrogant as to assume that *this time*, we
are the cause.

 

Where are your cites Parker? You keep complaining about those of others
but provide none of your own. In fact, you just ran away when I posted
NOAA and peer reviewed cites .

 

No, we look to science -- peer-reviewed scientific journals, groups like
EPA, NASA, NOAA, etc. <

Seems they've been referred to several time here by others in a manner which
refutes your claims.

some little child.<

No, you call them "right-wingers".

 

(1) We measure air trapped in arctic ice cores. <

But your methods of dating them are complete conjecture, as is the sources
of co2.

No, only the world of science you chose to quote.

 

No, you maturely scream LIAR, right?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

No we don't!

Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the atmospheric concentration
of CO2. They may be right or not. Your agreement with their belief does not prove
it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove anything. The
global climate is a very complicated system with lots of inputs. Looking at one
input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is BS. As a
scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate research don't even
have really good data on the solar constant for more than the last few years.
They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or trying to infere
it from effects that they believe are related to the temperature. The errors
associated with these measurement are much greater than the changes they are
claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion and then groomed the
data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the establishment is treated as a
loon.

Ed

 

You insult anyone who disagrees with you.
Those sites you quote said we were heading into another ice age in 1975, and
urged immediate action to warm up the climate before millions of people
starved to death.
Why are they more believable now?

 

The same groups that claimed we were heading into a new ice age in 1975.

 

http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm

 

http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average
ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery.
"Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as
fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of Sciences report.
"Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many
cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."

"The world's food-producing system," warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA's
Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, "is much more sensitive to
the weather variable than it was even five years ago." Furthermore, the
growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it
impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as
they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any
positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its
effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed,
such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or
diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they
solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are
even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of
introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections
of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult
will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim
reality.

 

global warming llogic telegraph

"The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University, examined the
findings of studies of so-called "temperature proxies" such as tree rings, ice
cores and historical accounts which allow scientists to estimate temperatures
prevailing at sites around the world.

The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between the
ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher even than
today."
. . .
"Dr Philip Stott, the professor emeritus of bio-geography at the University of
London, told The Telegraph: "What has been forgotten in all the discussion about
global warming is a proper sense of history."

According to Prof Stott, the evidence also undermines doom-laden predictions
about the effect of higher global temperatures. "During the Medieval Warm
Period, the world was warmer even than today, and history shows that it was a
wonderful period of plenty for everyone.""

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/06/nclim06.xml

 

Oh, ok. So, where are the "settled" equations of global warming? With Atoms, we
have empirical data, such as the Mole, Avogadro's Number and Molar Mass's number
that we can use to predict what will happen. So tell us how many degrees the
globe will warm between now and 2010 please and show us how you obtained that
figure? After all, global warming is just as settled as gravity, with its known
and quantifiable laws according to you. Gravity will accelerate mass at
9.8/s/s, how fast will the globe warm 2 degrees in the future?



"A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures
are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most
extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.

The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University [I suppose Harvard
University is a real right wing hot spot, right Lloyd?], examined the findings of
studies of so-called "temperature proxies" such as tree rings, ice cores and
historical accounts which allow scientists to estimate temperatures prevailing at
sites around the world.

The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between the
ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher even than
today.

They also confirm claims that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300, during which
the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up again -
but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.

The timing of the end of the Little Ice Age is especially significant, as it
implies that the records used by climate scientists date from a time when the
Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today's
temperature rise."
CITE:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/06/nclim06.xml

 

Middle Ages were warmer than today, say scientists
By Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent
(Filed: 06/04/2003)

Claims that man-made pollution is causing "unprecedented" global warming have
been seriously undermined by new research which shows that the Earth was warmer
during the Middle Ages.

From the outset of the global warming debate in the late 1980s,
environmentalists have said that temperatures are rising higher and faster than
ever before, leading some scientists to conclude that greenhouse gases from cars
and power stations are causing these "record-breaking" global temperatures.

Last year, scientists working for the UK Climate Impacts Programme said that
global temperatures were "the hottest since records began" and added: "We are
pretty sure that climate change due to human activity is here and it's
accelerating."

This announcement followed research published in 1998, when scientists at the
Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia declared that the 1990s
had been hotter than any other period for 1,000 years.

Such claims have now been sharply contradicted by the most comprehensive study
yet of global temperature over the past 1,000 years. A review of more than 240
scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures are neither the warmest
over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather - in
stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.

The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University, examined the findings
of studies of so-called "temperature proxies" such as tree rings, ice cores and
historical accounts which allow scientists to estimate temperatures prevailing
at sites around the world.

The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between the
ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher even than
today.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/06/nclim06.xml

 

If you think so, you're ignorant then. Go to the agencies and read what they
say. Go to the scientific literature and read what's being published.