Page 3 of 20 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 197

Thread: Climate facts to warm to

  1. #21
    R1.5 #325 + Mdl S #01380 W8MM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, USA
    Posts
    199
    From: Scientists doubt climate change*-*-*The Washington Times, America's Newspaper

    HEATED DEBATE

    The following are comments from some of the more than 400 scientists in a Republican report on global warming:



    •"Even if the concentration of 'greenhouse gases' double, man would not perceive the temperature impact."

    Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences



    •"I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting — a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the [U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] number — entirely without merit. ... I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."

    Atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, former research director at the Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute



    •"The hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The [greenhouse-gas] hypothesis does not do this. ... The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."

    David Wojick, expert reviewer for U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change



    •"The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming."

    Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo-Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil



    •"There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried."

    Anton Uriarte, a professor of physical geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain



    Source: Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee

  2. #22
    mod squad TEG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Posts
    15,069
    Quote Originally Posted by W8MM View Post
    The following are comments from some of the more than 400 scientists in a Republican report on global warming...
    Yes, unfortunately this is not an issue being debated purely on science, but is obviously a political hot potato right now.

    TheHill.com - GOP should catch up with constituents
    blogfish: Republican global warming denial begins to melt
    Moderator - Roadster, and Future Cars forums

  3. #23
    R1.5 #325 + Mdl S #01380 W8MM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, USA
    Posts
    199
    Quote Originally Posted by TEG View Post
    Yes, unfortunately this is not an issue being debated purely on science, but is obviously a political hot potato right now.
    Exactly! But who made it into a political issue in the first place?

    Does the name Al Gore ring a bell?

    Well, of course, it wasn't only his doing. He's just one in a long series of famous leftists to seek to control "the means of production" for the betterment of all mankind.

    Sound familiar? Hint: it's not from Adam Smith

    Sure it's a hot potato. We're watching the typical Stalinist technique of relentlessly shouting down the opposition and keeping the ball rolling until it's way past too late to reconsider. But the only science that's "settled" is the "POLITICAL science" from the left.

    I just love all the "reasonable" people who think that a position half way between a wild-eyed politically-calculated false assertion and a large body of contravening observable facts is an intellectually sound compromise.

    One might say that there is too much climate-model research that points to an impending calamity to ignore. One could argue that the seriousness of the allegations demand erring on the side of doing SOMETHING because the apparent risks of inaction are so grave. But what are the benefits of inaction if the allegations are untrue? What are the risks of doing SOMETHING if the research turns out to be seriously flawed?

    Ordinarily, letting fools reap their just rewards can be very entertaining. All one has to do is wait.

    However, if letting serious foolishness play out ultimately results in hobbling the economies of the developed world with a proportionate increase in real poverty, it's no longer entertainment, it's a crime.

    To whom shall the re-created poor turn for reparations?

  4. #24
    Senior Member stopcrazypp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,177
    Quote Originally Posted by W8MM View Post
    Exactly! But who made it into a political issue in the first place?...
    I always thought it was the Republicans who made it into a political issue by hiring scientists to make the picture look more rosy in terms of climate change at least in the US.
    I mean the Kyoto Protocol happened before Gore made his mark in climate change history.
    I am not going to argue like I have followed this climate change thing as I also don't believe the doom to the extent of Gore's picture. But I don't think Gore is the one to blame for politicizing the issue when clearly the Republicans have done the same (ie. the Republican commissioned reports on climate change as an example you have given).
    However, I still feel pollution has to be addressed regardless of climate change, as the impact on local life still remains. The rate at which we are using nonrenewable resources have to be addressed too. Climate change is just a convient way to make people notice these things.
    Because there are tons of crazy people in this world...

  5. #25
    R1.5 #325 + Mdl S #01380 W8MM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, USA
    Posts
    199
    Quote Originally Posted by stopcrazypp View Post
    I always thought it was the Republicans who made it into a political issue by hiring scientists to make the picture look more rosy in terms of climate change at least in the US.
    I mean the Kyoto Protocol happened before Gore made his mark in climate change history.
    Ever read Gore's book "Earth in the Balance" from the 1992 US Presidential election season? He splashily revealed himself as an environmentalist crank half a decade before the word "Kyoto" made the evening news.

    Turning science into politics is a great way to get government money to flow towards ones research projects. Politically funded (by government grant) research is a huge moral hazard to good science that some well meaning people refuse to recognise. It's not only defense research projects that sometimes turn into complete boondoggles and a huge waste of tax money. We've all seen odd military aircraft that never seem to fly that keep getting money because a powerful member of congress insists on continuing the project. So, too, with climate research. Maybe more so.

    Imagine that you are a senior professor of atmospheric physics at "Prestigious University". Also imagine that some members of congress become interested in a purported "crisis" having to do with climate change and are pushing research funding in that direction. On a lark, you write up a grant proposal that promises to get the job done and subsequently get funded. You hire assistant professors and research assistants, write up more grant proposals, and before long you become head of a school of atmospheric research at PU with a dozen or more underlings. Things are going well and your group is really busy.

    But, then, competition sets in and every Tom, Dick, and Harry in academia starts writing up grant proposals with ever greater possible calamities baked into the research topic. Government is rarely interested in funding research projects unless there is a direct connection to some urgency. Also, any research that doesn't get "results" is likely to see cutbacks in further funding as granting agencies seek to maximize the results of their available cash.

    Many years go by. Then, a particularly bright recent hire walks into your office and reports that there seem to be some serious discrepancies between the outputs of your research models and some newly organised field data. He can't make any sense of it unless he assumes there is a problem with the models. He thinks the models are wrong and wants to write up a grant proposal to delve into the models with a new insight.

    OK, if he's right, your school of atmospheric science is going to get a black eye. If he's right in spades, you may end up without much more work to do.

    What's your decision on how to handle this young genius?

    I know, let's blame it on Republicans!

  6. #26

    Climate facts to warm to

    I like this one. . .

    Climate facts to warm to | The Australian

    It doesn't mean we're all off the hook, though. Peak Oil is still coming at us like a freight train.

    Also, even if global warming isn't the crisis some have made it out to be -- it would still be imprudent (to say the least) to drastically increase global CO2 emissions, which is exactly what would happen if we simply switch from conventional oil to tar sands, oil shale and coal-to-liquids.

  7. #27

  8. #28
    My S60 is In Production!
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    1,145
    Yeah my take has always been that regardless of which scenario you believe in, using non-renewable resources is a bad idea if it can be avoided. A good example right now is that the EV is a much better solution for local transport than ICE based transport. This global warming concern might be the leverage we need to make sure a new disruptive technology wins. Hence why I do not talk too loud when the most glooming scenario comes up. It's a very pragmatic position I know, but still, it works...

    Cobos

  9. #29
    There are several problems with the statements of Marohasy. The claim of cooling since 1998 is only true if you're talking about the USA. Since the issue is GLOBAL warming, not US warming then you need to consider the whole globe.

    Globally, 2005 was hotter than 1998, so over this period that she says there has been cooling, the global temperature has actually gone up. Oops!

    The bigger problem is cherry picking particular years to make a case, when that doesn't say anything about trends. I found a penny on the ground one day, and the next day I found a dime. Does that mean I should expect my income to increase by 10 every day? In a week I should expect to get a million dollars a day? That's the kind of ridiculous result you get when you pick a couple of arbitrary points and call it a trend.

    When you look at the 5 year moving average of global temperatures, it continues to go up. There is no evidence of cooling or even a plateau.

    Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2005 Summation

    Her assertions are so completely wrong that it is not possible to attribute them to mistakes, they are intentional attempts at deception. In short, Marohasy is full of BS.

  10. #30

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. New tidbits from the facts page
    By AnOutsider in forum Model S
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 01-04-2012, 11:03 AM
  2. Time for Performance mode to warm up?
    By S-2000 Roadster in forum Roadster: Performance
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-19-2011, 07:30 AM
  3. Energy needed to keep pack warm
    By tomanik in forum Model S
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-29-2010, 05:44 PM
  4. New York Times bends the facts
    By vfx in forum Energy, Environment, and Policy
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-19-2010, 01:52 PM
  5. Vaclav Klaus: From Climate Alarmism to Climate Realism
    By WarpedOne in forum Energy, Environment, and Policy
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 03-11-2008, 02:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •