Re: OT- Another split in the Global Warming debate

On 7 Mar, 00:43, "Mark Test" <MARK...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Eugene Griessel" <eugene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:45ec7ed5.1105750@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"BlackBeard" <spk_...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Allegre'ssecond thoughts
The Deniers -- The National Post's series on scientists who buck the
conventional wisdom on climate science
LAWRENCE SOLOMON, Financial Post
Published: Friday, March 02, 2007
"ClaudeAllegre, one of France's leading socialists and among her most
celebrated scientists, was among the first to sound the alarm about
the dangers of global warming...
<snip>
...With a wealth of data now in, Dr.Allegrehas recanted his
views..."

Complete story at.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4...
05-fc28f14da388

Two comments:

First comment - I agree with the last paragraph.

Second comment - let me put the following scenario:

Attempt to minimise damage to the environment now. It can do no harm
and will most likely do good.

Everyone concurs with that.....And America is a clean country...alot
cleaner than say China and India. BUT the number one green house
gas is water vapor....not CO2....BTW China will become the world's
leader of CO2 emissions by 2008.

"By this particular measure, water vapor can be thought of as providing 36%
of the greenhouse effect, and carbon dioxide 12%,"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

So why the attack on CO2 and not H2O?

Because humans are producing unprecedented amounts of C02 - and not,
as far as I know, unprecedented amounts of water vapour - and water
vapour is kind of important in cloud formation and weather systems?

Having said that, I guess agricultural practices may effect
evaporation and particulate emmsions in Asia are apparently having an
effect on Pacific weather patterns[*]...

[* http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/102/15/5326]

Don't and then listen to the apologies in the future that the
scientists were wrong and sorry about the mess the planet is in.

Which scenario would you rather participate in?

Well, my problem is this, the scientist have been wrong before...they
all predicted an ice age (some suggested man-made) would occur in the
late 20th century....

That means what? Scientists once thought the earth was flat - are you
going to avoid flying over the date-line because of it?

There are scientists today, with observations that back up the theory that
the radiance of the sun effects Earth's climate much more than man can
ever do....and that since the sun has been slowing it's irradiance since
1990....the Earth may in fact start to cool thru 2040.....this
winter was colder world wide than last winter...and the ice pack
in Antartica is larger than it has been in decades....

That data alone, should make us all stop and re-think the Global Warming
models...before we start paying obsene taxes.....

Have you got any references to any of that data?

Met office figures show that 5 of the 6 warmest winters in the UK have
been in the last 5 years, that the Alps are the warmest they have been
since AD700 and that Japan has seen its warmest ever winter.
[http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/]

Sure a percentage of global warming is natural - we are at the tail
end of a Milankovitch cycle. Have been in a warming phase for some
18000 years odd and will be for a goodly few thousand to come. So
doesn't it make sense to minimise all human contribution to the
exacerbation of that situation? We are dealing with a chaotic
planet, no matter how good our modelling and predicitions are, nobody
can say for sure what is going to happen - only offer various odds on
the different probable scenarios. And the difference between, say, a
4 degree average warming and a 5 degree average warming are
tremendous. If through our actions we can limit it, even by such a
minute amount, we will save future generations immense hardships.
Isn't it worth trying?

At what cost? Should we reduce our food output because farmers use
fossil fuels to feed our nation and the world? Should we tell people what
they can drive and what they can't? My concern is that this may not be
science
at all...but a tactic to grow government and take away our freedom....
that is not what I would want to leave my grandchildren.

Whilst I agree about that climate science is being co-opted for the
benefit of those that raise taxes from us, it makes sense to
understand what the science is and means, preferably without getting
caught up in the politics and nonsensical spoutings from both ends of
the debate.

We need to face this, even if it is to spend rather more effort on
coping with the inevitability of it rather than tossing around with
energy saving lightbulbs. Personally, I think it is outrageous, just
as one example, that the public are being made to feel guilty about
energy expenditure in their houses when if you wander around any city
at night you'll see possibly thousands of brightly lit (and possibly
well heated) offices, absolutely empty.

The Earth can take care of itself.....if we kill ourselves off....another
form of life will take our place.....the planet is 4 billion years
old...life
has been here for 3.8 billion years...and you believe man can
destroy this planet? (And don't tell me you're concerned with human

Of course.

life, the GW crowd tends to be anti-human...ya know, the spotted owl
has more of a right to live than me..etc.,)

I don't think there are very many people that would reasonably be
regarded as sane that are suggesting that...

Adam

Mark
--
"If you don't believe in God, you will believe in anything."
G. K. Chesterton

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ooooopppssss!!!! Its about that "record re-freezing of Arctic ice"
    ... Broad consensus of scientists that agree with your politically biased ... Global Climate Science Communications ... Media "understands" uncertainties in climate ... Distribute the information kits to daily newspapers nationwide with ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
    ... inquiry from someone who _is_ ignorant but at least shows some earlier ... Some scientists are ... ... Science breaks down into two main approaches -- ... climate science was more like that Gordian Knot. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
    ... inquiry from someone who _is_ ignorant but at least shows some earlier ... Some scientists are ... ... Statistics doesn't work nearly as well as you might imagine ... climate science was more like that Gordian Knot. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
    ... inquiry from someone who _is_ ignorant but at least shows some earlier ... Some scientists are ... ... Statistics doesn't work nearly as well as you might imagine ... climate science was more like that Gordian Knot. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: How science is not done
    ... None of the wikipedia pages mentions they have worked for tobacco companies. ... So it is legitimate to doubt AGW on scientific grounds? ... They claim to be scientists but are little more than paid liars spreading disinformation to confuse the public. ... Well, I have never read any research from them, as far as I know, and indeed my objections are purely based on the apparent complete lack of climate science to produce a theory which matches experimental data, which is a fundamental requirement of a science. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
Loading