Take Me Back Tuesday: GLOBAL WARMING CORRAL

This forum is for general discussion that doesn't fit in the other topic-specific forums.
User avatar
Dingy
Veteran
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 4:37 pm
Location: Delano, MN

Postby Dingy » Fri Mar 09, 2007 9:02 am

Po Monkey Lounger wrote:The current problem with ethanol as a complete substitute for gasoline is that it takes quite a bit of energy to produce --- I believe I saw an estimate lately that put it this way -- it takes approx 1 unit of energy to create 1.4 units of energy in the form of ethanol. Once a way has been found to make ethanol production on a grander scale more efficient in terms of energy consumption and cost, then it may provide a viable alternative to petro based fuels such as gasoline.

And the other problem with ethanol is that even if it could be produced in a way that is more energy and cost efficient, what impact would huge increases in corn production have on our environment in the US? And for us duck hunters, what impact would it have on breeding grounds and wetland habitat? Even more grasslands and wetlands being converted into corn production could be a disaster for our duck populations. This very projected problem has already been discussed in DU and DW magazine articles in the past.



Exactly! But in their commercials, Ford (and other proponents) also fails to acknowledge that everything else under the sun will increase in price because of the increased price of corn. Pork, bacon, eggs, yada yada. So will the US economy really be saving money by using something else other than petroleum...likely not. There was a spiffy new Ford truck parked in the lot next door to the office the other day that was a pimped out advertisement for E85, including a large mural of a corn cob down the length of the truck and the words Flex Fuel...I almost went over there and slashed the tires and pizzed in the gas tank.
Dingy- The persecuted Out Of Stater
bamahunter
Veteran
Posts: 416
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 11:26 am
Location: AL

Postby bamahunter » Fri Mar 09, 2007 4:10 pm

Hammer wrote:Then show me the research that shows there have been more volcano eruptions and more forest fires since 1750 to present than there were prior to 1750 since your hypothesis is that these sources are why there is global warming. I have given you facts, figures and science. You have given me hypotheticals. Give me science.


A few questions for you...

(1) What kind of technology was there to make these sorts of readings back then... especially prior to 1750?

(2) Where is the proof of your claim about there being twice as much CO2 since 250 years ago that you made on the first page of this thread? What kind of assumptions were made in this reasearch and what is the uncertainty? Give me some sources that I can read... real sources, not www crap. I've been trying to go back through your posts but there's too many long posts to sort through and I've got a thesis to write.
Hammer
Veteran
Posts: 696
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2001 12:01 am
Location: Madison, MS

Postby Hammer » Fri Mar 09, 2007 4:43 pm

(1) There are all kinds of ways to figure volcanic activity from written history to oral history to studying sediment deposits, tree growth rings, ice cores, fossils, etc...Geology, anthropology, ecology, anthroecology, even physics...Lots of science out there and lots of big old supercomputers to test all sorts of hypotheses...

That is why there is NO WAY, ZERO.ZERO PERCENT CHANCE that GW is a hoax...Too much science, too many computers, too many very smart people researching this...I am generally a throwback to a bygone era but truth is truth and the truth is that modern man has done more damage to the Earth in 100 years than all previous human generations in total...

Its time to use what we have learned to correct that situation before things get even more out of hand...Alternatively, we can eat, drink and be merry, satiate ourselves into oblivion and find out sooner or later that we have disgraced your ancestors, doomed our heirs and disappointed our Creator whom has a proven penchant for putting us in our places when we get too big for our britches...

(2) Primary evidence is found in the ice in glaciers and icebergs...Some of that ice is very, very old and has air pockets in it.... Thy have studied the air in those pockets and found 2X more CO2 now than 250 years ago and getting closer to 3X

It amazes me how anybody could think this is a conspiracy when GE, Alcoa, BP, Duke Energy and other Fortune 200 companies are all over this, when 16 states have now banded together to regulate CO2 emissions and when even Exxon and President Bush have acknowledged it.

As for corn ethanol and ducks, switchgrass is the next wave and it will be very good for ducks...But you gotta start some place and corn ethanol is where we chose to start...Besides, if CO2 concentrations get much higher, Greenland will be duck habitat.
bamahunter
Veteran
Posts: 416
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 11:26 am
Location: AL

Postby bamahunter » Fri Mar 09, 2007 10:15 pm

Hammer wrote:(1) There are all kinds of ways to figure volcanic activity from written history to oral history to studying sediment deposits, tree growth rings, ice cores, fossils, etc...Geology, anthropology, ecology, anthroecology, even physics...Lots of science out there and lots of big old supercomputers to test all sorts of hypotheses...

(2) Primary evidence is found in the ice in glaciers and icebergs...Some of that ice is very, very old and has air pockets in it.... Thy have studied the air in those pockets and found 2X more CO2 now than 250 years ago and getting closer to 3X


(1) What was the population density of the earth back in those days? How can you possibly believe there were enough people covering the earth to accurately record the volcanic activity in those times?

(2) This is what I really want you to prove to me via SOMETHING TO READ. We recently read a classic ice sintering article in a class I'm taking that was written by Kingery ("Regelation, Surface Diffusion, and Ice Sintering", Journal of Applied Physics, May 1960). I'm very interested in seeing the theories of how glaciers and icebergs can accurately contain this kind of evidence and have access to some of the top scientists in the world in sintering theory.

I've heard your claims over and over but I want to read some peer reviewed scientific journal articles. I read this stuff all the time by self-proclaimed internet experts on CO2 emmisions that keep up with everything happening on CNN, Fox News, MSN, etc but I would like to read these things for myself instead taking the medias word for it. I also don't deny that there's global warming occuring on at this time but I feel like it's just the cycle of nature and we actually recognize it due to "modern" technology.
User avatar
GordonGekko
Duck South Addict
Posts: 5070
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2001 12:01 am
Location: a blind near you
Contact:

Postby GordonGekko » Fri Mar 09, 2007 10:25 pm

i mentioned this a couple of days ago.... but, there is a documentary produced in the U.K. that seems to have effectively refuted what many people thought they knew about global warming.... i haven't seen it yet, but from some of the summary article it seems like they used some pretty solid science to make their point....

here's the Fetch to a summary/review of the documentary http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/090307warminghoax.htm

also interesting to note for duck hunters that there was a "significant cooling period" from the 1940's to the 1980's.... maybe that really is part of the reason there aren't as many ducks down here as there used to be....
"In God we trust, all others pay cash."

Noli nothis permittere te terere.

Press Alt+F4 to ignore my posts
Hammer
Veteran
Posts: 696
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2001 12:01 am
Location: Madison, MS

Postby Hammer » Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:20 am

MEMO TO BAMAHUNTER:

I wont do your work for you but it is as simple as this...

Go to ALTAVISTA.COM and enter the search words:

ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS ICE CORES

and see how many results you get....(Hint: 284,000)

One cool thing about the results is that you can see the evolution of the science as the technology got better, the estimates go further and further back in time...This is partly what unlocked the box relative to natural or manmade causes...The more time involved and the higher the CO2 levels in modern times relative to historic times, the less probable that anything other than human induced CO2 emissions are the cause...

The facts are that Greenland is melting, glaciers are disappearing, the TransAlyeska pipeline is sinking (because the permafrost isnt) and temperatures at the poles have risen far beyond what any natural climate cycle can explain...Scientists have tried to shoot it down but cant...GW is real and human emissions are the culprit...

As for your "CNN" smack, I have been studing this issue a long time and dont rely on the mainstream media for my information...The irony of your statement- which you are completely oblivious to- is that it is the mainstream media that started the "he said/she said" game in the first place...The peer reviewed science has been consistent on this issue for over a decade but the American media would always give a voice to the oil company puppets to dispute the science...

BTW, while you are at it, enter an Internet search for

SENATE LETTER WHITE HOUSE GLOBAL WARMING

and you will find a "SENSE OF THE SENATE" letter to GWB imploring him to take the lead on GW...I cant wait to hear you guys rationalize how the then REPUBLICAN majority senate got duped into believing GW is real...Note that was way before Al Gore's movie came out so dont embarrass yourself by suggestign that.

In other words, the same gus that authorize billions of dollars in appropriations for highways, Corps projects, tax cuts, farm programsand all sorts of environmentally destructive activities, get it, but yall dont. Go figure.
User avatar
Wildfowler
Duck South Addict
Posts: 4868
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2001 12:01 am
Location: Mis'sippi

Postby Wildfowler » Sat Mar 10, 2007 12:07 pm

Dingy wrote:So will the US economy really be saving money by using something else other than petroleum


Is that the objective? I'm personally more interested in our national security. Growing our own fuel would at least give us the ability to keep our money at home flowing through our own economy, instead of funding terrorism.
Last edited by Wildfowler on Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
driven every kind of rig that's ever been made, driven the backroads so I wouldn't get weighed. - Lowell George
Hammer
Veteran
Posts: 696
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2001 12:01 am
Location: Madison, MS

Postby Hammer » Sat Mar 10, 2007 12:59 pm

Damn-E Wildfowler...How great would it be to tell the Israelis- here's the deal...The US is energy secure...We dont need the Arabs oil but we share a common heritage with you and we are going to take care of that by building you a new country in the Mojave Desert....We are going to deconstruct, transport and rebuild every significant Jewish and Christian religious shrine, monument, etc in Israel...Load em on ships and bring em to the US....

We will build deslination plants and pipe in fresh water from the Pacific Coast...In other words, we are going to rebuild the Holy Land here in the US so your national security in the midst of radical Islam is no longer an issue...Then we sit back and watch the Sunnis and Shiites slaughter each over other religious grudges that date back 1000+ years without another drop of American blood being spilled...Resistance efforts to the radical Islamists will inevitably develop and we can make a fortune selling them weapons...Ditto down in Africa where radical Islam is slaughtering native Africans in places like Somalia...

Sounds radical I know but dont forget that the Jews were without a country for over 2000 years until 1946 when the post WW2 United Nations created the current "State of Israel" which the Israeilis added to during the Seven Days War in 1967 and have taken additional lands via "adverse possession" ever since...In other words, the state of Israel is only 60+ years old adn there is a precedent for creating the Jews a new country...Surely they are growing tired of the constant butchering of their people by radical Islam...Once they get over the emotional aspects, I think they would be in favor of such a plan...

Bottomline: There are two things that keep us in the Middle East...One is oil, the other is Israel...Lets get on with the business of solving both of these problems...The tourism dollars alone would pay for such a project, not to mention the savings in military budgets and American lives...

Incidentally, I was all for invading Afghanistan and Iraq but GWB/JC/DR master plan never made sense to me...If I were king, we would have used airpower and special ops to ransack those countries, kill a bunch of terrorists, make a regime change and move on to Syria, Iran and Pakistan....Spend about a month in each country, blow some stuff up, kill some radicals and let them know that if there is a repeat of USS Cole, Beirut Embassay, Black Hawk Down, 9-11 or anything else, we will back for another blitzkrieg...

Instead we sent in conventional ground troops and have gotten mired in the quagmire of a Sunni- Shiite civil war...Poor policy- worse execution due to DR's "war on the cheap" approach...Really upsetting that 3000+ American soldiers ahve died and many more been wounded as a result...

HAMMER

PS BTW, A friend of d'Feat is a friend of mine...Saw them the first time at the Junior League's Arts Festival here in Jacktown in about 1973 or 1974...Saw em again at the Municipal Auditorium (now known as Thalia Maria Hall in 1977 or 1978)...Those are the only shows I saw with LG but I have seem them several times since in various incarnations...Always a great show but they will never be the same without LG.
User avatar
Wildfowler
Duck South Addict
Posts: 4868
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2001 12:01 am
Location: Mis'sippi

Postby Wildfowler » Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:54 pm

Hammer, I was commenting that I didn't think our objective was to save money by growing our own fuel. I don't mind spending more money on fuel if it means there is more money staying at home in our economy, rather than being given over to the hostile oil producing countries of the world. I don't think I would even know how to comment on Israel or any of the issues you have just brought to light.

Does ethanol contribute more or less pollution to the atmosphere when it is burned compared to fossil fuels?
driven every kind of rig that's ever been made, driven the backroads so I wouldn't get weighed. - Lowell George
User avatar
Po Monkey Lounger
Duck South Addict
Posts: 5975
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 12:01 am
Location: Sharby Creek

Postby Po Monkey Lounger » Sun Mar 11, 2007 11:51 am

"Does ethanol contribute more or less pollution to the atmosphere when it is burned compared to fossil fuels?"

According to a big feature article in today's NEDJ about ethanol, the levels of pollution are about the same between the two when you take into account the energy used and resulting emissions expended to produce the corn.
User avatar
Cotten
Veteran
Posts: 736
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 8:43 pm
Location: Madison, MS

Re: GLOBAL WARMING CORRAL

Postby Cotten » Sun Mar 11, 2007 9:09 pm

Hammer wrote:BRING IT-


Hey Hammer, I recently heard something in the news stating farming of animals to be sold for meat does more harm to the environment than all of the energy consumption in the world. Now I have no clue whether or not this is true; probabaly not. But if it were, would you be willing to "do your part" and give up meat?
User avatar
JJ McGuire
Veteran
Posts: 282
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 5:26 am
Location: Chester Springs, PA
Contact:

Postby JJ McGuire » Mon Mar 12, 2007 7:28 am

Gorey Truths
25 inconvenient truths for Al Gore.

By Iain Murray
With An Inconvenient Truth, the companion book to former Vice President Al Gore’s global-warming movie, currently number nine in Amazon sales rank, this is a good time to point out that the book, which is a largely pictorial representation of the movie’s graphical presentation, exaggerates the evidence surrounding global warming. Ironically, the former Vice President leaves out many truths that are inconvenient for his argument. Here are just 25 of them.
1. Carbon Dioxide’s Effect on Temperature. The relationship between global temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2), on which the entire scare is founded, is not linear. Every molecule of CO2 added to the atmosphere contributes less to warming than the previous one. The book’s graph on p. 66-67 is seriously misleading. Moreover, even the historical levels of CO2 shown on the graph are disputed. Evidence from plant fossil-remains suggest that there was as much CO2 in the atmosphere about 11,000 years ago as there is today.
2. Kilimanjaro. The snows of Kilimanjaro are melting not because of global warming but because of a local climate shift that began 100 years ago. The authors of a report in the International Journal of Climatology “develop a new concept for investigating the retreat of Kilimanjaro’s glaciers, based on the physical understanding of glacier–climate interactions.” They note that, “The concept considers the peculiarities of the mountain and implies that climatological processes other than air temperature control the ice recession in a direct manner. A drastic drop in atmospheric moisture at the end of the 19th century and the ensuing drier climatic conditions are likely forcing glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro.”
3. Glaciers. Glaciers around the world have been receding at around the same pace for over 100 years. Research published by the National Academy of Sciences last week indicates that the Peruvian glacier on p. 53-53 probably disappeared a few thousand years ago.
4. The Medieval Warm Period. Al Gore says that the “hockey stick” graph that shows temperatures remarkably steady for the last 1,000 years has been validated, and ridicules the concept of a “medieval warm period.” That’s not the case. Last year, a team of leading paleoclimatologists said, “When matching existing temperature reconstructions…the timeseries display a reasonably coherent picture of major climatic episodes: ‘Medieval Warm Period,’ ‘Little Ice Age’ and ‘Recent Warming.’” They go on to conclude, “So what would it mean, if the reconstructions indicate a larger…or smaller…temperature amplitude? We suggest that the former situation, i.e. enhanced variability during pre-industrial times, would result in a redistribution of weight towards the role of natural factors in forcing temperature changes, thereby relatively devaluing the impact of anthropogenic emissions and affecting future temperature predictions.”
5. The Hottest Year. Satellite temperature measurements say that 2005 wasn't the hottest year on record — 1998 was — and that temperatures have been stable since 2001 (p.73).
6. Heat Waves. The summer heat wave that struck Europe in 2003 was caused by an atmospheric pressure anomaly; it had nothing to do with global warming. As the United Nations Environment Program reported in September 2003, “This extreme wheather [sic] was caused by an anti-cyclone firmly anchored over the western European land mass holding back the rain-bearing depressions that usually enter the continent from the Atlantic ocean. This situation was exceptional in the extended length of time (over 20 days) during which it conveyed very hot dry air up from south of the Mediterranean.”
7. Record Temperatures. Record temperatures — hot and cold — are set every day around the world; that’s the nature of records. Statistically, any given place will see four record high temperatures set every year. There is evidence that daytime high temperatures are staying about the same as for the last few decades, but nighttime lows are gradually rising. Global warming might be more properly called, “Global less cooling.” (On this, see Patrick J. Michaels book, Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.)
8. Hurricanes. There is no overall global trend of hurricane-force storms getting stronger that has anything to do with temperature. A recent study in Geophysical Research Letters found: “The data indicate a large increasing trend in tropical cyclone intensity and longevity for the North Atlantic basin and a considerable decreasing trend for the Northeast Pacific. All other basins showed small trends, and there has been no significant change in global net tropical cyclone activity. There has been a small increase in global Category 4–5 hurricanes from the period 1986–1995 to the period 1996–2005. Most of this increase is likely due to improved observational technology. These findings indicate that other important factors govern intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones besides SSTs [sea surface temperatures].”
9. Tornadoes. Records for numbers of tornadoes are set because we can now record more of the smaller tornadoes (see, for instance, the Tornado FAQ at Weather Underground).
10. European Flooding. European flooding is not new (p. 107). Similar flooding happened in 2003. Research from Michael Mudelsee and colleagues from the University of Leipzig published in Nature (Sept. 11, 2003) looked at data reaching as far back as 1021 (for the Elbe) and 1269 (for the Oder). They concluded that there is no upward trend in the incidence of extreme flooding in this region of central Europe.
11. Shrinking Lakes. Scientists investigating the disappearance of Lake Chad (p.116) found that most of it was due to human overuse of water. “The lake’s decline probably has nothing to do with global warming, report the two scientists, who based their findings on computer models and satellite imagery made available by NASA. They attribute the situation instead to human actions related to climate variation, compounded by the ever increasing demands of an expanding population” (“Shrinking African Lake Offers Lesson on Finite Resources,” National Geographic, April 26, 2001). Lake Chad is also a very shallow lake that has shrunk considerably throughout human history.
12. Polar Bears. Polar bears are not becoming endangered. A leading Canadian polar bear biologist wrote recently, “Climate change is having an effect on the west Hudson population of polar bears, but really, there is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear (sic) to be affected at present.”
13. The Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream, the ocean conveyor belt, is not at risk of shutting off in the North Atlantic (p. 150). Carl Wunsch of MIT wrote to the journal Nature in 2004 to say, “The only way to produce an ocean circulation without a Gulf Stream is either to turn off the wind system, or to stop the Earth’s rotation, or both”
14. Invasive Species. Gore’s worries about the effect of warming on species ignore evolution. With the new earlier caterpillar season in the Netherlands, an evolutionary advantage is given to birds that can hatch their eggs earlier than the rest. That’s how nature works. Also, “invasive species” naturally extend their range when climate changes. As for the pine beetle given as an example of invasive species, Rob Scagel, a forest microclimate specialist in British Columbia, said, “The MPB (mountain pine beetle) is a species native to this part of North America and is always present. The MPB epidemic started as comparatively small outbreaks and through forest management inaction got completely out of hand.”
15. Species Loss. When it comes to species loss, the figures given on p. 163 are based on extreme guesswork, as the late Julian Simon pointed out. We have documentary evidence of only just over 1,000 extinctions since 1600 (see, for instance, Bjørn Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist, p. 250)
16. Coral Reefs. Coral reefs have been around for over 500 million years. This means that they have survived through long periods with much higher temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations than today
17. Malaria and other Infectious Diseases. Leading disease scientists contend that climate change plays only a minor role in the spread of emerging infectious diseases. In “Global Warming and Malaria: A Call for Accuracy” (The Lancet, June 2004), nine leading malariologists criticized models linking global warming to increased malaria spread as “misleading” and “display[ing] a lack of knowledge” of the subject.
18. Antarctic Ice. There is controversy over whether the Antarctic ice sheet is thinning or thickening. Recent scientific studies have shown a thickening in the interior at the same time as increased melting along the coastlines. Temperatures in the interior are generally decreasing. The Antarctic Peninsula, where the Larsen-B ice shelf broke up (p. 181) is not representative of what is happening in the rest of Antarctica. Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, Professor Emeritus of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, acknowledges, “Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems.” According to a forthcoming report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, climate models based on anthropogenic forcing cannot explain the anomalous warming of the Antarctic Peninsula; thus, something natural is at work.
19. Greenland Climate. Greenland was warmer in the 1920s and 1930s than it is now. A recent study by Dr. Peter Chylek of the University of California, Riverside, addressed the question of whether man is directly responsible for recent warming: “An important question is to what extent can the current (1995-2005) temperature increase in Greenland coastal regions be interpreted as evidence of man-induced global warming? Although there has been a considerable temperature increase during the last decade (1995 to 2005) a similar increase and at a faster rate occurred during the early part of the 20th century (1920 to 1930) when carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases could not be a cause. The Greenland warming of 1920 to 1930 demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is not a necessary condition for period of warming to arise. The observed 1995-2005 temperature increase seems to be within a natural variability of Greenland climate.” (Petr Chylek et al., Geophysical Research Letters, 13 June 2006.)
20. Sea Level Rise. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does not forecast sea-level rises of “18 to 20 feet.” Rather, it says, “We project a sea level rise of 0.09 to 0.88 m for 1990 to 2100, with a central value of 0.48 m. The central value gives an average rate of 2.2 to 4.4 times the rate over the 20th century...It is now widely agreed that major loss of grounded ice and accelerated sea level rise are very unlikely during the 21st century.” Al Gore’s suggestions of much more are therefore extremely alarmist.
21. Population. Al Gore worries about population growth; Gore does not suggest a solution. Fertility in the developed world is stable or decreasing. The plain fact is that we are not going to reduce population back down to 2 billion or fewer in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, the population in the developing world requires a significant increase in its standard of living to reduce the threats of premature and infant mortality, disease, and hunger. In The Undercover Economist, Tim Harford writes, “If we are honest, then, the argument that trade leads to economic growth, which leads to climate change, leads us then to a stark conclusion: we should cut our trade links to make sure that the Chinese, Indians and Africans stay poor. The question is whether any environmental catastrophe, even severe climate change, could possibly inflict the same terrible human cost as keeping three or four billion people in poverty. To ask that question is to answer it.”
22. Energy Generation. A specific example of this is Gore’s acknowledgement that 30 percent of global CO2 emissions come from wood fires used for cooking (p. 227). If we introduced affordable, coal-fired power generation into South Asia and Africa we could reduce this considerably and save over 1.6 million lives a year. This is the sort of solution that Gore does not even consider.
23. Carbon-Emissions Trading. The European Carbon Exchange Market, touted as “effective” on p. 252, has crashed.
24. The “Scientific Consensus.” On the supposed “scientific consensus”: Dr. Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, San Diego, (p. 262) did not examine a “large random sample” of scientific articles. She got her search terms wrong and thought she was looking at all the articles when in fact she was looking at only 928 out of about 12,000 articles on “climate change.” Dr. Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in England, was unable to replicate her study. He says, “As I have stressed repeatedly, the whole data set includes only 13 abstracts (~1%) that explicitly endorse what Oreskes has called the ‘consensus view.’ In fact, the vast majority of abstracts does (sic) not mention anthropogenic climate change. Moreover — and despite attempts to deny this fact — a handful of abstracts actually questions the view that human activities are the main driving force of ‘the observed warming over the last 50 years.’” In addition, a recent survey of scientists following the same methodology as one published in 1996 found that about 30 percent of scientists disagreed to some extent or another with the contention that “climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.” Less than 10 percent “strongly agreed” with the statement. Details of both the survey and the failed attempt to replicate the Oreskes study can be found here.
25. Economic Costs. Even if the study Gore cites is right (p. 280-281), the United States will still emit massive amounts of CO2 after all the measures it outlines have been realized. Getting emissions down to the paltry levels needed to stabilize CO2 in the atmosphere would require, in Gore’s own words, “a wrenching transformation” of our way of life. This cannot be done easily or without significant cost. The Kyoto Protocol, which Gore enthusiastically supports, would avert less than a tenth of a degree of warming in the next fifty years and would cost up to $400 billion a year to the U.S. All of the current proposals in Congress would cost the economy significant amounts, making us all poorer, with all that that entails for human health and welfare, while doing nothing to stop global warming.
Finally, Gore quotes Winston Churchill (p. 100) — but he should read what Churchill said when he was asked what qualities a politician requires: “The ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen.”

—Iain Murray is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
JJ

Never ask a man what kind of dog he has. If he has a Lab he'll tell you, if he does not you don't want to shame him by asking.
bamahunter
Veteran
Posts: 416
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 11:26 am
Location: AL

Postby bamahunter » Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:46 am

McGuire - That's the kind of post I've been asking Hammer to present. I want to see some conclusions with directions towards the sources. I didn't ask anyone to do my work for me but rather I have yet to see him quote some valid sources within his arguements.
bamahunter
Veteran
Posts: 416
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 11:26 am
Location: AL

Postby bamahunter » Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:15 am

Hammer wrote:MEMO TO BAMAHUNTER:

I wont do your work for you but it is as simple as this...

Go to ALTAVISTA.COM and enter the search words:

ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS ICE CORES

and see how many results you get....(Hint: 284,000)


Ok, I copied your line of text above to search in your search engine of choice (altavista) and it came up with 170,000 results. I clicked on every link in the first two pages of the results and not a single one was a peer-reviewed journal article (of course several of them referenced such articles). Note: That's not how you go about finding good scientific literature. The least you can do is search http://www.scholar.google.com which will rid you about about 150,000 results that aren't published. Also try http://www.ebscohost.com, http://www.engineeringvillage2.org, http://www.elsevier.com, and numerous others but scholar.google will provide the most free articles.

About the "I wont do your work for you..." comment, I want to see you prove your arguments. I don't want any work done for me and in my opinion, if you're making this many statements that are not based upon your own research then you should be able to back up 75% of them with good references.
User avatar
JJ McGuire
Veteran
Posts: 282
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 5:26 am
Location: Chester Springs, PA
Contact:

Postby JJ McGuire » Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:42 am

bamahunter wrote:McGuire - That's the kind of post I've been asking Hammer to present. I want to see some conclusions with directions towards the sources. I didn't ask anyone to do my work for me but rather I have yet to see him quote some valid sources within his arguements.


He seemed to be having trouble, so I thought I'd help out a bit. :mrgreen:
JJ

Never ask a man what kind of dog he has. If he has a Lab he'll tell you, if he does not you don't want to shame him by asking.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Amazon [Bot], Bing [Bot] and 16 guests