Defection

[B. Max]

The industry of doom and gloom have been on the offensive lately as their climate change scam has been going down the toilet. Now this.

“Following the month of August experienced by the northern half of France, the prophets of doom of global warming will have a lot on their plate in order to make our fellow countrymen swallow their certitudes,” Allegre wrote. He also accused proponents of manmade catastrophic global warming of being motivated by money, noting that “the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!”

http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777

[Michael Hardner]

What kind of scientist uses the weather from PART of France, in August as proof against global warming ? It's not called France warming.

I'm not one to accuse people of ambition (there was another thread started about Bono, in that regard today) but we never heard of this person when he believed in global warming, as he was only one of thousands, right ?

[B. Max]

What kind of scientist uses the weather from PART of France, in August as proof against global warming ? It's not called France warming.

I'm not one to accuse people of ambition (there was another thread started about Bono, in that regard today) but we never heard of this person when he believed in global warming, as he was only one of thousands, right ?

What kind of science uses one little part of Green Land and its glacier as proof of global warming and fails to mention the glaciers in the rest of it and what is happening to them , and out right lies about the ice in Antarctica. Then there is last seasons hurricanes that were also proof, and the list goes on. I guess since this years hurricanes were a flop we can conclude that global warming is over.

Oh and now we have the gloom and doom industry wanting to put those that disagree with them on some sort of Nirenberg trials.

[Higgly]

B.Max, do you by any chance have formal training in any of the sciences?

[Michael Hardner]

What kind of science uses one little part of Green Land and its glacier as proof of global warming and fails to mention the glaciers in the rest of it and what is happening to them , and out right lies about the ice in Antarctica. Then there is last seasons hurricanes that were also proof, and the list goes on. I guess since this years hurricanes were a flop we can conclude that global warming is over.

Oh and now we have the gloom and doom industry wanting to put those that disagree with them on some sort of Nirenberg trials.

There is also that little matter of the temperatures going up, hence the name Global WARMING, but I think it's more comforting to some to deny what's happening.

[Shakeyhands]

B.Max, do you by any chance have formal training in any of the sciences?

Bullshitology maybe???

[cybercoma]

There is also that little matter of the temperatures going up, hence the name Global WARMING, but I think it's more comforting to some to deny what's happening.

No one is denying global warming, what's being further studied and debated is how much of the warming is influenced by man and what the best approach to controlling our influence is.

[B. Max]

There is also that little matter of the temperatures going up, hence the name Global WARMING, but I think it's more comforting to some to deny what's happening.

Yes about .5 of a degree in the average temperature which most of it took place before 1940 and since then there has actually been a slight cooling. As jbq points out in another thread, they were calling for another ice age in the seventies claiming an even bigger temperature drop. Supported by what I don't know. I think that climate scientists who disagree with the current weather fad would love to have their research put on trial, but in stead we find the gloom and doom industry trying to silence them by claiming the debate is over and threatening to put those who disagree on trial for disagreeing.

http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/pr...,944914,00.html

[cybercoma]

There is also that little matter of the temperatures going up, hence the name Global WARMING, but I think it's more comforting to some to deny what's happening.

Yes about .5 of a degree in the average temperature which most of it took place before 1940 and since then there has actually been a slight cooling. As jbq points out in another thread, they were calling for another ice age in the seventies claiming an even bigger temperature drop. Supported by what I don't know. I think that climate scientists who disagree with the current weather fad would love to have their research put on trial, but in stead we find the gloom and doom industry trying to silence them by claiming the debate is over and threatening to put those who disagree on trial for disagreeing.

http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/pr...,944914,00.html

The temperatures have risen just as dramatically since 1980 as they did from 1900-1940.

[B. Max]

The temperatures have risen just as dramatically since 1980 as they did from 1900-1940.

That's the .5 degrees which only a fraction can be attributed to C02.

[watching&waiting]

There worlds oceans have coled from 2003 to 2005 and this now is just making all the global warming people go nuts trying to explain this, because it flys in the very face of their arguments

http://www.globalwarming.org/

Maybe they can expalin that coller oceans means warmer air? Sounds to be very wrong to me.

[Michael Hardner]

cybercoma - as you can see there are those that deny that any warming is happening.

B. Max:

As jbq points out in another thread, they were calling for another ice age in the seventies claiming an even bigger temperature drop.

'They' were a few scientists, and a couple of magazine covers, including Newsweek I believe. The support behind Global Warming is much more substantial. This argument is still trotted out though, for some reason.

[Remiel]

Ummm... global warming heats up ice, ice melts, large chunks of glaciers fall into oceans, oceans get cooler from influx...

Can anyone tell me what temperature salt water is when its at its densest? I know its 4C for fresh water, but since salt water doesn't freeze at the same temperature, is the density max different as well?

[watching&waiting]

Simple chemistry the hotter water gets the more it can take into suspension. Take a hot cup of coffee and add sugar untill it can no longer dislove any more. Then pour the liquid into a clean clear container. As the coffee cools it will precipitate more sugar out of solution. Heat is almost always the method used to super saturate liquids.

The ice falling into the Oceans do not affect its temperature the way you said. The Oceans are the worlds biggest energy storage that there is. Cooling oceans must be done with huge temperature drops. The Global warming scientists are finding it very hard to expalin why the oceans have cooled and they know it would have to be some colossal event if it was not a natural phenomena. If you look at the article even when they try and remove certain criteria that they are unsure of, the temperatur is still cooler. So they will now have to adjust their thinking in just what is driving the heating and cooling events.

[cybercoma]

The war on terror is releasing particles into the air and creating global cooling. Let's see the average temperature of new york leading up to sept. 11, 2001, then after.

[margrace]

Whether it is climate change or not, there is something very frightening going on in our areas with the weather. We have had 4 major storms since the beggining of July. I am 71 and I can remember only 2 other storms in my lifetime that came anywhere near the ferocity of these storms.

Thousands of people out of hydro for over a week at a time. I am terrified of what the coming winter is going to bring if this continues.

When 20 or more trees come down around your house it is very frightening. None hit us, I think God was watching they all laid themselves parallel to the buildings.

Right now our river is almost as high as in the worst spring floods

[Jerry J. Fortin]

In my view climate change is normal. It is no news to me that the weather changes from day to day either. The thing to be concerned with is long term trends and their impact on society. We need to take a different approach to this oproblem in my view.

[watching&waiting]

The one problem with age is we tend to remember things with less vigor then the actions were. I remember whenHurrican Hazel swept thru southern Ont and it did a lot of damage including ripping off factory roofs etc. This was what we liked to call a storm of the century back then. But today we have many more storms but they are not as bad, but if we look we will see that we nolonger have the wooded areas between farmers fields because the farmer need to plant all their land to make a living. This means winds will blow across these open fields and become much stronger then before. That is not climate change but the law of plain old physics. The areas of the greatest population are the ones that have this kind of thing playing out.

This same thing is happening in cities but in reverse. All the all buildings stop the wind from moving thru these large cities and then we get the heat from the sun being bounced back and forth from the asphalt, and all the toxic gas emmissions from the cars and people, rise into a thick smog. Since there is little or no wind this just clings there like a bad odour. Had more and better planning been done of just where and how these giant buildings were built, then smog would not be the same problem as it is today. We all have to learn as we go along in all of this, as who would have thought 50 years ago that our cities would grow up so high that they in themselves would develope micro climates within them. The rise in average temperatures in the last 50 years is not that much maybe 3 degrees. That noramlly would be very hard for most people to feel let alone be upset about. That is why all the models for global warming have to be ovver 100 years because the nimbers do not begin to look like trouble until then. So what this is really all about is not Our Childrens time or their childrens time but their childrens, childrens, childrens time. That is a really long way off, and if you look at all the hype you see that the models say that it has to be exponentially growing for these 100 years to reach those figures. So if we do have the 65% reduction in greenhouse gas by the year 2050 as this new plan has said it would. Then not only will we have stopped the growth, but we would be working into the area of reversing the affects. That is unless some natural disaster like multiple volcano eruptions or major earthquakes do not happen and destroy the whol model with just one or two events.

[cybercoma]

Whether it is climate change or not, there is something very frightening going on in our areas with the weather. We have had 4 major storms since the beggining of July. I am 71 and I can remember only 2 other storms in my lifetime that came anywhere near the ferocity of these storms.

Thousands of people out of hydro for over a week at a time. I am terrified of what the coming winter is going to bring if this continues.

When 20 or more trees come down around your house it is very frightening. None hit us, I think God was watching they all laid themselves parallel to the buildings.

Right now our river is almost as high as in the worst spring floods

There's no evidence that those storms wouldn't have occurred if there was no anthropogenic global warming effect.

[jbg]

What kind of scientist uses the weather from PART of France, in August as proof against global warming ? It's not called France warming.

I would tend to agree that one month's weather in France proves nothing. I would also say that thirty years weather over the globe proves nothing. Weather is subject to long-term, global and regional cycles, some driven by ocean temperatures, some by solar forces, etc.

[jdobbin]

I would tend to agree that one month's weather in France proves nothing. I would also say that thirty years weather over the globe proves nothing. Weather is subject to long-term, global and regional cycles, some driven by ocean temperatures, some by solar forces, etc.

It is why scientists have termed it global warming and examined all aspects of it.

Only discredited scientists who don't do peer reviewed work are in denial.

[jbg]

I would tend to agree that one month's weather in France proves nothing. I would also say that thirty years weather over the globe proves nothing. Weather is subject to long-term, global and regional cycles, some driven by ocean temperatures, some by solar forces, etc.

It is why scientists have termed it global warming and examined all aspects of it.

Only discredited scientists who don't do peer reviewed work are in denial.

Peer reviewing is a great way of forcing political conformity, given the source of research grants.

[jdobbin]

Peer reviewing is a great way of forcing political conformity, given the source of research grants.

So you think science is a crock?