lesmore49
canada
Senior Member
Joined: 11/25/2004
View Profile
|
Interesting article. Is opinion is shifting ?
Global warming debate
lesmore49
|
mowermech
Billings, MT
Senior Member
Joined: 06/28/2003
View Profile
 Offline
|
Is opinion shifting, or is the other side finally getting some of the publicity that they have been denied for so long?
There have always been a group of highly qualified scientists who have been going against the "party line" on this issue, but we rarely heard from them. Just like we never heard much publicity about algores much hyped "hockey stick" graph that was proven false, or the fact that carbon dioxide levels seem to FOLLOW warming, instead of PRECEDE warming.
Seems to me, the more the scientists learn, the more they realize they don't know. When "they" say that the sea level rise due to global warming will be anywhere from negligible to 22 feet, SOMEBODY must be wrong! When "they" use temperature data taken within a few feet of the exhaust from a large generator, and in the middle of an asphalt parking lot, their data MUST be skewed.
The more I read, the less I believe the doomsayers.
CM1, USN (RET)
'94 Dodge 3500 4X2 CTD, Std. cab, LB, 5 speed, 4.10 LS diff., Jacobs Rambrake, 273,000 Miles
'99 Monaco McKenzie 32' triple slide
'95 Tioga 29H Ford-based Class C
Daily driver: '06 Jeep Liberty CRD
Towed: '06 Jeep Rubicon Unlimited
|
Doug4.7
Hartselle, AL, USA
Senior Member
Joined: 10/02/2003
View Profile
|
The problem is Hansen, period. He turned it into a media circus. Now it's a matter of who can shout the loudest. 99% of the scientists working in that field knew that we flat out do not know enough to make the predictions Hansen is running with.
Do you know what the #1 greenhouse gas is? Not Carbon Dioxide (CO2), but water (H2O). However, we do not have good models on how to track water vapor. What we do have is models of CO2, so in the models, they assumed water would track CO2. That is where all of the dire predictions come from. Now there are studies that indicate that water may not track with CO2. That would pretty much shoot down this whole runaway greenhouse effect.
It has been much warmer than it is now on the Earth AND it has been much colder. We are far from knowing the why of that statement.
|
Jumbo Cranium
Texas where else
Senior Member
Joined: 02/04/2005
View Profile
|
Throughout history warm periods have been times of prosperity and plenty, while cold periods have times of famine and hardship.
Global warming is a scam designed to seize power by fiat that could not be gained democraticly.
I have read hundreds of articles on both sides of the debate and have posted dozens of times with links to peer reviewed papers that call into question the claims of the warmists. There are members here who NEVER rebutt the articles but who never fail to tell me and anyone else that questions it that we aren't educated enough or enlightened enough to understand and to go ahead, have another sip of the Kool-Aid while you're at it.
Wake up people.
Roger
Shelley, my sweet baby.
2006 3/4 ton Dodge QC CUMMINS 6 speed manual
2005 24' Trail Cruiser 5er
|
BCSnob
Knoxville, MD
Senior Member
Joined: 02/23/2002
View Profile
 Online
|
Jumbo Cranium wrote:Throughout history warm periods have been times of prosperity and plenty, while cold periods have times of famine and hardship. Poor correlation; the reverse can also be found.
|
|
|
Jumbo Cranium
Texas where else
Senior Member
Joined: 02/04/2005
View Profile
|
That may be, there are different types of warming and cooling. Prolonged warm dry spells also lead to famine, but I'd venture a guess that warming is usually more beneficial from a crop standpoint than cooling.
|
BCSnob
Knoxville, MD
Senior Member
Joined: 02/23/2002
View Profile
Online
|
Cold & warm are a relative terms; what is cold for Europe and North America is not cold for Africa. There are plenty of examples of "warm" periods with famine.
|
Doug4.7
Hartselle, AL, USA
Senior Member
Joined: 10/02/2003
View Profile
|
Jumbo Cranium wrote:Global warming is a scam designed to seize power by fiat that could not be gained democraticly. I don't think most of those who believe in the global warming theory are that way. True, there are some that seem to want to rule the world (Hansen, IMHO), but most just want to do their science and let the data and results fall where they may.
Now others may look at the way we are polluting our planet and have decided that no one will get excited about the loss of some animals (even if, after enough time the animal is the human) due to pollution. However, people seem to get excited about rising sea level and such, so those have put on the global warming mantle as a back-door way to get us to stop polluting the Earth so much.
|
BCSnob
Knoxville, MD
Senior Member
Joined: 02/23/2002
View Profile
Online
|
Jumbo Cranium wrote:I'd venture a guess that warming is usually more beneficial from a crop standpoint than cooling. Wouldn't that depend upon the "normal" crop for that region? Cool weather crops would not benefit from prolonged warming. There are more crops that do well in warmer climates than those that do well in cool climates; however, famine can stem from loosing crops that are suited to one climate when that climate changes (warming, cooling, increased precipitation, decreased precipitation).
|
Jumbo Cranium
Texas where else
Senior Member
Joined: 02/04/2005
View Profile
|
BCSnob wrote:Cold & warm are a relative terms; what is cold for Europe and North America is not cold for Africa. There are plenty of examples of "warm" periods with famine.
That is true, and you will note I rethought my point in my previous post. But Africa's droughts are mostly caused by local wreather patterns and not any type of global warming or cooling. For as long as historical records have been kept parts of Africa have been plagued by drought.
|
|
|
