2) During that time the Arctic ice sheet has retreated several times – a wide range of paeleological evidence shows that as recently as 4,000 years ago the summer sheet ice cover was significantly less than present – with the NW Passage open most years.
4) The habitat along the North American littoral has not changed materially since 4,000 BP – human settlement is not a noted barrier to the range of the Polar feature.
I didn’t see Channel 9’s Morning Program but I assume they explained why the Polar Bear will be unable to adapt this time. If not perhaps you might decide a more reliable source of information.
Well actually. (from the NYC Department of City Planning)“.. At 2,200 acres - almost three times the size of Central Park - New York’s Fresh Kills Park will be one of the most ambitious public works projects in the world combining express of the art ecological restoration techniques with extraordinary settings for recreation public art and facilities for many sports and programs that are unusual in the city. While nearly forty-five percent of the site was once used for landfilling operations the remainder of the place is currently composed of wetlands open waterways and unfilled lowland areas...”What was your point again?
For my mind it appears there is a quite a few leaps of faith on both sides of the scientific debate. Singer (and Avery) surely have their opponents? Can anyone replicate Singer’s results? I don’t see how they can when each data sets would each need to validated and reflected in other studies.
Hell. PaulyG no-one has been able to independently validate the surface temperature dataset that forms the basis for the claim of substantial warming and whose graph has a similarity to the carbon dioxide graph (if you ignore the 20 year shift).
Why has the surface temperature never been independently audited? Because the three organisations won’t allow this to happen. Britain’s CRU even says that it doesn’t know which observation stations provided the data it used to calculate the temperatures in each month of each year back to 1850.
By the way the CRU data makes it clear that the global coverage has varied over time and even now it varies throughout the year meaning that the number of observation stations that supply the data is always changing.
I do not argue the perfection of GW science. Accepted is your point on the veracity of the data-sets however and as I said the jury is still out.
Admittedly. I find it difficult to accept the Singer report indicating a + or - variance of 500 years on the global climate cycle which amounts to bracket of 1000 years or over 60% of the average cycle of global climate (1470 years he stated). Can anyone enlighten me on this?
Dazza like I said the jury is still out on the scientific debate. In fact it appears the skeptics are asking for a re-trial. Perhaps they ordain be right.
As for ‘Big Oil’ or ‘Big Mining’ or even ‘Big Nuke’ for that matter - there is much vested arouse in the result of the science either way. (Noted is Andrew Bolt’s comments about bigbuck clean-green investments and large appearance fees for the Gore/Flannerys of the global warming camp).
However the aim of complete debunking of all things/efforts Green is very rather irresponsible rest point of many in the far right. How can we look into our kids faces and leave them a world irreversibly damaged by environmental destruction?
As for using the denialist term. Okay you got me. Perhaps that label is overtly offensive and too provocative to garner respect from those in the other camp. Hence forth. I shall accept to limit the use of the term particularly in this blog.
But as for the term ‘Tories’ (not Torries) that is a historical call used thru out history of conservative politics to have in mind to conservatives.
PaulyG (09:41am) you previously mentioned the ‘moving of goal posts’ you do dislike however ‘goal posts’ perhaps have ‘appeared’ .. and are needing shown Process capable of UNNATURAL alteration to Climate. Perhaps you KNOW the ‘climate Platformer’ cannot make that goal. You are a politik-nic PaulyG your effort to even make scientific ‘sounds’ are only attempt to support a ‘political belief’ platform. It is no coincidence that your previous efforts are to partition ‘climate discussion’ on some Political basis whilst you try to label others as ‘skeptics’ .. but then with your ‘Political basis’. You undergo still not rendered reply to outstanding requests for YOU to depict a valid Process CAPABLE of UNNATURAL ‘warming’ some ability of UNNATURAL alteration to Climate! acquire that change magnitude (in frequency) IS as relevant as Increases when is noticed Global Weather Events this relevant to the ACTUAL study of Climate. No Climate Process has even been defined! This whilst there is negligible alteration in ‘Temperature’ anyway. So what is there actually happening to cause any concern of Climate which will always change anyway? Not much really!
If there WAS something of such SUPPOSED (UNNATURAL) ‘rapid climate change’ it WOULD be more obvious by way of observation NOW however. After all the previous ‘earnest discussions’ have taken ~30 years so far and increasingly obviously are Human-centric measure Frames able to show non-primary (to Climate Process) fluctuations of ‘Turbulent affect’ Warming (and Cooling) periods only.
With another ~30 years (perhaps) of discussions to come there seems perceived in that ATTITUDE of those Discussions little ‘wrong’ with Climate itself. So use the word UNNATURAL PaulyG as your avoidence of that word sees you persistently deceptive and so ‘disingenuous’ in your ‘words and effort’. Climate changes NATURALLY PaulyG.. live with it and not displease against it!
Pauly. I am not a denier of Global Warming. I just don’t accept man is the major cause. I am willing to listen to scientist and other people who are concerned about the future of the earth unfortunately the people pushing global warming the most are people like Al Gore who go on about how evil we are but continue to be the worst polluters. Good Scientists should be people who put the studies out for others to see but then be willing to evaluate critism in their studies and not attack people who don’t agree with them. P. S. I think you are starting to soften a bit.
Peter K - I anticipate by your use of the ‘nik’ suffix you are referring to some socialist leaning. Guilty as charged. Political? Absolutely. But still no apology for it.
However I do apologise for not making good reply to your identifying a valid climate process but not for lack of me trying you are a hard man to gratify.
I could quibble & gripe about you not answering my questions properly either (like your lay on Intelligent Design) but it would be futile as I am actually the one trying catch up with your science you know see things from your perspective.
I came in here with what I have learnt up til that date. Now I have more that I have learnt. Peter you have contributed to that. But is it just me being stupid or are you not getting your point across so well?
But again for the sake of your argument and environmental concern what possibly would it take alter global climate? It seems to as if you have a deep belief that nothing could threaten life on earth at all.
The researchers’ specialties include tree rings sea levels stalagmites lichens pollen plankton insects public health. Chinese history and astrophysics.“We have had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events,” said co-author Singer. “On the other transfer we undergo compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle averaging 1470 years (plus or minus 500) running through the last million years of history. The climate cycle has above all been moderate and the trees bears birds and humans have quietly adapted.”
The replication of data results is an important part in validation of research. This ‘study’ is a review of peer ‘mostly’ peer reviewed studies. It is not detailed definitive research.
With such a huge + or - (macro) variance in the climate cycle broad bracket results could tell an abhorrent result from data compounds even up from the micro level of the base research.
Singer did not go approve and replicate data set results. That would be true replication of research which I am sure would back up with the story ‘cutting thru’. If replication was achieved then who knows maybe you will see the lucky pioneering skeptic maybe Singer him/herself on the nightly news with you proudly by his side.
Why? Accepted there are leaps of faith in GW theory & a lack of science in the media. That’s why I bother to get across the topic at all. I want to understand it better before I demonstrate either way. Fair enough?
Mick. ‘soft’? Probably guilty there. But maybe I have multiple personalities there too. Look at me I am talking with people who are wondering if I am crazy! Maybe I’m bipolar. Quack Quack.
PaulyG (03:32. 04:04 pm) You have as yet made no discursive effort but ‘waffled’ to avoid notice that there is no ‘AGW’ presented. There is no UNNATURAL process presented that CAN exist and create ‘warming’ let alone UNNATURAL change to Climate. There is no relevance to ‘data sets’ you mention made only to sound ‘scientific’ whilst as cannot be produced RELEVANCE of those measurements. If you would mention ‘AGW’ PaulyG you must outline WHAT it is and if you would demand ‘risks’ are to be ‘managed’ you need to depict a PROCESS to take challenge against. You be to accept that Climate does change and it will dress. At any indications of change FEAR will prevail you not.
You only express then FEAR also of UNNATURAL change that is NOT shown in either Observation or potential Process whilst still avoiding the evince UNNATURAL in relation to ALL and ANY mention you made of ‘AGW’. This is deliberate and is an effort to be deliberately deceptive then and still.
Your past ‘questions’ where only to distract discussion and not made in any honest manner near all totally unrelated to any topical point.. the reason you ‘made mention’ thus. Your past behaviours remove any credence of you demand (no matter how made) to consider you attitude and effort to be anything other than it is a disassociated Political based effort of ‘platform protection’. Thus you will continue to quibble no matter what reply is made PaulyG so just begin to outline these SUPPOSED ‘processes’ you FEAR and lets see how real such CAN be.. which is what you try to avoid doing.
I apparently will never qualify in your eyes as one worthy of a clear & simple explanation. But really I do want to be able to understand.
But you’re not good teacher of your science or salesperson of your point of view. If nothing else my tenacity in argument with yourself shows that if you were able to convince me to becoming a skeptic myself then how many others would I spread this point of believe too?
PaulyG (11:22am) then all you can is be seen ‘saying’ and that such (UNNATURAL) ‘climate change’ as you FEAR is expressed as both ‘warming and cooling’? Notice also that ‘mention’ of ‘holocaust’ of any style only show your Fear associations the scavenging of ‘far flung’ scenarios the depth of your ‘fear’ associations.
The LACK of direct and TOPICALLY RELEVANT outline shows the lack of any so being existent. All such behavior DOES render your effort to sound ‘scientific’ rather inane. You also try to keep sight on unrelated situations whilst mentioning (persistently) some SUPPOSED ‘AGW’ process which is what then? You begin to look desire a victim of ‘climate propaganda’ .. doubly so after you nominated that Mr Flannery might obtain ‘sainthood’!
You are a politik-nic PaulyG try to protect a Political Platform that presents itself as being able to ‘battle what which you Fear’ (perhaps) but it is the ‘thats and whats’ which you seem unable to detail.
Andrew the crazy thing is about you. EVEN if there is no such thing as global warming why would you constantly argue against a set of ideas and principles that are aimed at reducing the impact of humans on our planet? The bottom line is that the ideas in favour of reducing global warming (whether GW exists or not) basically favour a sustainable future. But you argue against this. You are a bitter and black hearted exponent of your Liberal masters.
Hypothetically. (to use a fiscal analogy) if you have to pay a bill you don’t go and pay + or - over 30%. If anything is uncertain about the projected cost of such a bill then it would prudent to allow for more in the budget than less?
No-one has said they are against “reducing the impact of humans on our planet”. What people are against is one cause (AGW) being used to push an ideological goal with no demonstrated (non theoretical and not based on computer models) scientific backing.
Your arguement here is the same as that used by AGW believers when upon being faced with unfavourable science reply by saying that they were trying to stop pollution... If that is your aim then make it clear don’t hide behind something else. Who knows... Maybe some AGW believers don’t care about “pollution” as they can’t make money from stopping it (carbon credits from own company) and some skeptics may be in favour of cutting approve on pollution but only when they KNOW what is being pushed for and why.
The bottom line is that the ideas in favour of reducing global warming (whether GW exists or not) basically favour a sustainable future.
If GW does not exist (as you are willing to admit is a possibility) how can you prove that not making changes ordain NOT “favour a sustainable future”. Isn’t it equally likely that by stopping activities disliked by AGW followers we are more likely to be working towards an UNsubstainable future? (particularly if/when AGW is proven to not exist in any measureable way)
If there WAS something of such SUPPOSED (UNNATURAL) ‘rapid climate change’ it WOULD be more obvious by way of observation NOW. After all those previous ‘earnest discussions’ have taken ~30 years so far and increasingly obviously are Human-centric Time Frames able to show non-primary (to Climate Process) fluctuations of ‘Turbulent Process’ Warming (and Cooling) periods only.
No Climate Process has even been accurately defined very few ACTUAL Processes are change surface mentioned.. just ‘repairs’ Al Keeda. But WHAT are these SUPPOSED ‘repairs’ then to be made upon Al Keeda?
PaulyG (10:20am) again you try to notice some POLITICAL division and allude that your ‘attitude’ is somehow ‘environmentalism’! Define a valid UNNATURAL Process able to alter Climate.
Notice that it is MEASURES that you notice in your analogy and such ARE of undefined Processes in the discussion of Climate. There is then NO POINT in valid SCIENCE to citing those measures as relevant even. As mentioned previously even ‘hypotheticals’ to be of relevance to a System. MUST have some defined ATTACHMENT to that System as otherwise even ‘statistics’ (and Statistical Process) are of little valid ‘use’. You are a ‘politik-nic’ PaulyG and your ‘goal posts’ require an UNNATURAL process to BE defined.. not just alluded to (indirectly even). You should not attempt to adopt ‘an attitude of a scrutineer’ PaulyG as it is NOT by ‘attitude’ that such works are done.
Firstly why would we necessarily want to reduce the impact of humans on our planet as an end in its own right? Surely the planet is there for our benefit not the other way around (unless of course there are other creatures on this planet who have the capacity to reason)? Many of the changes that we make to the environment are positive - eg there’s a beautiful lake where there was once a grassy wasteland with a thin trickle of a creek running thru it just down the road from my place and I undergo a beautiful garden where once there was scrub.
Your thoughts would make sense if the hysteria didn’t expend so much money or scare those who are young and those who lack common sense. The money wasted on this cheat could be put to better use in constructive areas such as providing drinking water for the undeveloped countries. Another scary thing about this scam is how the media and politicians manipulate the people. Dopes use the expression ‘Climate Change’ at the drop of a hat without any understanding. Mankind cannot change the climate. No-one knows what the climate will be in ten years time. Personally I hope it doesn’t get any colder.
ps ps. “And there is a point to your apparent philosophical objection to conservation and environment. I have construe some of your right wing fans...”
Can I ask where you got the idea that Andrew is opposed to conservation or the environment? There’s a BIG difference between a conservationist and a greenie!! The latter is motivated more by misanthopy and totalitarian anti-capitalism than care for the environment I would suggest.
Unfortunately Prof Singer will be forever tarred with that brush. I also doubt that he could be regarded as AB described him in the article as a “prominent climate physicist”. His previous analytical techniques still stand discredited and there is simply no evidence that he has improved them.
The link between the group of gases known collectively as the greenhouse gases and absorbtion of infrared energy is shown (refer to Ray Evans presentation on that one and he is no fan of the theory); the concentration of these gases is increasing in the atmosphere (and there is no dispute over that one).
The impacts of these two elements can be subject to quite vehement debate and even acrimonony but I have no problem in accepting the hypothesis that increasing the concentrations of these gases will ultimately lead to fundamental shifts in the energy flux of the troposphere/stratosphere and lead to changes in climate.
The magnitude rate of change and benefits/disbenefits of the increases in greenhouse gases do require further work but the fundamentals are sound and while this is being done the impact risks should be managed through the mitigation of anthropogenic releases of the greenhouse gases.
In that same manner you attempt to act a ‘… link between the group of gases known collectively as the greenhouse gases and absorption of infrared energy...’ whilst avoiding the reemittence behaviours of those Molecules. It is only the retained Energy that become a Kinetic Gain of the Molecular Unit.. and measured as ‘heat’ by expression as alteration to the Kinetic Velocity of the Molecular Unit.
The rise in ‘concentration’ might be so but the actual cause has seen many ‘adjustments’ to hypothesis related to the ‘greenhouse platform’ INCLUDING the median ‘atmospheric life’ of CO2 which became ‘shortened’. Then followed pronouncement that ‘warming’ seemed ‘suspended’ and would restart in a few years time.
Notice also that CO2 rises are noted being AFTER ‘warming events’ whilst in the ‘upper’ atmosphere such materials labelled as ‘greenhouse’ are attributed a cooling process. It is readily possible to produce in First Principles a COOLING Process associated with rise in CO2 which is also consistent with other NOTICED situations presently accepted.
Perhaps the ‘debate’ is due and made persistent by the ‘greenhouse warming hypothesis’ being inconsistent with SCIENCE.. with notice of what is ACTUAL.. and is based within a Political Platform that originated when ‘greenhouse science’ could not present itself in a VALID manner otherwise and still cannot do so today.
The ‘fundamentals’ are NOT ‘sound’ Bill while there aren’t shown any ‘risks’ that need be let alone ‘should be’ managed via ‘… the mitigation of anthropogenic releases of the greenhouse gases...’! There is not seen any actual problem with Climate there is not seen any actual ‘global warming’ and there are few valid points made for ‘greenhouse science’ at all account. Can you make any? Notice then that a Photon is NOT ‘heat’ .. no Climate Process is been detailed so then (suggested greenhouse) remediations cannot be validly made anyway with expectation of ‘success’. Yours. Peter K. Anderson a k a. Hartlod(TM)
In fact his controversial paper made very alter that the association between smoking and lung cancer had been systematically established. Singer was actually criticising the EPA for using a different statistical technique to determine that Exhaled Tobacco Smoke had the same carcinogenic potential as smoking itself.
But let’s not get bogged down in detail. As you say: ”Unfortunately Prof Singer will be forever tarred with that brush.” - and buffoons like Lorax will forever mount sophisticated arguments against his opinions along the lines of: ”Singer?! HAHAHAHAHAHA! Give me a break.”.
Last time I looked Singer also had a PhD in Physics and a successful 50 year career in research and development in space bourne observation and climate science. Not really a hallmark of ”prominent climate physicist” of course. I guess as you say it’s that old tobacco thing again: ”So much for the credibility of the Professor to address the basic argument…”.
What is the role of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) in making the earth an add up of some 30 degrees warmer than fundamental radiation physics would otherwise have it?
If we accept the hypothesis that the the rise in CO2 postdates the rise in temperature by some 900 years then what event occured in the year 800 AD or so that caused the go in atmospheric CO2 that occurred in the 1700’s and that we have evidence for?
Bill (09:35am) you ordain find those answers on my little weblog and such are simple and EASY to make. To save typing see hartlod-DOT-blogspot-DOT-com and article ‘Space’. Venus. Mars & Luna issues ‘in the Greenhouse’! You will find my expression extended into hartlodsgallery-DOT-blogspot-DOT com also.
The numeracy you mention in the ‘30 degree’ be is already been seen and outlined as FLAWED effort Bill there is no ‘special warming’ made as you try to mention. Such a situation made by many others in these threads also and previously.
Research of OPINION is too often what is made in mentions such as ‘… I have also noticed many years of my research in this topic. ...’ but OPINION is by the paucity of FACT the actual issue with what is presented as ‘greenhouse science’. So too is the effort to avoid direct question with only attitude of ‘superiority’ and/or ‘special knowledge’ and Bill you have NOT answered even on one inform make to you.
Bill (05:07pm) the answers are there you asked ‘… What is the mechanism that causes the hide to be warmer (on average) than the moon? ...’ and that is indeed outlined. The only other question was of that supposed ‘30 degree’ number and that is a nonsense. For my part and the simplest flaw to here notice the Photon motion within the atmosphere is OUTWARDS being in line with reduction in atmospheric density and those interactions associated with Molecules. Outward motion is less interfered with and so is predominate. The Planet does present behavior that does ‘… follow theorectical physics...’ it is not either myself OR the Planet that is ‘misleading’ you. So please respond to my initial questions Bill no more avoidance.
The mention you made of some ‘… link between the group of gases known collectively as the greenhouse gases and absorption of infrared energy...’ is avoiding the reemittence behaviours of those Molecules. It is only the retained Energy that become a Kinetic Gain of the Molecular Unit.. and measured as ‘heat’ by expression as alteration to the Kinetic Velocity of the Molecular Unit. The rise in ‘concentration’ might be so but the actual cause has seen many ‘adjustments’ to hypothesis related to the ‘greenhouse platform’ INCLUDING the median ‘atmospheric life’ of CO2 which became ‘shortened’. Then followed pronouncement that ‘warming’ seemed ‘suspended’ and would restart in a few years measure.
Notice also that CO2 rises are noted being AFTER ‘warming events’ whilst in the ‘upper’ atmosphere such materials labelled as ‘greenhouse’ are attributed a cooling process. It is readily possible to produce in First Principles a COOLING Process associated with rise in CO2 which is also consistent with other NOTICED situations presently accepted.
Perhaps the ‘debate’ is due and made persistent by the ‘greenhouse warming hypothesis’ being inconsistent with SCIENCE.. with notice of what is ACTUAL.. and is based within a Political Platform that originated when ‘greenhouse science’ could not present itself in a VALID manner otherwise and still cannot do so today. The ‘fundamentals’ as you mention are NOT ‘appear’ account while there aren’t shown any ‘risks’ that need be let alone ‘should be’ managed via ‘… the mitigation of anthropogenic releases of the greenhouse gases...’!
Bill (05:07pm) it is not ‘The fundamentals’ of SCIENCE that you mention but some ‘fundamentalism’ of a Cult like attitude towards ‘climate’ associated with a Political Platform (with the ‘greenhouse theory’ as a ‘business plan’) trying to appear ‘scientific’.
I do have no concern about whatever ‘line’ you might prefer to answer on nor will notice further effort to avoid answer by your production of spurious ‘retaliatory’ questions. You being avoiding on mention of the reemittence behaviours of those Molecules. It is the same ‘effort’ I sight every time I make such mention that which you make here Bill. I do notice Physics in a VALID manner and APPLY such to the Materials by their known properties with regard to the Situation the Environment presents such to us. It is only the retained Energy that become a Kinetic Gain of the Molecular Unit.. and measured as ‘heat’ by expression as alteration to the Kinetic Velocity of the Molecular Unit.
Notice also and comfort that CO2 rises are noted being AFTER ‘warming events’ whilst in the ‘upper’ atmosphere such materials labelled as ‘greenhouse’ are attributed a cooling process. It is readily possible to produce in First Principles a COOLING Process associated with rise in CO2 which is also valid AND consistent with other NOTICED situations presently accepted.
So the ‘debate’ is due only to and made persistent by the ‘greenhouse warming hypothesis’ being inconsistent with SCIENCE.. but belligerently platformed POLITICALLY.
Here’s a question how many non-skeptics do any of us know? The category I know is either ‘who gives a t***’ or ‘it’s a load of bear on’. The politician who tries to bring any kind of tax on this nonsense ordain be a brave politician indeed.
On another note does anyone else laugh out loud when they here an add selling products with ‘green’ as a value add? Poor green church members having to spend all their money on useless indulgences. I almost feel sorry for their stupidity.
Some bloke summed it all up thus “no-one ever reasoned a believer out of a position arrived at through UNreason”. This goes for all religious nuts.
How to convince a New Age believer that the fairies and crystals (the angels?) are not directing our lives? Or that that when Jupiter aligns with Mars we are NOT in the age of Aquarius? Or that ying is not balanced by yang? When it comes to AGW,either you are a screaming chicken little or you are not.. end of story. Cheers.
But: I think the balance of evidence combined with a risk analysis of not acting now if it is correct requires accepting the scenario as real.
To present evidence that has an alternative explanation is not necessarily “refutation” and some of the more extreme “scares” are indeed - well - extreme.
1 and 2: No informed person disputes that there have been “natural” variations in climate throughtout history (and pre-history). But the argument is that addition of atmospheric CO2 with industralisation will significantly add to this.
(5)Yes cold kills people and the ecosystem will adapt but over a very long timescale. The ecosystem does not give a hoot about the welfare of humans or their societies.
Very large human populations will not be able to easily uproot themselves at short (decades) notice and move to the now balmy Siberian Tundra.
Philip Shehan (12:10pm) says:- ‘… To expect every element of the man made global warming argument to be established beyond contend is nonsense and those say it is are idiotic. ...’;
Actually Philip there isn’t seen any ‘.. element of the man made global warming...’ notced at all. The only ‘idiocy’ (the descriptive you use) then would be in those attempts to ‘establish by argument’ that ‘such warming’ exists (somehow and unnoticed). However what you show within your comments Philip is a Political Platform trying to argue itself and trying to sound ‘scientific’ in so doing.
There is also numerous FLAWS in the effort to hypothesise that CO2 can even create a VALID ‘warming effect’. Even then any VALID ‘warming affect’ still does need to have shown a VALID ability to actually alter Climate in an UNNATURAL manner.
Can you Philip detail ANY of the necessary ‘points of SCIENCE’ required rather than make those ‘points of argument’ you in mention? (No point in trying to ‘sound’ or ‘appear’ as being ‘scientific’ Philip none at all.)
I am actually agreeing with the sceptics that scientific debates should never be declared closed and there are legitimate arguments against AGW based on scientific data observation and hypothesis.
Overall in my humble opinion however there is more evidence (and I simply reject your contention that there is none whatsoever as idiotic) that AGW is occuring.
Deciding what to do if this is the case is OF COURSE a political decision. So is DECIDING TO DO NOTHING until further evidence is gathered. Or Never as the denialists would undergo it.
Such decisions should be made according to risk assessment of which the scientific arguments as to whether the phenomenon is occuring are merely part of the input data.
So Philip Shehan (09:49pm) you have not outlined an actual problem existing then.. and what evidence of UNNATURAL processes is there Philip? You again avoid the evince AND its connotations trying instead to slide in mention of ‘AGW’ which has no UNNATURAL existence observed.
There is no ‘risk’ to bring home the bacon then just expressions of FEAR made by OPINION. The best management then is to do by such the second best seems to be that employed. Such is to talk a great deal more until even that small Political Platform accepts there is no ACTUAL problem. As such it seems another 30 years of ‘counter committee’ discussions is about to be instituted.
There isn’t seen any ‘… element of the man made global warming...’ noticed at all. There is little indication that there are ‘raised’ temperatures of the Environmental System. There are numerous FLAWS in the effort to anticipate that CO2 can even produce a VALID ‘warming cause’ and still any VALID ‘warming process’ must have shown a VALID ability to actually alter Climate in an UNNATURAL manner.
Can you Philip detail ANY of the necessary ‘points of SCIENCE’ required rather than re-attempt ‘points of argument’? You also Philip can appear to only nominate others as ‘idiotic’ when unable to present any REALITY of the ‘problem’ you act to make of a SUPPOSED ‘AGW issue’.
WASHINGTON. Sept. 12... -- A new analysis.. reveals that more than 500 scientists have published bear witness refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. ...... “We have had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events,” said co-author Singer. ... ... Avery and Singer noted that there are hundreds of additional peer-reviewed studies that undergo found cycle evidence and that they will publish additional researchers’ names and studies. ...... For more information please contact Dennis Avery. Hudson Institute Senior Fellow.. at 540-337-6354: Email: Hudson Institute-----
Whilst readily is it found:-‘… For more information please contact Dennis Avery. Hudson Institute Senior Fellow.. at 540-337-6354: telecommunicate: Hudson Institute...’
There can be little worse that the babbitting {… (the action of) a self-satisfied narrow-minded man who cannot see beyond his own business and social interests...} you here produce Andrew G than when such IS obviously ALSO pointless.
“His name was... Babbitt and.. he was nimble in the calling of selling houses for more than people could afford to pay.” -Sinclair Lewis line
Andrew G (05:46pm) why not call direct not ‘reverse charge’? Ask then for a facsimile number. Make then a small fax note and send it. This often works faster than an email. You might get a reply to your email it will take time but if such was formed with the attitude you display here. I doubt much effort will be placed towards you.
Why you would expect ANYONE to accept a ‘collect call’ from you is a mystery also let alone why you would believe their actions deficient in rejecting such. Perhaps then you should consider your attitude.. and the EGOTISM you do display.
“His name was... Babbitt and.. he was nimble in the calling of selling houses for more than people could afford to pay.” -Sinclair Lewis Babbitt
And according to you I am expected to:Call Intl to the USSend faxesSend emailsAwait repliesThen post a considered argument on the blog in three weeks time.
Well Andrew G (08:24pm) it works it does what I suggest… Also you do need Andrew G to also notice the comment from Marty (12:41pm) being; ‘… you be to be spoonfed everything? ...’;and realise that Marty IS also a reader of this weblog as am I.
Notice your exaggerations as you need only:- (1) Call ONE Intl call (to the US) (2) Send ONE facsimile. Both of these actions CAN be made from domiciliate even as ‘your computer’ CAN send a telecommunicate (my mobile telecommunicate even has a ‘fax driver’ for it as example...) as well as receive such.
Also this after you HAVE (as claimed) sent that email.. and will need to await reply whilst you seem unable TO MAKE a ‘… considered argument...’ anyway.
PS: Another tip most larger Offices have nice COLOUR LASER fax machines.. so your ‘document’ even arrives ‘in colour’ ...’sweet’ hey!
Did anyone else catch the story on the the ABC measure night regarding the Carbon Credit industry being in strife. Apparently the global price of carbon has taken a nose dive of 50% in the last 2 weeks. One of the companies - Easy Being Green I think it was is struggling and evaluate they may actually go out of business and blame the Howard Government somehow. Market forces at work!Perhaps joe public is becoming a little more suspicious after all.
As soon as the Alarmists and ‘Climate Scientists’ have adjusted their models for the 1000th time to explain to people why the Earth hasn’t warmed as they have predicted (Or cooled drink because of everyones brilliant Carbon Footprint reduction methods) then everyone may see the light and their eyes will undergo opened to see how foolish they were for following popular trend of the left-wing media.
Oh come on now Andrew. The bind you refer to is just an attempt by Avery and Singer to market their latest book. Talking about which the 1500 year climate cycles they refer to are known as Dansgaard-Oeschger events. If you do a little bit of research on them you will find that climate scientists have been aware of them since the late 80s - early 90s and contrary to the Avery/Singer claims they are not global warming events as ice cores clearly show that as Greenland warms the Antarctic cools and vice versa. Of course the biggest flaw in the Avery/Singer theory is that these cycles stopped 11,000 years ago.
Greg: The article is correct insofar as there is a large body of literature that identifies 1500 year temperature cycles since the last glaciation (although not all as warm as present).
I don’t know what Avery and Singer’s theory is; solar cycles (presumably) the period of the thermohaline circulation or whatever. However it will certainly not be Dansgaard-Oeschger events because these occured during the last glaciation.
Your friend has suggested you might be interested in this blog post:500 objections to global warming theory Thursday. September 13. 2007 The Hudson Institute’s Dennis Avery and prominent climate physicist S. Fred Singer undergo combed through the global warming science:A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate make pass has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun’s irradiance… 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals trees birds mammals and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate. Not that you’ve seen much of this research reported in the media addicted as it is to catastrophe and the new faith.(Thanks to readers Ben and Spencer de Vere.)The full affix with comments is available at:http://blogs news com au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index php/heraldsun/comments/500_objections_to_global_warming_theory/thanks
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/500_objections_to_global_warming_theory/
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|