Global warming hoax fools millions

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

I'd been on the fence but the NEWEST science tips me back to the no global warming side. You guys probably don't follow this stuff as much as I do-no surprise given that my home in SoFla is a half block off the ocean and my condo in Chicago is literally on the lake without even a beach separating us from the water. There's been a couple of studies released in the past month, one by Tom Knutson and the other a series of comments by hurricane guru William Gray. Knutson who had been in the global warming camp says Hurricanes aren't linked to warming waters and Gray says global warming is severely exagerated.

Empirically I've been skeptical of warming for a few reasons. 1. Chicago is having it's least warm decade in history. Secondly if polar ice caps ect were truly melting one would certainly expect shoreline erosion. I own two properties within yards of two major American shorelines and I see zilch in terms of erosion. Quite different from the 70's when Chicago was routinely flooded by high tides and homes in Michigan were tumbling into the encroaching lake.
More...
You have residences on two shorelines? Damn.

I think your observation, while interesting, is anecdotal and hardly conclusive. As for your reference to Knutson, I don't think it's as simple as all that:

http://www.earthsky.org/radioshows/52549/study-predicts-more-intense-but-fewer-hurricanes

And then, of course:

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2007/2007-02-07-10.asp

As for Gray, well...

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Gray.html

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/
 
Quote from Thunderdog:

You have residences on two shorelines? Damn.

I think your observation, while interesting, is anecdotal and hardly conclusive. As for your reference to Knutson, I don't think it's as simple as all that:

http://www.earthsky.org/radioshows/52549/study-predicts-more-intense-but-fewer-hurricanes

And then, of course:

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2007/2007-02-07-10.asp

As for Gray, well...

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Gray.html

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/
More...

Knutson's findings are important because if one proves negligible effect of a given then cause becomes legitimately in dispute. Warming theorists argue heating trends portend more frequent and more severe storms. Of course that view makes sense. Disruptive weather is warm air colliding with cooler. No one credible though sees higher incidences of “great storms”, flooding, erosion ect. Am I going to believe stories of melting glaciers to be true (tales I've been hearing for over a decade) when hard evidence from more verifiable locations shows a benign, if anything uneventful, environment? If auto emissions were actually heating up the polars would it not be logical questioning why at least the car happy, polluted San Fernando Valley isn't at least a few degrees warmer? Do carbon pollutants as they are released from an automobiles broiling hot emission system say to themselves “forget warming the city we were born in, let's boogie up the the North Poll and kill off some bears!” ?

The world trends warmer-it trends cooler. It's junk science and it makes formally unemployable meteorologists and researchers wealthy guys. For instance Gore's IPO's are worth well over $100,000,000. Great scam. Instead of focusing on the global importance of disaster preparedness we're chasing the unproven myth that suburban SUV's and Chinese factories are causing great floods and hurricanes. Whatever. It's a fad that “topped” around 18 months ago........
 
Quote from Thunderdog:

Pabst, I'm guessing you didn't click on the links that I attached.
More...

Sure I did. Knutson used to say MORE storms. Now he say's LESS storms. I don't consider increased winds of 2.2% to be more "severe."
 
How many of the politicians pushing the global warming issue as being man made have studied the history of the planet?

How many ice ages and warming cycles have been caused by man?

Global warming and cooling have been caused by solar activity, lack of solar activity, large meteor impacts, volcanoes, and shifting continents resulting in changes in ocean currents. Add in long term orbital oscillations.

Do smokestacks and exaust pipes add greenhouse gas? Sure. Treat it as a pollution issue, not a climate issue.

Will man's pollution make a difference when the next solar cycle creates a new ice age, or yellowstone blows blocking out the sun for decades, or we have another major impact?

Answer should be obvious. It's going to get cold again, as it has numerous times in the past, and no amount of taxes, windmills, solar panels, control over our lives, etc...., is going to make a difference.
 
Quote from wjk:

........Answer should be obvious. It's going to get cold again, as it has numerous times in the past, and no amount of taxes, windmills, solar panels, control over our lives, etc...., is going to make a difference.
More...


The Little Ice Age was on average 1 degree Celsius colder than the average now.

Crop failures, famine, countries lost a third to one half of the population. Same with flora and fauna.
 
Quote from wjk:

How many of the politicians pushing the global warming issue as being man made have studied the history of the planet?
More...

Probably all of them in school to some extent. How many are climatologists? Probably not many. That's why they listen to climatologists.

How many ice ages and warming cycles have been caused by man?
More...

Tell us.

Global warming and cooling have been caused by solar activity, lack of solar activity, large meteor impacts, volcanoes, and shifting continents resulting in changes in ocean currents. Add in long term orbital oscillations.
More...

Good point, I bet climatologists, the IPCC, the IAC, International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, the EASA, the NRC, the European Science Foundation, the AAAS, the Federation of American Scientists, World Meteorological Organization and the Royal Meteorological Society never thought of that.

You should forward this new information to them immediately.
 
Probably all of them in school to some extent. How many are climatologists? Probably not many. That's why they listen to climatologists.
---------------------

I don't know about climatologists, but it is my understanding that if meteoroligists wish to contradict the issue of global warming their license won't be renewed. Tsk tsk.
 
Quote from nutmeg:

Probably all of them in school to some extent. How many are climatologists? Probably not many. That's why they listen to climatologists.
---------------------

I don't know about climatologists, but it is my understanding that if meteoroligists wish to contradict the issue of global warming their license won't be renewed. Tsk tsk.
More...

Cite away, don't leave us in suspense. If you don't, we'll assume that they aren't allowed to drive.
 
The climate warming situation is a well-established paradigm. Railing against it is humuorous. Of course there were different climates in the past -warner or colder. Many currently living plants and animals would not survive in these situations.

On the other hand, we are neither likely to stop nor slow this
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top