Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
- Status
Man, are you ever dumb.:roll:
Stick to making love to your vacuum instead of pretending you know something.
New US military report on global warming raises worry
Calls theories on the cause 'contradictory'
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | December 6, 2008
WASHINGTON - A new US military report has come under scrutiny for asserting that the scientific data on what is causing global warming is "contradictory" - a position one leading specialist said indicates the government still hasn't fully embraced the urgency of climate change.
The long-range planning document, published Thursday by the US Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Va., which is responsible for developing blueprints for future military strategy, is intended to provide a "basis for thinking about the world a quarter of a century from now."
But a section of the 56-page report on climate change and natural disasters prompted criticism yesterday from some leading specialists who said that spreading the inaccurate perception that the causes of climate change remain an open question could result in government agencies not taking the issue seriously enough.
The report, titled Joint Operating Environment 2008, states that "the impact of global warming and its potential to cause natural disasters and other harmful phenomena such as rising sea levels has become a prominent - and controversial - national and international concern. Some argue that there will be more and greater storms and natural disasters, others that there will be fewer."
It adds: "In many respects, scientific conclusions about the causes and potential effects of global warming are contradictory."
That last line in particular was singled out at a panel discussion hosted yesterday by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, on the topic of climate change and national security.
Calls theories on the cause 'contradictory'
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | December 6, 2008
WASHINGTON - A new US military report has come under scrutiny for asserting that the scientific data on what is causing global warming is "contradictory" - a position one leading specialist said indicates the government still hasn't fully embraced the urgency of climate change.
The long-range planning document, published Thursday by the US Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Va., which is responsible for developing blueprints for future military strategy, is intended to provide a "basis for thinking about the world a quarter of a century from now."
But a section of the 56-page report on climate change and natural disasters prompted criticism yesterday from some leading specialists who said that spreading the inaccurate perception that the causes of climate change remain an open question could result in government agencies not taking the issue seriously enough.
The report, titled Joint Operating Environment 2008, states that "the impact of global warming and its potential to cause natural disasters and other harmful phenomena such as rising sea levels has become a prominent - and controversial - national and international concern. Some argue that there will be more and greater storms and natural disasters, others that there will be fewer."
It adds: "In many respects, scientific conclusions about the causes and potential effects of global warming are contradictory."
That last line in particular was singled out at a panel discussion hosted yesterday by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, on the topic of climate change and national security.
Bill Carmichael: Cold reality of fuel bill rises
Published Date: 05 December 2008
THE Lord must have a wickedly mischievous sense of humour – because every time the great and good convene to discuss global warming, He sends a splendid joke in the form of freezing cold weather.
This phenomenon happens so frequently in the United States that it has its own name – the Gore Effect, named after the presidential sore loser and high priest of the global warming cult, Al Gore.
Whenever Saint Al arrives in his private jet to lecture lesser mortals about the evils of flying, you can guarantee that temperatures will plummet to sub-Siberian levels.
He is a walking one-man cold front.
But, weirdly, the same thing is now happening on this side of the Atlantic, too.
This autumn, MPs gathered to discuss global warming, and, immediately, central London was blanketed in heavy snow – the first time this has happened as early as October for more than 80 years.
So I should have known what to expect when I read this week that in order to combat global warming, Lord Turner's Committee on Climate Change was recommending huge increases in fuel bills.
Sure enough, I was barely half-way through the story in my newspaper when I glanced out of the window to see an Arctic blizzard blowing in.
By Tuesday evening, I was forced to abandon the car in a snowdrift, while many roads were blocked and hundreds
of schools forced to close because of severe weather.
Now I like a laugh as much as the next person – and I am naturally loath to criticise our Creator – but hasn't this joke gone far enough?
In substance, Lord Turner's report contained little that was new. It consisted largely of the now-familiar demands that, in order to assuage the guilt of prosperous eco-warriors, the poorest people in society must be forced to suffer.
There is no practical reason for this. Every pensioner in Britain could expire over their one-bar electric fire and it wouldn't make the blindest difference to global temperatures over the next 50 to 100 years.
Environmentalists want Britain to bankrupt itself in order to cut carbon emissions, but this will be a futile sacrifice so long as China and India are burning coal as though it is going out of fashion.
But the practicalities are of no interest to the eco-zealots. Global warming is a religion, not a science, and suffering, even if it is completely pointless, is considered good for the soul.
Such self-indulgence is all very well in times of plenty, but now that the recession is biting hard, isn't it time we found something more important to
worry about?
Published Date: 05 December 2008
THE Lord must have a wickedly mischievous sense of humour – because every time the great and good convene to discuss global warming, He sends a splendid joke in the form of freezing cold weather.
This phenomenon happens so frequently in the United States that it has its own name – the Gore Effect, named after the presidential sore loser and high priest of the global warming cult, Al Gore.
Whenever Saint Al arrives in his private jet to lecture lesser mortals about the evils of flying, you can guarantee that temperatures will plummet to sub-Siberian levels.
He is a walking one-man cold front.
But, weirdly, the same thing is now happening on this side of the Atlantic, too.
This autumn, MPs gathered to discuss global warming, and, immediately, central London was blanketed in heavy snow – the first time this has happened as early as October for more than 80 years.
So I should have known what to expect when I read this week that in order to combat global warming, Lord Turner's Committee on Climate Change was recommending huge increases in fuel bills.
Sure enough, I was barely half-way through the story in my newspaper when I glanced out of the window to see an Arctic blizzard blowing in.
By Tuesday evening, I was forced to abandon the car in a snowdrift, while many roads were blocked and hundreds
of schools forced to close because of severe weather.
Now I like a laugh as much as the next person – and I am naturally loath to criticise our Creator – but hasn't this joke gone far enough?
In substance, Lord Turner's report contained little that was new. It consisted largely of the now-familiar demands that, in order to assuage the guilt of prosperous eco-warriors, the poorest people in society must be forced to suffer.
There is no practical reason for this. Every pensioner in Britain could expire over their one-bar electric fire and it wouldn't make the blindest difference to global temperatures over the next 50 to 100 years.
Environmentalists want Britain to bankrupt itself in order to cut carbon emissions, but this will be a futile sacrifice so long as China and India are burning coal as though it is going out of fashion.
But the practicalities are of no interest to the eco-zealots. Global warming is a religion, not a science, and suffering, even if it is completely pointless, is considered good for the soul.
Such self-indulgence is all very well in times of plenty, but now that the recession is biting hard, isn't it time we found something more important to
worry about?
To what would you attribute to the melting of the glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica?
Well, removing glaciers in the Andes for the purpose of mining for gold could be considered destsruction/change due to human activity. It would melt anyway, right?
to say that humans make no impact on the environment would be ludicrous, every animal impacts the environment in some way. Its just too easy to blame every seemingly adverse change to the environment as the fault of man.
a better question would be "what would the consequences of displacing bits of Andean Glacier?"
You brought that one out fast, perhaps you're not aware of the falseness in that meme?
You can read a great investigation which appeared in the American Meteorological Society, by Peterson, Connolley and Fleck, titled, The myth of the 1970s global cooling consensus.
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/89/9/pdf/i1520-0477-89-9-1325.pdf
i'm aware that there was no concensus, but enough public attention was given to the theory to elicit the same response as it did to GW
So, then your original comment pertains to non-consensus, which would mean your corollary also pertains to the non-consensus today. I agree with your choice of the word quacks! Very nice.
no my comments pertain to the fear-mongering of mass media concerning GW and the haste in which scientist declare a conclusion, despite mounting evidence that contradict the GW theory.
oh yes i know. Proponents of GW disregard Solar Variant theory that shows a correlation of temperature with solar forcing, most disregard any possible natural factors that may come to play in aggravating or mitigating GW. it could very well be that scientist focused far too much on the anthropic nature of climate change and not the natural factors that also affect the climate. This is suprememly evident in their computer models predicting future climate trend. These same scientist advocate action in reducing CO2 emission based on a narrowly focused approach to climate research, focusing mainly on human causes, instead of adopting a more holistic approach to climatology.
Tunnel Vision is quite the problem with the scientific community, when you have a hammer you tend to try to make every problem a nail.
Which scientists are ignoring this?
It's been discussed extensively in the literature. Use google scholar, or if you have access use Web of Science, Science Direct, or Academic Search Premier.
Further, try to find a climate model from any of the major groups out there working on these projections into the future that does not factor in solar variability. You won't find any, because they don't exist. You've been sold a lie if you believe that.
Giss Model E certainly does. In fact it uses 33 correlated spectral intervals for radiation budget, including incoming solar...
How do you think any model could work if it didn't account for solar radiation? You don't think 1366 watts per square meter missing might make a difference??
It's been discussed extensively in the literature. Use google scholar, or if you have access use Web of Science, Science Direct, or Academic Search Premier.
Further, try to find a climate model from any of the major groups out there working on these projections into the future that does not factor in solar variability. You won't find any, because they don't exist. You've been sold a lie if you believe that.
Giss Model E certainly does. In fact it uses 33 correlated spectral intervals for radiation budget, including incoming solar...
How do you think any model could work if it didn't account for solar radiation? You don't think 1366 watts per square meter missing might make a difference??
How do scientists account for flucuations in solar output? Solar strength varies from year to year, how can scientist predict future temperature change if the solar variability changes without scientists expecting it. In order for a climate model to work scientists can only assume that solar output is constant and does not flucuate.
- Status