Global Warming Idiocy
Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 03:49PM Today there is a doom and gloom article based on statements given at a press conference marking World Environment Day. The remarks were made by the president of the low-lying Pacific atoll nation of Kiribati.
Kiribati likely doomed by climate change President Anote Tong said communities had already been resettled and crops destroyed by seawater in some parts of the country, made up of 33 coral atolls straddling the equator.
Kiribati is a country made up of Pacific Atolls. The most famous or infamous of these atolls is Tarawa. Some of you may remember it from your WWII history, if that is something that is still taught. One other interesting note about this sinking paradise is that for years the outer atolls were the testing grounds for both British and American Nuclear Weapons.
The fact that statements from people who have built their homes on the backs of dead sea creatures is given as proof of global warming is an example of the scare tactic lunacy that is "Global Warming". Atolls are the tops of Coral reefs that have grown above sea level. 5000 years ago these obstructions in the shipping lanes were nothing more than hazards to the hulls of ships.
Yet Global Warming Lunacy leads to statements like these. "I am not a scientist but what I know is that things are happening we did not experience in the past," Tong said. Gee I guess his "experience" is a good scientific measure. I loved this gem. "We may be beyond redemption, we may be at the point of no return where the emissions in the atmosphere will carry on to contribute to climate change to produce a sea-level change that in time our small low-lying islands will be submerged," he said. It is more likely that the background emission's from Nuclear Bomb Tests have addled whatever brain this man once had, making him susceptible to global warming brain washing.
This quote was the scariest. At international meetings others had argued that measures to combat climate change would hurt their countries' economic development. "In frustration, I said, 'No, it's not an issue of economic growth, it's an issue of human survival.'"
Economic growth and development IS human survival. This lunacy will cause the death and suffering of millions of people. Just as the banning of DDT has caused 100s of thousands of deaths and suffering around the world all based on the fallacy of crap written by one of the High Priestesses of the Environmental Wacko Cult Rachel Carson. She sounded the initial alarm against DDT, but represented the science of DDT erroneously in her 1962 book Silent Spring.
Today the same thing is being done with Global Warming.
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (40)
Troll,
Jeeze, do we have to get you to do that sixth-grade ice-in-the-glass-of-water test yet again? It's detention for you again, my boy.
Why?
atolls are not landmasses they rise and sink, it has nothing to do with melting ice Dawkins.
Do YOU need to be educated on the life cycles of reefs
I'm not an atoll expert. But if the sea appeared to rise on the atoll but did not rise in Australia or other Pacific countries, then you'd kinda have to say it's not the Global Warming boogie man.
You can't just look at one small atoll in isolation, can you?
Under the worst-case scenario, Kiribati would be submerged by the end of this century and its people would have to be resettled in other countries
Bloody immigrants.
Phantom,
"I'm not an atoll expert"
That's OK, neither is GM/T.
Here's a call to action from over 1700 scientists and economists. They are experts.
Frank
What do you think? About sea rising?
I've heard from recreational sailors in the Pacific that they've seen essentially zero change over thirty years.
See this and the comments/images about creation and sinking of atolls.
This may not be the number one poster child for the Global Warming set.
careful Phantom your attacking Franks religion...LOL
Pretend we are all rightwing conservatives here for a minute. Can someone explain why we have this much emphasis on condeming Global Warming theories. Is the weather gay or something?
mahons
In my case, its the "accept what we say or you're stupid" smugness of the GW proponents.
My mind and my gut tells me that there is immense exaggeration and hysteria at play here.
I absolutely believe that there are major environmental problems but I have doubt about much that is said on the GW front. And since you can't debate "known facts" that "everyone agrees on", there's no alternative to expressing your skepticism now and then.
Phantom,
The sea level is rising (at an accelerating rate that is underestimated by the models, see for example here).
Phantom, I encourage skeptics, that's fine, but the repeated fraud of the anti-crowd seems so pathetic. I'd love it if a skeptic as you said took some of the crazier claims of their own side to task, for credibility at the very least.
I'm lining up behind Phantom on this one.
Here are a couple of experts who disagree with Frank's experts:
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm#satellite-temps
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html
The first question is simple: are the seas actually rising? If so, then the Maldives should be disappearing. As far as I'm aware, they're not.
If the seas are rising, then something strange must be afoot because reports say that the ice mass of Antartica is increasing.
Phantom,
"In my case, its the "accept what we say or you're stupid" smugness of the GW proponents."
You mean like the post up there which says that anyone who agrees with 1700 US experts is a lunatic and an idiot? If 'smugness' upsets you then you might start with that.
"My mind and my gut tells me that there is immense exaggeration and hysteria at play here."
How come you fail to spot the hysteria in the post up there? If we listen to the experts instead of the right wing blogs then it will cause the death and suffering of millions of people? Really?
Frank what about the 31,000 that just came out and said they didn't agree.
and when did you add oceanographer to your resume?
"Yes but actually the rates aren't uniform at all - different in different regions and at different latitudes etc. There are even places where it fell during some periods while rising in others."
Mahons
"Phantom, I encourage skeptics, that's fine, but the repeated fraud of the anti-crowd seems so pathetic."
yet where is your condemnation of the pro GW repeated fraud? Frank mentions models (once again) in one of his coments. I have repeated over and over that not one of these models has come up with the same predictions twice. He even brings up the models stating that there wrong but wronge cause it's actually worse.
The variables to accuartely run climate prediction models are to vast to even run on a Cray. So what the proponents of GW do is leave major swaths of factors out of the models. You don't get accuracy that way.
Phantom is right the GW crowd attacks skeptics as blasphemers.
I have said over and over that when they can get a model that can predict an accurate weather forcast out to a month, a week, or even a couple of days I will give it weight.
They are predicting doom and gloom declaring accuracy within 3 degrees and exact ammounts of rainfall and ocean depth. they can't tell you within 3 degrees what the temp will be in Times Square next Tuesday or if it will rain or not.
An atoll is a reef, reefs are unstable environments let alone reefs set in an area that has had mulitiple nuclear bombs set off in.
By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition states. "Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
read the article and check out the links, draw your own conclusions The debate is far from over inspite of repeated fraud claim by the pro side that it's settled
Troll,
"Frank what about the 31,000 that just came out and said they didn't agree."
They aren't experts, have no relevant experience. Some of them signed years ago and wouldn't sign now, none of them are verifiable names with institution affiliation, they have no relevant publications, and some of them are even dead.
Each one of the first 5 authors of the IPCC WG1 whose names begin with 'A' has more published, relevant, research than your '31,000' have between them.
The list I referred to are all names with institution affiliations, all with relevant expertise. They include six Nobel Prize winners in science and economics. Are they all lunatics?
"when did you add oceanographer to your resume?"
I don't need oceanographer on my resume to read what the oceanographers say. Do you dispute what I wrote?
"Frank mentions models (once again) in one of his coments."
The models are not the evidence for AGW. They are however the only things that allow anyone to talk about future impacts, good or bad. To argue that the models are useless, as you do, is to argue that we don't know what will happen to the climate when we increase CO2 - aside from all the evidence that it will increase temperature. In which case we shouldn't do it. The models are actually the 'sceptics' best friend, but they are too thick to realise it.
"They are predicting doom and gloom declaring accuracy within 3 degrees and exact ammounts of rainfall and ocean depth. "
No they are not. Comments like that just show that you haven't read what they do say, or simply don't understand what words mean. Or you simply have no regard for the truth.
"I have said over and over that when they can get a model that can predict an accurate weather forcast out to a month, a week, or even a couple of days I will give it weight."
A weather forecast is still not a climate forecast. None of us can predict the weather that well, but all of us manage to predict the climate pretty well every time we book a holiday.
"They are predicting doom and gloom"
So are you. The difference is that they know what they are talking about, while you are predicting that millions of people will suffer and die even as the other side of your mouth says that such predictions are impossible.
Mahons: "Can someone explain why we have this much emphasis on condeming Global Warming theories. "
Yes, I can. MMGW is a Trojan Horse, being used to introduce a massive increase in government taxation and regulation....for the children...of course.(sarc.)
Un and other global warming pushers want to put cement shoes on the US and other Western nations. Slow them down abit. Control. Power. Conservatives naturally take umbrage at this. Get it?
.
Thank You Frank.
I use Franks above comments as proof of my point. I couldn't have asked for a better example of the lunacy of the followers of AGW.
"They aren't experts, have no relevant experience. Some of them signed years ago and wouldn't sign now, none of them are verifiable names with institution affiliation, they have no relevant publications, and some of them are even dead."
All scientists no matter what their credentials are frauds. except his
"To argue that the models are useless, as you do, is to argue that we don't know what will happen to the climate when we increase CO2 - aside from all the evidence that it will increase temperature."
Except that the eveidence that they base it on is the models.
as I stated above read the article which of course Frank can't do because the blasphamy would burn them from the sockets.
Unlike his link which is to a lunatic site that not only states AGW nonsense it recomends "green policies" even on weapons. The link I posted was to an article that even goes over Franks point about when the petition was started.
"The Petition Project actually was launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were assembled. Then, between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign.
But now, a new effort has been conducted because of an "escalation of the claims of 'consensus,' release of the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' by Mr. Al Gore, and related events," according to officials with the project."
The Petition Project was organized by a group of physicists and physical chemists who conduct scientific research at several American scientific institutions. The petition statement and the signatures of its 31,072 signers, however, speak for themselves. The primary relevant role of the organizers is that they are among the 9,021 PhD signers of the petition.
The Petition Project is financed by non-tax deductible donations to the Petition Project from private individuals. The project has no financing whatever from industrial sources. No funds or resources of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine are used for the Petition Project. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has never received funds or resources from energy industries, and none of the scientists at the Institute have any funding whatever from corporations or institutions involved in hydrocarbon technology or energy production. Donations to the project are primarily used for printing and postage. Most of the labor for the project has been provided by scientist volunteers.
Yet only Franks 1,700 scientists are valid.
AGW followers are cultists They have faith in something with no proof that is a religion NOT science.
Troll you can't possibly believe thatpetition stands up to a child's scrutiny.
the petition has been verified and scrutinized more than the "facts" of AGW have.
off topic
Hey Mahons I don't want to do a post on this, but if you want to read somthing that I think you will appreciate even though we have differing views on the subject read this
Its got nothing to do with Global Warming
Troll - That petition, as you must know, is fraught with error, fraud and mockery (One of the Spice Girls is a signatory).
On the other topic, thanks for the article. You might google a Medal Winner named Lucas who passed away today, he was the youngest (17) when he won it in Iowa Jima. He lied about his age to get into the marines & into the war. Remarkable life story.
to go through all that and still die of cancer...ouch
as for the petition, of course it is loaded with ficticious names, just as the AGW stuff is loaded with ficticious facts.
That was the point of my post, atolls are not landmasses and they rise and sink with or without help from global warming. It doesn't prove anything.
I would buy into global warming if a)the math backed it up and b)if the proponants of it were in the slightest bit flexable.
instead they are jihadists who's goal is the destruction of our country and the entire industrial world
Patty,
Yes, I can. MMGW is a Trojan Horse, being used to introduce a massive increase in government taxation and regulation....for the children...of course.(sarc.)
Just as the germ theory of disease is a trojan horse being used to push universal healthcare, right? Indeed conservatives must therefore conclude that all disease is a hoax.
After all, the idea that man can make himself sick by not separating his excrement from his food is just hubris. People have always gotten sick. Back in the day, Troll and Patty's proud ancestors would would have strenuously objected to laws telling them where they could and could not have a dump. All living things excrete. Everyone else called it sh1t, but they called it life. Amen and preach it sister.
As for these doctors claiming that people are 'sick' just on account of having 'infections' and 'symptoms', conservatives will presumably believe that just as soon as doctors have a mathematical model of how the human body works and can tell them exactly when they will get well. After all, it is much cheaper to adapt to bacterial infection and some bacteria are good for you. Medical bills on the other hand will destroy the economy and lead to the suffering and death of millions of people. So just ignore them and have a little faith.
ahhhh mother gaia has an infection and the virus is called man we must kill the virus and mother gaia will be fine...lol
one problem with your analogy frank, Science has proven with FACTS that there are bacteria and virus that cause disiese.
Your group hasen't proven that the act of breathing is killing the planet.
Troll,
"one problem with your analogy frank, Science has proven with FACTS that there are bacteria and virus that cause disiese."
Not according to deniers just like you it hasn't. And just like you, they even have a petition of cluebies to 'prove' it.
That HIV is the primary cause of AIDS is the strongly held consensus opinion of the scientific community, based upon over two decades of robust research. Deniers must therefore reject this consensus, either by denigrating the notion of scientific authority in general, or by arguing that the mainstream HIV community is intellectually compromised. It is therefore not surprising that much of the newer denial literature reflects a basic distrust of authority and of the institutions of science and medicine. In her book, Christine Maggiore thanks her father Robert, “who taught me to question authority and stand up for what's right” [10]. Similarly, mathematical modeler Dr. Rebecca Culshaw, another HIV denier, states: “As someone who has been raised by parents who taught me from a young age never to believe anything just because ‘everyone else accepts it to be true,’ I can no longer just sit by and do nothing, thereby contributing to this craziness”
[...]
Since the ideas proposed by deniers do not meet rigorous scientific standards, they cannot hope to compete against the mainstream theories. They cannot raise the level of their beliefs up to the standards of mainstream science; therefore they attempt to lower the status of the denied science down to the level of religious faith, characterizing scientific consensus as scientific dogma [21]. As one HIV denier quoted in Maggiore's book [10] remarked,
“There is classical science, the way it's supposed to work, and then there's religion. I regained my sanity when I realized that AIDS science was a religious discourse. The one thing I will go to my grave not understanding is why everyone was so quick to accept everything the government said as truth. Especially the central myth: the cause of AIDS is known.”
Others suggest that the entire spectrum of modern medicine is a religion [22].
Deniers also paint themselves as skeptics working to break down a misguided and deeply rooted belief. They argue that when mainstream scientists speak out against the scientific “orthodoxy,” they are persecuted and dismissed. For example, HIV deniers make much of the demise of Peter Duesberg's career, claiming that when he began speaking out against HIV as the cause of AIDS, he was “ignored and discredited” because of his dissidence [23]. South African President Mbeki went even further, stating: “In an earlier period in human history, these [dissidents] would be heretics that would be burnt at the stake!”
Sound familiar?
Frank's away on a trip.
Tell us what it was like when you get back.
Frank, it's articles like this that keep people like me from jumping on board GW. Take a look and tell me why NASA is fudging numbers to get the conclusion Dr. Hansen wants.
painting by numbers
cause hansen is wack that has lead a campaign that has damaged the reputation of nasa
Daphne,
Tell me why you think NASA is 'fudging numbers'?
As you can see the trend agrees closely with other data sets (including those favored by the 'sceptics'). The reason that NASA GISS is warmer on global temperatures is that it includes estimates for the arctic region.
But it doesn't matter. Ignore GISS if you want. The other data sets also say it's warming.
Can i just ask a basic question please?
I'll preface this by stating that i think landfill is disgusting and am very much into recycling. I think it's lazy, selfish and frankly sad if people don't recycle. We have a pretty planet and i want it to stay that way. We do not need half the rubbish we produce to make our lives more convenient and can just get on and cope or invent something less wasteful or resource heavy. I have no problem re-using plastic bags at the supermarket. In fact i HATE plastic. It's downright fugly and OBVIOUSLY destructive to the environment. And i hate being dependent on some weird religious bunch in the ME. To hell with 'em.
Now ive have that off me chest :)
There is no doubt at all that the weather is wacky. But no more wacky than before.
Why is it *a fact* that it is man made?
Why are governments going after airlines and taxing us little people all to hell and back when they represent the lowest of the carbon emittors?
It all stinks like a Chinese waste recycling site (another clanger), that this is about saving the planet. And THAT is what pisses me off.
Thanks for listening
it's not Alison man can't save or destroy the planet
This is what it's about
$45 trillion needed to combat warming
This statement ought to tell you a lot:
"A U.N.-network of scientists concluded last year that emissions have to be cut by at least half by 2050 to avoid an increase in world temperatures of between 3.6 and 4.2 degrees above pre-18th century levels.
Scientists say temperature increases beyond that could trigger devastating effects, such as widespread loss of species, famines and droughts, and swamping of heavily populated coastal areas by rising oceans."
First of all you cant get that accuracy of what the temperature was back in the 1700s. Sombody prove you can by telling me what the temp was on July 4th 1776. It is a very documented day for a couple of reasons.
Besides you tell me if they can't tell you accurately what the temperature next week will be between 3.6 and 4.2 degrees We should take it on faith that they can predict it for 50yrs from now.
Alison,
"Why is it *a fact* that it is man made?"
I could post a bunch of links to presentations etc reviewing the evidence, but frankly it's friday, and in any case I have to wonder what evidence you would accept if you ask that. If stacks of peer reviewed literature going back decades, statements from scientific bodies, and statements from most eminent scientists around the world aren't enough then what does it take?
I have a simple question to you in return: what do you think all those scientists are looking at that makes them say it is man made?
"Why are governments going after airlines and taxing us little people all to hell and back when they represent the lowest of the carbon emittors?"
What to do about it is a separate question to whether it is happening. You wouldn't accept an argument that poor government policies on crime mean that there is no such thing, or that it is perpetrated by extra-terrestrials rather than the usual theory that it is people who commit crime.
Global Warming (now called Global Climate Change) is not about walking lightly on the earth.
It is about stifling the growth of the 1st world.
The fact that China is not included in any Global Warming equation should set off a few bells in the minds of any still on the fence.
Patty,
"Global Warming (now called Global Climate Change)"
Global Warming is still called Global Warming, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed in 1988.
"It is about stifling the growth of the 1st world."
The chief scientist of BP wants to stifle the growth of the 1st world?
You'll probably find it less stifling if you take off the tin foil hat.
Frank your the only one wearing tinfoil
I take that back you can't be wearing tinfoil because the aliens have already beamed the lunacy into your brain...lol
Troll,
I'm also wearing tinfoil at the moment. At least, my lips are.
In the 1970's we were told we were heading into an ice age. Now we are being told that we are heading into a global warming situation. Why? because someone looked at his thermometer one day and the next and another and it was getting warmer each day. Well maybe not exactly that way, but I havent read a better explanation for the farce that has been dumped upon us by people like Algore who is making lots of money expounding on his nonsense along with a ferw others.
No one has explaned why the other planets are also reported as showing a slight incrase in their temperature at the same time. Surely they don't have petroleum burning cars, SUV's and big trucks out there, do they? An inconvenient fact that is being ignored by the proponents of Global Warming.
We were once told that the moon was made out of green cheese also. They must have had a lot of critters like rats and mice up there eating all the green cheese because when man finally got there it was all gone except that there were also no rat droppings seen anywhere. Bah Humbug on Gloabal Warming and Algore!