Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics

[carpro]

What if you are wrong, and the experts are correct?

Which experts?

There are just as many saying one thing as there are saying the other.

 

[777]

Which experts?

There are just as many saying one thing as there are saying the other.

* cough * poisioning the well * cough *


Careful here, global warming is part of their dogma. For the non-evo faithful:

Well, well. Some “climate expert” on “The Weather Channel” wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent “global warming” is a natural process. So much for “tolerance”, huh?


I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them. Here are the basic facts you need to know:

*Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at “The Weather Channel” probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.

*The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe."

http://www.jamesspann.com/wordpress/?p=650

Okay, then, it's profitable junk science.

 

[hillclimber1]

What evidence would support your belief that it's "impossible?" In other words, what body of research would you cite as the rationale for claiming that it is "impossible." Note that the other two issues are "plausible," yet the idea of man causing global warming is "impossible."

Like I said, I am not sure, but I would never claim that it is "impossible."

Regards,
BiR

Simple common sense, which you know my common sense is, huh?

This whole movement is really amazing to me. It's like you smart ones, are the first on board.

 

[The Galatian]

Oh yeah, I think it's a done deal, now that GWB has caved.

Bush is kinda the gold standard of reality denial. If he can't do it any longer, not many people can.

The evidence by now is voluminous, and more is coming in each day. The game is up, and even Bush has conceded what is obvious.

 

[777]

Bush is kinda the gold standard of reality denial. If he can't do it any longer, not many people can.

The evidence by now is voluminous, and more is coming in each day. The game is up, and even Bush has conceded what is obvious.

The White House on Tuesday denied it was planning a U-turn on its climate change policy by embracing a system of formal caps on greenhouse emissions, despite rising pressure from European governments to change its stance.

Although energy security will be a key theme in President George W. Bush’s State of the Union address next week, the White House issued an unusually public rebuttal of rumours about its climate change policy. Tony Snow, White House spokesman, said: “I want to walk you back from the whole carbon cap story...The carbon cap stuff is not accurate. It’s wrong.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e43fe006-a58b-11db-a4e0-0000779e2340.html

 

[Dragoon68]

Which experts?

There are just as many saying one thing as there are saying the other.

Yep, that's a fact!

We have a limited amount of data over a limited amount of time. It's not much on which to make a firm conclusion and there's a whole lot of debate about it! The extrapolations aren't that solid and the reasons even less so.

This is especially obvious when you consider than during several decades (from 1940 to 1960) of extensive increase in man's industrial expansion and little use of environmental controls there was no increase in the mean global surface temperature. It's clear for the data collected that values have increased slightly and consistently in the last four decades (from 1960 to 2000) as it did early (from 1920 to 1940) but it's just not enough to say it will or won't continue doing that nor is it enough to conclude exactly why.

It's just not that clear what causes it. In fact, all the extreme environmental controls put is place during more recent time haven't changed the slight trend upwards. Does that mean we need to do more of the same or perhaps look elsewhere for the cause or consider that the trend may, in fact, reverse in time as it has over the centuries past. The mass of the earth's land, war, and air is exceedingly large compared to mankind's activities.

Experts ask a whole lot of questions about data, look for very conclusive trends in that data - not just short term spikes, consider all the variables that may or may not be the cause, and try to isolate the effect of each on on the data.

None of this, by the way, means we shouldn't work at reasonable controls over environmental impacts from our use of God's creation. Having done this in the past has resulted in some great localized improvements. Imposing excessive environmental controls may have no effect other than further load our processes with unproductive burdens. It will, however, make an whole lot of environmental consultants and lawyers wealthy and extend the government's control deeper into private enterprise. It will also likely make us much more dependent upon other nations for natural resources we could otherwise attain from our own lands.

 

[The Galatian]

(Barbarian links to Bush's admission that global warming is probably due to human activities)

The White House on Tuesday denied it was planning a U-turn on its climate change policy by embracing a system of formal caps on greenhouse emissions, despite rising pressure from European governments to change its stance.

Although energy security will be a key theme in President George W. Bush’s State of the Union address next week, the White House issued an unusually public rebuttal of rumours about its climate change policy. Tony Snow, White House spokesman, said: “I want to walk you back from the whole carbon cap story...The carbon cap stuff is not accurate. It’s wrong.”

You've confused his admission (in the link) that global warming is probably due to the things we are doing, with his announcement that he's not going to do anything about it. He says that he messed up in Iraq too, and he's not going to do anything about that, either. It's his way of dealing with reality.

 

[carpro]

(Barbarian links to Bush's admission that global warming is probably due to human activities)

The White House on Tuesday denied it was planning a U-turn on its climate change policy by embracing a system of formal caps on greenhouse emissions, despite rising pressure from European governments to change its stance.

Although energy security will be a key theme in President George W. Bush’s State of the Union address next week, the White House issued an unusually public rebuttal of rumours about its climate change policy. Tony Snow, White House spokesman, said: “I want to walk you back from the whole carbon cap story...The carbon cap stuff is not accurate. It’s wrong.”

You've confused his admission (in the link) that global warming is probably due to the things we are doing, with his announcement that he's not going to do anything about it. He says that he messed up in Iraq too, and he's not going to do anything about that, either. It's his way of dealing with reality.

In this particular case, President Bush's opinion caries no more weight than mine or yours.

 

[777]

You've confused his admission (in the link) that global warming is probably due to the things we are doing, with his announcement that he's not going to do anything about it. He says that he messed up in Iraq too, and he's not going to do anything about that, either. It's his way of dealing with reality.

???

Okay, I'll pull the whole WH press release:

The White House on Tuesday denied it was planning a U-turn on its climate change policy by embracing a system of formal caps on greenhouse emissions, despite rising pressure from European governments to change its stance.

Although energy security will be a key theme in President George W. Bush’s State of the Union address next week, the White House issued an unusually public rebuttal of rumours about its climate change policy. Tony Snow, White House spokesman, said: “I want to walk you back from the whole carbon cap story...The carbon cap stuff is not accurate. It’s wrong.”

International pressure for Mr Bush to consider reducing US emissions via a form of “cap and trade” system like that in force in the European Union has intensified. The issue has been raised in the last two weeks by Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, and José Manuel Barroso, European Commission president. Tony Blair, the British premier, has also been persistent in lobbying the president.

The Bush administration has consistently stressed technological solutions, rather than formal treaties such as the Kyoto accord. Mr Snow said: “What the president has talked about all along is the importance of innovation,” adding there was a need to focus on change “consistent with economic growth”.

After meeting Ms Merkel, Mr Bush said he would focus on “technological developments that will enable us to be good stewards of the environment, and enable us to become less dependent on oil and hydrocarbons from parts of the world that may not like us”.

The president is also under pressure at home. Last Friday six US senators – including two presidential hopefuls for 2008, the Republican John McCain and the Democrat Barack Obama – presented a cap and trade proposal to force industries, such as electricity utilities, to cut by 2050 greenhouse gas emissions to one third of the levels of 2000.

White House officials remain privately sceptical about a British report produced in October by Sir Nicholas Stern on the economics of climate change, suggesting it would be wrong to make big decisions based on what some officials dismiss as “popular science”. Mr Stern is due to testify next month before a Senate committee that will address emissions legislation.

I bolded my question of your reply. Where is it here?

 

[carpro]

I assumed you knew about Galation.

Now I know you do.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Simple common sense, which you know my common sense is, huh?

This whole movement is really amazing to me. It's like you smart ones, are the first on board.

Again I ask you, what do you cite as the support for your argument for your belief that it is "impossible?"

Regards,
BiR

 

[777]

I assumed you knew about Galation.

Now I know you do.

Maybe he's on Jupiter causing global warming and the WH message got lost in the inter-planetary transmission.

So he really is "the Barbarian"? Then, he won't think Earth is the only thing doomed soon.

 

[hillclimber1]

Again I ask you, what do you cite as the support for your argument for your belief that it is "impossible?"

Regards,
BiR

My simple common sense. It does not make sense that even if man's sole goal was to increase the temp of the earth 1 degree, that he would even come up with a plan. Too immense a task. I'm not going to site the various places I've gathered info, in formulating my opinion, because of the humiliation you on that side would hurl.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

My simple common sense. It does not make sense that even if man's sole goal was to increase the temp of the earth 1 degree, that he would even come up with a plan. Too immense a task.

So, are we to believe that your belief that this is "impossible" is based solely upon your "simple common sense," and not anything scientific?
What are your scientific credentials to make such an absolute pronouncement?

Getting curious,
BiR

 

[777]

Uh-oh, they're playing scientist again!

My simple common sense. It does not make sense that even if man's sole goal was to increase the temp of the earth 1 degree, that he would even come up with a plan. Too immense a task. I'm not going to site the various places I've gathered info, in formulating my opinion, because of the humiliation you on that side would hurl.

Shut one door, another could open. Can YOU answer something for me?:

Another Ice Age?:

The Nation
Posted Monday, Jan. 31, 1977
FORECAST: UNSETTLED WEATHER AHEAD

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,918621-2,00.html

Unless man somehow unbalances the equation, these scientists
concluded, the trend over the next 20,000 years will be toward a cooler
global climate and the spread of glaciers in the Northern Hemisphere—a
new Ice Age.

The consequences could be catastrophic. A worldwide average
temperature drop of only 1° Celsius could shorten growing seasons in
the temperate zones enough to threaten global food supplies. Increased
heating requirements would further strain energy resources such as
coal, natural gas and oil.

OR:

The Nation
Abstract
White House vs. greenhouse
October 13, 1997 issue
http://www.thenation.com/archive/detail/9710011112


This article focuses on global warming. To get a sense of how far those
opposed to limiting greenhouse gases will go in mangling the truth,
here's the reality behind this statistics. The poll was not recent and it was
not a poll. It was a study of 400 scientists of Gallup Organization Inc.,
conducted for a now-defunct nonprofit organization in 1991-four years
before the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 300
scientific experts formed by the U.N. and the World Meteorological
Organization, concluded that the world has warmed and that the balance
of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on
global climate.

Is is hot or cold and, in either case, will you still stop trying to destroy the planet Earth? Thanks in advance!

 

[Terry_Herrington]

If we can head them off long enough, their grab for America's economic stability will be stalled long enough for the rapture to make it moot.

And, what if you are wrong in your theology, and there is no rapture?

 

[carpro]

Quote:
Originally Posted by hillclimber1
My simple common sense. It does not make sense that even if man's sole goal was to increase the temp of the earth 1 degree, that he would even come up with a plan. Too immense a task.

So, are we to believe that your belief that this is "impossible" is based solely upon your "simple common sense," and not anything scientific?
What are your scientific credentials to make such an absolute pronouncement?

Getting curious,
BiR

Hillclimber has amply illustrated through his posts that he has an abundance of common sense. Using his own judgement, he can make any pronouncement he wishes. You are free to disagree, but not belittle.

I find your question a little odd considering you are addressing a Christian who believes in the divinity of Jesus. He doesn't have much "scientific" evidence to support that belief, either. Do you have a problem believing in Christ without the "scientific" evidence you crave?

 

[carpro]

And, what if you are wrong in your theology, and there is no rapture?

Strange question coming from a Christian.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Strange question coming from a Christian.

Right! We know that ALL Christians believe in the Rapture!

 

[The Galatian]

For 777, who missed it the first time...

The US Government has acknowledged for the first time that man-made pollution is largely to blame for global warming.

But it has again refused to shift its position on the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty designed to mitigate global warming which the Bush administration rejected last year.

In a 268-page report submitted to the United Nations, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) endorsed what many scientists have long argued - that human activities such as oil refining, power generation and car emissions are significant causes of global warming.
The White House had previously said there was not enough scientific evidence to blame industrial emissions for global warming. The submission of the EPA report came on the same day that all 15 European Union nations ratified the Kyoto pact.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2023835.stm

Probably it seemed to you, a good idea to pretend I said it was in a White House press release. But there are always consequences for that sort of thing.

Do right, and fear no man.