Another piece of coal on the fires of contention . . .
New Report Refutes Global Warming
A recent report from Britain's Sir Nicholas Stern warned of the devastating economic effects global warming could have on the world in coming years.
But a British researcher has added his voice to those saying the "hysteria" over manmade global warming distorts the truth.
Stern — former chief economist at the World Bank — cautioned that if greenhouse gas emissions weren't significantly reduced, by 2050 the global economy would shrink by up to 20 percent, millions of people would be permanently displaced and droughts would plague the earth.
Now journalist Christopher Monckton, who was a policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher, has published a detailed report attacking the manmade global warming theory from various angles — including the so-called "medieval warm period."
The United Nations, which has issued a widely quoted report on global warming, "abolished the medieval warm period — the global warming at the end of the First Millennium A.D.," according to Monckton.
A U.N. report in 1996 "showed a 1,000-year graph demonstrating that temperature in the Middle Ages was warmer than today," Monckton writes in Britain's Sunday Telegraph.
"But the 2001 report contained a new graph showing no medieval warm period. It wrongly concluded that the 20th century was the warmest for 1,000 years . . .
"Scores of scientific papers show that the medieval warm period was real, global and up to [5 degrees Fahrenheit] warmer than now.
"Then, there were no glaciers in the tropical Andes; today they're there. There were Viking farms in Greenland; now they're under permafrost. There was little ice at the North Pole — a Chinese naval squadron sailed right around the Arctic in 1421 and found none."
Monckton also writes that Antarctica has cooled and gained ice-mass in the past 30 years, and the oceans have cooled sharply in the past two years.
He calculates that global temperatures will rise only .18 to 2.5 degrees in the coming century, "well within the medieval temperature range."
And he suggests that rather than point to greenhouse gases as the culprit behind any measurable global warming, we might blame the sun. He cites a scientist who maintains that in the past half-century the sun has been warmer, for longer, than at any time in at least the past 11,400 years.
Monckton's conclusion: "Politicians, scientists and bureaucrats contrived a threat of Biblical floods, droughts, plagues, and extinctions worthier of St. John the Divine than of science."
He also remarks: "Al Gore please note."
__________________ If you actually passed third grade English, let it show!
Adult Literacy is your friend.
That was ONE scenario in the '70's, of many put forth
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zen900
In the 1970s there was the same thing going on only it was about the world getting colder because of the devastating winter of 1977. There was a terrible scare going on just like now. Scientists were telling the world that the climate could go ice age again in one year! All it would take was for the snow in one winter to cease to melt due to winter not ending as we are used to seeing. I have seen this crap before. I'd like to be able to trust the data all your liberal college scientists publish but the fact is they think in packs and they are scientifically and politically biased. They invent data to prop up their conclusions. They believe each others bs without question. All their data is taken from conversations they have with each other at Starbucks over latte. People just don't believe these silly think tanks that your fears so willingly fall victim to. You can't just dig up links on the internet and cry wolf all the time. Besides, you need to be getting prepared for the upcomming asteroid impact.
What's that rumbling I hear??????? OMG! It's....it"s.....it's a tsunami!!!!!!!! I better go to higher grou.............................................. ................
It was not the generally-held belief of the scientific community.
"My liberal college scientists?" Oh please...
Those aren't silly think tanks; they're mainstream professional organizations. That's like calling the Americam Medical Association a think tank, or the American Bar Association a think tank.
My original point was that whether one believes the scientists or not, there IS a scientific consensus. It's not fifty-fifty; it's not one group saying this and the other saying that; it's not a bunch of people with a bunch of different opinions on the subject.
By the way: Christopher Monckton, the journalist cited in Big Dog's post, is not a scientist, and his piece is a glorified op-ed, not a scientific paper, or report, or study. It was published in the Sunday Telegraph, a London rag that's about a step above the National Inquirer.
Yes, because its normal to have 70 degree weather within a day of December. Anyone who thinks our climate is normal needs to be dropped about 300 miles out into the ocean. Most people think that global warming means the earth is going to heat up, when actually it will cool down, causing the next ice age. I hope you boys are stocking up on food, water, and ammo.
Global warming/cooling IS a natural event that occurs periodically throughout the earth's history. Examples would be the most recent Ice Age and the Explosion of the Volcano Krackatoa that was the cause of the "Dark Ages" or the Chixulub crater impact that was responsible for a 6* rise in the ocean's tempurature. What is not proven is however the effect man has or will have on this process. While increases in carbon dioxide can't be good for us we are petty to think that we can stop global warming by imposing ridiculous standards on the auto industry. It has also been proven that the earth is resilient in repairing itself as geologic evidence has shown oil spills that would make the Valdese look like a spot in your driveway.
Some other interesting facts about the Earth. The oxygen level has not always been what it is today. Again it has been proven that due to the Earth's natural processes that oxygen level and thus the levels of other gases like CO2 have fluctuated. High CO2 levels most likely from abnormal volcanic activity were implemental in the carboniferous period's rapid development of plant and tree life which thus caused higher levels of oxygen which in turn led to the evolution larger land based animals.
Another intersting fact about the old gal is the position of the poles. Magnetic North and South Poles have not always been fixed where they are today. Over time the poles have flipped numerous times and as far as I know there is no known reason for this, but is has happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toolman
How about the guys that had to cancel their expedition to Antarctaca to study the ice-caps melting because of "harsh winter conditions" ?
Great Logic! we all know that weather patterns follow strict predictable patterns and never fluctuate. This is why we always can predict hurricanes and tornadoes and the weatherman is always right. Your statements are no better than those who claim the earth is getting hotter because of car emissions; devoid of fact and based on pure conjecture without any regard to the scientific process.
Ice Caps are melting.
Test ? What makes ice have a blueish hue in glaciers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by toolman
Just read an article in the Abilene Reporter News about Paccar (the parent co. of Kenworth and Peterbilt) is starting to lay off workers due to the reduced demand for the '07 model trucks. Who in their right mind would want to spend an extra $8000+ on a new truck that gets worse fuel mileage than your old one?
I have a friend who's into HOT RODS. His dad has a street legal hot rodded 1941 Willis. I know it's a big block V-8, not sure which one though and he can get 28 mpg on the highway doing 80 mph. So why do we want to impose a bunch of standards on cars when they can't get any better gas mileage than they get with the technology they have these days with fuel injection, computerized sensors etc......
I'm with ya toolman; give me horsepower and mileage.
__________________ Never explain with conspiracy what can easily be explained with incompetance!
Last edited by SPOCAHP ANAR; 11-30-2006 at 04:33 PM.
Reason: Automerged Doublepost
I have a friend who's into HOT RODS. His dad has a street legal hot rodded 1941 Willis. I know it's a big block V-8, not sure which one though and he can get 28 mpg on the highway doing 80 mph. So why do we want to impose a bunch of standards on cars when they can't get any better gas mileage than they get with the technology they have these days with fuel injection, computerized sensors etc......
I'm with ya toolman; give me horsepower and mileage.
It may have something to do with gear ratios and how light the Willys is.
For years I drove old 1967-1971 Chevy pickups with small-blocks in them. I loved them dearly, and I still have one sitting out back while I decide whether to cannibalise it and put its 283 in my Jeep, sell it, or put it back on the road. But over the years the ones with automatic transmissions got 10 1/2 mpg, and the standard tranny's got 11 1/2 mpg.
When they first started adding smog equipment to existing engines, it was a joke; mostly what it did was just destroy performance. But they've come a long ways.
Modern engines with all their computerized stuff kick *** on old engines. They crank out more horsepower, get better mileage anyway, and burn a lot cleaner. The only trouble with them is that I can't work on them anymore, but what the hey: I usually don't have to, because they don't break as often anyway.
I'd like to point out that one of the obvious answers to global warming is staring the environmentalists in the face, and they're scared to look back: replace all those power plants burning coal or natural gas with nuclear power plants. If we did that, and came up with a practical, affordable hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle, it could change the outlook drastically.
"I'd like to point out that one of the obvious answers to global warming is staring the environmentalists in the face, and they're scared to look back: replace all those power plants burning coal or natural gas with nuclear power plants. If we did that, and came up with a practical, affordable hydrogen-cell vehicle, it could change the outlook drastically."
Very true, Troy! But in this day & age, the tree-huggers have poisoned the whole idea of nuke power. IMHO, all big cities should have a nuke plant. Use excess power to help the smaller communities around them.
Every technology has it's pros and cons.
"Solar farms" in the desert southwest would help too.
__________________ If you actually passed third grade English, let it show!
Adult Literacy is your friend.
I'm guessing the Court will back the Bush Administration on this one, on the grounds that the laws, as written and passed by Congress, don't force the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide.
I don't think their ruling will really address the issue of whether it's a pollutant as such. And I'm not sure it's their job to make such a determination; that's a scientific issue, not a legal one.
But if Congress then decides to pass a law that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and should be regulated as one, the Court will probably rule they have the right to do so.
This is the same thing the planet is doing to cool itself down. Our planet is not just a block of material in space. It is a living, breathing entity with cycles (just as wives), balances, a beginning and an end.
So, can you answer the question?
EDIT: I am not a "tree-hugger" necessarily. I just don't think we need to hurry along a coming ice-age. Don't tell me that after 100 years of automobiles, a better, cleaner and more efficient engine could have been developed...THAT is a bunch of bunk! My 1972 Mustang Mach 1 gets better mileage than my 2001 Ford Explorer Sport. 30 years, electronics, computer technology has all been improved...but the fuel economy isn't better whatsoever.
No problem . . . the coming total economic collapse and global war will kill off enough of us to redress the natural balance. Nature will reclaim her own.
__________________ If you actually passed third grade English, let it show!
Adult Literacy is your friend.
It may have something to do with gear ratios and how light the Willys is.
For years I drove old 1967-1971 Chevy pickups with small-blocks in them. I loved them dearly, and I still have one sitting out back while I decide whether to cannibalise it and put its 283 in my Jeep, sell it, or put it back on the road. But over the years the ones with automatic transmissions got 10 1/2 mpg, and the standard tranny's got 11 1/2 mpg.
No doubt the Willis is a $70k+ car. I seriously doubt he has a stock drivetrain in it. My bud has a 48 ford with a 54' 400 caddy big block in it. He's got a little more than $2500 in machine work alone in it, not counting parts etc.....
Yeah my 70 ford gets about 15 or so; haven't really measured it. Plan on rebuilding it with 351 heads and possibly a 4 speed. Gonna completely electrolize it FP; IGN; Timing etc.... if I can get 25/10 Ill be happy. Thats 25 highway and 10 on the 4 bbl!
__________________ Never explain with conspiracy what can easily be explained with incompetance!
Last edited by SPOCAHP ANAR; 12-01-2006 at 07:48 PM.
