or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Global Warming Hysteria Building
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Global Warming Hysteria Building - Page 2

post #41 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

MaxPerrish,

Note I did not say that ddt was not an effective mosquito killer. In fact I implied the exact opposite.

I'm afraid Your "implied" message in the mentioning that DDT being dangerious to animals and man is buried by the trite sarcasm: "The current state of full bans in a large number of malaria infested areas is ignoring a significant solution to a 1 Billion person problem... This fact may be what is causing MaxPerish to jump to the conclusion that it was a hysterical overesponse to cut back on its use in the first place."

Quote:
dtt is, however, hardly benign. for one, anything that kills a mosquito can kill you. it is just a fact of biology. you can read the msds of dtt if you had the mind to do so, but you don't. and as pointed out by your chosen link and my own post, it was the VOLUME of dtt use that was the problem... god you are an illiterate dolt.

Rubbish. My conclusion that the DDT issue and the resulting ban was a hysterical over-response is supported in the article - your opaque comments only implied that I was somehow disappointed that it was not used to take care of (kill) the 1 Billion person problem. And while calling a poster a dolt or illiterate may sound like a sound response to you, it does not impress.

BTW, many of the claims of against DDT's danger to humans have proven to be hooey, begining with Racheal Carson. That is not to mean it is harmless in all circumstances, but certainly not to the degree the hysterics maintained.

Quote:
(the alaska pipeline that leaked just a few hundred thousand gallons under the snow or the one that filled the exon valdez? that alaskan pipeline, oh yeah, that's harmless)

Yes I mean the Alaska Pipeline construction and operation that the greenies predicted would be a repeated or continueal disaster to Alaska's artic wildlife and the enviroment - one that has proven a prior generations chicken little claims to be overblown and exagerated.

Quote:
btw, what's with the communist propaganda? how is that even relevant to the discussion at hand...

(on a completely unrelated note... this MaxParrish is a self-described racist, so you out of hand know you are dealing with an idiot)

I am not sure I am a "self-described" racist, just someone who admits that by contemporary definitions I am.
post #42 of 440
Oh. See my statement:

"The current state of full bans in a large number of malaria infested areas is ignoring a significant solution to a 1 Billion person problem..."

Wasn't sarcasm AT ALL. Malaria infects 1 Billion people world wide. dtt is a significant solution to this problem.

In other words, before you start spouting off about a subject, learn about it first or else you will get caught with poor reading skills...

The concern about dtt is real. overused it is a danger to all animals. it was being overused in the 1950s-60s. I knew people who ran behind the dtt trucks on the beaches of south carolina, and perhaps their sterility is unrelated but...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #43 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

I do, but not for you, since you can't deal with the TRUTH!

Your unattributed meandering quote is full of claims (both germaine and off-topic) without any evidence. As you seem to worship before the alter of Mann's et al's. real climate site, feel free to quote with a cite if you have a ponit.
post #44 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Oh. See my statement:

"The current state of full bans in a large number of malaria infested areas is ignoring a significant solution to a 1 Billion person problem..."

You are refering to the "1 Billion person problem" - I'm sorry one must assume you are saying that that one billion people are a problem, if you did not mean that then your sentence was a mess. I gave you credit for a subtle bit of sarcasm, sorry I over-rated it . So let's leave it buried [/quote]

Quote:
Wasn't sarcasm AT ALL. Malaria infects 1 Billion people world wide. dtt is a significant solution to this problem. In other words, before you start spouting off about a subject, learn about it first or else you will get caught with poor reading skills...

So you agree it was a hysterical over-reaction - good man. I'll let the crack about reading skills ride now that you have confessed.

Quote:
The concern about dtt is real. overused it is a danger to all animals. it was being overused in the 1950s-60s. I knew people who ran behind the dtt trucks on the beaches of south carolina, and perhaps their sterility is unrelated but...

Ya, and there is a guy who has taken a teaspoon a day for decades without effect. DDT was over-used, it was also stupid that fear mongering drove it to be banned and underused for more than a generation. And there is the nexus to global warming hysterics who are far more likely to cause damage to people's well being than improve our enjoyment of life.
post #45 of 440
BTW, there was NO WORLDWIDE ban on DDT.

Many nations still use it.

Alternate and more effective methods have been developed even in the presence of continued ddt use.

So what were you saying about DDT?
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #46 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Your unattributed meandering quote is full of claims (both germaine and off-topic) without any evidence. As you seem to worship before the alter of Mann's et al's. real climate site, feel free to quote with a cite if you have a ponit.

I went to each of your links and did my research, each of your references is either a movie critique, or it's proponent is a well known GW skeptic, WHO HAVE NOT PUBLISHED ANY PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC STUDIES OF THEIR OWN IN MAINSTREAM SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS RECENTLY FULLY BACKING UP THEIR BELIEFS!

And that is all I need to know about your POV!

Nuff Said!

PS - Just exactly who started this thread, and why, with their outragous screed/rant anyway, I wonder? Oh, that's right, YOU DID!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #47 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

I went to each of your links and did my research, each of your references is either a movie critique, or it's proponent is a well known GW skeptic, WHO HAVE NOT PUBLISHED ANY PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC STUDIES OF THEIR OWN IN MAINSTREAM SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS RECENTLY FULLY BACKING UP THEIR BELIEFS!

And that is all I need to know about your POV!

Nuff Said!

PS - Just exactly who started this thread, and why, with their outragous screed/rant anyway, I wonder? Oh, that's right, YOU DID!

Nope, each of my links were responses to AL GORE, whose expertise (if it can be called that) is in drop-out graduate experience in law and divinity, and his degree in the lofty field of government. It does not take someone who publishes in peer reviewed journals to refute this duffis claims, all it takes is pointing out common knowledge.

GORE is NOT someone to approvingly quote (assuming you still hold by the peer reviewed criteria) because he is a dissembler...or perhaps liar. That so many fell for his yarn is proof of the power of media and cultural bias, not his 'scientific' understanding.

Monkington, far brighter and more experienced in math, is a nice start for those who want to see how Gore failed.
post #48 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

You are refering to the "1 Billion person problem" - I'm sorry one must assume you are saying that that one billion people are a problem, if you did not mean that then your sentence was a mess. I gave you credit for a subtle bit of sarcasm, sorry I over-rated it . So let's leave it buried

Here you're being deliberately provocative or pretending to be stupid. Either way it's not looking good for you in the let's-take-a-word-he-writes department. You blew it here.
post #49 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

Here you're being deliberately provocative or pretending to be stupid.

Pretending?
post #50 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

Here you're being deliberately provocative or pretending to be stupid. Either way it's not looking good for you in the let's-take-a-word-he-writes department. You blew it here.

"...it's not looking good for you in the let's-take-a-word-he-writes department." Should god never curse me to write a sentence like that.
post #51 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Nope, each of my links were responses to AL GORE, whose expertise (if it can be called that) is in drop-out graduate experience in law and divinity, and his degree in the lofty field of government. It does not take someone who publishes in peer reviewed journals to refute this duffis claims, all it takes is pointing out common knowledge.

GORE is NOT someone to approvingly quote (assuming you still hold by the peer reviewed criteria) because he is a dissembler...or perhaps liar. That so many fell for his yarn is proof of the power of media and cultural bias, not his 'scientific' understanding.

Monkington, far brighter and more experienced in math, is a nice start for those who want to see how Gore failed.

Oh, I get it now, since you can't kill the message (i. e. the peer reviewed science supporting GW and it's primary causes), kill the messenger!

Can't deal with the science, so go for the ad hominem attack!

AIT was NEVER ment to be a hardcore lecture on the science of GW, let's see your GW attack dogs go after the real scientists in the peer reviewed scientific journals.

That's been my primary point throughout this thread, none of this oil/coal/gas funded (nee social conservative) think tank crapola, thank you!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #52 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

"...it's not looking good for you in the let's-take-a-word-he-writes department." Should god never curse me to write a sentence like that.

you know when you've lost argument? - when you need to resort to picking up typos
post #53 of 440
I just KNEW you believe in god!
post #54 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post

you know when you've lost argument? - when you need to resort to picking up typos

Typo's ? What in tarnation are you speaking of? I am mocking an awkward sentence.
post #55 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Typo's ? What in tarnation are you speaking of? I am mocking an awkward sentence.

I know, i called it typo because lazy
post #56 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Typo's ? What in tarnation are you speaking of? I am mocking an awkward sentence.

Oops. I left out the word 'seriously'.

What I meant was "Here you're being deliberately provocative or pretending to be stupid. Either way it's not looking good for you in the let's-take-a-word-he-writes-seriously department. You blew it here."

I hope this clears things up. Do let me know if you need any more clarification.

The only reason I'm not actually ignoring you now is for the sport, by the way.
post #57 of 440
Yup, IPCC Working Group I (the science group) has stated "unequivocally" that anthropogenic "drivers" are the major (greater than 50%) contribution to recent GW with a probability greater than 90%!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #58 of 440
i am not from the "blame america first" group

i am not from the "blame capitalism first " group

it's a new way for government to "protect us from us" because we are too stupid to take care of ourselves

it's another opportunity for govt to raise taxes

govt is NOT my father, govt is about creating more Dependency e.g new orleans after katrina

in the middle ages they blamed the growth of the glaciers that would swallow a city on the "devil", or bad "humors" and they had scientific consensus.....makes sense to me, the beauty of science is that it is self correcting, except their is a huge machine paying for this pseudo consensus, if you buck the system your money gets turned off and your papers not published....that is a truth that most dont realize, this is a machine, but i have faith that science will correct this just like the zero population joke, starvation disaster joke and most pseudoscience jokes out there

we are being manipulated by the created "chaos", maybe we really need agent smart to come back.
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #59 of 440
Hey look. There are no losers here. We have the information. We (the World) can do something. The only losers are the ones who can't consider the consequences.

If we don't do something then the children of the future have no future.
post #60 of 440
There is hysteria here. But not by the ones who want to do something about GW.
post #61 of 440
Christo-fascist Falwell calls GW nonsense. Sciento-fascist Bill Nye, The Science Guy, calls it measurable. Take your pick. What's next for important breaking news?: Fascist terrorist iceberg sinks Queen Mary?
post #62 of 440
That's awesome

In breaking news, seven die in terror attack staged by polar bear extremists. The bears infilitrated the coastline, apparently floating on ice bergs, and began their suicidal rampage
post #63 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Yup, IPCC Working Group I (the science group) has stated "unequivocally" that anthropogenic "drivers" are the major (greater than 50%) contribution to recent GW with a probability greater than 90%!

Actually we are all on the losing team if this report results in legislative action (as it probably will) that hobbles our economy.

I don't worry about being on the losing side; eventually (usually a generation or two) reality sets in and people question the lunacy of a prior generation. And sometimes when you think you are losing, you just have to wait; e.g., communism's eventual and sudden collapse.

Besides, DDT is back!
post #64 of 440
Max... are you denying that global warming exists, period,, or are you acknowledging that (GW) is real but skeptical that modern industrial activity is the (principle) cause? You haven't been clear on that.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #65 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Actually we are all on the losing team if this report results in legislative action (as it probably will) that hobbles our economy.

I don't worry about being on the losing side; eventually (usually a generation or two) reality sets in and people question the lunacy of a prior generation. And sometimes when you think you are losing, you just have to wait; e.g., communism's eventual and sudden collapse.

Besides, DDT is back!

Whatever. How about diverting that oil stock you own into investing companies that are researching and creating alternative energy solutions?

Look, eventually you may come around. After a while anyone is bound to get tired of something and move on...



"I'm done with girls on rocks! I've painted them for thirteen years and I could paint them and sell them for thirteen more. That's the peril of the commercial art game. It tempts a man to repeat himself. it's an awful thing to get to be a rubber stamp. I'm quitting my rut now while I'm still able...."



"How do ideas come? What a question! If they come of their own accord, they are apt to arrive at the most unexpected time and place. For the most part the place is out of doors, for up in this northern wilderness when nature puts on a show it is an inspiring one. There seem to be magic days once in a while, with some rare quality of light that hold a body spellbound: In sub-zero weather there will be a burst of unbelievable color when the mountain turns a deep purple, a thing it refuses to do in summer. Then comes the hard part: how to plan a picture so as to give to others what has happened to you. To render in paint an experience, to suggest the sense of light and color, air and space, there is no such thing as sitting down outside and trying to make a portrait of it. It lasts for only a minute, for one thing, and it isnt an inspiration that can be copied on the spot..." - Maxfield Parrish
post #66 of 440
Thread Starter 
Duplicate Deleted
post #67 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Max... are you denying that global warming exists, period,, or are you acknowledging that (GW) is real but skeptical that modern industrial activity is the (principle) cause? You haven't been clear on that.

I am not denying anything, other than that the paradigms that surround global warming do not make any definative statement possible.

Have we warmed the last 150 years; very likely (but not certainly) we have.

Has some of it been due to huaman activity; likely.

Has most of it been due to human activity; possibly yes/ possible no.

Has most of it been due to non-human actiivty; possibly yes/possibly no.

Are current models robust and reliable in predicting future temperatures; no.

Are current models and predictions about the effect of warming on climate reliable; no

Are current assessments of the benefits/costs of warming reliable; no.

Are current assessments about the proper course of action reliable; no.

Are current assessments about the costs and effectiveness reliable; no.

Is that clear?
post #68 of 440
Pity the fool who thinks we can wait to clean up later the mess we have before us today.

The economy will not exist if global warming is reality.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #69 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Pity the fool who thinks we can wait to clean up later the mess we have before us today.

The economy will not exist if global warming is reality.

Nonsense. Whatever the effects of a few degrees will be on global climate man will adapt, as it has for 10,000 years. Consider: the Sahara has been drier and wetter than today; Europe has been wermer and colder than today; the same that can be said of North America, Asia, Siberia, etc. All regions of the world have experienced dramatic climate shifts at various times in human history. So what?

Changes will continue. The little Ice Age is over, New York had a mild winter, GDP increased this winter because of mild weather...who knows.

And draconian cuts in CO2 is almost impossible so all the hoopla (such as Kyoto) is the useless burning of wealth to no effect.

And compounding it are con-artist scientists that will not release data and computational methods, and publish 'conclusions' before the main body of work is finished.

LOL...
post #70 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Nonsense. Whatever the effects of a few degrees will be on global climate man will adapt, as it has for 10,000 years. .

Umm no. In the past global temperatures changed, yes, but over long periods time. The time it took made it so species of plants and animals evolved to the changes. Changing the earths temperature drastically in a very much smaller time frame kills off animals and plants because it does not give them the time to evolve. It creates ecosystems and environments that have not had the time it takes to support each other.
post #71 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeState View Post

Umm no. In the past global temperatures changed, yes, but over long periods time. The time it took made it so species of plants and animals evolved to the changes. Changing the earths temperature drastically in a very much smaller time frame kills off animals and plants because it does not give them the time to evolve. It creates ecosystems and environments that have not had the time it takes to support each other.

I love how the Hysterians make absolute claims like this and feel no compelling need to point to any actual data on the subject.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #72 of 440
Here's what I propose.

Global warming does not exist. Just a big big fantasy.

So let's do absolutely nothing about it.

Will that make everyone happy. Because goddammit I wouldn't want you to not fill that SUV up with petrol.

Don't choke on that ExxonMobile dividend check.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #73 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Here's what I propose.

Global warming does not exist. Just a big big fantasy.

So let's do absolutely nothing about it.

Will that make everyone happy. Because goddammit I wouldn't want you to not fill that SUV up with petrol.

Don't choke on that ExxonMobile dividend check.

A perfect example of the imaginary divide that you and your ilk try to set up to avoid having to justify your deeply flawed "solutions" to this issue.

Given that India and China are about to fire up enough coal plants to surpass all the pollution we've spewed in the last 150 years, the solutions proposed won't make a dent in real terms. Which is the major reason Kyoto is pretty much useless.

But hey, at least you get to take cheap shots at Big Oil.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #74 of 440
China and India are going to pollute more than us. So why bother conserving?

That's the point, right?
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #75 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

I love how the Hysterians make absolute claims like this and feel no compelling need to point to any actual data on the subject.

This is basic science, you want me to point to a book on how evolution works?
post #76 of 440
The last thing I want is to derail this into another AI Evolutionary argument. However, evolutionary changes are supposed to have taken place over several thousands of years.

Your post (the one I quoted) said that previous global temperature changes all occurred over a similar period of time, which is simply not true.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #77 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeState View Post

Umm no. In the past global temperatures changed, yes, but over long periods time. The time it took made it so species of plants and animals evolved to the changes. Changing the earths temperature drastically in a very much smaller time frame kills off animals and plants because it does not give them the time to evolve. It creates ecosystems and environments that have not had the time it takes to support each other.

Changes in temperature over the last 12000 years have often been sharp and sudden. Most recently the Medieval Warming Period appeared in less than a century, and ended just about as suddenly when it plunged into Little Ice Age. Whether or not the rate of change was comparable to recent times is debatable - but is also quite irrelevant. Over the short time frames in question, evolution was not a factor.

During the MWPeriod, the movement of the cold Continental climate northward contributed to the spread of Mediterranean crops, flora, and fauna. It created wine producing regions in England, raised tree lines in Finland at least a 100 metres higher than today, forced the retreat of glaciers in Greenland further back than today, etc. But we (and the little critters) survived quite nicely.

And if the world has milder temperatures and less temperature differential from the equator to the poles, you will see similar changes - perhaps for the better.
post #78 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

China and India are going to pollute more than us. So why bother conserving?

That's the point, right?

No, China and India (and other emerging nations) are going to make any effort of ours pointless to the eventual level of greenhouse gases. The Kyoto protocols have already been breached by most nations, including the 'moralist' Europeans. Yet, if they had been followed the total mitigation of temperature would have been, in 100 years, .014 degrees.

The loons don't get it, its coming - get used to it and stop proposing to burn piles of money in futile attempts to stop it.
post #79 of 440
Some people here need to review their high school biology, history and economics texts.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #80 of 440
Thread Starter 
The recent IPCC summery (today's SPM release) http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG...ryApproved.pdf has been promoted as just more sensationalist hooey from the science illiterate press, giving a forum to global warming idealogues confusing their scientific training with a talent to devine and pontificate on the human conditiion.

The interested reader (if not numbed the continual fear mongering) are fed a dubious set of claims from the press - unscientific and unverifiable. Left out of the fawning press reports is the real story - POSTMODERN SCIENCE. In prior years science was crippled by the need to first evaluate and settle on the data THEN write the conclusions and recommendations in a summery. Today the UN has done us a favor, reversing the process - the SUMMARY conclusions have been written with government representatives dictating the process AND the report that supports the claims will be further cooked and 'fixed' till May 7th, when it is hoped that it will comply with a priori findings.

So, what should we make of a 21 page summery of a report not yet completed and massaged? Well, let's pretend there will be a manipulated backup to its claims:

This report is more emphatic about mostly human caused warming, although the balance of the research since the 2001 TAR (Third Annual Report) is still divided on the ratio of solar and human caused forcing. Although solar physists continue to generate solar studies indicating it is a major (but not exclusive factor) it looks like the climate boys decided its time to stop arguing and just ignore them.

What has been lost in the propoganda though has been the REDUCTION of claims from the third report.


Chris Monkington has a nice summary:
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070201_monckton.pdf

Quote:
FIGURES in the final draft of the UN’s fourth five-year report on climate change show that the previous report, in 2001, had overestimated the human influence on the climate since the Industrial Revolution by at least one-third.

Also, the UN, in its 2007 report, has more than halved its high-end best estimate of the rise in sea level by 2100 from 3 feet to just 17 inches. It suggests that the rate of sea-level rise is up from
2mm/yr to 3mm/year – no more than one foot in a century.

UN scientists faced several problems their computer models had not predicted. Globally, temperature is not rising at all, and sea level is not rising anything like as fast as had been forecast. Concentrations of methane in the air are actually falling. ...

The draft of the science chapters, now being circulated to governments for last-minute comments, reveals that the tendency of computers to over-predict rises in temperature and sea level has forced a major rethink.

The report’s generally more cautiously-expressed projections confirm scientists’ warnings that the UN’s heavy reliance on computer models had exaggerated the temperature effect of greenhouse-gas emissions.
Previous reports in 1990, 1995 and 2001 had been progressively more alarmist.

In the final draft of the new report there is a change in tone. Though carbon dioxide in the air is increasing, global temperature is not.

Figures from the US National Climate Data Center show 2006 as about 0.03 degrees Celsius warmer worldwide than 2001. Since that is within the range of measurement error, global temperature has not risen in a statistically significant sense since the UN’s last report in 2001.

Sources at the center of the drafting say that, though the now-traditional efforts are being made to sound alarmist and scientific at the same time, key projections are being quietly cut.

One says: “Stern is dead. The figures in the final draft of the UN’s Fourth Assessment Report makes the recent report of your Treasury’s chief economist on the cost of climate change look like childish panic.


It seems that a cadre of climate hyterics is the group are getting stressed by the better news, and sounding far more alarmist than ever:

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/clim...techange_x.htm
Quote:
"We can adapt our way through this," said Jonathan Overpeck, a University of Arizona climate scientist who helped draft the summary and coordinated a chapter in the report. "What the IPCC is endeavoring to do is show everybody what's going to happen if we just let it go unabated, if we pull back some, or if we really try to cut emissions. It's just like turning the dial up. We control this climate system, that's clear. We can turn the dial down or keep it up." (PANT... PANT...)

Gerald Meehl, a senior scientist at the Colorado-based National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and lead author of the report's chapter on projections of future climate change, added: "The longer you wait, the worse the problem gets. The longer you wait, the longer it takes (to fix)."

The panel's bleak summary, released Friday in Paris, lays out the how, what and why of global warming, but not remedies to the problem.

(And leave it to the french): "We are on the historic threshold of the irreversible," warned French President Jacques Chirac, who called for an economic and political "revolution" to save the planet.

Two realities - one is the report, the other is the cadre of alarmists and the press...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Global Warming Hysteria Building