Opinion, yes- but does have some facts. Read, then comment.
You know, back in the 1940's-70's, when industry was at its height and emissions checks were nonexistent, global temperatures actually DECLINED enough that these same alarmists were yammering about the start of a new ice age.
I've seen the computer models, and they're notoriously simplistic and unreliable. For one, they don't take into consideration certain obvious things like heat-shedding through storms, cloud cover, etc. For another, if you run them BACKWARDS from the 'hot' future, you don't get what we have now, which is a sure sign of flawed assumptions.
Because, as we all know, in science, every theory and formula can be reversed, and the opposite happens.
First, have you ever frozen toast? Notice it's complete inability to convert into bread?
Green house polutants does not just traveled all the way up there in just a day or something. The process actually takes a long, long time.
The "green house" polution we're talking now are actually caused by polutants emitted in the 60s and early 70s, which is definately not the peak of industrial or household air polution.
Just wait until the polutants from the 80s and early 90s starts to kick in, then tell me about non-sense such as "temperature gonna level out" or "temperature gonna drop".
It is stupid idiot like this guy that makes me laugh because he's a moron, and make me sad because he's writing articles and being published on internet.
[ June 13, 2001: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]
However, your statements about the 80's and 90's being the worst-polluted decades (at least in terms of the US) are unsupported by ANY evidence, and contradicted by the legislative and phisical evidence, not to mention that of our very eyes.
Perhaps you're just too young. I REMEMBER when they were talking about the 'new ice age' several years back.
They've been studying the weather in detail for a TINY fraction of human history. The extent to which things have been theorized here is similar to that of talking to a guy for five minutes while he's thirteen, and using that to extrapolate where he'll be and what he'll be doing when he's sixty.
In other words, BOLLOCKS.
This should put the environmentalist wacko agenda back a step. It's a summary w/ images of carbon monoxide levels over the past year. Measuring carbon monoxide is a good indicator of carbon dioxide produced from fossil fuel burning. Notice, in the two pictures, The US is near green at both times. However, the largest amounds of CO produced are above South America, Africa, and China.
US the largest polluter? I doubt it.
And if you also look closely, the biggest emitters of carbon monoxide are the world's oceans.
And if you look closely still, it appears that the City of Houston emits less carbon monoxide than most of the United States.
Just out of curiosity, does anybody ELSE here know how many European countries (you know, those guys who are bitching about the US not having done it) HAVE ratified the Kyoto Accord?
France? No.
Germany? No.
Spain? No.
UK? No.
Romania? Yep, that's the one. Ro-frickin' mania, industrial powerhouse. The one with the steel mills out of Dante's "Inferno."
All these people always deriding the US's 'imperialist interference'... but when it comes right down to it, they want us to 'lead' them into EVERYTHING.
Siggy- Download the movie... It'll show that most of the CO is produced in China, South America, and China, and it migrates out into the ocean.
Liam, CO doesn't oxize very quickly without the presence of a catalyst. CO can be burned, actually, to oxidize it further.
quote:
Kyoto treaty was created using very bad science. Most of the scientists attending have since said so-- But they served their purpose, we don't need to listen to them any more.
(--)Ridiculous assumption?
Check.
(--)Outrageous claim made with no support?
Check.
(--)Statement absolutely devoid of common sense?
Check.
(------)Mindless opinions you support only because the right wing does without any independent thought whatsover?
Check.
Congratulations, Jeff. You have successfully put together an Omegapost�.
[ June 16, 2001: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
You go girl!
Found this link at www.junkscience.com
http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-30-01.html
and there's this...
http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/BriefingMay30.htm
And from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change itself...
quote:
"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.""No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."
"Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."
As a result of such manipulation of information, many in the scientific community have concluded that the report was altered to support the conclusions obtained by the "Summary for Policymakers" solely for political purposes.
Assimilate THAT.
[ June 16, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]
And even assuming that global warming IS occuring, there's no reason to think that it isn't a natural process. Heck, if the average temperature remained exactly constant every year, I'd think more people would be convinced of an intelligent designer, wouldn't you? By your guesses at the method of planetary formation, the temperature SHOULD change. If it's a natural process, why should we bother about it?
If the temperature WAS rising (naturally), then we shouldn't do anything about it, even if we'd end up with an average temperature of 40 degrees C within a couple of decades?
"If it's a natural process, why should we bother about it?"
Implying that we should let all natural processes happen, and not do anything to fight them. I am saying that if you believed that the natural processes were bad, and might, say, actually kill you (personally), would you do anything about it?
Y'know, we really must put together a book of these things.
That should be referenced as -Omega on scientists who predict catastrophic global warming who also predicted catastrophic approaching Ice Age 20-30 years ago.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/06/010615071248.htm
Glaciers:
http://www.popsci.com/news/09182000_glacier.html
North Pole ice melting:
http://www.popsci.com/news/08212000_northpole.html
Be glad you don't live on an island (and if you do....):
http://www.popsci.com/news/11172000_island.html
And here is a map to back up my claims of many glaciers receding, and in the text is Mt. Kilamanjario:
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/features/bigmelt/hotspots.html
The Cato Institute is an ideologically-motived political pressure group. They, the good little right-wing libertarian neo-conservative think tank that they are, feel that the EPA is part of an evil porkbarrel scheme of big government to socially engineer the populace into doing things that hurt honest-to-goodness businesspeople. This is their conclusion. With this conclusion in mind, they go out and attempt to find scientific proof that agencies such as the EPA are full of shit, and will dig up as many disgruntled scientists as possible to back this up. Their logic inevitably forces them to make statements that are utterly sidesplittingly stupid (examples follow).
The good folks at http://www.creationism.org are also an ideological pressure group. They, the good little right-wing fundies that they are, feel that the teaching evolution in school is part of an evil atheist scheme of big government to socially engineer the populace into disavowing the word of God and turning our children into Satanist Darwin-lovers. This is their conclusion. With this conclusion in mind, they go out and attempt to find scientific proof that the scientific community is full of shit, and will dig up as many disgruntled scientists as possible to back this up. Their logic inevitably forces them to make statements that are utterly sidesplittingly stupid , many of which our resident greek letter has brought up and you have intelligently refuted. (Carbon dating being unproven, moon dust, dinosaurs living with humans...)
Ideology shouldn't influence science. www.junkscience.com is devoted to pointing out that media spin has indeed influenced science. Yes, there is a lot of junk science out there. A lot of the paranoia about GM foods has been whipped up by the media from "a few scientists are cautious and a few radical environmental groups are concerned" to "scientists are divided on the safety of so-called frankenfoods." But junkscience isn't practicing what it preaches. With the conclusion already in mind that the EPA is a politically-motivated agency of evil Stalinism, Cato/Junkscience seek out to undermine the overwhelming body of evidence on a lot of matters no differently than advocates of so-called "creation science" seek out to undermine the overwhelming body of evidence on evolution, because in their minds its a foregone conclusion that the Earth was created in six days six thousand years ago by the Christian God.
Cato/Junkscience think the government's attempts at regulating smoking in public establishments is simply an evil way of social engineering. They back this up by saying
quote:(source: http://www.junkscience.com/foxnews/fn030901.htm )
A credible link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer remains elusive despite more than 40 published studies.
Cato/Junkscience think the outcry over the clearcutting of the Amazon is radical environmentalist propaganda with no basis in fact, promoting this video.
Cato/Junkscience don't think DDT is harmful
quote:
But there never was, and still isn�t a scientific basis for DDT fearmongering.
Cato/Junkscience think PCB's don't cause cancer
quote:(source: http://www.junkscience.com/sep98/bergen.htm )
More than 20 studies, mostly conducted by the federal Environmental Protection Agency and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, have failed to conclude that PCBs cause cancer in humans.
Is there is overwhelming evidence for any of the above claims, then 99% of scientists are brainwashed fools, who seem to flaunt fact in the name of making life more difficult for everyone. I just find it a very strange coincidence that people who ideologically feel that government regulation is fundamentally bad are the only ones who seem to be able to find "X studies that show no evidence or Y being harmful and therefore unworthy of regulation."
Good science does not adhere to the T-shirt with the alien picture that says "I want to believe." People who want to believe that the Jewish people are evil and that Hitler got a bad rap cough up supposed evidence that the Holocaust didn't happen. They think themselves revisionists clearing away emotion from history and exposing the cold hard facts. They aren't. Junk history.
Cato want to believe that the government is lying to us and a society free from government regulation of both business and personal choices is supported by science. They think themselves Newtons and Copernicuses and Gallileos and Darwins saving humanity for the evil stupidity of Plato and Aristotle. They aren't. Junk science.
To quote Omega, "these guys have no credibility."
Try attacking the argument, not just a single source, and not in the tired, old 'they're right-wing demagougues!' way.
Libertarian is still better than authoritarian.
quote:
glaciers all over the world are receding.
This isn't even remotely true. Even if it were, this is an 'interglacial' period, and it would be proper to expect most glaciers to be receding, as they have for CENTURIES, if not millennia.
The biggest 'glacial indicator' recently had to do with a glacier in New Zealand, which recently shrunk dramatically. Cause for panic? It might be, except for what they DIDN'T tell you, which was that the main factor it was receding was because the GROUND was warming up, due to a local magma upwelling.