tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post3617605729972639166..comments2024-03-29T00:04:32.434-05:00Comments on Althouse: "I’m a religious fanatic just like you."Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger164125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-47422766298135547552007-12-12T11:00:00.000-06:002007-12-12T11:00:00.000-06:00It is interesting how more and more scientists are...It is interesting how more and more scientists are now uncovering major fraud in the data and models that have been used to justify the AGW crisis mongering.SGT Tedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00184808889760136366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-54328885680188309972007-12-12T07:35:00.000-06:002007-12-12T07:35:00.000-06:00"Everyone knows that dihydrogen monoxide vapors ac..."Everyone knows that dihydrogen monoxide vapors accounts for 95% of greenhouse gas."<BR/><BR/>Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!<BR/><BR/>"warming melts permafrost which, you guessed it, releases C02"<BR/><BR/>Of course, there's a Hell of a lot more water vapor generated by that melting (and H2O is a much more efficient greenhouse gas). Furthermore, go check out the general chemical equation for combustion of a hydrocarbon. Look to the right of the arrow. You'll of course notice CO2, but do you see what else is generated? Wonder how water vapor levels have varied over time...Crimsohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01618292072861640747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-49398254128710712892007-12-11T20:55:00.000-06:002007-12-11T20:55:00.000-06:00No he's not.He's a politician talking about the po...No he's not.<BR/><BR/>He's a politician talking about the politics involved in the IPCC which apparently he was ON. Which suggests that the IPCC isn't necessarily scientists either.<BR/><BR/>You asked me where I got the idea that sea level predictions had been revised downward. Pointing out that this guy isn't a scientist doesn't address his claim.<BR/><BR/>He didn't actually dispute the science either. He said that the IPCC changed the numbers in the report and then changed them back when called on it.<BR/><BR/>I haven't yet heard a reason that I should disregard incidents like this or the many unsubstantiated or false "facts" are in Gore's movie or scientists who claim the sun is the greatest factor that amount to anything other than "shut up and listen to your betters."<BR/><BR/>So this guy isn't a scientist. Does it matter? If he was a scientist there'd be some other reason not to listen to him. There always is.Synovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01311191981918160095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-31353066535970288612007-12-11T18:22:00.000-06:002007-12-11T18:22:00.000-06:00synova, needless to say, Christopher Monckton is n...synova, needless to say, Christopher Monckton is not a scientist.The Exaltedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18030346881185443267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-76048697876147235762007-12-11T17:54:00.000-06:002007-12-11T17:54:00.000-06:00Because the main premise behind global warming isn...<I>Because the main premise behind global warming isn't a simple fact: "The world will get warmer and this will have a variety of consequences." It's really, "Man is bad and whatever impact he has on the earth is negative. He can't control it or even understand it, except to know that he is doomed."<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>uh, no. maybe your 19 year old college freshman says that. not the scientific community.The Exaltedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18030346881185443267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-58840184666628892542007-12-11T17:23:00.000-06:002007-12-11T17:23:00.000-06:00Given the scientific facts about human deaths due ...Given the scientific facts about human deaths due to dihydrogen monoxide the vast majority, a veritable consensus, of those polled agreed that government should ban the substance.Synovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01311191981918160095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-57407244194924705852007-12-11T16:40:00.000-06:002007-12-11T16:40:00.000-06:00The idea that manmade CO2, which accounts for 0.11...The idea that manmade CO2, which accounts for 0.117% of all greenhouse effect gas, is tipping the climate to a dangerous level and we must quit driving SUVs or alter anyones lifestyle, is stupid on its face. Anyone who beleives such twaddle is ripe for other scams, such as purchasing "carbon credits".<BR/><BR/>Everyone knows that dihydrogen monoxide vapors accounts for 95% of greenhouse gas. We need to worry about that first, then move on to CO2.SGT Tedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00184808889760136366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-6070278615629459152007-12-11T14:33:00.000-06:002007-12-11T14:33:00.000-06:00I said CO2 likely buffered the return trip into ic...I said CO2 likely buffered the return trip into ice age, slowing that down.Synovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01311191981918160095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-60230025265616636682007-12-11T14:31:00.000-06:002007-12-11T14:31:00.000-06:00"The shore-dwellers of Bali need not fear for thei..."The shore-dwellers of Bali need not fear for their homes. The IPCC now says the combined contribution of the two great ice-sheets to sea-level rise will be less than seven centimeters after 100 years, not seven meters imminently, and that the Greenland ice sheet (which thickened by 50 cm between 1995 and 2005) might only melt after several millennia, probably by natural causes, just as it last did 850,000 years ago. Gore, mendaciously assisted by the IPCC bureaucracy, had exaggerated a hundredfold."<BR/><BR/>http://www.thejakartapost.com/yesterdaydetail.asp?fileid=20071205.!15<BR/><BR/>Not conclusive, but are we really not down from 20 feet and drowning cities to a few centimeters over centuries? <BR/><BR/>And saying "that's not what the science ever said" merely illustrates that the alarmists who've been trying to alarm us don't care all that much about the science.Synovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01311191981918160095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-68872600263805855642007-12-11T13:58:00.000-06:002007-12-11T13:58:00.000-06:00OK, say we're going to lose Miami (and say we conc...OK, say we're going to lose Miami (and say we concede that this is somehow a bad thing), what do we gain?<BR/><BR/>Part of the problem with the hysteria--and part of the reason why it's being labeled as such--is that it's one-sided. This goes along with the idea that it's okay that Gore "fudged" things in his "documentary" because it pushes people the right direction. (Both ideas are probably false: It's not okay, and it probably results in a net loss of believers.)<BR/><BR/>If the climate warms, we will gain some ground as surely as we will lose other. <BR/><BR/>The response I've heard to this is that global warming could lead to the next ice age. (The poor premise used in the execrable <I>The Day After Tomorrow</I>.) Hey, self-solving problem: That happens and we just increase our carbon output like crazy, right?<BR/><BR/>No, of course not. Because the main premise behind global warming isn't a simple fact: "The world will get warmer and this will have a variety of consequences." It's really, "Man is bad and whatever impact he has on the earth is negative. He can't control it or even understand it, except to know that he is doomed."<BR/><BR/>A scientist recently suggested a <A HREF="http://www.thehardlook.com/" REL="nofollow">simple, cheap solution for fixing global warming</A>, but you don't hear much about it.<BR/><BR/>Why? Because the fundamental premise of environmentalism as a religion is: STOP!blakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05430444326700437630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-14725879272655381472007-12-11T10:55:00.000-06:002007-12-11T10:55:00.000-06:00synova,your last post is...unsound, in every respe...synova,<BR/><BR/>your last post is...unsound, in every respect. <BR/><BR/>the sea changes are not being revised downwards, i don't know where you got that idea. <BR/><BR/>C02 does not act like a "pillow," nor does it "slow" the process down. it <I>amplifies</I> the process. <BR/><BR/>again, yes the temperatures were wildly different in the past, and no, modern civilization as we know it did not exist then. you want to sacrifice miami, fine. just be clear with it. and losing miami is the tip of the iceberg, as they say.The Exaltedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18030346881185443267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-43294824599500992712007-12-11T10:50:00.000-06:002007-12-11T10:50:00.000-06:00surely, nobody is that stupidfen, i stand correcte...<I>surely, nobody is that stupid</I><BR/><BR/>fen, i stand corrected.The Exaltedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18030346881185443267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-87172055696106400732007-12-11T09:06:00.000-06:002007-12-11T09:06:00.000-06:00hey synova thanks for mentioning cockroachesyes it...hey synova thanks for mentioning cockroaches<BR/><BR/>yes it's true we'll be here no matter what<BR/><BR/>i'm a great fan of the apocalypse<BR/>just think--radiation and warm humid weather<BR/>not to mention all that leftover organic matter<BR/>to feast on yum<BR/>radiation doesn't bother me and i love warm and humid<BR/>just as long as there isn't a nuclear winter<BR/>that would be bad brrrr<BR/><BR/>do you think global warming would counter<BR/>the effects of a nuclear winter...<BR/>we need some research now<BR/>'cause i want to know what to expect<BR/>and have the best possible experience<BR/>when the end comes<BR/>of course it will be your end and not mine<BR/>too badblogging cockroachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00899638590257384302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-8836425849767367542007-12-11T07:44:00.000-06:002007-12-11T07:44:00.000-06:00It just seems like you're more interested in being...<I>It just seems like you're more interested in being right than what's actually happening.</I><BR/><BR/>No. But I'll admit I'm caught up in a Fraud Cycle: global warming alarmists have lied about certain scientific facts to "motivate" us, scientists like Mann have distorted or ommitted data that skews their models, etc. So as a result, I'm much more skeptical now than I would be had the enviro's presented their case honestly.Fenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16734571593963330215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-49462611802635825452007-12-11T07:36:00.000-06:002007-12-11T07:36:00.000-06:00i really dont understand how any adult could use a...<I>i really dont understand how any adult could use al gore's behavior as evidence or counterevidence for global warming. surely, nobody is that stupid.</I><BR/><BR/>"I'll start believing that Global Warming is a serious problem when its advocates start behaving like it is". <BR/><BR/>Hint: massive carbon footprints from those who insist we cut back undermines the movement's credibility.Fenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16734571593963330215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-2497810958874330752007-12-11T00:15:00.000-06:002007-12-11T00:15:00.000-06:00CO2 seems to act as a buffer making the temperatur...CO2 seems to act as a buffer making the temperature swings slower. Stuff warms up, increasing CO2 and then CO2 may keep things warm longer. Like a pillow. If so, then CO2 is good, we get warmer but we don't crash into an ice age afterward. <BR/><BR/>The greenhouse effect ought also to warm the atmosphere because radiation is reflected from the surface of the Earth and gets caught. Greater warming ought to be happening higher up than is happening at the surface of the planet but it doesn't seem to be. So something is wrong. Perhaps the premise that the warming in the atmosphere should happen at all is wrong? Perhaps the atmosphere is warming as predicted and the claims I see otherwise are lying? In which case point me at a link.<BR/><BR/>I'm not interested in preserving Miami Beach property. Having to move is not threatening to the species. There are some reports that the Sahara is shrinking. Now wouldn't that be a good thing? For the climate change losers there are climate change winners, geographically speaking. What if we loose some ag productivity in Kansas but get to farm Greenland again?<BR/><BR/>Humans are what we are because we adapt better than any creature on the earth other than a cockroach. Why should we assume that human life is at risk?<BR/><BR/>At worst it's a hypothetical risk, which frankly, keeps getting adjusted downward. We're now at an estimated couple centimeters sea level rise instead of 20 feet or whatever it was before when the IPPwhatsit either inserted a typo it was too uninformed to catch, or outright lied to motivate us. Miami Beach is probably fine. I have no animosity toward Miami Beach either.<BR/><BR/>Now maybe I'm pragmatic about adapting to global climate change because it's inevitable. The Earth *will* get warmer. The Earth *will* get colder. Humans will most certainly have to face another ice age eventually and not a everloving thing we could do about it... or *should* do about it, likely enough. <BR/><BR/>None of that makes any difference about the need to develop efficient and clean alternatives to fossil fuels. <BR/><BR/>So why can't we just go with that?Synovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01311191981918160095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-57798283354419465672007-12-10T20:50:00.000-06:002007-12-10T20:50:00.000-06:00Synova said... Firstly there's the outright inaccu...<I>Synova said... <BR/><BR/>Firstly there's the outright inaccuracies. Does CO2 push warming or does warming push CO2. </I><BR/><BR/>its both -- i know, hard to understand! see, CO2 in the atmosphere causes this greenhouse effect which pushes warming. <I>but</I>, warming melts permafrost which, you guessed it, releases C02 (which then amplifies warming). <BR/><BR/>wow, hard concept!<BR/><BR/><I>Second, warming is something to be alarmed about. This is highly illogical as the Earth has been much warmer in the past as well as much colder.</I> <BR/><BR/>but did you have a condo on miami beach 2,000,000 years ago? <BR/><BR/>don't you get it? stopping global warming isn't some treehugging crusade to save the earth, the earth itself can withstand anything we can do to it except possibly a catastrophic thermonuclear exchange (and even that would be resolved given a few million years).<BR/><BR/>no, the drive to end global warming is a selfish movement to <I>save us</I>.The Exaltedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18030346881185443267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-28431233503408274692007-12-10T20:42:00.000-06:002007-12-10T20:42:00.000-06:00i really dont understand how any adult could use a...i really dont understand how any adult could use al gore's behavior as evidence or counterevidence for global warming. surely, nobody is that stupid.The Exaltedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18030346881185443267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-6530780144842656622007-12-10T20:29:00.000-06:002007-12-10T20:29:00.000-06:00"I've been meaning to run it myself but the guy wh..."I've been meaning to run it myself but the guy who wrote the sim wasn't sharing--another big red flag."<BR/><BR/>But, but, peer review and independent duplication of results is the bedrock of science itself, the bedrock I tell you! <BR/><BR/>Oh, wait. We're talking global warming. *whew* Had me worried there for a moment.Synovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01311191981918160095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-37031103836863519502007-12-10T20:08:00.000-06:002007-12-10T20:08:00.000-06:00So, why argue that climate-modeling software is in...<I>So, why argue that climate-modeling software is inaccurate? Even if it is, (and I get the strong impression you don't know anything about it, really) that is utterly irrelevant to your point.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't know if <I>he's</I> arguing that, but I am. I've built sims myself, and you can only put in what you know (or what you think you know).<BR/><BR/>To be accurate, it has to be able to predict the past and the future. The current models don't predict the past, and they put the future out beyond where they can be scrutinized. <BR/><BR/>This is easily recognized as a common pattern amongst doomsayers, whether they be predicting the second coming or "the population bomb"--or nuclear winter. I'm surprised that's sort of fallen down the memory hole, that Carl Sagan (whom I largely admired) fudged the nuclear winter sims.<BR/><BR/>I'll admit to being jaded: I've seen a lot of these sims over the years and not one has been right. And the current sim that started this hubbub was fudged to make the hockey stick.<BR/><BR/>I've been meaning to run it myself but the guy who wrote the sim wasn't sharing--another big red flag.blakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05430444326700437630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-40512086116539860392007-12-10T19:30:00.000-06:002007-12-10T19:30:00.000-06:00I really can't stay - Baby it's cold outside I've ...I really can't stay - Baby it's cold outside <BR/>I've got to go away - Baby it's cold outside <BR/>This evening has been - Been hoping that you'd drop in <BR/>So very nice - I'll hold your hands, they're just like ice <BR/>My mother will start to worry - Beautiful, what's your hurry <BR/>My father will be pacing the floor - Listen to the fireplace roar <BR/>So really I'd better scurry - Beautiful, please don't hurry <BR/>well Maybe just a half a drink more - Put some music on while I pour <BR/>(Dean Martin version, 1968)Trooper Yorkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01978703998566102194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-34743611124877858612007-12-10T18:13:00.000-06:002007-12-10T18:13:00.000-06:00ya know, we have warmed, if the warming fanatics h...ya know, we have warmed, if the warming fanatics have this fact right, 1 degree in 100 years.<BR/><BR/>Yet this one degree is enough to melt the icecap.<BR/><BR/>Oh, I forgot, that is teh average temperature.<BR/><BR/>So, since the icecap has risen teh required 30+ degrees, enough to melt, then where has it decreased 30+ degrees?<BR/><BR/>I also have to question even the 1 degree factoid.<BR/><BR/>we have no idea what the tempature was 20 years ago at any given point, much less 100. Too much has changed, including the accuracy of the measuring devices, if we had them in place.<BR/><BR/>Other spots we are taking evidence and computing temperatures based on assumptions of what the evidence means.<BR/><BR/>I'll wait to see what happens myself. There are too many variables and too much time for these things to happen (or not).An Edjamikated Redneckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09881476802902468670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-46174176861968377092007-12-10T17:49:00.000-06:002007-12-10T17:49:00.000-06:00mal said...There's simply no evidence for the exis...mal said...<BR/><I>There's simply no evidence for the existence of God.</I><BR/><BR/>A witness takes the stand, swears to tell the truth, and says "I saw it." How is that different from someone saying "I heard God's voice"?Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06279470660731928949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-67342029206896967202007-12-10T16:33:00.000-06:002007-12-10T16:33:00.000-06:00Speaking of "the sky is falling"... I wonder if th...Speaking of "the sky is falling"... I wonder if there is a correlation, not perfect I'm sure, between attitudes about global warming and those who can remember more versions of the same and those who don't. <BR/><BR/>I googled "CO2 in amber bubbles" because I didn't remember what we knew about the atmosphere millions of years ago and found that oxygen was over 30% instead of just above 20% and the explanation? The oceans were much warmer then.<BR/><BR/>Not that 30% oxygen is a *good* thing but why do we assume that a warmer Earth is bad?<BR/><BR/>We'll likely get one no matter what in any case.Synovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01311191981918160095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-20517774864991576732007-12-10T16:26:00.000-06:002007-12-10T16:26:00.000-06:00The environment is absolutely subject to damage. ...The environment is absolutely subject to damage. We could easily kill everything off including ourselves.<BR/><BR/>We probably ought not do that.<BR/><BR/>That's not at all the same thing as saying that the world is so fragile that the small excess CO2 levels produced by humans are going to wreck it.<BR/><BR/>And while it may not be helpful to posit some huge conspiracy to form a world government, the fact remains that if we were dealing with air quality and pollution locally there wouldn't be a party in Bali just now. <BR/><BR/>I think it was Instapundit linked to a former anti-nuke activist who has changed her tune and written a book about how we need nuclear power now to save the Earth.<BR/><BR/>That's good to see.<BR/><BR/>The energy bill that Congress is pushing on the other hand... well, maybe the Senate will have more sense?Synovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01311191981918160095noreply@blogger.com