Cheap Shots at Global Warming

[Peter Hansen]

On one blog a theoretical physicist GC espouses his view on the "Al Gore" Global Warming Hysteria......I never bought into it either , nor did I see his movie. Perhaps I do march to the beat of a different drummer. All should be in balance ,and that includes protection for the enviroment, and drilling for oil aywhere on the globe. Here is the blog.
"Thanks for the interesting insight into Buffet and Munger. One thing that aggravates me though in all of these newsletters is that smart people keep pushing this complete nonsense called man made global warming and climate change.

"I am a PhD in Theoretical Physics. I retired at 52 having successfully run my own company for 20 years. I understand what goes into those ridiculously foolish equations propagated by that idiot Al Gore and his flunky scientists who like the money and the free trips if they even mention global warming.

"Your audience needs to realize this man made climate change is complete nonsense. There is NO scientist that has ever existed or will exist (!!) that can model the Earth's atmosphere and predict the weather one week out. CO2 is not a poison. Only ignorant fools can believe that.

"Maybe because our economy has been so foolishly handled by our political leaders that people are desperate for "religion" because it certainly is NOT science.

"So...my point... I worry when I see guys like Munger and Buffet actually believe in this complete idiocy. And they talk about "climate change" leadership... well OK if it read environmental leadership, that would be better BUT even the environmental religion has now gone overboard.

"We should be drilling for oil and mining natural resources everywhere we can..... I have no problem with being careful of the environment, I have to live here too...... but there needs to be BALANCE.

"Where is the balanced leadership in today's complex world particularly with these bogus issues being pushed by lobbies." – GC

[jhiggins24]

idiot Al Gore and his flunky scientists

sounds like a pretty objective guy!

[Karel]

Hmm, for criticism it is rather content-free. And why a theoretical physicist would be qualified to talk about climate change is not clear. (Apart from the fact that theoretical physicists feel themselves qualified to hold forth about everything and its dog, or so I have heard.) Climatologists do have models; if "GC" has problems with those, let him explain the problems. Most likely he doesn't even understand them. The fact that the weather prediction for his birthday party picnic was wrong doesn't count as proof against CLIMATE models.

Oh, and if I have to choose between Warren Buffet and "GC", I feel inclined to prefer WB, especially on things that might have an economical impact.

I found the text you quote on http://www.howestreet.com/articles/i...rticle_id=6513. Another interesting thing on that page is the piece right above it, an offer for "The Ultimate Bear Market Strategy" (click through and and go to the sign on page! It's just $995/year!). That doesn't inspire confidence.

Regards,

Karel

[Peter Hansen]

Karel Thanx For reference Posting

Hmm, for criticism it is rather content-free. And why a theoretical physicist would be qualified to talk about climate change is not clear. (Apart from the fact that theoretical physicists feel themselves qualified to hold forth about everything and its dog, or so I have heard.) Climatologists do have models; if "GC" has problems with those, let him explain the problems. Most likely he doesn't even understand them. The fact that the weather prediction for his birthday party picnic was wrong doesn't count as proof against CLIMATE models.

Oh, and if I have to choose between Warren Buffet and "GC", I feel inclined to prefer WB, especially on things that might have an economical impact.

I found the text you quote on http://www.howestreet.com/articles/i...rticle_id=6513. Another interesting thing on that page is the piece right above it, an offer for "The Ultimate Bear Market Strategy" (click through and and go to the sign on page! It's just $995/year!). That doesn't inspire confidence.

Regards,

Karel

Karel Thanx for the reference posting.......I am of the opinion that one should not become fanatical about anything ....except of course....about picking good stocks and making money LOL !

[mimo_100]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=64734

HEAT OF THE MOMENT
31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda
'Mr. Gore's movie has claims no informed expert endorses'

Posted: May 19, 2008
8:51 pm Eastern



By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily


More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science , environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.

[Karel]

Regarding the 31,000 scientists, this has come up already in Pete's own thread. There I referred to:

http://www.desmogblog.com/flawed-oregon-petition-rises-again

Perhaps a better source on the petiton is Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_petition

And the petition is found here, in case someone wants to view (or even sign!) it:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

While it is good to know how many people are buying or not buying the global warming hypothesis, arguments would be even better. Science is, after all, not conducted by petitions. And it is good to realize that the experts on global warming genarally don't go for hysterical quotes like "catastrophic warming" (per the Oregeon petition) but express themselves more soberly: "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises". (A quote from a blog from the Wikipedia page).

That blog also makes an interesting read.

And what baffles me about petitions like these is that people seem to be quite ready to accept the authority of unspecified scientists ("dozens of specialties") and reject that of the experts: climatologists overwhelmingly support the global warming hypothesis.

Regards,

Karel

[Odysseus]

I usually don't like to pipe in on global warming, as I get beaten to death by the subject. I graduated with BS in Atmospheric Science, so you can probably understand why I don't

But, climatology was one of my better studies. Truth is, yes, there is global warming. Check out Alaska and Canada, for the first time ever have they been seeing their ground thaw, causing the telephone poles to move and roads to buckle. Lakes that usually freeze over for long periods of time, allowing truckers to use them as earth made roads, are thawing earlier each year, and freezing much later.

Is it man made? Well, statistically it looks to be if you graph the average temperature year by year against human industrialization. Is it greenhouse gases? That be our best guess. Yep, it's a guess. We can't model the whole earth like they say, but we try to. And ice samples from Antarctica shows us a snapshot of the gases that were in the air thousands upon thousands of years ago (link below) Too many variables to be perfect, so many politicians say that if we have to guess, then they cannot base policy off a guess. They want hard earned proof.

All I can say is gravity is still a theory, but it's a damn good one

I tried finding some links that showed the ground thaws and such to no avail. My professor had some great articles on it, from the mid-90's. Google'ing I found the Ice Truckers on the history channel. And I found some research info from the last 2 European AMS meetings from my schools website that shows some interesting trends

I'm not saying that global warming is man made here, but it is a running theory. But, is the earth getting warmer, yes. Does it really matter though? Not really. As long as we can all still live on earth, we're ok. But if it starts affecting our food supply negatively, we'll have to do something about it. And hopefully it won't be too late.

I do find it interesting though that I work at a weather company and I would say 75% agree that there is global warming, but only half of those 75% believe it is man made.

http://www.met.rdg.ac.uk/~brugge/AMS_meeting_european_weather.pdf

http://www.met.rdg.ac.uk/~brugge/AMS_meeting_european_weather_2007.pdf

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/global-warming-manmade.php

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2006-05-29-alaska-globalwarming_x.htm

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/water.html

[Peter Hansen]

Nice analysis

I usually don't like to pipe in on global warming, as I get beaten to death by the subject. I graduated with BS in Atmospheric Science, so you can probably understand why I don't

But, climatology was one of my better studies. Truth is, yes, there is global warming. Check out Alaska and Canada, for the first time ever have they been seeing their ground thaw, causing the telephone poles to move and roads to buckle. Lakes that usually freeze over for long periods of time, allowing truckers to use them as earth made roads, are thawing earlier each year, and freezing much later.

Is it man made? Well, statistically it looks to be if you graph the average temperature year by year against human industrialization. Is it greenhouse gases? That be our best guess. Yep, it's a guess. We can't model the whole earth like they say, but we try to. And ice samples from Antarctica shows us a snapshot of the gases that were in the air thousands upon thousands of years ago (link below) Too many variables to be perfect, so many politicians say that if we have to guess, then they cannot base policy off a guess. They want hard earned proof.

All I can say is gravity is still a theory, but it's a damn good one

I tried finding some links that showed the ground thaws and such to no avail. My professor had some great articles on it, from the mid-90's. Google'ing I found the Ice Truckers on the history channel. And I found some research info from the last 2 European AMS meetings from my schools website that shows some interesting trends

I'm not saying that global warming is man made here, but it is a running theory. But, is the earth getting warmer, yes. Does it really matter though? Not really. As long as we can all still live on earth, we're ok. But if it starts affecting our food supply negatively, we'll have to do something about it. And hopefully it won't be too late.

I do find it interesting though that I work at a weather company and I would say 75% agree that there is global warming, but only half of those 75% believe it is man made.

http://www.met.rdg.ac.uk/~brugge/AMS_meeting_european_weather.pdf

http://www.met.rdg.ac.uk/~brugge/AMS_meeting_european_weather_2007.pdf

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/global-warming-manmade.php

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2006-05-29-alaska-globalwarming_x.htm

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/water.html

Yes there is global warming .....but is it man made? ...I seriously doubt that, and I believe that it is merely part of a cyclical climatic change that has been going on for millions of years and will continue for millions of years into the future . Supposedly the violent hurricane activity we are experiencing now may be indicative of an ice age to come.
The sun has a finite life of about 10 billion years, and we about halfway through that life. Approximately 5 billion years from now the sun will expand and then eventually collapse into a dwarf star ending life on earth as we know it.....why worry? ......enjoy life .....eat drink ....find a nice woman and be merry LOL!

[Karel]

Thanks Odysseus. I really liked the part about politicians who are unwilling to base policy on a guess. Selective unwillingness, probably

Regards,

Karel

[Websman]

WEYRICH: Fabricated frenzy


Sunday, July 13, 2008



COMMENTARY:
When I was the political reporter and weekend anchor at WISN TV, the CBS affiliate in Milwaukee, John Coleman was our weatherman. He was a strong conservative and was known for his sense of humor. One time it had rained for 30 days straight. Mr. Coleman said if it rained on the 31st day he would produce the weather forecast standing on his head. It rained. He did it.
Another time the camera opened on a wide shot of a blindfolded John Coleman throwing darts at a dartboard labeled "Hot," "Cold," "Snow," "Rain," "Sunny," "Cloudy," "Fog," "Drizzle" and so on. He had had a string of days when his forecasts had been erroneous. John said "Well, this probably is as good as my forecasts these days."
Mr. Coleman went on to be the weatherman on "Good Morning America" for seven years. He began the weather channel with his life savings. He subsequently has forecast the weather in New York and Chicago. Today he says his retirement job is weatherman for KUSI in San Diego.
In a remarkable speech before the San Diego Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Coleman was very serious about global warming as the consummate fraud.
He began by saying we should give credit where credit is due. There is, he said, an intrinsic connection between Al Gore's campaign for global warming and $4 per gallon gasoline. "It comes down to ... the claim that carbon dioxide in the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks of our power plants is destroying the climate of planet Earth. What an amazing fraud; what a scam."
He then recited Mr. Gore's dire warnings. "The future of our civilization lies in the balance. That's the battle cry of the high priest of global warming, Al Gore and his agenda-driven disciples as they predict a calamitous outcome from anthropogenic global warming." He said Mr. Gore, with a preacher's zeal, sets out to strike terror into us and our children and make us feel we are all complicit in the potential demise of the planet.
"Here," said Mr. Coleman, "is my rebuttal. There is no significant man-made global warming. There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future." He went on to say that the Earth's climate is changing. It always has changed. But mankind's activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces.
Mr. Coleman explained that through history the Earth has shifted between two basic climate regimes: ice ages and what paleoclimatologists call "interglacial periods." He said for the last 10,000 years the Earth has been in an interglacial period. That might be called nature's global warming because what happens during an interglacial period is the Earth warms up. The glaciers melt and life flourishes.
"Clearly from our point of view, an interglacial period is greatly preferred to the deadly rigors of an ice age. ... Mr. Gore and his crowd would have us believe that the activities of man have overwhelmed nature during this interglacial period and are producing an unprecedented out of control warming."
As with Sen. James M. (Jim) Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican, Mr. Coleman makes the case we may indeed be in a period of global cooling. He said the data are so overwhelming even the United Nations had to acknowledge it. So now the best thing proponents of global warming can do is to suggest global warming is taking a 10-year break on account of the absence of sun spots. "If this weren't so serious it would be laughable" Mr. Coleman quipped.
He then discussed the science behind global warming. He has dug through thousands of pages of material and examined complicated math and looked at complex theories. "The bottom line is this: The entire global warming scientific case is based on the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels. They don't have any other issue, carbon dioxide, that's it."
At that point he says of Mr. Gore and the U.N.'s intergovernmental panel on Climate Change, "Your science is flawed; your hypothesis is wrong; your data is manipulated and may I add your scare tactics are deplorable. The Earth does not have a fever. Carbon dioxide does not cause significant global warming." From there, Mr. Coleman presents the scientific data to prove his case.
It is a remarkable speech (posted at www.kusi.com/ weather/colemanscorner/ 19842304.html). Thank God Coleman is in a position to tell the truth. He says younger weathermen are afraid to speak out lest they lose their jobs. Young scientists are similarly afraid of losing research grants.
He blames the media for wanting a crisis and thus reporting pro-global warming stories. But when 31,000 scientists refuted global warming a month ago the media hardly mentioned it. He said that compares to 2,000 pro-global warming scientists on the U.N. climate change panel who claim the issue is settled.
Mr. Coleman said when he and others made a presentation at a New York conference of climate change skeptics the audience was limited to 600 people. Every seat was taken. After his remarks were posted on the Internet, he received hundreds of e-mails and calls supporting his position. "No, I am not alone. And the debate is not over."
Mr. Colman concluded by saying, "If Al Gore and his warming scare dictate the future policy of our governments the current economic downturn could indeed become a recession. Drift into a depression and our modern civilization could fall into the abyss. And it would largely be a direct result of the global-warming frenzy. "My mission," Mr. Coleman ended, "in what is left of a long and exciting lifetime, is to stamp out this global-warming silliness and let us all get on with enjoying our lives and loving our planet, Earth."
Godspeed John Coleman.
Paul M. Weyrich is chairman and chief executive officer of the Free Congress Foundation.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/13/fabricated-frenzy/

[Karel]

What I find worrisome in comments like this is that they make the "Global Warming Scam" responsible for $4 gasoline, and, if we don't watch out, also for a recession. I suppose nobody can think of alternative, and more compelling reasons for these phenomena.

Another problematic aspect of this commentary is that it consists mostly of handwaving: "don't you prefer being in a interglacial to being in an Ice Age" (personally I do, but that is hardly the point), and:

He then discussed the science behind global warming. He has dug through thousands of pages of material and examined complicated math and looked at complex theories. "The bottom line is this: The entire global warming scientific case is based on the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels. They don't have any other issue, carbon dioxide, that's it."

That is not much of a discussion, now is it? It is also a bit misleading, in that the increase in carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use is only part of the problem.

Why do these things always have to be discussed in rant mode (the pro GW party not excluded)?

Regards,

Karel

[Websman]

Looks like we completely disagree on this issue Karel...But I still think you're a great guy!

[Karel]

Looks like we completely disagree on this issue Karel...But I still think you're a great guy!

No problem Webs, I love you too

But do you understand how Global Warming activism could be even remotely responsible for $4 gasoline? Mr. Coleman left that out, but as he was speaking to the San Diego Chamber of Commerce, it could not have been total nonsense, although I would have thought it to have rather the opposite effect. But perhaps I have my thinking cap on backwards.

Regards,

Karel

[Websman]

No problem Webs, I love you too

But do you understand how Global Warming activism could be even remotely responsible for $4 gasoline? Mr. Coleman left that out, but as he was speaking to the San Diego Chamber of Commerce, it could not have been total nonsense, although I would have thought it to have rather the opposite effect. But perhaps I have my thinking cap on backwards.

Regards,

Karel

I don't know Karel...I'm no genius. if I was, I'd solve the worlds problems. jejeje

[Peter Hansen]

Al Gore A "convient Lie" Lol

More information on "Al The Bore Gore" LOL ( From a Web Blog )

"Mr Gore’s environmental activism inspired the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth. But the TCPR branded him a “hypocrite” in February last year after discovering that his eight-bathroom house had consumed nearly 221,000 kilowatt hours of electricity in the previous year - more than 20 times the national average.

Mr Gore responded by saying he was giving the house an energy-efficient makeover, fitting solar panels, low-energy lightbulbs and a geothermal heating and cooling system. However, the TCPR has got hold of his bill again, this time comparing consumption between the 12 months before June last year, when it says he installed his new technology, and the year since then.

It says the figures show the Gore residence uses an average of 17,768kWh per month - 1638kWh more energy per month than before the renovations. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration"

Also about that "Convienient LIE "

Great article

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=178&Itemid=1