The Tucson Philosophy Group Message Board › Global warming
This one likely won't make sense either, particularly since it comes at yet another angle questioning the IPCCs conclusions. What's interesting about this "missive" is that it's the opinion of a FORMER scientist (MIT) with the IPCC. As he says " and fear was going to be a much greater motivator. And so that's when people began thinking about ... How to perpetuate fear that would motivate the support of science."
If you care to read the article below, you may or may not find it of interest ...
n December 2008 Al Gore predicted the ‘entire North Polar ice cap will be gone in five years’. That would be December last year. Oh, sure, it’s still here, but he got the general trend-line correct, didn’t he? Arctic sea ice, December 2008: 12.5 million square kilometres; Arctic sea ice, December 2013: 12.5 million square kilometres.
From mark Steyns article in the Spectator ...BTW, Michael Mann is suing Mark Steyn. Not because Steyn misquoted him, but because Steyn reported a truth that didn't sit well with Mann ... Apparently global warming/climate change believers endorse Freedom of Speech, if when they agree with it. If you don't read the article, you likely know but I did not, Global Warming went to climate change and now ... Drum roll pls .... It is climate collapse.i thought Harold Camping was pretty scary with his take on The Apocalypse. But truly nothing can frighten me more or bring urgency to the situation like climate COLLAPSE.
I will edit and get you Steyns article. http://www.spectator....
Edited by Pat on Jan 12, 2014 5:51 PM
Had to add this... Read it this morning, and it helps to show how twisted and irrational the Issue has become ... Does the UN sound rational to you?
A Surplus of Hot Air
JAN 27, 2014, VOL. 19, NO. 19 • BY THE SCRAPBOOK Send to Kindle Single PagePrintLarger TextSmaller TextAlerts
The political debate over what to do about global warming rages on, largely because liberals refuse to have an honest discussion about their plans to deal with it. The heart of their every proposed “solution” to climate change is a radical economic program that would threaten the livelihood and well-being of millions, based on computer models of dubious accuracy trying to project weather patterns decades into the future. Via Bloomberg News, last week we got an unsettling glimpse into just how extreme the economic plans of the climate commissars really are:
China, the top emitter of greenhouse gases, is also the country that’s “doing it right” when it comes to addressing global warming, the United Nations’ chief climate official said. . . . “They actually want to breathe air that they don’t have to look at,” she said. “They’re not doing this because they want to save the planet. They’re doing it because it’s in their national interest.”
China is also able to implement policies because its political system avoids some of the legislative hurdles seen in countries including the U.S., Figueres said.
In other words, if international bureaucrats could impose economic restrictions and reduce energy production by fiat, we’d be well on our way to healing the planet. Of course, the Communist party in China comprises only a small minority of the Chinese people, and the idea that they do anything because it’s in the “national interest” is laughable. China’s ruling party only cares about enriching themselves and holding on to power, which is why their exploitative and repressive economic program has resulted in environmental calamities on a colossal scale.
I just recd this by e, and naturally had to add it to my lengthy collection...
Date: Sun, Feb 9, 2014
Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus
of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne , professor of mining
geology at the University of Adelaide , and the director of multiple
mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130
scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology.
12 February 1946 (age 67)
Earth Science, Geology, Mining Engineering
University of New England,University of Newcastle,University of
Melbourne,University of Adelaide
University of New South Wales,Macquarie University
The pipe deposits of tungsten-molybdenum-bismuth in eastern Australia (1976)
Eureka Prize (1995, 2002),Centenary Medal (2003), Clarke Medal (2004)
Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better!
If you've read his book you will agree, this is a good summary.
PLIMER: "Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland
. Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS,
NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to
control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.
Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying
to suppress - it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant
requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans
and all animal life.
I know....it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon
emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the
inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric
grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids "The Green
Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green
cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a
brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat,
vacationing at home instead of abroad,
Nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50
cent light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs.....well, all of those things
you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.
The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days
- yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every
single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And
there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this
crud at any one time - EVERY DAY.
I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should
mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines
in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than
the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.
Yes, folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over
One year - think about it.
Of course, I shouldn't spoil this 'touchy-feely tree-hugging' moment
and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the
well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps
happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect
And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but
the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western
USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce
carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens
Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping
carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus 'human-caused'
climate-change scenario. Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t
mention 'Global Warming' Any more , but just 'Climate Change' - you
It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century
and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants
And, just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading
Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you that will achieve
absolutely nothing except make businesses that hire folks poorer.
It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure.
Love your government and the politicians there in, for they love and
care about you. It's not all about getting your tax dollars and
votes. Remember when we were young and it was said, Fool me once,
shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
Just a nice summary from Charles K ...
The myth of global warming's 'settled science'
Irepeat: I'm not a global warming believer. I'm not a global warming denier. I've long believed that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I also believe that those scientists who pretend to know exactly what this will cause in 20, 30 or 50 years are white-coated propagandists.
'The debate is settled,' asserted propagandist in chief Barack Obama in his latest State of the Union address. 'Climate change is a fact.' Really? There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge. Take a non-climate example. It was long assumed that mammograms help reduce breast cancer deaths. This fact was so settled that Obamacare requires every insurance plan to offer mammograms (for free, no less).
Now we learn from a massive randomized study - 90,000 women followed for 25 years - that mammograms may have no effect on breast cancer deaths. Indeed, one out of five of those diagnosed by mammogram receives unnecessary radiation, chemo or surgery.
So much for settledness. And climate is less well-understood than breast cancer. If climate science is settled, why do its predictions keep changing? And how is it that the great physicist Freeman Dyson, who did some climate research in the late 1970s, thinks today's climate-change Cassandras are hopelessly mistaken?
They deal with the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans, argues Dyson, ignoring the effect of biology, i.e., vegetation and topsoil. Further, their predictions rest on models they fall in love with: 'You sit in front of a computer screen for 10 years and you start to think of your model as being real.' Not surprisingly, these models have been 'consistently and spectacularly wrong' in their predictions, write atmospheric scientists Richard McNider and John Christy - and always in the same direction.
Settled? Even the U.K.'s national weather service concedes there's been no change in global temperature in 15 years. If even the raw data is recalcitrant, let alone the assumptions and underlying models, how settled is the science?
Last Friday, Obama ostentatiously visited drought-stricken California. Surprise! He blamed climate change. Here even The New York Times gagged, pointing out that far from being supported by the evidence, 'the most recent computer projections suggest that as the world warms, California should get wetter, not drier, in the winter.'
How inconvenient. But we've been here before. Hurricane Sandy was made the poster child for the alleged increased frequency and strength of 'extreme weather events' like hurricanes? Nonsense. Sandy wasn't even a hurricane when it hit the U.S. Indeed, 2013 saw the fewest Atlantic hurricanes in 30 years.
Similarly tornadoes. Every time one hits, the climate-change commentary begins. Yet last year saw the fewest in a quarter-century. And the last 30 years - of presumed global warming - has seen a 30 percent decrease in extreme-tornado activity.
None of this settles the issue. But that's the point. It mocks the very notion of settled science, which is nothing but a crude attempt to silence critics and delegitimize debate. As does the term 'denier' - an echo of Holocaust denial, contemptibly suggesting the malevolent rejection of an established historical truth.
Climate-change proponents have made their cause a matter of faith. For folks who pretend to be brave carriers of the scientific ethic, there's more than a tinge of religion in their jeremiads.
Except that today there's a new god, the Earth Mother. And a new set of sins - burning coal and driving a fully equipped F-150.
So if California burns, you send your high priest (in a carbon- belching Air Force One, but never mind) to the bone-dry land to offer up, on behalf of the repentant congregation, a $1 billion burnt offering called a 'climate resilience fund.'
Ah, settled science in action.
Email Charles Krauthammer at firstname.lastname@example.org