Global Warming Skeptics

[5stringJeff]

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

Link (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12)

[medical 2933]

I personally think that if they cannot predict the weather correctly two days in advanced, what makes everyone think that they are going to be able to predict what the climate is going to be four years from now?

[Monkeybone]

you mean people started to actually do reseach instead of just stepping outside and going "yup..it seems warmer today than it did two years ago...global warming must have happened"

[medical 2933]

Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

[glockmail]

I personally think that if they cannot predict the weather correctly two days in advanced, what makes everyone think that they are going to be able to predict what the climate is going to be four years from now?
Its not a prediction. All they have to do is compare long-term geologic records with current data. When they do that what we see are fluctuations in earth's temperature occurred before man was around.

Contrast this with the Global Warmers, who look at thermometer readings from 50 or 100 years ago and compare them to today. That's too short a time span to glean any usefull information. Not to mention the urbanization around wether stations has caused temperatures to increase at those specific points, not exactly indicative of the earth as a whole.

However I'm one to err on the side of caution, and say that there is a chance that global warming is occurring and is due to man's use of fossil fuels. That's why I advocate nuclear power, wind farms on mountains and in Ted Kennedy's back yard, and ocean turbines. All these solutions are ignored or outright or defiled by the Global Warmers.

[medical 2933]

Skeptics believe that the climate models used to prove global warming and to predict its effects are misrepresented.

[Said1]

Skeptics believe that the climate models used to prove global warming and to predict its effects are misrepresented.

Yes. Most models show catastrophic outcomes.



The Science Isn't Settled: The Limitations of Global Climate Models
Publication Date: July 2004
Publication Format: Public Policy Sources

Author(s):
Tim Ball, Climatologist, Author & Environmental Consultant,


Dr. Kenneth Green, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute


Steven Schroeder, Postdoctoral Researcher, Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M



Executive Summary: Computerized models of the earth's climate are at the heart of the debate over how policy should respond to climate change. Global climate models (GCMs)--also called general circulation models -- attempt to predict future climatic conditions starting with a set of assumptions about how the climate works and guesses about what a future world might look like in terms of population, energy use, technological development, and so on.

Analysts have pointed out, however, that many of the assumptions used in modeling the climate are of dubious merit, with biases that tend to project catastrophic warming, and have argued that climate models have many limitations that make them unsuitable as the basis for developing public policy. This paper examines two major limitations that hinder the usefullness of climate models to those forming public policy.

Rest here, in PDF format: http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/ScienceIsntSettled.pdf

[Said1]

Its not a prediction. All they have to do is compare long-term geologic records with current data. When they do that what we see are fluctuations in earth's temperature occurred before man was around.

Contrast this with the Global Warmers, who look at thermometer readings from 50 or 100 years ago and compare them to today. That's too short a time span to glean any usefull information. Not to mention the urbanization around wether stations has caused temperatures to increase at those specific points, not exactly indicative of the earth as a whole.

However I'm one to err on the side of caution, and say that there is a chance that global warming is occurring and is due to man's use of fossil fuels. That's why I advocate nuclear power, wind farms on mountains and in Ted Kennedy's back yard, and ocean turbines. All these solutions are ignored or outright or defiled by the Global Warmers.


From what I've read, scientists can't agree on when the last mini ice age ended. Some claim the mid to late 1700's others calim the late 1800's to early 1900's. Either way, the industrial revolution and the use of fossil fuels seem to coincide with both dates.

[glockmail]

From what I've read, scientists can't agree on when the last mini ice age ended. Some claim the mid to late 1700's others calim the late 1800's to early 1900's. Either way, the industrial revolution and the use of fossil fuels seem to coincide with both dates. Then how do you explain the much more pronouced flucuations in temperatures as evidenced by the fossile record, going back 10,000 years or more?

[Said1]

Then how do you explain the much more pronouced flucuations in temperatures as evidenced by the fossile record, going back 10,000 years or more?

I was talking about theories pertaining to the end of the LAST mini ice age, not fluctuations from 10,000 yrs ago. Perhaps you can point to where I actually said 'the reason for fluctuations are blah, blah, blah' and I will be happy to explain what I was explaining. :laugh2:


How do you explain it?

[nevadamedic]

I personally think that if they cannot predict the weather correctly two days in advanced, what makes everyone think that they are going to be able to predict what the climate is going to be four years from now?

I think they use a dartboard to predict the weather, I mean they are always wrong. :laugh2:

[glockmail]

I was talking about theories pertaining to the end of the LAST mini ice age, not fluctuations from 10,000 yrs ago. Perhaps you can point to where I actually said 'the reason for fluctuations are blah, blah, blah' and I will be happy to explain what I was explaining. :laugh2:


How do you explain it?

I explain it as flucuations in sunspot activity, mainly. Major geologic events may have had a role. Species activity, including man, would have an extremely minor role.

But I'm willing to err on the side of caution and support aggressive use of nuclear power, wind farms in Ted Kennedy's front yard and ocean turbines.

[Said1]

I explain it as flucuations in sunspot activity, mainly. Major geologic events may have had a role. Species activity, including man, would have an extremely minor role.

But I'm willing to err on the side of caution and support aggressive use of nuclear power, wind farms in Ted Kennedy's front yard and ocean turbines.

I would agree with sun spot activity and other natural phenomena affecting normal weather patterns.

I would also say industrial outputs do have some impact, in particular, chemicals that are dumped into the ocean causing fluctuating temps - more so than normal. I would like to see some data with respect to dead zones , or better data showing increased dead zones in the ocean. That can indicate increased pollution, or simply warmer temps which can be normal....or not....or caused by both??/ That damn bouncing ball is tough to follow sometimes. :laugh2:

I think the worst one is in the Gulf of Mexico. But then dead zones can also be normal in warm, shallow areas like fijords (are there any warm fjiords??) and I guess the Gulf of Mexico.

[LOki]

Great fun!

<a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3028847519933351566"><b>The Great Global Warming Swindle.</b></a>

[glockmail]

I would agree with sun spot activity and other natural phenomena affecting normal weather patterns.

I would also say industrial outputs do have some impact, in particular, chemicals that are dumped into the ocean causing fluctuating temps - more so than normal. I would like to see some data with respect to dead zones , or better data showing increased dead zones in the ocean. That can indicate increased pollution, or simply warmer temps which can be normal....or not....or caused by both??/ That damn bouncing ball is tough to follow sometimes. :laugh2:

I think the worst one is in the Gulf of Mexico. But then dead zones can also be normal in warm, shallow areas like fijords (are there any warm fjiords??) and I guess the Gulf of Mexico.


No question pollution can have huge impacts on aquatic habitat. Here in the US we have it largely managed, but not in other countries. One more reason why I support aggressive switchover to nuclear power.

[Said1]

No question pollution can have huge impacts on aquatic habitat. Here in the US we have it largely managed, but not in other countries. One more reason why I support aggressive switchover to nuclear power.

I'm scared of anything with the word 'nuclear' in it. I'm a child of the 80's, not so much duck and cover, but we were still afraid of the Russians.


Should nuclear power plants be private or federally operated? As a nationalized industry up here,their not so efficient.

[nevadamedic]

I'm scared of anything with the word 'nuclear' in it. I'm a child of the 80's, not so much duck and cover, but we were still afraid of the Russians.


Should nuclear power plants be private or federally operated? As a nationalized industry up here,their not so efficient.

Nuclear Plants should be Federally Operated IMO. If they were private they would be to worried about making buck and saving money rather then making upgrades and repairs etc.

[glockmail]

I'm scared of anything with the word 'nuclear' in it. I'm a child of the 80's, not so much duck and cover, but we were still afraid of the Russians.


Should nuclear power plants be private or federally operated? As a nationalized industry up here,their not so efficient.

How many people have died in nuclear accidents in North America or Europe? Compare that to the deaths caused by oil. It is a very safe technolgy, and very clean. http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm

Heck no the government shouldn't be running the plants.

[glockmail]

Nuclear Plants should be Federally Operated IMO. If they were private they would be to worried about making buck and saving money rather then making upgrades and repairs etc. Bull. Can you say Chernobyl?

[nevadamedic]

Bull. Can you say Chernobyl?

Or Enron.

[Said1]

Nuclear Plants should be Federally Operated IMO. If they were private they would be to worried about making buck and saving money rather then making upgrades and repairs etc.

Government operated Nuclear Plants are not immune to mismanagement, cut backs etc. Gov run plants would also have no incentive to operate efficiently, they'll get paid no matter how good or bad they perform.

[Said1]

Or Enron.

I thought enron wasn't involved in nuclear power plants?

[nevadamedic]

Government operated Nuclear Plants are not immune to mismanagement, cut backs etc. Gov run plants would also have no incentive to operate efficiently, they'll get paid no matter how good or bad they perform.

I know, but I just think they would be run better then private, even if it is only a little better.

[Said1]

I know, but I just think they would be run better then private, even if it is only a little better.

How are yours performing?

I know ours were way over budget with respect to construction and at times only operating at low capacities due to shut downs for repairs in plants that were less than 20 yrs old.

[nevadamedic]

How are yours performing?

I know ours were way over budget with respect to construction and at times only operating at low capacities due to shut downs for repairs in plants that were less than 20 yrs old.

Honestly, I can't answer that question because I dont know. This isn't something I follow at all.

[Said1]

Honestly, I can't answer that question because I dont know. This isn't something I follow at all.

Shock of shocks, we do have a privately owned Nulear Plant, right under me own nose.

http://www.brucepower.com/pagecontent.aspx?navuid=1

[nevadamedic]

Shock of shocks, we do have a privately owned Nulear Plant, right under me own nose.

http://www.brucepower.com/pagecontent.aspx?navuid=1

Ok?

[Said1]

Ok?

Come on, think man. Thread derailed by discussion of who should and shouldn't operate nuclear facilties (by moi no less). Look at the link? Research?

[nevadamedic]

Come on, think man. Thread derailed by discussion of who should and shouldn't operate nuclear facilties (by moi no less). Look at the link? Research?

I am looking at it. I really think the Government would do better then a private company though.

[glockmail]

Government operated Nuclear Plants are not immune to mismanagement, cut backs etc. Gov run plants would also have no incentive to operate efficiently, they'll get paid no matter how good or bad they perform.
Bingo.

[glockmail]

I am looking at it. I really think the Government would do better then a private company though.On what basis? The government is responsible for some of the worst polluted sites in the US, and exempts itselfs from many rules and cleanups required of private companies.