About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3


Post 60

Saturday, May 5, 2007 - 5:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
http://www.neatorama.com/images/2006-05/positive-proof-global-warming-underwear.jpg

Here it is, positive proof of global warmig:




Post 61

Saturday, May 5, 2007 - 1:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Noticed there is a new book out called - The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming... anyone read it yet? is it any good? [noticed too, the series also has a Politically Incorrect  Guide to Capitalism - another one to wonder over....]

Post 62

Sunday, May 6, 2007 - 11:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Prominent scientist says human caused global warming controversy "absurd."

Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education. Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology—now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences—in the 1970s he became the first director of what’s now the UW’s Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies. He’s a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor—created, the U.N. says, to recognize “outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment.” He has authored five books and more than 230 other publications and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world

http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html

“All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd,” Bryson continues. “Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.”

All six studies found atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tracking closely with temperatures, but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather than leading them. The time lag between temperatures moving up—or down—and carbon dioxide following ranged from a few hundred to a few thousand years.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 63

Sunday, May 6, 2007 - 3:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In post #32 Andrew Bowman wrote:
Considering we know a lot of the effects of pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, a lot of which I've already stated earlier, there are very few unknown variables, unless you can think of any? I'm quite sure I would've heard of them and people who made the documentary would be keen to highlight problems with methodology.
How can anyone give any credence at all to someone who would ask to be told about any unknown variables? Someone who claims that surely he would have heard of any unknown variables if there were any.

Does Andrew not know what unknown means?

Post 64

Sunday, May 6, 2007 - 6:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
No. ... eerrr  Yes
(Edited by Sam Erica on 5/06, 6:24pm)


Post 65

Sunday, May 6, 2007 - 6:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I read and enjoyed the Politically Incorrect Guide to Isl@m.

All's I know is that the world has been both warmer and colder in the recent past and over the long term many times, and at all timescales. Solar output is the greatest factor in world temperature, and entirely outside our control (outside the effectiveness of petitioning the Lord with prayer.) And how many people who "are worried about" global warming support the obvious solution, a massive nuclear power program?

Blah, blah, blah, friggin hippies!

Ted

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 66

Friday, May 18, 2007 - 8:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In post 26 Andrew Bowman wrote:
As for the solar radiation effect...people keep throwing around the nonsense claim. Basically the compelling bit of evidence against the solar variation theory is that the rate of warming increases even while solar activity decreases.
In post 56 I replied:
Human-induced CO2 can be dismissed as flippantly. The global average temperature decreased in the 1940's and 1970's while human-induced CO2 rose rapidly.
In post 58 Andrew Bowman replied:
That was to do with the "global cooling" effect caused by sulphur emissions, which we can now account for.
I made a quick and brief response in post 59, then thought of another response a day or so later, but didn't post it at the time. I decided to post it now, for the record. He has argued that (1) solar radiation is irrelevant, and (2) that the "global cooling" effect which occurred in the 1940's to 1970's was caused by sulphur emissions. But how could such sulphur emissions cause cooling?  By blocking or deflecting or reflecting the sun's radiation! How can solar radiation be both nonsense/irrelevant and very relevant?

 


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 67

Friday, May 18, 2007 - 8:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Merlin,

Time allowing (Within a week or so) I will answer your queries via private mail. I have zero desire to post here. The tone has been most unfriendly, my posts thus far have been largely ignored or deliberately misinterpreted, scientific method and genuine research given practically no value and then same, tired arguments being recycled for the benefit of convienience.

Andy.


Post 68

Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 10:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andrew,

I, and I'm sure others on this list, would like to see your comments. So please don't stop posting them here.

This is an interesting debate, and I would not want to see it end, simply because you don't like the tone of people's responses. If you're confident of your views, you should be comfortable handling dissenters.

Thanks.

- Bill

Post 69

Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 3:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
True - otherwise  not posting makes ye  seem like the 'true believer' others are claiming ye be...

Post 70

Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 8:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Log the Great White North!



According to a recent report cited on Fox News, in boreal forests (a.k.a. taiga, see map) in the extreme North, where the ground otherwise remains snow-covered for a long period, if not year round, coniferous trees with their dark green leaves absorb much more sunlight than does open, white, snow-covered ground. A policy of logging these trees aggressively could lead to a great increase in the reflection of solar radiation out to space, and a drop of up to 10 degrees in world temperature.

Canada alone might save the world with a liberalization of logging laws. Rush is from Canada. How did that line go in the old Rush song? "With hatchet, axe, and saw..."

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 5/20, 8:46pm)


Post 71

Monday, May 21, 2007 - 7:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted: That makes a lot of sense to me but there would be big political problems with disposing of all that vegetation. The US position (rightly, in my view) would inhibit it's use here. Of course one could just chop down the trees and let them rot but that would just put more carbon in the air instead of sequestering it in the form of lumber. Canada could, if it wanted to, altruistically fulfill it's Kyoto requirements by disposing of all those trees.

Btw, I spent three summers as a young lad between university sessions timber cruising and surveying in northern B.C.

Sam

United States-Canada softwood lumber dispute
 
The United States-Canada softwood lumber dispute is one of the most significant and enduring trade disputes in modern history. The dispute has had its biggest effect on British Columbia, the major Canadian exporter of softwood lumber to the United States.
 
The heart of the dispute is the claim that the Canadian lumber industry is unfairly subsidized by the federal and provincial governments. Specifically, most timber in Canada is owned by provincial governments. The price charged to harvest the timber (the "stumpage fee") is set administratively rather than through a competitive auction, as is often the practice in the United States. The United States claims that the provision of government timber at below market prices constitutes an unfair subsidy. Under U.S. trade remedy laws, foreign goods benefiting from subsidies can be subject to a countervailing duty tariff to offset the subsidy and bring the price of the product back up to market rates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_-_Canada_softwood_lumber_dispute


Post 72

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 7:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Actually, it is a little known fact that most wood will sink if it becomes waterlogged, no pun intended. Such logs could be sunk in lakes or, if dense enough, in deep subducting ocean trenches. Any way that doesn't result in them being immediately oxidized would presumably be acceptable to the envirochondriacs.

The difference due to the absorbant warming of dark foliage versus the reflective cooling of snow once the trees were logged should far outweigh any warming due to the trees being burnt or otherwise oxidized.

In any case, it is still my understanding that solar radiation is much greater and more variable a factor than anything else. The ocean holds its warmth for millennia, with deep saline currents taking many centuries to circulate. Polar bears have lived through many centuries that were much warmer than now.

If there is any real human-caused world-scale ecological disaster, it is the extinction of tropical species and macrofauna due to improper management of the commons - and ecotourism is the best remedy I know to the loss of currently endangered species.

But the envirochondriacs don't actually want a solution - that would be too easy. Those who really want solutions eventually find them. What they really want is a boot on the face of man for eternity.

Ted

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 5/22, 7:48pm)


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3


User ID Password or create a free account.