Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 2481 - 2500 of total 17219 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

TGT

Social climber

So Cal

Sep 14, 2011 - 11:20pm PT

Time will tell.

Meanwhile I'm not planting anything frost sensitive for a few years.

corniss chopper

climber

breaking the speed of gravity

Sep 14, 2011 - 11:22pm PT

norton - some out there need to here it.

Did anyone see the '24hr Al Gore climate deniers must die show'?

Nothing on the web but ads saying to tune in. No 'streaming' buttons
where I looked.

bookworm

Social climber

Falls Church, VA

Sep 15, 2011 - 07:37am PT

"The word 'incontrovertible' ... is rarely used in science because by its very nature, science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century."

again: "The word 'incontrovertible' ... is rarely used in science because by its very nature, science questions prevailing ideas."

again: "science questions prevailing ideas" (or, at least, it's supposed to)

Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

Published September 14, 2011 | FoxNews.com

The global warming theory left him out in the cold.

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that "global warming is occurring."

The official position of the American Physical Society (APS) supports the theory that man's actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide.

Giaever does not agree -- and put it bluntly and succinctly in the subject line of his email, reprinted at Climate Depot, a website devoted to debunking the theory of man-made climate change.

"I resign from APS," Giaever wrote.

Giaever was cooled to the statement on warming theory by a line claiming that "the evidence is inconvertible."

"In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" he wrote in an email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the physics society.

"The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period," his email message said.

A spokesman for the APS confirmed to FoxNews.com that the Nobel Laureate had declined to pay his annual dues in the society and had resigned. He also noted that the society had no plans to revise its statement.

The use of the word "incontrovertible" had already caused debate within the group, so much so that an addendum was added to the statement discussing its use in April, 2010.

"The word 'incontrovertible' ... is rarely used in science because by its very nature, science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century."

dirtbag

climber

Sep 15, 2011 - 09:11am PT

yawn...

Mike Bolte

Trad climber

Planet Earth

Sep 16, 2011 - 05:06pm PT

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/opinion/friedman-is-it-weird-enough-yet.html?

A few interesting comments in the second half about "green jobs"

corniss chopper

climber

breaking the speed of gravity

Sep 16, 2011 - 07:39pm PT

The true cost Green collar jobs
...
This study found that consumers paid much higher prices for home electricity
due to government-mandated use of premium priced green energy. In turn
this caused many employers to leave the country in search of cheaper energy
elsewhere. After accounting for the increased cost of electricity and the
government expenditure used to create the new green jobs, Calzada estimates
that the Spanish spent $774,000 for each job created.
...
every green collar job created in the U.S. results
in the loss of 2.2 jobs

...
http://www.missourirecord.com/news/index.asp?article=10008

k-man

Gym climber

SCruz

Topic Author's Reply - Sep 16, 2011 - 08:11pm PT

Interesting that nobody raises a stink regarding the billion$ paid to the oil companies to subsidize their search for black gold. Gee, who gains when they use US taxpayer dollars to find the stuff? Do they pay a the money back to the Gov't, with interest?

The media jumps on this one green energy company. Whoa, they are soo bad. Best let the Chinese have all the green energy jobs. They're already doing such a good job at it, why would we want to get in their way.

corniss chopper

climber

breaking the speed of gravity

Sep 16, 2011 - 08:25pm PT

K-man - The oil companies have 100's of billions of dollars. They don't receive cash from the govt. They pay taxes to the govt, but in this case they paid less after making a deal.

But to a Liberal this fact morphs into the fantasy that sacks of money are being shipped to oil headquarters.

k-man

Gym climber

SCruz

Topic Author's Reply - Sep 16, 2011 - 09:13pm PT

Perhaps the term "subsidy" is not 100% accurate, although it is one that is often used to describe the tax breaks that oil companies receive. Google "oil company subsidies" and you'll find a mess of articles.

Here's a quote from one:

Is there a similar case for giving oil producers subsidies? The principal tax subsidies for the oil industry are as follows: a “domestic manufacturing deduction” that allows oil and gas companies to deduct an extra 6 percent of their taxable income; a deduction for “intangible costs,” which are costs for investments in oil exploration or production that have no salvage value, such as clearing land to enable an oil well to be drilled—the oil companies are not required to amortize these costs over the entire expected life of the oil well—and last the companies are permitted to deduct royalties they pay to foreign government, on the ground that royalties paid to a government are really a tax.

So you are right, I didn't have my facts straight in my previous post. But oil companies do get tax breaks from the Gov't and these are associated with the "intangible costs" of oil production.

corniss chopper

climber

breaking the speed of gravity

Sep 17, 2011 - 12:10am PT

The climate is always changing and that it continues to be so stable as it has for the last 120years is such a stroke of luck for humanity it verges on divine intervention.

GOclimb

Trad climber

Boston, MA

Sep 19, 2011 - 03:55pm PT

cc wrote:

The climate is always changing and that it continues to be so stable as it has for the last 120years is such a stroke of luck for humanity it verges on divine intervention.

That's right. Look how much flatter the black line is compared to all the other lines:

Yeah right, hahahahaha!

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

GO

bookworm

Social climber

Falls Church, VA

Sep 19, 2011 - 06:15pm PT

if global warm...er, climate change, is true, why do people keep lying about it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14969399

DrDeeg

Mountain climber

Mammoth Lakes, CA

Sep 25, 2011 - 03:07pm PT

CC, westchrist, et al. Follow the energy.

If you do the radiative transfer calculation, doubling atmospheric CO2 from the preindustrial level causes a radiative imbalance of about 3 Watts per sq m. Therefore Earth has to warm (energy in greater than energy out).

The variability in solar radiation is about 1/10 that. On a plane perpendicular to the sun at the top of the atmosphere, the total variability since about 1880 is about 2 Watts per sq m, but you have to divide that by 4 because Earth is a sphere, and then multiply that by about 0.7 because 30% of the sunlight is reflected. So the maximum warming you can get from the sun is 0.35 W per sq m. It's even probably a little less because most of the variability in solar radiation is at short wavelengths which mainly affect the upper atmosphere.

The basic physical process of warming is straightforward.

And the Suess ratio shows pretty clearly that the extra CO2 is from fossil fuels. Over the last half-century, the ratio in the atmosphere of C-14 to the normal C-12 has declined. Therefore the extra CO2 must have come from a source that is depleted in C-14, and old source. The half-life of C-14 is about 6,000 years, so coal and oil have none.

Malemute: thanks for the cartoon above. Hilarious.

corniss chopper

climber

breaking the speed of gravity

Sep 25, 2011 - 03:11pm PT

No. You've conveniently left out the negative forcing factors that make more CO2 irrelevant. On purpose of by ignorance Dr?

corniss chopper

climber

breaking the speed of gravity

Sep 25, 2011 - 03:16pm PT

* The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
* CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
* Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
* The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four
published papers, not 2,500;

* The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for
climate sensitivity, are overstated;

* “Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has
been falling for seven years;

* Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so
long and rapid a cooling;

* The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating
the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;

* It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two
weeks ahead is impossible;

* Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same
time as Earth warmed
;
* In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any
other time in the past 11,400 years.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html