Re: Re: Global Warming Cool the Hype
| Posted On: 03/29/07 12:48:29 PM |
Age 70, CO |
After posting the above statements by Dr. Singer I came across one of his most important observations: "Let me say something about this idea of scientific consensus. Well, you really shouldn't go by numbers. I think it's significant to straighten out misconceptions. One misconception is that 2,500 IPCC scientists agree that global warming is coming, and it's going to be two degrees Centigrade by the year 2100. That's just not so. In the first place, if you count the names in the IPCC report, it's less than 2,000. If you count the number of climate scientists, it's about 100. If you then ask how many of them agree, the answer is: You can't tell because there was never a poll taken. These scientists actually worked on the report. They agree with the report, obviously, in particular with the chapter that they wrote. They do not necessarily agree with the summary, because the summary was written by a different group, a handful of government scientists who had a particular point of view, and they extracted from the report those facts that tended to support their point of view."
|
Re: Global Warming Cool the Hype
| Posted On: 03/28/07 03:20:25 PM |
Age 70, CO |
Before anyone goes much further in discussing Global Warming please spend a few minutes reading S. Fred Singer's materials on the subject. He may be contacted via Goggle. In a recent interview he said, "the data show that the cllimate warmed between 1900 and 1940, long before humanity used much energy. But then the climate cooled between 1940 and 1975. Then it warmed again for a very short period of time, for about five years. But since 1979, our best measurements show that the climate has been cooling just slightly. Certainly, it has not been warming...Take the UN Science Advisory Group, the IPCC. In their report--which is a very good report, by the way--which is close to 600 pages without an index, so no one really reads it except dedicated people like me--there's a five-page summary of the report that everyone reads, including politicians and the media. And if you look through the summary, you will find no mention of the fact that the weather satellite observations of the last twwenty years show no global warming. In fact, a slight cooling. In fact, you will not even find satellites mentioned in the summary." These comments are just a small part of a 17-page interview with Dr. Singer, an atmospheric physicist at George Mason Univeristy and founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. And remember, as Dr. Singer notes, that carbon dioxide is plant food--not an enemy of humankind!
|
Well...
| Posted On: 03/25/07 01:58:49 PM |
Age 19, MN |
I'd like to actually here some sources on this. You see, whenever I hear people talk about global warming, it is almost rare for me not to hear, "The majority of scietists think this..." or whatever. The point I'm saying is that I'm rarely getting actual sources. So when you criticized Kerby Anderson for only using a few scientists, my point was that I need some sources, not Al Gore or the media or the broad statement of "most scientists"...Is GW happening? I think it is, as people on both sides of the spectrum seem to agree that the world has warmed up. The debate is really on how much damage will be done, or if this is being exaggerated too much or even what needs to be done (on the side note, here's a link on an article about a scientist who says that GW is more political than scientific-http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Danish_scientist_Global_warming_is_a_myth/20070315-012154-7403r/). In other words, GW may be happening, but it may be being used to further a different social agenda (such as passing the Kyoto Treaty or whatever). Anyhow, you have a great day and God Bless!
|
Experts?
| Posted On: 03/24/07 11:06:09 PM |
Age 56, OR |
I believe the GW experts you are referring to would be mostly the selfsame experts that espouse evolutionism. Evolutionism is a construct, a religion, just as Humanist GW Hype is.
The experts that are disallowed a contrary voice, are mostly shouted down by their peers, or fired by their professors. There is so much chapter and verse on this that I scarcely need mention it... do I?
If one does some INDEPENDANT research, one will find that THIS is the "uncomfortable truth". The uncomfortable truth is that TRUTH is uncomfortable! Do a little reading of independant researchers, say in Cambridge, England. Or perhaps in Harvard, USA. The media-hype-machine is hardly the place for serious concensus. Sadly, it is this type of leftist propaganda (GW) that has dogged TRUE science and prevented the real experts equal air-time. The earth's weather albedo of an average year VARIES more than .018 without ANY interference from anything. Check out the Ming Dynasty and why it failed. Find out (maybe) what the Lord God says about it in the Bible. It is quite specific, as are all the rebuttals for macro evolution. It may take a while for some people to see the annoying (and True) fact that they have been programmed to believe they have free thought whilst the very linguistic vehicle of such facile indoctrination went unnoticed and continues its deep poisioning undetected. That is where God's Love and mercy comes into play, since he is the One that opens the eyes of the blind. Not me, not you. Just the Lord God Himself in the person of Jesus. So whilst I may not display simpering undertones of love and humility, seeking to de-emotionalise a Global Lie (global warming) it matters not to the Truth, since St. Paul said that it is indeed "self evident" and therfore a child could know it. PGW
|
Re: Re: Re: Global Warming Cool the Hype
| Posted On: 03/24/07 12:13:40 PM |
Age 30, IN |
So, perhaps my initial comment was slightly "off topic," but notice that I addressed the claim that most experts think global warming is a "big deal." Let me define that as the claim that global warming is occurring, is partly humanly caused, and is likely to lead to serious consequences in the future without changing certain human practices. Do you really disagree that the majority of experts believe this? Or were you only wondering whether the majority of experts had a view concerning the exact amount of ocean-level rising (e.g. whether it was closer to 1 foot or 20 feet)? If the latter, then I frankly don't know. But if the former, I'd be curious if you REALLY thought that was in serious doubt (that most experts think GW is a big deal in the way I've described it). The IPCC and NAS are good starting points for evidence of the former.
|
Re: Re: Re: Global Warming Cool the Hype
| Posted On: 03/24/07 12:08:05 PM |
Age 30, IN |
The Christian virtues of love, respect, and humility are palpable in your post. Anyway, I think the poster raises an important point. In many (most) cases, Christians trust the opinion of experts. In some cases, we do not, because we have *independent reason* - good evidence - for believing something else. Hence, we trust when the experts tell us that smoking leads to cancer, but in the case of (certain varieties of) evolutionary theory, we believe we have good reason (Biblical authority) to disbelieve them. In the case of global warming, most of the experts believe it is real, partly humanly caused, and potentially a serious problem. Why not trust them here? Well, it must be because some Christians think they have independent reason for disbelieving them. What, pray tell, is that independent evidence? Is it Scripture? Is it scientific data to which they have special access? No and no. So what is it? I myself think it's quite clear that there is no independent reason at all, and the thinking displayed by GW-deniers is quite irrational. But perhaps you - being older and wiser, naturally - could help me out?
|
Re: Global Warming Cool the Hype
| Posted On: 03/23/07 04:09:01 PM |
Age 56, OR |
Please. PLEASE. Read your history! Those who do not will repeat it!
Read the third Humanist Manifesto. The extremist, normally on the left (but not always) NEED global disasters to keep the mindless populance in control!!! Does no one get it? I am aghast at the lack of intelligence!!! Gerbil Worming is POLITICAL!!!
GW is a LIE. Read Hitler. Repeat a lie often enough and make it a BIG one and all the cause-suckers will eventually swallow your cause!!! Read Orwell. Read ANYTHING but the "Coolaid-Times". GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE!!! ...PGW
|
Re: Re: Global Warming Cool the Hype
| Posted On: 03/23/07 03:58:04 PM |
Age 56, OR |
Go aheah. Please talk to me about 'evolutionism'. I am glad for some real science. You are 20. It is a pity the indoctrination you must have recently received has not contained a little education. If it had, then your comments would not be so transparently (and boringly) familiar. PGW
|
Re: Global Warming Cool the Hype
| Posted On: 03/23/07 07:36:01 AM |
Age 21, IL |
I find it very curious that when scientists talk about evolution, Christians shun them. But when the scientists say something that goes against the views of liberals (and is pro big business) the Christians praise them. Since when did the bible state that any views against those with most of the wealth is bad? Why do the Christians protect big business so much?? God must cry when he sees what humans have done to the world he created.
|
Re: Re: Global Warming Cool the Hype
| Posted On: 03/22/07 04:16:41 PM |
Age 19, MN |
Name your sources that global warming is gonna be as bad as Al Gore says it is. Criticizing Kerby for not naming alot of sources is fine, except you didn't name one. And when you think of it, the IPCC doesn't exactly represent a few scientists, you would need alot for them to come to the consensus that the ocean will go up 7-17 inches instead of 20 ft. Anyway, you have a great day!
|
Re: Global Warming Cool the Hype
| Posted On: 03/22/07 12:37:57 AM |
Age 30, IN |
Perhaps Kerby could explain why he trusts the opinion of SOME scientists/experts (those who think that global warming isn't a big deal) but not the opinion of ALL THE OTHER scientists/experts (the substantial majority, who think that global warming is a big deal). If he's going to accept scientific expert opinion as authoritative, then why not listen to what the great bulk of experts are saying? Perhaps Gore overstated some things; but the majority of (relevantly qualified) scientists don't think the way most readers of CWN seem to think. I don't understand why Kerby (and others) thinks it's legitimate to accept minority scientific opinion rather than the majority opinion. Does he have some *independent evidence* that suggests we ought to trust the minority group rather than the majority? If so, what is that evidence? If not, then how is this not just blatant, irrational bias?
|
|
|
|
|
