NY Times mag profile of global warming skeptic uncritically repeats false comparison with '70s global cooling theory
SUMMARY: A New York Times Magazine profile of global warming skeptic Freeman Dyson quotes without challenge his false suggestion that there was a scientific consensus in the 1970s that the earth was cooling. Unlike the current consensus that global warming exists, there was no consensus in the 1970s that the earth was cooling.
A New York Times Magazine profile of physicist and global warming skeptic Freeman Dyson to be published March 29 allows him to advance the falsehood that there was a scientific consensus in the 1970s that the earth was cooling. In an echo of columnist George Will's recent falsehood-laden column, Dyson dismissed former Vice President Al Gore: "He certainly is a good preacher. ... Forty years ago it was fashionable to worry about the coming ice age. Better to attack the real problems like the extinction of species and overfishing. There are so many practical measures we could take." But the suggestion is false that in the 1970s there was a widespread belief that the earth was cooling that is tantamount to the current global warming consensus. A September 2008 article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (a peer-reviewed publication) investigated the "pervasive myth" that "there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent." The article found:
A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false. The myth's basis lies in a selective misreading of the texts both by some members of the media at the time and by some observers today. In fact, emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then.
As Media Matters for America has documented, Will has repeatedly advanced the falsehood that in the 1970s, scientists widely believed that the earth was cooling, a falsehood also forwarded by Media Research Center president L. Brent Bozell III. The Bulletin also noted several other "examples of modern writers perpetuating the myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus."
From the New York Times Magazine article, headlined "The Civil Heretic":
The film [An Inconvenient Truth] ended. "I think Gore does a brilliant job," Dyson said. "For most people I'd think this would be quite effective. But I knew Roger Revelle. He was definitely a skeptic. He's not alive to defend himself."
"All my friends say how smart and farsighted Al Gore is," she said.
"He certainly is a good preacher," Dyson replied. "Forty years ago it was fashionable to worry about the coming ice age. Better to attack the real problems like the extinction of species and overfishing. There are so many practical measures we could take."
"I'm still perfectly happy if you buy me a Prius!" Imme said.
"It's toys for the rich," her husband smiled, and then they were arguing about windmills.
Conservative myths never die, they just get recycled. Well, that's ONE environmental program the Right is onboard with.
Randy
Are you saying that no-one thought it was cooling or just that there was no "consensus"? By the way, James Hansen is credited with producing the climate model for this prediction.
It's interesting that a scientific organization did an 'internal' investigation on itself and found that the current 'theory' is better than the past 'theory'. Could an obviously predudiced scientific organization find that two different theories were supported by a larger number in one decade than during another? I think if that were possible, then it would show that natural cycles occur within the meterological systems of the galactic environment and could ruin the desires of the political few who are the most vocal and could benefit the most monetarily from a 'one cause' theory of global warming. If cooling/warming cycles were to be determined to be factual within the scientific community then monetary benifits, for folks like Al Gore, would be greatly diminished. So, it is only natural that the current belief would have to be determined to be the only possible result and cause of global warming, thus promoting a possibly false theory strictly for monetary gain.
Possibly but, if your not an idiot, the fact that even pervasive scientific thoeries would change from one decade to the next is merely evidence that science is self correcting, and always getting closer the the smaller truths while constantly uncovering newer, larger ones. The fact that theories changes over time is PROOF against the very argument you make: that they will hang onto to incorrect theories AT ALL, regardelss of WHY. It's evidence that this JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN. The kind of argument you make is made all the time, mainly by those seeking to manipulate the ignorant. The FACT is that there are MANY scientist doing all kinds of research from many angles. If any ONE of them could prove his theories, hew would be published and we would achieve a greater understanding of climate. The fact is that NO ONE after 30 years of research has found any other explanation that explains what we're obsevring. That's a fact. All your side has is a bunch of scientist in unrelated fields, who are NOT doing research who have brought up questions about the theories. These questions have BEEN ANSWERED, but all your lot does is keep repeating them.
It's getting warmer.
Mankind is contributing to this.
Get. Over. It.
That may be very true (that theory's change over time) but this article is all about this theory NOT changing. Which kind of blows away your arguement that theory's change over time. Who do you think is more correct; Media Matters or you?
I think scientists with opinions that stand up against peer scrutiny are better than wild conjecture or summary suppositions such as discounting contemporary theories because science MIGHT discover a superior theory tomorrow. By that standard, we should never ever do anything today, which is an appeal to embrace The Dark Ages, if for no other reason than its familiarity.
Randy
I think scientists should stand up with evidentury (sp?) proof instead of opinion. Opinions always seem to get proven incorrect by someone elses opinion. By that starndard we should never worry about returning to the dark ages.
>>I think scientists should stand up with evidentury (sp?) proof instead of opinion.
And the "proof" (by which you really mean evidence) lies wholly with the scientists who accept global warming. There are simply no scientifically reviewed articles that disprove global warming.
link
That's true. However, do those same articles say it is definately NOT cyclical? Which is what this Media Matters article is claiming. Personally, I've got no problem with scientists blaming human efforts on the worsening condition of global warming, but I also believe it is a cyclical occurance. Man's input makes it worse each cycle, but still there is definate scientific evidence that global warming/cooling occurs in cycles. This article claims that scientists believe only humans are the cause of global warming. I think if a scientist truly believes that, then they are strictly opinionating and ignoring proven fact.
>>However, do those same articles say it is definately NOT cyclical?
Good f***ing grief. Yes, of course they believe its not cyclical (at least in the crude senese you mean). Do you understand anything about global warming, or are you just posting to be contrary?
funnymanpants---Yes, of course they believe its not cyclical
Well, that's where I start disagreeing with those scientists. If your scientists can definitively say the solar cycles have NO affect on our planets temperature, then you would have valid complaints. However, every valid scientist knows that the sun has an effect on our weather (which includes temperature). If the global warming proponants refuse to accept scientific fact in relation to global warming then they are the profit (fear)-mongers which I spoke of on my first post. I'm smart enough to accept mans input into global warming, I would think trained scientists should be able to do the same in relation to all contributing factors. If they can't they aren't valid scientists, but rather they are political pawns being used for profit.
>>Well, that's where I start disagreeing with those scientists. If your scientists can definitively say the solar cycles have NO affect on our planets temperature, then you would have valid complaints.
Stop playing stupid. Scientists realize that the sun has an effect on climate the same way you realize that rain is wet. What the science also shows is that man-made gas is heating up the earth beyond what it would be. That is scientific fact.
Do you have any peer-reviewed science that actually refutes global warming? (Answer: no, because there is no peer-reviewed science.)
And you apparently haven't even read the article I linked to, nor are you interested in learning anything about the subject.
I'm sorry, I don't have a subscription to your link source. If you could type in Holocene Maximum and provide me with information they discuss on this subject I would be interested.
funnymanpants---Scientists realize that the sun has an effect on climate the same way you realize that rain is wet.
Unfortunately, the scientists that believe that AND believe in the left-wing mythology will not admit to that fact. If you can show me that the majority of your scientists who will say man-made pollution is not the cause of global warming but is an amplifier of a natural occuring cycle, I will believe you speak with a nuetral mind frame. Otherwise you simply excrete left-wing scare tactics using arguements that even science does not support.
if it's "an amplifier of a natural occuring cycle", then it must be a cause of "global warming". if the "man made pollution" was not there, if it did not exist, then it would not be an "amplifier". so therefore, by your own words, man made pollution does contribute to global warming.
when did I say they didn't? Being 'a' cause is much different than being 'the' cause as you insist. When 'a' cause is less than 5% of total result, then I do not consider it to be 'the' cause of the event. left-wing scare mongerers promote the myth that man-made pollutants are 95-100% the cause when that is not fact. but, you're more than welcome to believe anyone you want...at least anyone who will promote your beliefs (no matter what proven science says) just don't force me to pay for your gullibility.
uh, when did i "insist" that man made pollution is "the" cause of global warming. i didnt. what i did say is that there are, and have been, natural cycles, but the main cause of the present rapid change now is man made. your contention that man made pollution is the cause of "less than 5% of total result" of the warming now is simply unsupported by the "proven science".
mefirst---but the main cause of the present rapid change now is man made.
and your proof of this "rapid change now" is what? What proof do you have that this "rapid change now" wouldn't have happened without man-made intervention?
uh, i'm going with the "proven science". what are you going with?
You spelled 'opinionated' wrong. Somehow it shows up as 'proven' in your post. Too bad you don't actually provide any.
here you go. i'll post something that you posted earlier. "in february 2007, the ipcc released a summary of the forthcoming fourth assessment report. according to this summary, the fourth assessment report finds that human actions are 'very likely' the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability."
and i'm very happy you decided not to sulk, because you told me earlier today that you were "right to ignore" me.
Thank you for reprinting that. It only proves what I say is correct. The statement says "human actions are very likely THE cause of global warming". Which indicates that those scientist believe that global warming never happens without human intervention and they are >90% sure of that. Again, thank you for that support.
nope. another deflection from what was the actual point. you asked me "and your proof of this rapid change now is what?" so i provided that as my proof. what's your proof?
and just more of your wild assumptions. those scientists are saying that the 0.75 degrees increase is a result of human intervention. nowhere does that indicate they "believe that global warming never happens without human intervention". in fact, further down in this thread, i asked you to give me names of scientists who believe that there have been "no natural cycles" in the past. so last night you gave me a list of names, including one of the most prominent in the field of climate study, james hansen, and then i asked you to provide me the quote where he said that. "let's have that quote", i said. and you haven't produced it as of now.
>>However, do those same articles say it is definately NOT cyclical? Which is what this Media Matters article is claiming
By the way, not only do you not read the links I provide, not only do you not even try to understand global warming, but apparently you don't even read the article by MMFA. Can you point out where MMFA makes any claim about the cyclical nature of global warming?
floyd and clocktower are doing their best strawman arguments.
floyd: "this article claims that scientists believe only humans are the cause of global warming". no, they merely believe we are altering the system beyond the normal change. show me a scientist who "truly believes" that there haven't been natural changes in the past. you can't, and it's just a phony argument.
clocktower says: "warming and cooling cycles happen naturally. anyone who claims they do not, is a complete moron." again, no scientist is claiming that. again, a strawman argument.
mefirst---again, no scientist is claiming that.
the scientists that agree with left-wing mythology claim that. and, Media Matters is among the first to promote those scientists: "A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false. The myth's basis lies in a selective misreading of the texts both by some members of the media at the time and by some observers today. In fact, emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then.". You don't even have a strawman to argue for you, your arguement is based on political ideals, not scientific fact.
provable scientific fact: Climate change is controlled primarily by cyclical eccentricities in Earth's rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the sun's energy output. "Greenhouse gases" in Earth's atmosphere also influence Earth's temperature, but in a much smaller way. Human additions to total greenhouse gases play a still smaller role, contributing about 0.2% - 0.3% to Earth's greenhouse effect. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
left-wing mantra and scare tactic: global warming exists because man made it and never cycles up or down--only up. and we can profit from it so either believe it or be called a strawman.
i just said that no scientist claims that warming and cooling cycles do not happen naturally, in response to clocktower saying anyone who claims they do not occur is a "moron". now, here's your quote: "the scientists that agree with left wing mythology claim that". tell me who these scientists are that are claiming that there are no natural cycles.
you're speaking in circles and I won't follow along with your game. perhaps you should ask theclocktowersniper8151 to answer questions you have about his statement that you or anyone else is a moron. I will answer my own claims. Here is a basic (so you can understand it) description of who believes man-made pollutants are 'the' cause as opposed to 'a' cause: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report. According to this summary, the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability. Global warming in this case is indicated by an increase of 0.75 degrees in average global temperatures over the last 100 years. (highlite mine)
i don't think you even comprehend what you're citing. they're saying global warming "in this case" is "indicated by an increase of 0.75 degrees in average global temperatures over the last hundred years". in other words, so you can understand it, "human actions are 'very likely' the cause of global warming". in other words it was "90% or greater probability" that the 0.75 degree rise was caused by human action. in other words, that 0.75 was over and above any natural occurence.
mefirst---tell me who these scientists are that are claiming that there are no natural cycles.
perhaps you should ask funnymanpants, he's the one that makes that claim: "Yes, of course they believe its not cyclical.". You fearmongers should get together and try to keep your stories compatible. It looks quite amuzing when one says 'not cyclical' and the other says 'is cyclical'.
funnyman cleared that statement up in the next post. i'm asking you, not anyone else. didn't you just say in your 1010 post, "i will answer my own claims"? you said: "the scientists that agree with left wing mythology claim that". so i said: "tell me who these scientists are that are claiming that there are no natural cycles". so answer your "own claim".
you're circling. I gave a link to those. read it. it's very simplified so even you can understand it.
you're doing the circling. i don't just accept "here's a link and it proves my case". who specifically?
oh yeah, I see where this is going. I could provide 1,000 names and you would say there are 10,000 scientists, therefor that isn't a 'consensus'. I could provide 10,000 names and you would say there are 100,000 scientists, therefor that isn't a 'concensus'. I understand your thought pattern and I'm right to ignore you and your "opinion" in any future discussions. You aren't interested in facts, only what will profit you the most. Just as I mentioned in my first post. You fearmonger and lie using hidden scientists to support your beliefs.
i don't think you could get a dozen scientists who would say there have been "no natural cycles" in the past, much less 1,000.
Wallace Broecker, Charles David Keeling, Syukuro Manabe, Richard Wetherald, S. Ichtiaque Rasool, Stephen Schneider and James Hansen... to start with.
james hansen has said there have been "no natural cycles" in the past? let's have that quote.
The gas and oil companies thank you for your tired efforts on their behalf. You can pick up your check next week.
>>then it would show that natural cycles occur within the meterological systems of the galactic environment and could ruin the desires of the political few who are the most vocal and could benefit the most monetarily from a 'one cause' theory of global warming. If cooling/warming cycles were to be determined to be factual within the scientific community then monetary benifits,
Groan! You have to be kidding. First, your argument amounts to a generic fallacy. Second, are you really seriously arguing that there is no "proof" of global warming?
link
This is stock-in-trade for Sheer Insannity and Ole BlunderRush. I've heard them repeat it many times. Of course, Sheer Insannity is the past master of repetition. He parrots RNC Talking Points like the pro he is...
What do they think they will gain from bucking science? They have to know they are wrong!
Here we go again! Warming and cooling cycles happen naturally. Anyone that claims they do not, is a complete moron. Humans do, in fact, contribute to cooling and warming cycles, but are not the sole cause. Anyone who believes otherwise is a complete idiot. It is the belief that humans, alone, cause global warming, that has created this alarmist issue that is certainly driven by ignorance, but more importantly, if accepted as fact, will drive a segment of the world economy based on fear. The U.N. has already put itself in position to be the sole arbitrator of billions of dollars, to be spent at it's own discretion, in the name of saving the planet.
>>Anyone that claims they do not, is a complete moron.
Yes, except the best scientists in the world:
link
Yes, all the best scientists in the world are morons, but the anonymous poster the clock tower sniper has set us straight.
So you and scientists are saying warming and cooling cycles don't exist, naturally, for all of history, as we know it? Thank you, funnymanpants for demonstrating your ignorance. Next, you'll tell us dinosaurs never existed because there are none today.
>>So you and scientists are saying warming and cooling cycles don't exist, naturally, for all of history, as we know it?
No. Read the article I linked to. As usual, your side has no science to back up your argument. When you can point to science, we can start a discussion. Until then, you are just blowing hot air. I also find it funny that when I quote the best science in the world, instead of the denial argument that you cite (which has no science to back it up), you somehow characterize me as a buffoon.
Actually, anyone who presents the argument that way is a complete moron. Yes, we have figured out that the yellow ball in the sky naturally warms the earth but we are altering the circumstances. The heat is trapped. That's why it's called a greenhouse effect.
The greenhouse effect cannot play out in the earth's atmosphere. You say the heat is trapped? Gimme a break! Any air movement invalidates your greenhouse argument, period. Greenhouses rely on restricted air movement to trap the heat.
>>The greenhouse effect cannot play out in the earth's atmosphere. You say the heat is trapped? Gimme a break! Any air movement invalidates your greenhouse argument, period. Greenhouses rely on restricted air movement to trap the heat.
What the F** are you talking about? Do you even know *anything* about the topic? The best science in the world says the opposite.
Then you, without linking me up, tell me how greenhouses work and relate that to the earth's atmosphere. Gimme the science and the physics and I'll prove you wrong.
>>Then you, without linking me up, tell me how greenhouses work and relate that to the earth's atmosphere. Gimme the science and the physics and I'll prove you wrong.
Sorry, I'm not playing your stupid game. You can't prove me in a comment section. That's not how science works.
Again, show me real science that refutes global warming. Put up or shut up.
I'm not trying to refute global warming, cluelessmanpants. That is a childish way of twisting the argument but it won't work. Get some sleep and then try to answer my question in th A.M., what reversed the previous ice ages?
>>I'm not trying to refute global warming, cluelessmanpants. That is a childish way of twisting the argument but it won't work. Get some sleep and then try to answer my question in th A.M., what reversed the previous ice ages?
Yes you are. Global warming was the phrase used before the more descriptive anthropogenic climage change, meaning man is drastically changing the enviornment by the CO2 put in the atmosphere. This theory has 696 peer reviewed articles supporting it. You cannot cite a single peer reviwed article that refutes this conclusion.
Put up or shut up.
"Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants." http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
"It (CO2) is recycled through the atmosphere by the process photosynthesis, which makes human life possible. Photosynthesis is the process of green plants and other organisms transforming light energy into chemical energy. Light Energy is trapped and used to convert carbon dioxide, water, and other minerals into oxygen and energy rich organic compounds. Carbon Dioxide is emitted into the air as humans exhale, burn fossil fuels for energy, and deforest the planet. Every year humans add over 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by these processes,..." http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm
2 contradictory statements about amount of CO2 emitted by humans. Which will you believe? Which do you consider 'peer reviewed'? IMO, I think you'll choose the second one because it supports your theory. No other reason.
here you go, clocktower. here's the greenhouse effect explained, and it's for kids, so you too can understand it.
http://epa.gov/climatechange/kids/greenhouse.html
I know how greenhouses work and how some people will try to relate that effect to the earth's atmosphere but they fall short of explaining all of the dynamics of earth's atmosphere. All of the explanations illustrating the greenhouse effect and how it relates to the earth's atmosphere are simplistic and static.
you said "the greenhouse effect cannot play out in the earth's atmosphere". you said "gimme the science and the physics and i'll prove you wrong". ok, i gave you the link, what's incorrect about it? specifically, not just that it's "simplistic", but what specifically is incorrect in that link.
I don't know anyone saying that humans alone can cause global warming. But here's the flaw in your (collective) argument: If we are in an upward cycle, why on Earth would we want to exacerbate the problem? That's like trying to put out a fire with gasoline. So using that silly argument only hurts your case.
BTW, I have a Physics degree so I can read both sides' arguments and decide. I decided you lose. Give up. You can't win this one, especially when your talking points prove just the opposite.
One more thing: Yesterday winger talk show host Mark Davis cited recent snow in Michigan (!) as proof there's no such thing as global warming. Really. Do you agree with what your people are saying? What if I told you it was 83 degrees in Dallas the day after Christmas. Using their science, wouldn't that prove there is global warming? :)
I've never said global warming doesn't exist. Humans don't cause global warming! The way you spun my statement is typical of the alarmists fear of the truth.
>>I've never said global warming doesn't exist. Humans don't cause global warming!
Your assertion does not amount to an argument. I showed you a link that shows that over 600 peer reviewed science arguements show the opposiste, that global warming is real and man made. You have answered with silly arguments. When you can quote real science, we might start taking you seriously.
You simply do not know what you are talking about. Can you explain what reversed the last ice age, or didn't that ever happen? And the previous ice ages before that? Cave men? Fred Flintstone's "car" operated through"the courtesy of his two feet", not by burning fossil fuels. You have no argument. Face facts.
......and are you speaking of yourself in the plural?
>>You simply do not know what you are talking about.
Right. I post an article showing that over 600 peer-reviewed article in a reputable scientific magazine that states:
"In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: 'Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations'"
There are over 696 peer reviewed scientific papers that support this idea.
You have provided not a single shred of evidence. Apparently, an argument for you consisists of mocking your opponent.
Time to put up or shut up, clock work.
Our side: 696
your side: 0
When you have any real science to quote, let me know. Then we can start the debate.
.....is being affected.... does not mean the same thing as caused by!!!!! Nice try. You lose!!!
>>...is being affected.... does not mean the same thing as caused by!!!!! Nice try. You lose!!!
No idea what you mean.
I'm not playing your game. Show me real science.
Put up or shut up.
I'm quoting what you just wrote and you don't know what I mean? You're clueless!
>>I'm quoting what you just wrote and you don't know what I mean? You're clueless!
Right. Do you really think we are that stupid?
Again, clock work, where is your science? You can't produce any peer reviewed science because it doesn't exist.
Again, put up or shut up.
Please tell us what reversed the previous ice ages. I'm anxious to hear your explanation.
>>Please tell us what reversed the previous ice ages. I'm anxious to hear your explanation.
Sorry, I'm not playing your stupid game. If I answer all your dumb denialist arguments, I'll be here all night.
Again: put up or shut up.
Our side: 696:
Your side: 0.
That's what I thought. You're not up to it because you don't know what you're talking about. Good night. I'll review your inane posts in th morning.
>>That's what I thought. You're not up to it because you don't know what you're talking about. Good night. I'll review your inane posts in th morning.
I couldn't care less if you do or not. I would suggest that no one else who is trying to understand this argument fall for the same denialist tricks.
Clock work, you must show us science to back up your argument. There is no peer reviewed article that backs up your argument. So we are faced with two choices:
1) accept the best science in the world, rigourously studied and critiqued, using the scientific method developed over centuries. Doing so leads up to the conclusion that global warming is real and man made.
2) accepting the arguments of an anonymous blogger, who thinks that in a short comment box he can refute what it takes climate scientists decades to understand and pages and pages of technical detail to explain.
So do we accept the science, or the word of a blowhard?
Put up or shut up, clock work. You have no science to back up your point of view.
It was only one question. If you can't answer it, it means you have no idea what this subject is all about. You have lost the argument. Sleep tight little fella, there will be a new set of questions in the morning you won't be able to answer.
>>It was only one question. If you can't answer it, it means you have no idea what this subject is all about. You have lost the argument. Sleep tight little fella, there will be a new set of questions in the morning you won't be able to answer.
This may be news to you, but an insulting tone does not constitute an arguement. You still haven't been able to produce one peer reviewed article that backs up your position.
Put up or shut up, clock work.
You ducked every question I asked. Why?
Try again, especially the question about whether you agree with the comical arguments people like Mark Davis put out there. Is he right, and if so, why?
A lot has to do with the unique CO2 molecule. Heat is a measurement of molecular motion. Due to its shape, it has several degrees of freedom, so it can store a lot of energy. How do you deniers suspend this property? Magic? Belief? What? How do you suspend junior high skool physics?
No answer expected.
I didn't duck your questions, I went to sleep. Much of the energy stored by carbon dioxide and all molecules in our atmosphere is dissipated into the upper atmosphere by air circulation. It is the key element in cooling the planet, especially at night. This is simple physics and simple science. Also, carbon dioxide has been pumped into the atmosphere long before humans arrived. There are hundreds of elements that determine the planets long term climate and thousands more that determine weather patterns and humans are just a small part of it. This notion that humans are causing the planet's temperature to soar, as the alarmists would have you believe, is merely a power grab by environmentalist groups to have their beliefs validated and keep those funds pouring in. The sierra club is a prime example of environmental extorsion, operating on the same principle as Rev. Jesse Jackson, whereby large corporations are targeted for their assault on the environment, hauled into court and thumbwrestled until they are forced to settle or win their case. Either way, the sierra club benefits from exposure and a big payday for their attorneys. The man-made global warming hoax is the same thing but on a world wide stage. Where I live, the sierra club halted a 3-5 mile stretch of much needed freeway on the phony concern that the freeway would increase cancer risk to nearby schools. The court battle cost 30 million dollars, stalled traffic for 3 years causing horrible accidents and increased pollution. In the end, the sierra club relented but cost the community dearly.
So you were asleep when you posted your first reply? That explains a lot. :)
You still duck the simple question (forget the rest, I know I'll never get an answer): Right-wing talk show jock Mark Davis said Thursday that the blizzard in Missouri proves there is no such thing as global warning. This is the "science" your side is putting out. Do you ::sigh:: agree with him and the others who say the same thing?
All your arguments ignore a simple principle: equilibrium (look it up, then comment). Yes, there was already lots of CO2 and water vapor. But the absorption and re-radiation were equal, resulting in fairly constant heat retention (which is not the same as temperature). Upset that, and temperature goes up a little, but does not "soar" (no one but you uses that word). So here's my analogy that has worked with some in the War on Science crowd: you've got a bathtub with the faucet on. Water reaches the overflow drain at the top. As long as the drain capacity matches the flow, the tub will not overflow. It can do this indefinitely. Now start trickling in a little extra water - maybe a teacup a day. Before long, the tub will overflow and make a mess. What's so complex about that?
Also, radiation is a bigger factor than circulation "especially at night." Heat is transferred by three methods: conduction, convection, and radiation. You seem to know of only one. Heat cannot escape the Earth by "circulation." It can only escape by radiation, which is what CO 2 blocks. Go back to skool. You're out of you league here.
All your talk about politics and Jesse Jackson is irrelevant to the science.
You chose to ignore the point of circulation being the primary cooling engine for the earth. Circulation of warm air to the upper levels provides the necessary radiation of heat into the void. I really didn't think I needed to explain that to a physics major like yourself. Your bathtub analogy assumes the earth has only a certain capacity of eliminating or neutralizing carbon dioxide. Where is your proof that limitation exists? My conjecture is that the earth has an amazing capacity to maintain it's present global climate, despite the minor effects of human contribution. There are far greater forces involved than mankind. Most of which we still do not comprehend.
You have NO comprehension of science. You are simply repeating invalid talking points.
Radiation of heat from the Earth can occur from ground level. It is not required that air "circulate" anywhere before it can radiate "into the void." In fact, air can "circulate" all it wants and the sum of heat energy on Earth will remain constant without radiation. Ask any high skool student taking Physics. Do you think we have to put radio transmitters in space or at least high in the atmosphere to get a signal to the Moon? That's essentially what you're saying. Stunning ignorance.
Uhm, in the bathtub analogy, water represented energy, not CO2. Duh. Even the simplest of analogies are lost on wingers. No wonder you lost the last two elections.
Still no reply on whether you agree with your side's spokesmen's claim that blizzards are proof that there is no global warming. But here's the funniest one I've heard to date - I think he was British. He said global warming is impossible because hotter temperatures would cause more clouds to form. The resultant shade would cool things down again. This is what passes for science on your side. Agree with that one or not? All I need is a simple yes or no. Can you handle that? America awaits...
You obviously know nothing about physics! Radiation certainly can occur @ ground level and that is the argument in favor of the greenhouse effect in that heat radiating upward is deflected back due to elevated c02 levels and other pollutants. My argument stands that air circulation allows for warm air masses to be elevated upward allowing for the greater probability of radiating the heat stored in the warm air mass into space thereby debunking the greenhouse effect as a static element. Your bathtub analogy lacks all credibility and makes no sense for the reasons I stated earlier in that you're using some sort of junk science that limits the earth's capabilities and I'm wondering where you got that idea. As for whether I believe blizzards are proof man-made global warming is non-existant, my answer is of course not. I never said that. You're using a childish attempt to tie my words with someone elses to discount what I am saying. As for your last statement about warmer temperatures evaporating greater amounts of moisture from the oceans into the atmosphere, that indeed is a valid dynamic. As to whether it would cool the earth down, it's effect would be more local than global unless it became pervasive, such as a nuclear winter scenario which is what probably triggered the ice-ages( volcanos erupting under the oceans, not nuclear weapons, of course). I honostly don't believe you understand the dynamics of physics, based on your response. Sorry.
B-b-but your spokemen repeatedly state that blizzards are proof that global warming cannot happen. As I pointed out, heard that as recently as last Thursday from Dallas's shock jock Mark Davis. They all say that. If you (collectively) ever hope to convince anyone above six, you need to start using real science. You need to get messengers who can match a 10th grader on the difference between local weather and global climate. They keep citing U.S. blizzards, ignoring that the U.S. only comprises 3% of the earth's surface. Using their logic, why couldn't I claim there is global warming by pointing out that it was 83 degrees in Dallas the day after Christmas? OK, maybe you don't buy into that, but why does your side keep saying things like that and why do so many of you believe it? Perhaps you should impart your great wisdom to those simpletons so they stop misleading the gullible.
"Your last statement" was not my statement. That was from a denier. Sounds like you at least partly buy into it. Not surprised. The biggest failing of that clownish denier is that if clouds do form, warming has already happened. Duh...
My spokesman? That's the kind of childish nonsense that makes you inconsequential. No one speaks for me except me. You keep claiming I say something when it is someone else. As far as the cloud formation, just another example of you not comprehending the argument or the dynamics of physics. I never said you said it, just that you pointed it out and that it is a valid dynamic but you chose to twist the statement to fit your childish style of arguing. You choose not to listen to what I am saying but continue to revert to what someone else is saying and attributing those statements to me. Typical of someone backed into a corner.
If you have a physics degree, then maybe you can help funnymanpants explain how greenhouses work and how that relates to the earth's atmosphere. Then, help him explain what reversed the previous ice ages without modern man's help.
>>If you have a physics degree, then maybe you can help funnymanpants explain how greenhouses work and how that relates to the earth's atmosphere. Then, help him explain what reversed the previous ice ages without modern man's help.
You apparently don't even understand how science works. It is not by having a degree. It is by proving a hypothesis with facts, which the best climatologists in the world have done 696 times. What has your side done? Nothing.
Put up or shut up.
Previous ice ages that thawed. Duh! That should be all the proof you need, unless you are denying that there were ice ages that thawed. Duh. Duh. Duh.
>>Previous ice ages that thawed. Duh! That should be all the proof you need, unless you are denying that there were ice ages that thawed. Duh. Duh. Duh.
What a surprise! Still not links to those peer reviewed articles, huh? Where is your science, clock work?
Put up or shut up.
Do you really need a peer review article to prove previous ice ages existed and the ice thawed?
That was what you ducked: If there are cycles and we're in one, why exacerbate them?
No answer expected. Silence speaks louder.
I think floyd pretty much summed that up in previous posts.
I wish there was truly global warming, because I have been very, very cold. And I watched on CNN that there were protestors marching in DC that looked like they were very very cold too. I felt bad for them because they looked like they lived off the government, and had nothing else to do besides walk around in DC when it was very very cold. I have not felt the warming, but wish it would come.
If you want a link, here is one:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport:
I think it is within reason to say that this subject is not closed. There are many scientists around the world who dispute the theory of man-made gw. The link is from the United states' senate website. Why has this turned into a left/right issue? What does it profit a man to say he believes manmade gw doesnt exist? On the contrary, what does it profit a man if he claims it does exist? The way I see it, the only ones who will profit, and I mean REALLY profit, are those who promote this idea and then pass cap and trade legislation which involves mega $$$$$...Does anyone see that or am I crazy?? You tell me....