Global Warming,,,you think????
- Thread starter C HOLLAND
- Start date
Help Support CattleToday:
- Status
badaxemoo
Well-known member
aplusmnt":2dcf2bji said:
There is bantering back and forth even in the scientific community about the accuracy of climate projections and what concrete consequences they will have for weather.
BUT what is indisputable is that the concentration of carbon dioxide in atmosphere is increasing at an alarming rate and the increase can be traced back to the beginning of the industrial revolution. We are going to reach levels of carbon dioxide that have not existed in the atmosphere for all of human history.
Call me conservative, but I guess I would prefer to end, or at least slow down this grand experiment.
Susie David
Well-known member
Thank goodness that we live around 2,000 feet elevation and have a good access to the river when the flood happens.
Got the boat all lined up and plans for the dock on the drawing board.
Haven't been getting the snow like we did in years past...of course the sun could be cooling down too...now that is a theory to explore.
When we talk about climate cycles that take millions of years to come about I really don't think that our limited existance on earth..what about 50K years will matter...we just got in on the end of the last ice age and now want another go at it.
And that is just my two bits worth...asked for or not. DMc
Got the boat all lined up and plans for the dock on the drawing board.
Haven't been getting the snow like we did in years past...of course the sun could be cooling down too...now that is a theory to explore.
When we talk about climate cycles that take millions of years to come about I really don't think that our limited existance on earth..what about 50K years will matter...we just got in on the end of the last ice age and now want another go at it.
And that is just my two bits worth...asked for or not. DMc
Yes, the sky is falling and the end of the world is upon us. For a small fee I can provide you with a significant amount of insurance to cover you in the event of earth failure. For a mere $50 I will provide you with fiftyfivekagillionzillian US dollars worth of insurance to be paid to you or your benefitiary upon any apocoliptic event that causes 3/4ths of the earth or more to be oblitherated. For a limited time, for an additional $25 the coverage will be extended to events causing the sky to fall. Act now before its to late. Dont be caught short.
3MR":1ojm2pay said:
Don't know about you guys but I'm going to build a space ship in my backyard and be ready when the day comes. I was going to dig a big bunker, but with all this global warming, it's to darn cold here. I think a space ship is a better idea.... but wait the sky is falling... how am I going to blast off??? I better go put some more tin foil on my head, watch Al's movie and drink some more kool aide. :lol:
Alan
Exactly, if the sky falls where are you going to fly that space ship around in. Better buy my insurance. Tell you what. Since you have been so helpful to me in the past I will wave the shipping and handeling fees.
George Monk
Well-known member
If you know the geologic history the carbon dioxide percentage is much lower than ever before. When the earth started there was very little O2 in the atmosphere. During the Tertiary period CO2 levels were much higher as evidenced by the prolific plant growth. That is why the largest coal deposits are in the central USA. As the plants produce O2 the percent of CO2 decreased and there was a shift in plant growth from gymnosperms to angiosperms. That led to a large distrinction of plant eating dinosaurs that depended on plants for food. If CO2 levels are higher plants grow better. So you see if we can INCREASE CO2 we can solve world hunger because our plants will grow better. Moral of the story.....drive an SUV but beware of dinosaur crossings!
SPRINGER FARMS MURRAY GRE
Well-known member
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball
Monday, February 5, 2007
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.
Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (http://www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball
Monday, February 5, 2007
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.
Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (http://www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at
badaxemoo
Well-known member
Dr. Timothy Ball is the head of a think tank that is controlled by Canada's energy industry. He's a shill for Canadian oil.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball
Thanks for the reference, but I think I'll believe the objective scientists at NASA and NOAA who are paid by the public and who have stated that humans are contributing to climate change.
Michael Crichton? Do you know how out of touch Bush is? He actually invited Michael Crichton to the White House to discuss global warming. I think he asked him if he could replicate a Tyrannosaurus Rex for him too, but that's a separate issue.
While it's fine and dandy for people like Crichton and Al Gore to popularize scientific theories for the public, don't you think the President of the United States should be hearing directly from climatologists?
Oh, that's right, he was probably too busy trying to muzzle James Hansen, the NASA scientist who has raised concerns about global warming and Bush's science policy.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball
Thanks for the reference, but I think I'll believe the objective scientists at NASA and NOAA who are paid by the public and who have stated that humans are contributing to climate change.
SPRINGER FARMS MURRAY GRE":2jlwna0z said:
Michael Crichton? Do you know how out of touch Bush is? He actually invited Michael Crichton to the White House to discuss global warming. I think he asked him if he could replicate a Tyrannosaurus Rex for him too, but that's a separate issue.
While it's fine and dandy for people like Crichton and Al Gore to popularize scientific theories for the public, don't you think the President of the United States should be hearing directly from climatologists?
Oh, that's right, he was probably too busy trying to muzzle James Hansen, the NASA scientist who has raised concerns about global warming and Bush's science policy.
smallrancher
Well-known member
What would be your point in showing that last link, call me stupid, but I didn't get it. Are you familiar with the FACT that there used to be glaciers here? Are you familiar with the FACT that the melted? Start using logic and thinking for yourself instead of just jumping on the media bandwagon! No offence intended here, just very adiment about my opinions. We are all entitled to them, my job is to show you your wrong. 
News report the other day had to do with the carbon dioxide issue, and I was in awe of some of the statistics that were thrown around.
I can't remember exactly how the statistic went, but it is one thing I will change this weekend.
If everyone changed 5 of their lightbulbs to the flourescent type it would be like taking x00,000 cars off the road.... Like I said I can't remember exact numbers, but I was amazed.
I figure my house this weekend, my moms house, and probably my grams, as I know these 2 individuals don't have much $ so I will help where/how I can....
I can't remember exactly how the statistic went, but it is one thing I will change this weekend.
If everyone changed 5 of their lightbulbs to the flourescent type it would be like taking x00,000 cars off the road.... Like I said I can't remember exact numbers, but I was amazed.
I figure my house this weekend, my moms house, and probably my grams, as I know these 2 individuals don't have much $ so I will help where/how I can....
OP
OP
C HOLLAND
Well-known member
MikeC said:[/quote
] Don't you just love a post that makes people think verses the typical argument of who has the best type of cattle.
OP
OP
C HOLLAND
Well-known member
The truth as I see global warming is we have alot to learn about what causes it and if we can slow down the process. We have leaned the hard way about many things that harm the enviroment we live in and have made great strides in reducing some forms of polution in our lakes and rivers and I feel we can and must think about the long term affect of what we are doing to the air we breath and this bubble we live in.
JMO
and this post is actually refreshing from the norm of late. We can disagree and normally all solutions come from open discussions and actions taken from what we learn. AN OPEN MIND IS A POWERFUL TOOL
JMO
and this post is actually refreshing from the norm of late. We can disagree and normally all solutions come from open discussions and actions taken from what we learn. AN OPEN MIND IS A POWERFUL TOOL
badaxemoo
Well-known member
smallrancher":2s5mipxf said:What would be your point in showing that last link, call me stupid, but I didn't get it. Are you familiar with the FACT that there used to be glaciers here? Are you familiar with the FACT that the melted? Start using logic and thinking for yourself instead of just jumping on the media bandwagon! No offence intended here, just very adiment about my opinions. We are all entitled to them, my job is to show you your wrong.
No, I won't call you stupid.
I posted all those links in response to you statement that there is no scientific proof that humans are contributing to global warming. Every one of those links contains information from legitimate scientists and scientific organizations that would seem to refute your claim.
As far as jumping on the media bandwagon, I've been writing letters to elected officials and various media outlets since the mid-1980s about this issue.
I included the last link to show you that the same folks that brought us creation science would also like to deny global warming. Better jump on the bandwagon soon, because if you don't, you'll be left behind with the creationist nuts and the that other wonderful group of climate change deniers, the paid oil-industry shills.
preston39
Well-known member
==========badaxemoo":zl75iw49 said:
badaxemoo,
How does creationism deny climate change?
- Status
