Yet another poke in the eye of Global Warming!

Hi Brit,

Once again I have the pleasure of poking the myth of Global Warming in the eye with a literary pointy stick.  According to the “science” behind the theory, the more CO2 in the air, the higher the temperature should climb.  Fair enough.  However, according to this, 2006 was Earth’s 5th warmest year, it would appear that CO2 levels have dropped, else, 2006 would have been the warmest year.  Other than making the obvious case that Global Warming rests on shaky foundations, the story is short enough to include completely, and make detailed commentary on.  My comments will start with ***

======================================== 

Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2006 was the fifth warmest year in the past century.

Other groups that study climate change also rank these years as among the warmest, though the exact rankings vary depending upon details of the analyses. Results differ especially in regions of sparse measurements, where scientists use alternative methods of estimating temperature change.

*** What?  Temperature is temperature.  If you don’t have adequate measurements, concentrate on getting them, not “alternative methods!”  How many BILLIONS of dollars do you “scientists” need to scatter some thermometers around?  Of course, until you do, all the jabber about Global Warming has to be considered a total lie.

Goddard Institute researchers used temperature data from weather stations on land, satellite measurements of sea surface temperature since 1982 and data from ships for earlier years.

*** Which is like mixing apples and oranges?  If the satellite measurements are reliable, why bother with other means?  Could it be that the satellites don’t confirm your predictions?

“2007 is likely to be warmer than 2006,” said James Hansen, director of NASA GISS, “and it may turn out to be the warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements. Increased warmth is likely this year because an El Nino is underway in the tropical Pacific Ocean and because of continuing increases in human-made greenhouse gases.”

 *** Which is like, hedging one’s bet?  If El Nino is responsible, why, if not for propaganda purposes, blame greenhouse gases?  Can you prove that guess?  Obviously not, else you would.  Does your research grant depend on connecting Global Warming to human activity, obviously it does.

Most places on the globe have warmed in recent decades, with the greatest warming at high latitudes in the Arctic Ocean, Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Climatologists say that warming is not due to local effects of heat pollution in urban areas, a point demonstrated by warming in remote areas far from major cities.

*** Except earlier in the article it was pointed out that adequate data is not available for remote regions.  So, this bit is obviously a lie.

In their analysis for the 2005 calendar year, GISS climatologists noted the highest global annual average surface temperature in more than a century.

*** Which leaves us with the obvious, and unanswered, question, why wasn’t 2006 even warmer?  I don’t recall seeing any reports that CO2 levels were declining, or levels for any other greenhouse gas going down for that matter.  This tends to indicate that the “climate scientists” may not know as much as they claim they do.

===========================================

Heck people, if this doesn’t wake you up to the fact that you are being played, I don’t know what will.  Make sure you click over to the original article; they deserve the traffic.

Oh, it occurred to me that even if I quit driving a vehicle powered by internal combustion and went back to a horse and buggy, these same twits would be bitching that my equines were causing Global Warming because of their flatulence. 

the Grit

Advertisements

57 Responses to “Yet another poke in the eye of Global Warming!”

  1. matt Says:

    burp

  2. britandgrit Says:

    Hi Matt,

    According to local custom, I’ll take that as a complement.

    the Grit

  3. indy Says:

    so the ice in the glaciers hasn’t really been melting at an accelerating pace, right? must be hollywood working with the liberals to make us all buy electric cars that the democrats have patents on so they can expand the government, huh? or maybe the earth is getting warmer, just like it has done cyclically over millions of years of heating and cooling, ice age then thaw, ice age then thaw, etc.. and there is nothing we can do about it anyway. maybe we helped it out this time, maybe not. still nothing we can do to stop it from doing whatever it is on its way to doing. enjoy the ride! buy a boat (wait, maybe all that money goes to the democrats too lol)!

  4. britandgrit Says:

    Hi indy,

    Actually, some glaciers are expanding and some are staying the same. However, the Global Warming Alarmists don’t want to talk about those. That wouldn’t be good for business.

    the Grit

  5. realrepublican Says:

    Talk about leaving out information. The satellite readings are records of the lower atmospheric temperatures and “thermometers” record surface temperature. Satellites measure temperature based on the amount of microwave radiation emitted through air molecules. They see a large area at one time and have little sample error. Surface measurements are obtained by gathering data from many isolated weather stations and taking the average. I will dumb it down for you, they measure different areas, therefore different results. People will take the information and compare. That way they can see when the surface air would be “trapped” below the large amounts of greenhouse gasses, the measurements of the earths atmosphere would be cooler, almost like being in a large greenhouse. Absolutely preposterous, I know. I am not stating any drastic actions toward anthropogenic emissions, but a “no-regrets” action is worse. There is no harm in worrying about the future now as opposed to “dealing” with it when it becomes out of control. Global Warming is based on models that predict the outcomes. An argument against global warming of course, but also against religion, which predicts our fate by our behavior

  6. Ed Darrell Says:

    Do you guys even watch television weather reports? This is one of the most ill-informed discussions of global warming I’ve ever seen.

    Where is there a claim that CO2 dropped? Don’t you seriously note any reason why different sampling methods might produce slightly different results? Don’t you understand why in a dynamic fluid like the atmosphere, exact predictions are so difficult?

    And, with such a strong sense of denial, can you deny gravity enough to float?

    Perhaps that’s the problem. You are aware, I hope, that abuse of helium can be fatal. Stop it, now.

  7. britandgrit Says:

    Hi Ed,

    You seem to have missed the point. Allow me to restate it for you. If Global Warming is caused by CO2 in the air, and the level of it continues to increase, why is each passing year not warmer?

    As to your questions, I understand all that very well. It’s part of my skepticism about Global Warming. The reported increase, according to the IPCC is 0.6 C plus or minus 0.2 C. Considering that this is cobbled together from different sources, using different methods to “correct” the data for local changes, like urban sprawl, that change could easily be attributed to the slightly different results you mention.

    realrepublican, I didn’t leave anything out, only limited my post to the general information in the news article. However, you make my point for me. The Climate Scientist in the article says, “Goddard Institute researchers used temperature data from weather stations on land, satellite measurements of sea surface temperature,” so, according to you that is not a valid methodology.

    the Grit

  8. realrepublican Says:

    As a “journalist”, I would assume that you know that I am not the Climate Scientist. Therefore, I shouldn’t be the subject validating anything in that last sentence. I think measuring temperatures is a valid methodology, so please, do not put words in my mouth.
    I said global warming is based on models that predict outcomes. That, “prediction”, is an argument against global warming, that argument being invalid. General Circulation Models (gcm’s) have succesfully predicted the past. Entering data for let’s say 1900 and seeing the agreement in year-by-year data. Sufficiently accurate input information yeilds reliable prediction of outcomes.
    The problem with opinions is that they are just that, opinions, views.

  9. realrepublican Says:

    oh and the diurnal minimum temperatures have been increasing. Maximim temperatures would rise at a much lower rate. I suggest that people who know nothing of climate studies read more than S. Fred Singer

  10. britandgrit Says:

    Hi realrepublican,

    Well, I’m not a “climate scientist” either, although from what I have ferreted out, neither are many who claim to be. However, I did go through engineering school, so I know very well that just because a model can spit out a match for past occurances, does not mean it can make predictions of the future. For that matter, if memory serves, tamino has a post on that over at Open Mind, and he, apparently, is a scientist. The invalid methodology was mixing satellite data and ground station data. As I said, apples and oranges.

    As to reading, I spend a good bit of time each day searching out articles on Global Warming. I’ve been following the debate since it switched from Global Cooling to Global Warming. At this point, any real science behind the rhetoric is meaningless, as it has been taken over by politicians for shady purposes. Mainly, that is where I focus my attention. Of course, since the science on the subject is so sloppy, I like to point that out as well.

    the Grit

  11. surfsander Says:

    Just thought I would drop by and see what was going on here, after being so enthralled by the pelosi discussion. I have to admit though that I am currently undecided on the global warming issue. Although, I find that alot of the information that we are getting is hand picked by alarmists, I definately agree that the topic is worth investigating. As far as the glacier line of arguments goes, glaciers have ALWAYS been growing, static, and receding throughout the entire history of the earth. That being said, it is hardly the measuring stick of global warming. The earth itself constantly goes through warming and cooling cycles, so to assume that this is a direct result of mankind, I find a bit presumptuous, (not to mention a bit egotistical.) I also would like to point out that collecting the measurable scientific data from the past, oh let’s be generous and say the last 500 years, and put that against the remaining, I’ll be conservative and say, 4.5 billion years, and, well, you get my point of this being a very young study, and far from an exact science given the numerous difficulties in collecting data due to the nature of the earth’s interior, surface, and atmosphere.
    I am not saying it is not happening, and that nothing should be done to address the matter, but on the same hand, I am not saying that it is happening either, (at least at the hands of man.)

  12. Gene Says:

    Global warming?? Explain to the people who live in Northern New York that the earth is getting warmer. Explain to the people in the mid west who saw temperatures well below “normal” that our planet is about to go inot upheaveal because it is getting warmer. Explain why the chemical companies are making fortunes from this whole phenomenon called global warming. For those who believe the so called scientists let me offer to you a bridge I am selling over the sahara desert.

  13. Ed Darrell Says:

    With the exception of a couple of years when massive volcanic action put enough particulates in the air to cool the whole planet, each year has been warmer over the past several decades.

    A warmer planet on average, by the way, does not mean that each place will be warmer. What it means is that there is more energy in the atmosphere, captured from the sun. This means that there may be annual fluctuations, but overall the temperature rises. The fluctuations, however, will be wilder. So we’ll have higher highs, warmer trends, and colder colds in some places. While some places (like Kansas) will tend toward desertification, other places will get much more rain than before.

    People in New York? Oh, yeah, you didn’t understand my last explanation. I’ll try to explain again. I’ll bet you miss it still.

    Because the atmosphere is warmer, the Great Lakes did not freeze this year as they usually do. Because they are unfrozen, lake effect snows are massively larger than they usually are. The massive cold snap? Well, yeah, that’s part of the greater fluctuation that global warming brings — you know, higher highs and lower lows? So couple a cold snap with unfrozen (due to global warming) Great Lakes, and you get huge blizzards in New York.

    Another effect of global warming is a change in the frequency of odd things, like El Nino. We’re seeing a lot more of them in the past 20 years.

    Tell me again, you studied meteorology where?

  14. Ed Darrell Says:

    What chemical company is making more money from global warming?

    You never responded to my note that insurance companies are raising rates throughout the South due to the nasty weather effects of global warming already seen. They don’t gamble in that industry, you know.

  15. surfsander Says:

    Ed,
    “the past several decades” In the 70’s and early 80’s why were they all saying that we were headed into the next iceage? Also check out these links:
    http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/kaser2004.pdf
    Sorry, can’t find the link, but check out Patrick J. Michaels info if you can find it. I do believe a Prof. of environmental studies from UVA, who was also a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, is a fairly credible source, as is the International Journal of Climatology.
    Not to say either side is correct, but just to let you know that there are quite respected climatologists out there who don’t agree with the information we are being bombarded with.

  16. surfsander Says:

    Also, greater temperatures = more water vapor in the atmosphere; more water vapor = more clouds; More cloud cover = cooler temperatures.

    And, by the way, Brevard and then Virginia Tech.
    Not as a major, but as personal interest science credits.

  17. realrepublican Says:

    Patrick Michaels! That reminds me of the scene in “Coming to America”, where they are in the barbershop talking about boxers and the “white guy” brings up Rocky Marcianno. The leading skeptic on global warming is your choice of an argument point. He wants people to belive that its a science of monetary gain. “Scientists don’t conspire, they compete”, a close scientist friend of mine once said that quite indignantly. Any imputation of bias can be turned around on the other side. Chemical companies. Don’t you think skeptics are trying to garner private funding, media attention, book deals, etc… I guess only skeptics of global warming are ethical.

  18. Ed Darrell Says:

    Surfsander, meteorologists and other atmospheric scientists in the ’40s-’70s warned that air pollution might change climate. The direction was largely unknown, however, there being a race at the time between particulate pollution, which tended to cool the planet, and greenhouse gases, which warm the planet.

    Greenhouse gases won out. You just weren’t paying attention to what the scientists actually said, nor to what was actually happening.

    So, now that we know you and other global warming skeptics didn’t listen in the ’70s and ’80s when we could have made significant differences to prevent disaster at greatly reduced cost, and you were ill-informed then, what is it that makes your still-ill-informed conclusions worth listening to today?

  19. britandgrit Says:

    Hi all,

    We’ve got lots of posts on this subject. From what I’ve read the argument boils down to:

    1) the science supporting Global Warming is neither settled nor convincing

    2) the whole thing is being pushed by the UN, which alone should make one suspicious

    3) even if the IPCC report is accurate in its projections, we have decades to fix the problem, so why the rush?

    4) the rush to pass laws and degrade our freedom in the name of Global Warming is a game that The Powers That Be have always played; make people afraid of something, use their fear to attain power and money, start the cycle over.

    the Grit

  20. giveaphuk Says:

    my dad, a geologist & scientist, raised me trying to convince me that global warming didn’t exist.. He was doing this before the debate ever reached many peoples attention, & now, many years later, when global warming has finally become widely debated, he has since changed his stance on his position in the argument & now agrees with me in that global warming is occuring on an ever increasing scale..

    now to all those people out there, with the risk of being labeled ‘hippy’ or ‘radical’ – what kind of car do you drive, do u enjoy the consistant luxury of air-conditioning? can you safely say that this altering of ‘your’ direct environment, is not having an impact of the rest of us??

    it is simple math, multiplication, & only then can we realise the larger part of the problem.

  21. Ed Darrell Says:

    You’ve not read enough, or you’ve read too much skewed stuff.

    1. The science on human effects on the atmosphere is clear — no one disagrees that we should act.

    2. Global warming is just one of many effects, and in a global sense, it’s almost too big to focus. The only serious scientific disagreement at the moment, that is, supported by research, is how significant the warming will be. The U.S. is already paying several tens of billions annually in increased insurance costs and damage recovery, directly attributable to many different effects of global warming — drought in some areas, flooding in other areas, greater severity and increasing frequency of large storms, harder freezes, lack of freezes, rains at inopportune times, etc., etc. Texas spends about $1 billion a year in fire-ant control efforts. Were the climate what it was in 1933, much of Texas would be outside the range of the imported Argentine fire ant. As it is, the nasty little critter now extends well into Northern California, and well north of the Red River. Mosquito-born diseases — West Nile Virus being a good example — spread with the increasing range of formerly-tropical mosquitoes, the changing migration patterns of birds, and longer warm periods with increased puddles. Think of dengue fever and malaria, once thought eradicated from the U.S., but back. Costs will increase.

    If science isn’t convincing, you really think we should retreat to crystal balls?

    2. UN=U.S. If the UN policy pushes it, the U.S. pushes it. The UN is considered wholly captive to the U.S. by most observers, especially those outside the wingnut American right. If you’re suspicious of the U.S. position . . . well, there you go. The U.S. is biased against global warming findings, officially. And still those findings come out? Franklin said truth is that powerful. One might pay attention, if indeed the word is getting out despite official censoring of it.

    3. Decades to feel the effects, not decades to fix. Ozone hole-causing chemicals have been banned for more than a decade, but the ozone holes keep increasing. It had been hoped we might see improvement by now, but this last year was a record ozone hole year, at both poles — largely due to subsidiary effects of global warming.

    Oh, yeah — when climate watchers made predictions in the 1960s and 1970s, no one knew about the ozone holes. With the exception of the eruptions of Mt. Pinatubo and a couple of other volcanoes, every new piece of information on these issues since 1960 has added to the case that we need to act then. Now may be too late. You want to wait? Yeah, if your kid’s 104-degree fever goes to 106, that would be a more compelling case to do something. It’s irresponsible to wait for it to happen, if you love your kid, but it’s a sorta free country.

    4. A clean environment “degrades” our freedom? No more than a safe food supply degrades our freedom. Do you really believe in “buyer beware” in food safety? Why in air cleanliness?

  22. tamino Says:

    You might be interested in this post.

  23. warrenh Says:

    If one is to get to the truth one must put aside the emotional desires one has for their life, family, and yes the Earth. A study of just the facts leaves no doubt that the Earth is warming, whether by a combination of human processes accellerating normal planet cycles or just the effects of our lifestyle. One of the most telling facts can be found in the recent studies by Spanish ecologists and biologists. Bears in Europe are evolving to the climate changes seen on the continent, something that has not been recorded before in the long recorded history of Europe, in effect they are choosing to stay awake longer, which is allowing the bears to procure more food. Evolutionary changes in species on the Earth is being accelerated by the heating of the planet, for now, but as things change so will he viability of life. I would like to know which ice bodies in the world, that aren’t currently in their normal freezing cycle of the year, are increasing in size and mass. The current picture of the ice bodies around the world is one of melting at levels beyond those seen in years past, in fact the snow peaks around the world are disappearing. The mountain tops of the tallest peaks in the world, ones that have never been without snow during the recorded time of man, are losing their snow for the first time in recorded history. The list of facts being tabulated grows moment to moment, the scientists are controlling their emotions as they should and bringing the facts out in order, so it can be seen how all the facts are related to the same problem. Global Warming? Check out the essay on global warming on my site, http://www.warrenh.wordpress.com/ for more details.

  24. britandgrit Says:

    Hi tamino,

    Nice to see you around. I read that post when you first put it up. Very nice work. However, when you get to this, “The trend is due to the increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which is due to human activity. This is anthropogenic global warming. We can subtract this trend from the original data, leaving residuals:” you loose it. You can’t know that any warming is due to greenhouse gas, as to prove it, we would need to reduce those levels and demonstrate a cooling effect. This sort of over statement is what initially made me suspicious of Global Warming in the first place. I have yet to be convinced. With every assumption I see presented as fact, I only have stronger reason to believe there is funny business going on.

    warrenh, as I understand it, that is not evolution. I will certainly read your essay, as soon as get caught up. The Brit and I always try to check out the sites of our visitors, but we’ve had so many lately that my dial up connection is hard pressed to keep up with demand 🙂

    Ed, your understanding of the UN shows that you don’t keep up with the news any better than you have investigated Global Warming. Wade through some of tamino’s blog, then check out the links in my posts on the subject. There are numerous inconsistencies and assumptions that Global Warming rests upon that should cause anyone to have doubts as to its validity. These, of course, are glossed over by the political bosses of the IPCC and by our liberal press. Oh, and yes, environmentalists would love to take away as much of our freedom as they can. That, after all, is the only way to stop Evil Mankind from destroying the planet. Don’t you read their literature either?

    giveaphuk, your father probably had little choice but to change his mind. I’ve posted several cases where scientists have been badgered, harassed, and threatened with loss of funding and position if they didn’t. While this casts doubts on the “science” of Global Warming, it also shows that politics, not fact, is the driving force.

  25. surfsander Says:

    Ed and Realrepublican,
    Don’t blast me for hand picking a scientist that holds a different view from yours, granted he may be the biggest skeptic, but until I see your credentials I am still going to take his word over yours. And don’t act so indignant that I did so, because the global warming doomsdayers do the exact same thing. Also, I’ve already said that I am undecided on the issue in 2 previous posts, which means that I am paying attention to both sides of the argument. Just because I choose to post a dissenting opinion to the majority of posts here, don’t start blasting me because I am trying to show you that there is another side. I think a little differently than you, hey, maybe I look different as well, now you can start blasting me on that too.
    In the future, read all of my comments before spouting off about one.

  26. Tim Says:

    Let’s see, the difference in tone and rhetoric between this post and the Pelosi one is… remind me again? Grit, given the lack of trust you’re demonstrating in scientists (they’re doing it for the money) or politicians (they’re doing it for the power) or the UN (they’re doing it because they’re stupid?), how is it plausible to have any reasonable debate about this?

    Choose your “religious debate”: Mac vs. Windows; Global Warming vs Global Sham; Left vs. Right; Creation vs. Evolution… if any of us are going to communicate in any manner other than ad-hominem attacks, we’re going to have to accept the POSSIBILITY that someone on the other side is genuinely interested in something other than stopping “Evil Mankind from destroying the planet.” Has it occurred to you that an environmentalist might actually have your children’s best interests at heart?

    Part of the issue here is when we speak as part of a group (“a team of scientists” or “a group of Capitol Hill Republicans” or “a think tank security experts”) , instead of speaking as individuals. Group-speak generates all sorts of ill-effects, including speaking in absolutes, and instant-polarization. Group-speak and group-think strive for every issue to be black and white, as gray makes meetings take way too long.

    This is why I resent some of the labels that are placed upon me. “Oh, so you’re a Kentuckian/Baptist/Republican/Death-Penalty-Advocating/Computer-Programming nutjob!” If I could find some indoor plumbing, then maybe all this climate change talk would hold my attention better. Lately, my butt’s been too cold due to all this Global Freezing ™ we’re seeing in KY. 😀 – Tim

  27. britandgrit Says:

    Hi surfsander,

    The next task on my list is to look for a discussion board for WordPress. Not only do I like that format, it’ll make it easier to keep track of what everyone has said.

    the Grit

    Hi Tim,

    That’s an interesting point, but, for the most part, we are stuck with all sorts of human failings, including the tendency to act as you mention. However, I just enjoy poking things with a pointy stick. I rant about Global Warming, because the general discussion is so one sided. I rant about liberals and environmentalists for the same reason. Oh, and it does promote discussion, although not always productive discussion 😉

    Change Kentuckian to Tennessean, and Baptist to Atheist and it fits me. Of course, I don’t code for a living anymore since we inherited a farm. Fortunately, part of our crop is timber, so I have a plentiful supply of sticks to sharpen.

    Try to stay warm,
    the Grit

  28. surfsander Says:

    Hi Grit,
    Love the “sticks to sharpen” -hilarious.
    To everyone,
    Sorry about the comment on ‘think different, look different’, I just get pretty angry when you try to have a discussion with people and all they want to do is argue and then not listen to what the other person is trying to point out. I would like to believe that I won’t do it again, but don’t hold me to that.
    Thanks to Tim for the reminder.

  29. britandgrit Says:

    Hi surfsander,

    It would appear to be my calling in life. Not that I am complaining, although my preference would either be jet set playboy or famous chief. I can live with giving people a chuckle now and then.

    As to sharp comments, while we should all strive to maintain calm and friendly discussion, be happy that the virtual world at least keeps us from coming to blows! Thank you electrons!

    My theory on this is, that if the Internet had arrive much sooner, the Civil War would never have happened, since we would have been too busy posting arguments about slavery vs States’ Rights. Be thankful people that we have a virtual outlet to settle the Britney with hair vs the Britney without hair debate!

    the Grit

  30. Brian Schmidt Says:

    If you don’t believe that global warming is more likely than cooling over the next few decades, then you can make money for a charity of your choice. Go to here:

    http://www.longbets.org/196

    The bettor there (me) believes that global warming will happen. You bet against me and both of us give a tax-deductible donation to the Long Now Foundation. When the bet pays off, all the money goes to the charity of the winner’s choice. My bet offer has been sitting there unanswered for over a year. This is your chance to put your money where your mouth is, double the amount of money you’d normally give to charity, and make sure MY money goes to whatever cause YOU think is worthy. Check it out.

  31. surfsander Says:

    Hi everyone,
    Just thought I would stop by for a quick word.
    1) The ice on the interior of Antarctica is getting thicker, only that around the edges is breaking apart.

    2)Disease spread is mostly caused by mutations from the original form, where one vaccine for a previous form of virus no longer is effective, also the case with bacteria, which is why most new antibiotics are significantly stronger than the previous generation. Virus and bacteria DO evolve over time to propogate themselves.

    3) The U.N. does absolutely not bend to the will of America. If you need any evidence of this simply look at any news channel you choose, and ask why The U.N. is not in Iraq, why it has been so difficult for the U.S. to enact strict sanctions on Iran and North Korea. Not wanting to get off on a tangent for the reasons behind this, suffice it to say that everyone is capable of seeing the evidence against the U.N. = the U.S.

    4) Companies benefitting from the global warming hysteria, any companies involved in emission control devices, chemical companies that come up with environmentally safe chemical alternatives, (CFC replacements are the most obvious example. Any company seeking a govt. grant to come up with an environmentally safe widget. Evironmental consultants. The list goes on and on and on.
    I am all for more environmental conservation, but to think that no company is profiting from the hysteria is basically saying that we have a communist economy.

    5) Freedoms lost? Any law that is past serves to further restrict our freedoms, BY DEFINITION. Some laws are good for our welfare, some are merely to gain revenue. BOTH have their pro’s and con’s. This is not a topic for discussion. I am not saying either side of this is right or wrong on the current issue. I am just addressing a question that has been posed.

    6) Warrenh, interesting about the bears, however this is a behaviorial change and not an example of evolution, like I said though, interesting.
    Glaciers thickening, see #1 above. Mountains losing their snow caps, this is not the first time in history that snows on mountain tops have receded. (I’ll see if I can’t dig up the resource on that for you, that is, if it hasn’t been burnt, and yes, that was a joke that should not be taken TOO seriously.)

    And lastly,
    7)Scientists, -anyone asking for money may not be totally objective in their findings. Do I think that all scientists on both sides of the argument are being persuaded? No, only the very short sighted. But there is a saying, publish or perish; this is where personal motives come more largely into play. This topic is just to illustrate that we all need to look at both sides of the argument.

    Alright, maybe a not-that-quick word, but there it is.
    Bye for now.

  32. realrepublican Says:

    You are correct about the Antarctica ice cap thickening. Only, you might not like the reason why. The interior of the southern polar cap is generally too cold for precipitation. As the atmosphere warms (global warming), more moisture accumulates, creating snowfall in the interior. The temperature is still below freezing point, so the snowfall adds to the already large mass. This is also the ONLY area where the ice is growing. Everywhere else on the planet, glaciers recede at record rates. This wonderful glacier in east Antarctica also acts as a buffer to the outwash of all other melting glaciers. Thank you glacier.

    Increase in the spread of deadly pathogens is not caused mostly by mutations. This is the most unfounded thing I have read. We are not talking about a wide spread of drug-resistant staphylococcus. These are diseases that thrive in certain temperatures and have not been dealt with on a large scale before (therefore not resistant to medicine, there is no medicine). Animals once protected by their colder ecosystems are now being infected due to a rise in local temperature. Rift Valley fever, Avian flu, any other numerous insect-borne pathogens all thrive in warmer temperatures and are being seen in historically colder areas for the first time. Even if global warming is 100 percent non-anthropogenic, this is still happening.

    Hysteria might be the wrong word. Every scientist on the planet believes there is a warming of the earth taking place. The determining factor is where we disagree. By the way, chemical companies such as DOW, Monsanto, etc… would much rather have the product they already markrt be bought than have to develop an environmentaly safe alternative at a very high cost.

    Or its just the End Times

  33. surfsander Says:

    Realrepublican,
    Malaria accounts for more than 80% of total human deaths throughout the history of man, I would say that’s pretty large scale. Insect borne-viruses are anywhere there are insects that come into contact with animals (man included), not just in tropical climates, and, one of the most famous of these was the plague,– large scale, temperate climates. The argument about mutations was strictly in reference to some of the proposed arguments supporting global warming, (the topic at hand) and should not be applied to the general spread of pathogens at large. Not only that, your mention of the Avian flu goes against your argument because the particular strain in question IS a new mutation (1990’s) of a strain that has been around a very long time, it has never been solely restricted to tropical zones but can be found anywhere there are domesticated foul. It is not insect borne, but is passed from bird to bird and in the rare case bird to human. Rift Valley Fever, on the other hand, is an insect borne virus and has been around for more than 100 years and is often little more than a fever that will run it’s course in less than a week when untreated. However, since it rarely develops into a serious illness, (I believe around 1.5% of all cases don’t hold me to an exact percentage but that is close) this makes it a very hard virus to get true data on because of the number of cases that probably go undiagnosed.
    As for the chemical companies comment, you may want to check patent dates, DuPont especially, you WILL find very interesting info on that.

  34. surfsander Says:

    Also realrepublican,
    Got a chuckle out of the end times remark. Right on.

  35. realrepublican Says:

    Jews were responsible for the plague. POGROM! That’s my idea. I have decided there is no global warming and everyone, except Ed and me previously, is right. I turned the air conditioning on and started reading the bible. I am converted, Hallelujah. It’s Local Cooling.
    BTW, I graduated from Delaware with a degree in chemistry, I don’t need to read up on DuPont.
    (yes malaria, a mosquito-borne illness which thrives in tropical temperatures. It is being seen in historically non-tropical environments longer and longer.)

  36. Gaudenz Mischol Says:

    Realrepublican

    Malaria was long a plague in Switzerland, in the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, when the swamps where drained by diverting rivers it vanished. Switzerland is not in the tropics!
    and take a look here:http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/11/news/edreiter.php
    It’s not so simple as you see it.

  37. realrepublican Says:

    God dammit I didn’t say the tropics. I know Switzerland is not in the tropics. Do you know that you are ridiculous for even pointing this out. Respond to what the hell I wrote and not what you want to see written. A vector-borne illness would generally disapear with time if you get rid of the source.
    I said tropical temperatures. Relatively high humidity and teamperature above 21 centigrade. These conditions are lasting longer in summer months of colder climates due to the warmong of the planet. Therefore traditionally “tropical” diseaeses are affecting other ecosystems.
    I feel that I shouldn’t have to overexplain everything I write here. Are you responders not educated enough to understand what is written?
    You know, just believe what the hell you want. No amount of data, facts, or proof will change that. You will always be able to find one website, one book to object. Therefore, you will always be able to argue. I am not giving my point of view nor have I. I have given you scientific data and you are still to hardheaded to look past what you have been fed by both sides.

  38. realrepublican Says:

    by the way, I didn’t need to read about malaria outbreaks in kenya to know there is an endemic in Africa. I don’t listen to Al Gore. I don’t believe the world will turn into a ball of flames by 2012. I tend to not base my research on religious articles.

    stop trying to disprove to further your argument that you can’t prove. try instead, to prove your argument. I want facts of how the world is not warming, how disease is not spreading, how glaciers are not receding. Please give more than one example on each front.

  39. realrepublican Says:

    I meant endemic “virus” in Africa

  40. Gaudenz Mischol Says:

    I think you are sick!

  41. surfsander Says:

    The only thing I am trying to prove is that the argument given for humans being the cause of greenhouse effect global warming is full of holes. We are intentionally being shown a misrepresentation of the facts. There will always be disease outbreaks, there will always be climate changes, there will always be glacial recession and progression, and there will always be disagreement between the causes behind all of these things and more. The proof you want is in the overall history of the earth. It has happened before man arrived and will continue to happen after we are gone (as far as we know.) Throughout almost all of my posts I have often said that my question is whether or not man is the cause of the current trend, which you have done as well. I have enjoyed the postings otherwise I would not reply to the comments. Including the pointed remarks as well as the general sarcasm. The one time I made an intentionally spiteful comment, I apologized shortly after, so don’t think I am out to attack your beliefs or presume that I am undereducated. As a reminder, I had to explain myself about the context of viral mutation, when I assumed that it would be understood.
    Got to go, hope to talk to all of you later.

  42. britandgrit Says:

    Hi all,

    While I hate to go all Big Brother, I must point out that WordPress has a policy against foul language, which I suspect includes some words included in recent comments. Personally, I could care less, however, since we are guests in their domain, kindly restrict yourselves to ^%(*(*%$ I assure you that most readers will get your meaning. It’s a test of will power I know, but for those who can’t over come the desire on their own, there are, so I have heard, rehab centers for this opening across the US.

    As to malaria, I would point out that, without the earlier environmental wacko uprising against DDT, it would, by now, not be a problem. Of course, I respect the opinion of those who care more for birds than for hundreds of millions of people who have died in agony because of this decision.

    I would also, since I have this great opportunity to talk to such an interesting group, ask if perhaps we are looking at the wrong problems? Really, don’t most of the problems we face today boil down to too many people?

    the Grit

  43. realrepublican Says:

    surfsander, I enjoy your posts and welcome the debate. I feel you do have knowledge of the subject. I tend to get a little worked up over one or two people and condense my argument to cover everyone. I apologize if you felt I was attacking you. I was not. The full mischol on the other hand might want to go back to wherever he tested for his GED and ask for a refund. Learn how to read you bum.

  44. realrepublican Says:

    Well grit, yes, many of the problems we face today boil down to too many people. EarthFirst, greenpeace, peta, evangelical christians, fundamentalist religious sects, Eli’s, non-union film productions, slash and burn farmers, oil companies, and did I mention greenpeace. The first people that should go are those that misinform to push an agenda.

    DDT is still used in disease prevention in many thrid world countries. Lack of funds is the real threat to prevention. Well, along with DDT resistant vectors.

    Wow, we certainly have gotten of course with the CO2 debate. Any thoughts on permafrost melting and releasing stored CO2 into the atmosphere?

  45. britandgrit Says:

    Hi r,

    That is another problem with this debate. Unless one repeats everything they have ever said as a prelude to each post, stuff gets lost. We should strive to keep that in mind as we discuss the issues, difficult as it may be. This, I should point out, is why my wife will not allow me to discuss politics or religion at parties. Join me in praising the virtual world which allows us the non-violent ability to indulge!

    the Grit

  46. britandgrit Says:

    Hi r,

    We seem t have been typing at the same time. I love modern technology.

    As to DDT, as far as I’ve seen, and being a farmer I keep pretty good track of pesticides, there are no insects resistant to DDT. Of course, considering it has been written off as even a remote possibility for use in the US, for political reasons, I may well have missed something.

    As to wondering off course, that’s part of the fun, and value of this type of discourse. If you missed the mention, which, considering the number of recent posts and comments is well within the realm of possibility, we are about to move our blog to a paid hosting site. Besides the our overwhelming capitalist greed, this will also give us more freedom to offer various means of discussion. I’m in the process of searching out discussion board additions to the excellent WordPress blog platform. I like that format and feel it’s a good companion to the usual blog – comment format. I hope you will grace us with you continued virtual presence.

    As to permafrost melting CO2, I would think that, if those areas warmed to that extent, the resulting plant growth in those areas would suck up much more CO2 than was released.

    As to a lack of funds to third world countries, we have a point of agreement. Even if we cast aside the humanitarian aspects, from a capitalist point of view, developing those areas will open them as new markets for our products and services. This, it would seem, is a win – win situation all around. However, you should keep in mind that, the changes being pushed in the name of Global Warming, will prevent, or at least severely delay, progress in this area.

    It’s a complex world that, as time allows, I try to keep a watch on.

    the Grit

  47. surfsander Says:

    realrepublican,
    No worries. Not truly offended, just wanted clarification.
    realrepublican & grit,
    Agree too many people, although can’t complain too much since I am one of them. There was an interesting study of overpopulation done with rats in a confined environment that explains alot of the social problems we see today, but off topic.
    As for CO2 release, I haven’t seen any info addressing this topic in core samples, (only overviews and summaries) but have often wondered about it, (having a pretty fair background in Chemistry as well, cheers Realrep.)
    Post links with info if you could, and give me some time to wade through. Presently though, I would presume that the effects would be negligible unless it coincided with another event of some magnitude.

  48. realrepublican Says:

    Hey Grit,

    you are correct about the insects not being immune to DDT. There are strains of malaria though that have become resistant. Agricultural use is pretty much banned worldwide because it is a B2 carcinogen (probable human carcinogen). I would probably kill myself if other B2s were banned, like gasoline and coffee. Yes I said gasoline. I know it’s a problem and one of the main subjects for this blog but I like driving my cars. I do have to say that Rachel Carson did a good thing by bringing to our attention that DDT was killing animals. It was not her that pushed for the removal of the product because it caused cancer in humans. That was our government, who, like always, plays off fear to get elected. People pushing agendas, see above.

    I think the main issue here is that when research becomes federally funded, people get up in arms. On both sides. I am one of the minority who belives in Global Warming being for the most part anthropogenic, Stem Cell research not being banned(never gonna happen but I put it in), GMOs, and my favorite a closely watched “Wise Use”. That being said, I am a research scientist. I live to learn by action. I believe in study and not rhetoric. I am human and know that we dominate a trophic level, but with power comes responsibility and we have a responsibility for every creature on earth. Even that is in the bible

  49. britandgrit Says:

    Hi r,

    Well said. Life here on the farm would be most difficult without internal combustion engines, and I become most difficult to live with, or so my wife says, without caffeine and nicotine 😉

    surfsander, is this what you’re looking for, http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/ ? Some of the links in the article seem to point to the raw data.

    the Grit

  50. surfsander Says:

    Hi grit,
    The article is basically the same thing I have been seeing, although I haven’t had time to browse through the links. I’ll check it out over the weekend, thanks.
    The info I have been wondering about is if the researchers take into account the release of CO2 and other gases in the Ice core sample during the warming periods. I know that as they build back up it is a direct representation of the current gases in the atmosphere, but during the warmer periods, I am suggesting that the exchange of gases from the top layer, (at that time) and the atmosphere ( also at that time) may skew the data during those times. I haven’t seen anything addressing that or even if the effects would be that far off even if it did happen. I am not a climatologist and therefore, I guess ignorant would be the right word, as to how this may affect the data. Something I may be doomed to wonder about forever, as with so many other things. Talk to you all later.

  51. britandgrit Says:

    Hi surfsander,

    I find the ice core and tree ring studies interesting, but I’d hardly bet the farm on their accuracy. If I see anything on this I’ll post it.

    the Grit

  52. Ed Darrell Says:

    Considering the history of lying by trees and glaciers, for some, that may be a rational stand. I can’t imagine exactly for whom, actually, but perhaps after a few dozen beers I could.

    Gotta watch out for them lyin’ trees. And as Ronald Reagan said, they pollute the air, too!

  53. warrenh Says:

    Hi Grit: I would like to know exactly what ice sheets your talking about when you say some are staying the same or increasing. I would say yes in winter time some of the ice that melted will always freeze back, but the overall size of the ice is decreasing from year to year in total. That is when you take the amount of ice left at the end of the full yearly cycle it will be consistently diminishing year to year, not over a monthly or weekly cycle.

  54. Alternative Medicine Says:

    Alternative Medicine

    Alternative Medicine

  55. Power Of Law Forms Says:

    Power Of Law Forms

    I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting

  56. matt Says:

    Happy Halloween. 🙂

  57. Anonymous Says:

    37 angry treehuggers and Al Gore can’t be wrong!!

    Global Warming Alarmists Beware… http://www.EvilCarbon.com

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: