The USA Today never disappoints. Now they are back on the Global Warming bandwagon with this silly article in which they now charge that global warming causes more hurricanes:
The researchers found that average hurricane numbers jumped sharply during the 20th century, from 3.5 per year in the first 30 years to 8.4 in the earliest years of the 21st century. Over that time, Atlantic Ocean surface temperatures increased .65 degrees, which experts call a significant increase.
This study also shows that years with more hurricanes didn’t coincide with changes in the way storms are measured, says hurricane researcher Kerry Emanuel of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who was not part of the study. "This makes it very unlikely that these upward jumps are owing to changing measurements and suggests that they are real."
Of course buried in the rear of the article is a little reality:
The new study drew criticism from experts who dispute the merits of combining data from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when hurricane-tracking satellites didn’t exist, with statistics gleaned from more modern technology.
"Looking for trends in noisy count data is fraught with problems," says researcher James Elsner of Florida State University in Tallahassee. "I agree with the message, but cannot recommend the science."
"They’re saying there’s a long, upward trend of the last 100 years in tropical storms. All the data I have looked at show that’s not the case," says scientist William Gray, head of the Tropical Meteorological Project at Colorado State University.
Gray, a critic of the view that human-induced greenhouse gases drive climate and hurricanes, says 19th-century data "is just not that good."
Paul at Wizbang looks at this graph and says the same thing. We’ve only had weather satellites for a short while, we’ve only had weather airplanes for a short while. To use 19th century reports of hurricanes in a study is just disingenuous. But this is the global warming religion we’re talking about here. Most everything that comes out of their mouth is disingenuous.
From the Wiki entry that went along with the graph Paul cited:
For more than half the record, it is likely that hurricanes were undercounted due to the failure of any trained observer to encounter the storm. Similarly, the intensity may be understated if no observer encountered the eye wall. The fact that hurricanes often obtain their strongest state in the open ocean only increases the possiblity that past storms were miscategorized, though hurricane reanalysis projects do attempt to estimate likely storm intensities. Symptomatic of this, only 5 of the 36 Category Five storms observed in the North Atlantic were reported prior to the use of aircraft in studying hurricanes. In contrast, the techniques used to study storms in the past (e.g. inferring wind intensity from pressure and/or size of waves) may also have overestimated some storm intensities (Emanuel 2000). For many purposes, only the record known since the availability of satellite imagery in the 1960s is considered sufficiently reliable for analysis. It should also be noted that only in the North Atlantic does any attempt at systematic records exist for periods earlier than the 1940s.
Of course this doesn’t stop the USA Today folks from fawning over the Goreacles science.
Garbage in….garbage out.
See author page
Here is some real science on the environment.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/07/global_warming_and_solar_radia_1.html
The cult (and that is what it is) of the environmentalist only looks at the last 150 years and ignores everything before. 150 years is less than a nanosecond geologically. The “Mann Hockey Stick” theory states everything was just dandy until the “evil West” industrialized after 1850, then temperatures rose. Not so. Looking at the graphs of temperature and CO2 levels for TENS of THOUSANDS of years we see many changes. Zooming in from 1000BC to present, we see a pattern. We are now on the “upswing” of that pattern and we are still colder than the “Medieval Climate Optimum” which pulled Europe from the Dark ages and gave birth to the Renaissance.
It is also interesting to note that every time the climate warmed, we see great civilizations thriving. 1000BC was Babylon. 500 BC was Greece. 200 BC was Rome. And so forth. It is only with industrialization and improved farming that we weathered the “Little Ice Age”. But even now, we see that our temperatures are still below the 3000 year mean temp and far below the “Climate Optimum”.
It must be noted that during the Climate Optimum, Greenland had vineyards and agriculture; Sweden had many mines which are now being rediscovered; and coastal cities existed where they are now. The cities were not flooded out by massive “Day after Tomorrow” tidal waves. Yet it was MUCH warmer than today.
But where did this CO2 and heat come from in the past?
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming030207.htm
As we see from this and other articles, other planets are warming in the Sol System. The culprit is not SUVs, or President Bush, but the big ball of highly active plasma and radiation we call the Sun.
Just so we’re clear, the USA today article is in reference to a scientific research paper found in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A. That paper is not the first to note the increase in hurricane activity. If you just look at the journal Science you can see an abstract from a paper in 2001 noting that “The years 1995 to 2000 experienced the highest level of North Atlantic hurricane activity in the reliable record. Compared with the generally low activity of the previous 24 years (1971 to 1994), the past 6 years have seen a doubling of overall activity for the whole basin, a 2.5-fold increase in major hurricanes (>=50 meters per second), and a fivefold increase in hurricanes affecting the Caribbean.” (Goldenberg, et al, 2001) It’s true that the 2006 year was an unexpectedly mild one for hurricanes, but scientists note that a large dust storm in Africa had an unanticipated cooling effect, and that may explain the low incidence of storms (RA Kerr, Science, March 9 2007)
I really wish that self-styled climate-change cynics would bother with becoming familiar with the real science, and not base their cynicism on USA Today. All you really have to do is get a subscription to Science or Nature— real, top-level research journals where actual scientists publish peer-reviewed articles. Follow one of these journals for a year and read the climate articles. Then see if your views have changed.
I wish the climate-change advocates would realize that no one if even a few are claiming the climate is NOT changing. I spent some time saying just that. The climate IS changing. We live in a dynamic universe which the only constant IS change. What you call the “climate-change cynics” and others call “climate-change deniers”, are saying is that humans are NOT causing the change.
Evidence from many sources point out that when we look PAST 150 years that we see patterns in the climate, CO2 levels, methane levels, and other aspects. We also see patterns in solar activity and temperature fluctuations on other planets. We cannot control these patterns, yet, and are thus at their mercy. Yes, hurricane activity is up from a geo-nanosecond period of 24 years ago. But what was it like for the previous 24,000 years or 24 million years? Why did they stop at 24 years ago anyways? Was it worse 25-50 years ago? On a planet which has existed 4 billion years, a sample of 24 years, let alone 6, is too tiny to mention.
One of the links I cited was from Frederick Seitz, Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.
President Emeritus, Rockefeller University. The other also has a bibliography a mile long from different sources. I did not use the USA today article as a basis as their bias in favor of the human inducted global warming religion robs them of reliability.
The climate IS changing, but it is not because of “human induced global warming”. That farce is a multi-billion dollar lie which is making its “prophets” VERY rich as they scoot around the world in their “carbon credit” private jets.
Renegade crackpots aside, scientific consensus has been reached on this subject. It affirms that the change in climate is at least in part caused by humans. You clearly have your own reasons for not believing this, but if I have to choose between a majority of scientists or some random person on the net, I’m going with the scientists.
While your toasty warm “optimal climate” world may sound rosy, remember that the carbon in the atmosphere affects systems other than the temperature. Check out ocean acidification. As CO2 increases in the atmosphere, it also increases in the ocean. This acidifies the oceans slightly. It turns out that all sorts of little ocean creatures make their shells out of calcium carbonate, and as the pH of the ocean drops (I won’t assume you know that that means it gets more acidic) all these critters have a problem making shells. If you are interested the Wikipedia entry is actually pretty good.
By the way, I was in no way responding to your post. It was not even up when I started composing my comment.
Majority huh? Here is 2600+ Physicists, Geophysicists, Climatologists, Meteorologists, Oceanographers, and Evironmental Scientists who signed a petition calling this junk science. Which is exactly what it is. You may have your own reasons for believing this garbage but I chose to not follow the herd. Check out my many other posts on this subject here.
I did not realize it had not posted, but stand by my position.
In addition to being an Active Duty Army officer, I also have my degree in Industrial Engineering so I have just a little experience in such matters as you spoke of. I chose my position because non-politically driven, peer-reviewed, objective evidence points to a natural cycle that occurs no matter what we think we are capable of. I stand by it because historical evidence shows the climate has changed in a dramatic cycle and seems intent on doing it again.
Renegades crackpots? Interesting dismissal of tens of thousands of PHDs, engineers, geologists, etc who are stepping forward, despite the PC witch-hunts, and attacking the lack of evidence and the politically driven grant seekers who ignore the scientific method and evidence in the climate change debate. The attacks on these scientists by the “human induced global warming” religion are an attempt to quash the debate. I will listen to these scientists long before listening to the likes of Al Gore and his hollow fanaticism.
Looking at the data and the research from these, and other, scientists in peer-reviewed publications, we see that this warming occurs several times over the few thousand years. Sea life still exists even after these warming periods. CO2 levels went up and down without human intervention. Methane levels went their own way without human intervention. This is just one area where the “human induced” portion of climate change loses credibility.
Now this “toasty warm “optimal climate” world may sound rosy, remember that the carbon in the atmosphere affects systems other than the temperature.” First, if history cycles again, this argument is mute as the temperature WILL rise no matter what and then they will drop. Second, CO2 is not the driving force, water vapor is. Water vapor is MUCH more effective than CO2 in affecting temperature. CO2 levels, however, contribute to plant growth. The higher levels of CO2 expand crop yield, tree growth, algae levels (which make most of the O2 we breath). The Earth has been through this many times in the past. We had clams and other shellfish in 1000BC just as we have them now. We also had mass die-offs of plant and animal species, including humans, but many survived and many more thrived. Life is not “rosy”, it is survival. We live on a planet that will change no matter what we do, or do not do.
25 years ago, the environmental movement treated us to the threat of “global cooling” and a new ice age. They blamed this on same thing they blame “global warming” on: Western industry. They demand we accept the flawed Kyoto Treaty even though it does not punish the worst offenders (i.e. China), just the USA. Even countries who have signed Kyoto are backing out of it as they cannot sustain themselves under the treaty.
Now am I saying that we should pour industrial waste and pollution into the air? Absolutely not! This is the unfortunate disconnect in the entire “debate†about climate change. Those of us who reject the human induced portion of climate change do not advocate dumping pollution into the environment. The demonization of the Climate-change denier†by the environmentalists is criminal in that it attempts to silence valid objections as to “how†to have sustainable growth.
I have been around the world and seen what REALLY dirty places are like and the USA is no where close. In South Korea, the pollution coming from N. Korea and China is so bad that some days it appears as a mist/fog. In Iraq, just south of the IZ, there is a power-plant that burns raw crude oil. It spews out putrid black smoke a city block wide which drifts down the city. Iraqi rivers are still so full of mustard and other chemical agents that the water may not be safe for decades. The old Eastern Block countries are still cleaning up the USSR’s mess. Even Western Europe had days (and weeks) where we could not drink the water while I lived in Germany.
The bottom line is that no rational person wants to ruin the world; however, we want rational, open, debate and solutions on how not to. I do not need actors and self-serving politicians telling me to use one square of toilet paper or not use power for heat while they fly in their luxury jets and live in 10,000 sq ft mansions and own their zinc mines. We need sustainable growth and ways to obtain more energy cheaper and better. There are many ways, however each one seems to run into issues/objections from these groups who preached “global cooling” in the 70s and “global warming” now. In the end, the only solution these groups seem to push is the destruction of the US economy.
And yet more references all from scientists, not actors:
http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1837.htm
http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1083.htm
Curt-
Wow, you’re a cop AND a marine? No wonder you know so much about science. It’s a real good thing that you’re not a mouthbreathing knuckledragger who gets angry at things he doesn’t understand and mindlessly spouts his ignorance into the air. Up until now I’ve been a fool who thought that people who actually studied and did science for a living might have known what they were talking about but you have opened my eyes. No more experts for me! From here on out I’m going to have fry cooks manage my money, circus clowns do my dentistry, and right wing punditry do my thinking for me. I don’t see how anything could go wrong with that plan! Thank you Curt, for proving that everything’s fine and that anyone who notices anything funny about the weather has a diseased mind. I don’t suppose you jarheads are working on a cure for cancer or anything neat like that, are you? I bet you could so much better than those stupid scientists at that stuff.
-Winston D
PS- This isn’t going to be one of those things like when you right wing guys insisted Saddam had all those scary weapons and then didn’t have anything, right? Because it would really suck if the food chain collapsed someday, wouldn’t it?
I notice you don’t respond to Chris’s comments, just mine. How convenient.
Like these 2600+?
I love when Salon links…brings the smartest of the leftards.
Curt-
Sorry, Curt, didn’t even bother reading the other comments. I responded to you because it’s your post. Oh look, I can put a link in here just like you did!
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Seitz_Tobacco_Crimes.html
Isn’t that neat? Maybe you should read that before you keep pushing his petition around like it’s some kind of proof of something.
You know, I find that one of the funniest little quirks of human nature is that people often accuse others of exactly what it is they themselves are doing. That’s why I find it hilarious when right wingers try to accuse the scientific community of being motivated by profit (as if getting rich off of doing climate research was as obvious a path to material wealth as say, banking.) and yet they refuse to acknowledge the vast financial backing of the petrochemical companies for those few scientists who insist all the data on climate change is anecdotal. Also, a random check of the names on the petition produced a philosopher, a vet, and an electrical engineer.Couldn’t find a climatologist or even a meterologist. Sorry, your link does not impress me.
-Winston D
Curt-
I was doing some more cross-checking-I found one of the signatories to be a trustee at some Philadelphia Bible College! Sorry, brother, but this is not at all a convincing document… unless you’re trying to convince me that the opposition to the science of global climate change is based on ignorant reactionary propaganda…
Good luck.
Winston D
No WMDs huh?
The quote was that we did not find WMDs in the quantities we expected to find them. The intel was wrong in the fact that the WMDs were not where the UN inspectors had last seen and cataloged them. They are GONE. NOT destroyed: GONE as in missing. As large convoys were seen leaving Iraq prior to the invasion, you get one guess as to where thy are. 20 tons of VX and Sarin showed up on the Jordan/Sryian border when AQ tried to ship them into Amman for an attack there. The terrorists caught even admitted that these weapons came from Iraq and the aborted attacked was sanctioned by Zarqawi.
BTW, it was 2 attacks with Sarin shells against US troops. Neither caused fatalities, but troops were made ill by the attack. In addition, we still have the chlorine gas attacks by AQ on Iraqi citizens this year. I do not agree with Bush on not standing up to the left about WMDs. The list of what we are finding grows as months go on. Maybe there are too many fingerprints on them (i.e. Russian and French) for the diplomats. Maybe the UN’s culpability is too great. Maybe it was something to do with protecting politicians who helped pardon Mark Rich. I do not know.
Here is a partial list (all of this is open source and declassified). If these are not a “threatâ€Â, I would be happy to contact the man who inventoried them and have you taken to the site they are stored at. You should ask your congresspeople, who have seen the classified ISG Report from 2003, why they keep stating we found no WMDs?
Nuclear:
-1.95 tons of enriched (weapons grade) uranium
-1000 non-medical radioactive sources (cesium and other isotopes)
-16 drums of yellowcake from the Al-Qaim extraction plant
-An undisclosed rail gun system used to test nuclear detonations. Iraq developed this in secret in 1999. The gun was built at Al-Tahadi. It, along with 500 tons of natural uranium was found south of Baghdad in 2003.
Biological Agents.
-Live C. botulinum Okra B (makes batulinum toxin: 1 gram kills 10,000) found hiden in Iraqi Bilogical Weapon’s Scientist’s home.
-Discovered continued, out-lawed and concealed, research on Brucella, Congo Crimean Hemorragic Fever (CCHF), ricin, and aflatoxin. None of this was declared to the UN even after 12 YEARS of sanctions.
-Ricin discovered in Sargat, Iraq along with hidden sacks of castor beans (labled as “fertilizerâ€Â) in al-Aziziyah.
-Human testing facilities (prisons) for BW agents.
-Mobile labs for BW agents buried in the desert. 11 found in Karbala.
-Mulitple small fixed BW sites/labs which the UN never knew about.
Chemical
-Multiple attacks against US troops using Mustard and Sarin gas filled shells
-Multiple attacks by terrorists against Iraqi civilians using chlorine gas
-Cyanide labs found in “Safe Houses†in fallujah
-5,000 Lbs of Cyanide found in Taji (total cyanide as of 2004 was 2,370 Kg or 2.4 million leathal doses)
-Various hidden Chemical Weapons Labs
What amuses me is the vehemence that has been attached to this issue according to the politicians that support it, regardless of the science backing it. If Bush had proclaimed global warming a major threat, every right wing blogger on the planet would be trumpeting it as received wisdom from on high while the left wing bloggers would be decrying it as alarmism. This just tells me that most bloggers are dumber ‘n rocks and all have an agenda to push that is defined by others. No wonder the major media pay so little attention.
“I don’t suppose you jarheads are working on a cure for cancer or anything neat like that, are you?”
Let me guess, you still say you “support the troops” but never fail to take a swipe?
Actually, our plate is a little with researching alternative power generation, hyper-bandwidth communication, advanced autonomous robotic vehicles, improved oil and fuel performance, advanced wound care, improved trauma surgery, improved water purification systems, improved engine designs, ultra-light/strong materials for construction, advanced human-machine interfaces, prosthetics, skin regeneration, advanced re-constructive surgery, advanced sensor and optic systems, advanced computer systems, tele-operation medical robots, defense against Nuclear/Biological/Chemical agents, rapid formations of counter-vector agents against said NBC threats, and the list goes on and on.
Oh, wait, we also are doing studies on environmental conditions and research into historical aspects of climatology, cosmology (cosmic weather), and natural disaster prevention/recovery.
Also, why can a veteran (most are college educated), a college trustee, a philosopher (Socrates was what again?), and an engineer NOT have an opinion? Even taking one of these, the trustee, as an example, we would have to throw out a large number of adherents to human induced global warming from our socialist/leftist universities. Why is it THEY get a voice, but these people do not? Al Gore and Hollywood get a voice but electrical engineers and veterans do not? Unique world-view you have. The signers of the petition researched the issue and found many flaws in the soundness and procedures of the environmentalist’s positions and lack of scientific method. And yes, there is A LOT of money being made in this cult industry.
Brent,
Did you miss that whole scuffle about ILLEGAL immigration and border security? I think many conservatives and bloggers broke with Bush on that. Also, the Kennedy Education Bill and Prescription Drug entitlement bill also caused angst.
Bush, BTW, IS talking about climate change to many leaders, if headlines are to be believed. What the discussions entail is difficult to find.
Of course you fail to mention those names were NOT on the link I gave you but the overall petition which has much more then 2600. No, those names I gave you are all Physicists, Geophysicists, Climatologists, Meteorologists, Oceanographers, and Environmental Scientists.
Your comments are good for a laugh. Was wondering how long it would take for someone to bring up the big bad oil companies. Not like the global warming community is spreading money around right?
Sigh….
Chris-
He started with the name-calling, for the record. However, you are correct, it was immature and rude of me to use the term ‘jarhead’.
You are also correct in saying that everyone can have an opinion. However, the link that Curt was citing is presenting itself as ‘2600+ Physicists, Geophysicists, Climatologists, Meteorologists, Oceanographers, and Evironmental Scientists’. They should try to point out which ones they are because they certainly are difficult to find. Furthermore, that the petition was organized by Frederick Seitz, a scientist who long ago compromised his integrity for money and who has a history of manipulating and distorting scientific data for the benefit of his employers (In 1978 RJR Reynolds gave him a $45 million research budget and he failed to find any evidence that tobacco use is harmful.) makes the petition a very shaky document indeed. Yes, everyone can have an opinion about the weather, and it doesn’t take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows, but when people who have spent their entire careers studying the weather tell you that there’s something wrong with the weather you might want to weigh their opinion a little heavier than the opinion of the guy who is on the take from the petrochemical industry. But that’s me, a freethinking leftard.
If all of the ‘evidence’ you cited existed, it would have been paraded in triumph through DC with Bush bringing up the rear with his face painted red. There is no sane reason to keep confidential the evidence that would justify our military action there. If there were 1.95 tons of weapons grade nuclear materials found in Iraq in 2003, why did Bush joke about how they still couldn’t find those WMD’s as late as 2004? But then again, I’m a moonbat leftard, so maybe I don’t understand the crucial reason for keeping something like that a secret.
Brent-
The planet doesn’t care about our political opinions. In fact, the planet doesn’t care about us at all. The top nuclear scientists in the world produced the atomic bomb, the world’s top rocket scientists put humans on the Moon, and today, the world’s top (and middle and most of the bottom) scientists agree that human activity is negatively impacting the climate, which, combined with my own observations of the world in which I live, convinces me that there is indeed a problem that needs to be addressed. There’s actually been several things I’ve agreed with Bush about over the years; my disagreements are not knee-jerk but considered on the facts as I know them to be. While there’s a plethora of knee-jerk lefties out there, I’m not one of them. I try to be pragmatic, rational, and avoid cynicism. I hope you found this amusing.
-WD
Here we go with the a lefty trying to rewrite history. WMD was not the ONLY stated reason we went, but its the only stated reason you guys seem to remember. Dig out some of Bush’s speeches prior to invasion and you will see WMD along with a whole laundry list of reasons. Of course it doesn’t fit with your reasoning so you ignore it, as you do the list of scientists. You make up reasons to dismiss that which you don’t agree with and then try to proclaim that you, and only you, are right.
Disingenuous…thy name is Winston Delgado.
Oh really?
Yeah, that wasn’t meant to be an insult at all. Sure thing, insinuating that Marines and cops are some knuckledraggers. Does it matter? Not one whit. Most lefties resort to namecalling quite quickly so we’re used it. But it sure has colored our discussion, if you want to call it that, from the beginning.
Curt-
Actually, the names I googled were from that list.
Rodney D Ice, PhD, (The trustee at the Christian College)
Patrick T Izzo, PhD, (couldn’t find any published papers or academic affiliation, but there’s appatently a VETeranarian with this name-sorry to those who thought that I was somehow slandering veterans.)
Duane Davis, Phd (Philosophy-could find no other affiliation)
Glenn H Crumb, Phd-no published papers, no academic affiliation.
Who are any of these people, Curt? Do you know? I’ve tried twenty random names and I haven’t found a single physicist, geophysicist, climatologist, meteorologist, oceanographer, or environmental scientist, on there. Incidentally, the top of the petition features a misspelling of the word ‘environmental’ which may be yet another clue as to how it’s not exactly the most convincing document I’ve ever seen.
-Winston
Curt-
Regardless of whatever reasons you think I have to lie and make propagandistic arguments, you still haven’t explained as to why there is any sane reason to keep that evidence secret.
Also, you have no idea how I actually feel about cops and marines, do you? If you’re going to stick that up in everyone’s face like it somehow makes your opinion more important than somebody else’s, you should expect that to be the first thing to get poked when someone wants your attention. I set out a garment and you decided it fit you. I didn’t tell you to put it on.
-Winston
A retarded comment. Who stuck that in your face? This is my blog and people want to know who I am so I put what I do and have done on my sidebar. You don’t like my opinion please go back to KOS, you will be most welcome there I’m sure. I care little about your insult but when you try to insinuate I was the first to throw a salvo I will most definitely call you on it.
Curt-
Yes, you’re right, I’m a rude little pr&ck. Sorry.
So, what sane reason is there to keep the WMD secret?
Who are the scientists on the petition?
I never bother with lefty sites. I find them to be full of boring self-satisfied @$$holes who want to be congratulated on how clever and nice they are. The right wing sites are where the interesting people are. Seriously.
-Winston Delgado
Ronald D. Ice:
Patrick T. Izzo. I found two pages worth of papers by him by googling “patrick t. izzo”, including this one entitled: “Conformational Studies in the 2-Azabicyclo [3.2.2] nonene Series by Spin Decoupling. Structure of the N-Carbethoxyazepine-Tetracyanoethylene Adduct”
Duane Davis I found many many hits for various Duane Davis…but funny how you give just the one example of the philosopher. But I found this page that lists a Duane Davis as a surgeon. I’m betting its neither but I will lay money he is in the field listed. To find out maybe email the author of the petition. Oh, I forgot, you dismiss it (surprise surprise) because of his spelling.
I found this for Glenn H. Crumb:
In this pdf. But yeah, probably some yahoo just making believe he is a director of math, science, and environmental education.
You silly silly man. Keep following the herd who say the sky is falling. No, it couldn’t be normal climate change…it has to be, just has to be, our fault.
Sigh….
And who said the WMD was a secret? Scroll up and find where I said it.
Didn’t think so. I said that the WMD was not the only reason we went to war but the only one you lefties seem to fixate on.
As I said, could care less. Lefties are lefties.
Curt-
I stand corrected. A pharmacist, a surgeon, a chemist, and a college administrator. Not one of them is a Physicist, Geophysicist, Climatologist, Meteorologist, Oceanographer, or Evironmental Scientist.
I guess I was actually responding to Chris G regarding the WMD. He’s the one who nade the ridiculous assertion. I must have confused the responses. You are merely equivocating on the subject of WMD.
I’m sorry if I hurt anyones feelings or made their cherished beliefs feel threatened.
WD
Sigh…you really do have selective reading skills.
The “surgeon”. I said, once again, that I found tons of hits for that name. Many many different people. I used that as an example like you did your philosopher. I have no idea which one it is but I suggested you email the creator and find out. Like I said I will lay money he is in the category stated.
College administrator….I’m sure there are no scientists who went that route after awhile right?
And you ignored the Izzo guy, I’m shocked.
Well, not really.
It’s like talking to a wall.
Rofl, a lefty hurt someones feelings? That would be a first. Most of your comments are so inane they should be ignored but hey, what the hell, I’m bored. I like poking lefties to get a rise.
Oh, btw, on that petition:
‘No, those names I gave you are all Physicists, Geophysicists, Climatologists, Meteorologists, Oceanographers, and Environmental Scientists.’
-Curt 5: 44 pm July 30, 2007
But by 7:25 pm on that very same night you were proudly announcing that when you went to research the names on that list you found a bionuclear pharmacist, maybe a surgeon, a chemist, and a college administrator (at least he was in 1993) whose background remains uncertain.
I’m a disingenuous and silly man. Beware my crafty tomfoolery.
-WD
‘The Izzo guy’ is ‘the chemist’, Dick Tracy.
-WD
Curt-
A guy who is part of the project saying they checked everything isn’t proof that they checked everything, especially when you yourself have checked it and see that it isn’t true. Don’t believe me, don’t believe that lying d*uchebag, believe what you see for yourself.
-WD
And physicist. keep forgetting that one huh?
Ignorance, thy name is Winston. already explained this one so won’t do it again.
So basically you proudly proclaimed that you found 5 people on the list who were NOT in the related fields but have yet to prove this fact. Bunch of suppositions is all I’m reading. College administrator, can’t really tell if he in the field. Chemist who has written papers, but still cannot prove he is not in the related field. Pharmacist who is also a physicist, which IS in the related field. The other two neither I nor you can prove they are or not in the field without writing to them.
Oh, cant forget the fact that you said one of them never wrote a paper when in fact he did, of course now you dismiss him because he is a chemist.
Such a strong argument you have there.
And why should I believe you rather then the guys who checked on the signatories? Of course you blindly believe those who sign onto the sky is falling theories. Because they fit your view of the world.
Anyways, you have proven yourself to be very thorough in your research.
Laugh….
Hey, I checked out your webpage. You really are a hippie. Slow down on the weed tho, your losing your braincells quickly.
Curt-
I said ‘don’t believe me’. Your own research shows that none of these people are what the petition claims them to be-the ‘physicist’ is an expert in bionuclear pharmacy-chemotherapy. His opinion on climate change is not that of someone who has put any serious professional study into it. Those are the first four names I picked at random. Go ahead and pick some randomly for yourself. Tell me when you find a Physicist, Geophysicist, Climatologist, Meteorologist, Oceanographer, or Environmental Scientist. I’m sure there’s a few on there somewhere.
I’m not trying to get you to join the Church of Al Gore. Personally, I think he’s an insufferable egomaniac, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a problem with human activity affecting the climate.
I think of it this way: Up until about the last hundred years or so, there was nowhere near as many people doing all the things they do on the planet. All of a sudden there are billions of us consuming resources and burning forests at a rate the planet has never experienced. It took millions of years the carbon to be stored in the oil and coal and in less than a few centuries we’ve thrown a significant amount of that carbon back into the atmosphere and ocean. It’s not entirely crazy to think that there might be some sort of change in the climate as a result of these changes. Certainly there are politicians and individuals who will try to exploit this situation for their own ends-their always are in every quarter. So, as always, one must look at the evidence with their own eyes. When I see that petition, I see a shoddy document that does not stand up to scrutiny. I can’t believe that you think it’s terribly convincing either, but that’s your perogative.
-WD
Cool, I see the evidence that you global warming zealots point to in the same way. For example, the paper that this post was originally written about. Shoddy shoddy work which is quickly proven to be witchcraft since they use data from the 19th century in which there were no instruments to measure hurricanes as we do now mixed in with data from the last 30 years when we did have those instruments. This is typical work from your so called “experts”.
30 years ago is was the coming ice age, now its global warming. Its all foolishness used for partisan reasons. But you want to follow the herd, its (as you say) your perogative.
As far as the the petition goes, it stated that they were all in the field, its not up to me to prove it. If you want to try and disprove it go right ahead. You’ve failed miserably so far.
Moving on to the next blogpost. Feel free to visit. =)
“Garbage science”?
That quite a serious charge. I assume you confronted Dr. Kerry directly with your assertions? Let me help you out with the contact information:
http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/home.html
I’m sure he’d love to debate the science with you.
How about it Curt?
There is nothing ridiculous about the WMD assertions. That is the declassified stuff on what we found. Missing is 18,000 tons of Anthrax, hundreds of tons of VX and GB (yet we found warehouses still white-hot with VX in 2003: VX lifespan in springtime Iraq heat is measured in dozens of hours to a few days). We are also missing HUGE amounts of weaponization components the UN detailed, missiles, warheads, and other items. That is the “large concentrations” which are missing.
What we found was terrifying, what is known to be missing according to 12 years of intelligence from SEVERAL countries makes what we found almost trivial (if 300 million casualties to Botulism is trivial). A few nuts in Tokyo made enough sarin in their homes to kill thousands if the weapons had functioned. A few scientists in Iraq had enough chemical and biological agents to produce casualties far exceeding anything we have ever seen.
As to why it was not broadcast louder than in books, a few CNN reports, some stuff on FNC, and the people translating the 120 million pages of documents, I mentioned that above. I do not agree with the reasoning of some of these (the “why they did this”), but I am not in charge. We found weapons stamped “Made in France 2003” in several locations. While we had destroyed 90% of Saddam’s tanks in 1991, we faced just as many tanks as we had in GWI during OIF. We also found MIG25-BR2s buried in the sand. No one in the West had seen the BR2 until we dug them up. How did Iraq get these if not in gross violation of the Arms embargo (another reason we declared the 1991 Cease Fire void due to Iraq’s actions)? Only a few countries make the T-55 and T-72. Fewer make the MIG-25. Fewer still make the nuclear centrifuge components we found. That leaves a diplomatic quandary. Do we now invade Russia, China, France, and Germany for breaking the UN’s Arms Embargo? Do we censure four countries, three which are permanent members of the Security Council? Difficult question.
As for the climate change, I stand by my statements far above. Most of the modern studies cited/funded by the environmentalists only look at the past 100 years. Few look beyond the 1800s. When we look beyond the 1800s, we see a pattern develop. A pattern which has nothing to do with human intervention. A pattern which is repeating and should repeat until the Sun changes phases in its life or a big rock hits us.
I also answered the “so what” a few posts later. Just because we are not capable of impacting the environment the way the “Church of Al Gore” (it is a cute name) says we are does not mean that us “Heretics” to that cult think we should wantonly pollute the universe. We need sustainable growth and have advocated that for a long time. We have not yet begun to tap the resources of this planet. Literally, we have barely scratched the surface. The Crust alone is 25 miles think and our deepest mines only penetrate the upper crust.
We need more efficient use of resources, not because a paltry 6 billion people are going to use them all up, but 20-30 billion may have trouble getting to them in the future. We need better way of producing energy. We do not need politically driven fuels such as ethanol, which take more energy to produce than they create. We need better/cheaper electricity generation. This includes Fission/Fusion, Geo-Thermal, wind, solar, and anything else we can think of. More importantly, we need better distribution systems/technology. That is being worked on right now by power companies as they lose billions of watts in transmission lines, which equates to a loss of profits for the wasted power.
We need NEW oil refineries and less “boutique blends” of gasoline. Every refinery we have now was built before CAD, modern computer controls, modern synthetic materials, etc. They are old, inefficient, and costly. We need new ways of getting to oil we have withing the USA. We need the restrictions on domestic drilling removed and must be allowed to exploit what we have. New fuel/engine technology will come, but we need to ensure there is time for it to mature. Ironically, President Bush gave this a massive shot in the arm in 2002 and on. Ironic as his critics ignore this fact and others. We are seeing results every day in hybrid engines, multi-fuel engines, bio-agent fuels, and other areas.
Or we could follow the “Church of Al Gore” and throw all the progress away and live like medieval peasants while Gore and his elite live in palaces. I prefer the former.
How about you ChrisG, want to put your money where your mouth is? You sound like quite the expert on global warming. I’m sure your credentials are equally as impressive as Dr. Emanuel’s. Why don’t you contact him yourself. Let me help you out. His email address is:
emanuel@texmex.mit.edu
What do you say? Or like Curt is bloviating your only skill?
Holy christ man…can you really be this retarded?
Look ma! He’s challenging me! OMG, what will I ever do.
Sigh….
Ok, now really…I need to move on to other posts. Winston, your welcome to come visit. Veritas…..go back to debating school. Come back when you grow up.
Brilliant reply Curt. And exactly what I expected.
You are dishonest and a coward.
LOL…sure thing Veritas, sure thing.
Buh bye common cents
These “human induced global warming” cultist HAVE been responded to many times and their critics are getting louder despite the threats from the cultists. The cultists’ “response” to criticism has always been the same: Demonize the critics, call for their silence, and some have even demanded that critics of the environmentalists be criminally punished (one even said “crimes against humanity”).
Kind of limits debate when your opponents are threatening you, ala Galileo.
But tell you what Veritas, since you think these people are right, you give up your computer/AC/Car/electric lights/etc, live as they tell you to (though realize that the elites like Gore and Co will never sacrifice as they tell you to) and find out the Earth will continue to warm and then cool no matter what you do. You could also look at the studies I cited and write their authors to tell them where they are wrong. Those studies are available for peer-review and they have been. The hidden point of the article from USA Today was that a peer review of a study showed it to be flawed.
That is how science should work. Peer review, replications of experiments, open debate, and consensus through evidence (not threats).
The cult of human induced global warming only uses threats and shaky science. The future of our economy and ability to produce food for the world’s population should not be based on agenda driven radicals who stated 20 years ago that we were headed for a new ice age only to flop and say we are headed for runaway heating.
Now I too am leaving this. I have said all I think I need to.
“…President Bush gave this a massive shot in the arm in 2002…or we could follow the “Church of Al Gore” and throw all the progress away…”
it’s tripe like this that clouds the discourse. president bush did not give a massive shot in the arm, and al gore is not proposing we throw progress away at all. in fact both of those statements are pretty close to 180 degrees from the facts in evidence. the original post talks about “religion”…it seems to me those screaming loudest about “religion” are the most devout followers…but as in the past (see galelio, corpurnicus, newton) they are merely terrified of change.
JUst briefly checking one of the scientists who signed the petition, I found this.
http://www.yard-work.org/?p=235
Apparently Dr. Robert K Adair, a Global warming critic is a physicist, who is the author of “The Physics of Baseball.”
Well, I’m sold.
OK, a small sample, but I would think someone with a background in Physics, Geophysics, Climatology, Meteorology, Oceanography, or Evironmental Science would have that show up in the first page of a Google search.
SHowing a list of 2600 names doesn’t really proce anything. Perhaps listing their credential might lend some credence to this criticism.
And, by the way, what is the issue with Global Warming, anyway? Why is this such a controversial issue? Can someone please explain why the idea that human activity can adversely affect the global climate is evil? How is putting measures in place to reduce the output of CO2 a bad thing? The only downside I can see is the reduction of profits for some corporations. But that can’t be the argument.
It’s not like we are saying cigarette smoking causes cancer. The jury’s CERTAINLY still out on that one.
And don’t give me the hypocrisy argument. If you truly loathe hypocrisy, you would have no time for Global Warming, you would be spending all your time fighting the current administration’s trampling of the constitution while espousing the “rule of law.” And no splitting hairs. I am a liberal democrat who didn’t buy the “definition of what is, is” argument either.
Just trying to see what the fuss is about.