tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post331926053362001790..comments2024-03-26T06:17:49.527-07:00Comments on Had Enough Therapy?: Good-bye, Global WarmingStuart Schneidermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12784043736879991769noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-91805012869690297242013-06-26T04:38:54.230-07:002013-06-26T04:38:54.230-07:00According to Mr. Obama's reported statement to...According to Mr. Obama's reported statement today, I am a member of the Flat Earth Society.<br /><br />Where do I go to pick up my membership card?<br /><br />TipAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-84767723111235178042013-06-24T06:28:00.839-07:002013-06-24T06:28:00.839-07:00I always chuckle when I read about the "conse...I always chuckle when I read about the "consensus". When Copernicus and Galileo were publishing their work, the "consensus" model was the Ptolemaic system that had been successful for a thousand years.<br /><br />"Consensus scientific progress" is an oxymoron.George Boggsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-44486998465270327342013-06-24T05:52:23.769-07:002013-06-24T05:52:23.769-07:00http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/20...http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/ChristyJR-McKinley_Text1.pdf<br /><br />http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/ChristyJR_130530_McKinley-PDF-of-PPT.pdf<br /><br />The real science does NOT show much of what the AGW believers try to intimate. It was never science. When they start producing computer models that can predict the pass then we might give those models some interest. The problem with models is that someone has to determine what attributes are important, how those attributes are weighted, what attributes are discarded, et al. By the time one builds a computer model it has been corrupted by the people who built it with their suppositions. NOTE: that many of these models use time periods that fit their suppositions and ignore time periods that do not. It is why one sees such an odd inclusion of data points.<br />Yes there is global warming and there is also global cooling. The closes that AGW alarmists get to anything resembling a science is the Science of Theology.Dennishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14962996070458991675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-74705936805507219152013-06-23T19:34:17.116-07:002013-06-23T19:34:17.116-07:00"As the concentration of carbon dioxide incre..."As the concentration of carbon dioxide increases, people start to experience carbon dioxide intoxication, which may progress to carbon dioxide poisoning and sometimes death. Elevated blood and tissue levels of carbon dioxide are termed hypercapnia and hypercarbia." CO2 poisoning is reasonable or unreasonable?<br /><br />CO2 is a heat trapping greenhouse gas which has had lower than present concentrations for very very long time scales.<br /><br />There are many forms of natural polution which have to do with the measurement of some quantity and the consequences, not with any "absolute truth" about the substance or quantity.<br /><br />The theory of lead polution from burning leaded gasoline took 20 years to confirm ... lead was accumulating in the North Pole in concentrations not seen in the ice core drillings.<br /><br />The theory of ozone depletion took decades to confirm. The ozone hole in the South Pole grew larger year after year.<br /><br />Humans were causing lead to accumulate and ozone to deplete with potentially significant ethical and moral consequences. The CO2 concentration may or may not be a dominant factor impacting global warming ... there are more variables in this model so there may always be reason for doubt. But the warming effect of greenhouse gases is less subject to doubt.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-77602926622923875812013-06-23T17:07:22.393-07:002013-06-23T17:07:22.393-07:00Consensus: Reminds me of the old joke/story where...Consensus: Reminds me of the old joke/story wherein an elementary school teacher asks the kids how can we tell if this animal is a boy or a girl. Finally, one kid says, "We could vote."Sam L.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00996809377798862214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-73725646050720846012013-06-23T15:05:45.850-07:002013-06-23T15:05:45.850-07:00So... if it seems strange, why would we continue t...So... if it seems strange, why would we continue to hear this cacophony over and over and over again? Pardon my cynicism, but I say follow the money. Who gets the research money? Where does the tax money go? Do we penalize CO2 as a dangerous substance? If yes, what will we use those penalty monies for, and what will happen with human behavior? What are the consequences of reducing CO2? No one is talking about these things! It's maddening.<br /><br />We are making progress toward nuclear fusion power, which will render this all moot. What's the next scientific warning? Too much steam in the cooling process? Too much H2O?<br /><br />TipAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-39846552019774304272013-06-23T12:38:24.592-07:002013-06-23T12:38:24.592-07:00I second your idea-- it's more than passing st...I second your idea-- it's more than passing strange that people keep saying that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant. Stuart Schneidermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12784043736879991769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-70685273174090227222013-06-23T12:34:19.743-07:002013-06-23T12:34:19.743-07:00Question: Is carbon dioxide a pollutant?
That who...Question: Is carbon dioxide a pollutant?<br /><br />That whole notion seems strange. CO2's power is portrayed by climate scientists as simply hegemonic... we talk about almost no other climate factors. Does anyone else find this strange? We can't predict what weather phenomena will do within minutes or hours, yet we are told we can predict what the Earth's climate will be decades from now. It doesn't pass the reasonable test.<br /><br />On the scientific front, alarmists have been saying "science says..." about climate change for some time now, and their doomsday predictions have not come to pass. It doesn't sound like science, it sounds like speculation, and this kind of "scientific" speculation carries significant costs, including losses in jobs, a subject which the Obama Administration has treated as a peripheral matter 5 years.<br /><br />We human beings are not powerful in the scale of global climate. The Earth is not fragile, and it shows us this time and again, like the global temperature data has the last 15 years.<br /><br />TipAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com