Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 50251
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2024/11/22 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
11/22   

2008/6/13-17 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:50251 Activity:moderate
6/13    Very harsh but reasoned commentary about global warming by the founder
        of the weather channel.
        http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html
        \_ You have a different definition of reasoned than webster does
           \_ He presents his reasoning.
              "to use the faculty of reason so as to arrive at conclusions"
              Epic fail, try again troll.
              \_ When did troll mean "someone who doesn't buy my bullshit"?
              \_ Troll still doesn't mean "doesn't buy your bullshit" no
                 matter how much you want it to.  Let me put it simply,
                 when someone attacks global warming by attacking Gore
                 "reasoned" is not a reasonable adjective.
                 \_ Clearly you didn't read the entire article.  It addresses
                    solar cycles, and the validity of CO2 as a greenhouse gas,
                    etc.
                    \_ I question the validity of gravity daily.
                       \_ Ah, so you're playing the idiot game.  Okay, so
                          where's the proof that CO2 at 380 ppm is anything
                          other than a trace component?
                          \_ THE DEBATE IS OVER!  EEEEP!
                             \- i'm not a rabid follower of ALGOR but isnt
                                asking a weatherman to weigh in on climate
                                research like asking your GP/PCP to be an
                                expert in say evolution or molecular
                                biology or asking your an architect about
                                biology or asking an architect about
                                civil engineering questions? Note also the
                                talk was to the SD Chamber of Commerce,
                                hardly a tough crowd for this dood.
                                I think talks like this are meaningless
                                unless they are debates ... I'm not qualified
                                to call somebody on bullshit in this area.
                                I am not prepared to believe you unless you
                                are willing to debate somebody who can.
                                [BTW, does ALGOR debate sceptics in real time?]
                                \_ Gore does not debate anyone on climate
                                   at all, ever.  And this guy isn't just
                                   "a weatherman", btw.  Gore has been
                                   challenged to any number of "anytime,
                                   anywhere, just let us know" debates, but
                                   as we all know, THE DEBATE IS OVER!
                                   \- yeah, i didnt think so. so the above
                                      applies to ALGOR too [not on a position
                                      to claim "appeal to authority", soft
                                      audience, non-real-time-debate].
                                      audience, no real-time-debate].
                                      BTW, I think this guys is "just a
                                      weatherman".
2024/11/22 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
11/22   

You may also be interested in these entries...
2013/5/7-18 [Science/Physics] UID:54674 Activity:nil
5/7     http://www.technologyreview.com/view/514581/government-lab-reveals-quantum-internet-operated-continuously-for-over-two-years
        This is totally awesome.
        "equips each node in the network with quantum transmitters–i.e.,
        lasers–but not with photon detectors which are expensive and bulky"
        \_ The next phase of the project should be stress-testing with real-
           world confidential data by NAMBLA.
	...
2013/1/28-2/19 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:54591 Activity:nil
1/28    "'Charities' Funnel Millions to Climate-Change Denial"
        http://www.csua.org/u/z2w (news.yahoo.com)
        And they're getting tax-deduction out of it!
        \_ Climate denialism should quality for the religious exemption.
        \_ Koch, yes, Koch and his ilk give "millions" to this kind of thing.
           How much is spent on the other side of the issue?
	...
2012/12/4-18 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:54545 Activity:nil
12/4    "Carbon pollution up to 2 million pounds a second"
        http://www.csua.org/u/yk6 (news.yahoo.com)
        Yes, that's *a second*.
        \_ yawn.
        \_ (12/14) "AP-GfK Poll: Science doubters say world is warming"
        \_ (12/14)
	...
Cache (8192 bytes)
www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html
Contact Us $search Wake Up To What's Happening In Your Community On "Good Morning San Diego", 5AM-9AM Wake up with Good Morning San Diego, 5am to 9am ..... Catch the latest in fashion, fitness, food, entertainment, relationships and lifestyle on Inside San Diego, weekdays at 10am ..... End your day with San Diego's most comprehensive news coverage at 6pm, 10pm and 11pm. John Coleman's Comments Before the San Diego Chamber of Commerce Global Warming and the Price of a Gallon of Gas by John Coleman You may want to give credit where credit is due to Al Gore and his global warming campaign the next time you fill your car with gasoline, because there is a direct connection between Global Warming and four dollar a gallon gas. It is shocking, but true, to learn that the entire Global Warming frenzy is based on the environmentalist's attack on fossil fuels, particularly gasoline. All this big time science, international meetings, thick research papers, dire threats for the future; all of it, comes down to their claim that the carbon dioxide in the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks from our power plants is destroying the climate of planet Earth. That's the battle cry of the High Priest of Global Warming Al Gore and his fellow, agenda driven disciples as they predict a calamitous outcome from anthropogenic global warming. According to Mr Gore the polar ice caps will collapse and melt and sea levels will rise 20 feet inundating the coastal cities making 100 million of us refugees. Vice President Gore tells us numerous Pacific islands will be totally submerged and uninhabitable. He tells us global warming will disrupt the circulation of the ocean waters, dramatically changing climates, throwing the world food supply into chaos. He tells us global warming will turn hurricanes into super storms, produce droughts, wipe out the polar bears and result in bleaching of coral reefs. He tells us tropical diseases will spread to mid latitudes and heat waves will kill tens of thousands. He preaches to us that we must change our lives and eliminate fossil fuels or face the dire consequences. With a preacher's zeal, Mr Gore sets out to strike terror into us and our children and make us feel we are all complicit in the potential demise of the planet. There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future. But mankind's activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces. Through all history, Earth has shifted between two basic climate regimes: ice ages and what paleoclimatologists call "Interglacial periods". For the past 10 thousand years the Earth has been in an interglacial period. That might well be called nature's global warming because what happens during an interglacial period is the Earth warms up, the glaciers melt and life flourishes. Clearly from our point of view, an interglacial period is greatly preferred to the deadly rigors of an ice age. Mr Gore and his crowd would have us believe that the activities of man have overwhelmed nature during this interglacial period and are producing an unprecedented, out of control warming. Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980's and 1990's as a Solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flares. That ended in 1998 and now the Sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer Sun spots, and the global temperatures have gone into decline. The cooling trend is so strong that recently the head of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had to acknowledge it. He speculated that nature has temporarily overwhelmed mankind's warming and it may be ten years or so before the warming returns. We are supposed to be in a panic about man-made global warming and the whole thing takes a ten year break because of the lack of Sun spots. Now allow me to talk a little about the science behind the global warming frenzy. I have dug through thousands of pages of research papers, including the voluminous documents published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I have worked my way through complicated math and complex theories. Here's the bottom line: the entire global warming scientific case is based on the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide does not cause significant global warming. The focus on atmospheric carbon dioxide grew out a study by Roger Revelle who was an esteemed scientist at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute. He took his research with him when he moved to Harvard and allowed his students to help him process the data for his paper. That is where Gore got caught up in this global warming frenzy. Revelle's paper linked the increases in carbon dioxide, CO2, in the atmosphere with warming. Charles Keeling, another researcher at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute, set up a system to make continuous CO2 measurements. His graph of these increases has now become known as the Keeling Curve. When Charles Keeling died in 2005, his son David, also at Scripps, took over the measurements. Here is what the Keeling curve shows: an increase in CO2 from 315 parts per million in 1958 to 385 parts per million today, an increase of 70 parts per million or about 20 percent. All the computer models, all of the other findings, all of the other angles of study, all come back to and are based on CO2 as a significant greenhouse gas. It is used by every living plant to trigger photosynthesis. Every time we breathe out, we emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I estimate that this square in front of my face contains 100,000 molecules of atmosphere. Let me ask a key question: how can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? The UN IPCC has attracted billions of dollars for the research to try to make the case that CO2 is the culprit of run-away, man-made global warming. The scientists have come up with very complex creative theories and done elaborate calculations and run computer models they say prove those theories. They present us with a concept they call radiative forcing. The research organizations and scientists who are making a career out of this theory, keep cranking out the research papers. Then the IPCC puts on big conferences at exotic places, such as the recent conference in Bali. The scientists endorse each other's papers, they are summarized and voted on, and viola, we are told global warming is going to kill us all unless we stop burning fossil fuels. First, the internal combustion engine and gasoline were awful polluters when they were first invented. And, both gasoline and automobile engines continued to leave a layer of smog behind right up through the 1960's. Then science and engineering came to the environmental rescue. Better exhaust and ignition systems, catalytic converters, fuel injectors, better engineering throughout the engine and reformulated gasoline have all contributed to a huge reduction in the exhaust emissions from today's cars. Their goal then was to only exhaust carbon dioxide and water vapor, two gases widely accepted as natural and totally harmless. Anyone old enough to remember the pall of smog that used to hang over all our cities knows how much improvement there has been. So the environmentalists, in their battle against fossil fuels and automobiles had a very good point forty years ago, but now they have to focus almost entirely on the once harmless carbon dioxide. Numerous independent research projects have been done about the greenhouse impact from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. These studies have proven to my total satisfaction that CO2 is not creating a major greenhouse effect and is not causing an increase in temperatures. By the way, before his death, Roger Revelle coauthored a paper cautioning that CO2 and its greenhouse effect did not warrant extreme countermeasures. So now it has come down to an intense campaign, orchestrated by environmentalists claiming that the burning of fossil fuels dooms the planet to run-away global warming. So how has the entire global warming frenzy with all its predictions of dire consequences, become so widely believed, ...